The Geopolitical History of Philistine Gath

Author(s): William M. Schniedewind

Source: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 309 (Feb., 1998), pp. 69-77
Published by: The American Schools of Oriental Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1357604
Accessed: 22-08-2014 20:46 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Bulletin of
the American Schools of Oriental Research.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 148.245.241.190 on Fri, 22 Aug 2014 20:46:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The

GeopoliticalHistory
of

Philistine

Gath

WILLIAM M. SCHNIEDEWIND
Department of Near Eastern
Languages and Cultures
University of California, Los Angeles
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1511
williams @humnet.ucla.edu

The identification of Philistine Gath with Tell es-Safi has met with widespread,
though not complete, acceptance. The present study argues for using historical geography not only to identify the site but also to reconstruct the socioenvironmental context and geopolitical history. In the present case, Tell es-Safi's history is shaped by its
position along the international highway, by its location on the fertile Philistine Alluvial Basin, and by its junction with an important local route leading into the hill
country and Jerusalem. Thesefactors confirm its identification with Gath while at the
same time illuminating the geopolitical interaction between the coastal plain and the
hill country in the Late Bronze and Iron Ages.

his suggestion that Tel Haror in the western Negev

might be identified with Philistine Gath. In light of
is
the
location
of
Philistine
Gath"
this suggestion, it seems appropriateto revisit the
geography
in
the
19th
1966a:
30). Already
(Rainey
century, problem of Philistine Gath.
To anticipate my conclusions, Rainey's original
J. R. Porter had proposed identifying Gath with the
IsraelTell
es-Safi
(135-123,
arguments in favor of identifying Tell es-Safi with
impressive mound,
Palestine Grid), which sits on the border between Philistine Gath are still valid. The present study does
the Philistine Coastal Plain and the Judaean Sheph- not rehearse all Rainey's arguments.Instead, it takes
elah (cf. Albright 1921-1922: 8). This proposal, a closer look at the geography of the coastal plain,
however, was hardly conclusive. William E Albright as well as the results of recent excavations and sur(1921-1922: 10-12) later suggested Tell el-CAreini veys, to reconstruct the geopolitical history of Phi(=Tel Erani) on the southern coastal plain. When listine Gath (=Tell es-Safi).
archaeological excavations essentially eliminated
METHOD IN HISTORICAL
Tell el-CAreinias a possibility (Stern 1993), G. Ernest Wright (1966) offered Tel Sera in its stead as
GEOGRAPHY
a southern Gath of the Philistines. Meanwhile,
There are four disciplines in the traditional study
S. Billow and R. Mitchell (1961) weighed in with
Tell Nagila, but that site also proved archaeologi- of historical geography. These include geography,
cally unsuitable (cf. Amiran and Eitan 1964). Ben- toponymy, archaeology, and history. The most relijamin Mazar (1954) suggested Ras AbQ Hameid able of these is geography, which is complete and
near the modern town of Ramle. The debate finally relatively unchanged from antiquity.Yet, insufficient
seemed to quiet down after a series of articles by attention has been given to the role that geography
Rainey (1966a; 1966b; 1975) that argued forcefully plays in all facets of historical research. And in the
for the identification with Tell es-Safi. Recently, identification of Philistine Gath, geography must be
Larry Stager (1995: 343) reopened the debate with the cornerstone of site identification. Although this
30

Anson

"Per-

Rainey wrote,
ago
Overhaps theyears
most debated issue in Palestinian

69
This content downloaded from 148.245.241.190 on Fri, 22 Aug 2014 20:46:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

70

WILLIAM M. SCHNIEDEWIND

may seem obvious, the neglect of geography is illustrated by an article by J. Maxwell Miller (1983)
that omits geography as one of the criteria for site
identification! In cases in which site identification
is disputed, geography must play the leading role in
reconstructing political and military history of our
sources. Geography shapes the direction of communication, commerce, and military campaigns.
Obviously, site identification has been a chief
goal of historical geography. This is undoubtedly a
consequence of traditionalhistorians'desire to create
a historical picture with people, places, and events.
Perhaps, then, the recent languishing of this field
can be partially attributedto the so-called "new history" and "new archaeology," which have emphasized the longue durde as opposed to the traditional
stuff of history. In spite of the limited use to which
biblical scholars have put historical geography, it
has much more to offer-especially to the so-called
"new history." As Rainey points out (1975: 63"),
"An important link between the study of material
culture in Eretz-[the land of] Israel and the attempt
to write history for the biblical period is historical
geography. By this we mean not only the identification of ancient sites, but also the concomitant picture of the people-environment relationshipthatmay
result."Historical geography informs us of the physical environmentthat shaped and conditioned human
interaction. In this respect, it transcends events and
individuals.
GEOGRAPHY
The mound we know as Tell es-Safi rises above
the Wadi Elah and lies on the eastern edge of the
Philistine coastal plain, where it meets the outer edge
of the Judaean Shephelah. It is strategically placed
on the crossroads of the Great Trunkroute, i.e., the
internationalhighway (Via Maris)-which ran from
Egypt up to Syria-and a local route that leads east
through the Elah Valley then up the Husan ridge
toward Bethlehem and, more importantly, toward
Jerusalem(fig. 1). As a result of its strategic position
on the Wadi Elah and a main route to Jerusalem,Tell
es-Safi must have been a focal point for commerce
and contention between the hill country and the
coastal plain. In this respect, its position contrasts
sharply with that of Tel Miqne (=Ekron), which was
8 km north on the Sorek River. Although Ekron is
also positioned on the internationalhighway, it does
not have an easy or direct route to Jerusalem.

BASOR 309

Tell es-Safi is clearly separated from the inner

Judaean Shephelah by a ridge stretching from Azekah down to Tell Judeidah(also known as Tel Goded)
and thus is partof the Philistine coastal plain (fig. 1).
Geographically it belongs to the coastal plain, hence
it cannot be identified with a thoroughly Judahite
site like Libnah (contra Albright 1921-1922; cf.
Smith 1966: 160). In this respect, it is a sister site
of Tel Miqne. Just as the excavations there have
conclusively demonstrated that Tel Miqne was the
Philistine-controlled site of Ekron (cf. Dothan and
Gitin 1993), so also Tell es-Safi portends a similar
profile by its geographical position and the limited
excavations and surveys.
More important,Tell es-Safi also lies on the edge
of what may be called "Philistine Alluvial Basin."1
Tell es-Safi, Tel Miqne to the north, and Ashdod
encircle a fertile basin of alluvial soils bounded on
the north by sands and on the south by steppeland
(fig. 2). Tell es-Safi is thus blessed not only with an
ideal location for trade and communication and a
wonderful defensive position resulting from its natural topography,but also with an ideal situation with
regard to agriculture. Indeed, its situation in the
northerncoastal plain also means that it has a more
adequate supply of rainfall for dry farming than the
southern coastal plain (Frick 1989: 67-93). In a
word, Tell es-Safi has all the natural advantages of
a great city. The most recent survey has indicated
that the size of the site is at least double previous estimates, perhaps larger than 300 dunams in the Iron
Age (cf. Schneider 1996). The naturaladvantages of
the region were obviously not lost on the ancients;
the limited excavations and surveys of the site indicate that it was occupied with some interruptionsfor
over 5000 years, from the Early Bronze Age until
modern times.
Albright argued that Tell es-Safi was too close to
Tel Miqne/Ekron2 to be identified with Philistine
Gath. It is true that the sites are only 8 km apart.
However, this seems to be a moot point now since
there is no doubt that both Tell es-Safi and Tel
Miqne were majorsites in the Middle Bronze through
the Iron Age. The real question is how to understand
their proximity. First, the ideal agriculturalfeatures
of this region of the southern coastal plain explain
why these two sites were so close together. Additionally, we cannot be certain that the two sites
flourished simultaneously. Literary sources (below)
suggest that Gath flourished in the Late Bronze and
Early Iron Ages until its destructionby the Assyrians

This content downloaded from 148.245.241.190 on Fri, 22 Aug 2014 20:46:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE GEOPOLITICALHISTORY OF PHILISTINE GATH

1998

100 m

Yarkon
R.2

71

200 3

.*
Aphek

Joppa.

Mezad
ashavyahu

Gezer
Ekron
Ashdod
Bet -Shemesh

Gyth

hbna~~

Ashkelon
STel Goded
Tel Erani

Lachish

Nagil

0
m

-Tell

*2

300

in the late eighth century B.C.E. The heyday of

Ekron, on the other hand, was the seventh century
B.C.E., after the site was taken over by the Assyrians
as an agricultural administrative center (Dothan
and Gitin 1993).3 Although both sites have a wonderful agriculturalsituation, they play quite different
strategic roles. Indeed, Ekron hardly has the natural
defensive features of a great city. Moreover, since
the Sorek Valley has no easy access to Jerusalem,
Ekron is not well positioned for local commerce and
conflict with the Judaean hill country. It should not
be surprising,then, that Ekron does not figure in the
conflicts between Jerusalem and the coastal cities of
Ginti (=Gath) and Gezer described in the Amarna

Fig. 1. Topographyof southern coast and Judaean

Shephelah.

Letters.4 In the Iron Age, Ekron would have been

positioned on the northern border of Philistia as it
faced the northern kingdom of Israel. The golden
age of Ekron naturally occurredunder Assyrian and
later Babylonian administration,when foreign domination undermined the strategic position of Tell
es-Safi vis-a-vis the hill country.5
TOPONYMY
The term gt is a fairly common element in the
toponymy of Syria-Palestine. It is commonly translated as "winepress," although the usual Hebrew
word for winepress is yqb. As a geographical term,

This content downloaded from 148.245.241.190 on Fri, 22 Aug 2014 20:46:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BASOR 309

WILLIAM M. SCHNIEDEWIND

72

!!2
! ' Y.
:.,:.
::;"

Brown-Red

Sands

Steppe Soils

: .:
:.iI::::,::,,.:i:;:;
ppa

Sands
Hills
Alluvial Soils

Ash
keloni!!i.;ii:'

.
:..... -i:!!:i . .

Ekron

~ ili:~?

Philistine

Gath
A k%.eo..

Fig. 2. Simplified soils map, adapted from Atlas of Israel

(1970: plate 7).

it usually appears with an added ethnic designation.

In the Hebrew Bible, for example, we find Gathhepher (Jos 19:13; 2 Kgs 14:25), Gath-rimmon(Josh
19:45; 21:24-25; 1 Chr 6:69), and Moresheth-gath
(hometown of Micah, the prophet). At least four
other Gaths may be identified from the lists of
Thutmose III, Ramses II, Sheshonq I, and the Amama Letters (cf. Rainey 1966a: 36-37). Thutmose III
also refers to one Gath on the southern coastal
plain without an ethnic designation; this more likely
than not comes to be Gath of the Philistines, which
also is invariably referred to without the addition
of an ethnic designation. The term gt also appears
frequently as an element in geographical names from
the administrative texts found in Ugarit (Gordon
1965: ?627). There it apparently means more than
just a winepress, but the processing center for agricultural goods (e.g., Gordon 1965: ?1008). The
function of this term in Ugaritic is similar to the
Akkadian word dimtu "tower," which is used in
conjunction with ethnic or other elements to denote
local districts or ruraladministrativecenters (Rainey
1966a: 36). The possibility indicated by this evidence is that a gt was a tower or building located

among the fields, vineyards, and orchards of an estate. Winepresses would naturally be found at a gt,
but the term gt must have had a broader meaning
(e.g., Judg 6:11). Therefore, the use of Gath as a
geographical name apparentlypointed to a fortified
complex where agricultural products were brought
for processing and storage. The position of Tell
es-Safi on the Philistine Alluvial Basin certainly accords well with the term gt as a fortified agricultural
center.
Roman and Byzantine sources already suggest
some confusion as to the identification of the site.
The most reliable source is probably the church historian Eusebius, who writes concerning Philistine
Gath, "It is now still a village off the road at about
the fifth milestone as one goes from Eleutheropolis to Diospolis" (Eusebius, Onomastikon 70: 1416). In the Madaba Map, we learn of a town Sapita
lying on the road between Eleutheropolis (near Mareshah) as one goes north toward Ekron (known as
Akkara on the Madaba Map). This Byzantine town
is apparently the modem site of Tell es-Safi. The
Madaba Map places Gath much further north, in
the region of modem Ramle, but this confuses ancient Philistine Gath with the town of Gittaim (as is
correctly identified by the church historian Eusebius). Josephus and the church father Jerome seem
equally confused about the location of Gath. All
these competing opinions would indicate that the
location of Philistine Gath was already a problem
in the Byzantine period (cf. Rainey 1975: 63*-67*).
The confusion suggests that Philistine Gath underwent some major occupation gap prior to the Byzantine period, during which the ancient site was lost.
The most plausible scenario would be to place this
gap after the Assyrian destruction of Gath by Sargon since the Assyrian use of Ekron implies the
eclipse of Gath as a major site in the Iron Age IIC
(cf. Amos 6:2).
ARCHAEOLOGY
Archaeology is a critical supporting element in
site identification. It can even give us conclusive
evidence if textual evidence is found (as in the case of
Ekron). More likely, it provides a historical and cultural profile of a site, which may be compared with
external sources to determinethe suitability of a site.
Tell es-Safi was excavated by Bliss and Macalister at the turn of the century, but their conclusions
are of limited value. Albright later reexamined the

This content downloaded from 148.245.241.190 on Fri, 22 Aug 2014 20:46:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1998

THE GEOPOLITICALHISTORY OF PHILISTINE GATH

published pottery, which he believed could be dated

from the Early Bronze period through the Hellenistic period (1921-1922: 7-8). Later surveys confirmed Albright's analysis. While all phases of the
Bronze and Iron Ages are present on the mound, the
bulk of the pottery dates to the Iron Age II (Stern
1993: 1523; Schneider 1996). The Philistine pottery
collected on the site both in the early excavations
(especially in Area D) and in later surveys indicates
its suitability as a Philistine site. Six Imlk stamps
were published and apparentlycame from Area D.6
Recent aerial photographssuggest that the site might
have been surrounded by an Assyrian siege wall
(Aren Meier, personal communication, July 1996),
but this can only be confirmed through excavations.
While the published finds do not permit any precise
discussion of the archaeological stratigraphy,they
do permit us a general sketch of the site that seems
to fit the profile of Philistine Gath in the written
sources. First, the Amarna Letters are witness to a
Late Bronze Age city for Shuwardata.This city was
apparently taken over by the Philistines in the Iron
Age I, so we may assume a mixed population of
Canaanites and Philistines during that period (cf.
Josh 11:22; 2 Sam 21:20-22). In this respect the
archaeological finds at Tell es-Safi contrast with
those of Ekron,which had no significantLate Bronze
Age city and where the Philistines established a
large settlement on practically virgin soil. The abundant Iron Age II pottery indicates that Tell es-Safi
was a major city in this period. Correspondingly,
historical sources for the Iron Age II suggest that
Gath was a continuing focal point for conflicts between Philistia and Judah (e.g., 2 Chr 26:6). It was
important enough to draw the attention of Hazael,
king of Damascus, in the late ninth century B.C.E.
(2 Kgs 12:18 [Eng, 12:17]). The recently identified
Assyrian siege wall may correspond with Sargon's
invasion around 712 B.C.E.After Sargon II's campaign, we do not hear of Gath again and Ekron is
mentioned in its stead (cf. Jer 25:20; Amos 1:8;
Zeph 2:4, 9:5, 7; cf. Sennacherib'scampaign against
Judah). We must assume that Gath was destroyed
and that it diminished just as Ekron grew in size and
importance after Sargon's campaign. The fact that
the name of the site and its location were lost by
the Byzantine period may suggest that there was a
significant break in the settlement at Philistine Gath.
Although archaeological surveys have indicated the
general suitability of the site, only further excavation can fully confirm its identification.

RECONSTRUCTING
HISTORY

73

THE GEOPOLITICAL
OF PHILISTIA

The present geopolitical reconstruction begins

and ends with analysis from nonbiblical texts. This
is quite intentional, for two reasons. First, it sidesteps for a moment the recent debates on the historicity of biblical narratives.Second, it illustrates that
the geopolitical dynamics in nonbiblical texts mirror
biblical texts. In the end, however, the fact that biblical narratives so accurately depict the geopolitical
dynamic lends credibility to the biblical narratives,
minimally as ancient sources accurately reflecting
the historical geography of ancient Palestine.
The historical sources for Philistia begin in the
Late Bronze Age. As Rainey and William Moran
suggest, Tel es-Safi should be identified with the
Late Bronze Age city alternatively called Gimti or
Ginti-i.e., Gath (<*gantu)-which was ruled by
Shuwardata(NaDaman1979: 673-84; Moran 1992;
Rainey 1975). Shuwardata allies himself with the
ruler of Gezer against Abdi-kheba of Jerusalem.
One particularletter nicely illustrates the geopolitical dynamics of this region. Abdi-Kheba writes to
Pharaoh as follows:
[a-m]ur i[p-s]a la e-pu-fu-ni 'mil-ki-lu iu'u-ar-datum a-na mdt far-ri bali-ia mu-ii-ru sabaURUgaaz
siba URUkji-il-tiK
sab"URUgi-im-tiKI
riKM
sa-ab-tum
mact URUru-bu-teK... t i-na-an-na ap-pu-na-ma
u
URUKURa-Tru-sa-limK
gu-mu-ga
al URtE.NIN.URTA
. . ipgar-ripa-.ta-ra-at [a]-AaramdlittURUkji-il-tiK
Ju md[t]i an-ni-a [l ]u- [n]a-ka mir 'mil-ki[-li i l ]una[-k]a md[r TMu-ar-d]a-[t]i.

"Hereis the deed againstthe land that Milkilu

[rulerof Gezer]and Shuwardatadid. Againstthe
land of the king, my lord, they orderedtroops
from Gezer, troops from Gath, and troops from
Keilah.They seized Rabutu.... And now, besides
this,a townbelongingto Jerusalem,Bit-NIN.URTA
[Bethlehem?],by name, a city of the king, has
gone overto the side of the menof Keilah .... This
deed was at the orderof Milkilu and at the order
of Shuwardata
(of Gath)"(EA 290: 5-11, 14-18,
25-27).

In anotherletter, Shuwardataaccuses Abdi-Kheba

of bribing the men of Keilah to follow him (EA 280).
These letters illustrate a fierce competition between
Jerusalem in the hill country and Gath in the coastal
plain. The disputes over Keilah (a site in the Elah
Valley) in particular,but also Bethlehem, underscore

This content downloaded from 148.245.241.190 on Fri, 22 Aug 2014 20:46:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

74

WILLIAM M. SCHNIEDEWIND

Gath's-i.e., Tell es-Safi's-strategic position on the

local east-west route throughthe Elah Valley and up
to Jerusalem.
This geopolitical struggle continues in biblical
texts purportedlydescribing events in the Iron Age I.
First, biblical texts make Gath one of the five
Philistine royal cities (cf. Josh 13:3; 1 Sam 6:17).
Rainey (1975: 71*) argues that the case may even
be made that among the Philistine pentopolis, Gath
was first among equals since Achish, the ruler of
Gath, is the only one of the Philistine lords who is
actually given the title, "king" (cf. 1 Sam 21:11:
27:2). This perhaps overburdens the literary evidence, but Gath was nevertheless an important city
in the pentapolis.
That a close proximity of Ekron and Gath is
underscored in the tale of David and Goliath was
already recognized by C. R. Condor (1875: 19195; see also Smith 1966: 141-42). Although there
are obvious fictive elements to the story, we should
recognize that good fiction-and especially good
historical fiction-relies on cultural, political, and
geographical realia. In the tale of David and Goliath it relies on the well-known conflict between
Philistia and early Israel. The story is therefore
located in the contested buffer region, the Judaean
Shephelah, and more specifically in the Elah Valley,
which (along with the Aijalon Valley) was one of
the two main approaches into the Judaeanhill country (the other was the Aijalon Valley to the north).
Upon David's defeat of Goliath the Israelites are said
to have pursued "the Philistines as far as Gath and
the gates of Ekron, so that the wounded Philistines
fell on the way from Shaaraim as far as Gath and
Ekron" (1 Sam 17:52). Even Albright admitted that
"Gath and Ekron were the nearest Philistine towns
to the opening of the Wldi es-Safi," but at the same
time he arguedthat Gath and Ekron "were the southern and northernfoci of Philistine power" (Albright
1921-1922: 10). Surely, this story requires the close
proximity between Ekron and Gath.
The story of King Achish of Gath and David at
Ziklag has been pivotal to the argumentfor a "southern Gath of the Philistines,"which was first made by
Albright, then by Wright, and most recently by
Larry Stager. Although Albright had used the story
of King Achish of Gath and David at Ziklag for his
argumentthat Gath was in the southerncoastal plain,
his argument is not compelling. Ziklag was located
in the western Negev of the Cherethites. Instead of

BASOR 309

arguing that Gath must therefore be close so that

Achish could oversee David, it is perhaps more
plausible that David's location at Ziklag must be far
enough removed from Gath that he might carry out
his raids with impunity-that is, so they might "tell
it not in Gath"(Aharoni 1979: 290-91). Indeed, this
is the point of the biblical narrative, namely that
David kept his actions secret from Achish. Another
pivotal text for this argumenthas been 1 Sam 7:14:
"The towns that the Philistines had taken from Israel
were restored to Israel, from Ekron to Gath; and
Israel recovered their territoryfrom the hand of the
Philistines." This has been taken to indicate that
Ekron and Gath had to be on opposite ends of the
Philistine plain. Apart from the etymological argument, which Ginsberg (1951a; 1951b) has shown
to be dubious, the text is hardly specific enough to
carry the weight that has been heaped upon it. We
must begin with the fact that the locus of the conflict
between the Philistines and the Israelites is in the
northern coastal plain, and particularly in the Aijalon and Elah Valleys. Gath was claimed as originally
Israelite. Hence, it was included among "the towns
that the Philistines had taken from Israel" and is the
city most frequently mentioned in conflicts between
the Israelites and Philistines (e.g., 1 Chr 18:1, 2 Chr
26:6). This hardly makes a southernGath of the Philistines plausible. Finally, if Gath were located in the
southern coastal plain or the western Negev as
Wright and Stager have suggested, by virtue of this
geographical location Gath would have to be considered the least importantof the Philistine pentopolis.
But this hardly squares with the evidence.
The relative importance of Gath is further highlighted by the attentionit receives by foreign nations
invading Israel. We may first recall the conquest of
Gath by Hazael, king of Damascus, in the late ninth
centuryB.C.E.:"KingHazael of Aramwent up, fought
against Gath, and took it. Then Hazael set his face
to go up against Jerusalem"(2 Kgs 12:17). This suggests thatGathwas an importantcity for the approach
to Jerusalem, thereby eliminating the possibility of
a southern location for Gath, while at the same time
underscoring the suitability of Tell es-Safi, which
was well positioned on an approachto Jerusalem.
Gath and Ekron play pivotal roles in the conquest
of Philistia by Sargon. The annals of Sargon II mention Gath as part of a contingent of Philistine cities
led by Azuri, king of Ashdod, conquered in 712
B.C.E.(cf. Isa 20:1):

This content downloaded from 148.245.241.190 on Fri, 22 Aug 2014 20:46:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1998

THE GEOPOLITICALHISTORY OF PHILISTINE GATH

KIAs-du-duKlGi-im-tuKIAs-du-di-im-mual-mi akJud-(dam) ilani a-fi-bu-ut lib-bi-Ju-un Ja-a-fu a-di

nisftmati-s~u&urdsukaspu [makkuru]ikalli-[Ju] a-na

sal-la-ti am-nu mahjdza-ni-Au-nu
a-na i(-fu-ti as-bat
ni'f mdtdtiki-fit-ti qd-td-ia i-na lib-bi u-i't-ib L"upar-s~ak-iaLUbilpihdti ili-Ju-nu as-kun-ma it-ti nisf
KURA urKI am-nu-Su-nu-ti-ma

i-su-tu ab-fa-a-ni

"I beseiged and conqueredthe towns of Ashdod,

Gath,andAshdod-Yam.I countedthe god residing
of
therein,(Azuri)himself,as well as theinhabitants
his country,the gold, silver, and personalpossessions as booty.I reorganizedthe administration
of
these cities and installedmy officerover them as
governor.I declaredthem Assyriancitizens and
they bore my yoke"(Winckler1889: 37-38, lines
224-28; cf. ANET286; see alsothe Displayinscription, Winckler1889: 116, lines 104-9).7
In Hayim Tadmor's (1958; 1966) reconstruction
of Sargon'sPhilistia campaign of 712 B.C.E.,Sargon
also attacked Azaqd (=Azekah), which is directly
east of Tell es-Safi on the road to Jerusalem via the
Elah Valley (fig. 1). The proximity between Azekah
and Gath implied by this scenario would again
point to the identification of Tell es-Safi with Philistine Gath. According to Tadmor, "This assault on
Azekah (Tel ez-Zakariyeh). .. was undertaken to
intimidate Judah into submission and to prevent
Hezekiah from aiding Ashdod"(Tadmor1966: 94; cf.
Tadmor 1958: 83).8 The relative proximity of Gath
and Ashdod is also suggested by Uzziah's campaign
against Philistia in the mid-eighth century: "He went
out and made war against the Philistines. He broke
down the wall of Gath and the wall of Jabneh and
the wall of Ashdod; he built cities in the territoryof
Ashdod and among the Philistines" (2 Chr 26:6).
The association of Gath (Tell es-Safi) with Ashdod
in both Assyrian and biblical texts should be seen as
resulting from their positions around the Philistine
Alluvial Basin.
After Sargon's seige and conquest, Gath disappears from historical records. In fact, biblical prophetic texts omit Gath from the list of Philistine
cities (cf. Amos 1:6-8; 6:2). Its fate is apparently
summed up in the words of the prophetMicah, "Tell
it not in Gath" (Mic 1:10). The site of Ekron was
chosen by Sargon to be a regional agricultural administrative center after the defeat and destruction
of Gath. This scenario may be supportedby the annals of Sennacherib, which indicate that Padi, the
king of Ekron, was an Assyrian loyalist and perhaps
a direct appointee (ANET 287). Furthermore,only

75

Gath is mentioned in Assyrian annals of Sargon

whereas only Ekron is mentioned in the account of
Sennacherib. This implies that Ekron had already
replaced Gath as a central inland site along the
southern coastal plain by the time of Sennacherib's
campaign. Indeed, since the prominence of Gath
was in partdue to its strategic position in the conflict
between Jerusalem and the coastal plain, we should
not be surprised that Gath fades in importance as
this conflict fades in significance with the rising pax
Assyria.
CONCLUSIONS
The identification of Tell es-Safi with Philistine
Gath seems to be the only plausible conclusion
based on the current evidence at hand. This identification creates a coherent geopolitical picture of the
interaction between the coastal plain and the hill
country in the Late Bronze and Iron Ages. The history of Tell es-Safi is shaped by three aspects of its
geography: its position along the internationalhighway, its location on the fertile Philistine Alluvial
Basin, and its junction with an importantlocal route
leading up into the hill country and Jerusalem. The
relative sizes of Tel Miqne and Tell es-Safi probably
reflect the historical tides with Tell es-Safi dominating in the Late Bronze and early Iron Age II and Tel
Miqne rising especially in the wake of the Assyrian
domination (after 712 B.C.E.).On the other hand, the
proximity of two relatively large and importantsites
reflects both the commercial and agriculturalpromise of the region.
Finally, this site identification is about more
than a place. It involves the socioenvironmental dynamics of the Philistine coastal plain. To take its
proper place in modern historical research, historical geography must move beyond site identification
into reconstructions of the broader geopolitical and
environmental context. In this way, historical geography can take its proper place in modern historical
research.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A shorterversionof this articlewas presentedat the
PacificCoastregionalconferenceof theAAR/SBL/ASOR
in San Diego, California,on March29, 1996.This article
owes muchto my teachersin HistoricalGeography:Anson E RaineyandJamesM. Monson.

This content downloaded from 148.245.241.190 on Fri, 22 Aug 2014 20:46:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

76

WILLIAM M. SCHNIEDEWIND

BASOR 309

NOTES
I am indebted to James Monson for this term (see
Monson, in press). S. Gitin (1990) refers to Ekron'sposition on this same alluvial plain, which he describes as the
"Imperial Valley of Israel."
2The identification of Tel Miqne (Tell Muqanna) with
Ekron is now made certain by a recently discovered inscription (Gitin, Dothan, and Naveh 1997).
3Ekronexperienced its firstperiod of growth in the Iron
Age I. However, we are uncertain as to the relative size of
Tell es-Safi. We are also uncertainof the exact ethnic composition of Tell es-Safi. These issues can only be clarified
by furtherexcavation.
4Excavation at Ekron "clearly demonstrates a gap between Middle Bronze II and Iron I. The implication is that
a small and apparentlyunwalled Late Bronze Age settlement was confined to the 10-acre Northeast Acropolis"
(Killebrew 1996: 21).
5Central place theory should be taken into consideration when reconstructingthe relative sizes of Ekron and
Gath in different historical periods (e.g., Falconer and

Savage 1995). On the other hand, it should not be used

inflexibly and needs to take regional geography into consideration.
6I would argue that the LMLK jars were in use already
by the time of Sargon's campaign in 712 B.C.E.and were
not put into service shortly before Sennacherib'sarrivalin
701 (contra Na aman 1986).
7Na aman associates the "Letter to God" mentioning
Azekah with Sennacherib (1974), but Tadmor's assignment of the text and his reconstructionof its context seems
more appropriate.
8At the time Tadmorfollowed Mazar'sidentification of
Gath and hence suggested that the Gimtu (=Gath) mentioned in Sargon'sannals was Gittaim. More recently, however, Tadmorhas left the identification open (1988: 139).
Gittaim was a relatively insignificant site in the Iron Age
(mentioned in passing in 2 Sam 4:3; Neh 11:33); it would
have hardly merited the mention of Sennacheriband is too
far north from Ashdod to make geographical sense.

REFERENCES
Aharoni, Y.
The Land of the Bible. 3rd ed. Rev., trans. A. E
1979
Rainey, from Hebrew. Philadelphia: Westminster.
Albright, W. E
1921- Contributions to the Historical Geography of
Palestine. Annual of the American School of
1922
Oriental Research in Jerusalem 2-3: 1-46.
Amiran, R., and Eitan, A.
Two Seasons of Excavations at Tel Nagila
1964
( 1962-1963). Bulletin of the Israel Exploration
Society 28: 193-203 (Hebrew).
ANET = Pritchard, J. B.
Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the
1955
Old Testament. 2nd ed. Princeton: Princeton
University.
Atlas of Israel
Atlas of Israel. 2nd ed. Jerusalem:Ministry of
1970
Labour.
Bliss, E J., and Macalister, A. S.
Excavation in Palestine during the Years18981902
1900. London: Committee of the Palestine
Excavation Fund.
Billow, S., and Mitchell, R. A.
An Iron Age II Fortress on Tel Nagila. Israel
1961
Exploration Journal 11: 101-10.

Condor, C. R.
1875
David and Goliath. Palestine Exploration Fund
Quarterly Statement 8: 191-95.
Dothan, T., and Gitin, S.
1993
Miqne, Tel (Ekron). Pp. 1051-59 in New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in
the Holy Land, vol. 3, ed. E. Stemrn.
New York:
Simon and Schuster.
EA = Knutzon, J. A.
Die El-Amarna-Tafeln.Leipzig: Hinrichs. Re1915
print, 1964. Aalen: Zeller.
Eusebius Pomphili, Bishop of Caesarea
Das Onomastikon der biblischen Ortsnamen,
1966
ed. E. Klostermann.Hildesheim: Olm.
Falconer, S., and Savage, S.
1995
Heartlandsand Hinterlands:AlternativeTrajectories of Early Urbanization in Mesopotamia
and the Southern Levant. American Antiquity
60: 37-58.
S.
Frick, E
1989
Ecology, Agriculture and Patterns of Settlement. Pp. 67-93 in The WorldofAncient Israel:
Sociological, Anthropological and Political
Perspectives: Essays by Membersof the Society
for Old TestamentStudy, ed. R. E. Clements.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity.

This content downloaded from 148.245.241.190 on Fri, 22 Aug 2014 20:46:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1998

THE GEOPOLITICAL HISTORY OF PHILISTINE GATH

77

The Origin and Historical Backgroundof Sev1979

Ginsberg, H. L.
1951la A Preposition of Interestto Historical Geograeral Amarna Letters. Ugarit-Forschungen 11:
673-84.
phers. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 122: 12-14.
1986
Hezekiah's Fortified Cities and the LMLK
1951b Postscript to Bulletin No. 122, pp. 12-14.
Stamps. Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research 261: 5-21.
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research 124: 29-30.
Rainey, A. E
1966a Gath of the Philistines. Christian News from
Gitin, S.
The Effects of Urbanization on a Philistine
1990
Israel 17, nos. 2-3: 30-38.
1966b Gath of the Philistines. Christian News from
City-State: Tel Miqne-Ekronin the Iron Age II
Israel 17, no. 4: 23-34.
Period. Pp. 277-84 in Proceedings of the World
The Identificationof Philistine Gath-A Prob1975
Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, August
16-24, 1989. Division A: The Bible and Its
lem in Source Analysis for Historical GeograWorld. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish
phy. Eretz-lsrael 12 (Nelson Glueck Memorial
Studies.
Volume): 63*-76*
Schneider, T.
Gitin, S.; Dothan, T; and Naveh, J.
A Royal Dedicatory Inscription from Ekron.
1997
1996
Survey Season at Tel Safi. Paper presented at
Israel Exploration Journal 47: 1-16.
the annual meeting of the American Schools of
Oriental Research, New Orleans.
Gordon, C. H.
1965
Ugaritic Textbook. Analecta Orientalia 38. Smith, G. A.
Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.
The Historical Geography of the Holy Land,
1966
25th ed. Reprint. New York:Harperand Row.
Killebrew, A.
Tel Miqne-Ekron. Report of the 1985-1987
1996
Stager, L. E.
Excavations in Field INE: Areas 5, 6, 7. The
The Impact of the Sea Peoples. Pp. 332-48 in
1995
The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land,
Bronze and Iron Ages. Jerusalem: W. E
ed. T. E. Levy. New York:Facts on File.
Albright Institute of Archaeological Research/
Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew Stern, E.
1993
Tel. Pp. 1522-24 in New Encyclopedia
University.
.Zafit,
Mazar, B.
of
Archaeological Excavations in the Holy
Land. vol. 4, ed. E. Stern. New York: Simon
1954
Gath and Gittaim. Israel Exploration Journal
4: 227-35.
and Schuster.
Tadmor, H.
Miller, J. M.
1983
Site Identification:A Problem Area in ContemThe Campaignsof Sargon II of Assur: A Chro1958
nological-Historical Study. Journal of Cuneiporary Biblical Scholarship. Zeitschrift des
deutschen Paldistina-Vereins99: 119-29.
form Studies 12: 22-42, 77-100.
1966
Philistia under Assyrian Rule. Biblical ArchaeMonson, J.
In press Exploring the Land of the Bible. Rockford, IL:
ologist 29: 86-102.
II Kings: A New Translation. Anchor Bible,
1988
Biblical Backgrounds.
vol. 11. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Moran, W. L., ed. and trans.
TheAmarna Letters. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Winckler, H.
1992
Die Keilschrift-textSargons, II. 2 vols. Leipzig:
1889
University.
Pfeiffer.
Na aman, N.
1974
Sennacherib's "Letter to God" on His Cam- Wright, G. E.
Fresh Evidence for the Philistine Story. Bibli1966
paign to Judah. Bulletin of the American
cal Archaeologist 29: 70-86.
Schools of Oriental Research 214: 25-38.

This content downloaded from 148.245.241.190 on Fri, 22 Aug 2014 20:46:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions