1

ASHDOD-YAM EXCAVATIONS
Preliminary Research Proposal
by Dr. Alexander Fantalkin (fantalk@post.tau.ac.il)

Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures, Tel Aviv University Starting in summer 2013, we are planning to excavate an Iron Age compound (known also as an 'Assyrian enclosure') at the site of Ashdod-Yam (Ashdod on the Sea; Asdudimmu in the neoAssyrian sources; Azotos Paralios in Byzantine times; Castellum Beroart in the Crusader Period; Mnat Ishdd; Mnat el-Qal'a), which is located on the coast of Israel (within the boundaries of the modern city of Ashdod) (Figs. 1-3), ca. 5 km north-west of Tel Ashdod.

Fig. 2: Location of the modern city of Ashdod

Fig. 2: Location of Ashdod-Yam within the modern city of Ashdod

Fig. 3: Location of Ashdod-Yam within the modern city of Ashdod

The fate of Ashdod-Yam was always connected to the capital city of Ashdod (one of the five major Philistine cities during the Iron Age). Already during the Late Bronze Age there was a small port of trade at Ashdod-Yam, which served the capital city. In Byzantine times, the coastal city of Azotos Paralios became even more important than its former capital, Azotos Mesogeios (known also as Azotos Hippenos) (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4: Representation of Ashdod-yam (Azotos Paralios) and Ashdod (Azotos Mesogeios) on the Madaba mosaic map from the 6th century AD

The site of Ashdod-Yam is quite large, covering at least 2 km from north to south, and ca. 1,5 km from east to west. As such, it consists of a number of clearly definable segments, which represent different periods in its history. In the southern part of the site, there is a mound

3
(enclosure) that belongs to the Iron Age (ca. 1km to the south of this mound, a site from the Late Bronze Age was excavated);1 the remains of the Byzantine city (mentioned in the Madaba mosaic map), covered by dunes, are spread to the north of the mound; and an impressive citadel, dating from the Early Islamic up to the Crusaders' period, is located at the northern part of the site. This citadel was excavated on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) between 1997 and 1999 (Fig. 5).2

Fig. 5: Early Islamic and Crusader Citadel at Ashdod-yam, excavated by IAA

Ashdod-Yam during the Iron Age The Iron Age compound of Asdod-Yam, where we are planning to undertake excavations, was excavated in intervals from November 1965 till March 1968 under the directorship of J. Kaplan, on behalf of the Museum of Antiquities of Tel Aviv-Jaffa. This excavation, however, was quite limited, with the main aim of exploring the Iron Age fortifications of the site. Ten cross-sections were cut along the edges of the glacis and the segments of the city wall, with the aim of exploring the fortifications (Fig. 6). The exposed fortification elements consisted of a ca. 3-4.5 m.-thick brick city wall, which also served as a core for a large earthen embankment laid on both sides (Fig. 7). In one of the sections, some meager occupational remains were unearthed inside the retaining rampart. The western ends of the rampart were destroyed by erosion; if they are reconstructed according to the orientation of the existing part, the rampart would have enclosed an area of over 15 hectares. Since Iron Age pottery was found during the survey over the entire site, and also beyond the ramparts, the fortified enclosure could have been part of a much larger site, which may be buried under the later accumulation of the classical periods. Modest amounts of pottery sherds and vessels (mainly locally-produced and of Phoenician origin) retrieved from the embankment and inside its perimeter allow the association of the compound with the 8th early 7th centuries BCE (Fig. 8).

1 2

http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp?id=1257&mag_id=115 Hadashot Arkheologiyot Excavations and Surveys in Israel 112 (2000): 101* 103*.

Fig. 6: Plan of the site, showing the location of Kaplan's excavation sections

Fig. 7: One of the sections in the system of fortifications

Fig. 8: An Iron Age IIB pottery from Kaplan's excavations

5
The site, therefore, is reasonably identified with Asdudimmu, mentioned as one of three cities (together with Ashdod and Gath) conquered by Sargon II following the uprising of Yamani in Ashdod. Due to surviving historical documentation, the course of events is well-known (e.g., Rollinger 2001): There was some anti-Assyrian sentiment in the city of Ashdod, which caused its king Azuri to stop delivering tribute. In 712 BCE, Sargon tried to solve the problem by choosing Azuri's younger brother Ahimiti as a new, loyal king. However, Ahimiti was overthrown by certain Yamani.3 Although a son of nobody, a commoner, Yamani took power, apparently with the help of the inhabitants of the city. Having heard that, Sargon II promptly assembled a modest but reliable force and in 711 BCE marched against Ashdod, Yamani fled to Egypt without a fight. However, later on, the Egyptians handed him over to the Assyrian king. He was sent to Assyria in fetters and details of his further fate are unknown. On his way to Ashdod, Sargon II conquered its dependent cities (including Ashdod-Yam). In order to prevent further rebellions, Sargon reorganized the territory of Ashdod, conducted deportations, and settled there quite a number of newcomers. More so, he made it the centre of a newly established Assyrian province. Sennaherib, his heir, adopted a different policy a few years later, and let the former royal house of Ashdod rule over the kingdom, side by side with the Assyrian governor. According to Kaplan (1969), the construction of the massive Iron Age fortifications at AshdodYam belongs to Yamani's preparations for the rebellion against Assyria. Other scholars, however, have offered different scenarios. Thus, according to Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz (2001), any significant activity at Tel Ashdod ceased immediately or a few years after the conquest of the city in 711 BCE by Sargon. According to their reconstruction, Sargon moved the remaining population to the then small coastal settlement of Ashdod-Yam, together with deportees from northeastern parts of the empire. The newly established city at Ashdod-Yam was furnished with a massive brick and earth fortification. Ashdod, however, is mentioned as a major power on a number of occasions in 7th early 6th centuries historical records. Except for a mention in the Late monarchic biblical prophecies (Jer. 25:20; Zeph. 2:4; Zech. 9:6), Mitinti, King of Ashdod appears in the annals of Sennacherib as a loyal vassal of Assyria, to whom Judean territories were transferred after the campaign of 701 BCE; Ahimilki king of Ashdod is mentioned as paying tribute to Assyria in the days of both Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal; a governor of Ashdod was the eponym of the year 669 BCE; and Herodotus recounts how Psammetichus I laid siege for 29 years to Ashdod and then took it. Likewise, Ashdod still possessed a king in 598 BCE, as the Istanbul prism of Nebuchadnezzar II indicates.

According to many scholars, the name Yamani should indicate a Greek (Cypriote) mercenary, who took power in the city of Ashdod. This reconstruction, however, is far from being certain.

6
Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz have suggested therefore, that after the Assyrian destruction of Ashdod in 711 BCE, Ashdod-Yam took its place as the kingdom's capital; that is mentions of Ashdod in the historical sources of the 7th 6th centuries BCE refer in fact to Ashdod-Yam. Following this reconstruction, Na'aman (2001) has offered a slightly different view of events. According to him, Sargon founded the harbour at Ashdod-Yam immediately after he crushed the anti-Assyrian rebellion that broke out upon the death of Shalmaneser V in 720 BCE. Before the Assyrian intervention, Ashdod-Yam was a small port of trade that served the capital city. Sargon's building operations at this site threatened to block Ashdod's access to the sea, depriving it of maritime trade revenues. Na'aman suggests that the two revolts at Ashdod, in 712 and 711 BCE, should be seen as a local event and as a direct outcome of this building project. In this scenario, the rebels probably seized and fortified the newly established Assyrian emporion at Ashdod-Yam. Sargon took advantage of the revolt, destroyed Ashdod, brought his building activity at AshdodYam to completion and made it the capital of the newly established province. The city of Ashdod remained desolated - although not entirely deserted - and Ashdod-Yam took its place as the kingdom's capital. These reconstructions have already been criticized by a number of scholars, who do not accept the existence of a chronological gap at Ashdod during the 7th century BCE (e.g., Ben-Shlomo 2003; Shavit 2008). Even before Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz's suggestion with regard to a chronological gap at Ashdod, I have suggested elsewhere, that there is indeed a chronological gap at Ashdod, but only during the last quarter of the 7th century BCE; that is during the period of Egyptian domination in the area, which starts immediately after the Assyrian withdrawal from Ebir nri in the twenties of the 7th century BCE (Fantalkin 2001). I based my claim on archaeological grounds and took Herodotus' information about Psammetichus Is conquest of Ashdod as reliable (although the 29 year length of the siege is certainly an artificial construction). A few years ago, Kogan-Zahavi and Pirhiya Nahshoni from the IAA, have excavated the remains of what seems to be the administrative palace of the Assyrian representative.4 The building is located in the immediate vicinity of Tel Ashdod, and its existence implies that the city of Ashdod continued to be the capital of the province during the better part of the 7th century BCE. The transfer of the capital to Ashdod-Yam (if it happened at all), could have occurred only after Psammetichus' destruction of Ashdod in the twenties of the 7th century BCE. Saying this, however, I certainly agree with Finkelstein, Singer-Avitz and Na'aman's identification of an Assyrian emporion at the site of Ashdod-Yam. The Assyrian interest in the coastal area is known to have stemmed from their desire to be involved in, and obtain their share from revenues of, the international trade among Phoenicia, Philistia and Egypt (see, e.g., Elat 1978; Fantalkin 2006; Fantalkin and Tal 2009). As a result, on the one hand the Phoenicians enjoyed

http://www.antiquities.org.il/site_Item_eng.asp?id=210; http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp?id=340&mag_id=111

7
the stability of the pax Assyriaca and exclusive access to trade routes and mercantile centres, but on the other hand, Assyrian administrative officials closely monitored that trade and levied duties on it (see, e.g., Frankenstein 1979; Naaman 2001; Sommer 2007). There is no doubt that the Assyrians invested a great deal of effort in the routing of commerce and its concomitant taxes, an effort that required constant supervision over main points of control, among them seaports and emporia. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the location of Ashdod-Yam made it an important intermediate station and emporion on the maritime and overland route between Phoenicia and Egypt. As can be easily seen from this brief survey, there is no shortage of possible scenarios concerning the fate of Ashdod-Yam during the Iron Age. Contrary to these scenarios, however, our archaeological understanding of site's history is rather modest since the site remains virtually unexcavated (Fig. 9).

Fig. 8: Visit to Ashdod-Yam by representatives of the Department of Archaeology at TAU

It is time to conduct a full-scale archaeological excavation at the Iron Age compound of Ashdod-Yam. Such an endeavor will have the potential to make a significant contribution to the archaeology of the ancient Mediterranean. At the beginning of the project (starting already in summer 2013), we intend to concentrate our main excavation efforts in the area inside the enclosure. At the southern part of the enclosure, there is a relatively small but high mound of earth (some 120 X 80 m mentioned as citadel? on the map), adjoining the inside of the southern fortifications. Kaplan has reasonably suggested that this mass of earth probably conceals the remains of the 'citadel' of Ashdod-Yam. If so, this artificial mound may supply us with stratigraphically positioned remains for both the late 7th century BCE and the late 8th early 7th centuries BCE settlements. In addition to excavating of the city's acropolis and based on the results of geophysical survey, the initial excavations will also try to detect the Iron Age gate and a number of residential quarters. In the initial stage, the project is designed for 5 excavation seasons with the following intentions:

8
1) To excavate the Iron Age compound of Ashdod-Yam, in order to arrive at a better understanding of socio-political processes that took place along the southern coast of Israel during the period of Assyrian domination and shortly thereafter. 2) To this end, we hope to discover an Assyrian emporion at Ashdod-Yam. Such a discovery will shed more light on modes of imperial control of subjected areas (Needless to say, we are anticipating the discovery of a number of Assyrian tablets). 3) To see what kind of maritime trading activities took place at this site, which served as a place of interaction between different peoples (Philistines, Phoenicians, Judeans, Cypriots, Assyrians, Egyptians, Iranian deportees, and possibly Greeks). 4) Given the surviving historical sources, it is probable that we will be able to track and distinguish the so-called 'intermediate' pottery assemblages from the first half of the 7th century BCE (still poorly understood). 5) Given the location of the site, approximately equidistant between Ashkelon and Mezad Hashavyahu, we have good reasons to anticipate the discovery of an additional stronghold along the sea-coast, manned by Greek mercenaries, who might have been stationed there on behalf of Egyptian rule during the last quarter of the 7th century BCE. 6) Given the mentioning of Ashdod in the Istanbul prism of Nebuchadnezzar II (598 BCE), it is possible that we will be able to shed more light on the material culture of Philistia during the 6th century BCE (that is to say during the period of Neo-Babylonian domination). At the end of the initial stage and based on the results, it is rather plausible that the excavations will be extended to the lower city, with the aim of exposing remains from the later periods as well. The Ashdod-Yam archaeological project intends to study the archaeology and history of this site in the years to come. The project welcomes institutions from all over the world to join us in this adventure. Various options for affiliations with the project can be arranged (such as organized groups of volunteers and/or students; research-related affiliation; etc). As the project is, by definition, an inter- and multi-disciplinary endeavor, we welcome people with diverse research interests and perspectives. The Ashdod-Yam archaeological project aims to be one of the summer training excavations offered on behalf of the Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures of Tel Aviv University. In this regard, it is our intention to develop an additional educational program for foreign students with the aim to integrate excavation experience with historical knowledge of the region (field trips, lectures and other activities will be included for participants). As is usually the case in such arrangements, foreign students who participate in the educational program will get academic credit hours from Tel Aviv University.

9
Bibliography mentioned in the text: Ben-Shlomo, D. 2003. The Iron Age Sequence of Tel Ashdod. Tel Aviv 30: 83107. Elat, M., 1978. The Economic Relations of the Neo-Assyrian Empire with Egypt. Journal of the American Oriental Society 98: 2034. Fantalkin, A. 2001. Mezad Hashavyahu: Its Material Culture and Historical Background. Tel Aviv 28: 3165. Fantalkin, A. 2006. Identity in the Making: Greeks in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Iron Age. In: Villing, A. and Schlotzhauer, U. eds. Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt. Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean. (The British Museum Research Publication 162). London: 199208. Fantalkin, A. and Tal, O. 2009. Re-discovering the Iron Age Fortress at Tell Qudadi in the Context of the Neo-Assyrian Imperialistic Policies. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 141: 188206. Finkelstein, I. and Singer-Avitz, L. 2001. Ashdod Revisited. Tel Aviv 28: 231259. Frankenstein, S., 1979. The Phoenicians in the Far West: A Function of Neo-Assyrian Imperialism. In: M. T. Larsen (ed.), Power and Propaganda: a Symposium on Ancient Empires (Copenhagen Studies in Assyriology 7: Mesopotamia). Copenhagen: 263294. Kaplan, J. 1969. The Stronghold of Yamani at Ashdod-Yam. Israel Exploration Journal 19: 137 149. Na'aman, N. 2001. An Assyrian Residence at Ramat Rahel? Tel Aviv 28: 260280. Rollinger, R. 2001. The Ancient Greeks and the Impact of the Ancient Near East: Textual Evidence and Historical Perspective. In: Whiting, R.M. ed. Mythology and Mythologies: Methodological Approaches to Intercultural Influences. Helsinki: 233264. Shavit, A. 2008. Settlement Patterns of Philistine City-States. In: Fantalkin, A. and Yasur-Landau, A., eds. Bene Israel: Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and the Levant during the Bronze and Iron Ages in Honour of Israel Finkelstein. Leiden: 135164. Sommer, M., 2007. Networks of Commerce and Knowledge in the Iron Age: The Case of the Phoenicians. Mediterranean Historical Review 22/1: 97111.