Knowledge of architecture in the biblical period has been limited both by the lack of information on architectural details in the ancient records and by the infrequent survival of the buildings themselves as the passage of the centuries and the activities of succeeding generations of builders contributed to their eventual destruction. Of those buildings which have been found among the ruined cities of Canaan and early Israel, we are fortunate if one or two layers of masonry remain above the foundation level.
Throughout most of the biblical period, men built their own homes, and their towns, too, were the creation of their own unskilled, communal efforts. Thus, the vast majority of structures that have survived, including town walls, gates, and temples, are “homemade” in character. Only in periods of exceptional prosperity or political expansion do we find, both in the northern kingdom and in Judah, traces of ambitious architectural projects. These were official or religious in nature, and display the handiwork of professional craftsmen and the sophisticated use of foreign styles or materials.
Urbanization
The first mention of a city in the Bible appears not long after the Creation narrative. The Bible relates that Cain, the firstborn son of Adam, built a city for his son Enoch (Gen. 4:17). It is interesting to note that later accounts of the Sumerians, whose culture is the most ancient in Mesopotamia, relate that the first city to be divinely created was called Eridu. This name bears a striking resemblance to that of Enoch’s son, Irad. The antiquity of Eridu, located some 12 miles south-southwest of ancient Ur, is well documented; it is the oldest site excavated in southern Mesopotamia, its pre-urban levels reaching back to the 6th millennium B.C.E.
BSP 4:4 (Autumn 1975) p. 98
The point at which a settlement becomes a “city” is a subject of discussion by students of urban culture. There is, however, a large measure of general agreement that in antiquity a “city” was a settled community having a socially stratified population that practiced a variety of trades and professions and was capable of producing surpluses of food for those of its members who were not engaged in agriculture. The development of a pre-urban settlement into a city is the result of an extremely complex interrelationship of economic, social, and technical factors. However, it is generally assumed that the first criterion of an urban settlement is the appearance of communal building projects, first a temple, then a palace, followed by city fortifications, etc. Such undertakings require an organized labor force for their execution, as well as direction and control, generally exercised by a ruling class which interprets its own needs and those of the entire community. Another distinguishing feature of the ancient city would be the marketplace, the hub of commercial activity.
Figure 1a: Town-planning in the city-state Arad in the Early Bronze II period (c. 2850-2650 B.C.E.). The model, prepared by the Israel Museum, shows one of the living quarters with blocks of houses divided by streets and squares, enclosed with a thick wall
Figure 1b: Clay model in the shape of a house found at Arad
BSP 4:4 (Autumn 1975) p. 99
Figure 2: Religious structure in the Early Bronze site of Ai
Technical limitations have precluded the archaeological excavation in the Fertile Crescent of a complete city with all its historical levels retained intact. Thus we are not in possession of all the data concerning ancient urban development. It is certain, however, that the process of urbanization began in Mesopotamia at about the end of the 5th or the beginning of the 4th millennium B.C.E. The first settlement that displayed distinctive urban features (the existence of a temple) was the city of Uruk, which had been established on the ancient banks off the Euphrates River. The creators of this urban culture were most probably the Sumerians.
In Syria and Ereẓ Israel, cities probably began to develop under Mesopotamian influence in the 3rd millennium B.C.E. They were generally established at the junctions of highways and on the plains, in places close to natural water supplies and easy to defend. Excavations on various sites have laid bare city walls (Arad (fig. 1a-b), Ai, Megiddo), houses, and religious structures (Jericho, Megiddo, Arad, Ai (fig. 2)). Jericho is exceptional among the cities of the Near East in having a thick wall and a tower dating back to a period which is ancient even by comparison with Mesopotamia. These structures have been variously identified by scholars as dating to the 7th, 6th, or 5th millennium, i.e., to a period which was pre-agricultural, pre-pottery, and pre-literary. In this sense, the origin of ancient Jericho remains an archaeological enigma.
The upheavals in the Near East during the first half of the 2nd millennium B.C.E. accelerated the process of urbanization both politically and
BSP 4:4 (Autumn 1975) p. 100
Figure 3: Tell Megiddo from the north. The major visible structures are: (1) gate area; (2) water installation pit; (3) south stable complex (Ahab) and palace (Solomon); (4) silo; (5) Shumacher’s shaft; (6) high place; (7) three temples (Early Bronze); (8) north stable complex; (9) fortifications
Figure 4: Model of Tell Megiddo from the north. The straight angle gate and the reconstructed wall are of the Middle Bronze period
BSP 4:4 (Autumn 1975) p. 101
materially. This is reflected both in the finds of the main archaeological sites in Erez Israel (Shechem, Megiddo (figs. 3, 4), Gezer, Lachish, etc.) and in Egyptian epigraphic sources which list dozens of important cities in the region (Jerusalem, Acre, etc.). All these were large urban settlements protected by fortifications of a type which had been previously unknown. It seems likely that the development and fortification of these cities was the work of both Semitic and non-Semitic ethnic groups.
In the course of the 2nd millennium B.C.E. a type of city known to scholars as the “city-state,” or “city-kingdom,” gradually emerged throughout Syria and Erez Israel, and remained in existence, though with certain modifications and on a reduced scale, into the 1st millennium B.C.E. (They are not to be confused with the classical city-state, the Greek polis, which was quite different in origin, development, and character.) The written records discovered at Alalakh, Ugarit, and Tell el-Amarna, which reflect conditions during most of the second half of the 2nd millennium B.C.E., reveal several typical features which characterized the city-kingdoms throughout that period: the territorial, political, and organizational dependence of the outlying settlements on the mother city; the relatively restricted territory of the city-state; its monarchic-dynastic or oligarchic rule; the existence of a privileged and economically powerful social elite which first emerged as a result of military considerations, but which later assumed a mercantile character; a rigid social and professional hierarchy; and the delineation of specific rights and obligations for the various social classes.
It was “cities” of this type that the semi-nomadic Patriarchs encountered in their wanderings in Canaan. Later, it was these same cities that were attacked by the Israelite tribes struggling to occupy Canaan.
The Patriarchal Period
It is generally agreed that the Patriarchal period dates to the 18th-16th centuries B.C.E. Thus it coincides for much of its duration with the period of Hyksos invasion and domination of Egypt. In modern scholarly usage, the term “Hyksos” (used first by Manetho in his 3rd century B.C.E. Egyptian history) refers to a people or group of peoples who were actively involved in a complex series of migrations and conquests, and contributed to extensive processes of acculturation throughout the region encompassing Egypt, Canaan, and Syria.
The arrival of Abraham and his family in the vicinity of Shechem marks the end of their wandering from Ur of the Chaldees, by way of Haran, to
BSP 4:4 (Autumn 1975) p. 102
Ereẓ Israel (Gen. 11:31–12:6). There they found several rather limited areas suitable for their semi-nomadic, pastoral economy. These were the Jordan rift valley and the Arabah, the hilly region of western Canaan and the northwestern Negev area around Gerar. Here they could pasture their flocks without encroaching on anyone’s rights and yet remain within easy access of permanently settled urban centers where they could barter for the domestic necessities that they required.
That the Patriarchs always chose to camp in the neighborhood of a town is known from the biblical account. Thus, Abraham’s first encampment in Canaan was “the place of Shechem. .. the terebinth of Moreh” (Gen. 12:6). Then he traveled south “unto the place where his tent had been at the beginning, between Beth-El and Ai” (Gen. 13:3), and later went to Hebron (Gen. 13:18). Other biblical passages mention Gerar (Gen. 20:1) and Beer-Sheba (Gen. 22:19). Isaac lived mainly in the Negev (Gen. 24:62); the Bible relates that during a drought he went to Gerar, and from there to Beer-Sheba; he died in Hebron. It was from Beer-Sheba that Jacob set forth to northern Mesopotamia, in flight from his brother Esau. In the Jacob narrative, the Bible again mentions all the places where his grandfather Abraham had camped: Shechem, Beth-El, Hebron, and Beer-Sheba.
The Bible does not describe these cities at any length; the references to them are for the most part incidental and fragmentary. Embedded here and there in the biblical narrative, however, is a more detailed description of one or another city. For example, the account of the purchase of the Cave of Machpelah (Gen. ch. 23) contains details about the ethnic composition of the Hebronites and about their political organization. Similar details about Shechem are found in the story of Dinah, daughter of Jacob (Gen. ch. 34).
Archaeological excavations in Ereẓ Israel have yielded a wealth of evidence dealing with many aspects of life during this period. From the first half of the 18th century onward there was extensive development in the construction of towns and fortresses. Settlements have been discovered all over the country, with the greatest concentration found along the coast and coastal plain. They were fortified with massive defense walls and ramparts (fig. 4).
The progress made in the construction techniques of the defensive wall was matched in other architectural elements, such as the development of the city-gate and the increasing sophistication in the building of houses for rulers and nobles. Corollary developments appeared in the preparation and equipment of tombs, in the manufacture of pottery, and in the artistic level of workmanship.
BSP 4:4 (Autumn 1975) p. 103
The Monarchy
Various types of urban settlement appear in the Bible in contexts relating to the period of the monarchy. These clearly reflect the manifold economic, administrative, and military activities of the Israelite kings.
The most obvious way to differentiate between the types of cities is the external distinction between a walled and an unwalled settlement. In the Bible, “camps” are contrasted with “strongholds” (Num. 13:19), and “fortified cities” with “unwalled villages” (I Sam. 6:18). Other biblical expressions include “a town that has gates and bars” (I Sam. 23:7) and “open towns” (Esth. 9:18). However, the presence or absence of a wall is only of secondary importance to a city. There are more functional ways in which to differentiate between types of urban settlement.
In its origin, the city was both a military stronghold and an administrative center serving many functions, and the Bible uses functional terminology to describe various cities. The “store city” was the center in which royal supplies and equipment were kept (I Kings 9:19; II Chron. 8:6; 11:11–12; 17:12). Excavations in Ereẓ Israel have not yielded any identifiable storage cities, although many small storage pits for grain have been found.
Still other cities which had specific functions were the 48 levitical cities (Num. 35:1–8; Josh. ch. 21; I Chron. 6:36ff.), which were set apart for the exclusive residence of the Levites. Some scholars regard the lists of Levite cities as a utopian ideal rather than a reality, but a more likely explanation is that they were ritual and administrative centers in which the Levites were settled during their integration into the national governmental apparatus during the reign of David. In some passages, six “cities of refuge” (fig. 5) are included among the levitical cities (Num. 35:6ff.; Deut. 4:41–43; 19:1–13; Josh. ch. 20; 21:13ff.). The exact nature of these cities of asylum is not clear.
Other “cities” mentioned in the Bible include the “city of merchants,” a description of Canaan whose inhabitants engaged in mercantile relations (Ezek. 17:4), the “city of priests” (I Sam. 22:19), and a “royal city” (II Sam. 12:26). Expressions such as ‘‘city for chariots” and “city for horses” (I Kings 9:19; 10:26; II Chron. 8:6) refer to specific quarters within a city, as has been demonstrated by the excavations of Megiddo
BSP 4:4 (Autumn 1975) p. 104
Figure 5: Cities of Refuge
Neither written sources nor archaeological excavations provide a complete understanding of the structure, extent, population, and layout of the ancient city. One can only assume that cities varied considerably, depending on the topographical nature of the site, the city’s function, and whether it grew organically in a gradual process or was built at the command of a ruler.
Most probably, cities in Ereẓ Israel were usually planned, and their development was controlled or modified by the nature of the terrain. At Tell al-Nasba (fig. 6) and Tell Beit Mirsim for example, the walls enclosed a city built on a hill, and the houses followed the curve of the walls.
Few cities of the period of the Israelite monarchy have been sufficiently excavated to provide detailed data concerning their domestic and communal
BSP 4:4 (Autumn 1975) p. 105
Figure 6: Plan of the Israelite city Mizpeh (Tell al-Nasba)
BSP 4:4 (Autumn 1975) p. 106
life. It is apparent, however, that cities built on hills were usually crowded, in order to accommodate as many families as possible within their walls. Even today, in villages of the Near East, entrance to one house may be from the roof of that built below it on the hillside. Doubtless, such architectural methods were practical in preceding periods.
In general, the Israelite town was planned as a circle, with a central complex of houses encircled by a street and a wall with attached houses (like Tell Beit Mirsim and Tell al-Nasba). Other cities, (like Arad — fig. 7; Samaria — fig. 10; Megiddo — fig. 4) were planned carefully according to their functions.
On the basis of measurements of partial excavations and extended calculations, it may be asserted that, in general, the ancient cities occupied a restricted area. A large city might cover an area of about 20 acres and
Figure 7: Rectangular planning in the Israelite citadel at Arad. The model, prepared by the Israel Museum, shows: (1) main gate; (2) central courtyard; (3) waterworks and cistern; (4) temple complex
BSP 4:4 (Autumn 1975) p. 107
accommodate more than 3,000 inhabitants. Cities of medium size had from several hundred to a thousand inhabitants. A few cities, mainly capitals like Jerusalem and Samaria, has populations of as many as 10,000 or 20,000.
Many cities in Mesopotamia, Syria, and, apparently, Erez Israel were divided into sectors. Sometimes the inhabitants of the various quarters achieved a certain degree of administrative independence within their common urban structure. In most instances, probably, the character of a particular quarter was determined by the professional composition and class structure of its inhabitants.
Towering above the city, at its most easily defensible point, rose the inner fortified area, the acropolis or citadel, which was the center of government and the main military stronghold. The acropolis was a complex of government buildings, and included the palace of the ruler, the temple, the offices of the senior government officials, storehouses, etc. It is uncertain whether a small fortress city such as Tell al-Naṣba had a citadel: excavations have revealed no evidence either for or against any conclusion. Larger cities.
Figure 8a: Plan of the Israelite gate at Dan, showing: (1) paved path leading into the town; (2) guardroom; (3) a bench; (4) four-columned structure, probably a canopy for a statue or for the king, as recorded in II Samuel 19:9: “Then the king arose and sat in the gate”
Figure 8b: Drawing of one of the column bases which probably supported the canopy near the gate
BSP 4:4 (Autumn 1975) p. 108
however, almost invariably had a citadel. Hazor is an excellent example, with the great expanse (600 by 1,200 yards) of its city (Khirbet Waqqas) topped by the much higher Tell el-Qedah at its southwest corner.
Around the acropolis were houses, crowded together with narrow streets winding between them. A few open spaces were generally situated near the inner side of the city gates. Known as “the square at the city gate.” this open area served as a gathering place for the city dwellers, and for public assemblies (Neh. 8:1; II Chron. 32:6). The city gate itself was a meeting place for the elders and ministers of the city (fig. 8 a-b). Here lawsuits were heard and legal sentences were executed (Deut. 21:19; 22:24; Ruth 4:4ff.). Apparently the city gate was also a center for commercial transactions (Neh. 3:1, 18; 17:39), but the main business of the city seems to have been conducted in markets. These were probably squares that were open during the day and could be locked at night (Eccles. 12:4). A parallel term to “market” is ḥuẓ (“outside” or “street”), which was used specifically for international commercial transactions (I Kings 20:34), but was also found in connection with local trade (cf. “the bakers’ street ḥuẓ,” Jer. 37:21).
Solomon’s Architectural Achievements
The construction of the Temple was the most important event in the reign of Solomon, and his most magnificent achievement. But his building activities were not confined to this alone. Both the Bible and archaeological evidence point to the fact that this period must have been the golden age of Israelite architecture. The Book of Kings informs us that Solomon built many cities, some of which were set aside as garrison towns for cavalry and chariots, while others were used for storage. In Jerusalem, Solomon built a great palace for himself which is described at length (I Kings 7:1–13), and also a special palace for one of his most important political assets, the daughter of Pharaoh. It is also stated that he built the walls of Jerusalem and the “Millo.”
The nature of this last work is unclear, but it must have been of importance, for it is mentioned in connection with the revolt of Jeroboam against Solomon. Jeroboam had been put in charge of all the labor force of the House of Joseph. “And this was the reason why he lifted up his hand against the king. Solomon built the Millo, and closed up the breach of the city of David his father” (1 Kings 11:27). The word “Millo” means “fill’ and it is taken to represent the filling in of the depression which separated the City of David to the south from the northern plateau on which the Temple
BSP 4:4 (Autumn 1975) p. 109
stood. By this means, the city was extended northward. Since the Temple must have been surrounded by a strong defensive wall, by connecting the city to the Temple, Solomon in fact strengthened the one vulnerable approach to the city — its northern side. (See fig. 9.)
From the relatively sparse remains of Solomon’s great building operations throughout the country, we are made aware of his distinctive use of masonry. Large blocks of hewn stone were fitted exactly one on top of the other. The stones are often dressed, with a border along three sides of the stone facing and a rough boss left in the center. This type of stone dressing was common in other eras as well, but with slight differences. The famous Herodian masonry also has borders, but the stones are larger and the central boss is flattened and smoothed. Hellenistic masonry, on the other hand, is smaller than the Solomonic stonework and all four corners are dressed, although this feature is also occasionally found among stones of Solomon’s time.
One of the cities specifically mentioned as having been built by Solomon is Megiddo. This is one of archaeology’s most important sites in Israel and it has been extensively excavated. Apart from the fortifications and the monumental gate found here and attributed to Solomon, several large buildings have been unearthed which undoubtedly belong to the same period. Two of these buildings are so large (650 and 590 sq. yards respectively) that they are both termed palaces. Yigael Yadin has suggested that the smaller (“the Northern Palace”) was built for the commander of the district, Baana ben Ahilud. Baana was one of the 12 district governors appointed by Solomon, whose duty it was to provide food for the royal household one month of the year. His was one of the most important districts, stretching from Beth-Shean to Megiddo and including the Valley of Jezreel. A person of such rank would require a palace. The larger palace in Megiddo (“the Southern Palace”), according to Yadin, was reserved for special ceremonies and for the king himself when he came to visit the northern town.
Omri And Ahab: Samaria
A second great period of building activity took place in the northern kingdom of Israel during the reigns of Omri and Ahab. The Bible, though, makes only brief mention of their building achievements.
Omri was the founder of the dynasty of the House of Omri and chose a new capital city. “He bought the hill of Samaria from Shemer for two talents of silver; and he fortified the hill, and called the name of the city
BSP 4:4 (Autumn 1975) p. 110
Figure 9: Eastern slope of the Ophel hill (City of David), showing the site of the Jebusite city and the terracing — an example of what could be the “millo” (= filing) referred to in 1 Kings 9:15 and 24.
BSP 4:4 (Autumn 1975) p. 111
which he built, Samaria, after the name of Shemer, the owner of the hill” (I Kings 16:24).
Archaeological excavations at Samaria revealed (fig. 10) an upper city (acropolis) on the summit of the hill, and a lower city on the slope of the hill. The lower city was scarcely excavated, though some architectural remnants show that the city was extended about 800 m.
Figure 10: Plan of the enclosure at Samaria: (1) wall enclosure; (2) palace; (3) tower; (4) storage house (“ostraca house”); (5) palace (the “ivory house”); (6) pool
The upper city served as the king’s citadel. Excavations distinguished here six strata of the Israelite town, which were preceded by a small Iron Age village. The Israelite town was established by Omri (first period of building) extended by Ahab (second period), and then occupied by Jehu and others (third period) and Jeroboam II (fourth period) until it was destroyed by Sargon II in 722/1 B.C.E.
The first city was established on artificial filling which leveled the mound by forming a podium. It is most likely that Omri (882–871) started to build his palace when he was still in his first capital at Tirza, and then, six years
BSP 4:4 (Autumn 1975) p. 112
before his death, moved to Samaria. The capital in Samaria was a well-planned town with a royal enclosure, rectangular in shape, which was surrounded by a wall. Inside the wall part of the palace of Omri was uncovered. It was a central courtyard surrounded by rooms, built of nicely dressed stones.
In the second period of building — Ahab’s period (871-852 B.C.E.) — the royal enclosure was extended and surrounded by a casemate wall which was strengthened with towers. In the south the enclosure was not extended but only the wall was doubled and thickened. On the eastern side three proto-Aeolian capitals, which probably decorated the approach to the enclosure, were found. In the enclosure the following remains were uncovered: a tower; a storage house with 63 Hebrew ostraca (inscribed potsherds), most of them receipts for tax wine and oil deliveries brought to the king’s house; a pool which is believed to be the pool where Ahab’s chariot was washed after his body was brought from the hills of Gilead; the palace of Ahab in which a large amount of small ivories, probably inlayed in furniture, was found. This fits the biblical account of “the acts of Ahab. .. and the ivory house which he made” (I Kings 22:39) and the exhortation of Amos: “Woe to them that are at ease in Zion and trust in the mountain of
Figure 11: One of the small ivory panels found in the “ivory house” of King Ahab at Samaria, depicting the Egyptian god Hah
Samaria, which are named chief of the nations. .. that lie upon beds of ivory, and stretch themselves upon their couches, and eat the lambs out of the flock. . .” (Amos 6:1–4). The discovery of the ivories, together with the biblical sources, indicates the expansion of wealth in the upper classes in the time of Ahab.
Another key strategic town which seems to have been completely reorganized by Omri and Ahab was Hazor. In Solomon’s time only the western part of the upper tell (i.e. the mound containing remains of the
BSP 4:4 (Autumn 1975) p. 113
Figure 12: Inscribed fragment of an ostracon with Hebrew letters LRMLA (to Rmla?). It was found with more fragments in the so-called “Ostraca House” at Samaria
ancient city from various periods) had been fortified. Under Omri and Ahab the town was laid out anew and extended to the east, to cover the whole of the upper tell. In the center stood a large building with two rows of pillars running down the middle and dividing the space into aisles. These pillars stood some six and a half feet high. The building itself, which was surrounded by paved courts, is thought by Yigael Yadin to have been a storehouse, perhaps accommodating the king’s share of the local produce. Standing in the center of the city, it certainly must have been an imposing building.
At the western limit of the mound a great citadel was erected in the 9th century B.C.E. Its walls were relatively thick, serving as part of the city wall. Toward the conquest of Tiglath-Pileser III in 732, changes were made: the citadel was surrounded with the city wall and a defensive tower was erected outside the wall. It must have been the last point of resistance against the enemy, for it was attacked from the eastern side which faces the town. This part of the fort was completely destroyed, down to the foundations, and the building was set afire. To the east of the citadel two proto-Aeolian capitals, resembling those at Samaria and Megiddo, were found. A lintel discovered nearby obviously fitted over the capitals, forming a decorated entrance to the citadel.
Archaeology not only fully bears out the biblical description of Omri and Ahab as city-founders and builders, but also adds fuller dimensions to the picture. The remains uncovered at the three major sites of Samaria, Megiddo, and Hazor are proof of the superb building ability of these rulers and of the power of the kingdom in their days. Despite the fact that, according to the biblical account, the Arameans under Ben-Hadad managed at one time to penetrate to Samaria itself and lay siege to the city, there can be no doubt as to the greatness of Israel during this period.
BSP 4:4 (Autumn 1975) p. 114
The Persian Period
The period of Persian domination of Ereẓ Israel (587-332 B.C.E.), including the first return to Zion, is as obscure in archaeological finds as it is in historical records. Yet the material culture of the Persian period has clearly distinguishable features and it might be expected that its remains would be identifiable. However, one must keep in mind the fact that Ereẓ Israel was but a tiny part of a vast and complex empire which encompassed many nations and diverse governmental frameworks, and which maintained extensive commercial ties with foreign nations. The wide variety of governmental forms and the tolerance of the central authorities on the one hand, and the lengthy period of relative security and flourishing trade on the other, had two seemingly contradictory results. There was a renewal and burgeoning of local cultural forms in ancient centers that had existed before the empire came into being, particularly in the provinces which had a uniform ethnic population. Simultaneously, the free passage of merchandise from one region to another, particularly in the areas adjacent to the large mercantile centers, encouraged the assimilation of distinctive cultural forms into uniform, shared, cultural expressions. Thus the material remains of the period reflect both Persian and local influences.
Despite the large number of archaeological sites in Ereẓ Israel that have yielded artifacts of the Persian period, there are relatively few architectural remains from that period. The meager number of such finds, compared to those of earlier periods, is surprising in view of the fact that building was highly developed at this time, as is evident from excavations in Iran and Greece. This period saw the application of the Hippodamian principles (named after a Greek architect from Miletus, 5th century B.C.E.), in which city streets were laid out in a grid pattern, meeting at right angles.
Scholars have sought to explain the paucity of archaeological finds from the Persian period as a result of the decline in the number of urban settlements in Erez Israel after the destruction of the Temple. However, rather than reflecting historical reality, the fragmentary nature of the archaeological finds is more probably the result of various other factors, three of which are enumerated below.
1) During the Persian period, many tells were abandoned and were not resettled (Megiddo, Tell Jamma, Tell al-Hasī, Jericho, etc.). Thus, the uppermost layer of settlement was that of the Persian period, and this layer was particularly exposed to the ravages of erosion.
2) In those sites which continued to be settled (Samaria, Shechem, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Ramat Raḥel, etc.), the remains of the Persian period
BSP 4:4 (Autumn 1975) p. 115
were destroyed by intensive Hellenistic-Roman construction above them.
3) In most of the large excavated sites of this period (Hazor, Megiddo, Tell al-Farʾah, Tell Jamma, Lachish, etc.), palace-fortresses or other large public buildings covered much of the ancient tell. It is probable that the dwelling area of the city was then moved to the lower slopes, or to the surrounding plain, and thus remains outside the area of the excavations.
A thorough investigation of the excavations of the Persian period in Ereẓ Israel yields a picture of a varied urban life that differed from region to region. While the destruction of the cities, followed by a gradual resettlement of the land, was true of most of Judah, in the northern part of that region and in Benjamin all the settlements (Tell al-Naṣba, Gibeon, Beth-El, Tell al-Fūl) continued to be populated even after the destruction of the Temple. The area along the coast (and perhaps even in Galilee) appears to have been heavily settled during this period, and a rich urban life undoubtedly existed there. One may recall Herodotus’s description of Gaza: “A town, I should say, not much smaller than Sardis” (III, 5). Indeed, examination of building remains in the coastal region provides examples of well-planned settlements.
A certain level of city-planning is evident in the excavations of Tell Abu-Hawam (near Mount Carmel) which date from the Persian period. A building has been uncovered which faces on a main thoroughfare that more or less parallels the longitudinal axis of the city. In Shikmonah (south of Haifa), one section of a dwelling quarter has houses built with great symmetry along two intersecting streets. A similar picture emerges from the excavation at nearby Tell Megadim, which has revealed a built-up area bisected by a wide, straight central road. On either side of the road there are narrow lanes which intersect with it at right angles. The housing complexes between these lanes are further divided into sub-units uniform in their size and shape.
(Reprinted by permission from Biblical Archaeology, edited by Shalom M. Paul and William G. Dever, published by Keter Publishing House Jerusalem Ltd., 1974.)
BSP 4:4 (Autumn 1975) p. 116
BSP 4:4 (Autumn 1975) p. 117