• Fig. 1 - Location Map
  Fig. 1
  
  General location map
  
  (created by Itamar Ben-Ezra)
  
  Di Segni et al. (2022)
  from Di Segni et al. (2022)
• Fig. 7 - Geologic Map
  Fig. 7
  
  Geological map of the area
  
  (drawing by Maija Holappa after Sneh and Rosensaft [2004])
  
  Lorenzon et al. (2022)
  of the area from Lorenzon et al. (2022)

• Fig. 7 - Geologic Map
  Fig. 7
  
  Geological map of the area
  
  (drawing by Maija Holappa after Sneh and Rosensaft [2004])
  
  Lorenzon et al. (2022)
  of the area from Lorenzon et al. (2022)

• Annotated Satellite Image (google) of
  Annotated Satellite Image (google) of the Ashdod-Yam
  
  Used with permission from BibleWalks.com
  the Ashdod-Yam from biblewalks.com
• Fig. 3 - Modern Aerial photograph
  Fig. 3
  
  Modern aerial photograph of Ashdod-Yam. The location of the excavated basilica is marked with a white dot
  
  (created by Yaniv Darvasi)
  
  Di Segni et al. (2022)
  of Ashdod-Yam from Di Segni et al. (2022)
• Fig. 2 - Aerial photograph
  Fig. 2
  
  Aerial photograph of Ashdod-Yam taken in 1944
  
  (courtesy of the Survey of Israel)
  
  Di Segni et al. (2022)
  of Ashdod-Yam from 1944 from Di Segni et al. (2022)
• Fig. 2 Annotated Aerial
  Fig. 2
  
  Aerial photograph of Ashdod-Yam taken in 1944, including key landmarks.
  
  (Courtesy of the Survey of Israel.)
  
  Fantalkin et al. (2024)
  photograph of Ashdod-Yam from 1944 from Fantalkin et al. (2024)
• Fig. 9 LIDAR image of
  Fig. 9
  
  LIDAR image of Ashdod-Yam showing key landmarks. Kaplan’s excavation trenches are visible along the perimeter of the fortifications
  
  (Created by SEE Advanced Mapping Systems and Solutions Ltd.; courtesy of the authors.)
  
  Fantalkin et al. (2024)
  Ashdod-Yam showing key landmarks from Fantalkin et al. (2024)
• Ashdod-Yam in Google Earth
  Ashdod-Yam
  
  click on image to explore this site on a new tab in Google Earth
• Ashdod-Yam on govmap.gov.il
  Ashdod-Yam
  
  click on image to explore this site on a new tab in govmap.gov.il

• Fig. 2 Annotated Aerial view
  Fig. 2
  
  Aerial view of the acropolis (looking south) in 2013, showing the excavated areas
  
  (photo by P. Partouche, Skyview Photography; modified by S. Pirsky)
  
  Fantalkin et al. (2024b)
  of the acropolis from Fantalkin et al. (2024b)

• Fig. 6 - Oblique aerial photo of Byzantine
  Fig. 6
  
  Church complex (looking West), with its three suggested constructional phases:
  
  

  • Stage 1 (blue)
  • Stage 2 (red)
  • Stage 3 (green)

  
  
  Fantalkin (2023)
  Church Complex showing 3 phases from Fantalkin (2023)
• Fig. 6 - Orthophoto of excavated Byzantine
  Fig. 6
  
  The orthophoto of the excavated complex
  
  (created by Slava Pirsky and Sergey Alon)
  
  Di Segni et al. (2022)
  Church Complex from Di Segni et al. (2022)

• Fig. 2 - Aerial View of areas A, B, and D
  Fig. 2
  
  View to the south showing the excavation areas at Ashdod-Yam
  
  

  • Area A in which the Hellenistic structures were found
  • Area B includes part of the fortification wall
  • Area D encompasses the acropolis

  
  (Credit: Pascal Partouche, Skyview Photography.)
  
  Lorenzon et al. (2022)
  from Lorenzon et al. (2022)
• Fig. 11 Aerial photograph
  Fig. 11
  
  Aerial photograph of the acropolis (looking south) from 2013 showing current excavation areas.
  
  (Photo by P. Partouche, Skyview Photography; courtesy of the authors.)
  
  Fantalkin et al. (2024)
  of the acropolis showing Areas A, A1, B, C, and D from Fantalkin et al. (2024)

• Fig. 21 - Destruction
  Fig. 21
  
  The destruction debris during the excavations of the chapel in Unit 5
  
  (photo taken by Sasha Flit)
  
  Di Segni et al. (2022)
  debris in the Byzantine Chapel from Di Segni et al. (2022)
• Fig. 22 - Destruction
  Fig. 22
  
  The destruction debris during the excavations of the nave in Unit 2
  
  (photo taken by Sasha Flit)
  
  Di Segni et al. (2022)
  debris in the Byzantine nave from Di Segni et al. (2022)
• Fig. 6 - Collapsed
  Fig. 6
  
  Hellenistic remains in Area A, showing the mudbricks still in situ and the mudbricks that have collapsed from the upper portion of the wall
  
  (Credit: Pascal Partouche, Skyview Photography)
  
  Lorenzon et al. (2022)
  Hellenistic mudbricks in Area A from Lorenzon et al. (2022)
• Fig. 6 Unit 1 in Area A
  Fig. 6
  
  Unit 1 in Area A: W.117, built of mudbricks directly on sand, looking northeast
  
  (photo by P. Shrago)
  
  Fantalkin et al. (2024b)
  Wall W.117 built of mudbrick directly on sand from Fantalkin et al. (2024b)

• Fig. 21 - Destruction
  Fig. 21
  
  The destruction debris during the excavations of the chapel in Unit 5
  
  (photo taken by Sasha Flit)
  
  Di Segni et al. (2022)
  debris in the Byzantine Chapel from Di Segni et al. (2022)
• Fig. 22 - Destruction
  Fig. 22
  
  The destruction debris during the excavations of the nave in Unit 2
  
  (photo taken by Sasha Flit)
  
  Di Segni et al. (2022)
  debris in the Byzantine nave from Di Segni et al. (2022)
• Fig. 6 - Collapsed
  Fig. 6
  
  Hellenistic remains in Area A, showing the mudbricks still in situ and the mudbricks that have collapsed from the upper portion of the wall
  
  (Credit: Pascal Partouche, Skyview Photography)
  
  Lorenzon et al. (2022)
  Hellenistic mudbricks in Area A from Lorenzon et al. (2022)
• Fig. 6 Unit 1 in Area A
  Fig. 6
  
  Unit 1 in Area A: W.117, built of mudbricks directly on sand, looking northeast
  
  (photo by P. Shrago)
  
  Fantalkin et al. (2024b)
  Wall W.117 built of mudbrick directly on sand from Fantalkin et al. (2024b)

• from Fantalkin et al. (2024b:242-245)

Area A is at the northern edge of the Ashdod-Yam acropolis. It features major architectural remains dating to the Hellenistic period, comprising three separate structural units with a northwest to southeast orientation (Fig. 4). Based on the relatively modest amounts of pottery and coins found among these structures, it seems that the buildings were abandoned sometime in the late 2nd century BCE before their subsequent collapse—possibly (as detailed in the discussion) from a major earthquake.

Unit	Period	Dates (BCE)	Description
1			The remains of a mudbrick wall were exposed along with the adjoining remains of an impressive collapse (Fig. 5). The wall was established directly on sand with no foundation (Fig. 6) and was preserved to a height of five courses with the sun-dried mudbricks laid in a running bond technique. No adjoining floors were detected in this unit, except for a patchy clay surface abutting the southern part of the wall from the west. The bricks measured approximately 39×39×10 cm. In general, the matrix of the Hellenistic mudbricks presents a similar geochemical pattern to earlier Iron Age mudbricks used at the site; however, an additional stage was detected in the Hellenistic production—the inclusion of crushed seashells and crushed pottery (Lorenzon et al. 2023). Finds recovered among the eroded bricks included three coins of Antiochus IV, all from a mint of Ptolemais ('Akko), ca. 173/2–168 BCE, and a single coin from the reign of Antiochus III (see below, Coins).
2			The partially preserved remains of a building were discovered here (Fig. 7). Two major intersecting walls divided the area into four rooms. The collapsed walls were of sun-dried mudbricks, similar in dimensions to those uncovered in Unit 1, but laid on foundations of local beachrock (1 m wide; 0.5 m high), the trenches for which had been dug in the sand. Some of the foundation stones had been robbed, accessed by a robber’s trench. The collapsed mudbricks from the upper parts of the walls covered traces of poorly preserved occupation surfaces made of beaten earth. In Room A, mudbrick detritus covered such a deteriorated surface (L.141). In Room B, the poorly preserved surface (L.168) was covered by collapsed mudbrick debris, related to the collapse of the upper mudbrick courses of W.171. A coin of Ptolemy II, from Alexandria, ca. 266–261 BCE, was recovered from the eroded bricks. To the west of the collapse was a horseshoe-shaped clay tabun (I.108). The surviving part of Room C was covered by a mudbrick collapse (L.116) related to the robbed foundation of W.107 to its northwest. This collapse was partially excavated, revealing a poorly preserved occupation surface without finds.
3			The remains of a poorly preserved structure with lower foundations of beachrock were discovered here (Fig. 8). Two coins of Antiochus IV, both from a mint of Ptolemais ('Akko), ca. 173/2–168 BCE, were found in the eroded brick of this structure. A deep probe undertaken in the southeastern corner (Square PA29) revealed that beneath the Hellenistic structure, there was a very thick layer of sterile sand (L.120; Fig. 9). This suggests that the Hellenistic occupation was established long after the destruction and abandonment of the Iron Age settlement. About 15 m west of Unit 3 (Square KA30), a refuse pit filled with stones, Hellenistic pottery sherds and four phallic-shaped lead weights was uncovered (see below, Metals and Fig. 25:9).

• from Fantalkin et al. (2024b:246-250)

Area A1, near the northwestern edge of the acropolis, features the foundations of a wall (W.248) of a substantial building oriented north–south (ca. 26×1.6 m) (Fig. 10). It appears to be the outer western wall of a monumental structure, almost certainly a fortress, that would have dominated the highest spot on the acropolis. The upper courses of the exposed wall had been robbed in antiquity; however, the lower courses of large ashlar stones were partially preserved in several places. The remains included three monumental pillars made of colossal ashlar blocks, incorporated into the wall.

The northern pillar (I.207) was located at the northern end of Wall 248 (Fig. 11). It had several surviving courses, comprising semi-dressed beach-rock followed by large, dressed kurkar (a calcareous sandstone) and, topping these lower courses, a finely dressed limestone monolith measuring 1.5×1.2×1.4 m—i.e., 2.52 m³. On the assumption that the density of limestone is 2,711 kg/m³ at standard atmospheric pressure, the estimated weight of the monolith would be around 6,832 kg. Traces of plaster found on the northern pillar suggest that it had originally been plastered. A plaster floor with embedded crushed shells (L.246), found abutting the northern pillar, is probably an occupation surface connected to the main building from the outside (Fig. 12). An ashy destruction layer mixed with mudbrick debris was exposed on top of this surface. An additional plaster floor with embedded crushed shells and kurkar (F.247) was detected northwest of the northern pillar, abutting the foundations of a small partition wall (W.261). Two courses of Wall 261 were preserved, abutting the northern pillar from the west (Fig. 13).

The remains of a middle pillar (I.257) were found about 14.4 m south of the northern pillar along the line of Wall 248 (Fig. 14). The middle pillar comprised a monolith of dressed limestone, measuring 1×1.2×1 m—i.e., 1.2 m³, with an estimated weight of around 3,253 kg. Traces of plaster were also observed on this pillar. The preserved height of its monolith top is considerably lower than that of the northern and southern pillars (see below); this means that an additional monolith would have been required to bring the middle pillar up to the same level. Abutting the base of the middle pillar from the north were two remaining foundation courses of W.248, comprising a row of well-dressed kurkar stones, arranged as headers. From the south side of the middle pillar, the dismantled debris of W.248 could also be observed, providing a physical connection between this pillar and the next.

The southern pillar (I.258), 6.7 m south of the middle pillar along the line of W.248, comprised three lower courses of dressed kurkar and an upper course of a large limestone monolith, 1.2×1.8×1.3 (Fig. 14)—i.e., 2.808 m³, with an estimated weight of around 7,612 kg. An upper part of what appears to be an additional monolith was discovered east of and adjacent to the southern pillar’s monolith. This structure may have been part of a wall approaching the southern pillar from the east. North of the southern pillar, the two remaining courses of the foundations of W.248 were of well-dressed kurkar stones, partially arranged as headers and stretchers. Some featured marginal signs of dressing (Fig. 15) and clearly belonged to spolia from an earlier Hellenistic building, located elsewhere. Considering the distance and physical connection between the surviving middle pillar and the northern pillar, one may assume that an additional pillar would have been required between them. The missing pillar (estimated to have been near Square FA30; see Fig. 10) was likely robbed in antiquity.

As a result of stone robbery, as well as seasonal rainfalls and landslides, earlier Hellenistic surfaces that originally abutted Wall 248 of the monumental building eroded and collapsed into the stone-robbers’ trench, where they were ultimately buried by sand (Fig. 16). Accumulations of eroded material from the floors were visible at the bottom of the trench and along its section. One of these, from a floor of the monumental building, yielded an especially rich assemblage in terms of restorable Hellenistic pottery and accompanying metal finds (L.252). Judging from the thick ash deposits on the floors, the charred organic materials and the variety of small finds and restorable vessels, the entire structure was destroyed by fire in the late 2nd century BCE.

• from Fantalkin et al. (2024b:251-252)

Area D East features a single architectural unit—Building 5174—and a round installation (L.5066) (Fig. 17). Building 5174 is a rectangular structure (8×8.5 m), divided into three spaces, with mudbrick walls built on partially hewn beachrock stones. The northern wall consisted of five courses (ca. 7.7×0.9 m), which were cut into the Stratum III (Iron IIC) remains. The eastern and southern parts of the structure were poorly preserved and lacked evidence of a floor. Better preservation was attested in the southwestern corner (Square EA20), where a compacted, crushed, kurkar floor was uncovered. The accumulation above this floor contained Hellenistic pottery and several pieces of plaster. Below it, an additional patch of collapsed wall plaster appears to have sealed the occupational accumulation above an earlier floor containing several restorable vessels.

No evidence of a conflagration or deliberate destruction was found in Building 5174. This, combined with the limited ceramic assemblage, suggests that the building was probably deserted. However, the northern bounding wall of the structure is noticeably tilted southward and the entire building is tilted westward (Fig. 18). Coupled with the bad state of preservation, this phenomenon may be the result of a natural event — perhaps the earthquake postulated from the remains in Area A. The location and plan of the structure suggest that it served as a watchtower. Such an identification is supported by the impressive width and depth of its foundations, which must have supported a large superstructure (Fig. 19).

The circular, mudbrick-lined installation L.5066 is 37 cm deep and ca. 2 m in diameter, with a channel cut in its southern half. Like Building 5174, the installation penetrated earlier, Stratum III, remains. Although its function is unclear, it resembles a small silo or possibly a platform/foundation for a bread oven. Similar bread ovens, dating to the Hellenistic period, have been uncovered at Heliopolis and Tell Timai in Egypt (Hudson 2016: 210, Fig. 10). If this was indeed its intended function, the construction of this installation must have been left unfinished in antiquity, as there is no evidence of fire (e.g., ash or charcoal) in or around it.

• Fig. 2 - Aerial View of area A, B, and D
  Fig. 2
  
  View to the south showing the excavation areas at Ashdod-Yam
  
  

  • Area A in which the Hellenistic structures were found
  • Area B includes part of the fortification wall
  • Area D encompasses the acropolis

  
  (Credit: Pascal Partouche, Skyview Photography.)
  
  Lorenzon et al. (2022)
  from Lorenzon et al. (2022)
• Plan of Citadel and excavation
  Ashdod-Yam: plan of the excavation (Citadel)
  
  Stern et. al. (2008)
  areas of Ashdod-Yam from Stern et. al. (2008)
• Fig. 3 - Excavation Areas
  Fig. 3
  
  Map of excavation areas in Ashdod Yam
  
  (Credit: Slava Pirskiy)
  
  Lorenzon et al. (2022)
  A, A1, B, C, and D from Lorenzon et al. (2022)
• Fig. 5 - Plan of Area D
  Fig. 5
  
  Plan of Area D with Iron Age and Hellenistic remains
  
  (Credit: Slava Pirskiy and Eli Itkin)
  
  Lorenzon et al. (2022)
  from Lorenzon et al. (2022)
• Fig. 6 - Collapsed Hellenistic mudbricks
  Fig. 6
  
  Hellenistic remains in Area A, showing the mudbricks still in situ and the mudbricks that have collapsed from the upper portion of the wall
  
  (Credit: Pascal Partouche, Skyview Photography)
  
  Lorenzon et al. (2022)
  in Area A from Lorenzon et al. (2022)

• Plan of Citadel and excavation
  Ashdod-Yam: plan of the excavation (Citadel)
  
  Stern et. al. (2008)
  areas of Ashdod-Yam from Stern et. al. (2008)
• Fig. 3 - Excavation Areas
  Fig. 3
  
  Map of excavation areas in Ashdod Yam
  
  (Credit: Slava Pirskiy)
  
  Lorenzon et al. (2022)
  A, A1, B, C, and D from Lorenzon et al. (2022)
• Fig. 5 - Plan of Area D
  Fig. 5
  
  Plan of Area D with Iron Age and Hellenistic remains
  
  (Credit: Slava Pirskiy and Eli Itkin)
  
  Lorenzon et al. (2022)
  from Lorenzon et al. (2022)
• Fig. 6 - Collapsed Hellenistic mudbricks
  Fig. 6
  
  Hellenistic remains in Area A, showing the mudbricks still in situ and the mudbricks that have collapsed from the upper portion of the wall
  
  (Credit: Pascal Partouche, Skyview Photography)
  
  Lorenzon et al. (2022)
  in Area A from Lorenzon et al. (2022)

• from Fantalkin et al. (2024b:269-273)

Before dealing with our interpretation of the Hellenistic remains, it should be stated that the nature of the settlement at Ashdod-Yam during the preceding Persian period remains unclear, since only a few pottery sherds and some tentatively attributed metal finds from this period have been discovered on the acropolis so far.¹⁴ It is possible that the remains of any Persian-period settlement at Ashdod-Yam lie beyond the fortified perimeter of the acropolis, in areas not yet explored by our team. The Persian-period silver coins mentioned in this report (see above, n. 8) came from secondary contexts, either as unstratified finds or from contexts associated with the Hellenistic-period buildings. Whether these coins are connected to undiscovered contemporary remains or represent continued circulation in the Hellenistic period remains to be seen. Both scenarios are plausible.

The Hellenistic remains in Area A1 comprise the ruins of a monumental stone-built fortress likely constructed in the first half of the 2nd century BCE and destroyed towards the end of that century in a significant conflagration.¹⁵ The use of spolia (in the form of marginally dressed stones) suggests that there may have been earlier Hellenistic buildings nearby that were used for building material. Numerous artefacts—including pottery, coins, weaponry and weights—found in the building’s remains support the possibility that it had a military function and was perhaps the location of a garrison. Furthermore, two almost complete artillery stone balls were discovered in the vicinity (Fig. 27). Similar artillery balls, made of limestone, are known from Hellenistic contexts at Tel Dor (Shatzman 1995) and Antiochus VII Sidetes’ siege of Jerusalem (Sivan and Solar 2000; Ariel 2019: 31).

In contrast to the stone-built fortress, the contemporary adjacent structures in Areas A and D were constructed of mudbricks that either stood on stone foundations made of local beachrock or were laid directly on the sand. Moreover, these structures appear to have been abandoned and not destroyed by fire. Based on the proximity of Units 2 and 3 in Area A to the monumental structure in Area A1, it is plausible that they represent auxiliary buildings, which served various logistic functions related to the maintenance of the fortress. These buildings, located at the edge of the acropolis, may have been part of a protective fortification line that surrounded the entire military establishment, which included a mudbrick defensive wall discovered in Unit 1 in Area A. Part of this wall was established directly above the fortification line of the enormous Iron IIB rampart and incorporated several watchtowers detected along its southern line, the most impressive being the one discovered in Area D East. Fig. 28 offers a reconstruction of the settlement’s layout, which took advantage of the remains of the fortified Iron Age enclosure.

Geophysical surveys and archaeological investigations at Ashdod-Yam indicate that the acropolis and fortified enclosure in the southern part of the site were initially constructed and maintained during the Iron IIB–C (8th–7th centuries BCE) (Fantalkin et al. 2024). We suspect that these works protected an artificial anchorage established at the site (Fantalkin 2014; Lorenzon et al. 2023; Fantalkin et al. 2024), utilising and reconfiguring an existing estuary of the branch of Naḥal Lachish, which is not visible today. Over time, this once thriving anchorage fell into disuse, gradually becoming buried under accumulating sand.

The archaeological evidence shows that the acropolis at Ashdod-Yam was reoccupied during the Hellenistic period, after a long period of abandonment. Although the former Iron Age anchorage would no longer have been in operation, the establishment of a Hellenistic fortress with accompanying buildings and fortifications over the Iron Age settlement suggests the existence of some kind of mooring solution nearby. For example, merchant and military ships could have anchored offshore and used small row boats or barges to transfer goods and passengers from the moored vessel to the beach and back. In addition, certain ships would no doubt have been capable of landing directly on the shallow sandy beach at the base of Ashdod-Yam’s enclosure. The location of the fortress and the watchtower at the highest point of the acropolis may have also served as prominent landmarks for incoming ships.

In terms of the contemporary political environment, the establishment of the fortress and accompanying buildings at Ashdod-Yam during the first half of the 2nd century BCE should be viewed within the framework of Seleucid military activity. The shift to Seleucid rule in the area of Ashdod was most probably smooth and, in a sense, purely administrative, as was the case at other sites on the southern Coastal Plain of Palestine, such as Jaffa (Fantalkin and Tal 2008) and Ashkelon (Birney 2022: 3–11; see also Tal 2006: 177–216, 329). The remains of the relatively short-lived Hellenistic occupation at Ashdod‐Yam, detected so far only on the acropolis, most probably represent a mercenary garrison stationed there in the service of the empire. It is difficult to determine under precisely which Seleucid king the establishment of this military stronghold was commissioned. It was probably reinforced during the days of Antiochus VII Sidetes by his general Cendebaeus, who was appointed commander of the coast of Palestine and is said to have attacked Judaea from Iamnia (Yavneh-Yam), ca. 20 km to the north of Ashdod-Yam (1 Macc 15:38–40; cf. Josephus, AJ 13.225). Even though, according to 2 Macc 12:9, Judas Maccabaeus ‘attacked the Jamnites (Iamnitai) by night and set fire to the harbor and the fleet’, archaeological evidence demonstrates that the town continued to prosper following this event, being finally destroyed only as part of the conquests attributed to John Hyrcanus I towards the end of his reign or the beginning of that of Alexander Jannaeus (sometime around 110–100 BCE) (Fischer et al. 2023).

In contrast, a contemporaneous Hellenistic settlement at Gan Soreq, ca. 7.5 km northeast of Yavneh-Yam, which reached its greatest extent in the early 2nd century BCE, was abandoned already in the mid-2nd century BCE ('Ad and Dagot 2006), perhaps following the hostilities related to Judas Maccabaeus’ campaigns. A comparative Hellenistic settlement in the Barnea neighbourhood of Ashkelon, located ca. 4 km to the northeast of ancient Ashkelon (Haimi 2008), was established in the early 2nd century BCE and abandoned around the same time as the settlement in Gan Soreq or perhaps slightly later (Peretz 2017). The Hellenistic sequence at Ashkelon, however, suggests continuity through the 1st century BCE (Birney 2022: 10–11). Both the establishments at Gan Soreq and Barnea were interpreted by their excavators as possible katoikia, settled by Greek and/or Anatolian veterans and their families ('Ad 2021: 96–100).

The destruction by fire of the monumental stone building marked the end of the Hellenistic military settlement of Ashdod-Yam in the late 2nd century BCE (Area A1). Coinciding with the destruction of Tel Ashdod Phase 3b and the contemporaneous destruction at Yavneh-Yam, it is likely that these events are related and may be attributed to the campaigns of John Hyrcanus I towards the end of his reign.¹⁶ From the scarcity of finds, it is plausible that the auxiliary buildings (Area A) and the watchtower (Area D East) had already been cleared out by the defenders and abandoned before the fortress was destroyed. Perhaps considered too insignificant to burn down with the main edifice, the abandoned structures collapsed some time afterwards, possibly during an earthquake in the 1st century BCE or later (cf. Zohar, Salamon and Rubin 2016; Grigoratos et al. 2020). Following these events, the acropolis saw no further settlement, and over time, the once formidable walls of the fortress fell victim to extensive dismantling by stone robbers. Significantly, the numismatic evidence from the site aligns with these events. A notable gap in the coin record from the 1st century BCE and the absence of Roman coins from the 1st and 2nd centuries CE corroborates the hypothesis of a late 2nd-century BCE destruction and subsequent permanent abandonment of the Hellenistic military establishment on the acropolis. Consequently, the metal and ceramic artefacts from Stratum II, including those of Hellenistic type recovered from surface finds, can be confidently dated to the 2nd century BCE. Given Phase 3a at Tel Ashdod, which relates to the Hasmonaean occupation of the 1st century BCE, it is possible that this currently missing phase in Ashdod-Yam’s Hellenistic sequence is located elsewhere within the vast extent of the coastal site, beyond the perimeter of the fortified compound. Regardless, the precision in dating the Stratum II occupation on the acropolis of Ashdod-Yam offers a rare window into the life of a 2nd-century BCE coastal military settlement.

• from Fantalkin et al. (2024b:273-274)

To encapsulate, the archaeology of Ashdod-Yam yielded the ruins of a monumental edifice most likely built in the first half of the 2nd century BCE and violently destroyed towards the end of that century. This massive stone construction found in Area A1, along with associated pottery, coins and weaponry, supports the interpretation that it had a defensive military function. Adjacent mudbrick structures, believed to be auxiliary to the main fortress, were, in contrast, not destroyed by fire but showed signs of having been abandoned followed by a collapse, perhaps as the result of an earthquake. Ashdod-Yam’s strategic significance during the Hellenistic period appears relatively emphatic: a garrison was likely stationed there as part of the Seleucid empire’s control of the territory, later contested by Hasmonaean forces. The destruction of the monumental stone fortress and the abandonment of the auxiliary buildings likely took place during the Hasmonaean consolidation of power under John Hyrcanus I. The end of Hellenistic Ashdod-Yam frames a dynamic period of conflict and transition in the region. Further research is needed to bring to light the full archaeological narrative of Ashdod-Yam, particularly its role in the era of Hasmonaean occupation.