Ashdod-Yam

Transliterated Name	Source	Name
Ashdod-Yam	Hebrew
Azotus Paralios	Greek
asdudi-immu	Assyrian
aṯdādu	Late Bronze age Canaaanite
Mahuz Azdud	Older Arabic
Minat al-Qal'a	Contempory Arabic
Castellum Beroart	French (Crusades)

Identification

from Jacob Kaplan in Stern et. al. (1993 v. 1)

The site of Ashdod-Yam is on the Mediterranean coast about 5 km (3 mi.) southwest of Tel Ashdod, one of the five cities of the Philistine Pentapolis, and about 2 km (1.2 mi.) south of modern Ashdod (map reference 1140.1314). Archaeological surveys carried out by this writer since 1940 revealed a large, semicircular, rampart-like structure in the southern part of the site.

Ashdod-Yam is mentioned only in documents from the time of Sargon II (742-705 BCE), in connection with his campaign against the kingdom of Ashdod in 713 BCE to depose the usurper who had seized rule in Ashdod. According to the documents, this usurper, called Iamani by Sargon, fortified three cities in the kingdom of Ashdod in great haste: Ashdod itself, Gath, and Ashdod-Yam. The last was evidently intended to serve as a rear base for the main city in times of danger. Because neither earlier nor later fortifications were discovered at the site, the uncovered wall and glacis (see below) are most certainly those erected by Iamani.

History

from Di Segni et al. (2022:399-400)

The fate of Ashdod-Yam was always connected to the important ancient city of Ashdod (Tel Ashdod), located about 5 km inland, which was one of the five major Philistine cities during the Iron Age (Fig. 1). In Late Antiquity, however, as is evident from the 6th-century Madaba mosaic map and historical sources, the coastal city of Azotos Paralios became more important than Inland Azotos (Azotos Mesogaios, known also as Hippenos; Tsafrir, Di Segni and Green 1994: 72). It seems that this shift in the region’s centre of gravity from Ashdod to Ashdod Yam can be detected much earlier, perhaps already during the Iron Age (Fantalkin 2014). The historical sources and archaeological evidence discovered so far suggest that during all periods of its existence Ashdod-Yam’s raison d’être was affiliated with the sea, being an integral part of an extensive Mediterranean coastal network.

During the Late Antiquity, which represents the peak of ancient settlement activity at Ashdod-Yam (Bäbler and Fantalkin 2023), the site was quite impressive, covering an area of at least 2 km from north to south, and ca. 1.5 km from east to west, as is evident from the aerial photograph taken in 1944 (Fig. 2).

Archaeological Context

from Lorenzon et al. (2022:2-3)

Ashdod-Yam (Ashdod by the Sea) is located on the coast of Israel, ca. 5 km northwest of Tel Ashdod, which served as the main settlement in the region from the Bronze Age until the late Iron Age (Dothan, 1971; Dothan & Freedman, 1967; Dothan & Porath, 1982, 1993) (Figure 1). The fate of Ashdod-Yam was always connected to the capital city of Ashdod, although the region's center of gravity shifted from Ashdod to Ashdod-Yam in the classical periods and, perhaps, already during Iron Age IIB–C (Fantalkin, 2014).

Ashdod-Yam is a large site, spanning at least 2 km from north to south and ca. 1.5 km from east to west. It consists of several clearly definable areas, representing different periods of its history. A unique feature of the site is a large human-made enclosure at its southern end, which contains a massive fortification system and an associated acropolis, dating to Iron IIB–C (Figure 2). Additionally, a small site dating to the Late Bronze Age was uncovered ca. 1 km to the south of the enclosure (Nahshoni, 2013).

The Iron Age fortifications were partially excavated by Kaplan (1969). Ten cross-sections were dug along the edges of the rampart and glacis and exposed segments of the city wall. The fortification system consists of a 3.5–4.5 cm thick mudbrick wall, which served as a core for a large earthen rampart and an outer glacis laid on both sides (Kaplan, 1969, pp. 141–143). According to Kaplan, an additional segment of the wall, which would have fully enclosed the compound, stood at the western edge of the mound and was destroyed by erosion (Kaplan, 1953, p. 32, 1969, p. 138). Since Iron Age pottery was found during a survey of the site, beyond the ramparts, it is suspected that the fortified enclosure was part of a larger settlement, which may be buried under the accumulation of deposits and anthropic levels from the classical periods. The pottery retrieved from the rampart, outer glacis, and nearby locations was dated to Iron IIB (Kaplan, 1969, pp. 144–147).

Renewed excavations at the Iron Age compound of Ashdod-Yam were initiated in 2013 under the directorship of A. Fantalkin on behalf of the Institute of Archeology at Tel Aviv University. Four excavation seasons uncovered three main phases of occupation, which date to Iron IIB (Area B), Iron IIC (Areas C and D), and the Hellenistic period (Areas A, A1, and D) (Ashkenazi & Fantalkin, 2019; Fantalkin, 2014, 2018; Fantalkin et al., 2016) (Figure 2). According to Fantalkin's investigation, the fortification system was designed from the beginning in a crescent-shaped defensive form that extended over an area of more than 15 acres and featured a wide opening to the sea (contra Kaplan, 1969). Thus, the entire enclosure was constructed during the Iron IIB to protect a human-made harbor at Ashdod-Yam.

The construction of the site's Iron Age enclosure and its relation to the settlement at Tel Ashdod have been the subject of much debate over the past two decades (see summaries in Fantalkin [2001, 2014, 2018] and Itkin [2022]). While Kaplan (1969) argued that the enclosure was built on a local initiative as a response to a Neo-Assyrian threat, others interpret it as a Neo- Assyrian imperial enterprise (Finkelstein & Singer-Avitz, 2001; Na'aman, 2001). The question of the site's builders is essential to our understanding of the relations between the governing bodies and the craftsmen as well as the mechanisms that influenced craftsmanship at Ashdod-Yam. Thus, one of the major aims of the renewed excavations at the site is to understand the agency behind the establishment of Ashdod-Yam, be it on behalf of the Neo-Assyrian ruling regime or on behalf of the kingdom of Ashdod, which was later incorporated into the Assyrian realm.

In what follows, the architectural remains associated with the Iron Age sequence at Ashdod-Yam are discussed. These primarily include the fortification wall (Wall 2002, Area B) and a large public structure (Building 5175, Area D) uncovered on the acropolis (Figure 3). Additionally, the Hellenistic remains at the site are also mentioned (Areas A, A1, and D) for comparative purposes.

Excavations

from Di Segni et al. (2022:400-401)

Nowadays, the remaining archaeological site is surrounded by modern buildings and enjoys the status of a protected zone (Fig. 3). In the southern part of the site there is a mound (acropolis) incorporated into an artificial enclosure, constructed and occupied during the Iron Age IIB-IIC (8th-7th centuries BCE) and the Hellenistic Period (Kaplan 1969; Fantalkin 2014; Id. 2018; Fantalkin, Johananoff and Krispin 2016; Ashkenazi and Fantalkin 2019). The remains of the Roman-Byzantine city, covered by dunes, are spread to the north of the enclosure. Except for a few cemeteries (Pipano 1990; Ganor 2017), until recently archaeological excavations have revealed little about the city during these periods. An impressive citadel (40 × 60 m), which has been identified as the ribat mentioned by al-Muqaddasi (10th century CE), dating from the Early Islamic period, is located in the northern part of the site. During the excavation of the fortress by the Israel Antiquities Authority, traces of four large rectangular complexes, interpreted as remains of the late antique insulae, were discovered directly beneath the Islamic structure (Nachlieli 2008; Raphael 2014). Following strong winter storms that occurred during the last decades, quite a number of harbour storage facilities of the Byzantine period were exposed to the north and to the south of the Islamic fortress.

Starting in 2013, a new excavation project on behalf of the Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University was launched at the site of Ashdod-Yam, under the direction of Alexander Fantalkin.

Maps, Aerial Views, Plans, and Photos

Maps

Normal Size

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)

Magnified

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)

Aerial Views

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. 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 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)
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. 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)

Area Plans

Normal Size

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. 5 - Plan of excavated

Fig. 5

Plan of the excavated complex and location of the inscriptions

(created by Slava Pirsky and Liora Bouzaglou)

Di Segni et al. (2022)

Byzantine Church Complex from Di Segni et al. (2022)
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)

Magnified

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. 5 - Plan of excavated

Fig. 5

Plan of the excavated complex and location of the inscriptions

(created by Slava Pirsky and Liora Bouzaglou)

Di Segni et al. (2022)

Byzantine Church Complex from Di Segni et al. (2022)
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)

Photos

Normal Size

Fig. 21 - Destruction debris in the Byzantine

Fig. 21

The destruction debris during the excavations of the chapel in Unit 5

(photo taken by Sasha Flit)

Di Segni et al. (2022)

Chapel from Di Segni et al. (2022)
Fig. 22 - Destruction debris in the Byzantine

Fig. 22

The destruction debris during the excavations of the nave in Unit 2

(photo taken by Sasha Flit)

Di Segni et al. (2022)

nave from Di Segni 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)

Magnified

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)

Phasing

Byzantine Church Complex

from Fantalkin (2023)


Phase	Dates (CE)	Description
1	early 5th century	(the main church): Based on the date of the earliest inscription (441/442 CE), located at the easternmost side of the northern aisle, the church was constructed in the early fifth century CE. This prominent inscription, dedicated to one of the deaconesses, is also the first and the longest in a whole row of dedicatory inscriptions located in the northern aisle.
2	middle of 5th century	Based on the dates of the inscriptions, the elaborate chapel has been attached to the eastern part of the northern aisle from the north around the middle of the fifth century CE. It is covered by a mosaic that is framed with ivy leaves in red and black, and a complex geometrical pattern. The central picture consists of an "inhabited scroll" with wine leaves emanating from a cantharos at the bottom, flanked by antithetical peacocks and nine medallions. These medallions depict, at the center, a bird in a cage, flanked by a lion and a deer. Above the cage, one finds a fruit bowl, flanked by birds. At the top, one can see a predatory cat attacking what is probably a calf (fig. 7).⁵² In the outer margin of the mosaic floor a clay jug was inserted into the floor, filled with an oily mixture of sand. The jug was carefully closed with a tile. At a certain stage, a small apse was added to the eastern side of the chapel. The floor of the apse is decorated with mosaics featuring a rose of Jericho in red and black, a medallion with a cross, and the monogram Alpha and Omega. Footnotes 52 The mosaics have been studied and are being prepared for publication by Lihi Habas (Hebrew University of Jerusalem).
3	6th century	Based on the dates of the inscriptions, one may assume that during the course of the sixth century CE a series of rooms were added to the west of the chapel from Stage 2, abutting the northern aisle of the church as well. The floors of these rooms, the functions of which remain to be clarified, were covered with the spiralled carpet mosaics.

Hellenistic (?) Earthquake - after the late 2nd century BCE

Figures

Normal Size

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)

Magnified

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)

Discussion

Lorenzon et al. (2022:6) reports that Hellenistic structures in Area A and D were abandoned shortly before destruction of the monumental citadel located in Area A1 on the acropolis. After abandonment, the Hellenistic structures in Area A and D were finally destroyed by an earthquake. Lorenzon et al. (2022:6) reports that it seems that the monumental citadel in Area A1 was destroyed in the late second century B.C.E. as a result of the Hasmonean expansion (Ashkenazi and Fantalkin, 2019; Fantalkin, 2014) (Figure 6). Lorenzon et al. (2022) did not specify a date for the ensuing earthquake.

Post 600 CE Earthquake

Figures

Fig. 5 - Plan of excavated Byzantine

Fig. 5

Plan of the excavated complex and location of the inscriptions

(created by Slava Pirsky and Liora Bouzaglou)

Di Segni et al. (2022)

Church Complex from Di Segni et al. (2022)
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. 21 - Destruction debris in the Byzantine

Fig. 21

The destruction debris during the excavations of the chapel in Unit 5

(photo taken by Sasha Flit)

Di Segni et al. (2022)

Chapel from Di Segni et al. (2022)
Fig. 22 - Destruction debris in the Byzantine

Fig. 22

The destruction debris during the excavations of the nave in Unit 2

(photo taken by Sasha Flit)

Di Segni et al. (2022)

nave from Di Segni et al. (2022)

Discussion

Di Segni et al. (2022:439-440) reported on excavations of a Byzantine Church at Ashdod-Yam. The church was constructed in the late 4th or beginning of the 5th century CE, at the latest. They found that all uncovered parts of the complex yielded clear signs of destruction by fire, sealed by a burned layer of collapse, consisting of a large quantity of shattered roof tiles and wooden beams (Figs. 21-22). Numismatic evidence indicates that this destruction occurred around 600 CE, or perhaps slightly later. Prior to destruction, Di Segni et al. (2022:440) suggest that the church was abandoned in a planned manner. After the destruction, the church was subject to the systematic removal of usable stones and marble columns. A few possible traces of an earthquake that occurred after the abandonment and destruction of the church were also identified.

Post 600 CE Earthquake

Effect	Location	Image (s)	Comments
Collapsed walls and roof Debris	Unit 2 (Nave) and Unit 5 (N Aisle) Fig. 5 Plan of the excavated complex and location of the inscriptions (created by Slava Pirsky and Liora Bouzaglou) Di Segni et al. (2022)	Fig. 22 The destruction debris during the excavations of the nave in Unit 2 (photo taken by Sasha Flit) Di Segni et al. (2022) Fig. 21 The destruction debris during the excavations of the chapel in Unit 5 (photo taken by Sasha Flit) Di Segni et al. (2022)	all uncovered parts of the complex yielded clear signs of destruction by fire, sealed by a burned layer of collapse, consisting of a large quantity of shattered roof tiles and wooden beams (Figs. 21-22) - Di Segni et al. (2022:439-440) A few possible traces of an earthquake that occurred after the abandonment and destruction of the church - Di Segni et al. (2022:439-440)

Post 600 CE Earthquake

Earthquake Archeological Effects chart

Earthquake Archeological Effects (EAE)

Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

Effect	Location	Image (s)	Comments	Intensity
Collapsed walls and roof Debris	Unit 2 (Nave) and Unit 5 (N Aisle) Fig. 5 Plan of the excavated complex and location of the inscriptions (created by Slava Pirsky and Liora Bouzaglou) Di Segni et al. (2022)	Fig. 22 The destruction debris during the excavations of the nave in Unit 2 (photo taken by Sasha Flit) Di Segni et al. (2022) Fig. 21 The destruction debris during the excavations of the chapel in Unit 5 (photo taken by Sasha Flit) Di Segni et al. (2022)	all uncovered parts of the complex yielded clear signs of destruction by fire, sealed by a burned layer of collapse, consisting of a large quantity of shattered roof tiles and wooden beams (Figs. 21-22) - Di Segni et al. (2022:439-440) A few possible traces of an earthquake that occurred after the abandonment and destruction of the church - Di Segni et al. (2022:439-440)	VIII +

The archeoseismic evidence requires a minimum Intensity of VIII (8) when using the Earthquake Archeological Effects chart of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224).

References

Articles and Books

Di Segni, L., Bouzaglou, L., and Fantalkin, A. (2022) A Recently Discovered Church at Ashdod-Yam (Azotos Paralios) in Light of Its Greek Inscriptions Liber Annus 72 (2022) 399-447

Dothan, M. (1973) The foundation of Tel Mor and of Ashdod (IEJ, V23, 1973) - JSTOR

Fantalkin. A. (2023) Azotos Paralios (Ashdod-Yam, Israel) during the Periods of Roman and Byzantine Domination: Literary Sources vs. Archaeological Evidence In: Horn, C. and Bäbler, B. eds. Wort und Raum. Religionsdiskurse und Materialität im Palästina des 4.– 9. Jahrhunderts n. Chr.

Lorenzon, Marta, Cutillas-Victoria, Benjamin, Itkin, Eli, and Fantalkin, Alexander (2022) Masters of mudbrick: Geoarchaeological analysis of Iron Age earthen public buildings at Ashdod-Yam (Israel) Geoarchaeology 2023:1-28

Meimaris Y. E. Βούγια Π Bougia P. & Κριτικάκου Ε. (1992). Chronological systems in roman-byzantine palestine and arabia : the evidence of the dated greek inscriptions. Research Centre for Greek and Roman Antiquity National Hellenic Research Foundation = Κεντρον Ελληνικης και Ρωμαικης Αρχαιοτητος Εθνικον Υδρυμα Ερευνων ; Diffusion de Boccard.

Vunsh, R., Tal, O., and Sivan, D. (2013) Horbat Ashdod-Yam Preliminary Report Hadashot Arkheologiyot Volume 125 Year 2013

Websites

Ashdod-Yam Excavations Website

Ashdod overview at BibleWalks.com

Ashdod Maritime (aka Ashdod-Yam) at BibleWalks.com

Bibliography from Stern et. al. (1993 v.1) and Stern et. al. (2008)

A. Berman et al., Map of Ashdod (84) (Archaeological Survey of Israel), Jerusalem 2005.

J. Kaplan, ABD, 1, New York 1992, 482

I. Finkelstein & L. Singer-Avitz, TA 28 (2001), 246–254.

S. Gibson, PEQ 131 (1999), 124

D. Nachlieli et al., ESI 112 (2000), 101*–103*

H. Tadmor, JCS 22 (1958), 70-80

J. Kaplan, IEJ 19 (1969), 137-149

L. Y. Rahmani, ibid. 37 (1987). 133-134

Wikipedia pages

Ashdod-yam

from wikipedia

Ashdod

from wikipedia

Minat al-Qal'a

from wikipedia