• Annotated Satellite Image
  Annotated Satellite Image (google) of the Emmaus area
  
  Used with permission from BibleWalks.com
  of Arad from BibleWalks.com
• Fig. 1 Fortress mound Photograph
  Fig. 1
  
  The fortress mound at Tel Arad, looking south
  
  Herzog (2002)
  from Herzog (2002)
• Fig. 2 Fortress after preservation
  Fig. 2
  
  The fortress after preservation and reconstruction, looking west
  
  Herzog (2002)
  and reconstruction from Herzog (2002)
• Arad in Google Earth
  Arad
  
  click on image to explore this site on a new tab in Google Earth
• Arad on govmap.gov.il
  Arad
  
  click on image to explore this site on a new tab in govmap.gov.il

• Stratum XII remains from
  Fig. 5
  
  Exposed remains of Stratum XII. The dotted lines indicate the location of the later fortress' fortification wall and the Hellenistic tower
  
  Herzog (2002)
  Herzog (2002)
• Stratum XI remains from
  Fig. 9
  
  Plan of Stratum XI remains. No temple existed in this stratum
  
  Herzog (2002)
  Herzog (2002)
• Stratum X fortress from
  Fig. 12
  
  Stratum X fortress
  
  Herzog (2002)
  Herzog (2002)

1 Tiglath Pileser III conquered the northern Kingdom of Israel in 732 BCE.

• from Herzog (2002:94-99)

9.5. The 9th Century: From Civilian Occupation to State Stronghold (Stratum XI)

The transition from the 'enclosed settlement' of Stratum XII to the fortress of Stratum XI marks one of the major changes in the history of Tel Arad. Formerly, this modification of the settlement type was associated with the establishment of the United Monarchy in the Land of Israel (Herzog 1997a; Herzog et al. 1984). However, recent views, generated by Finkelstein's 'low chronology' (Finkelstein 1996; 2001), require amendment of the interpretation of the data (Herzog 2001a). Concurrently, a reassessment of the stratigraphy of the site has allowed us to assign safe pottery assemblages to Strata XII and XI, and to observe typological differentiation between the two occupational phases (Singer-Avitz 2002). The typological observation joined with general acceptance of the 'low chronology' led us to accept the association of Stratum XII (but not its termination) with Shishak's campaign in 926 BCE. Accordingly, Stratum XII is dated here to the second half of the 10th century and the first half of the 9th century. Stratum XI spans the second half of the 9th to the first half of the 8th century BCE.

Deteriorating climatic conditions at the beginning of the 9th century apparently undermined the balance that existed in the Beersheva Valley between the grain farmers and the nomads who engaged in barter with them. The inability to continue cultivating grain there increased competitiveness and the need for land in areas farther north, in the western Shephelah and the Coastal Plain. These economic pressures led to conflict and struggle with the Canaanite-Philistine population of these regions, and this undoubtedly encouraged and speeded-up the formation of the Kingdom of Judah. The erection of Stratum XI at Tel Arad might be attributed to one of the kings of the newly established state in the 9th century BCE (Finkelstein 2001).

The material culture of Stratum XI is analogous to that of the regional administrative town constructed in Stratum V at Tel Beersheba and the royal administrative centre at Lachish Level IV (Herzog 1997c:239-248). The construction of the Arad fortress in Stratum XI, during the first half of the 9th century BCE, that is, the period of the Kingdom of Judah, fits into the broader picture of settlement in the Beersheba Valley (Herzog 1994). Parallel to the erection of the fortress at Arad, an additional centre was constructed at Tel Malhata (Kochavi 1993). Domestic structures and a tomb dating from the 9th century have been uncovered at Tel 'Ira Stratum VIII (Beit-Arieh 1999: 170). At Tel Masos, most of the civilian dwellings were abandoned at this time (Stratum I), but Fortress 402 was constructed in the southern side of the settlement (Fritz and Kempinski 1983).

The settlement picture of the Beersheba Valley (Fig. 37) reflects the upheaval in the socio-cultural character of the region during the transition from the 10th to the 9th century BCE: from agricultural settlements of shepherds and farmers, characterized by a low level of social stratification and a paucity of buildings of a public nature, to an administrative-military centre comprising administrative towns and fortresses (Herzog 1994). The establishment of the new administrative and military system, with its impressive fortifications, involved a considerable investment of resources that undoubtedly originated outside the region, coming from the economic resources of the central administration of the Kingdom of Judah.

The change in settlement pattern suits the transition from a model of rural population to a centralised kingdom. However, an examination of all of the settlements of the valley that takes into consideration the total extent of the population reveals a surprising fact. The number of inhabitants in the valley during the 9th century was not greater than it was in the 10th century and, despite the extensive construction projects and the massive channeling of resources into the valley, remained at about 800-1,000. Under stable conditions, one might expect that the additional investment and royal initiative, improvement of trade routes and deployment of military units, would strengthen the economic base of the inhabitants of the Beersheba Valley and considerably increase their numbers. The fact that the size of the population did not increase, despite massive state investment, shows that the transition did not occur under conditions of prosperity and plenty, but during a time of economic hardship and famine. The fact that early agricultural villages did not prosper despite state involvement but rather shrank and were abandoned, attests to the decline in conditions that enabled the existence of dry farming. It appears that climatic conditions in the region during the 9th century had declined, rendering the area unsuitable for permanent settlement. It may be assumed that without state involvement, the Beersheba Valley would once more become a region of seasonal pastoral nomads. The administrative centres and the fortresses in the valley were established despite the worsening conditions in order to maintain military activity and state presence in the region.

9.6. The 8th Century BCE : A Cultural Change (Strata X -VIII)

The transition from the 9th century to the 8th century BCE in the Beersheba Valley is remarkable in the general settlement pattern, in the structure of the settlements and, most significantly, in the pottery style. These modifications clearly indicate a process of major cultural shift. The change of the settlement pattern in the Beersheba Valley following the destruction of sites occupied in the 9th century is notable: Some settlements, like Tel Masos, were abandoned and remained so for hundreds of years. Other settlements, such as Aroer and Tel 'Ira, were established only in the 8th century. For the time being, we do not have sufficient data to establish the continuity of settlement at Tel Malhata and Bir es-Seba' (located within the boundaries of present-day Beersheba).

There are considerable differences in features of the fortifications that indicate major rebuilding operations. At Arad, a new fortress was erected that only partially used the previous casemate wall. A solid wall surrounded by a glacis protected the fortress of Stratum X. A new imposing gate and an elaborate water system were constructed in this phase. As shown above, the temple, too, was first erected in this stratum. At Tel Beersheba, Strata V and IV cover the period equivalent to that of Stratum XI at Tel Arad. The plan of Stratum III at Tel Beersheba is, again, drastically different from that of Stratum IV. The former solid city wall and city gate were completely razed, and a new fortification system was constructed.

Once we subscribe to the 'low chronology', these changes may not be attributed to Shishak's raid or to the division of the alleged United Monarchy. If so, what generated such a cultural shift? Since typological modification runs parallel to drastic changes in the design of settlements, as observed at Tel Beersheba and Lachish, they should be related to significant events. Tentatively this development might be associated with a severe earthquake dated to ca. 760 BCE, based on biblical references (Dever 1992). A strong earthquake in the southern part of the Judean Kingdom might explain the total destruction of the upper parts of the fortification systems at Tel Arad XI and Beersheba IV and the need to rebuild them in Strata X and III, respectively.

The pottery assemblage of Stratum X at Tel Arad is remarkably different from that of Stratum XI and exhibits new forms that display similarity to the assemblages known from the destruction layers of the end of the 8th century (Aharoni and Aharoni 1976). Similar pottery groups, typologically speaking, were found at Arad in Strata IX and VIII, at Tel Beersheba in Strata III and II and at Lachish in Level III. It seems logical to assume that such a drastic change in pottery style reflects a fundamental restructuring of the social order. It may thus be proposed that, as a rule, major cultural permutations on the geo-political or economic level are likely to cause chain reactions that find expression in changes in style of the artefacts that constitute the archaeological finds. The destruction of systems forces the creation of new structures and these result in stylistic changes. That such stylistic changes may occur quickly is determined by ethnographic analogy. The life span of a pottery vessel in traditional societies is but a few years. Among one population studied, the entire pottery inventory of a household was replaced at the end of the 6th year, while vessels for daily use were replaced within a year or two (Deboer and Lathrap 1979). What conclusions emerge from this discussion concerning the dating of Stratum X at Arad? It is possible to draw an analogy from the parallel process that began following Sennacherib's campaign, when the new pottery assemblages are attributed without hesitation to the 7th century, even though the destruction of the settlements took place more than a hundred years later. Similarly it is suggested that the stylistic shift was quick and took place in the middle of the 8th century BCE.

The similarity of pottery vessels in Stratum X to assemblages in Strata IX and VIII at Tel Arad was considered by some critics as evidence that these strata belong to a single settlement level (Mazar and Netzer 1986; Ussishkin 1988; Zimhoni 1985). However, in view of the stratigraphical data presented in this report this claim is unfounded. The fact that the pottery assemblages are similar should support the view that the site underwent three consecutive catastrophes within a short period. It should be noted that we have no precise means at our disposal to establish the exact length of the existence or date of the destruction of each of the fortresses. However, one thing is clear beyond doubt: The remains of Strata X-VIII represent three strata, or, more correctly, three fortresses that were constructed, existed as administrative and military centres and were finally destroyed by conflagration. The fact that more frequent destructions occurred in the marginal zone is self-evident. Probably, the geo-political conditions in the Arad region led to these frequent destructions.

Settlement in the Beersheba Valley during the late 8th century undoubtedly reflects renewal and expansion of national initiative. Strata X-VIII at Arad and Strata III-II at Tel Beersheba attest to renewed construction towards their demise. The final phase at both of the sites was destroyed in a conflagration and the pottery assemblages in Stratum VIII at Arad are identical to those of Stratum II at Tel Beersheba and Level III at Lachish. The typological similarity between the assemblages, first emphasized by M. and Y. Aharoni (Aharoni and Aharoni 1976), constitutes a basis for dating the three sites to the end of the 8th century, based on attribution of the destruction of their settlements to the campaign of Sennacherib in 701 BCE.

The time span of the three strata was apparently fairly short. Attributing the destruction of the fortress of Stratum XI to the earthquake of ca. 760 BCE, the construction of the Stratum X fortress may be dated to 750 BCE. The circumstances of the destruction of the Stratum X fortress and its reconstruction in Stratum IX are unclear. If the termination of the use of the temple is associated with the cultic reform attributed to Hezekiah, this event may be dated to ca. 715 BCE. The destruction of Stratum IX may have occurred shortly after this date. Accordingly, the fortress of Stratum VIII should have been rebuilt only 10 years before its destruction in 701 BCE. The minor variations in the ceramic repertoire of these strata, based on the rechecked affiliation of all the baskets to loci, are presented by Singer-Avitz (2002). This study provides information concerning a fairly detailed typological ceramic sequence.

In addition to Arad, there were numerous settlements in the Beersheba Valley during the 8th century. The remains of the city exposed in Stratum II at Tel Beersheba serves as an example of a well-planned, less important administrative city that appears to have functioned as an administrative centre for the entire region. The first phase of this city was exposed in Stratum III. At that time, the elaborate horned altar was apparently used in the temple, the location of which is uncertain. During the construction of Stratum II, the altar was dismantled and its stones were reused to build one of the walls of the storehouse and the glacis near the city gate.

At Tel 'Ira, which lies on a high hill at the southern end of the (Ira Ridge, which extends into the valley from the north, settlement was renewed in the 8th century (Beit-Arieh 1999). To this phase (Stratum VII) are attributed remains of a fortified building, a six-chambered gate and storehouses. These remains were reused with minor modifications during the 7th century BCE (Stratum VI). In order to calculate the settled area in the valley, it is possible to estimate the size of the settlement as 10 dunams out of the total 25 dunams of the hill. At Aroer, evidence for the existence of a settlement during the 8th century was also found, primarily in Silo 62 of Stratum III (Biran and Cohen 1981). Since there is an earlier stratum at the site, it is quite possible to date the beginning of settlement and the erection of fortifications at Aroer to the 8th century. A solid wall surrounded the city, which covers an area of 10 dunams. In addition, houses and silos were also found outside the fortifications, allowing us to estimate the total area of Aroer at 15 dunams.

Also attributed to the 8th century BCE are the fortresses at Kadesh'Barnea (Cohen 1983) and at Tell el-Kheleifeh (Pratico 1993). Comparison of the plans of these fortresses with the plan of the Arad fortress reveals similarities in planning despite differences in details. The walls of the Arad and Kadesh Barnea fortresses (the latter is the Middle Fortress, which measures 60 x 40 m.) were solid. At Arad, only the gate towers projected outward, while at Kadesh Barnea there were eight towers~ one at each corner and one in the middle of each side. The early fortress at Tell el-Kheleifeh, built in a square with each side measuring 45 m., was surrounded by a casemate wall. At Arad and Kadesh Barnea water storage systems for use during siege were found. The Edomite finds at Tell el-Kheleifeh attest to the cultural closeness of Edom.

According to this data, in the 8th century there were three fortified cities in the Beersheba Valley: Beersheba, Aroer and Tel 'Ira. Remains of domestic dwellings at Bir es-Seba' attest to the existence of a settlement, apparently of farmers, with an estimated area of 5 dunams. The total settled area of the Beersheba Valley, based on these estimates, was 64.5 dunams, that is, over double the estimated maximum area of settlement during the 9th century. The bulk of the settlement in the region clearly lay to the south (Fig. 38).

• from Singer-Avitz (2002:162)

Assyrian/Edomite pottery and finds first appear in Stratum X and are known in all subsequent strata up to the end of the Iron Age. The inevitable conclusion is that Stratum X (or, at least, its final phase, represented by the finds we present) must have existed when Judah was already one of the vassal states of the Assyrian empire, incorporated into its economic system and exposed to certain Assyrian/Edomite influences. Hence, the end of Stratum X cannot be earlier than the reign of Tiglath Pileser III and a date ca. 725 BCE seems possible.

We have no clear indication of the date of the establishment of Stratum X and may draw conclusions based only on general assumptions and estimations. It is not clear if Stratum X was established immediately after the destruction of ·Stratum XI or if there was a gap between these two strata. While there is continuity in the general outline of the site that attests to continuous settlement, there is also a considerable difference in the fortifications and vessel types. As stated above, the material culture of Stratum XI resembles that of Lachish Level IV. The excavators attribute the destruction of Level IV at Lachish to an earthquake during the reign of Uzziah in 760 or 750 BCE, so that this date may mark the end of Stratum XI at Arad and the establishment of Stratum X. If we accept this view, then Stratum XI existed for a lengthy period, approximately 150 years.

• from Alexander Fantalkin and Israel Finkelstein (2006:22-24)

The End of the Late Iron IIA: The Earthquake in the Early 8th Century BCE ?

It is reasonable to assume that the assemblage from Tell es-Safi does not mark the end of the Late Iron IIA. So how long did this pottery repertoire endure after this datum?

Ussishkin proposed (1977: 52; 2004: 83; Barkay and Ussishkin 2004: 447; also Zimhoni 1997: 172-173) that the changeover at Lachish from Level IV to Level III was related to the seismic event mentioned in Amos 1:1 and Zechariah 14:5. This gave birth to the theory that a major earthquake was the reason for the transition from the Iron IIA to the Iron IIB. This idea was adopted by Herzog and Singer-Avitz (2004: 230) for the transition from Stratum IV to Stratum III at Tel Beersheba and from Stratum XI to X at Arad (see also Herzog 2002: 97-98; Singer-Avitz 2002: 162). At first glance the earthquake theory looks quite appealing; yet, it is difficult to accept.

As far as we can judge, no evidence of the kind expected to be left by a major earthquake (see, e.g., Marco et al. forthcoming) has ever been found at any Judahite site. The earthquake theory was formulated merely in order to explain a stratigraphic/architectonic change. Indeed, even at Lachish the excavators admit that "no unequivocal proof of this is available" (Barkay and Ussishkin 2004: 447).³

This is in contrast to the north, where evidence for a major seismic event in the 8th century was found at Hazor (the destruction of Stratum VI—Yadin et al. 1960: 24-26; 1989: 41, 44) and possibly also at Megiddo (in Stratum IVA—Marco et al. forthcoming) and Tell Deir Alla (Austin et al. 2000: 659). Indeed, an earthquake is a localized event, which can hardly devastate very large areas such as Israel and Judah combined (ibid.). Hazor, Deir Alla and Megiddo are located along major geological faults—of the Rift Valley and the Carmel Ridge respectively—and hence have always been sensitive to seismic events.⁴ In contrast, the Shephelah and the Beersheba Valley are far from the Rift Valley and show no evidence of earthquakes in other periods either. Finally, from the ceramic point of view, it is impossible to equate Iron IIA Lachish IV and Arad XI with Iron IIB Hazor VI. Indeed, the fact that the earthquake in the days of Uzziah and Jeroboam II is mentioned only by a prophet who was active in the north, with no reference to it in any Judahite source,⁵ seems to indicate that Judah was not affected, or at least did not suffer significant damage. The theory that an earthquake was responsible for a major stratigraphic and architectural transition in Judah rests on very shaky ground and should be eliminated from consideration.

In any event, the idea that the potters of Judah changed their repertoire as a result of a seismic event is unacceptable (indeed, no such change can be observed in the north in the transition from Hazor VI to Hazor V). Major changes in ceramic repertoires, such as the shift from the Lachish IV to the Lachish III assemblages, must have been caused by broader economic and political processes, not by a solitary event. So the question remains: What is the date and the reason for the transition from the Late Iron IIA to the Iron IIB ceramic repertoires in the south?

One clue comes from the site of Arad, where three strata—X, IX and VIII-feature quite similar Iron IIB pottery repertoires. Stratum VIII was destroyed by Sennacherib in 701 BCE. Since the sequence of the three strata requires some time, it would be reasonable to assume that the Iron IIB pottery was already fully developed no later than the mid-8th century BCE, and in fact probably earlier (also Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 274-275; Faust 2005: 107, n. 13).

Additional clues come from the north. Stratum VI at Hazor, which probably dates to the first half of the 8th century—the days of Joash and Jeroboam II, after the recovery of lsrael from the Aramean pressure—features Iron IIB pottery, while Strata VIII-VII, which seem to represent the second half of the 9th century (Finkelstein 1999), still feature some Iron IIA types. At Megiddo, Level H-4, which predates Level H-3 (=Stratum IVA) that was destroyed by the Assyrians, also features Iron IIB pottery (Finkelstein forthcoming). The assemblage of Kuntillet cAjrud is closely related to the coast and the north and is contemporaneous with Hazor VI and Ashdod VIII (Ayalon 1995: 196-197). 14C measurements of wood remains from the site provide dates in the early 8th century BCE (Carmi and Segal 1996; for this argument, with certain nuances, see also Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 275; Singer-Avitz 2002: 163).

All this means that in the north, the transition from the Iron IIA to the Iron IIB pottery repertoires probably took place around 800 BCE, parallel to the growth of the Assyrian-influenced state economy in Israel, when the Northern Kingdom reached peak prosperity. Since we are dealing with a relatively small country, and since the economies of Israel and Judah were probably related again at that time (under Northern dominance), we would argue that in Judah, too, the transition from the Iron IIA to the Iron IIB should be set ca. 800 BCE. If it turns out that Lachish IV and Beth-shemesh IIa were built after the fall of Gath (below), a somewhat later date would be preferable.

• from Roberts (2012:186-187)

20. Arad

Consisting of a tell along with a Canaanite city, Arad sits about 30 km north-east of Beersheba and is well known for its cultic site with evidence of standing stones and incense altars. Arad is a site that provides excellent stratigraphy for the Iron II period as four strata have been identified for the Iron IIB. Under the old chronology of Miriam Aharoni, since the fortress in stratum XI is connected to Shishak’s destruction, Stratum X is linked to the ninth century and stratum IX runs into the eighth. The destruction in the eighth century for stratum IX has been attributed to an Edomite raid (2 Kgs 16:5; 2 Chr. 28:5) with stratum VIII’s destruction attributed to Sennecharib in 701 BCE.¹³³ As at Beersheva where he shifted stratum to fit the low chronology, Ze’ev Herzog moved Arad stratum IX, traditionally identified as early to mid eighth century to the end of the eighth century. In this regard, Herzog’s attribution of Stratum X-VIII as eighth century is correct as the pottery of Arad X is almost identical to that of Lachish III. In his words regarding the eighth century sequence at the Arad Fortress:

The time span of the three strata was apparently fairly short. Attributing the destruction of the fortress of Stratum XI to the earthquake of ca. 760 BCE, the construction of the Stratum X fortress may be dated to 750 BCE. The circumstances of the destruction of the Stratum X fortress and its reconstruction in Stratum IX are unclear. If the termination of the use of the temple is associated with the cultic reform attributed to Hezekiah, this event may be dated to ca. 715 BCE. The destruction of Stratum IX may have occurred shortly after this date.¹³⁴

Thus, Herzog’s proposal for shifting the chronology for strata X-VIII is helpful, though his link between Stratum XI and the earthquake forces him to leave unanswered the circumstances around stratum XI’s destruction and the reconstruction of X. Hence, Arad lacks convincing evidence of earthquake damage

• Fig. 4 - Fill layers from
  Fig. 4
  
  Fill layers accumulated in the depression caused by the collapsed water reservoir, looking south.
  
  Herzog (2002)
  Herzog (2002)
• Fig. 17 - Stratum VII fortress
  Fig. 17
  
  Stratum VII fortress
  
  Herzog (2002)
  from Herzog (2002)
• Fig. 19 - Stratum VI fortress
  Fig. 19
  
  Stratum VI fortress
  
  Herzog (2002)
  from Herzog (2002)

Fantalkin, A. and Finkelstein, I. (2006) The Sheshonq I Campaign and the 8th-Century BCE Earthquake-more on the Archaeology and History of the South in the Iron I-IIa, Tel Aviv, 33:1, 18-42

Singer-Avitz, L. (2002), ‘The Iron Age pottery assemblage’, Tel Aviv, 29, 110–215.

Herzog, Z. (2002). "The Fortress Mound at Tel Arad an Interim Report." Tel Aviv: Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 29: 3-109.

Tel Arad at biblewalks.com