• from Itkin (2020:65-66)

Ḥorvat Tov (Ḥirbet et-Tayyib) is situated on the northeastern edge of the Arad−Beer-sheba Valley, ca. 5.5 km northeast of Tel Arad (Cohen 1985, 1995: 115−116; Aharoni 1986: 156) (Fig. 1). The site was first surveyed in 1960 by Yohanan Aharoni (Aharoni and Amiran 1963: 223), who described the architectural remains of the fortress and identified it with biblical Qinah, which is mentioned after Arad in the list of Judah’s Negebite towns (Josh 15:22) and in Arad Inscription 24 (Line 12) (Aharoni 1986: 156).¹ Salvage excavations were carried out at the site from 1984−1988, following a small trial excavation that was conducted in 1975 on behalf of Israel’s Department of Antiquities and Museums (IDAM) under the supervision of Rudolph Cohen. The excavations revealed the plan of the Iron Age fortress, which was enclosed by an inset-offset stone wall, similar to the larger nearby fortress at Tel Arad X−VIII (Cohen 1995: 115−116). Additionally, the excavations uncovered several architectural units including a two-chambered gate complex and a pillared structure in Area A, a corner tower in Area C and a large tripartite building in Area D (Cohen 1985, 1988). During the excavations a single occupational layer was identified, which contained two or three sub-phases, all dating to the 7th century BCE (Cohen 1988). Although the results of the excavations were only partially published in short preliminary reports (Cohen 1976, 1985, 1988, 1995), Ḥorvat Tov is frequently mentioned as a key component in the chain of fortresses along Judah’s southern frontier during the late Iron Age (Beit-Arieh 1998: 32; 2003: 67; Stern 2001: 159; Lipschits 2005: 225−226, n. 152; Thareani-Sussely 2007: 74; Faust 2008: 176).

... Ḥorvat Tov constitutes a single uniform architectural complex. The total area of the fortress covers ca. 1.50 dunams. It was constructed on local loess soil, at the foot of a hill, at an elevation of ca. 540 m above sea level. The fortress was built on a moderate slope, resulting in an elevation difference of ca. 1 m between its northeastern and southwestern corners.

Itkin (2020:66,83) reports that Horvat Tov is a single layered Iron IIB site with two or three sub-phases where the material culture of the site indicates that it was established during the first half or middle of the 7th century BCE and functioned as the military and administrative outpost of the nearby fortress at Tel Arad. Itkin (2020:83) adds that this continued until its destruction at end of the 7th century or the beginning of the 6th century BCE.

Itkin (2020:80) reported on a destruction layer

... large amounts of pottery were uncovered on the fortress floors, within an ash layer that was attested in all the excavated areas sealed underneath the collapsed walls. In some cases the collapse damaged the floors, indicating that it took place while the floors were still exposed. This seems to provide evidence of the violent end of Ḥorvat Tov. On the other hand, the relatively small number of complete vessels found at the fortress, which comprise 12% of the entire ceramic assemblage, the almost complete absence of small finds and the lack of human remains, may suggest a planned abandonment of the site. Studies on social responses to conflicts and times of crisis in the archeological record have emphasized immediate and short-term architectural changes, such as blocking the openings of spaces, internal division of rooms and construction of walls and partitions (Driessen 1995: 13). It seems that the internal architectural changes that took place in Area C are consistent with this assumption. Evidence can be found in Arad Inscriptions 24 and 40, which reflect the state of emergency in the Negev at the end of the Iron Age (Aharoni 1986: 48−50, 72−76, 155−156; Beit-Arieh 2004: 69).⁷

Further evidence of a crisis period can be viewed in the widespread appearance of mending holes in ceramic assemblages dating to the end of the Iron Age, such as at Ḥorvat Tov, where 16 vessels were repaired (ca. 4% of the assemblage).⁸ The number of mending holes found in Iron IIB−C strata is significant compared to the ceramic assemblages from the region dating to Iron IIA (Singer-Avitz 2016: 648−650, Tables 12.1, 12.2). This phenomenon was previously assigned to seasonal manufacturing of ceramics (Hampe and Winter 1962: 104; Frankel and Webb 2001: 125; Singer-Avitz 2016: 651). However, detailed examination shows that the appearance of the mending holes at sites in the northern Negev increases in layers that suffered a violent destruction.⁹ This can attest to the disruption in the supply of pottery, which led to a significant growth in the quantity of repaired vessels. To conclude, the destruction of the fortress was preceded by a crisis period.

Footnotes

7 This paper is in accordance with the re-dating of Arad Inscription 40 to Strata VII−VI (Na’aman 2003; rather than to Stratum VIII as suggested by Aharoni 1986: 72−76). For a different proposal, viewing Inscriptions 24 and 40 as expressing dispute over pastures and suggesting a date in the Neo-Babylonian period, see Guillaume 2013.

8 See Tel 'Ira VII−VI (Freud 1999: Figs. 6.59: 7−8; 6.67: 10; 6.68: 13; 6.83: 7; 6.92: 8; 6.104: 3), Arad X−VI (Singer-Avitz 2002: Figs. 30: 1; 43: 29; 47: 4), Ḥorvat >Uza III (Freud 2007a: Figs. 3.15: 3; 3.16: 2; 3.18: 3, 5, 7, 9; 3.26: 5; 3.39: 3), >Ein Gedi V (Yezerski 2007: Pls. 1: 17, 32; 2: 8), >Aroer (Thareani 2011: Pls. 28: 3; 29:3; 35: 2; 46: 2; 51: 5,8; 53: 26; 65: 1; 161: 2; 169: 3; 214: 2) and Tel Beer-sheba III−II (Singer-Avitz 2016: 649−650).

9 See, for example, the increase in the quantity of repaired vessels in Stratum II at Tel Beer-sheba, compared with Strata IV, III (Singer-Avitz 2016: 649−650, Table 12.2).

Itkin (2020:82-83) discussed the collapse of the settlement system in the Arad−Beer-sheba Valley

The collapse

The settlement system in the Arad−Beer-sheba Valley came to an end with the destruction of many sites at the end of the 7th century or the beginning of the 6th century BCE. While some scholars have attributed this collapse to a Babylonian campaign at the beginning of the 6th century BCE (Alt 1925: 108; Noth 1958: 283−284; Bartlett 1989: 149−150), others have linked it to Edomite assault/s on southern Judah (Myers 1971: 390−392; Lemaire 1977: 192−193; Aharoni 1986: 160−161; Kletter 1995: 24; Beit-Arieh 2004). The latter interpretation was based mainly on the negative biblical approach to Edom, particularly in the prophetic texts (Ezek 35:1−36; Obad 11−14), the ‘Edomite’ material culture uncovered in some sites in the region and the contents of Arad Inscriptions 24 and 40 (Aharoni 1986: 48−51; Na’aman 2003). To scrutinize this approach, we must first examine the archaeological finds from the region. Most of the ‘Edomite’ pottery in the Arad−Beer-sheba Valley was primarily found in main settlements such as Tel Malḥata (Freud 2015: 236) and >Aroer (Thareani 2011: 156−157) and the cultic site at Ḥorvat Qitimit (Freud and Beit-Arieh 1995: 254−255).¹³ Further evidence for the presence of groups with Edomite affinities in the region arises from the epigraphic finds. Thus, for example, inscriptions bearing the name ‘Kos’, the chief god of Edom, appear at Ḥorvat Qitimit, Arad and on a seal from Aroer (Aharoni 1986: 54, 151; Beit-Arieh 1995b: 267; Avigad and Sass 2011: 227). The discovery of an ostracon written in the Edomite script at Ḥorvat >Uza (Beit -Arieh 2007b: 133−137; Na’aman 2012: 214−216, 225), as well as the appearance of ‘Edomite’ cooking pots (although in small numbers) can attest to ties between the fortresses and groups in their surroundings that exhibit Edomite characteristics in their material culture (Thareani 2014: 195).

Local semi-nomadic groups with Edomite affinities in their material culture existed throughout the period in the eastern Negev and on the fringes south of the Arad−Beersheba Valley (Finkelstein 1992: 159; Na’aman 1999: 408−409; Bienkowski and van der Steen 2001: 29; Lipschits 2005: 144−146, 181−182). These groups took advantage of the economic opportunities proposed by the international trade route and settled near the major settlements along it (e.g., Tel Malḥata and >Aroer). It seems that the construction and maintenance of the cultic site at Ḥorvat Qitmit should also be attributed to the presence of these groups (Na’aman 1999: 409). It is possible that the tension created by the increased presence of semi-nomadic tribes in the region on the one hand, and the emergence of the Edomite state on the other (Bienkowski 1995: 44−45, 61−62; Knauf 1995: 94−95), led, among other factors, to Judah’s need to demonstrate military state presence in the region.¹⁴ It is therefore likely that the mention of Edom/ Edomites in the Arad inscriptions is not related exclusively to the newly established Edomite kingdom, and refers mainly to groups that dwelled and settled in the region at the time (Thareani 2014: 203).

Thus, it seems that the collapse of the settlement system in the Arad−Beer-sheba Valley was gradual, due to a combination of internal and external factors: pressure of local semi-nomadic groups as a result of the gradual weakening of the kingdom in the concluding years of the 7th and the early years of the 6th century BCE, and the final blow by the Babylonians in 587/6 BCE.

Footnotes

13 Although one should be careful in identifying ethnicity based on the appearance of ceramic types (Kamp and Yoffee 1980; Bunimovitz 1990), the widespread appearance of ‘Edomite’ cooking pots at these sites, in relation to Judahite ones, can attest to the presence of ethnic groups with Edomite affinity in the settlements or in their immediate vicinity (Fantalkin 2001: 116).

14 Thareani recently suggested that the tension between semi-nomadic groups and the Judahite kingdom reached its peak after the Assyrians withdrew from the region in the last third of the 7th century BCE (Thareani 2014: 202). The absence of an imperial presence led to a gradual increase in the friction between the groups and marked the beginning of the collapse of the system (ibid: 202−203).

Effect	Location	Image(s)	Description
Collapsed walls             Dented Floors Crushed Pottery	Fortress Figure 2 Horvat Tov general plan and excavation areas. Itkin (2020)	Figure 5 Room 27, looking southwest. Note the fragments of the jar on Floor II, and the threshold which was abutted by Floor I (photo Nahshon Sneh, courtesy of the IAA) Itkin (2020)	large amounts of pottery were uncovered on the fortress floors, within an ash layer that was attested in all the excavated areas sealed underneath the collapsed walls. In some cases the collapse damaged the floors, indicating that it took place while the floors were still exposed. This seems to provide evidence of the violent end of Ḥorvat Tov. On the other hand, the relatively small number of complete vessels found at the fortress, which comprise 12% of the entire ceramic assemblage, the almost complete absence of small finds and the lack of human remains, may suggest a planned abandonment of the site. - Itkin (2020:80)
Repairs ?	Area C Figure 2 Horvat Tov general plan and excavation areas. Itkin (2020)		Studies on social responses to conflicts and times of crisis in the archeological record have emphasized immediate and short-term architectural changes, such as blocking the openings of spaces, internal division of rooms and construction of walls and partitions (Driessen 1995: 13). It seems that the internal architectural changes that took place in Area C are consistent with this assumption. Evidence can be found in Arad Inscriptions 24 and 40, which reflect the state of emergency in the Negev at the end of the Iron Age (Aharoni 1986: 48−50, 72−76, 155−156; Beit-Arieh 2004: 69). - Itkin (2020:80)

• 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)	Description	Intensity
Collapsed walls             Dented Floors Crushed Pottery	Fortress Figure 2 Horvat Tov general plan and excavation areas. Itkin (2020)	Figure 5 Room 27, looking southwest. Note the fragments of the jar on Floor II, and the threshold which was abutted by Floor I (photo Nahshon Sneh, courtesy of the IAA) Itkin (2020)	large amounts of pottery were uncovered on the fortress floors, within an ash layer that was attested in all the excavated areas sealed underneath the collapsed walls. In some cases the collapse damaged the floors, indicating that it took place while the floors were still exposed. This seems to provide evidence of the violent end of Ḥorvat Tov. On the other hand, the relatively small number of complete vessels found at the fortress, which comprise 12% of the entire ceramic assemblage, the almost complete absence of small finds and the lack of human remains, may suggest a planned abandonment of the site. - Itkin (2020:80)	VIII+
Repairs (?) suggesting displaced walls (?)	Area C Figure 2 Horvat Tov general plan and excavation areas. Itkin (2020)		Studies on social responses to conflicts and times of crisis in the archeological record have emphasized immediate and short-term architectural changes, such as blocking the openings of spaces, internal division of rooms and construction of walls and partitions (Driessen 1995: 13). It seems that the internal architectural changes that took place in Area C are consistent with this assumption. Evidence can be found in Arad Inscriptions 24 and 40, which reflect the state of emergency in the Negev at the end of the Iron Age (Aharoni 1986: 48−50, 72−76, 155−156; Beit-Arieh 2004: 69). - Itkin (2020:80)	VII+

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).