Tel'Eton

Transliterated Name	Source	Name
Tel 'Eton	Hebrew	תל עיטון
Eglon	Hebrew	עֶגְלוֹן

Introduction

from Chat GPT 5.2, 27 February 2026
Sources Tel 'Eton Excavations: BibleWalks.com: ASOR Blog: Wikipedia: Eglon (biblical place)

Tel ‘Eton is a multi-period archaeological mound located in the eastern Shephelah of Judah, overlooking the Nahal Guvrin basin and situated between the coastal plain and the Hebron hill country. Its strategic position along east–west routes linking the highlands with the Philistine plain made it a significant settlement throughout the Bronze and Iron Ages.

The site is commonly identified with biblical Eglon, one of the cities mentioned in the conquest traditions of Joshua and in later territorial lists. While the identification is widely accepted, it remains a scholarly proposal rather than an epigraphically confirmed equation. The mound and its vicinity have yielded remains spanning from the Early Bronze Age through the Persian and Hellenistic periods, with particularly substantial occupation during the Late Bronze and Iron Ages.

Modern excavations, directed by Avraham Faust and colleagues, have exposed fortifications, domestic architecture, storage facilities, and administrative finds, including inscribed bullae. The Iron Age remains are especially prominent, including a large courtyard building often described as a four-room house or elite residence, reflecting complex social and administrative organization in the late Iron I and Iron II periods. Excavations have also identified destruction layers attributed to the Assyrian campaign in the late eighth century BCE.

Research at Tel ‘Eton has contributed to debates concerning Judahite state formation, settlement patterns in the Shephelah, and the interaction between highland polities and the coastal plain. The site’s long stratigraphic sequence and well- documented excavation program make it a key reference point for reconstructing regional history and material culture across more than two millennia.

Maps, Aerial Views, Plans, and Photos

Maps

Normal Size

Biblical Location Map

Map of the area around Eglon (red circle) – 20C BC through 6th C BC (based on Bible Mapper 3.0)

Click on image to open in a new tab

Used with permission from BibleWalks.com

from BibleWalks.com
Location Map from

Location Map

Click on image to open in a new tab

Tel 'Eton Excavations

from Tel 'Eton Excavations as found on an ASOR Blog

Magnified

Biblical Location Map

Map of the area around Eglon (red circle) – 20C BC through 6th C BC (based on Bible Mapper 3.0)

Click on image to open in a new tab

Used with permission from BibleWalks.com

from BibleWalks.com
Location Map from

Location Map

Click on image to open in a new tab

Tel 'Eton Excavations

from Tel 'Eton Excavations as found on an ASOR Blog

Aerial Views

Normal Size

Annotated Satellite Photo

Annotated Satellite Photo of Tel 'Eton and environs

Click on image to open in a new tab

Used with permission from BibleWalks.com

of Tel 'Eton and environs from BibleWalks.com
Aerial Drone shot of Tel 'Eton

Aerial Drone shot of Tel 'Eton

Click on image to open in a new tab

Used with permission from BibleWalks.com

from BibleWalks.com
Tel 'Eton in Google Earth

Tel 'Eton

click on image to explore this site on a new tab in Google Earth
Tel 'Eton on govmap.gov.il

Tel 'Eton

click on image to explore this site on a new tab in govmap.gov.il

Magnified

Annotated Satellite Photo

Annotated Satellite Photo of Tel 'Eton and environs

Click on image to open in a new tab

Used with permission from BibleWalks.com

of Tel 'Eton and environs from BibleWalks.com
Aerial Drone shot of Tel 'Eton

Aerial Drone shot of Tel 'Eton

Click on image to open in a new tab

Used with permission from BibleWalks.com

from BibleWalks.com
Tel 'Eton in Google Earth

Tel 'Eton

click on image to explore this site on a new tab in Google Earth
Tel 'Eton on govmap.gov.il

Tel 'Eton

click on image to explore this site on a new tab in govmap.gov.il

Plans

Site Plans

Normal Size

Site Map from

Map of Tel ‘Eton and the roads in its vicinity (prepared by Yair Sapir), on the background geological map. Courtesy of Israel’s Institute of Geology

Click on image to open in a new tab

Tel 'Eton Excavations

from Tel 'Eton Excavations as found on an ASOR Blog

Magnified

Site Map from

Map of Tel ‘Eton and the roads in its vicinity (prepared by Yair Sapir), on the background geological map. Courtesy of Israel’s Institute of Geology

Click on image to open in a new tab

Tel 'Eton Excavations

from Tel 'Eton Excavations as found on an ASOR Blog

Area Plans

Area A

Normal Size

Fig. 2 Aerial View of Area A

Fig. 2

Area A: aerial view after conclusion of 2009 season (photograph: Sky View)

Click on image to open in a new tab

Katz and Faust (2012)

from Katz and Faust (2012)

Magnified

Fig. 2 Aerial View of Area A

Fig. 2

Area A: aerial view after conclusion of 2009 season (photograph: Sky View)

Click on image to open in a new tab

Katz and Faust (2012)

from Katz and Faust (2012)

Area B

Normal Size

Fig. 4 Plan of Area B

Fig. 4

Area B: plan (after 2010 season)

Click on image to open in a new tab

Katz and Faust (2012)

from Katz and Faust (2012)

Normal Size

Fig. 4 Plan of Area B

Fig. 4

Area B: plan (after 2010 season)

Click on image to open in a new tab

Katz and Faust (2012)

from Katz and Faust (2012)

Photos

Normal Size

Fig. 7 The Assyrian destruction

Fig. 7

The Assyrian destruction in Area B (square S48)

Click on image to open in a new tab

Faust (2012)

in Area B from Faust (2012)
Fig. 3 Destruction layer

Fig. 3

Destruction layer in Area A

Click on image to open in a new tab

Katz and Faust (2012)

in Area A from Katz and Faust (2012)
Fig. 5 Destruction layer

Fig. 5

Destruction layer in Area B (upper portion): in situ vessels

Click on image to open in a new tab

Katz and Faust (2012)

in Area B (upper portion) from Katz and Faust (2012)
Fig. 6 Destruction layer

Fig. 6

Destruction layer in Area B (lower portion): in situ vessels

Click on image to open in a new tab

Katz and Faust (2012)

in Area B (lower portion) from Katz and Faust (2012)

Magnified

Fig. 7 The Assyrian destruction

Fig. 7

The Assyrian destruction in Area B (square S48)

Click on image to open in a new tab

Faust (2012)

in Area B from Faust (2012)
Fig. 3 Destruction layer

Fig. 3

Destruction layer in Area A

Click on image to open in a new tab

Katz and Faust (2012)

in Area A from Katz and Faust (2012)
Fig. 5 Destruction layer

Fig. 5

Destruction layer in Area B (upper portion): in situ vessels

Click on image to open in a new tab

Katz and Faust (2012)

in Area B (upper portion) from Katz and Faust (2012)
Fig. 6 Destruction layer

Fig. 6

Destruction layer in Area B (lower portion): in situ vessels

Click on image to open in a new tab

Katz and Faust (2012)

in Area B (lower portion) from Katz and Faust (2012)

Phasing/Stratigraphy

Comparative table of the remains in the various areas (temporary strata numbers).

from Faust (2011)

Table 1

Comparative table of the remains in the various areas (temporary strata numbers)

Click on image to open in a new tab

Faust (2011)

Chronological Divisions

The Iron Age in the Southern Levant

Bronze Age of the Levant

Judean Stamped Storage Jars

A4 and B3 Destruction - Iron IIB - 2nd half of the 8th century CE - Attributed to Military Activity

Discussion

References

Katz and Faust (2012)

Abstract

from Katz and Faust (2012:22)

Tel ‘Eton is a large site (approximately 60 dunams) in the southeastern Shephelah, just below the Hebron Hills. The site was densely occupied during the Iron Age II, and it appears that a large and probably planned town existed there at the time. This city was destroyed in the late eighth century BCE, like most sites in the Shephelah, and did not recover. The rich ceramic assemblage unearthed in the destruction layer is very similar to the one found at nearby Lachish (Level III), although some elements suggest that it could be a little earlier. The article discusses the assemblage and compares it to the relevant assemblages of other sites in order to assess the date of the destruction at Tel ‘Eton. At the present state of knowledge, we cautiously attribute the destruction to Sennacherib's campaign.

The Findings of the Bar-Ilan Expedition

from Katz and Faust (2012:23-26)

So far, excavations have been conducted in four areas (fig. 1). Below we summarise the findings from the two central areas: Area A, lying at the highest point of the mound, near its southern edge, and Area B, lying a few dozen metres north of it. In Area A (fig. 2), three main levels of occupations have thus far been uncovered (in addition to modern activity); at the lowest of them, several phases can be identified.

The uppermost stratum includes the remains of a massive square structure (estimated size: c. 20x20 m.). The external wall (c. 3 m. wide) is composed of two parallel walls, with the space between them filled with small stones. The structure is sub-divided by several inner walls. The massive size of the structure and its location at the top of the mound, at a point allowing it to dominate broad areas, suggest a military use, evidently as a fortress. Unfortunately, the structure is very poorly preserved and only portions of the foundation were uncovered; it is, therefore, difficult to date it. Circumstantial considerations lead us to date it to the late Persian or early Hellenistic period.

During the 2008 and 2009 seasons, limited evidence of resettlement was found on top of the massive eighth-century BCE destruction level (see below). The pottery discovered in that stratum resembles the pottery found in the destruction stratum below, suggesting that resettlement took place relatively soon after the destruction.

Beneath the fortress [of Area A] and the resettlement stratum (where found), large parts of well-preserved structures that had suffered violent destruction were discovered. Walls of the structures were preserved up to a height of 1.5 m., discovered within debris of stones and bricks in which numerous finds were unearthed, including dozens of pottery vessels, arrowheads, loom weights, metal vessels and bullae/sealings. The buildings seem to have been destroyed towards the end of the eighth century BCE, probably in the course of an Assyrian military campaign (see Blakely and Hardin 2002; for a conflicting view, Finkelstein and Na'aman 2004; and see further below). The central building, the doorpost stones of which were nicely worked, was fairly large, with the area of its ground floor apparently exceeding 250 sq. m. Thus far, a substantial part of this building's central courtyard, with a plastered floor, has been uncovered, as have portions of the surrounding rooms to the north, west and south. During the structure's final period of existence, the courtyard was divided into two by a flimsy wall. Evidence suggests that the courtyard was open, while the rest of the building was roofed, with a second storey built above it. The northern wing of the building, containing four small rooms, was excavated almost in its entirety; findings there included numerous storage vessels discovered in situ, smashed on the floor (fig. 3), as well as many other items, including smaller pottery vessels, loom weights and metal vessels. In some instances, the storage vessels were discovered with their contents — olives, grapes, lentils, vetch, and so on. At several points, remains of a white layer were discovered, apparently the remains of the floor of the second storey. Various items were found above that floor, including a small assemblage of bullae/sealings (Faust and Eshel 2012). In addition to this central structure, portions of several other buildings belonging to the same stratum were discovered.

Area B also yielded impressive remains from the late-eighth-century destruction stratum. The stratigraphic situation in this area is more complex and is discussed below (see also Faust 2011). We note only that in many squares, remains from the eighth century BCE, including a destruction level, were found directly under the surface. In the upper portion of Area B, adjacent to the area excavated by the Tel Aviv University expedition in the 1970s, we found parts of several structures (fig. 4). Their state of preservation was inferior to that of the structures in Area A, and the floors were uncovered only a few dozen centimetres below the surface. Despite this, large assemblages of complete vessels were recovered from this layer (fig. 5), attesting to the violent destruction inflicted upon the city at the time. It is noteworthy that many of the floors were made of plaster and are well preserved despite their proximity to the surface. The lower portion of Area B, on the slope of the mound, also yielded sections of floors on which complete vessels were found (fig. 6). A discussion of several aspects of the stratigraphy of this area follows the presentation of the ceramic assemblage.

Dating the Destruction Stratum at Tell 'Eton

from Katz and Faust (2012:39-41)

Analysis of the ceramic assemblage unearthed within the destruction stratum at Tel ‘Eton suggests that the final stage of the settlement's existence should be dated to the second half of the eighth century BCE (for the assemblage, see also fig. 13). The assemblage may be divided into three groups:

Vessels that first appear in the Iron Age IIA and that continue to exist during the eighth century BCE and sometimes even to the beginning of the sixth century BCE. Among these are a bowl with ledged rim (bowl 6); a bowl with a thickened or folded rim (bowl 7); an open cooking pot (cooking pot 2); a ‘lmlk-like’ storage jar (storage jar 2); a spouted jar (storage jar 7); and a jug with swollen body and everted neck (jug 3).

Vessels that make their first appearance not before the eighth century BCE and that continue to exist until the end of the Iron Age. Examples include a bowl with straight walls (bowl 1); a holemouth jar (storage jar 6); and an elongated juglet with cylindrical body (juglet 4).

Vessels characteristic only of the eighth century BCE.³ Typical of these are a closed cooking pot (cooking pot 1); a lmlk storage jar (storage jar 1); and a holemouth storage jar with three ridges on the shoulder (storage jar 5).

Since all these vessels were uncovered in the same destruction stratum — and most, in fact, were uncovered in the same structure — it is clear that the only time during which they all could have coexisted is the eighth century BCE. Moreover, the assemblage strongly resembles — though it is not identical to — the assemblage uncovered in Lachish Level III, whose destruction has been dated to 701 BCE, during Sennacherib's campaign. The Lachish excavations serve as the benchmark for dating Iron Age II strata in Judah; this certainly holds true for a nearby site such as Tel ‘Eton. In this light, it is clear that the destruction of the city should similarly be dated to around the end of the eighth century BCE, probably to Sennacherib's Judaean campaign of 701 BCE (see below). Before attempting a more precise dating, however, we should briefly consider the dating assigned to the city's destruction on the basis of the limited excavations conducted during the 1970s by the Lachish expedition, as those have been widely referred to (see, e.g., Blakely and Hardin 2002: 35; Finkelstein and Na'aman 2004: 66–67; see also Vaughn 1999: 29, 139).

Footnotes

3 The term `eighth century BCE' is a general term, encompassing the range of ceramics that existed during that century (primarily during its second half). Of course, many of the vessels continued to exist into the beginning of the seventh century; see also Finkelstein and Na'aman 2004.

The Destruction Date of Tell 'Eton According to the Lachish Expedition

from Katz and Faust (2012:41-42)

In its excavations at Tel ‘Eton, the Lachish expedition identified two strata. The earlier of the two was the more impressive and its destruction more evident; the later was relatively meagre (Ayalon 1985). Zimhoni, who published the ceramic assemblage from those excavations, noted the absence of any difference between the two strata (Zimhoni 1985: 87; 1997c: 207). She divided the assemblage into three groups, relating them to Levels III–IV at Lachish (Zimhoni 1985: 88; 1997c: 208):

Types of vessels that appear only in Lachish Level III, such as bowls with folded rim (Zimhoni 1985: figs. 4:8–9, 5:6–8; 1997c: figs. 4.4:8–9, 4.5:6–8); closed cooking pots (Zimhoni 1985: fig. 5:11; 1997c: fig. 4.5:11); and holemouth storage jars (Zimhoni 1985: fig. 7:10–11; 1997c: fig. 4.7:10–11).

Vessels that make their first appearance in Lachish Level IV but continue to exist in Level III, including bowls with plain rim (Zimhoni 1985: figs. 4:1, 5:1–3; 1997c: figs. 4.4:1, 4.5:1–3); and bowls with ledged rim (Zimhoni 1985: figs. 4:2, 8:2; 1997c: figs. 4.4:2, 4.8:2).

Vessels characteristic of the assemblage discovered exclusively in Lachish Level IV. This group includes kraters characterised by a folded rim. The walls are slightly carinated and rounded inward. The kraters are red-slipped on their interior (Zimhoni 1985: figs. 1:10,13, 4:5, 7:1; 1997c: figs. 4.1:10,13, 4.4:5, 4.7:1).⁴ An additional type found at Tel ‘Eton and characteristic of earlier assemblages is a cooking pot with thickened inverted rim bearing multiple grooves (Zimhoni 1985: figs. 4:11, 8:6; 1997c: figs. 4.4:11, 4.8:6). This type first appears in Lachish Level V, but it is characteristic primarily of Level IV, with 36% of all the cooking pots in this assemblage belonging to it (Zimhoni 1997b: 122; 2004a: 1682). At Arad, this type appears in Strata XII–XI (Singer-Avitz 2002: 112). Zimhoni also emphasised the resemblance between the vessels discovered at Tel ‘Eton and the Lachish Level IV finds in the widespread use of red slip and hand burnish in surface treatment of bowls and kraters (e.g., Zimhoni 1985: 88; 1997c: 208).

On the basis of these data, Zimhoni dated the two strata uncovered at the site by the Tel Aviv University expedition to 850–750 BCE. The end of Stratum I, which Zimhoni believes reflects the end of settlement at Tel ‘Eton, must, therefore, be no later than the middle of the eighth century BCE — what she takes to be the transition stage between Lachish Levels III and IV (Zimhoni 1985: 88; 1997c: 208).

Footnotes

4 Kraters resembling these were discovered in Strata III–IV at Timnah (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: KR 14); these kraters are mainly typical of Stratum IV, with the exception of 17 sherds found in Stratum III. It is worth noting, nevertheless, that none of them were discovered in the destruction layer of Stratum III, which is dated to 701 BCE (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 63).

Comparison Of The Finds Of The Lachish Expedition to Tel 'Eton And Of The Present Excavations

Ceramics

from Katz and Faust (2012:42-43)

The above discussion suggests, at first glance, a divergence between Zimhoni's dating and ours. A closer look at the ceramic findings published by Zimhoni, however, shows that it is precisely the complete or nearly complete vessels found in Stratum I at Tel ‘Eton, as defined by the Lachish expedition, that clearly characterise Level III at Lachish. These vessels include a closed cooking pot (Zimhoni 1997c: fig. 4.5:11), a two-handled ovoid storage jar (Zimhoni 1997c: fig. 4.7:12) and a four-handled ovoid storage jar, evidently of the lmlk-like variety (Zimhoni 1997c: fig. 4.7:16). The types unearthed by the Lachish expedition at Tel ‘Eton that are characteristic solely of Lachish Level IV (and do not continue into Lachish Level III) are represented only by sherds (Zimhoni 1997c: 183; see also figs. 4.4:11–12, 8.4:6). It is, therefore, reasonable to infer that these sherds originated in an earlier stratum or in floors and are not associated with the destruction stage of Stratum II or with Stratum I (see Blakely and Hardin 2002: 35). When one disregards those sherds, a comparison of the assemblage of vessels found in the Tel Aviv University excavations at Tel ‘Eton to the assemblage of complete or nearly complete vessels that we uncovered shows a marked similarity between the two groups (although Zimhoni's claims about the differences between the Tel ‘Eton findings and those from Level III at Lachish merit detailed discussion; see below). The resemblance is evident in the following types: bowls with thickened or folded rim (bowl 7), a closed cooking pot (cooking pot 1), an open cooking pot (cooking pot 2), a lmlk-like storage jar (storage jar 2), a two-handled ovoid storage jar (storage jar 3), a holemouth storage jar (storage jar 5), and a jug with a broad neck (jug 1). Vessels of these types are characteristic of the assemblages of Lachish Level III, Tell Beit Mirsim Stratum A2, City of David Stratum 12 and Caves I–II, Beersheba Stratum II, Arad Strata X–VIII, and Tel ‘Ira Stratum VII. In this light, we may infer that the settlement at Tel ‘Eton came to its end during the second half of the eighth century BCE (and see further below).

Stratigraphy

from Katz and Faust (2012:43-44)

Another matter to be considered in this comparison is the stratigraphy. The Lachish expedition found signs of destruction primarily at the earliest stage (Stratum II in their terminology); the final stage bore less evidence of actual destruction (Ayalon 1985: 61). That stage was also described as having been less well built (Ayalon 1985: 61). As we have seen, our excavation also identified a meagre stage of resettlement above the destruction stratum, but these remnants were identified only in Area A and not in Area B, which adjoined the area excavated by the Lachish expedition. Moreover, the settlement remains we identified are much more meagre than those described by the Lachish expedition as belonging to Stratum I.

Not only is there a lack of correspondence between the description of the late stratum uncovered by the Lachish expedition and our findings, but massive destruction was identified in our excavation just below the surface; this constitutes the final stage of habitation documented in Area B (see, e.g., fig. 5).

It is, therefore, noteworthy that despite the abundance of vessels discovered in some parts of Area B, the structures in this area are relatively poorly preserved, and it appears that there may be a difference in the degree of preservation between the section excavated by the Lachish expedition and some of the squares excavated by us. One possibility is that Stratum I of the Lachish expedition was simply not preserved in the areas we excavated.⁵ Another possibility is that the floors we uncovered were not well preserved in the area uncovered by the Lachish expedition and that their Stratum I, uncovered only partially, includes fragments of floors and walls intermingled with material from beneath and above the floors. Given the scope of our excavation and the abundance of floors and finds, we are inclined to the second possibility — that is, in the small section uncovered by the Lachish expedition the destruction stratum was less fully preserved, both because of its proximity to the surface and because of later activities at the site (as identified by the Lachish expedition itself; Ayalon 1985: 61). If that is the case, the entire analysis of this stratum (Blakely and Hardin 2002: 35; Finkelstein and Na'aman 2004: 66–67) is fundamentally flawed. The stratum of massive destruction at Tel ‘Eton was simply not unearthed by the Lachish expedition soundings due to the incidental nature of the finds in such a limited area. What they identified as a relatively meagre settlement⁶ was, in fact, the partial remains (albeit at some points less massive than those of the previous stage) associated with the massive destruction of the large city that existed at the site during the eighth century BCE.⁷

In the 2009–2010 seasons we expanded the excavations to the south of the Lachish expedition trench; interestingly, the finds here clearly indicate that the destruction layer was not preserved in this area (due to later activities; see Faust 2011). This suggests that the fact that the Lachish expedition probe did not detect a `real' destruction layer was a matter of coincidence, stemming from its lack of preservation in this limited area.

A stage of renewed settlement (probably by squatters) on top of the destruction level has been identified in our excavation too (in Area A only), but it appears to be very limited in scope; it is doubtful whether there was any real habitation after the destruction of the stratum discussed here.

Footnotes

5 Indeed, thus far, we have reached floors only in areas north of those excavated by the Lachish expedition.

6 Not only is it risky to draw general conclusions on the basis of the limited area excavated by the Lachish expedition, but Ayalon himself had reservations about the `meagerness' of the construction of Stratum I, given, for example, the hewn stone construction identified at this stage (Ayalon 1985: 61). Moreover, in many ways the construction at the later stage unearthed by the Lachish expedition (Stratum I) seems more substantial than at the early stage — for example, the doubled wall separating the structures, the larger courtyard, etc. (Ayalon 1985).

7 After re-clearing the area, we found, in the squares excavated by the Lachish expedition, a late wall that penetrated walls that appear to belong to the destruction stratum we identified in our excavations. If that identification was clear, it would suggest that a construction stage in fact followed the destruction; however, several problems cast doubt upon that stratigraphic relationship. First, we are dealing with different structures — all the squares we excavated and in which we reached floor levels belong to structures other than those excavated by the Lachish expedition. This casts doubt on whether that wall can be used as a basis for drawing stratigraphic conclusions in Area B. Moreover, some 30 years had elapsed between the time of the Lachish expedition at the site and our excavations — a period during which the area stood exposed. The fact that the relationship of our wall to the walls uncovered by the Lachish expedition appears to be at odds with what has been published increases the possibility that some `changes' occurred and that walls may have collapsed. It is highly problematic to postulate stratigraphic connections on the basis of walls that have stood exposed for several decades.

Destruction During Sennacherib’s Campaign Or Earlier ? The View From Tel 'Eton

Introduction

from Katz and Faust (2012:44-45)

Until quite recently, the various destruction strata discovered in the Shephelah were conventionally dated to Sennacherib's campaign in 701 BCE. That consensus, however, has recently been challenged. Blakely and Hardin (2002) showed that there were two destruction strata at many sites in the Shephelah — generally (though not always) a stratum of massive destruction above which a more meagre stratum of destruction was found. That is the case, for example, at Tell Beit Mirsim, at Beth Shemesh, in the earlier excavations at Tel ‘Eton, and elsewhere. Blakely and Hardin (2002) proposed dating the first, more massive, destruction to the time of Tiglath-pileser III and the later one to the time of Sennacherib. That view was refuted by Finkelstein and Na'aman (2004), who proposed dating the first destruction to Sennacherib's campaign and the later stratum to the beginning of the seventh century BCE. It is not our intention here to enter the debate with regard to all the sites in the Shephelah but only to deal briefly with the relevant findings from Tel ‘Eton.

Ceramics

from Katz and Faust (2012:45-47)

The primary question is whether it is possible to pinpoint when during the second half of the eighth century BCE the settlement at Tel ‘Eton was destroyed and if so, whether that destruction should be associated with Sennacherib's campaign (in 701) or whether it should be advanced all the way to the time of Tiglath-pileser III (734), or at least to the days of Sargon II (712).

As shown above, the assemblage from Tel ‘Eton is generally quite similar to that from Level III at Lachish, suggesting that the destruction should, in fact, be dated to 701. However, the ongoing debate warrants a more detailed consideration of the findings; several possible arguments for dating the destruction to somewhat earlier than 701 can be presented.

The possibility of using burnishing as an aid for the dating of pottery was first raised by Albright in the context of the findings from Tell Beit Mirsim (Albright 1943: 152–154). Over the ensuing years, several researchers considered the matter in the context of finds originating in the Shephelah. Zimhoni, studying the finds from Lachish Levels V and IV, showed that 60% of the bowls from Level IV had been burnished, the dominant form being hand burnish. Wheel burnish was identified only in three bowl fragments (Zimhoni 1997c: 118). In Level III, in contrast, Zimhoni reports no hand burnish whatsoever, whereas the use of wheel burnish had become common (Zimhoni 1997c: 169–170). At Timnah, various sorts of hand burnish were distinguished. 58% of the vessels found in Stratum IV were treated with horizontal or irregular hand burnish (or both); only 3% displayed wheel or continuous burnish. In Stratum III, the percentage of vessels burnished by hand — horizontally, irregularly, or both — drops to 30%, while the percentage of wheel burnish or continuous burnish rises to 38% (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 149, table 19). Examination of the assemblage found in our excavation at Tel ‘Eton shows that of the 28 complete bowls found, 43% are not burnished at all, 39% have horizontal hand burnish and only 18% are wheel-burnished.⁸ Comparison of these data to the data from Lachish and Timnah supports the possibility of an earlier dating of the destruction that ended the settlement at Tel ‘Eton, making it slightly harder to date that destruction to Sennacherib's campaign of 701 BCE, when Stratum III of Lachish was destroyed. One must recognise, of course, that different excavations may have employed different terminology or different chronologies, entailing possible confusion, but the general picture, at least, seems clear.⁹

The absence of lmlk impressions may also be of significance here. Although not proven, the generally accepted scholarly view is that lmlk impressions reflect the final stage of the eighth century BCE, on the eve of Sennacherib's campaign (e.g., Na'aman 1979; 1986; Ussishkin 1982: 47; see also Vaughn 1999: 165–166, who generally assigns the impressions to the time of Hezekiah; for a summary of the discussion and additional references, see Vaughn 1999: 136–138; for a different view, see, recently, Lipschits, Sergi and Koch 2010).¹⁰ Thus far, no such impressions have been found in our complete vessels. With respect to lmlk impressions, however, fragments are significant as well.¹¹ While the absence of impressions on complete vessels may be attributed to mere chance, the absence of impressions on the hundreds of broken handles uncovered is significant.

Several types of pottery vessels (we are discussing only complete or almost complete vessels) found at ‘Eton are characteristic of the earlier phase of Lachish III. At Lachish, vessels parallel in type to jug 4 were found at Tombs 120, 224, 1002 and 1004, which have been dated by Zimhoni (1997b: 164; 2004a: 1701) to Level IV or, at the latest, to the earliest days of Level III. An additional jug of this type was found in room 1010, part of a structure dated by Tufnell to the earliest stage of Level III (Tufnell 1953: 109). This phenomenon, also observed by Zimhoni in connection with some of the craters and cooking pots found by the Lachish expedition at Tel ‘Eton (Zimhoni 1985: 88; 1997c: 208), allows for the possibility that the assemblage in the Tel ‘Eton destruction stratum may be earlier than 701 BCE.

The three above arguments are not unambiguous. Regarding the first argument, the assemblage thus far uncovered may not be representative; once dozens of additional bowls are found, the statistics may change.¹² Thus, too, with respect to the second argument: as the dig continues, lmlk impressions may be discovered; the area excavated thus far may be too small to be representative (although the consideration of the hundreds of handles makes that claim somewhat more problematic).

Regarding the third argument, we may be dealing with a regional phenomenon, although the proximity of Tel ‘Eton to Lachish and the scope of the excavation at Lachish itself diminish the likelihood of that explanation. In light of this, we can say that there are some hints of a slightly pre-701 date for the assemblage (this is discussed further below).

Footnotes

8 Interestingly, in the Lachish expedition excavations at Tel ‘Eton, 62.3% of the bowl and krater fragments found in Stratum I are hand-burnished, while 19.4% of these fragments are wheel-burnished. In Stratum II, 61.9% of the vessels are hand-burnished, while only 9.5% are wheel-burnished (Zimhoni 1997c: 180, table 1). This shows both the similarity between the ceramics of the two strata — a similarity emphasised by Zimhoni — but also the frequency of hand burnish on the one hand, and on the other, the gradual increase in wheel burnish over time. The fact that our excavations uncovered somewhat fewer hand-burnished vessels may be coincidental, but may also follow from the fact that we considered only complete vessels, whereas Zimhoni's data pertained mainly to fragments, some of which most likely came from earlier phases.

9 The exterior treatment of vessels during the Iron Age II is also evident in the red slip characteristic primarily of bowls; the percentage of slipped bowls can also be an indicator for dating an assemblage. At Lachish Stratum V, slipped bowls constitute 66% of the total; in Stratum IV they amount to 62%; and in Stratum III, the figure is only 25–30% (Zimhoni 1997b: 114–115, 117; 2004a: 1674–1676). Similar variation over time in the percentage of slipped bowls is evident at Timnah, where 64% of the Stratum IV bowls are slipped, 30% are slipped in Stratum III, and only 18% are slipped in Stratum II (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 146, table 17). In Strata I–II at Tel ‘Eton, Zimhoni found 70% of the bowls to be slipped (Zimhoni 1985: 65; 1997c: 189). In the assemblage of bowls drawn from the new excavations at Tel ‘Eton, in contrast, the percentage of slipped bowls is 36%. From this perspective, the situation at Tel ‘Eton corresponds to that of the late eighth century BCE at Timnah and Lachish. As for the difference between Zimhoni's figure and ours, it probably stems from the fact that she examined mainly fragments; many small sherds may have originated from within floors, thus dating the entire life-span of a structure and not its end, as well as from earlier phases.

10 The interpretation of Lipschits, Sergi and Koch 2010 is fraught with problems, see, e.g., Ussishkin 2011.

11 We noted earlier that for purposes of dating the destruction, we should consider only complete vessels. With respect to lmlk impressions, however, fragments are significant as well. While the absence of impressions on complete vessels may be attributed to mere chance, the absence of impressions on the hundreds of broken handles uncovered is significant.

12 In addition, one must take account of the percentage of slipped bowls, which conforms to the late eighth century BCE dating as it emerges from other sites (see above, n. 9).

Stratigraphy

from Katz and Faust (2012:47-48)

Stratigraphy also warrants attention here. The various historical reconstructions offered by Blakely and Hardin, on the one hand, and by Finkelstein and Na'aman, on the other, emphasise the existence of two strata — one of massive destruction and another, above it, of meagre habitation — at the range of sites considered here, especially at Tel ‘Eton. As we have seen, however, the debate, insofar as it pertains to Tel ‘Eton, is grounded in error. The final massive settlement at that site was destroyed at the end of the eighth century BCE, and no significant habitation seems to have followed it (the resettlement stage identified in our excavations seems not to suggest any significant habitation). From that perspective, the findings at Tel ‘Eton correspond more to the accepted reconstructions, according to which the Shephelah was laid waste at the end of the eighth century, for were we to advance that destruction to the time of an earlier Assyrian king, we would be bound to conclude that there was nothing for Sennacherib to destroy at Tel ‘Eton. That sort of reconstruction, though not impossible, strikes us as unreasonable, especially given the mark made by Sennacherib's campaign on the various historical sources and the descriptions, both in biblical and Assyrian texts, of the widespread ruin it caused. (The campaign is documented in Sennacherib's prism, of which several copies have been preserved, and its mark is clearly evident in the biblical books of 2 Kings, Isaiah, Micah and elsewhere, such as Jeremiah 26; see, recently, Faust 2008 and literature cited therein.) It thus appears that the new stratigraphic analysis, tentative though it may be, supports the conventional reconstruction (and thereby corresponds more to the thesis advanced by Finkelstein and Na'aman).¹³

Footnotes

13 Though not to their effort to date the assemblage later, to the beginning of the seventh century BCE.

The Date of Destruction

from Katz and Faust (2012:48)

While the ceramic evidence allows the update of the destruction of the city that existed at Tel ‘Eton to a time preceding the destruction of Lachish III, that is not a matter of certainty. On the other hand, the stratigraphic analysis, together with historical considerations, tend to support the later dating. Given these considerations, we remain inclined to date the destruction of the city at Tel ‘Eton to the time of Sennacherib's campaign. Still, if the ceramic picture remains unchanged after several additional seasons of excavations, it might become more reasonable to conclude that the site was destroyed before Sennacherib's campaign. Alternatively, we might have to reexamine some conventional notions regarding the use of lmlk storage jars and of regional phenomena.

The Destruction Of Tel 'Eton In Historical Perspective

from Katz and Faust (2012:48-49)

The utter destruction, toward the end of the eighth century BCE, of the city that existed at Tel ‘Eton and the absence of any clear habitation in the seventh century fit well into the picture we have of settlement in the Judaean Shephelah.

Almost all the excavated sites in the region have yielded clear evidence of destruction during the Assyrian campaigns, and many settlements were not rebuilt following their destruction. Even in cases where a settlement was reestablished at the destroyed site, it was relatively meagre in comparison to its predecessor (see also Finkelstein and Na'aman 2004).

Thus, for example, no remains at all have been found from the seventh or early sixth centuries BCE at sites such as Kh. el-Qom (Defonzo 2005)¹⁴ or Beth Shemesh (Bunimovitz and Lederman 2003).¹⁵ At other sites, such as Lachish, relatively limited remains have been discovered (Ussishkin 2004b: 90–92), and it is clear that the extent of habitation during the seventh century BCE never regained its earlier levels.

Things are different in the Judaean Hills. Here, many sites were destroyed at the end of the eighth century, but nearly all were restored during the seventh. For example, there was settlement during that period at Kh. Rabud (Kochavi 1974; 1993), Hebron (Eisenberg and Nagorski 2002), Beth-Zur (Sellers et al. 1968; Funk 1993) and Ramat Rahel (Aharoni 1993; Barkay 2006; Lifschits et al. 2009). Moreover, the later resettlement generally exceeded eighth- century levels in its scope (with respect to Kh. Rabud, see, e.g., Kochavi 1974; for a full discussion, see Faust 2008).

It appears, therefore, that the Shephelah suffered a mortal blow during the Assyrian campaigns, especially that of Sennacherib, which seems to have been focused on that area. The transfer of part of that region to Philistine control — a result of Sennacherib's campaign — along with the ruin and demographic decline generated by the campaign apparently prevented full restoration of the area during the seventh century; any resettlement that took place was only partial.

It is noteworthy that the situation regarding settlement at Tel ‘Eton and the neighbouring sites of Tell Beit Mirsim¹⁶ and Kh. el-Qom parallels the situation in the Shephelah and differs from that in the Judaean Hills. This suggests that the trough valley at the time was part of the Shephelah and shared the same fate as it.

Footnotes

14 Earlier publications dated the primary stratum to the seventh century, but they seem to have been based on the erroneous dating of Lachish Level III (Defonzo 2005: 139–140).

15 According to the excavators, no seventh-century pottery was found at Beth-Shemesh, with the exception of some vessels that were unearthed within the water-system. They believe that this represents a failed effort to settle the site, and not an actual settlement (Bunimovitz and Lederman 2003). In any case, even if the site had been settled, the meagre nature of its remains is not in question (see also Stern 2001: 147–148).

16 Regardless of the exact dating of the resettlement of Tell Beit Mirsim (which is a matter of dispute), it is clear that even if it was settled during the seventh century this settlement was limited in scope.

Summary and Conclusions

from Katz and Faust (2012:49-50)

During the eighth century BCE, a large, and perhaps even planned, city existed at Tel ‘Eton in the trough valley. The city was cataclysmically destroyed towards the end of the century and did not recover (although there are local indications of meagre resettlement above the ruins).

The rich ceramic assemblage discovered in the excavations strongly resembles the assemblage found in Level III of nearby Lachish, but there are hints that the Tel ‘Eton assemblage might be slightly earlier. Only continued excavations will allow for conclusive resolution of the issue; for now, we believe it remains appropriate to attribute the destruction, albeit cautiously, to Sennacherib's campaign.

The history of Tel ‘Eton, situated at the trough between the Shephelah and the Judaean Hills, shows that the city was part of the Shephelah during the period studied. It appears that the settlement at Tel ‘Eton, like most other sites in the Shephelah, suffered a mortal blow during the Assyrian campaigns and was never reconstructed.

A4 and B3 Destruction - Iron IIB - 2nd half of the 8th century CE - Attributed to Military Activity

Effect	Location	Image (s)	Comments
Collapsed Walls Debris (due to Collapsed Walls) Broken Pottery	Area A Map of Tel ‘Eton and the roads in its vicinity (prepared by Yair Sapir), on the background geological map. Courtesy of Israel’s Institute of Geology Click on image to open in a new tab Tel 'Eton Excavations Fig. 2 Area A: aerial view after conclusion of 2009 season (photograph: Sky View) Click on image to open in a new tab Katz and Faust (2012)	Fig. 3 Destruction layer in Area A Click on image to open in a new tab Katz and Faust (2012)	"Beneath the fortress [of Area A] and the resettlement stratum (where found), large parts of well-preserved structures that had suffered violent destruction were discovered. Walls of the structures were preserved up to a height of 1.5 m., discovered within debris of stones and bricks in which numerous finds were unearthed, including dozens of pottery vessels, arrowheads, loom weights, metal vessels and bullae/sealings ... The northern wing of the building, containing four small rooms, was excavated almost in its entirety; findings there included numerous storage vessels discovered in situ, smashed on the floor (fig. 3), as well as many other items, including smaller pottery vessels, loom weights and metal vessels. In some instances, the storage vessels were discovered with their contents — olives, grapes, lentils, vetch, and so on. At several points, remains of a white layer were discovered, apparently the remains of the floor of the second storey. Various items were found above that floor, including a small assemblage of bullae/sealings (Faust and Eshel 2012)." - Katz and Faust (2012:23-26)
Broken Pottery	Area B Map of Tel ‘Eton and the roads in its vicinity (prepared by Yair Sapir), on the background geological map. Courtesy of Israel’s Institute of Geology Click on image to open in a new tab Tel 'Eton Excavations Fig. 4 Area B: plan (after 2010 season) Click on image to open in a new tab Katz and Faust (2012)	Fig. 7 The Assyrian destruction in Area B (square S48) Click on image to open in a new tab Faust (2012) Fig. 5 Fig. 5 Destruction layer in Area B (upper portion): in situ vessels Click on image to open in a new tab Katz and Faust (2012) Fig. 6 Fig. 6 Destruction layer in Area B (lower portion): in situ vessels Click on image to open in a new tab Katz and Faust (2012)	"Area B also yielded impressive remains from the late-eighth-century destruction stratum. ... large assemblages of complete vessels were recovered from this layer (fig. 5), attesting to the violent destruction inflicted upon the city at the time. ... The lower portion of Area B, on the slope of the mound, also yielded sections of floors on which complete vessels were found (fig. 6)" - Katz and Faust (2012:23-26)

A4 and B3 Destruction - Iron IIB - 2nd half of the 8th century CE - Attributed to Military Activity

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 Debris (due to Collapsed Walls) Broken Pottery	Area A Map of Tel ‘Eton and the roads in its vicinity (prepared by Yair Sapir), on the background geological map. Courtesy of Israel’s Institute of Geology Click on image to open in a new tab Tel 'Eton Excavations Fig. 2 Area A: aerial view after conclusion of 2009 season (photograph: Sky View) Click on image to open in a new tab Katz and Faust (2012)	Fig. 3 Destruction layer in Area A Click on image to open in a new tab Katz and Faust (2012)	"Beneath the fortress [of Area A] and the resettlement stratum (where found), large parts of well-preserved structures that had suffered violent destruction were discovered. Walls of the structures were preserved up to a height of 1.5 m., discovered within debris of stones and bricks in which numerous finds were unearthed, including dozens of pottery vessels, arrowheads, loom weights, metal vessels and bullae/sealings ... The northern wing of the building, containing four small rooms, was excavated almost in its entirety; findings there included numerous storage vessels discovered in situ, smashed on the floor (fig. 3), as well as many other items, including smaller pottery vessels, loom weights and metal vessels. In some instances, the storage vessels were discovered with their contents — olives, grapes, lentils, vetch, and so on. At several points, remains of a white layer were discovered, apparently the remains of the floor of the second storey. Various items were found above that floor, including a small assemblage of bullae/sealings (Faust and Eshel 2012)." - Katz and Faust (2012:23-26)	VIII+ VIII+ VII+
Broken Pottery	Area B Map of Tel ‘Eton and the roads in its vicinity (prepared by Yair Sapir), on the background geological map. Courtesy of Israel’s Institute of Geology Click on image to open in a new tab Tel 'Eton Excavations Fig. 4 Area B: plan (after 2010 season) Click on image to open in a new tab Katz and Faust (2012)	Fig. 7 The Assyrian destruction in Area B (square S48) Click on image to open in a new tab Faust (2012) Fig. 5 Fig. 5 Destruction layer in Area B (upper portion): in situ vessels Click on image to open in a new tab Katz and Faust (2012) Fig. 6 Fig. 6 Destruction layer in Area B (lower portion): in situ vessels Click on image to open in a new tab Katz and Faust (2012)	"Area B also yielded impressive remains from the late-eighth-century destruction stratum. ... large assemblages of complete vessels were recovered from this layer (fig. 5), attesting to the violent destruction inflicted upon the city at the time. ... The lower portion of Area B, on the slope of the mound, also yielded sections of floors on which complete vessels were found (fig. 6)" - Katz and Faust (2012:23-26)	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).

References

Articles and Books

Blakely, J.A., and Hardin, J.W. (2002) Southwestern Judah in the Late Eighth Century B.C.E. , BASOR 326: 11–64. - at academia.edu

Faust, A. (2011) The Excavations at Tel ‘Eton (2006–2009): A Preliminary Report , Palestine Exploration Quarterly 143/3: 198–224. - at academia.edu

Faust, A. (2012) The History of Tel 'Eton Following the Results of the First Seven Seasons of Excavations (2006-2012) in Proceedings of the 8th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East Volume 2 Excavation and Progress Reports Posters, 30 April – 4 May 2012, University of Warsaw - at academia.edu

Finkelstein, I., and Na’aman, N. (2004) The Judahite Shephelah in the Late 8th and Early 7th Centuries BCE , Tel Aviv 31: 60–79. - at academia.edu

Katz, H., and Faust, A. (2012) ‘The Assyrian destruction layer at Tel ‘Eton’ , Israel Exploration Journal 62, pp. 22-53 - at academia.edu

Zimhoni, O. (1997) The Iron Age Pottery of Tel ‘Eton and Its Relations to the Lachish, Tell Beit Mirsim and Arad Assemblages , in Zimhoni, O., Studies in the Iron Age Pottery of Israel: Typological, Archaeological and Chronological Aspects, Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 179–210 (originally Tel Aviv 12 [1985]: 63–90).

Websites

Tel 'Eton Excavations

Tel 'Eton Excavations Bibliography

Tel Eton at BibleWalks.com

Excavating Over Two Thousand Years of History at Tel ‘Eton at ASOR Blog

Excavations at Tel Eton at Unam Sanctam Catholicam

Bibliography from Tel' Eton Excavations by Bar Ilan University

from Tel 'Eton Excavations Bibliography

Arensburg, B., and Belfer-Cohen, A. (1992) Human Remains from Tomb C1 at Tell ‘Eitun, Atiqot 21: 45–48.

Ayalon, E. (1985) Trial Excavation of Two Iron Age Strata at Tel ‘Eton, Tel Aviv 12: 54–62.

Brewer, C. W. (1992) Metallographic Examination of Artifacts from Tomb C1 at Tell ‘Eitun, Atiqot 21: 42–44.

Edelstein, G. (1968) A Philistine Jug from Tell ‘Aitun, Qadmoniot 3: 100 (Hebrew).

Edelstein, G., and Aurant, S. (1992) The “Philistine” Tomb at Tell ‘Eitun, Atiqot 21: 23–41.

Edelstein, G., Ussishkin, D., Dothan, T., and Tzaferis, V. (1971) The Necropolis of Tell ‘Aitun, Qadmoniot 15: 86–90 (Hebrew).

Faust, A. (2008) Tel ‘Eton: A Biblical City in the Shephelah, Eretz Magazine, August 2008, 56–61.

Faust, A. (2008) Tel ‘Eton: A City from the Biblical Period, Eretz va-Teve, May–June 2008, 30–35 (Hebrew).

Faust, A. (2009) Tel ‘Eton 2006–2007 (Notes and News), Israel Exploration Journal 59: 112–119.

Faust, A. (2011) The Excavations at Tel ‘Eton (2006–2009): A Preliminary Report, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 143/3: 198–224.

Faust, A., and Eshel, E. (in press) An Inscribed Bulla with Grazing Doe from Tel ‘Eton, MAARAV.

Katz, H., and Faust, A. (2011) The Assyrian Destruction Layer at Tel ‘Eton, Eretz Israel 30 (Ben-Tor Volume): 256–274 (Hebrew).

Kloner, A. (1985) New Jewish Inscriptions from the “Darom”, Qadmoniot 71–72: 96–100 (Hebrew).

Tzaferis, V. (1982) A Monumental Roman Tomb on Tell ‘Eitun, Atiqot (Hebrew Series) 8: 22–25, 3* (Hebrew).

Tzaferis, V. (1982) Iron Age Tombs at Tell ‘Eitun, Atiqot (Hebrew Series) 8: 7–10, 1* (Hebrew).

Tzaferis, V., and Hess, O. (1992) A Late Bronze Age Tomb at Tell ‘Eitun, Atiqot 21: 9–21.

Ussishkin, D. (1974) Tombs from the Israelite Period at Tel ‘Eton, Tel Aviv 1: 109–127, pls. 21–24.

Zimhoni, O. (1997) The Iron Age Pottery of Tel ‘Eton and Its Relations to the Lachish, Tell Beit Mirsim and Arad Assemblages , in Zimhoni, O., Studies in the Iron Age Pottery of Israel: Typological, Archaeological and Chronological Aspects, Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 179–210 (originally Tel Aviv 12 [1985]: 63–90).

Wikipedia pages

Eglon (biblical place)

from Wikipedia