top of page

Introducing Ashdod-Yam: History and Excavations

In summer 2019, we are planning to continue the excavations of the Iron Age compound (known also as an 'Assyrian enclosure') at the site of Ashdod-Yam (South) (Ashdod on the Sea; Asdudimmu in the neo-Assyrian sources; a part of Azotos Paralios in Byzantine times), which is located on the coast of Israel (within the boundaries of the modern city of Ashdod), ca. 5 km north-west of Tel Ashdod. In addition, we shall continue the excavations of a Byzantine church with mosaics and inscriptions, discovered during the last season.
The excavations are planned as a joint venture of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University and a number of academic groups from the USA, Europe (mainly Germany), Canada and other organizations.
THE SITE OF ASHDOD-YAM

 

The fate of Ashdod-Yam was always connected to the capital city of Ashdod (one of the five major Philistine cities during the Iron Age; and see Ashdod I-VI in bibliography). Already during the Late Bronze Age there was probably a small port of trade at Ashdod-Yam, which served the capital city, while its main port of trade was located at Tel Mor, ca. 7 km north-west of Tel Ashdod, on the northern bank of Lachish River (Barako et al. 2007). Tel Mor's significance was diminished during the Iron Age and Ashdod-Yam became the main coastal settlement connected directly to the inland city of Ashdod. In Byzantine times, the coastal city of Azotos Paralios became even more important than its former capital, Azotos Mesogeios (known also as Azotos Hippenos).

 

Representation of Ashdod-Yam (Azotos Paralios) and Ashdod (Azotos Mesogeios) on the Madaba mosaic map from the 6th century AD

(copyright - Studium Biblicum Franciscanum - Jerusalem 2000)

The site of Ashdod-Yam is quite large, covering some 2 km from north to south, and ca. 1,5 km from east to west. As such, it consists of a number of clearly definable segments, which represent different periods in its history. In the southern part of the site, there is a mound (enclosure) that belongs to the Iron Age (ca. 1km to the south of this mound, a site from the Late Bronze Age was excavated between 2006 and 2007); the remains of the Roman-Byzantine city (mentioned in the Madaba mosaic map), covered by dunes, are spread to the north of the mound; and an impressive fortress, dating from the Early Islamic up to the Crusaders' period, is located at the northern part of the site. This citadel was excavated on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority between 1997 and 1999.

Early Islamic and Crusader fortress at Ashdod-Yam

 

ASHDOD-YAM DURING THE IRON AGE


The Iron Age enclosure of Asdod-Yam, where we are planning to undertake excavations, was excavated in intervals from November 1965 till March 1968 under the directorship of J. Kaplan, on behalf of the Museum of Antiquities of Tel Aviv-Jaffa. This excavation, however, was quite limited, with the main aim of exploring the Iron Age fortifications of the site. Ten cross-sections were cut along the edges of the glacis and the segments of the city wall, with the aim of exploring the fortifications. The exposed fortification elements consisted of a ca. 3-4.5 m.-thick brick city wall, which also served as a core for a large earthen embankment laid on both sides. The western ends of the rampart were destroyed by erosion; if they are reconstructed according to the orientation of the existing part, the rampart would have enclosed an area of some 15 hectares. The surviving part of this fortified horseshoe-shaped enclosure could be estimated as being ca. 150×450 m, that is some 67,5 dunams. Since Iron Age pottery was found during the survey over the entire site, and also beyond the ramparts, the fortified enclosure could have been part of a much larger site, which may be buried under the later accumulation of the classical periods. Modest amounts of pottery sherds and vessels (mainly locally-produced and of Phoenician origin) retrieved by Kaplan from the embankment and inside its perimeter allow the association of the compound with the 8th– early 7th centuries BCE.

General plan of the site, showing the location of Kaplan's excavation sections and

one of the sections in the system of fortifications (after Kaplan 1969)

 

 

The site, therefore, is reasonably identified with Asdudimmu, mentioned as one of three cities (together with Ashdod and Gath) conquered by Sargon II following the uprising of Yamani in Ashdod. Due to surviving historical documentation, the course of events is well-known (see, e.g., Tadmor 1958; Rollinger 2001):
There was some anti-Assyrian sentiment in the city of Ashdod, which caused its king Azuri to stop delivering tribute. In 713 BCE, Sargon II tried to solve the problem by choosing Azuri's younger brother Ahimiti as a new, loyal king. However, Ahimiti was overthrown by certain Yamani. Although a son of nobody, a commoner, Yamani took power, apparently with the help of the inhabitants of the city. Having heard that, Sargon promptly assembled a modest but reliable force and in 712 BCE his commander-in-chief (turtanu) marched against Ashdod. Yamani fled to Egypt without a fight. However, later on, the Egyptians handed him over to the Assyrian king. He was sent to Assyria in fetters and details of his further fate are unknown. On its way to Ashdod, the Assyrian army conquered Ashdod's dependent cities (including Ashdod-Yam). In order to prevent further rebellions, Sargon reorganized the territory of Ashdod, conducted deportations, and settled there quite a number of newcomers. More so, he made it the centre of a newly established Assyrian province. Sennaherib, his heir, adopted a different policy a few years later, and let the former royal house of Ashdod rule over the kingdom, side by side with the Assyrian governor.
According to Kaplan (1969), the construction of the massive Iron Age fortifications at Ashdod-Yam belongs to Yamani's preparations for the rebellion against Assyria. Other scholars, however, have offered different scenarios. Thus, according to Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz (2001), any significant activity at Tel Ashdod ceased immediately or a few years after the conquest of the city in 712 BCE by Sargon. According to their reconstruction, Sargon moved the remaining population to the then small coastal settlement of Ashdod-Yam, together with deportees from northeastern parts of the empire. The newly established city at Ashdod-Yam was furnished with a massive brick and earth fortification. Ashdod, however, is mentioned as a major power on a number of occasions in 7th – early 6th centuries historical records. Except for a mention in the late monarchic Biblical prophecies (Jer. 25:20; Zeph. 2:4; Zech. 9:6), Mitinti, King of Ashdod appears in the annals of Sennacherib as a loyal vassal of Assyria, to whom Judean territories were transferred after the campaign of 701 BCE; Ahimilki king of Ashdod is mentioned as paying tribute to Assyria in the days of both Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal; a governor of Ashdod was the eponym of the year 669 BCE; and Herodotus recounts how Psammetichus I laid siege for 29 years to Ashdod and then took it. Likewise, Ashdod still possessed a king in 598 BCE, as the Istanbul prism of Nebuchadnezzar II indicates. Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz have suggested therefore, that after the Assyrian destruction of Ashdod in 712 BCE, Ashdod-Yam took its place as the kingdom's capital; that is mentions of Ashdod in the historical sources of the 7th – 6th centuries BCE refer in fact to Ashdod-Yam.
Following this reconstruction, Na'aman (2001) has offered a slightly different view of events. According to him, Sargon founded the harbor at Ashdod-Yam immediately after he crushed the anti-Assyrian rebellion that broke out upon the death of Shalmaneser V in 720 BCE. Before the Assyrian intervention, Ashdod-Yam was a small port of trade that served the capital city. Sargon's building operations at this site threatened to block Ashdod's access to the sea, depriving it of maritime trade revenues. Na'aman suggests that the revolt at Ashdod should be seen as a local event and as a direct outcome of this building project. In this scenario, the rebels probably seized and fortified the newly established Assyrian emporion at Ashdod-Yam. Sargon took advantage of the revolt, destroyed Ashdod, brought his building activity at Ashdod-Yam to completion and made it the capital of the newly established province. The city of Ashdod remained desolated - although not entirely deserted - and Ashdod-Yam took its place as the kingdom's capital.
These reconstructions have already been criticized by a number of scholars, who do not accept the existence of a chronological gap at Ashdod during the 7th century BCE (e.g., Ben-Shlomo 2003; Shavit 2008). Even before Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz's suggestion with regard to a chronological gap at Ashdod, Fantalkin has argued that there is indeed a chronological gap at Ashdod, but only during the last third of the 7th century BCE; that is during the period of Egyptian domination in the area, which starts immediately after the Assyrian withdrawal from the Southern Levant (Fantalkin 2001). This claim was based on archaeological grounds and also takes Herodotus' information about Psammetichus I’s conquest of Ashdod as reliable (although the 29 year length of the siege is certainly an artificial construction).

A few years ago, Kogan-Zahavi and Nahshoni from the Israel Antiquities Authority, have excavated the remains of what seems to be the administrative palace of the Assyrian representative. The building is located in the immediate vicinity of Tel Ashdod, and its existence implies that the city of Ashdod continued to be the capital of the province during the better part of the 7th century BCE. The transfer of the capital to Ashdod-Yam (if it happened at all), could have occurred only after Psammetichus' destruction of Ashdod in the second half of the 7th century BCE.
Saying this, however, one should probably agree with Finkelstein, Singer-Avitz and Na'aman's identification of an Assyrian emporion at the site of Ashdod-Yam.
The Assyrian interest in the coastal area is known to have stemmed from their desire to be involved in, and obtain their share from revenues of, the international trade among Phoenicia, Philistia and Egypt (see, e.g., Elat 1978; Fantalkin 2006; Fantalkin and Tal 2009; Berlejung 2012). As a result, on the one hand the Phoenicians enjoyed the stability of the pax Assyriaca and exclusive access to trade routes and mercantile centers, but on the other hand, Assyrian administrative officials closely monitored that trade and levied duties on it (see, e.g., Frankenstein 1979; Na’aman 2001; Sommer 2007; Fales 2008). There is no doubt that the Assyrians invested a great deal of effort in the routing of commerce and its concomitant taxes, an effort that required constant supervision over main points of control, among them seaports and emporia. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the location of Ashdod-Yam made it an important intermediate station and emporion on the maritime and overland route between Phoenicia and Egypt.

As can be easily seen from this brief survey, there is no shortage of possible scenarios concerning the fate of Ashdod-Yam during the Iron Age. Contrary to these scenarios, however, our archaeological understanding of site's history is rather modest since the site remains virtually unexcavated. It is time to conduct a full-scale archaeological excavation at the Iron Age compound of Ashdod-Yam. Such an endeavor will have the potential to make a significant contribution to the archaeology of the ancient Mediterranean and beyond.

BIBLIOGRAPHY MENTIONED IN THE TEXT:

  • Ashdod I. Dothan, M. and Freedman, D.N. 1967. The First Season of Excavations 1962 (Atiqot 7). Jerusalem.
  • Ashdod II-III. Dothan, M. et al. 1971. The Second and Third Season of Excavations 1963, 1965 (Atiqot 9-10). Jerusalem.
  • Ashdod IV. Dothan, M. and Porat, Y. 1982. Excavations of Area M: The Fortifications of the Lower City (Atiqot 15). Jerusalem.
  • Ashdod V. Dothan, M. and Porath, Y. 1993. Excavations of Area G. The Fourth-Sixth Seasons of Excavations 1968-1970 (Atiqot 23). Jerusalem.
  • Ashdod VI. Dothan, M. and Ben-Shlomo, D. 2005. The Excavations of Areas H and K (1968-1969) (IAA Reports 24). Jerusalem.
  • Barako, T.J. et al. 2007. Tel Mor: The Moshe Dothan Excavations, 1959–1960 (IAA Reports 32). Jerusalem.
  • Ben-Shlomo, D. 2003. The Iron Age Sequence of Tel Ashdod. Tel Aviv 30: 83–107.
  • Berlejung, A. 2012. The Assyrians in the West: Assyrianization, Colonialism, Indifference, or Development Policy? In: M. Nissinen ed. Congress Volume Helsinki 2010 (VT. Sup. 148). Leiden: 21–60.
  • Elat, M., 1978. The Economic Relations of the Neo-Assyrian Empire with Egypt. Journal of the American Oriental Society 98: 20–34.
  • Fales, F. 2008. On Pax Assyriaca in the Eighth-Seventh Centuries BCE and Its Implications. In: Cohen, R. and Westbrook, R., eds. Isaiah’s Vision of Peace in Biblical and Modern International Relations: Swords into Plowshares. Hampshire: 17-35.
  • Fantalkin, A. 2001. Mezad Hashavyahu: Its Material Culture and Historical Background. Tel Aviv 28: 3–165.
  • Fantalkin, A. 2006. Identity in the Making: Greeks in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Iron Age. In: Villing, A. and Schlotzhauer, U. eds. Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt. Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean (The British Museum Research Publication 162). London: 199–208.
  • Fantalkin, A. and Tal, O. 2009. Re-discovering the Iron Age Fortress at Tell Qudadi in the Context of the Neo-Assyrian Imperialistic Policies. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 141: 188–206.
  • Finkelstein, I. and Singer-Avitz, L. 2001. Ashdod Revisited. Tel Aviv 28: 231–259.
  • Frankenstein, S., 1979. The Phoenicians in the Far West: A Function of Neo-Assyrian Imperialism. In: M. T. Larsen (ed.), Power and Propaganda: a Symposium on Ancient Empires (Copenhagen Studies in Assyriology 7: Mesopotamia). Copenhagen: 263–294.
  • Kaplan, J. 1969. The Stronghold of Yamani at Ashdod-Yam. Israel Exploration Journal 19: 137–149.
  • Na'aman, N. 2001. An Assyrian Residence at Ramat Rahel? Tel Aviv 28: 260–280.
  • Rollinger, R. 2001. The Ancient Greeks and the Impact of the Ancient Near East: Textual Evidence and Historical Perspective. In: Whiting, R.M. ed. Mythology and Mythologies: Methodological Approaches to Intercultural Influences. Helsinki: 233–264.
  • Shavit, A. 2008. Settlement Patterns of Philistine City-States. In: Fantalkin, A. and Yasur-Landau, A., eds. Bene Israel: Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and the Levant during the Bronze and Iron Ages in Honour of Israel Finkelstein. Leiden: 135–164.
  • Sommer, M., 2007. Networks of Commerce and Knowledge in the Iron Age: The Case of the Phoenicians. Mediterranean Historical Review 22/1: 97–111.
  • Tadmor, H. 1958. The Campaigns of Sargon II of Assur: A Chronological-Historical Study (Conclusion). Journal of Cuneiform Studies 12/3: 77-100.
bottom of page