Download this PDF file - University of Alberta - Journal Hosting

“IN CONVERSATION WITH ODED LIPSCHITS” 31century structures which Zorn isolated inhabited through the entirety ofthe sixth century or were most abandoned within a few decades afterthe fall of Jerusalem? It is extremely difficult to know. Anotherimportant site, el-Gib, biblical Gibeon, was also so poorly excavatedthat it is very difficult to say anything other than that the site was activein wine production for some time in the middle of the sixth century. Weare on somewhat firmer ground at Beitîn, biblical Bethel, which alsocontinued later into mid-sixth century until it was destroyed. Again, thedestruction at Beitîn is later than the destructions of Jerusalem, but it isnot clear how much later. After this later destruction, Bethel wasabandoned until sometime in the middle of the fifth century. At Tell el-Ful, likely ancient Gibeah, stratigraphic excavation has provided secureevidence of both a partial destruction early in the sixth century andcontinued occupation for some time through the middle of the sixthcentury (judged by Lapp [1981] to last until approximately 538). The sitewas then abandoned.In his reading of the Benjamin evidence, Lipschits contends thatoccupation at these sites was “uninterrupted” (241, n. 210; 244) and thatthese sites only “gradually declined” (259) over the fifth and fourthcentury. He argues that the survey information for the later Persianperiod, from the mid-fifth century, reflects a “low point” in a gradualprocess of decline. In this gradual process, he feels it unnecessary toargue for the abandonment and restoration that he sees the biblicalauthors envisioning. All would agree that these excavations showoccupation in Benjamin after the destruction of Jerusalem. The nature,boundaries, and density of this occupation, however, are poorlyunderstood. It is not clear how long these sites flourished or when theybegan to decline. The best excavated sites of the region in this period,Tell el-Ful and Beitîn, do not support Lipschits’s contention ofdemographic continuity through the middle of the fifth century. Rathertheir abandonment or even destruction points to a rather precipitousdecline as early at the second half of the sixth century.While most of the demographic contentions of our author revisethe consensus understanding of Benjamin or the Negev in the sixthcentury, his reconstruction of the northern Judean Hills is much moreradical. He sketches out a region roughly from Beth-Zur in the South toBethlehem in the North. In this area, Avi Ofer’s survey (1993)proposed that the population was the same size at the end of the IronAge as at the height of the Persian period. While there are, at the locallevel, a fair number of sites which were only occupied in either the IronAge or the Persian period and site size and distribution was rathersubstantially changed, the aggregate population was virtually identical.Lipschits argues, based upon these population estimates, “that mostsettlements persisted unchanged from the Iron Age to the PersianPeriod.” Further, he argues that this region “did not suffer destructionduring the Babylonian campaign against Judah.” Or again, “there wasnot dramatic change in the demographic profile of the region.”In some ways, this conclusion reminds me of a photograph of Cityof David taken from the Mt. of Olives. From the photograph alone onemight be misled into believing that the walk between Silwan and theCity of David is a gentle downhill slope. But to anyone who has walked