Khirbet Qeiyafa is a 5.7 acre (2.3 ha) site surrounded by massive fortifications of megalithic stones, which still stand to a height of 6.6 to 9.8 ft (2–3 m). It is located in the western part of the high Shephelah, on the summit of a hill that borders the Elah Valley on the north. V. Guérin, C. R. Conder, and H. H. Kitchener visited Khirbet Qeiyafa in the second half of the nineteenth century but only surveyed the site without conducting excavations or proposing an occupational history. During most of the twentieth century the site was neglected and not referred to in the works of the leading scholars in the field of biblical archaeology. In the 1990s it was surveyed by Yehuda Dagan and Zvi Greenhut. While pottery sherds from various periods had been identified, no Iron-IIA settlement was recognized. In 2007, Yosef Garfinkel and Saar Ganor of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem initiated an excavation project and were later joined by Michael Hasel of Southern Adventist University, with five excavation seasons conducted by 2011.

The excavations revealed a large sequence of periods: Late Chalcolithic, Middle Bronze Age, Iron Age IIA, Late Persian–Early Hellenistic, Early Roman, Late Roman–Byzantine, and Islamic. This long sequence gives the impression that Khirbet Qeiyafa is a tell site with a deep accumulation of archaeological sediments. However, over large parts of the site bedrock is exposed above topsoil, so there are basically only a few short episodes of occupation. The main contribution of the excavations is the large horizontal exposure of an Iron-Age city, which was built on bedrock and destroyed after a rather short time. Radiometric dating of 10 olive pit samples dated the city to the end of the eleventh century B.C.E. and the beginning of the tenth century B.C.E., ca. 1020–980 B.C.E. Khirbet Qeiyafa affords a unique opportunity to study various aspects of an Iron-Age city, otherwise largely inaccessible in large, multilayered tell sites.

Constructing the Iron-Age City.

After the first five excavation seasons, ca. 37,674 ft2 (3,500 m2, 15 percent of the city) were uncovered and a vivid picture of the urban character was obtained, including the casemate city wall, two gates, two gate piazzas, dwelling units, drainage systems for rainwater and sewage, cultic artifacts, public buildings, and a stable. The urban planning of the site includes the casemate city wall and a belt of houses abutting the casemates and incorporating them as part of the construction. This is a typical feature of city planning in Judean cities of the ninth and eighth centuries B.C.E. and is also known at the cities of Beth-Shemesh, Tell en-Naṣbeh, and Beersheba.

Khirbet Qeiyafa is a rare case in the archaeology of the Near East, where it is possible to ascertain how the city was physically constructed, reconstructing the various stages of work, the raw materials used, and determining how the division of labor was organized. The field observations clarify that the city was built in seven stages, some contemporaneous with one another.

Construction preparation and building materials.

The builders removed sediments and exposed bedrock in a 65.6 ft (20 m) circular belt around the site. Later, the city wall and a row of houses were constructed along this area. The outer city wall was constructed of very large stones, sometimes 6.6 to 9.8 ft (2–3 m) long and 4.4 to 8.8 tons (4–8 metric tons) in weight founded directly on bedrock. Where did these large stones come from? The simplest solution would have been to quarry them from the immediate vicinity, inside the city, and to slide them down the slope just a few meters. There was no one central quarry but many ad hoc locations. The 2011 excavation season documented and studied such quarrying activities in two areas.

Building a fortified enclosure.

The fortifications and houses were built in four stages, based on the order in which walls abut each other. The city gates were built first, beginning with the elongated walls, followed by the gate piers. The front pier of the western side of the gate in Area C was constructed first. The outer casemate wall abuts the gates, so it was built after the gates. It seems that it was probably built as a freestanding wall, encircling the area of the planned city. It was probably built rapidly to create a fortified stronghold.

Completing the fortification system.

The inner walls of the casemates (the walls parallel to the outer city wall and the walls dividing the casemates from each other) were built abutting the gates and the outer city wall. This was the third stage. While megaliths were used for the outer wall, smaller stones were used for the inner casemates. Based on the analysis of casemate openings, it seems that there were four main working units simultaneously engaged in the construction of the site. Two working units started from each of the two gates, one to the left and one to the right. From the western gate in Area B, one working unit built the inner casemate toward the north and another toward the south. From the southern gate in Area C, one working unit built the inner casemate toward the west and another toward the east. The openings of the casemates, in all four cases, face farthest from the gate. These working units must have met somewhere along the city wall.

Public and administrative buildings.

These structures are the least known, but there is some evidence for such buildings in several excavated areas. In Area C, a square stable with pillars and a basin resembles the typical architecture of public buildings in the Iron-Age period. In Area A the corner of a massive building, three times thicker then the common dwellings, was excavated. It seems that the two buildings located immediately after the gate piazzas, one in Area D and one in Area C, had public functions since each contained a cultic room.

Dwelling units.

A peripheral belt of dwellings was built adjacent to and abutting the casemate city wall. Each building incorporates the casemates as part of the back room. Thus, household units could be constructed only after the city wall was completed. The walls of these buildings were constructed in a single row from small stones, not larger than 19.7 in (50 cm).

Inner city.

The central part of Khirbet Qeiyafa is exposed bedrock. In this respect the site differs from Tell Beth-Shemesh, Tell en-Naṣbeh, Tell Beit Mirsim, and Beersheba, whose centers indicate dense building activity. Khirbet Qeiyafa also differs from these sites by having only one Iron-Age phase. It is suggested that Khirbet Qeiyafa was destroyed in an early phase of its existence before the center of the site was completed.

Distribution of Construction Labor.

It seems that in the construction of the city three different levels of working skills were involved. This can be deduced from the size of the stones and their location in the different architectural units. These differences may indicate a division of labor and perhaps gender distinctions.

Megalithic stones.

These are very large stones, 6.6 to 9.8 ft (2–3 m) in length and 4.4 to 8.8 tons (4–8 metric tons) in weight. The quarrying, transportation, and final placement of these huge stones required sophisticated technology and professional masons. These stones are found only in the gates and the outer wall of the city’s fortification. Professional stone masonry was developed in the later part of the Iron Age, with elaborate ashlar masonry, masons’ marks, and well-carved capitals. The masonry work at Khirbet Qeiyafa could perhaps be the background for these later developments.

Large stones.

The large stones are about 1.6 to 3.3 ft (0.5–1 m) in length and several hundred pounds (or a few hundred kilograms) in weight. These stones were used for the construction of the inner casemate wall. The quarrying, transportation, and final placement of these stones required a few strong people but could have been accomplished with less sophisticated technology. Yet even here, the evenly measured openings to the casemates and the consistent measurements required care and planning.

Medium and small stones.

These stones are less than 1.6 ft (0.5 m) in length, and their weight is usually 44 to 66 lb (20–30 kg). They could have been collected and moved or carried by the average person, including women and grown children. These stones were used for the construction of the dwellings abutting the city wall. This may indicate that this stage of the building project was constructed by individual families and was not part of the public, centrally organized construction of the city.

Professional workers who were part of the central authority may have been responsible for the construction of the outer city wall. Ordinary male adults, ad hoc forced labor, built the inner casemate city wall. Unlike the public operations, the belt of dwellings could have been built by the private families who later lived in the city. While the men were busy with the construction of the fortifications, the women and children could have collected medium and small stones for building the private houses. A detailed classification of these stones, taking into account their size, weight, and shape, compared with their location and use, will enable a better understanding of labor division during the construction of the city.

Find Categories.

In all of the excavation areas a heavy destruction layer was noticed in the Iron-Age city. As a result, very rich assemblages were found in the debris between the walls and on the floors.

Ceramic assemblage.

Hundreds of restorable pottery vessels were found on the floors of the houses and in the casemates. The pottery assemblage is a typological bridge that connects two periods. There is continuity from the Iron Age–I tradition, with some characteristics that later became classical markers of Iron Age IIA. Three different types of pottery vessels were found. The first and largest group is simple local ware, including a small number of vessel types: shallow, rounded bowls; shallow, carinated bowls; kraters with an inverted upper part and two to six handles; simple juglets; black juglets; simple jugs; strainer jugs; cooking pots with an inverted rim; baking trays; and storage jars that usually have a fingerprint on one of the handles. Most of these vessels lack ornamentation. Red slip very rarely appears on bowls and jugs, which sometimes also feature irregular hand burnishing. The second group of pottery is composed of “Ashdod ware,” medium-sized vessels: strainer jars, pyxides, bottles, juglets, and chalices. The items are painted with red slip and with white and black horizontal lines. The vessels are made with loess and sandy clay imported from the Coastal Plain. The third group is composed of two black-on-white juglets imported from Cyprus.

Stone tools.

Over 200 stone vessels were found. These were made from hard limestone, soft limestone, chalk, basalt, beach rock, flint, and other minerals. Few fragments of small alabaster vessels were discovered as well, indicating that there was trade with Egypt.

Metal objects.

Over 30 iron and bronze tools, mainly weapons, were uncovered, including swords, daggers, arrowheads, spearheads, and one bronze axe. Two pottery crucibles with bronze slag were found as well, indicating that there was metal smelting on site.

Small finds.

Various small finds include stone beads, incised bone pendants, Egyptian scarabs, and other stamp seals, among which is a rectangular steatite seal that can be dated closely through comparative material from the late eleventh to early tenth century B.C.E. The iconographic motif repertoire found on the seals demonstrates Egyptian influences.

Cultic paraphernalia.

In the three cultic rooms various artifacts were found, including standing stones, basalt altars, libation vessels, and shrine models. No human or animal figurines were discovered. The cult practices at Khirbet Qeiyafa are different from Canaanites or Philistine practices, which were found in large-scale temples characterized by rich iconographic paraphernalia.


An ostracon found at Khirbet Qeiyafa contained five lines, with a total of some 70 letters. The letters are written in an archaic style, in the Canaanite writing tradition (also known as “proto-Canaanite”). A good deal of the writing is unclear, making it difficult to decipher. The inscription includes words such as “do not do” (al taʾas), “judge” (shofet), “slave” (ʾeved), “god” (El), “Baal” (Baal), and “king” (melekh). This is the longest extant inscription from the twelfth to ninth centuries B.C.E. in the region and one of a few uncovered in clear stratigraphic context. If we accept the reading al taʾas (לʿ שʾת, “do not do”) in the beginning of the first line, then the language is Hebrew. Other possible languages could be Canaanite, Phoenician, Philistine, or an unknown Semitic dialect. According to the expedition’s interpretation of the site, its location, architecture, and diet, Khirbet Qeiyafa was part of the kingdom of Judah. Thus, the inscription is more likely to represent very early Hebrew.

Khirbet Qeiyafa

Khirbet Qeiyafa inscription. Kim Walton, courtesy of the Israel Museum, Jerusalem

view larger image

Animal bones.

Thousands of animal bones were found at Khirbet Qeiyafa, including sheep, goat, and cattle; but there is a complete lack of pig bones, unlike the nearby Philistine centers of Ekron (Tel Miqne) and Gath (Tell es-Safi), where pigs were consumed by the population. A second aspect relating to food consumption is the pottery baking trays which were found at Khirbet Qeiyafa in each building but are unknown at Ekron and Gath. These aspects at Khirbet Qeiyafa demonstrate that two different populations coexisted in the Iron-Age Shephelah and that the Qeiyafa population was clearly not Philistine.

The Contribution of Khirbet Qeiyafa to the Study of the Iron Age.

Khirbet Qeiyafa has added significant new data to the current debate over the Iron Age that has been the focus of scholarship since 1990. In the following summary, the cumulative data for this type site of the Iron Age–IIA period is discussed in individual segments.

Iron-Age chronology.

The transition between Iron I and Iron II is a subject of debate. The traditional view of this transition, designated the “high chronology,” dates this process to ca. 1000 B.C.E. Advocates of the “low chronology” place the end of the Iron I at ca. 920 B.C.E., and the “ultralow chronology” suggests it to be as late as ca. 900 B.C.E. Ten olive pits from the destruction layer of the Iron-Age city at Khirbet Qeiyafa were sent to Oxford University for dating. When combined, the calibrated average was 1051–969 B.C.E. (77.8 percent probability) or 963–931 B.C.E. (17.6 percent probability). These results point out that the transition from Iron I to Iron II began in the Judean area in accordance with the high chronology. Khirbet Qeiyafa dates clarify that there were fortified cities in Judah during the late eleventh and early tenth centuries B.C.E.

Surveys and settlement patterns.

Khirbet Qeiyafa was surveyed extensively by Y. Dagan (2008), who, based on pottery collected on the site’s surface, identified occupation phases from the Iron I and Iron IIB but no settlement at all from the Iron IIA. However, the excavations revealed the opposite picture: no finds at all from the Iron I or Iron IIB but a massive fortified city from the Iron-IIA period. The surveys completely overlooked the large fortified Iron-IIA city at the site.

In the extensive surveys conducted in the Judean Shephelah (from Beth-Shemesh to Lachish) hardly any sites from the early Iron IIA were noticed. The same picture was reported in various other surveys conducted in the hill country and created a false picture of Judah as an empty land during the tenth and ninth centuries B.C.E. This has led adherents of the low chronology to suggest that Judah became a full-blown state only in the late eighth century B.C.E. Khirbet Qeiyafa indicates that the surveys in Judah failed to recognize the early Iron-IIA period, suggesting that the reconstructed settlement patterns have little solid base.

Khirbet Qeiyafa and the Biblical Tradition of King David.

The main question regarding Khirbet Qeiyafa is its relation to the biblical text which describes the state-formation processes in Judah, King David’s activities, and intensive military clashes in the Elah Valley. This clash between Judah and the Philistine city of Gath are contemporaneous with the settlement of the fortified city at Khirbet Qeiyafa. This is the crux of the debate in Iron-Age archaeology and history: the historicity of the biblical narrative concerning the periods of David and Solomon. The view that David was a mythical figure is now obsolete since the Tel Dan stele describes Judah as the “house of David.” But it remains unclear whether he was the ruler of a large empire or only a small, local chieftain. How do the results of excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa enable a better understanding of these complicated matters? The following points should be taken into consideration.


Khirbet Qeiyafa is located at the western end of the high Shephelah and controlled the entrance to the Elah Valley, the main route from the coastal plain to the hill country, Jerusalem, and Hebron. The city was built on bedrock rather than over the ruins of a Canaanite city from the Late Bronze Age. Why did this location suddenly become important in the late eleventh to early tenth centuries B.C.E.?

Massive fortifications.

The site has an especially impressive casemate wall that incorporated megalithic stones weighing up to 8.8 tons (8 metric tons). Such massive construction is not known in Late Bronze–Age Canaanite cities, nor is it evident in hundreds of smaller Iron Age–I sites in the hill country.


More than 30 metal objects, mostly weapons, were found, including three iron swords in an Iron-Age context in close proximity to two dagger blades. Other areas contained iron and bronze blades. The very rich assemblage of iron and bronze weapons is otherwise unknown in contemporaneous sites.

Two gates.

Khirbet Qeiyafa was constructed with two gates, one facing west and the other facing south. The gates are of identical size and consist of four chambers. This is the only known example from the First Temple period of a settlement with two gates in the Northern or the Southern Kingdom.

Urban planning.

The dwellings of Khirbet Qeiyafa adjoin and are incorporated into the casemate wall, with the casemates constituting the back rooms of the houses. Such planning is evident at four additional sites: Beth-Shemesh, Tell en-Naṣbeh, Tell Beit Mirsim, and Beersheba. These sites are all dated to the Iron Age II and located in the kingdom of Judah.

Ceramic assemblage.

Most of the pottery is locally made and undecorated. Parallel pottery assemblages were uncovered at Arad layer XII, Beersheba layer VII, and Khirbet ed-Dawwara (a site located about half a day’s walk northeast of Jerusalem). The elaborated, decorated vessels were usually imported from nearby Philistia (Ashdod ware vessels) or from Cyprus.

Production of storage jars.

Hundreds of storage jars were discovered at Khirbet Qeiyafa, generally with one or more handles marked by a fingerprint. By the end of the 2011 excavation season, about 520 such handles had come to light. Petrographic examinations indicated that all the jars were made in the same place, in the vicinity of Khirbet Qeiyafa.

Diet and food preparation.

Thousands of animal bones were found at the site, including sheep, goats, and cattle. No pig bones were discovered. Almost every house contained a baking tray—a shallow bowl with a charred inner side, indicating that it had been placed over an open fire with the dough draped over the rough outer side.

Commercial trade networks.

Finds from the site suggest the import of items from varying distances: regional (Ashdod ware pottery), interregional (copper, basalt), and international (Cypriot pottery, gold, alabaster). This suggests that Khirbet Qeiyafa had ties to a much wider commercial trade network.

Writing and literacy.

Based on the terminology employed in the inscription, the epigraphist Haggai Misgav concluded that an ostracon found at Khirbet Qeiyafa is written in Hebrew. The ostracon was found at a border town on the outskirts of Judah, not in the center. This has major implications for the extent of writing and literacy in the Iron Age–IIA period, an issue that has been challenged in the current debate.

Aniconic cult.

In three rooms rich cultic paraphernalia was found but no human or animal figurines, which are frequent in ritual Canaanite or Philistine sites. These objects include standing stones, basalt altars, libation vessels, and shrine models.

Radiocarbon dating.

As determined by Oxford University, the 14C readings of olive pits give an average date from the eleventh to the early tenth century B.C.E. The rich ceramic assemblage of the site dates to the same period. The combined results contribute to the establishment of this as a type site for the Iron Age–IIA period.

End of settlement and abandonment.

The site was destroyed suddenly, as attested by the hundreds of items found on floors or in the debris of collapsed buildings. The cause of the destruction is still unknown. Khirbet Qeiyafa was abandoned following its destruction and not resettled until the late Persian–early Hellenistic period. Why did its inhabitants not rebuild the site, and why is it not a stratified mound like other sites in the vicinity?

Khirbet Qeiyafa seems different in many aspects from all other sites known up to its time; from Canaanite sites of the Late Bronze Age and Philistine sites to Iron Age–I sites in the hill country. It signals the appearance of a new era in the history of the land of Israel. Since the sites exhibiting the characteristic features that first appear at Khirbet Qeiyafa are settlements of the kingdom of Judah, we must conclude that Khirbet Qeiyafa, too, belonged to the Judean kingdom. Radiometric dating of the site to the beginning of the tenth century B.C.E. places it at the period of the early monarchy in Judah, the time of King David.

According to the biblical tradition, David reigned in Hebron for seven years before conquering Jerusalem. Because of the complex situation of both of these locations, it has been difficult to excavate large areas and reveal distinct archaeological strata dating to the first third of the tenth century B.C.E. Thus, Khirbet Qeiyafa is the key to the information needed for an understanding of the material culture in Judah in its initial phase. Khirbet Qeiyafa is a fortified city in Judah located within one day’s walk from Jerusalem and one day’s walk from Hebron. The distance between these three cities corresponds well to the expected distance between central cities in a kingdom. Khirbet Qeiyafa perhaps functioned as the third most important city in the early kingdom of David.

Taxation was a most important aspect of central authority. In antiquity there were two ways to tax the population: by dedicating time for construction (forced labor) and by allocating a percentage of the agricultural products. Both aspects are attested at Khirbet Qeiyafa. The construction of the planned city required a large amount of organized, forced labor. The taxation of products is indicated by the very large number of jars marked on their handles. The 520 handles with finger impressions from Khirbet Qeiyafa show that the concept of the central production of jars with handles bearing an imprint was already in existence in the first phase of the kingdom of Judah. The jars with imprinted handles were most likely distributed empty by the authorities to the rural population and returned full of agricultural produce. This system of tax collection, which solved the problems of amassing, transporting, and storing goods, persisted in Judah for hundreds of years, as attested by the LMLK jars from the eighth century B.C.E., the seventh-century B.C.E. jars with rosette stamps, the YHD jars of the fifth to fourth centuries B.C.E., and the Hellenistic-period jars with a five-pointed star impression.

Site Identification and the Geopolitical Importance of the Elah Valley.

Intensive activity took place at Khirbet Qeiyafa, as indicated by the large quantities of pottery uncovered in each building and unique finds like an inscription, seals and scarabs, and various metal objects. The site functioned as a rich urban center. One would expect mention of a city of such importance in the biblical records. Do we have enough data for the complicated task of site identification? Various suggestions have been proposed both in scientific and in popular publications. The twenty-first-century expedition suggested the name Shaʿarayim, which appears three times in the biblical tradition (Josh 15:33, 1 Sam 17:52, 1 Chr 4:31), twice in the context of the Elah Valley (Josh 15:33, 1 Sam 17:52) and twice in association with King David (1 Sam 17, 1 Chr 4:31). In addition, Khirbet Qeiyafa has two city gates, and Shaʿarayim means “two gates” in Hebrew.

Khirbet Qeiyafa is located between Khirbet Shuweikeh, commonly identified as biblical Socoh, and Tell Zakariyeh, commonly identified as biblical Azekah. In the biblical narrative, the battle between David and Goliath is located “between Socoh and Azekah” (1 Sam 17). How did the site function as a border city, simultaneously facing Philistia and the road to Jerusalem? The massive fortifications and the rich assemblage of metal objects point to its use as a military garrison or fortress to guard the border and the road to the central hill country. The sudden destruction of Khirbet Qeiyafa is probably the result of a successful Philistine attack on Judah.

The chronology and geography of Khirbet Qeiyafa thus enable a convergence of mythology, history, historiography, and archaeology. The expedition’s identification of Khirbet Qeiyafa as Shaʿarayim, a city that is mentioned in the Bible in a historical context only in the late eleventh century B.C.E., has far-reaching implications for the biblical texts relating to the period of King David. It shows that the biblical tradition preserves historical data and cannot be dismissed as a mythological story invented centuries after the relevant period. Moreover, the ostracon clearly indicates that writing was indeed practiced in Judah during this period and, hence, that historical knowledge could have been documented then and preserved for future generations. The data completely change our understanding of the tenth century B.C.E. in the southern land of Israel and create a new basis for any discussion relating to the beginning of the kingdom of Judah and the biblical narrative relating to this era.



  • Dagan, Yehuda. “Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Judean Shephelah: Some Considerations.” Tel Aviv 36 (2008): 68–81. An article arguing for a Hellenistic and Ottoman date for Khirbet Qeiyafa based on survey and early photographic data.
  • Finkelstein, Israel, and Eli Piasetzky. “Khirbet Qeiyafa: Absolute Chronology.” Tel Aviv 37 (2010): 84–88. An article that argues for an earlier date for Khirbet Qeiyafa, in the Iron Age–I period.
  • Garfinkel, Yosef. “The Davidic Kingdom in Light of the Finds at Khirbet Qeiyafa.” City of David Studies of Ancient Jerusalem 6 (2011): 13–35. Popular article on the impact of Khirbet Qeiyafa on the Davidic kingdom of Judah.
  • Garfinkel, Yosef, and Hoo-Goo Kang. “The Relative and Absolute Chronology of Khirbet Qeiyafa: Very Late Iron Age I or Very Early Iron Age IIA?” Israel Exploration Journal 61 (2011): 171–183. A response to the articles by Finkelstein and Piasetzky and by Singer-Avitz on chronological aspects at Khirbet Qeiyafa.
  • Garfinkel, Yosef, and Saar Ganor. “Khirbet Qeiyafa: A Fortified Border City between Judah and Philistia.” In New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and Its Region: Proceedings of a Conference 30th October 2008, edited by David Amit and Guy Stiebel, pp. 122–133. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority and The Hebrew University, 2008 (Hebrew). Preliminary report of the Khirbet Qeiyafa excavations after the first two seasons.
  • Garfinkel, Yosef, and Saar Ganor. “Khirbet Qeiyafa: Shaʿarayim.” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 8 (2008): article 22. Preliminary report of the Khirbet Qeiyafa excavations after the first season.
  • Garfinkel, Yosef, and Saar Ganor. Khirbet Qeiyafa. Vol. 1: The 2007–2008 Excavation Seasons. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2009. Complete final report of the first two seasons of excavation including background studies and the official publication of the ostracon.
  • Garfinkel, Yosef, and Saar Ganor. “Khirbet Qeiyafa in Survey and in Excavations: A Response to Y. Dagan.” Tel Aviv 37 (2010): 67–78. A reply to Yehuda Dagan’s article, which suggests that Khirbet Qeiyafa dates to only the Hellenistic and Ottoman periods.
  • Garfinkel, Yosef, Saar Ganor, and Michael Hasel. “The Contribution of Khirbet Qeiyafa to Our Understanding of the Iron Age Period.” Strata: Bulletin of the Anglo-Israeli Archaeological Society 28 (2010): 39–54. Discusses the contributions of Khirbet Qeiyafa to Iron-Age Judah after the first three seasons.
  • Garfinkel, Yosef, Saar Ganor, and Michael Hasel. “The First Four Excavation Seasons at Khirbet Qeiyafa, an Early 10th Century B.C.E. Fortified City in the Judean Shephela.” Qadmoniot 44 (2011): 4–12 (Hebrew). A preliminary report of the first four seasons of excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa in the official journal of the Israel Antiquities Authority.
  • Garfinkel, Yosef, Saar Ganor, and Michael Hasel. “The Iron Age City of Khirbet Qeiyafa after Four Seasons of Excavations.” In The Ancient Near East in the 12th–10th Centuries b.c.e.: Culture and History, edited by Gershon Galil, Ayelet Gilboa, Aren M. Maeir, et al., pp. 149–174. Münster, Germany: Ugarit-Verlag, 2012. Focuses on the building techniques employed in constructing the Iron-Age city.
  • Garfinkel, Yosef, Saar Ganor, and Michael Hasel. “Khirbet Qeiyafa Excavations and the Rise of the Kingdom of Judah.” Eretz-Israel 30 (2011): 174–194 (Hebrew). An article written on the excavations of Khirbet Qeiyafa in honor of Amnon Ben-Tor.
  • Garfinkel, Yosef, Saar Ganor, Michael Hasel, et al. “Khirbet Qeiyafa 2009.” Israel Exploration Journal 59 (2009): 214–220. Preliminary report of the Khirbet Qeiyafa excavations after the third season.
  • Misgav, Haggai, Yosef Garfinkel, and Saar Ganor. “The Khirbet Qeiyafa Ostracon.” In New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and Its Region 3: Proceedings of a Conference 15th October 2009, edited by David Amit, Guy Stiebel, and Orit Peleg-Barkat, pp. 111–123. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority and The Hebrew University, 2009 (Hebrew). The official publication of the Khirbet Qeiyafa ostracon in Hebrew.
  • Misgav, Haggai, Yosef Garfinkel, and Saar Ganor. “The Ostracon.” In Khirbet Qeiyafa. Vol. 1: The 2007–2008 Excavation Seasons, edited by Yosef Garfinkel and Saar Ganor, pp. 243–257. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2009. The official publication of the Khirbet Qeiyafa ostracon in English.
  • Naʿaman, Nadav. “In Search of the Ancient Name of Khirbet Qeiyafa.” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 8 (2008): article 21. A proposal to identify Khirbet Qeiyafa with the site of Gob.
  • Naʿaman, Nadav. “Shaʿarim—The Gateway to the Kingdom of Judah.” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 8 (2008): article 24. A response to Garfinkel and Ganor, maintaining the identification of Khirbet Qeiyafa as Philistine Gob.
  • Singer-Avitz, Lily. “The Relative Chronology of Khirbet Qeiyafa.” Tel Aviv 37 (2010): 79–83. An article arguing for the essential Iron-I date for the initial settlement at Khirbet Qeiyafa.

Yosef Garfinkel, Saar Ganor, and Michael Hasel