The biblical book of 1 Samuel contains memories of an early Israelite king by the name of Saul, who the texts allege was the first God-appointed king of Israel. Saul is said to have engaged in military conflicts with the Philistines to his south (1 Samuel 13-14; 17), the kingdom of Ammon in Transjordan (1 Samuel 11), the nomadic Amalekites (1 Samuel 14:48; 15), and even as far north as the northern valleys (1 Samuel 31).

Chronologically, it is impossible to fix Saul concretely relying on the biblical traditions alone, but he is remembered in the Bible to have ruled long before the later Northern Kingdom of Israel and the kingdom of Judah, which means the range of possible dates for his reign can probably be set in the late 11th-mid 10th centuries B.C. (Finkelstein 2006, 173-174).

An interesting feature of the biblical traditions regarding Saul is that the biblical sources place the seat of Saul’s early kingdom in the area of Benjamin (rather than, say, the area of the Judean or Samarian hill countries). The main center of Saul’s kingdom according to the biblical texts was Gibeah, and the toponyms in the texts associated with Saul are geographically in the region of Benjamin, north of Jerusalem. In this article, we will investigate some of the textual and archaeological evidence pertaining to the Israelite kingdom under Saul.

Saul and the Archaeology of Benjamin

Can archaeology shed any light on Saul’s early kingdom? I believe it quite plausibly can. Let’s take a look at the archaeology of the area between Jerusalem and Bethel – where Saul is alleged to have ruled – between the 12th-10th centuries B.C.

In the 12th century B.C.E., the area between Jerusalem and Bethel was very sparsely settled. In fact, in the 14th-12th centuries B.C., there were no sedentary settlements in this region; according to Omer Sergi, the area was occupied by pastoral nomads (Sergi 2017, p. 5; see also Finkelstein 1990a, p. 119).

Benjamin in the 11th-10th centuries B.C.E.

In the 11th-10th century B.C., things changed. Evidence from excavated sites shows that the Jerusalem-Bethel area featured an sudden increase in settlement, with the first build-up of sedentary sites in hundreds of years (Sergi 2017, p. 5-8; 2023, p. 113-120). The sites of Khirbet Raddana and et-Tell (Finkelstein 2007), Khirbet ed-Dawwara (Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2006, p, 53), Tell en-Nasbeh (Sergi 2017, p. 9-10; Finkelstein 2012, p. 17-19), Gibeon (Sergi 2023, p. 344-345), Tell el-Ful (probably slightly earlier; Finkelstein 2011, p. 109-111), and also Har Nof and Khirbet Bir el-Hammam (Sergi 2017, p. 7). Other sites surveyed in this region – including Khirbet el-Maqatir (Stripling 2017) and Ras et-Tahune (see below) also seem to have been settled in the Iron I, but the lack of a pottery study precludes knowledge of when exactly in the Iron I they were settled.

In addition to this, what is noteworthy is that several of these sites were, in fact, fortified in this period. Namely, the sites of el-Jib (Gibeon), Khirbet et-Tell (Ai), Khirbet ed-Dawwara, and probably Tell en-Nasbeh (Mizpah) all show evidence of casemate fortifications in this period.

Tell en-Nasbeh – Tell en-Nasbeh is generally identified with the biblical site of Mizpah. The site was excavated in five seasons by William Frederic Badè of the Pacific School of Religion between 1926 and 1935. Excavations at the site uncovered a rubble wall known as the Inner Wall, which ran at least around the southern end of the tel. The wall had rooms abutting it, which created a casemate-like defense system (McCown 1947, p. 190-191; Finkelstein 2012, p. 15).

It is difficult to date the Inner Wall, as well as the later “Great Wall” at Tell en-Nasbeh, since the pottery at the site comes from fills and not from stratified archaeological contexts (eg. Katz 1998, p. 131). Israel Finkelstein argues for a date in the 10th century B.C.E. on the basis of architectural considerations:

First, another site in the vicinity, Khirbet ed-Dawwara, which dates to the late Iron I and the early Iron IIA, though smaller, features a somewhat similar plan. Second, similar settlements are known in other parts of the region west of the Jordan; I refer to the early Iron IIA Beer-sheba VII, Tel Esdar and some of the Negev Highlands settlements. Third, the casemate-like wall at Tell en-Nasbeh is irregular—very different from the far more developed late Iron IIA casemate walls in the north (e.g., Hazor and Jezreel) and from the Iron IIB casemate systems in the south (e.g., Beer-sheba II, Tel Ira, Tel Halif and Tell Beit Mirsim Stratum A); from a strictly architectonic point of view the Inner Wall of Tell en-Nasbeh represents a stage before these sites.

Finkelstein 2012, p. 18.

Others, however, have compared the structures at Tell en-Nasbeh to 8th century B.C. fortified cities of the Kingdom of Judah, such as Beer-Sheba II and Tell Beit Mirsim (eg. Katz 1998). Personally, while I would not consider a later date impossible, it seems that the site should be dated to the Iron I; according to Omer Sergi, the early phase of the site features “an enclosed settlement was built over rock-cut installations, pits, and silos, as well as over fragments of walls that do not form a coherent plan” (Sergi 2023, p. 345). This seems very early and primitive to me, especially compared to later fortified Israelite cities, where there is clear evidence of urban planning. Thus, tentatively, I would consider the Inner Wall at Tell en-Nasbeh to date to sometime in the Iron Age I, possibly the 11th-10th centuries B.C.E.

Gibeon (el-Jib) – The ancient city of Gibeon, located at el-Jib, was also fortified in this period. The site was excavated in five seasons by James Pritchard in 1956-1962.

Pritchard’s excavations uncovered two city walls that surrounded the mound. The earlier city wall was uncovered in Area 10 of the site, and runs parallel to the later city wall, before merging with the later wall (Pritchard 1964, p. 33). The plastered floor of a house adjoining the city wall yielded Iron I pottery, including a collared-rim jar (Pritchard 1964, p. 35; Sergi 2023, p. 344-345), and hence can probably be dated to the 11th-10th centuries B.C.E. The wall probably encircled an enclosed settlement.

Ai (Khirbet et-Tell) – The ancient city of Ai is generally identified with Khirbet et-Tell. The site was first excavated in September 1928, under the supervision of John Garstang. Judith Marquet-Krause then excavated the site in three seasons between 1933-1935. The final campaign at Khirbet et-Tell was by a Joint Archaeological Expedition headed by Joseph Callaway, who headed nine seasons of excavations from 1964-1970.

The Iron Age I layer at the site exhibits one interesting feature. In Area Z, a belt of structures was found, which are contiguous and form a peripheral belt, with each unit being entered through a long room. Along the edge of the mound of Khirbet et-Tell was found “a row of chambers resembling casemates” (Shiloh 1978, p. 45-46). In his brief discussion of these finds, Yigal Shiloh writes,

This example seems to point at the beginning of the integration between dwellings that are subtypes of the four-room house and a casemate type of wall.

Shiloh 1978, p. 46.

Israel Finkelstein’s analysis of the published pottery of the Iron I layer at Khirbet et-Tell has shown that the site should be dated to the middle-late Iron Age I-early Iron IIA; in other words, around the 11th-10th centuries B.C.E. (Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2006, p. 53; Finkelstein 2007). It thus seems that this site too exhibits casemate-like construction in Benjaminite territory in this time period.

Khirbet ed-Dawwara – Khirbet ed-Dawwara is a one-period site located in the desert fringe of Benjamin. The site was excavated by Israel Finkelstein in 1985-1986; the results of the excavations were published in a 1990 paper (Finkelstein 1990b).

Khirbet ed-Dawwara was fortified with a massive, 2-3 m. thick defense wall. At the periphery of the site stood a chain of pillared buildings, some of which were attached to each other, and created a casemate-like line adjacent to the wall (Finkelstein 1990b, p. 196-198). The pottery of Khirbet ed-Dawwara dates to the early Iron IIA, in the 10th century B.C.E. (though slightly later than Khirbet et-Tell and Khirbet Raddana; Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2006, p. 53).

There is some debate on who exactly constructed the fortifications at the site. Though Finkelstein attributed them to an early Benjaminite hill country polity (Finkelstein 1990b, p. 201-203), Nadav Na’aman has argued, with caution, that the site was a military base established by the Philistine king of Gath in his expansionist campaigns against the Israelite highlanders of Benjamin. He points out various unique features of the site, including the lack of silos and sickle blades, and a fragment of a lion-headed cup that is mainly found in Philistine sites. He also questions why an early Israelite king would construct a fortified city in the desert fringe of Benjamin, when such a monarch would not have faced any military opposition from the east.

There are two main problems with this theory. The first is the complete lack of any Philistine pottery uncovered in the excavations at Khirbet ed-Dawwara, in contrast to other contemporary hill country sites, such as Bethel, Tell en-Nasbeh, and Beth-Zur (Finkelstein 1990b, p. 202). The second is the fact that Khirbet ed-Dawwara was abandoned in the second half of the 10th century B.C.E. (Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2006, Ibid); this was (1) contemporary with the general abandonment and decline of sites in Benjamin in this period (which we will discuss below), and (2) a period of time where the Kingdom of Gath was at its zenith.

Regarding the first worry, Na’aman says the following,

…the site was probably built after the termination of Philistine pottery’s production, so the lack of pottery in the finding is only natural. Moreover, a site’s identification as Philistine does not necessarily indicate that it was constructed and manned by Philistines. Thus, for example, the many Assyrian strongholds constructed in the Levant in the late 8th-7th cent.s were built and garrisoned by non-Assyrians, so that no Assyrian pottery was discovered there (Finkelstein/Singer-Avitz 2001, 249-252; Na’aman 2001, 260-270; Dubovsky 2006, 204-218; for Anatolia see: Parker 1997; 2002; 2003). Absence of Philistine pottery does not preclude the possibility that the site was constructed by Philistine initiative.

Na’aman 2012, p. 4.

As for the second worry, Na’aman involves the narrative of the Battle of Michmash in 1 Samuel 13-14 as a part of his historical reconstruction. In this conflict, the Philistines were defeated by the Israelites under King Saul in the town of Michmash in Benjamin, located very close geographically to Khirbet ed-Dawwara. Na’aman proposes that this narrative contains early memories of military conflicts during Saul’s reign, and that Khirbet ed-Dawwara was abandoned by the Philistines following their defeat (Na’aman 2012, p. 7).

In any case, it is unclear whether Khirbet ed-Dawwara is to be attributed to the Israelites or the Philistines. There is the possibility that the site was, indeed, constructed by local Israelites in Benjamin. However, the hypothesis that the site was a military garrison of the Philistine king of Gath should not be ruled out completely.

Benjamin in the late 10th-9th centuries B.C.E.

As we have seen, the region of Benjamin thrived in the 11th-mid 10th centuries B.C.E. However, during the early Iron IIA – the second half of the 10th century B.C.E. – archaeological data shows that settlements in this region began to decline.

-Khirbet ed-Dawwara, Khirbet Raddana, and Khirbet et-Tell were abandoned in this period, and never resettled in later periods of the Iron Age (Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2006, p. 50-53).

-Tell el-Ful was abandoned in this period, and only re-settled hundreds of years later, in the Iron Age IIC (Finkelstein 2011, p. 110-111). Bethel was probably abandoned in this period, and only re-settled late in the 9th century B.C.E. (Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz 2009, p. 38-39; Sergi 2023, p. 348), with the site having declined. Ras et-Tahune (possibly Zemaraim, attested in biblical and Egyptian sources) may have been abandoned in this period and only re-settled late in the Iron Age II (Finkelstein, Lederman, and Bunimovitz 1997: 512-13).

-The situation in Gibeon is uncertain; no pottery from the Iron IIA was found at the site, though the publication of the pottery is incomplete and only a small portion of the site was excavated. However, given the existence of Iron IIA burials below the site, and the fact that it is mentioned in the Karnak Relief of Sheshonq I, the site was definitely inhabited in the early Iron IIA. It is plausible that the site was not abandoned, but declined in the second half of the 10th century B.C.E.

-The one site in the region of Benjamin that seems to have continued to flourish in the late 10th-early 9th centuries B.C. – in contrast to most of the other sites we have discussed – is Tell en-Nasbeh. The site continued to be inhabited, and the so-called “Great Wall” at Tell en-Nasbeh was most likely constructed at some point in the 9th century B.C.E. (Finkelstein 2012; Sergi 2023, p. 346), though this is still tentative.

The direct cause of these changes in settlement patterns is not universally agreed upon among scholars. Finkelstein (2006) attributes abandonment in the early Iron IIA as a result of the military campaign of Sheshonq I, recorded in biblical and Egyptian sources, which he believes was waged against an early “north Israelite” territorial kingdom in the highlands, while Sergi (2017) attributes it to the rise of the Davidic Dynasty in Jerusalem in the 10th century B.C.E. and their political subjugation of the hill country of Benjamin in the late 10th-early 9th centuries B.C.E.

Conclusions

In the 11th-mid 10th centuries B.C.E., the region of Benjamin between Jerusalem and Bethel – having not been settled for hundreds of years – featured a somewhat sudden build-up in sedentary settlement, and this included the construction of the only fortified cities in the entire hill country of the time. Then, in the second half of the 10th century B.C., the region of Benjamin declined; several sites were abandoned, or declined, and only Tell en-Nasbeh continued to flourish.

In my opinion, this data seems to be highly suggestive of an early Israelite kingdom that was established at this time, sometime in the 11th-10th centuries B.C.E. This polity dominated, at the very least, the region of Benjamin, and its political influence was largely responsible for the build-up in settlement and the erection of fortified cities at this time. But, I admit that the archaeological data alone does not securely prove this; we have to look at other sources, alongside it.

Saul in the Biblical Traditions

We have examined the archaeological evidence pertaining to the region of Benjamin in the 12th-10th centuries B.C., and have seen that this region had a short-lived period of political prosperity in the 11th-10th centuries B.C. Benjamin – in particular, the area between Jerusalem and Bethel – featured a build-up in sedentary settlement – for the first time in hundreds of years – at this time, and even the erection of various fortified casemate cities. Then, much of these settlements were abandoned and either never re-settled or settled in much later periods, or were reduced in size. All this seems indicative of the rise and fall of a short-lived territorial polity that emerged in and dominated the region of Benjamin and perhaps beyond.

Where else can we turn to for clues regarding the “Benjaminite Polity”? In fact, the Bible directly testifies to the existence of an early Israelite polity centered in Benjamin. It testifies that Saul – a Benjaminite – established the first successful Israelite kingdom in the region of Benjamin. Saul is said to have ruled from the site of Gibeah in Benjamin (1 Samuel 11:4; 15:34; 22:6; 23:19). Many of the sites that play a prominent role in the biblical narratives regarding Saul were located in Benjamin, including Mizpah (1 Samuel 10:17), Geba (1 Samuel 13:3; 14:5), Michmash (1 Samuel 13:2, 23; 14:5, 31), Gilgal (1 Samuel 10:8; 11:14, 15; 13:4; 15:12, 21), and, with regards to both Saul and his son and successor Ish-bosheth, Gibeon (2 Samuel 2:12, 13; 21:2).

There are three interesting observations to be made regarding the biblical traditions surrounding King Saul:

Firstly, the geographic location of Saul and his kingdom – in the area of Benjamin, north of Jerusalem – seems to be a mark of authenticity. If Saul were an invention of later Israelite or Judahite scribes in the 8th-7th centuries B.C., then we would expect the seat of his power to be located in either the area of Jerusalem, or the area of Samaria. This is because, in the late 10th-late 8th centuries B.C., the central hill country was dominated by the Northern Kingdom of Israel, centered in Samaria, and the Kingdom of Judah, centered in Jerusalem, and so placing the seat of Saul’s kingdom in these regions would have fit the territorial reality of the biblical authors’ time period, and would have best served their political interests. Benjamin was dominated by these polities, are never was the seat of any territorial polity in the central hill country at this time. In fact, the only period of time (other than, as I argue here, the early 10th century B.C.) where Benjamin was the center of a territorial polity in the entire history of Canaan would be in the Early Bronze Age, when the site of Ai may have dominated much of the territory of Benjamin and the hill country to its south (Finkelstein 1995). So the memory of Saul being a Benjaminite ruler – rather than a Jerusalemite or Samarian ruler – seems to be a mark of authenticity (Finkelstein 2006, p. 172).

Secondly, there does not seem to be any real reason why Saul would even be in the biblical texts other than him being a historical personage – in other words, it seems very unlikely that the biblical authors would invent him. The Judahite authors who wrote many (or perhaps even all) of the biblical texts regarding Saul were hostile to him; they argued that Saul sinned against God on several occasions and was rejected by Yahweh in favor of David. This is reflected in the narratives of David’s rise to power in 1 Samuel 16-2 Samuel 5. The biblical authors, being Judahites, wanted to legitimize the figure of David and the Davidic Dynasty that ruled Judah at the time. Yet they acknowledged that Saul was Israel’s first legitimate king, prior to David. It is nonsensical to hold that the biblical writers would make up Saul – who they clearly aimed to de-legitimize and who was clearly an inconvenient figure for them – when they could have very easily argued that David was the first (and hence legitimate) king of Israel. The best explanation for Saul’s inclusion and the extensive criticism he receives in the biblical texts seems to be that he was, indeed, the king of Israel prior to David, and that this fact – that the Benjaminite Saul was king prior to the Judahite David – was an inconvenient truth for the pro-David biblical authors (see Grabbe 2016, p. 90; Sergi 2023, p. 288-289).

Thirdly, given the fact that a good amount of Israelite and Judahite kings who are described in the biblical texts are attested in extra-biblical sources, all in their correct chronological context according to the biblical texts, and that extra-biblical sources never name any Israelite or Judahite kings unknown from the Bible, we should generally grant the historicity of the kings of Israel and Judah mentioned in the biblical texts, in the absence of clear counter-evidence (Halpern 2014, p. 429; Finkelstein 2013, p. 63-65).

All this data seems to lend credence to the biblical traditions regarding King Saul.

Conclusions

Evidence from both the Bible and archaeology strongly indicate the existence of an early Israelite polity centered around the area of Benjamin that was established around the 11th-10th centuries B.C.E. Archaeologically, we see a build-up of new sites and even some fortified cities in this region at the time; a phenomenon that is unique to the territory of Benjamin both geographically at the time and temporally. Biblically, we see various traditions in the Hebrew Bible about Saul, a Benjaminite leader who established a polity centered in Benjamin at this time, and about his short-ruling son, Ish-bosheth.

Regarding Saul and the early Israelite kingdom, Omer Sergi says the following,

…it would seem that the early Saul traditions preserve an authentic memory of a Benjaminite leader, the son of wealthy rural elite who, due to his familial origins, material wealth, and martial skill, managed to establish himself as the ruler of his kinsmen, the Benjaminite clans.

Sergi 2023, p. 289.

Bibliography

Finkelstein, Israel. “The Sociopolitical Organization of the Central Hill Country in the Second Millennium BCE.” Biblical Archaeology Today (1990a): 110-131.

Finkelstein, Israel. “Excavations at Khirbet ed-Dawwara: an Iron Age site northeast of Jerusalem.” Tel Aviv 17.2 (1990b): 163-208.

Finkelstein, Israel. “Two notes on Early Bronze Age urbanization and urbanism.” Tel Aviv 22.1 (1995): 47-69.

Finkelstein, Israel. “The Last Labayu: King Saul and the expansion of the first North Israelite Territorial Entity.” AMIT, Y.; BEN ZVI, E.; FINKELSTEIN, I (2006): 171-187.

Finkelstein, Israel. “Iron Age I Khirbet et-Tell and Khirbet Raddana: Methodological Lessons.” Up to the Gates of Ekron”: Essays on the Archaeology and History of the Eastern Mediterranean in Honor of Seymour Gitin. Jerusalém: WF Albright Institute of Archaeological Research (2007): 107-113.

Finkelstein, Israel. “Tell el-Fûl revisited: the Assyrian and Hellenistic Periods (with a new identification).” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 143.2 (2011a): 106-118.

Finkelstein, Israel. “Tall al-Umayri in the Iron Age I.” The Fire Signals of Lachish: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Israel in the Late Bronze Age, Iron Age, and Persian Period in Honor of David Ussishkin (2011b): 113.

Finkelstein, Israel, and Oded Lipschits. “The genesis of Moab: a proposal.” Levant 43.2 (2011): 139-152.

Finkelstein, Israel. “The great wall of Tell en-Nasbeh (Mizpah), the first fortifications in Judah, and 1 Kings 15: 16-22.” Vetus Testamentum 62.1 (2012): 14-28.

Finkelstein, Israel. The Forgotten Kingdom: The Archaeology and History of Northern Israel. Society of Biblical Literature, 2013.

Finḳelstein, Israel, Zvi Lederman, and Shlomo Bunimovitz. Highlands of many cultures: the Southern Samaria survey; the sites. Tel Aviv Univ., 1997.

Finkelstein, Israel, and Oded Lipschits. “The genesis of Moab: a proposal.” Levant 43.2 (2011): 139-152.

Finkelstein, Israel, and Eliazer Piasetzky. “The Iron I-IIA in the Highlands and beyond: 14C anchors, pottery phases and the Shoshenq I campaign.” Levant 38.1 (2006): 45-61.

Finkelstein, Israel, and Lily Singer-Avitz. “Reevaluating Bethel.” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins (1953-) H. 1 (2009): 33-48.

Grabbe, Lester L. “The Mighty Men of Israel: 1-2 Samuel and Historicity.” The Books of Samuel (2016): 83-104.

Halpern, Baruch. “David Did It, Others Did Not.” The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating (2014): 422.

Katz, Hayah. “A Note on the Date of the ‘Great Wall’ of Tell en-Nasbeh.” Tel Aviv 25.1 (1998): 131-133.

Manor, Dale W. “Beer-Sheba.” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary vol. 1, ed, David N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday (2012): 641-645.

McCown, Chester C. “Tell en-Naṣbeh: Excavated Under the Direction of the Late William Frederic Badè, Vol. 1: Archaeological and Historical Results.” (1947).

Naʾaman, Nadav. “”Ḫirbet ed-Dawwāra”—a Philistine Stronghold on the Benjamin Desert Fringe.” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins (2012): 1-9.

Pritchard, James B. Winery, Defenses, and Soundings at Gibeon. Vol. 26. UPenn Museum of Archaeology, 1964.

Sergi, Omer. “The emergence of Judah as a political entity between Jerusalem and Benjamin.” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins (1953-) H. 1 (2017): 1-23.

Sergi, Omer. The Two Houses of Israel: State Formation and the Origins of Pan-Israelite Identity. Vol. 33. SBL Press, 2023.

Shiloh, Yigal. “Elements in the development of town planning in the Israelite city.” Israel Exploration Journal (1978): 36-51.

Stripling, Scott. “History at the Research of Khirbet el-Maqatir.” Bible and Spade 30.2 (2017)