The relationship between Saul and David deteriorated so badly that David decided to go to the Philistine territory, knowing that Saul would be reluctant to attack him there. So David and the six hundred men with him offered their services to Achish, king of Gath (ca. 1020 B.C.). David entered into an arrangement, receiving a military fief in exchange for his services to Achish, maybe an arrangement similar to what the Philistines had with their Egyptian overlords.

Verse 5 of chapter 27, in which David asks to live in a country town, may already foreshadow his plan, which is found beginning in verse 8. David needed to get out from under King Achish's eye. Achish honored his request and gave him the city of Ziklag, a town which we are still not able to locate definitively today.

Initially during the days of the conquest of Canaan by Joshua, the tribe of Simeon seems to have received Ziklag through the casting of lots (Josh. 19:5; 1 Chron. 4:30); however, Ziklag is also listed as part of Judah's inheritance in Joshua 15:31. By the time of David, Ziklag must have fallen into the Philistine sphere of influence, since Achish was able to grant it to David. In 1 Samuel 30:14, the words of the Egyptian servant imply that Ziklag was in the vicinity of "the Negeb of the Cherethites" (or "Cretans"). And still much later, when the Jews returned to Palestine from captivity in Babylon, some of them settled in Ziklag (Neh. 11:28).

All of the above passages locate Ziklag by placing it in context with other cities or within a region. Ziklag must have been north of Beer-sheba on the Nahal Gerar, but was it to the northwest or northeast? Much of the recent dispute has centered on two sites, Tel Sera` (Tell esh-Shariah in Arabic), which is about ten miles northwest of Beer-sheba, and Tel Halif (Tell Khuweilifeh in Arabic), which is about ten miles northeast of Beer-sheba.

Using the biblical passages mentioned above, we can make the following assumptions: The mound of Ziklag would have been of modest size in the period of the Israelite conquest of Canaan; it would have had a Philistine occupation before the kings of Judah took over and would have had a Persian occupation period after the Jews returned from captivity. Both Tel Sera` and Tel Halif meet these qualifications. If only the ancient peoples had put up city limit signs (as at Gezer, which was rare), site identification would be so much easier! The uncertainty over the location of Ziklag shows that archaeologists need to be cautious (as do those who use the published results of their excavations) when drawing conclusions from their findings.

Ziklag is particularly important, since it was in this town that David was able to establish a base of operations and develop his shrewd (or brutal?) administrative capabilities (1 Sam. 27:8-12; 30:26-31). David's stay in Ziklag preceded his move to Hebron to be anointed king of Judah (2 Sam. 2) and his later move to Jerusalem to become king over all Israel. So let us study the two sites of Tels Sera` and Halif, particularly the Philistine layers, to determine what they reveal of the Sea Peoples' presence around the end of the eleventh century B.C. and into the tenth century.

Both sites are located on the Nahal Gerar (or Wadi esh-Shariah), with Tel Halif lying about eight miles to the east of Tel Sera`. The excavations at Tel Sera` were conducted from 1972 to 1978 by Eliezer Oren of Ben Gurion University of the Negev (Oren 1982). This tell covers approximately four acres; the stratum that provides ample evidence of a Philistine presence is called stratum VIII. The earlier Canaanite stratum X, of the thirteenth century, contained numerous imported Egyptian, Mycenaean, and Cypriot vessels -- the same type of pottery we have observed in various other sites during the same period. The final Canaanite stratum, stratum IX (1200-1150 B.C.), was destroyed in the mid-twelfth century B.C. This stratum contained no Mycenaean or Cypriot imports, the same finding that we observed at other nearby sites, but neither did stratum IX contain Philistine sherds. Philistine pottery did not appear until the following stratum, stratum VIII. Oren believes that the Philistine pottery did not appear before the end of the reign of Pharaoh Ramesses III in the mid-twelfth century B.C. (Oren 1982, 166). He also believes that the destruction of stratum IX may have been due to a group of the Sea Peoples or possibly the Amalekites (mentioned in 1 Sam. 30). The eleventh-century B.C. buildings of stratum VIII contained late Philistine pottery of various types, such as common bell-shaped bowls, beer jugs, and Ashdod ware, a type of pottery that is decorated by applying black and white over a red background. Oren emphasizes that there is continuity without a destruction layer between the Philistine stratum VIII and the following Israelite stratum VII, which would be logical if Tel Sera` were David's Ziklag. There would have been no reason for David to destroy this town before moving to Hebron to become the king of Judah; ". . . therefore Ziklag has belonged to the kings of Judah to this day" (1 Sam. 27:6).

For Oren, the continued presence of the Philistines into stratum VII without a destruction layer is crucial. What caps the argument for him that Tel Sera` is Ziklag is an architectural feature of stratum VII that in Palestinian archaeology has been commonly associated with the royal house of Judah: buildings constructed of stone ashlars. The stone blocks were finely cut, squared, and quite often placed in what is called a header-stretcher fashion (alternating the stones, first the wide side and then the narrow side facing out). Use of this ashlar building technique would have been logical in David's Ziklag, if David and his successors maintained the town as they did Hazor, Megiddo, Samaria, Gezer, and other sites with "royal architecture."

Stratum VI comes next, and its artifacts and other features show that Tel Sera` was occupied for a time by the Assyrians. This layer suffered a destruction, and Oren conjectures that perhaps this destruction was by the hands of Nebuchadnezzar, Josiah, or an Egyptian pharaoh. The Persian period comes next (stratum V), and this layer shows that the city may have become a storage center for grain. This evidence would be compatible with our understanding of the Jews' return from captivity. They would have needed to plant and then plan for storage for their crops, especially because of the problems the returnees had with their neighbors.

All of the evidence from Tel Sera` meshes neatly with the biblical texts on Ziklag. Next, let us go to Tel Halif, examine it, and compare the results with those from Tel Sera`.

Joe Seger of Mississippi State University spent four summers excavating Tel Halif between 1976 and 1980, with follow-up sessions throughout the 1980s (Seger 1983, 1984). I mentioned above that Tels Sera` and Halif lie on an east-west plane within eight miles of each other. Both are approximately twenty-three miles south of Tell es-Safi, which may have been the Gath of Achish the Philistine. Either of the tells qualify according to David's words to Achish (1 Sam. 27:5), ". . . let a place be given me in one of the country towns . . . for why should your servant live in the royal city with you?" Twenty-three miles would have been far enough away to have been out of the direct eye of Achish. Tell Halif, according to Seger, would have been even more out of the view of the king than Tel Sera`. It is eight miles east of Sera` (and therefore eight miles further away from the Philistine coastal plain), at the head of the Wadi esh-Shariah (Nahal Gerar) and at the westernmost ridge of hills that compose the hills of Judea. In other words, from this location David would have been better able to skirt around Philistine territory, avoid detection by them, and get to the south to conduct his raids against the Amalekites and others (1 Sam. 27:8-11). If David had been at Tel Sera`, he would have to have avoided Tel Halif in going to Judea to divide the spoils (1 Sam. 30:26-31). So, the location of Tel Halif looks very favorable for the site of Ziklag. What about the archaeological record?

Tel Sera` had a clear-cut Philistine presence during the days that we ascribe to David, but Seger interprets this as evidence that it was not Ziklag. Would Achish have given a thriving Philistine country town over to a recent enemy, an enemy of whom the Philistines had asked,

Wouldn't it have been more logical for Achish to have turned over to David an outpost on the periphery -- like Tel Halif? During the eleventh century B.C., Halif had a very modest Philistine presence, which, according to Seger, would have made it easy for David and his men to take it over with Achish's blessing.

According to Seger, due to the raid on the town by the Amalekites (1 Sam. 30), there should be some sort of destruction debris at Ziklag; the Egyptian captive stated, ". . . and we burned Ziklag down" (v. 14). However, Oren spoke of the continuity between the Philistine and the Judean strata at Tel Sera`. Tel Halif also shows no sign of widespread burning, but it does show "willful destruction" of eleventh-century artifacts, including the Philistine type (Seger 1984, 50). Seger believes that enough evidence has been uncovered to indicate some sort of disturbance at the site at the end of the eleventh century B.C.

The tenth century at Tel Halif saw some modest reconstruction, and extensive rebuilding occurred at the end of the tenth century and into the ninth. This construction pattern makes sense for Seger, since it was soon after the Amalekite raid that David received word of Saul's death and moved to Hebron (2 Sam. 1-2). The move to Hebron would have forestalled any extensive rebuilding of the site until Solomon's time or later. The fact that no ashlar buildings or "royal architecture" have yet been found at Halif, according to Seger, should not rule out Halif as Ziklag. It is also important to remember that not all parts of the tell have been excavated.

The occupation of Halif was disrupted by the Assyrian conquest around 701 B.C. Halif was resettled shortly thereafter for a very short period and was not occupied during the Babylonian conquest. It was later resettled during the Persian period, Nehemiah's time, as was Tel Sera`.

In summary, Seger feels that Tel Halif presents as good a stratigraphic case for being David's Ziklag as does Tel Sera`, and he believes that Tel Halif is in a better strategic position than Tel Sera`. According to Seger, if Tel Halif is not Ziklag, then another reasonable possibility would be that it is the biblical city of Rimmon. We will consider this briefly.

Oded Borowski, a former member of Kibbutz Lahav next to Tel Halif who is now teaching at Emory University in Georgia, has recently become co-director at Tel Halif (Borowski 1988). He adds some interesting insights to the site identification question of whether Tel Halif or Tel Sera` is David's Ziklag. Borowski begins his comments on Oren's identification of Tel Sera` as Ziklag by citing 1 Samuel 30. This chapter concerns David's return to Ziklag after a three-day march to discover that it had been attacked by the Amalekites. All the wives, sons, and daughters of David and his men had been taken captive. David hurried in pursuit, leaving in Ziklag two hundred men who were too exhausted to cross the Besor Brook (vv. 9-10) -- now identified as the Wadi esh-Shariah/Nahal Gerar. Even though both Sera` and Halif are near the Besor Brook, it is wider and more difficult to cross by Tel Sera`; therefore, Borowski believes that Tel Sera` is the better candidate for Ziklag.

Borowski believes that his site, Tel Halif, is the biblical Rimmon (or En-rimmon), and he demonstrates that this name is preserved in the area. `En means "spring of," and rimmon means "pomegranate." There are sufficient water sources in the area to justify the reference to springs. Pomegranates are a common fruit in the Near East, and the excavations at Halif have even uncovered a ceramic bowl with a pomegranate figure in its center. (However, ceramic containers in the shape of pomegranates were also recovered at Tel Sera` and at Ekron.) In addition, Rimmon is mentioned in biblical verses cited in connection with Ziklag, notably in Joshua 15:31-32; 19:7; and in Nehemiah 11:29 concerning the return of the Israelites from the Babylonian exile. Rimmon definitely was in the neighborhood of Ziklag, and due to the retention of the name En-rimmon in the area, as well as geographic and topographic data, Borowski feels that Tel Halif is Rimmon rather than Ziklag. He recognizes that the debate will continue, but so will the excavations at Tel Halif.

Although scholarly debate will continue on the question whether Tel Sera` or Tel Halif is David's Ziklag, considerable information about the Philistine world of King Achish of Gath and his "country town" of Ziklag has already been recovered. Both of the tells (Sera` more so than Halif) had a Philistine presence in the Iron I period (see fig. 1, p. 91). Even the town's name, Ziklag, displays its foreign character, for that is a non-Semitic name. Oren believes that the name may derive from one of the Sea People invaders, the Tjekker, who accompanied the Philistines and others in the attempt to invade Egypt during Ramesses III's time (see p. 64; Oren 1982, 156; also Wainwright 1959, 78). Even though we are not sure yet of the exact location of Ziklag, we know that the Philistines were present at Gath and the surrounding area during the Iron I period. Achish, king of Gath, appears in the biblical record around 1020 B.C. Later, he may have become a vassal of David when, according to 1 Chronicles 18:1, David took Gath from the Philistines. This relationship may have continued well into the days of Solomon (see 1 Kings 2:39-40). We will examine Gath again in a later chapter.