ABSTRACT
Josephus names Yodefat as the first town on the list of fortified settlements in the Galilee (War 20.6), and he mentions it many times thereafter in the War as well as in his Life. The site is located on an isolated hill in the Lower Galilee near the modern Moshav Yodefat (Fig. 8.1). Although the site was identified in the last century, it was not excavated until 1992, primarily because scholars thought that it had been badly destroyed and further eroded by nature. In six seasons of excavations beginning in 1992, however, we uncovered the remains of a fourteen-acre town occupied from late Hellenistic through early Roman times (Adan-Bayewitz and Aviam 1997). About one-third of the town was built on four or five large terraces on the steep eastern slope, another third of it was built on the crest of the rounded hill and its southern slope, and the rest on the southern plateau (Fig. 8.2). Five residential areas were excavated, containing modest private dwellings with cisterns, ritual baths (miqva’ot), storage areas, cooking ovens, pressing installations, loom weights, spindle whorls, clay and stone vessels, and coins. We also excavated pottery kilns, an oil press in a cave, and part of a luxurious mansion with frescoed walls and floors. The latest securely identifiable object found throughout these areas is a coin found on one of the floors from the reign of the Roman emperor Nero. This piece of datable evidence correlates precisely with the story of the battle of Yodefat-its siege, fall, and the aftermath, which is the second longest battle description given by Josephus (the battle of Jerusalem is the longest) (War 141-218, 316-408, 432-42). The battle of Yodefat, as described by Josephus, is also the second bloodiest of the battles of the Revolt, again after Jerusalem, as well as the third longest siege, after Jerusalem and Masada. Many scholars have noted that the attention that Josephus lavished on his account may well be suspect, considering his own role in the city’s defensive preparations as well as his subsequent and infamous behavior (see the detailed discussion in Chapter 6 by Horsely in this volume). It is reasonable, therefore, to examine the archaeological evidence for the siege, the battle, and the city’s demise in tandem with Josephus’s narrative, in order that specific discrepancies and/or points of agreement be made clear.
