israeli archeologists debate

7/28/2019 Israeli Archeologists Debate

1/131

Journal of Religion & Society 1 3 (2001)

Journal of Religion & Society Volume 3 (2001)ISSN 1522-5658

The Bible Unearthedin the Context of the Tenth Century

(BCE) DebateA Review of Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, The Bible Unearthed:

Archaeologys New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts

(New York: Free Press, 2000)

Nicolae Roddy, Creighton University

Archaeologys New Vision, or Myopia?

[1] Is the biblical chronicle of the monarchy of kings David and Solomon merely the stuff ofromanticized, ideological legend, like some Camelot of the Ancient Near East? Or are the

ruinous city walls and gates uncovered by archaeologists at Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer the veryfortifications ascribed to Solomon in passages such as 1 Kings 9:15? Since its recent publication,The Bible Unearthedcontinues to provoke discussion in popular circles over the reliability of theBible as a witness to history (Trible; Miller). Finkelstein is currently director of the Institute ofArchaeology at Tel Aviv University and co-director of the universitys excavations at Megiddo.Silberman, a journalist by profession, is director of historical interpretation for the Ename Centerfor Public Archaeology and Heritage Presentation in Belgium. Following a brief overview ofTheBible Unearthed, the present article will test its controversial assertions concerning the period ofthe united monarchy. Going behind the lines, so to speak, it will frame and evaluate the currentdebate among archaeologists over the architectural landscape of the Levant during the tenthcentury BCE and conclude that on the basis of both evidence and argument the conventional

model remains largely intact as supported by the archaeological record.[2] Finkelstein and Silbermans stated purpose is twofold: to separate history from [biblical]legend, and to share the most recent archaeological insights - still largely unknown outsidescholarly circles. Although some of the claims put forth in the book may come as a surprise to ageneral readership, many of its assertions are familiar to the present generation of scholarsalready familiar with the various methods - literary, historical, and archaeological - which havechallenged traditional notions concerning the historicity of the patriarchs, the nature of theExodus, and the scope of the conquest of Canaan. Treading boldly upon what for most biblicalscholars and archaeologists has been fairly reliable historical ground, however, The BibleUnearthedushers its general readership into the arena of more than a decade of ongoingscholarly controversy concerning whether or not David and Solomon actually reigned as kings

over the powerful and expansive, tenth-century BCE monarchy described in the Bible, orwhether historically they were simply warrior chieftains operating from a well-defendedmountain stronghold situated in a sparsely settled and undeveloped Judah.

[3] The vantage point Finkelstein and Silberman adopt for the history of biblical Israel is thereign of King Josiah, the seventh-century BCE religious and political reformer championed bythe biblical author known to scholars as the Deuteronomistic historian. While scholarship is ingeneral agreement that this historical anchor holds for the shaping of the book of Deuteronomy,


2/131


as well as for the books of Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, and 1 and 2 Kings, the authors boldlyassert that the narrative tradition of the rest of the Torah came into being during that time andthat its formation was uniquely suited to further the religious reform and territorial ambitions ofJudah during the momentous concluding decades of the seventh century BCE (23)

[4] Following a brief introduction about the Bible and some of the methods used for

understanding it, The Bible Unearthedlaunches into the quest for the historical ancestors(Chapter 1) and addresses the question Did the Exodus Really Happen? (Chapter 2). Here theauthors reaffirm the long-accepted silence of the archaeological record on these subjects and setabout identifying clues in the biblical text, anachronisms in particular, which appear to theauthors to reflect a seventh-century setting. One should keep in mind that the fluidity with whichancient texts were transmitted often betrays a liberal amount of editorial license but that thisalone does not provide sufficient reason to reject out of hand the greater antiquity of foundationalnarrative traditions. To think otherwise is to be naive, for real national and religious myths,rooted as they are in what phenomenologists of religion call an experience of the sacred, have alife of their own and are not simply invented.

[5] In Chapter 3 the conquest of Canaan is similarly treated. On the one hand, there is little herethat is new. Bible readers have observed for centuries the glaring discrepancy between Joshuasall-Israel blitzkrieg campaign through Canaan and the no less ideological account of a post-Joshua, piecemeal compromise settlement in the book of Judges. On the other hand, what isdifferent is that the authors ofThe Bible Unearthedfind the territorial and ideological aspirationsof the biblical account to be mirrored in the eyes of the Deuteronomistic historian standing in theshadow of good King Josiah.

[6] Chapter 4 discusses the emergence of the Israelites from the perspective of socialarchaeology, a subject about which Finkelstein has written extensively. This sets the stage fordiscussion of the united monarchy and the tenth century BCE (Chapter 5) and the focus of thisreview. The remaining chapters cover the events leading up to the literary and historical

convergence of Josiahs reign, as well as the reappropriation of biblical history seen through thefilter of the Exile and restoration. These chapters will not concern us, except to say that theimplications of the authors demotion of Solomon from king to tribal chieftain revises history insuch a way as to accord the northern kingdom of Israel, under the Omride dynasty (884-842BCE), the title of Israels Forgotten First Kingdom. The real question here is to what extentthis view truly represents, to use the authors words, archaeologys new vision of Israel?

Unearthing The Bible Unearthed

[7] Scholars challenging the traditional view of tenth-century BCE Israel argue that the biblicalaccount of the united monarchy is hardly more than some ideological myth superimposed uponIsraels past from post-exilic or even Hellenistic times (Garbini; Davies; Thompson 1992, 1999;

Lemche; compare Shanks). These so-called biblical minimalists claim support for theirassertions, albeit selectively, from the archaeological record. However, Finkelstein becomes thefirst well-known archaeologist to enter the contest actively on their behalf. From the perspectiveof archaeology, the primary issue in nuce is whether or not the traditional chronology establishedfor the stratigraphical sequence of Iron Age Israel is valid, or whether, as some have charged,archaeologists have simply placed too much reliance on the biblical account. Crucial to theinvestigation is whether or not one finds at the tenth-century BCE level the kind of monumentalstructures that would have represented a centralized political entitys administrative, ideological,


3/131


and religious presence. There is also the question of just whose ideological and administrativepresence is being represented at levels where such structures have been found.

[8] From the standpoint of Syro-Palestinian archaeology, the chronological span of Iron Agestratigraphy is draped upon two historically reliable but rather temporally distant pegs: thewithdrawal of Twentieth Dynasty Egypt from Canaan in the late-twelfth century BCE, well-

attested in material remains and extra-biblical literary records, and the Assyrian campaigns of thelate eighth century BCE, witnessed by thick layers of destruction left by Assyrian forces. Theabsence of any verifiably historical anchors in the nearly 400-year interim, with the possibleexception of the conquest of ca. 925 BCE (biblical Shishak?), has made ascertaining absolutechronology so far elusive; it allows wide berth for such a debate over tenth-century materialremains to occur. There have been a few important, isolated finds, such as the Mesha Stone fromDibon, the Shoshenq stele at Megiddo, and the recently discovered Aramaic Stele fragment fromTel Dan which bears a reference to the House of David (Biran and Naveh 1993, 1995), howevernone of these artifacts were recovered from their primary contexts. Consequently, they are of noreal value for establishing absolute chronology for the Iron Age.

[9] In 1996 Finkelstein published the first of several articles which seriously challenge thetraditional chronology of Iron Age stratigraphy in the Levant. Reversing his earlier, moretraditional convictions, Finkelstein now claims that recent archaeological evidence leads him tothe conclusion that the chronological framework of much of the Iron Age (11th-9th centuriesBCE) is shaky (1999b: 35-36). In place of the traditional chronological sequencing of Iron Agestrata Finkelstein proposes an alternative chronology which, he affirms, is no less appealing andhistorically sound as the traditional scheme (1996: 178). According to Finkelstein, sitesconventionally dated to the tenth century, such as Megiddo Strata VA-IVB, Arad Stratum XI,and Beer-sheeba Stratum V, should be moved forward into the ninth century BCE. This shift inchronology at these important sites creates a problem in that the comparative stratigraphy for alarge number of other sites would be seriously affected. What this means for those with an eyetoward the Bible is that monumental assemblages, most notably city walls, ashlar palaces, and/orsix-chambered gates at sites such as Megiddo, Hazor, and Gezer traditionally attributed to theSolomonic building campaign mentioned in 1 Kings 9:15, would not be testaments to the UnitedMonarchy at all, but the product of a ninth-century BCE fortification carried out under the rule ofthe Omride dynasty.

[10] So what is the basis for the revised chronology? One aspect of it is Finkelsteins assertionthat excavators have relied far too heavily on the biblical record for ascertaining absolutechronology for the tenth century BCE. He views his involvement in the current debate as part ofa quest to emancipate Iron Age archaeology from Bible archaeology (1998: 167) and cites morethan a few instances in which archaeologists have uncritically accepted the Bible as a reliablehistorical witness. To be sure, Yadins original dating of Hazor Stratum X, although based on

comparative stratigraphy and pottery considerations, was, using Yadins word, clinched by thewitness of 1 Kings 9:15 (Yadin: 135; quoted in Finkelstein 1999a: 57). Although Finkelsteinmay be correct in his assertion that some archaeologists may place too much reliance on theBible as an accurate historical source, like many of his revisionist biblical history counterparts hehimself is hardly free of this charge and freely cites the Bible as an authenticating sourcewhenever it supports his perspective, especially in his references to the Omride buildingcampaigns (e.g. 1 Kings 16:24 and 21:1).


4/131


[11] Polemics aside, the scientific basis for the Low Chronology begins an earlier study byFinkelstein (1995) which concludes that Philistine Monochrome pottery, conventionally dated toca. 1175-1150 BCE, was introduced into southern Canaan only after the withdrawal of TwentiethDynasty Egypt, not during the waning years of the Egyptian presence which the generallyaccepted Albright-Alt model holds. Pointing to the absence of Philistine Monochrome and

Bichrome sherds at Lachish Stratum VI and Tel Sera Stratum IX, both of which attest to aTwentieth Dynasty Egyptian occupation, Finkelstein asserts that Philistine occupation in theregion must have occurred only after the Egyptian presence had withdrawn. Thus, he says, thedate for Philistine Monochrome pottery should be revised to ca. 1135-1100 BCE or later.Consequently, the presence of later developing Bichrome Philistine pottery in southern Canaanshould be lowered from late-twelfth, early-eleventh centuries BCE to late-eleventh, early-tenthcenturies BCE (1995: 224; 1996: 179-80; 1999b: 38-39). This revision in the dating of Philistinepottery produces a kind of domino effect that pushes the traditional relative chronology of IronAge stratigraphy - including, of course, the tenth century BCE - ahead some 50 to 100 years. Itchallenges recent socio-archaeological studies which support a Philistine settlement concentratedin the coastal cities of the Pentapolis contemporaneous with an active Egyptian presence

surrounding it (see, for example, Stager). As a supporting argument, Finkelstein adds thatrevising the date of Philistine Bichrome pottery to near the turn of the tenth century BCEeffectively fills the ninth-century gap apparent in the stratigraphy of a number of southern sitesincluding Tel Mor, Tell Beit Mirsim, Ashdod, and Tel Haror (1995: 224; 1996: 182).

[12] Turning northward Finkelstein applies his Low Chronology scheme to Megiddo, a sitewhich he co-directs with David Ussishkin and Baruch Halpern. On the basis of his viewsconcerning Philistine Bichrome pottery, Finkelstein lowers the date of Megiddo Stratum VIA tothe tenth century BCE, thrusting Megiddo Strata VA-IVB - traditionally accepted as the tenth-century BCE, Solomonic city - forward into the ninth century. In support of this schemeFinkelstein draws comparisons with the royal compound at Jezreel, which excavators Ussishkinand Woodhead posit had been constructed by Ahab and destroyed during Jehus coup detat.

Based on Zimhonis study of the ceramic assemblages there (1992), the ostensibly ninth-centurytypes were deemed by Finkelstein to be somewhat similar to Megiddo Strata VA-IVB, aposition Amihai Mazar calls flimsy (158).

[13] Mazar was among the first to issue a direct response to Finkelsteins proposed LowChronology scheme. Following the model of Philistine settlement in Canaan put forth by Stager,Mazar sharply criticizes Finkelsteins rejection of the possibility that the use of Philistine andEgyptian ware could overlap in various places throughout Canaan, maintaining that demarcationsin the use of daily ware would be ethnographically conditioned and not uniformly sequential.The vast amount of Monochrome ware produced in Philistine cities like Ashdod and Ekron-TelMiqne is far less-attested in cities outside the Pentapolis where well established indigenoustraditions would reasonably continue (158). The Philistine presence in southern Canaan need nothave awaited the complete withdrawal of Egypt, but established itself along the coast asEgyptian control of the region was diminishing. Mazar cites substantial supporting evidence,most notably the ceramic finds at Beth Shan which have yielded imported Philistine-type potterysherds recovered from the last two phases of Egyptian occupation.

[14] Turning now to Hazor, an extremely significant site in its own right and all but ignored inFinkelsteins 1996 study, one finds a telling witness of the effects of the Low Chronology uponnorthern stratigraphy, for application of Finkelsteins scheme at this site tightly compresses the


5/131


chronology of its stratigraphy against the firm, latter anchor of the Assyrian conquest (late-eighthcentury BCE). The difficulty is compounded by the fact that the absolute historical chronologyof Hazor Strata VI and V, based as it is on reliable pottery assessments and the availability ofAssyrian textual evidence, is not in dispute. Thus the real pressure of the Low Chronologyscheme is found in the compression of phases and strata lying between and inclusive of Stratum

VII, which builds upon a late-ninth century BCE destruction layer (attributed either to Hazael orto Joash/Jeroboam II, depending upon the chronology one adopts), and Stratum X, traditionallydated to the latter tenth century (see Figure 1).

[15] Taking up the rejoinder to Finkelsteins proposal, Hazor excavator Amnon Ben-Tor andDoron Ben-Ami reaffirm Iron Age Hazors stratigraphy and chronology as established by YigaelYadin during the 1950s and 1960s. Renewed excavations carried out by Ben-Tor in Areas A andB support Yadins stratification sequence, namely four strata (X-VII), with two phases each forStratum X and Stratum IX (3). These latter four phases are sandwiched between the Iron I pits ofStrata XII-XI and a large pillared building rooted in Stratum VIII. The well-known casematewall and six-chambered gate complex, traditionally attributed to Solomon, is associated with theearliest of these phases (Xb). On the basis of detailed ceramic analysis recovered from sealed

loci located immediately above the Iron I strata, the excavators reaffirm a tenth-century date forthe corresponding monumental assemblages of Stratum X.

[16] Ben-Tor and Ben-Amis initial response to Finkelsteins proposal was based on a number ofgeneral observations. First, there is the problem of arbitrarily assigning Iron Age II pottery eitherto the tenth or the ninth century, due to the now generally accepted fact that the real transitionfrom Iron Age IIA to Iron Age IIB occurs not in the closing decades of the tenth century BCE asoriginally held, but in the mid-ninth century BCE (ca. 850-840 BCE) (Aharoni and Amiran, citedin Ben-Tor and Ben-Ami: 30). Second, echoing Mazar, varied and different pottery types oftenco-exist at close range, casting a certain amount of doubt on the reliability of short-termcomparative ceramic analysis. Third, Ben-Tor and Ben-Ami caution against the dubiousassociation of Megiddo VA-IVB with the Jezreel enclosure, based as it is on the latters poorstate of preservation and the lack of any sealed loci from which reliable ceramic determinationscould be made. Fourth and most important, the Low Chronology creates the problem ofcompressing strata at certain sites into an incredibly brief time span - at Hazor, for example,where six strata and roughly ten sub-phases would have to be squeezed into a period of about120 years, allowing only a 20 to 25-year average interval for each phase. This problem wouldhold for a number of other sites as well; Tel Rehov, for example, where, if Finkelsteins lowchronology scheme is correct, two strata and a number of phases and sub-phases would becompressed into roughly half of the ninth century BCE (see Mazar and Camp).

[17] Faced now with the challenges presented by Ben-Tor and Ben-Amis reaffirmation ofYadins chronology at Hazor and the problem of dense stratigraphy, Finkelstein renews and

defends his confidence in the absolute dating of the royal enclosure at Jezreel. He had alreadylowered the chronology of Megiddo Strata VA-IVB on the basis of recent pottery studies atJezreel, most notably a 1992 study by Zimhoni, and based on a more recent study by Zimhoni(1997) now claims that Hazor Stratum X, like Megiddo VA-IVB, is roughly contemporary withit. (Incidentally, the lack of precision in dating pottery to the late-tenth, early-ninth century, maybe illustrated by the fact that a recent comparative study of the pottery of Hazor, Yoqneam, andMegiddo conducted by Zarzeki-Peleg, effectively challenges Zimhonis conclusions, so crucialfor Finkelsteins scheme.) Nevertheless, Finkelstein stands firm on the ninth-century dating of


6/131


the Jezreel ceramic assemblage and attempts further to connect Hazor Stratum X to the Jezreelenclosure on the basis of apparent similarities in layout and architecture. As for the problem ofexcessively dense stratigraphy resulting from the Low Chronology scheme, Finkelstein dismissesthis out of hand as simply the result of struggles over Hazor between Israel and Aram Damascus.He views the tenth century BCE as a time of Aramaean territorial and political formation,

followed in the ninth century by a period of Omride Israelite expansion (represented by HazorStrata X-IX) that ends with the conquests of Hazael of Aram Damascus (1999a: 65).

[18] Ben-Tor challenges these latest assertions on a number of counts. He raises again the issueof the poor condition of Jezreels architecture, including its four-chambered gate and attachedcasemate wall, which he asserts bear no similarity to Hazors six-chambered gate and verydifferent casemate wall. He challenges the reliability of pottery dating due to Jezreels poorstate of preservation and observes that, in fact, no sealed loci exist at Jezreel to provide reliablepottery dating; even if pottery from sealed loci were available, it would not be a reliable indicatorfor distinguishing between late tenth century and early ninth-century occupation. Finally, Ben-Tor rejects Finkelsteins explanation for Hazors dense stratigraphy, attributed to a tight series ofAramaean campaigns, by observing that Tel Dan, only some 20 km to the north, lies much closer

to Aram Damascus yet has fewer strata in evidence.[19] The Aramaean presence in and around northern Israel is a subject of growing interest amongarchaeologists and historians, but so far the only explicit archaeological witness to Aramaeanactivity in the region is the fragmentary stele inscription at Tel Dan, which, as mentioned above,was discovered in 1993 outside its primary context. From an archaeological perspective, theAramaeans are, in Ben-Tors words, an invisible entity, since they leave no discerniblefingerprints (12). In the absence of any datable archaeological indicators, the Aramaean factorcannot be used to argue for either chronological scheme, as most any ninth-century destructionlevel in the north may be attributed to an Aramaean conquest. Thus, Finkelsteins LowChronology would attribute the destruction of Hazor Strata IX to Hazael, while Yadin and Ben-Tor would posit that the destruction was caused by Ben-Hadad I. The latter assumption is basedsolely on 1 Kings 15:20, which Finkelstein is forced to reject. This he does, arguing that theBibles description of the campaign reflects the reality of the later campaign of Tiglath-pileserIII, and thus its historicity is questionable (1999a: 59).

[20] In assessing the current debate, we have already raised a number of points which do notfavor Finkelsteins assertion that his alternative approach to the chronology of Iron Age Israel isno less appealing and historically sound than the generally accepted one (1996: 178). First, hisefforts appear to be tainted by the self-appointed quest to emancipate Iron Age archaeologyfrom biblical archaeology (1998: 167), which does not hinder him from finding biblical supportfor such events as the destruction of Jezreel or choosing selectively among various Aramaeanactivities mentioned in the Bible. In fact, at times it appears that Finkelstein is being driven more

by his own conclusions than by a methodologically sound interest in building upon a growingbody of evidence. In light of the efforts of the Copenhagen school and others in making use(albeit selective) of the findings of archaeology in supporting their claims about the nature of theUnited Monarchy, one may appreciate the irony of Mazars recent observation that perhapsFinkelsteins interpretation of the data has been inspired by some current trends in historicalwriting (164).

[21] Another critique of the Low Chronology, then, is that it appears to be based on a verynarrow consideration of available data. Drawing assumptions about Philistine pottery by


7/131


focusing on a few southern sites, Finkelstein ignores the presence of boldly demarcated potterydistribution elsewhere. Mazar cites as example the large quantity of Bichrome ware recovered atMegiddo Stratum VIA, but lacking at a contemporaneous level at Beth Shan (S-2) (158).Moreover, it seems naive to suppose, as Finkelstein apparently does, that pottery use anddevelopment would be sequentially uniform across a broad area and that clearly defined socio-

political and cultural boundaries would not result in variations in the type and useful life of dailypottery.

[22] Next, the resulting shift in the chronology of corresponding strata at other sites creates moreproblems than it solves. In order to maintain the proposed chronology Finkelstein is forced tostamp out fires; those he cannot stamp out are simply ignored. Case in point, Arad Stratum XII,which Finkelstein accepts as being the city conquered by Shoshenq I ca. 925 BCE yields potteryassemblages contemporaneous with those of southern sites such as Qasile IX-VII, Lachish V,Batash IV, and others, which the Low Chronology scheme has pushed forward into the ninthcentury BCE (Mazar: 161). It makes more sense to retain the correspondence of these other sites,tied as they are to the reasonably firm anchor of Arad XII. Finally, Finkelsteins assertion thatthe Low Chronology closes an apparent gap in the ninth-century BCE stratigraphy of the south

appears to be nothing more than a solution in search of a problem, as the thin stratigraphy ofthis period is reasonably attributed to a continuation in the use of pottery and not a missingcentury at all, as Mazar points out (163).

[23] Thus, as it stands, proponents of the conventional chronology appear to be putting forth thestrongest and most cogent arguments. However, having said this it should also be kept in mindthat the challenge to the conventional model Finkelstein presents is constructive in that it forcesarchaeologists to dig a little deeper, to demonstrate scientifically what may have been tooeasily accepted as true on the basis of an uncritical reading of the Bible. It has also invitedfurther discussion of the Aramaean question of the ninth-century BCE north, as well as theprocess of state formation in the Levant. In any event, until indisputable epigraphical evidencecan be found in situ, the debate over the tenth-century socio-political and architectural landscapewill likely continue. In the meantime, continued scientific inquiry, including such things asCarbon 14 analysis, is currently underway at a number of crucial sites.

Conclusion

[24] Contrary to the claims ofThe Bible Unearthed, the Bibles witness to the presence ofkingdoms in and around tenth-century Israel is based on the reality of institutional-typestructures. One cannot easily dismiss this as simply the projection of a golden age superimposedupon history from some later date. Monumental public architecture at sites such as Hazor,Megiddo, Gezer, and Beth Shan witness to at least some sort of centralized administrativeinterest - albeit perhaps in some formative stage - operating in tenth-century Israel and argues

against Finkelsteins assertion that the northern kingdom of Israel would emerge [in the ninthcentury BCE] as the first real, full blown state in Iron Age Palestine (1996: 185). The history ofthis region must be seen as a process of continuing expansion of political entities throughconquest, annexation, and consolidation. By the tenth century small city states led by warriorchieftains, perhaps something of the sort we find in the book of Judges, began coalescing intopetty kingdoms which would gradually develop into the larger kingdoms. However, even thesemighty tenth-century kingdoms would themselves come to be swallowed up by empires, those


8/131


bigger fish who effectively marshaled that Ancient Near Eastern practice of expansion anddevelopment through conquest and consolidation on a much greater level.

Bibliography

Aharoni, Y. and R. Amiran

1958 A New Scheme for the Sub-Division of the Iron Age in Palestine.IsraelExploration Journal 8: 171-84.

Albright, W. F.

1975 Syria, the Philistines and Phoenicia. Pp. 507-34 in The Cambridge AncientHistory. Volume II, Part 2. Third Edition. Edited by I. E. S. Edwards et al.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Alt, A.

1944 gyptische Tempel in Palstina und die Landnahme der Philister.Zeitschriftdes deutschen Palstina-Vereins 67: 1-20.

Ben-Tor, Amnon

2000 Hazor and the Chronology of Northern Israel: A Reply to Israel Finkelstein. inBulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 317: 9-15.

Ben-Tor, Amnon and Doron Ben-Ami

1998 Hazor and the Archaeology of the Tenth Century BCE. Israel ExplorationJournal 48: 1-37.

Biran, A. and J. Naveh

1993 An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan,Israel Exploration Journal 43: 81-

981995 The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment.Israel Exploration Journal 45: 1-

18.

Davies, Philip

1992 In Search of Ancient Israel. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Finkelstein, Israel

1995 The Date of the Settlement of the Philistines in Canaan. Tel Aviv 22: 213-39.

1996 The Archaeology of the United Monarchy: An Alternative View.Levant28:177-87.

1998 Biblical Archaeology or the Archaeology of Palestine in the Iron Age: ARejoinder.Levant30: 167-74.

1999a Hazor and the North in the Iron Age: A Low Chronology Perspective. Bulletinof the American Schools of Oriental Research 314: 55-70.

1999b State Formation in Israel and Judah: A Contrast in Context, A Contrast inTrajectory.Near Eastern Archaeology 62, 1: 35-52.


9/131


Garbini, G.

1988 History and Ideology in Ancient Israel. New York: Crossroad.

Lemche, Niels Peter

1998 The Israelites in History and Tradition. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.

Mazar, Amihai

1997 Iron Age Chronology: A Reply to I. Finkelstein.Levant29: 157-67.

Mazar, Amihai and John Camp

2000 Will Tel Rehov save the United Monarchy?Biblical Archaeology Review 26, 2:38-51, 75.

Miller, Laura

2001 King David was a Nebbish. Salon[http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2001/02/07/solomon/index.html].

Shanks, Hershel1997 Face to Face: Biblical Minimalists Meet Their Challengers.Biblical

Archaeology Review 23, 4: 26-42, 66.

Stager, Lawrence

1995 The Impact of the Sea Peoples in Canaan. Pp. 331-48 in The Archaeology ofSociety in the Holy Land. Edited by Thomas E. Levy. New York: Facts on File.

Thompson, Thomas L.

1992 Early History of the Israelite People. Leiden: Brill.

1999 The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel. New York: BasicBooks.

Ussishkin D. and J. Woodhead

1994 Excavations at Tel Jezreel 1992-1993: Second Preliminary Report.Levant26:1-71.

Yadin, Yigael

1972 Hazor. London: Oxford University Press.

Zarzeki-Peleg, A.

1997 Hazor, Jokneam, and Meggido in the 10th Century B.C.E. Tel Aviv 24: 258-88.

Zimhoni, O.

1992 The Iron Age Pottery from Tel Jezreel - An Interim Report. Tel Aviv 19: 57-70.

1997 Clues from the Enclosure-Fills: Pre-Omride Settlement at Tel Jezreel. Tel Aviv24: 83-109.


10/131


Figure 1

Comparison of Traditional and Low Chronologies for Iron Age Hazor *

Stratum Traditional Chronology Low Chronology

X 10th C, Solomonic Early 9th C, Omride

IX Late 10th, early 9th C, First half of 9th C,Israelite Omride

Destruction 885 BCE, Ben-Hadad 835 BCE, Hazael

VIII First half 9th C, Israelite Late 9th, Aramaean

VII Second half 9th C, Israelite End of 9th C, Aramaean

Destruction ca. 810, Hazael ca. 800, Joash/Jeroboam II **

VI Early 8th C, Jeroboam II Early 8th C, Jeroboam II **

Destruction ca. 760, Earthquake ca. 760, Earthquake

V Mid-8th C, Israelite Mid-8th C, Israelite

Destruction 732, Tiglath-pileser III 732, Tiglath-pileser III

* Adapted from I. Finkelstein (1999a: 65).

** In order to support his Low Chronology Finkelstein attributes the destruction of Stratum VII to Israeliteexpansion in which Hazor is wrested away from Assyrian control.


11/131


12/131

On the Case of Faust

versus Finkelstein, froma Frien of the Court

Alex Joffe

Commenting on the Faust-Finkelstein exchange is

rather like being a sportscaster at a chess match being

conducted through the mail. There is limited action,

the world moves on between volleys, and in the moment it all ap-

pears quite engrossing. At best such matches end in draws, with

both sides making useful empirical and theoretical points. To col-

legially advance the discussion a sideways approach is in order.

In his 2003 piece, Faust suggests that Iron I village sites

were abandoned at the end of the eleventh and beginning

of the tenth century, were not reoccupied during the Iron

II, and that this phenomenon should be explained in terms

of the formation of a central Israelite state. Finkelstein

disagrees on a number of grounds. He believes Faust is simply

following the biblical accounts in his organization of otherwise

heterogeneous archaeological data from different regions and

methods and that he uses inappropriate analogies and engagesin circular reasoning.

Faust presents an interesting hypothesis but does not support

it with adequate discussion of the data before addressing broader

themes of state formation. Finkelstein mentions these deficiencies

but then hones in on other matters, including state formation. In

fact, there are reasons to object to both approaches.

Dancing with MethodsMethods are always carefully calibrated to goals. One point

I have made often is that some people are splitters and others

are lumpers. Where Faust aggregates sites into a larger picture

in order to present his reconstruction, Finkelstein now (his

path-blazing 1988 book notwithstanding) disaggregates topresent another. The latters disinclination to accept the

formers lumping is sometimes well-founded, depending on why

are certain sites being grouped together, but at the same time

splitting must also serve a distinct purpose.

As Finkelstein points out, Faust disregards northern Samaria

in his discussion. Nor, for that matter, does he discuss Iron I

and early Iron II Megiddo, Hazor, or Tel el-Farah North and

their environs, some of the sites that in the traditional view

formed the administrative centers of the emerging states. Faust

retorts that his focus was largely on the issue of continuity and

discontinuity. This appears, however, a somewhat tendentious

approach designed to highlight the latter rather than theformer. And where in either Faust or Finkelstein are discussions

of Dor, Tell el-Hammah, sites around the Sea of Galilee or

other borderlands? It is also astonishing that when discussing

changes in the rural highland sector neither author sees fit to

cite the Early Bronze and Middle Bronze Ages! The discussion

is incomplete on all sides.

For reasons I will elaborate below, I now believe the entire

issue of survey versus excavation data is a red herring, given

the inherent flaws of both. They are necessarily complementary

but at a basic level fundamentally incompatible. Highlighting

one over the other, or using one to point out the obvious flaws

of the other, allows certain points to be scored in pursuit of

larger goals. But both excavation and survey are dependent onpottery, which is a tricky business at best.

Chronology is an obvious area of disagreement between the

two. For the moment, I refrain from commenting extensively on

the matter except to say, now that we are finally approaching

things scientifically, why cant we all just get along? Does no

one remember the Jarmo-Jericho 14C race of the 1950s? Who

won that race anyway?

Dates aside, several salutary developments have come from

the chronology wars. One is the realization, first articulated

by David Ussishkin, that even local stratigraphic and ceramic

sequencesfrom one side of a site and anothermust be

unpacked without taking contemporaneity for granted. Moving

to the site down the road, or within the region (macro ormicro), introduces even greater uncertainty.

The type site has fallen on hard times, and this is all to

the good. It means that we must focus harder on precisely

what we mean by inter-site comparisons, typologies and

regions. Meanwhile, rapid application of14C to the Iron Age is

commendable, even as it has produced seemingly contradictory

results that are consequently applied in predictable ways to

previously developed chronologies. But I suppose we cant

have everything.

On the matter of survey versus excavation data though, I

am no longer confident that the former (though necessary)

tell us much that should be used for detailed reconstructions,

of the sort Faust attempts, and which Finkelstein himself onceattempted. What do dots on a map mean? The problems that

Faust discusses in greater detail in his recent reply, the life

span of particular ceramic forms, is a question that must be

understood in the first instance from well-dated excavated

data, knowing full well that for idiosyncratic reasons a ceramic

sequence might be site specific.

Recall the process by which worn sherds are recovered from

a plot of land, a few assessed as to their form and date, and

16 Near easterN archaeology 70:1 (2007)


13/131

then inferences made regarding the size, configuration and

significance of the plot. Thus do sherds turn into dots on a

map, imbued with social, economic, and political significance

within long-term processes. But how do they get their dates?

Ram Gophna once told me that pottery specialists are like

wizards who, through careful study, experience, insight, and

persuasiveness dominate understanding of particular periods.

This is not to say that ceramic analysis is entirely subjective

or idiosyncratic, only that it is a peculiar enterprise dependent

on a fairly small number of individuals who create competing

schools or traditions of ceramic analysis. A less whimsical,

and hence less Ram-like, way of putting this is consensus-

building in science.Having worked extensively on Chalcolithic and Early Bronze

Age ceramics I marvel at the exacting precision displayed by those

studying the second and especially first millennium. To narrow

ceramic dates down to half or even quarter century intervals is

the quintessence of wizarding power, based on general principles

and experience. There is also an impulse to specificity born of

the desire to relate archaeological data to historical accounts.

Every dot must have its date in order to enter the story.

And therein lies the conundrum and a mea culpa. We simply

dont know what survey data mean on the basis of ceramics

alone, whether we are really seeing continuity or discontinuity,

and how even site specific sequences fit with one another.

Witness the continuing debates over coordinating early Iron Age

sequences from Megiddo with those at Tel Jezreel and Taanach,

separated by only a few kilometers. The splitters nightmare is an

atomic fog of data that a priori cannot be related to one another.

Obviously this will not do, so we do the best we can.

I recall clever statistical means for circumventing such

problems from the heyday of Mesopotamian survey archaeology,

averaging and smoothing to create splines that were then

compared. These methods presupposed statistical skills, and

faith, to supplement ceramic analysis. In fact, the standard

deviations of14C dates allow the determined to use disparate

data to support their own chronology, but that is fortunately a

different question. Why 14C dating of actual sherds, which had

seemed so promising a few years ago, has not been pursued,

remains another question. But survey data, while necessary,

must take second place in detailed reconstructions to excavated

data, dated on the basis of scientific techniques. To his credit,

in his reply Faust implicitly concedes this point.

Analogy and its DiscontentsFinkelstein objects to Fausts discussion of Greek, Inca,

and Aztec examples, and raises his unhappiness with earlier

comparisons presented by Faust and Bunimovitz. I sympathize

with both sides. Comparing Sea Peoples with the modern

Baringo district of Kenya seems ill-advised, inasmuch as the

latter, while rich in people, lacks proximity to the sea. But

if more carefully drawn, the comparisons offered by Faust

regarding middle-range societies, and rural and imperial

patterns, could well be enlightening.

Finkelsteins vexation is interesting since he cites a

presumably acceptable example of historical analogy, his own,

and thus cannot be accused of saying that situations somehow

explain themselves. But his objections, and Fausts response,

lay out no criteria for what is haram (forbidden) and what is

halal (permitted).

It is instructive to step back and ask the purpose of what

I have termed macro-scale comparisons (Joffe 2004). Is it to

find an example that bears similar characteristics to ones

own reconstruction so as to say, see, it can happen here? On

this we may offer a gentle reminder that analogy is not proof.

Historical analogies are instructive, they allow us to glimpse, for

Near easterN archaeology 70:1 (2007) 17

Faust does not discuss Iron I

and early Iron II sites that, in

the traditional view, formed the

regional centers of the emergingstates. Hazor is considered

to be one of these sites and

this pillared building is usually

understood as evidence for the

sites administrative function.

Pack animals would enter the

central aisle where their packs

would be loaded and unloaded.

The two side aisles were places

where items were stored. Thus,

the contents of this building

indicate that it was used for

storage and not as a stable.


14/131

example, possibilities from elsewhere that might be hidden or

unrecognized from view in our own case, which then must then

be demonstrated on the basis of evidence.

Historical analogies may be drawn broadly or narrowly, butthe more narrow, the greater the possibility that the author

is proof shopping. I am therefore uncomfortable with Shaka

Zulu. Political success notwithstanding, Shaka was hyper-

violent, is credited with inventing a new and superior weapon

(the stabbing spear) and fighting technique, and moreover

undertook his conquests after the early-nineteenth-century

Wars of Calamity. Massive destruction wrought by other

tribes compounded by drought tore southern Africa to pieces

and made it vulnerable to conquest by the Zulu nation, which

Shaka had reorganized as a military caste. These aggravating

circumstances mitigate the utility of comparing Shakas rural

kingdom with that of earliest Israel.

I am, however, delighted with Fausts comparisons withGreece, which seems wholly appropriate in ecology, scale,

social and technological levels and trends, to name but a few

dimensions. And of course, in addition to these, Iron Age

Greece was also subjected to imperial entanglements.

But on the matter of empires, where, exactly, are the Egyptians

in either Faust or Finkelstein? For that matter, where are other

neighbors like the Arameans, Phoenicians, and Moabites?

State formation, or whatever it was, involved interaction with

neighbors besides the Philistines, not only in a political sense

but also in the process of what I have called ethnicizing, the

creation of new ethnic identities (Joffe 2002). Leaving out the

larger context (Philistines excepted) to focus solely on internal

processes seems incomplete.

Whats in a Name RevisitedLet us go after the biggest fish of all. For arguments sake let

us adopt a Lennonist approach; imagine theres no history, its

not so easy to do. I have elsewhere made the point that Syro-

Palestinian/biblical archaeology is historicistic. Regardless of

orientation it uses texts to arrange archaeological data into

a recognizable history of peoples and events, expressed as

a narrative with a beginning, middle and end. As J. P. Dessel

and I showed for the Early Bronze Age, even when no texts

are available, the same tendency prevails, as archaeological

data are personified and material changes presented as discrete

human events within a story arc (Dessel and Jofe 2000). In

fancy terms this can be called emplotment but the real issue is

writing history. Romance, satire, comedy, tragedy?

The contrasting approach might broadly be called

anthropological (although this should not be regarded as an

exclusive claim on science), where evolution is the framing

device, adaptation the mechanism for material change, and

events mere signposts. Usually it is impersonal (despite efforts to

reintroduce free will under the equally fancy name of agency),

has no particular plot (except perhaps Marxist preaching about

greed, hate, envy, and jealousy), and aspires to generalization

about the human experience and even the human condition.Few ripping yarns here.

Varying analytical and rhetorical approaches have their basis

in the background and training of scholars. But it should be

emphasized that the historical inclination is also driven by the

needs of educated and lay readers, who wish to read a coherent

and compelling story. The success of popularizing scientists

from Brian Fagan to Jared Diamond to Stephen Hawking

lies precisely in their ability to create narratives that draw in

readers, rather than alienate them with minutiae and jargon.

There is of course one other element compelling scholars in

this particular enterprise.

Archaeology of the southern Levant in the late-second and

first millennia b.c.e. has another mixed blessing, a complexseries of texts that is, oh by the way, also holy writ. We need not

belabor this further. The Bible is there, it must be addressed.

Both Faust and Finkelstein remain solidly within the

historicist approach. Both use the terms provided by the text

and ultimately return to the narrative, not necessarily to prove

or disprove, but as reference points. They proceed from very

different suppositions regarding the data (archaeological and

textual) and the type of story they wish to tell. Both wish to

write history from archaeology, both must contend with the

Bible, and the results are quite different. Their categories both

hew closer to the tradition than they realize.

. . . and whatsoever Adam called every livingcreature, that was the name thereof (Gen 2:19)Words stand for things, behind which stand unspoken chains

of inference and meaning. In his first volley Faust analyzes

Iron I sites and almost unconsciously employs terms that

indicate his adherence to the conditions of biblical text.

Shilohs destruction is attributed to Philistines, Raddanas to

the Philistines victory at Ebenezer, Tell el-Fls to the events

described in Judg 1921, and Israelites, Phoenicians, and even

Jebusites make their appearances. This is hardly illegitimate but

it does approach matters from a particular perspective. And yet

in his reply Finkelstein adopts the same approach. Iron II Rosh

Zayit could have been Phoenician, while Khirbet Jemein and

Khirbet Hudash belonged to the Northern Kingdom. The

very concept of a Philistine threat is a literary one.

All these ethnic groups, polities, and events are, strictly

speaking, textually derived. That doesnt mean, as some would

have it, that they didnt exist, that they were extrapolations,

fabrications, or frauds. But in strictly archaeological terms, the

ethnic groups, polities, and events (and underlying processes)

of the period of the thirteenth to the ninth centuries are



15/131

extraordinarily difficult to define. If all texts were swept away

and amnesia befell the archaeologists of the earth, would we

recognize Judah and Israel as separate entities? If so, how would

we understand them in political and cultural terms?We use terms like state or kingdom as shorthand for

political packages, with borders and behaviors, but what do

these terms actually mean for the Iron Age? Faust invokes

ethnographic analogies (about which more below) but does not

significantly explain his use of such terms. Even Finkelstein, who

elsewhere has presented a dual picture of earliest ancient Israel

as tribal chiefdom and puffed up literary representation still uses

terms like states, at least with respect to the later Iron II.

To look for state formation presupposes there was, at some

point, a state. In the same way urbanization suggests that

there were cities. Many years ago I introduced the phrase

urban relativism to suggest that what constitutes a city in

any given society must be understood first in local terms (Joffe1993). A great leap forward in settlement size and complexity

in relation to previous forms might be called urban, whereas in

cross-cultural (that is to say, Mesopotamian) terms the biggest

Levantine sites were mere towns.

I am no longer so sure about these things, but the point is that

until scholars define what cities and states and kings are likely to

have meant in the context of the Iron Age there will be continued

argument at cross purposes. Whatever the shortcomings of

Finkelsteins recasting of the earliest Israelite monarchs as tribal

chiefs (which presumes that ancient social formations are like

modern ethnographic tribes), he has at least presented us with a

picture of what he sees. Faust, in contrast, examines something

of the process but not the product, and hence implicitly retains a

biblical inflection (which I suggest is implicitly visualized by the

average reader using Assyrian reliefs and Hollywood images of

medieval Europe. However, that is another question).

But Faust and Finkelstein have particular frameworks in

which the archaeology is only one element. Both earnestly

wish to write history, rather than simply do archaeology,

and this, it must be stressed, is valid, necessary, and wholly

different than creating free-floating and completely subjective

narratives. This is not the place to propose an alternative,

wherein the texts are completely discarded and the sherds fall

where they may. I have made my own minor attempt at this,

and was compelled in the end to back track to the texts as well.

It was more interesting that way. But the fact remains that the

exercise remains to be done.

Will the Hermeneutic Circle be Unbroken?Understanding both terminological/taxonomic and

methodological problems allows us to see the nature of the

circular reasoning at work in both Faust and Finkelstein.

Far from being something pernicious, such reasoningonce

brought into the open and critiquedshould be understood as

logical, necessary, and inevitable.

The traditionalist Faust moves from archaeological evidence

to his reconstructions of social processes to the biblical text. Byusing the traditional chronology a basic pattern is discerned,

which conforms at least in some respects to both anthropological

examples of state formation and a generous reading of the

biblical text on these matters. The second two elements closely

inform one another and inevitably help structure the first. This

is hardly the tendentious search for patches of ash to inflate

into destruction levels, or for suggestive but event-less Sitz im

Leben that characterized biblical archaeology in days of yore.

But it regards the biblical text as the touchstone.

Finkelstein also begins with archaeological evidence and

then moves to his own understanding of the social processes,

and finally to his own understanding of the Bible. But in his

industry he has literally written the book on all three elements.Creating an alternate chronology generated a different web

of causality and process for the period 1300800 b.c.e., one

in which traditional players up to and including kings and

states are assigned dramatically different roles. And, in turn,

by understanding the biblical texts as late and exaggerated,

the first two elements stand in harmony. One might even say

they are confirmed. His latest book with Neil Silberman (2006)

continues the process even further into the seventh century.

Finkelsteins logic works something like this. On the basis of

the low chronology there is no evidence for major settlement in

tenth-century Jerusalem. On internal, textual grounds David

was a highland chieftain, and therefore we should not expect

a glorious city. And the texts discussing David are in any case

later, designed to create a glorious past for political reasons.

Given Eilat Mazars new discoveries, it may be too early

to dismiss Jerusalem as a capital. What that would mean for

the biblical traditions, and historicist interpretations of the

archaeological record is another question. But if the capital

itself is coming into better focus the state itself is not, since

there is still a missing hinterland to consider.

In the EndWe are left with first questions. What are the settlement

patterns between the thirteenth and ninth centuries? What

are the spatial distribution of sites and sizes? Are there data

that reasonably refine site dating and indicate continuity and

discontinuity. Fausts reconstruction, derived by privileging

survey data, controlled to some extent by excavation results, is

suggestive but as yet unconvincing. Finkelsteins objections are

worth noting, but his rejection of the common chronological

framework makes it difficult to argue on the same terms.

Can we pierce the overlay of history, text and narrative to

even approach these questions? Is red-slipped and burnished



16/131

pottery a tenth- or nineth-century phenomenon, Solomon

notwithstanding? I am no longer sure how to even approach

this problem. Alas, stepping out of the hermeneutic circle is

neither easy nor likely.In my view, we know far too much to fall back on simple

reconstructions and create a grand unified theory of Israelite

state formation, or for that matter, settlement changes of the

thirteenth to the ninth century. There are too many data, with

too many problems, and basic sensitivity to regional ecology

and interregional politics makes the splitter in me say that the

task is near impossible.

But to quote a famous scientist, nothing is impossible,

not if you can imagine it. The lumper in me suggests that in

the data Faust outlines are two large- scale and ultimately

complementary rural processes. The first is Samaria, writ large,

where widespread Iron I settlement diminished in early Iron

II and increased further in later Iron II. The second is Judah,again writ large, with minimal Iron I settlement that expands

gradually into Iron II with a more complex settlement hierarchy

ranging from farmsteads to towns. Reorganization of the rural

landscape took place in early Iron II Samaria, where urbanism

had not disappeared but was a more lengthy affair in Judah. The

drivers of these processes were social, ecological, and political

(although a deliberate policy of resettlement remains utterly

speculative).

Returning this way to the broadest northsouth distinctions

once favored by Kenyon and others is not especially satisfying,

but does incorporate the concept of an older northsouth

divide, as Finkelstein does elsewhere. It also highlights the

fact that an early Iron II site in Jerusalem (pace Eilat Mazar)had little in the way of a rural hinterland. This scenario is

anomalous when compared with other secondary states.

I have suggested that the earliest Israelite state was anideological shell, where ruling elites could manage to createwalled sites and administrative buildings but not much more.But on the basis of archaeological evidence alone, what sort ofstate is this anyway? Outside of a few apparently administrativesites, where are its symbols, institutions, and extracted surpluses?If Jerusalem was a capital without a hinterland, early Iron IISamaria was a thriving hinterland with a multiple of capitals.

About the nature and interconnections between such elites

(competing? cooperating? one king or many?) we know

little except that they followed Phoenician (and perhaps othernorthern) architectural styles. Even if there is a palace in early

Iron II Jerusalem, that does not describe for us the founding

elites or the nature of their political system. Furthermore, I

have suggested that given the lack of specific ethnic content

in Iron I and earliest Iron II, the state may have preceded the

ethnicity. And yet on the basis of inscriptional evidence some

sort of polity was known to the Assyrians by Shalmenesers

time. The return to history is swift and inevitable.

I am inclined to believe the matter of the Israelite state

must be rethought more radically than Faust or even

Finkelstein allows. The studied indecision presented here

is unlikely to satisfy anyone, including myself. But renewedprogress is likely only by ruthlessly stripping away the

unspoken methodological and theoretical assumptions that

all too often seem to form the substance of this archaeology,

and which in any case structure the data as we have them.

Thoroughly taking things apart rather than continuing to jury

rig an already overburdened apparatus is a necessary prelude

to fresh and hopefully more accurate reconstructions. Such

demolition work is also necessary before we can legitimately

speak of a new biblical archaeology or make any claims to

newness or reinvention.

I therefore thank Faust and Finkelstein for their stimulating

contributions, and to the editors ofNEA for the invitation to

make a nuisance of myself by taking those contributions apart.

State Formation an theIron Age IIron Age IIA

Transition: Remarks on theFaust-Finkelstein debate

Zeev Herzog

Without repeating the detailed arguments of both

writers, I wish to stress that Fausts argumen-

tation suffers from oversimplification of the ar-

chaeological data, uncritical acceptance of excavators views

on the stratigraphy, typology, and chronology of their sites, and

fails to recognize the complex picture of each region. The case

of the Beer-sheba Valley presented below illuminates these

shortcomings. I find that the criticism of Finkelstein better

expresses the multifarious reality during the transition from

Iron I to Iron IIA. The following points may raise additional

doubts on Fausts view.

1. The alleged abandonment of rural settlements at

the end of Iron I is not supported by the data from Beer-

sheba Valley and the Negev Highlands. The recognized



17/131

Notes1. I was surprised to see the discussion that followed my response to

Finkelstein, as it not only ignored the relevant archaeological data, but

was exceptionally unbalanced. Unfortunately, although Joffes commentsare worthy of discussion, I have to concentrate in this brief response on the

other respondents.

2. Herzog, for example, quotes me as comparing the texts and the

archaeological finds in order to show that I do rely on the biblical texts! But

the quote he chose was from the end of my article, when I explicitly compared

the results of the archaeological discussion with the biblical description.

3. In the past, Finkelstein has allowed archaeological findings to dictate

his agenda.

ReferencesAhlstrm, G. W.

1982a Royal Administration and National Religion in Ancient Palestine.

Leiden: Brill.

1982b Where did the Israelite Live? Journal of Near Eastern Studies41: 13338.

Bloch-Smith, E.

2003 Israelite Ethnicity in Iron I: Archaeology Preserves What

is Remembered and What is Forgotten in Israels History.

Journal of Biblical Literature 122: 40125.

Bunimovitz, S.

1998 Sea Peoples in Cyprus and Israel: A Comparative Study of

Immigration Process. Pp. 10313 in Mediterranean Peoples in

Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE , ed. S. Gitin,

A. Mazar and E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Bunimovitz, S., and Faust, A.

2001 Chronological Separation, Geographical Segregation, or

Ethnic Demarcation? Ethnography and the Iron Age LowChronology. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental

Research 322: 110.

in press Re-Constructing Biblical Archaeology: Toward an Integration

of Archaeology and the Bible, The New Biblical Archaeology:

From Text to Turn, ed. T. E. Levy. London: Equinox.

Bunimovitz, S., and Finkelstein, I.

1993 Pottery. Pp. 81196 in Shiloh: The Story of a Biblical Site, ed.

I. Finkelstein, S. Bunimovitz, and Z. Lederman. Tel Aviv:

Institute of Archaeology.

Deetz, J.

1967 Invitation to Archaeology. New York: Natural History Press.

Demand, N. H.

1990 Urban Relocation in Archaic and Classical Greece: Flight and

Consolidation. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.

Dessel , J. P., and Joffe, A. H.

2000 Alternative Approaches to Early Bronze Age Ceramics. Pp.

3158 in Ceramics and Change in the Early Bronze Age of

the Southern Levant, ed. G. Phillip and D. Baird. Sheffield:

Sheffield Academic.

Deutsch, K. W.

1959 The Limits of Common Sense. Psychiatry 22: 10512.

Dever, W. G.

1993 Biblical Archaeology: Death and Rebirth. Pp. 70622 in

Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990, Proceedings of the Second

International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, ed. A. Biran andJ. Aviram. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

1994 From Tribe to Nation: State Formation Processes in Ancient

Israel. Pp. 21329 in Nuove fondenzioni nel Vicino Oriente

antico, realt e ideologia, ed. S. Mazzoni. Pisa: Giardini.

1997 Archaeology, Urbanism and the Rise of the Israelite State. Pp.

17293 in Urbanism in Antiquity: From Mesopotamia to Crete,

ed. W. E. Aufrecht, N. A. Mirau, and S. W. Gauley. Sheffield:

Sheffield Academic Press.

Diamond, J.

2005 Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive. New York:

Viking.

Faust, A.

1995 The Rural Settlement in the Land of Israel During the Periodof the Monarchy. M.A. thesis, Bar-Ilan University. (Hebrew)

1997 The Impact of Jerusalems Expansion in the Late Iron Age on

the Forms of Rural Settlements in its Vicinity. Cathedra 84:

5362. (Hebrew)

1999 Differences in Family Structure Between Cities and Villages in

Iron Age II. Tel Aviv 26: 23352.

2000a Ethnic Complexity in Northern Israel during Iron Age II.

Palestine Exploration Quarterly 132: 227.

2000b The Rural Community in Ancient Israel during the Iron Age

II. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 317:

1739.

2001 Doorway Orientation, Settlement Planning and Cosmology in

Ancient Israel during Iron Age II. Oxford Journal of Archaeology20: 12955.

2003a Abandonment, Urbanization, Resettlement and the Formation

of the Israelite State.Near Eastern Archaeology 66: 14761.

2003b The Farmstead in the Highland of Iron Age II Israel. Pp.

91104 in The Rural Landscape of Ancient Israel, ed. A. M.

Maeir, S. Dar, and Z. Safrai. Oxford: BAR International

Series, 1121. Oxford: Archaeopress.

2004 The United Monarchy and Anthropo logy: A Note on the

Debate over Jerusalems Possible Status as a Capital. Pp.

2336 inNew Studies on Jerusalem , vol. 10, ed. E. Baruch and

A. Faust. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University. (Hebrew)

2005 Israelite Society in the Period of the Monarchy: An Archaeological

Perspective. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi. (Hebrew)

2006 Settlement Patterns and State Formation in Southern Samaria

and the Archaeology of (A) Saul. Pp. 1438 in Saul in Story

and Tradition, ed. C. Ehrlich and M. White. Tbingen: Mohr

Siebeck.

in press The Negev Fortres ses in Cont ext: Reexamini ng the

Fortresses Phenomenon in Light of General Settlement

Processes of the 11th10th Centuries B.C.E. Journal of t he

American Oriental Society.



18/131

Faust, A., and Safrai, Z.

2005 Salvage Excavations as a Source for Reconstructing Settlement

History in Ancient Israel. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 137:

13958.

Finkelstein, I.

1988 The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem: Israel

Exploration Society.

1995a The Date of the Settlement of the Philistines in Canaan. Tel

Aviv 23: 17084.

1995b The Philistine Countryside. Israel Exploration Journal 46:

22542.

1998 Bible Archaeology or the Archaeology of the Palestine in the

Iron Age? A Rejoinder. Levant 30: 16774.

1999 State Formation in Israel and Judah: A Contrast in Context, A

Contrast in Trajectory.Near Eastern Archaeology 62: 3552.

2000 The Philistine Settlements: When, Where and How Many?

Pp. 15980 in The Sea Peoples and Their World: A Reassessment ,

ed. E. D. Oren. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.

2005 [De]formation of the Israelite State: A Rejoinder on

Methodology.Near Eastern Archaeology 68: 2028.

Finkelstein, I., and Silberman, N. A.

2001 The Bible Unearthed: Archaeologys New Vision of Ancient Israel

and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts. New York: Free Press.

2006 David and Solomon: In Search of the Bibles Sacred Kings and the

Roots of the Western Tradition. New York: Free Press.

Flannery, K. V.

1999 Process and Agency in Early State Formation. Cambridge

Archaeological Journal 9: 321.

Gal, Z.

1992 Lower Galilee During the Iron Age. ASOR Dissertation Series,

8. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.Gal, Z., and Alexandre, Y.

2000 Horbat Rosh Zayit, an Iron Age Storage Fort and Village .

Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Grabbe, L. L.

2001 Sup-urbs or Only Hyp-urbs? Prophets and Populations in

Ancient Israel and Socio-historical Method. Pp. 93121

in Every City Shall Be Forsaken: Urbanism and Prophecy in

Ancient Israel and the Near Eas t, ed. L. L. Grabbe and R. D.

Haak. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement

Series, 330. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Halpern, B.

2004 Davids Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King. Grand

Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.Herzog, Z.

1992 Settlement and Fortification Planning in the Iron Age.

Pp. 23174 in The Architecture of Ancient Israel: From the

Prehistoric to the Persian Periods, ed. A. Kempinski and R.

Reich. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

1994 The Beer-Sheba Valley: From Nomadism to Monarchy. Pp.

12249 in From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and

Historical Aspects of Early Israel, ed. I. Finkelstein and N.

Naaman. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi.

1997 Archae ology of the City: Urban Planni ng in Ancie nt Israel

and its Social Implications. Tel Aviv: Emery and Cla ire Yass

Archaeology Press.

Herzog, Z., and Singer-Avitz, L.

2004 Redefining the Centre: The Emergence of State in Judah. Tel

Aviv 31: 20944.

2006 Sub-dividing the Iron Age IIA in Northern Israel: A Suggested

Solution to the Chronological Debate. Tel Aviv 33: 16395.

Hodder, I.

1982 The Present Past: An Introduction to Anthropology for

Archaeologists. New York: Pica.

1991 Reading the Past. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Joffe, A. H.

1993 Settlement and Society in the Early Bronze Age III Levant:

Complementarity and contradiction in a Small-Scale Complex

Society. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.

2002 The Rise of Secondary States in the Iron Age Levant.Journalof the Economic and Social History of the Orient 45.4: 42567.

2004 Athens and Jerusalem in the Third Millennium: Culture,

Comparison, and the Evolution of Social Complexity.Journal

of Mediterranean Archaeology 17.2: 24767.

Katz, H.

1998 A Note on the Great Wall of Tell en-Nasbeh. Tel Aviv 25:

13133.

Kempinski, A.

1978 The Rise of an Urban Culture: The Urbanization of Palestine in

the Early Bronze Age. Jerusalem: Israel Ethnographic Society.

Finkelstein, I., 1988, The Archaeology of the Period of Settlement and

Judges, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

King, P. J., and Stager, L. E.

2001 Life in Biblical Israel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.

London, G. A.

1992 Tells: City Center or Home? Eretz-Israel 23: 71*79*.

Marcus, J., and Flannery, K. V.

1996 Zapotec Civilization: How Urban Society Evolved in Mexicos

Oaxaca Valley. London: Thames & Hudson.

Mazar, A.

1990 Archaeology of the Land of the Bible , 10,000586 B.C.E. New

York: Doubleday.

1994 Jerusalem and its Vicinity in Iron Age I. Pp. 7091 in From

Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of

Early Israel, ed. I. Finkelstein and N. Naaman. Jerusalem: Yad

Izhak Ben-Zvi.

1998 On the Appearance of Red Slip in the Iron Age I Period

in Israel. Pp. 36878 in Mediterranean Peoples in Transition,

Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE, ed. S. Gitin, A. Mazar,

and E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

2005 The Debate over the Chronology of the Iron Age in the

Southern Levant: Its History, the Current Situation, and a

Suggested Resolution. Pp. 1530 in The Bible and Radiocarbon

Dating, ed. T. E. Levy and T. Higham. London: Equinox.



19/131

Mazar, A., and Panitz-Cohen, N.

2001 Timnah (Tel Batash) II: The Finds from the First Millennium

BCE. Qedem 42. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology.

Mazar, E.2006 Did I Find King Davids Palace? Biblical Archaeology Review

32.1: 1627, 70.

Morris, I.

1999 Archaeology as Cultural History. Oxford: Blackwell.

Naaman, N.

1997 Cow Town or Royal Capital? Evidence for Iron Age Jerusalem.

Biblical Archaeology Review 23.4: 4347, 67.

Orton, C., Tyres, P., and Vince, A.

1993 Pottery in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Parkington J., and Cronin, M.

1979 The Size and Layout of Mgungundlovu 18291838. Pp.

13348 in Iron Age Studies in Southern Africa, ed. N. J. Van der

Merwe and T. N. Huffman. Goodwin Series, 3. Claremont:

South African Archaeological Society.

Rossabi, M.

1995 Mongolia from Chinggis Khan to Independence. Pp. 2549 in

Mongolia: The Legacy of Chinggis Khan, ed. P. A. Berger and T.

T. Bartholomew. New York: Thames & Hudson.

Shavit, A.

2003 Settlement Patterns in Israels Southern Coastal Plain during

the Iron Age II. Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University.

Sinopoli, C. M.

1991 Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics. New York: Plenum.

Stern, E.

2001 Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, Volume II: The Assyrian,

Babylonian, and Persian Periods (732332 B.C.E.). New York:

Doubleday.

Stern, E., ed.

1993 The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy

Land. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Whitelaw, G.

1994 Prelimina ry Results of a Survey of Bulawayo, Shaka

Kasenzangakhonas Capital from about 1820 to 1827. Southern

African Field Archaeology 3: 1079.

Wilson, M. H., and Thompson, L. M.

1969 The Oxford History of South Africa. Vol. 1, South Africa to 1870.Oxford: Clarendon.

Yoffee, N.

2005 Myths of the Archaic State: Evolution of the Earliest Cities, States

and Civilizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zorn, J.

1999 A Note on the Date of the Great Wall at Tell en-Nasbeh: A

Rejoinder. Tel Aviv 26: 14650.

Avraham Faust is Associate Professor

of Archaeology in the Martin (Szusz)

Department of Land of Israel Studies and

Archaeology and the Director of the Institute

of Archaeology at Bar-Ilan University. He

is currently directing the excavations at

Tel Eton in Israel. He is the author of

Israelite Society in the Period of the

Monarchy: An Archaeological Perspective (Yad Izhak Ben-

Zvi, 2005 [Hebrew]) and Israels Ethnogenesis: Settlement,

Interaction, Expansion and Resistance (Equinox, 2006).

Neil Asher Silberman is an author

and historian with a special interestin history, archaeology, and public

interpretation. With Israel Finkelstein, he

is the author ofThe Bible Unearthed:

Archaeologys New Vision of Ancient

Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred

Texts (Free Press, 2001).

Lester L. Grabbe is Professor of Hebrew

Bible and Early Judaism at the University

of Hull in the UK. He works extensively

in the history of the Jews in the Second

Temple period and the history of ancient

Israel, and is the founder of the European

Seminar in Historical Methodology.

Alex Joffes recent publications include

Zion as Proxy? Three Jewish Scholars

of Nationalism on Zionism and Israel

(Leonard Davis Institute for International

Relations, Hebrew University of Jerusalem,

2007), Archaeology and Media in

an Open Society, Society43 (2006)

7176, and Leaders, Leadership, and

the Polar Night, Journal of International Security Affairs

8 (2005) 11327.

Ze ev Her zog i s P r o f e s s o r o f Ar ch aeo log y at the Ja co b M. Al kov

Department of Archaeology and Ancient

Near Eastern Cultures at Tel Aviv

University. He directed the excavations

of Tel Michal (19771980), Tel Gerisa

19811995) and Tel Yafo (19971999).

Currently Dr. Herzog serves as the director

of the Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University.

About the Authors



20/131

The Cult reform in the Kingdom of Judah

Zeev Herzog

Since the discovery of the Arad Temple in Aharonis excavations, forty five years ago, its

interpretation has remained a heated issue of debate on the archaeological agenda. The history of

research on the Arad Temple, coupled with the remains of the horned altar found at Tel Beer-

sheba, is a fascinating case within the complex relationship between Archaeology and the Bible.

At both sites the cultic structures were found demolished and there usage was not rehabilitated.

This data is confronted with the biblical accounts on cult reforms conducted by King Hezekiah in

late 8th

century BCE and King Josiah in late 7th

century BCE.

Scholars of the Old Testament and Jewish History since the days of Wellhausen in late

19th

century considered the account of Josiahs reform as historical event that designates the

Deutronomistic approach. The version on the reform by Hezekiah was considered by many

scholars as historically unreliable.

The current interpretation of the archaeological data at both sites of Arad and Beersheba

indicates that the cult centers were dismantled one phase prior to their destruction associated with

Sennacheribs campaign to Judah in 701 BCE. Thus the abolishment of cult in the Beer-sheba

valley sites during the 8th

century BCE raises the possibility of correlating the archaeological

finds with the biblical statements about demolition ofBamot(high places) and destruction of

Massebot(cult stele) in Judah during the reign of Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:4). Nevertheless scholars

questioned these conclusions and suggested several alternative scenarios, all doubting the

historicity of a cult reform in the 8th

century BCE, and its association with King Hezekiah

(Na'aman 1995; Fried 2002; Uehlinger 2005; Edelman 2008).

In my presentation I will provide the main claims for and against the argument that cult

remains at Arad and Tel Beer-sheba show evidence for an intentionally abolishment, apparently

by Hezekiah. This view was widely supported (Rainey 1994; Borowski 1995; Muennich 2004;

Finkelstein and Silberman 2006; Herzog 2010).Archaeology provides several important insights on the reality of cult practice in Judah.

Differences in use of construction materials of the altars at both sites will be emphasized and

explicate the lack of uniformity in the practice of cult. The fact that the reform of Hezekiah had

political and economic aims, besides the cultic meaning, is self-evident. In Judahs centralized


21/131

government the economic, military and religious aspects of the state were combined and directed

by the royal house.

The cult place at Arad was not rehabilitated after the demolition and the town at Beer-

sheba was not rebuilt after Sennacheribs destruction. Whatever was the reason for the

dismantling of the temple at Arad, no cult structure was erected there when the fortress was

rebuilt in the 7th

century BCE. Contrary to the older concept of Old testament scholars the cult

reform of Hezekiah gains support from the archaeological material and the historicity of Josiahs

cult reform should be placed in doubt.

References:

Borowski, O. (1995). "Hezekiah's reforms and the revolt against Assyria." Biblical Archaeologist58: 148-155.

Edelman, D. V. (2008). "Hezekiah's Alleged Cultic Centralization." Journal for the Study of theOld Testament 32(4): 395-434.

Finkelstein, I. and N. A. Silberman (2006). "Temple and dynasty; Hezekia, the remaking ofJudah and the rise of the pan-Israelite ideology." Journal for the Study of the OldTestament 30(3): 259-285.

Fried, L. S. (2002). "The High Places (Bamot) and the Reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah: AnArchaeological Investigation." Journal of the American Oriental Society 122(3): 437-465.

Herzog, Z. (2010). Perspectives on southern Israels cult centralization: Arad and Beer-sheba.One God, one cult, one nation : archaeological and biblical perspectives. R. G. Kratz andH. Spieckermann. Berlin & New York, Walter de Gruyter: 169-199.

Muennich, M. M. (2004). "Hezekiah and archaeology: the answer for Nadav Na'aman." Ugarit-Forschungen 36: 333-346.

Na'aman, N. (1995). "The debated historicity of Hezekiah's reform in the light of historical andarchaeological research." Zeitschrift f r die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 107: 179-195.

Rainey, A. F. (1994). Hezekiah's reform and the altars at Beer-Sheba and Arad. Scripture andother artifacts: essays on the Bible and archaeology in honor of Philip J. King. M. D.Coogan, C. J. Exum and L. E. Stager. Louisville, Kentucky, Westminster John KnoxPress: 334-354.

Uehlinger, C. (2005). Was there a cult reform under King Josiah? The case for a well-groundedminimum. Good kings and bad kings. L. L. Grabbe. London and New York, T&T ClarkInternational: 279-316.


22/131


23/131

TEL AVIV 31 (2004)

210

observations of the pottery at Lachish Level IV, Zimhoni extended the duration

of the red-slipped, hand-burnished ware well beyond the 10th century into the 9th

and early 8th centuries BCE (Zimhoni 1985; 1997). The three sites that produced

comprehensive pottery repertoires of the period in safe stratigraphy are Lachish

(Zimhoni 1997; 2004a), Tel Arad (Singer-Avitz 2002), and Tel Beersheba. It seems

clear that the red-slipped, hand-burnished technique had already begun in the IAI

with relatively low percentages (Beersheba Strata IXVIII) and reached a peak in

sites such as Beersheba VIIIV, Arad XIIXI and Lachish VIV. At these sites ca.

65 percent of the total bowl repertoire is hand-burnished.

The analysis of the pottery at Lachish, Tel Beersheba and Arad allows us to

distinguish two sub-phases: The Early IAIIA is represented in the pottery forms

from the unfortified settlements at Lachish V, Arad XII and Beersheba VII. The

pottery forms of the following fortified occupations at Lachish IV, Arad XI and

Beersheba VIVIV signify the Late IAIIA. Comparison of settlement patterns

in the highland region of Judah, in both IAIIA sub-phases, with those of the

lowlands suggests a reassessment of the location in which the emergence of state

came about.

THE POTTERY OF IRON AGE IIA IN JUDAH

Although the Early IAIIA and the Late IAIIA assemblages are quite similar, there are

several pottery types that enable us to differentiate between them. In the Early IAIIA

there are a number of forms that continue IAI traditions, while in the Late IAIIA the

vessels with early traditions disappear. New types that appear first in the Late IAII

become prominent in IAIIB. Since the vessel repertoire is well known and many of

the pottery types are represented in both sub-phases, we will emphasize only the

differences between the two sub-phases.

Bowls and Kraters

Red-slip and hand-burnish are among the most characteristic features of bowls

of this period. This is in sharp contrast to bowls of the following period (IAIIB),

where the red-slip is not common and the wheel-burnish replaces the hand-burnish.

Although this surface treatment appears on both open (bowls and kraters) and closed

forms (jugs, juglets and amphoriskoi), it should be emphasized that it may serve as

a chronological indicator only when it appears on bowls and kraters. In the IAIIB

a vertical-line hand-burnish of irregular density occurs often on closed forms. It

seems that using this surface treatment serves no functional purpose but is rather

stylistic or ornamental. In the following type-description the surface treatment will

not be detailed, since every bowl bears different combinations of slip and burnish/


24/131


25/131

TEL AVIV 31 (2004)

212

ofcooking-pots is the dominant one at Tel Beersheba in Strata V and IV but not

earlier.1 At Lachish, this type of cooking-pot (Group VIV:CP-2) appears towards

the end of Level V and constitutes 15 percent of all the cooking-pots in the stratum.2

In Level IV, the percentage increases to 36 percent of all cooking-pots (Zimhoni

1997:122; Fig. 3.38).

Pithoi

Two types of pithoi are evident. Both types are found in Tel Masos Stratum II

and the Negev settlements. The sites should be assigned to the Early IAIIA (see

below).

Thick-Walled Elongated Pithos (Fig. 2:1)

Flaring short neck that ends in a thick rim. Four loop handles extend from the round

shoulder carination (Fritz and Kempinski 1983: Pl.155:4).

Short-Body Pithos (Fig. 2:2)

Flat base and four loop handles. These vessels have no neck and the rim is grooved

(Fritz and Kempinski 1983: Pls.137:13; 151:89).

Storage Jars

Some of the storage jars appear in both phases. In Late IAIIA a number of types not

previously found appear for the first time, and it is to these that we relate. Most of

them continue to appear with variations in the IAIIB.

Large Ovoid Storage Jar (pre-lmlk jar) (Fig. 4:12)

Storage jars with four loop handles drawn from the slight shoulder carination to the

body. The truncated neck ends in a rounded rim that is thickened on the interior.

This is probably the predecessor of the well-known lmlkjar so typical of late

8th century BCE Judah. In this early phase its handles are not stamped and it

can be found at Beersheba Strata V and IV, probably at Lachish Level IV (Zimhoni

1997:137138; Group VIV:SJ-7), Tel Zafit at Temporary Stratum 4 (Shai and

Maeir 2003) and probably at Arad Stratum XI (Singer-Avitz 2002: Fig. 9:5, with

two handles only).

1 In Stratum VI there is only a single sherd (Brandfon 1984: Fig. 28:4). Since Stratum VI

apparently constitutes a short phase in the establishment of Stratum V and as such reflects an

extension of the Stratum V city, it has not been dealt with separately in this study.2 The pottery sherds of these cooking-pots were found in fills of Level IV.


26/131


27/131

TEL AVIV 31 (2004)

214

decorated with red and black bands and some are plain. These amphoriskoi are found

only at Late IAII at Arad XI (Singer-Avitz 2002: Fig. 7:46); at Tel Beersheba they

are found in Stratum V. With some alterations, they are well known in the IAIIB

(Aharoni 1973: Pls. 67:1; 72:17; 74:16).

Phoenician Imports (Fig. 1:2)

In the Early IAIIA phase, there are still a few Phoenician formsBichrome Ware

Fig. 1. Early IAIIA Pottery: (1) Cooking-pot, Horvat Rahava (after Cohen and Cohen-Amin 2004:

Fig. 86:4); (2) Jug,Tel Masos Stratum II (after Fritz and Kempinski 1983:Taf.146:1).


28/131

Herzog and Singer-Avitz: Redefining the Centre

215

jugsthat were common in the IAI. The type appears at Tel Masos Stratum II (Fritz

and Kempinski 1983:Taf. 146:1). At Tel Beersheba Stratum VII, some fragments are

known. Although these vessels are known in Phoenicia where they originated as late

as the 9th century BCE (Bikai 1978), at the Judean sites they probably do not appearafter the Early IAIIA.

Cypriot Imports

israeli archeologists debate

Documents