Hazor and the North in the Iron Age: A Low Chronology Perspective

Author(s): Israel Finkelstein

Source: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 314 (May, 1999), pp. 55-
70
Published by: The American Schools of Oriental Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1357451
Accessed: 27-11-2016 09:37 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

This content downloaded from 132.66.11.212 on Sun, 27 Nov 2016 09:37:44 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Hazor and the North in the Iron Age:
A Low Chronology Perspective
ISRAEL FINKELSTEIN

Institute of Archaeology
Tel Aviv University
P.O.B. 39040
Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv 69978
Israel

fink2 @post.tau.ac.il

The article deals with the dating of the Iron Age II strata at Hazor and with historical
developments on the border between the two most powerful Iron Age II states in the
Levant-the northern kingdom of Israel and Aram Damascus. It first discusses the rel-
ative chronology of three northern sites-Megiddo, Jezreel, and Hazor-establishing
the similarity between Megiddo VA-IVB and the Jezreel compound and reviewing the
relationship between the assemblages of those sites and Hazor X. The article then
describes the dating of the Hazor strata according to Yadin (and recently Ben-Tor),
pointing out the shaky arguments regarding the affiliation of Stratum X with Solomon
and indicating the difficulties of the Yadin chronological system for reconstruction of
the history of the region in the Iron Age II. Next the article reviews Hazor's stratigraphy
in the light of the Low Chronology which has recently been suggested for Iron Age II
strata in the Levant. Applying the Low Chronology to Hazor seems to solve most of the
difficulties created by the Yadin scheme. Strata X and IX are downdated to the days of
the Omrides, and Strata VIII and VII to the reign of Hazael, King of Damascus. Hence
the destruction of Hazor IX is attributed to the expansion of Damascus, which is related
in the Dan inscription, and the destruction of Hazor VII is attributed to the renewed
domination of the northern kingdom in the region under Joash or Jeroboam II. Finally,
the article proposes an early eighth century B.C.E. date for the construction of Stratum
IVA at Megiddo.

INTRODUCTION site. Second, the renewed excavations at Hazor now

concentrate on the second millennium strata. I there-
fore feel that the time has come to reevaluate the
Chronology for the Iron Age IIremains
strataof (Finkel-
Hazor in the light of the alternative, Low
stein 1996), I refrained from dealing with
Chronology, the
for the Iron Age II strata.
stratigraphy and chronology of Hazor. There were
two reasons for that decision: First, located
HAZOR,in the
MEGIDDO, AND JEZREEL:
far north of the country, the pottery of Hazor shows
RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY
regional affinities that make comparison with the
sites further south a bit difficult. Second, I consid-
Zarzeki-Peleg's article (1997) is an
ered it advisable to await the results of the renewed
contribution to the discussion on com
excavations at Hazor.
nology in the north. She establishes
This situation has recently been changed. First,
the similarity between the assemblag
Zarzeki-Peleg's comparative study of the pottery
VIA at Megiddo and Stratum XVII at
of Hazor, Yoqneam, and Megiddo (1997) has also
"an- demonstrates, through the pottery
chored" Hazor to the sites of the Jezreel Valley has
and been known for a long time, that
thus sheds light on the relative chronology of theis later than the other two strata.
Hazor

55

This content downloaded from 132.66.11.212 on Sun, 27 Nov 2016 09:37:44 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
56 ISRAEL FINKELSTEIN BASOR 314

The comparative Therefore, it mus

study leads Zarzek
question of absolute chronology.
Zarzeki-Peleg to c
the stratigraphic sequence
Megiddo at Meg
VA-IVB;
and Hazorstands pare
against my Low
Jezreel Ch
(or for
ing Megiddo VIA in the
IVA. tenth
Having cent
said tha
Hazor X to the very late
types tenth or th
mentioned in
the ninth century B.C.E., which she f
Straight-walled
accept in view of the dense stratigra B
the Iron Age II. contra
This argument h
to Zarzeki-P
raised by A. Mazar
does (1997:
appear161;
in thal
Ben-Ami 1998: 32) and answered
(Zimhoni 1997: 86b
stein 1998a; see Zarzeki-Peleg
also below).' this t
In an addendum Xbto the article,
(1997: Z
286); whe
tackles an important
haverelative
"different
peg pro
in
nology scheme: ual
Zimhoni's
judgment. studies
Thes
thisthe
which indicated that type irrelevan
pottery fo
mate enclosure atsomewhat similar
Jezreel is contemp
pottery of Stratum VA-IVB
appear at Meg
at Megiddo a
Zimhoni's insights, I have
(e.g., bowl argued
Type 99
Buildings
were destroyed around 10 and 5
the mid-nint
(see also Ussishkin
tonand
1939:Woodhead
pl. 28, an
man 1997a). Zarzeki-Peleg challen
Grooved-base
conclusions: in her view, three pot Bo
appear on the hemispherical
floors bowl
of the Jezreel e
occur in Stratum rately.
VA-IVBIndeed,
at Megi
Za
pre-enclosure fillsHazor belong
at Jezreel), tora
but t
lowing phase in the Megiddo
bowls occur at Meseq
IVA. In other words,
they Megiddo
include paral
VA-
earlier than the enclosure of Jezreel
cited by Zarzeki-Pe
the common viewtype
on the
appears
stratigraph
at Me
sequence in the Palace
north 1723 and in
prevails: M
dates in the tenth and Shipton
century, 1939:
while th
Finkelstein,
sure dates to the first Zimhon
half of the nin
Before addressing the details of Z
arguments, it is Storage to
necessary Jar wit
comme
lished Shoulder.
pottery from First an
the University
missed
vations at Megiddo. TheZimhoni's
pottery sto
VA-IVB can be usedreel fills did not i
for comparat
at least
after clean and safe for Jezree
assemblages such
buildings under Second,
Palace 1723 for S
Zarzeki-Pel
Buildings 51, 10, and
this 2081 for
storage V
jar ap
stein, Zimhoni, Megiddo
and Kafri, andinin St
pre
There is no "safe"we found it
pottery in Stra
for Lev
from the Oriental Institute excavati
settlement on the l
I can judge, fromthe fully excavati
Yadin's develop
cause pottery Level
from 3 of Area
domestic K
areas,
not published, and
3:1),because the "s
which parallels
Chicago
only a very limited excavation
quantity of v
good assemblage Toforsummarize,
this stratum Z
nothing
during the renewed to Zimho
excavations at t
fore meaningless
by Ussishkin, Halpern, and Finkelste
1996 (Finkelstein, Zimhoni, and K
chronology.

This content downloaded from 132.66.11.212 on Sun, 27 Nov 2016 09:37:44 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 1999 HAZOR AND THE NORTH IN THE IRON AGE 57

However, Zarzeki-Peleg's article

Stratum VI, does
city of Jeroboam supply
II, destroyed by an
some new data regardingearthquake ca. 760 B.C.E. (Yadin chronology
the absolute et al. 1960: 24,
of the Iron Age II strata in26;the
Yadin 1975: 157);
north. I refer to the
Stratum V (two
new material that she presents fromphases), destroyed
Yadin's by Tiglath-
excava-
pileser III in 732 B.C.E.
tions of Stratum VIA at Megiddo and from Ben
Tor's excavations of the contemporary Stratum XVII
A. Ben-Tor, director of the renewed excava-
at Yoqneam. Surprising as it may sound, Zarzeki-
tions at Hazor, has noticed a difficulty in Yadin's
Peleg supports my Low Chronology in the sense
chronological scheme, that is, the asymmetry be-
that the new material does not differ from what we
tween the architectural and ceramic "profiles" of the
know about Stratum VIA at Megiddo on the basis of
Iron Age strata at the site (Ben-Tor 1997: 113-14, in
safe loci from both the University of Chicago exca-
a sense following Aharoni and Amiran 1958), but
vations in Buildings 2072 and 3021 in Area AA,
so far has not suggested any correction of Yadin's
our renewed work on the lower terrace (fig. 1)-
dates and historical reconstruction (e.g., Ben-Tor and
almost 200 vessels altogether (Finkelstein, Zim-
Ben-Ami 1998).
honi, and Kafri, in press4) and its contemporaneous
The dating and historical affiliation of Strata VI
strata in the north (such as Level Upper VI at Beth-
and V should be accepted because of the reasonable
shean, Stratum IV at Tel Hadar, and Stratum IB at
connection between the eighth century pottery found
Taanachs). The most important feature is the ab-in those strata and the textual evidence on Assyrian
sence of Philistine Bichrome, as well as degenerated
conquests in the north. But it seems to me that the
Philistine pottery of the types found in Stratum X
chronology and historical association of Strata X-
at Tell Qasile (Mazar 1985: figs. 33-51). These strata
VII must be revised.
cannot be dated earlier than the early tenth cen-
According to Yadin (1972: 135), the dating of
tury B.C.E.6 Stratum X at Hazor rests on three foundations:

DIFFICULTIES IN THE CURRENT DATING ... the stratigraphy, which showed Stratum X to be
OF THE HAZOR STRATA the first Iron Age city above the remains of Stratum
XII (and XI in Area B), but below the monumental
Yadin established the chronology remains
of oftheStratum
IronVIII (ninth century); the pottery,
which was identical
Age II strata at Hazor on two foundations: the with
as-other tenth-century strata
in other excavated Tells, and above all the biblical
signment of Stratum X to the days of Solomon and
the identification of the destruction of Stratum V
passage (1 Kgs 9:15) which states that Hazor was
built by Solomon together with Gezer and Megiddo.
with the conquest of Hazor by Tiglath-pileser IIIThe discovery of a city-gate... identical in plan
(2 Kgs 15:29). A minor consideration was the attri-
with the Solomonic gate at Megiddo (and that of
bution of the destruction of Stratum VI to the earth-
Gezer...) clinched the identification of Stratum X
quake mentioned in the Bible ca. 760 B.C.E. (Yadin as representing the Hazor of Solomon's times.8
et al. 1960: 36-37; Yadin 1972: 112-13). The other
strata were placed in the intervals between those We are dealing here not with three arguments, but
dates. Thus, the following stratigraphic sequence waswith one and one only: the historical reliability and
established (Yadin 1972: 113, 200; for the renewedarchaeological background of 1 Kgs 9:15. First, the
excavations of Strata X and IX, which confirm Ya- Megiddo gate connects to the city wall of Stratum
din's stratigraphic observations, see Ben-Tor andIVA (Loud 1948: fig. 105) and floats above the floor
Ben-Ami 1998): of Stratum V (Ussishkin 1980). Second, four-entry
gates were built throughout the Iron Age II and
Stratum X (with two phases), the Solomonic city; beyond the borders of the early Israelite state: the
Stratum IX (with two phases), destruction by fire
Lachish gate dates to the ninth-eighth centuries and
attributed to the campaign of Ben-Hadad, king
the Tel Ira gate dates to the seventh century B.C.E.;
of Aram, mentioned in 1 Kgs 15:20 (Yadin
1972: 143; 1975: 199);
similar gates were uncovered at Philistine Ashdod
Stratum VIII, city of Ahab, first half of the ninth and at Khirbet el-Mudayna (Wadi eth-Thamad) in
century B.C.E.; Moab (Daviau 1997). Third, historians and biblical
Stratum VII, destroyed in an (unidentified) Ara- scholars have become more and more skeptical
maean campaign at the end of the ninth century about the authenticity and historical reliability of
B.C.E. (Yadin 1972: 169, 179; 1975: 157);7 the biblical material which describe the days of

This content downloaded from 132.66.11.212 on Sun, 27 Nov 2016 09:37:44 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
58 ISRAEL FINKELSTEIN BASOR 314

1 2

3 4

0 10cm.

6 7 8

Fig. 1. Sel
cago exca

This content downloaded from 132.66.11.212 on Sun, 27 Nov 2016 09:37:44 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 1999 HAZOR AND THE NORTH IN THE IRON AGE 59

the Aramaean(that
Solomon. Many "center stage" stele fromis,Tel Dan
not (Biranonly
and Navehmin
imalist) authorities argue that
1993; 1995) the
and from stories
a plethora of Solo
of biblical material,
mon draw a picture of anmuchidyllic
of which is considered
golden a reliable
age,historical
that th
description of Solomon'srecordtime ismost
(below). The wrapped in late
prominent territorial entity
in this goals,
theological and ideological region was Aram
andDamascus,
that whichthereachedDeu
teronomistic account of the Solomon's
peak of its powerreign
in the timeis based
of Hazael, who on
first
very little original material (e.g.,
withstood the pressureVan Seters
of Shalmaneser III and1983
then
307-12; Garbini 1988: 32; Auld 1996; Miller 1997; expanded into Transjordan, Cisjordan, and northern
Na'aman 1997b; Niemann 1997). Syria (for summaries of the reign of Hazael, see
There is no reason therefore, biblical or archaeo-Pitard 1987: 145-60; Lemaire 1991); for the possi-
logical, to date Stratum X to the days of Solomon, bility that he was able to strike back at Assyria, see
Dion 1995. There is little doubt that in the second
that is, to the mid-tenth century B.C.E.9 All that one
can do is to adhere to Zarzeki-Peleg's comparative half of the ninth century Hazael dominated the
study (1997: 283-84), according to which Stratum northern kingdom of Israel (e.g., Ephcal and Naveh
X at Hazor is contemporary with, or slightly earlier1989: 199; Halpern, in press). Yadin described
than, Megiddo VA-IVB. Adding to this analysis,Hazor as an Israelite city throughout the Iron Age II
Zimhoni's studies-which established the similarity although, apart from the problematic verse on the
of the pottery of the Jezreel enclosure and Megiddo
building activities of Solomon, it is not mentioned as
VA-IVB (1997: 91-92)-and my own observations an Israelite city until the eighth century B.C.E. Yadin
on the pottery of Megiddo VIA and its contempo-
(as well as Ben-Tor) never considered the possibility
rary strata-i.e., mainly that these assemblages post-that for a certain period in the Iron Age II Hazor was
date the period characterized by Philistine pottery in the hands of Aram Damascus. To the best of my
(Finkelstein 1996; 1998a)-it seems that we must knowledge, this prospect has never been addressed
date Stratum X to the late tenth, or better, to the in archaeological and historical research.12
early ninth century B.C.E.
Yadin's misdating of Stratum X caused chaos in
ALTERNATIVE DATING AND
the dating of Strata IX, VIII, and VII. First, he was
HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION
left with two destruction layers (of Strata IX and
VII) for which he could not find a proper destroyer. FOR THE HAZOR STRATA

Even if concealing some historical germs, the list of

cities conquered by Ben-Hadad (1 Kgs 15:20) seems In what follows, I wish to take a Low C
to reflect the reality of the later campaign of Tiglath-perspective and present an alternative
pileser III, and thus its historicity is questionable. historical interpretation for the Hazor str
The Aramaean conquest of Stratum VII (in the late believe, are free of most of the problem
ninth century) remained unnamed because Yadin the Yadin scheme.
could not find a satisfactory reality to explain it. To start with the tenth century B.C.E. one must
Yadin also left us a destroyer without a destruction.examine the area south of Hazor. Two sites on the
The most prominent Aramaean warrior in the region shores of the Sea of Galilee are crucial for this dis-
of Hazor in the Iron Age II was no doubt Hazael of cussion: Tel Hadar Stratum IV and Tell el-Oreimeh
Damascus (below). According to the Dan stele and Stratum V. Tel Hadar is a small site on the eastern
reliable biblical sources, he devastated parts of the shore of the lake. Stratum IV is characterized by a
Israelite Kingdom (Na'aman 1997a), apparently set of elaborate pillared storehouses and a reused
around 835 B.C.E., when the Assyrian pressure on fortification originally built in the mid-second mil-
Damascus faded away. However, in Yadin's chrono- lennium (Kochavi 1998). Tell el-Oreimeh is located
logical scheme for Hazor, Hazael is conspicuously on the northern tip of the lake. Stratum V represents
absent.10 a large site of over 5 ha, surrounded by a very mas-
Finally, Yadin's general approach to the history of sive fortification (Fritz and Vieweger 1996). Both
Hazor is questionable. Hazor is located in an area strata share the same pottery horizon, which is con-
which, during the chaotic period of the ninth-eighth temporary to Stratum VIA at Megiddo, and should
centuries B.C.E., was on the friction line between therefore be dated within the tenth century B.C.E.
Israel and Aram Damascus.11 This is evident from(the excavators followed the conventional dating and

This content downloaded from 132.66.11.212 on Sun, 27 Nov 2016 09:37:44 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 60 ISRAEL FINKELSTEIN BASOR 314

attributed them Tel

to Hadar
theIV and Tell
11th el-Oreimeh V, although its
century
1998; Fritz
Vieweger and
precise place in the sequence
1996). in the northBoth
is difficult
nized and attest to a
to establish. high
In any case, it seems level
that at the time of
of
organization. Probably they
the developed construction belong
activity at Tel Hadar andt
entity, the center of which
Tell el-Oreimeh, there was a poor, could ha
insignificant set-
at Tell el-Oreimeh. tlement at Hazor.
The direct archaeological record regarding theAs mentioned above, combining the results of the
comparative studies conducted by Zimhoni (1992;
identity of this entity and its population is ambigu-
ous, which is also true for all tenth-century sites1997)
in and Zarzeki-Peleg (1997), Stratum X at Hazor
should be dated to the time of Megiddo VA-IVB, or
the north. Therefore, one must turn to ninth-eighth
slightly earlier. In absolute dating this means late
century B.C.E. finds from sites in this region (below)
and to general historical considerations. I agree with
tenth or early ninth century B.C.E. Regional differ-
Kochavi that the most logical identification of ences
the between Hazor and the Jezreel Valley and the
inhabitants would be with the early Aramaeans. The
fact that in Zarzeki-Peleg's case quantitative analysis
somewhat later finds of monumental architecture could not be conducted (1997: 280) prevent a more
precise dating. In historical terms this means that
and the gate stele from Bethsaida on the northeast-
ern shore of the Sea of Galilee (Arav 1995; Bernett
Hazor X was built by the Omrides or a bit earlier.
and Keel 1998; see also below), as well as later ep- The might of the state of the Omrides is re-
igraphic material from Bethsaida, Ein Gev, and flected
Tel in different sources. First it is mirrored in the
Hadar (below) seem to support this assumption. central
The role taken by Ahab in the confrontation of
the Levantine coalition with Shalmaneser III in the
biblical text tells about a tenth-century confronta-
tion between King David and Hadadezer-a pow- battle of Qarqar in 853 B.C.E. Second is the biblica
erful ruler of the Aramaean state of Zobahtestimony,
(and backed by archaeological finds, that the
Beth-rehob) located in the Beqac Valley of Leba- Omrides established elaborate capitals at Samaria
non (summary in Pitard 1987: 89-95). The biblical and Jezreel, two small, poor, and unassuming site
description may conceal several historical nuclei,until that time. Third is the biblical testimony abou
though some of the details may have been filled the military strength and territorial expansion o
the Omrides (on pre-Deuteronomistic sources in the
with information relating to the later confrontation
of Israel with Hazael of Damascus (Na'aman 1995; biblical description of the Omrides see Na'aman
1996). There is no way to reconstruct the territorial
1997c). Fourth is the vague but meaningful opening
of the Dan stele in which the Aramaean king, no
extent of a possible early, tenth-century, Aramaean
entity along the shores of the Sea of Galilee; it doubt
could Hazael (Biran and Naveh 1995; Lemaire 1994
have been an independent one, a subordinateMargalitof a 1994; Yamada 1995; Schniedewind 1996)
larger, more powerful entity to the north, or evenstates that "the king of I[s]rael entered previously in
the southern tip of such a northern entity.13 In my anyfather's land," apparently referring to one of the
event, it seems to me that Tel Hadar IV and Tell Omrides, probably Ahab (Yamada 1995). In view of
el-Oreimeh V represent the earliest Aramaean (or data, I suggest that Hazor X was built by th
these
proto-Aramaean) territorial-political formation Omrides
in as an administrative center on their north-
this part of the Levant. Both sites were destroyedern byborder-a bastion against the growing power
of Aram Damascus. From the pottery perspective, a
heavy fire during the tenth century, in circumstances
that are far from being clear.14 slightly earlier date, in the very late tenth century
Returning to Hazor, Yadin described its first B.C.E., cannot be excluded, although historically this
Iron Age occupation-Stratum XII-as Israelite, is and
a less likely possibility. A possible support for
dated it to the 12th century B.C.E. (Yadin 1972: dating
131). Hazor X to the days of the Omrides is the
Accumulation of information on the Iron Age I
resemblance in layout and construction between this
pottery in later years led scholars to down-datecitythatand the Jezreel enclosure: both constitute a lev-
eling/filling operation, a casemate wall, a moat, and
stratum to the late 12th or early 11th century (Mazar
1981: 35; Finkelstein 1988: 101). A closer lookaat four-entry gate (for Hazor, Yadin 1972: 136-40;
the pottery of Stratum XII (which is close to Tel for Jezreel, Ussishkin and Woodhead 1992; 1994;
1997; for the similarity between the two sites, Us-
Dan VI-V) reveals some similarities with the assem-
blages of the Megiddo VIA horizon, which includes sishkin and Woodhead 1997: 69). Following the

This content downloaded from 132.66.11.212 on Sun, 27 Nov 2016 09:37:44 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 1999 HAZOR AND THE NORTH IN THE IRON AGE 61

opening statement in the building-the

fragment superstructure.
of the Yadin Dan
correctly as-
stele,
I suggest that the regionsumed was that taken
the massive walls
from in the "basement"
what car-was
considered by the Aramaeans ried walls to
of the
besuperstructure,
their land.15 while the thinner
Stratum IX-the continuation of Stratum X with walls served only for support, or separation of units
a few changes (see also Ben-Tor and Ben-Ami in the basement. Accordingly-and in view of his
1998)-was destroyed by fire (Yadin 1972: 143). understanding of Hazor as an Israelite city through-
This destruction should be related to the conquests out the Iron Age II and the labeling of the four-room
of Hazael in northern Israel. Hazael's expansion inhouse as an Israelite type house (Shiloh 1973)-
the territories of the northern kingdom are vividlyYadin (1975: 165) reconstructed the superstructure
attested in the biblical record (2 Kings 10, 12) andof the citadel as a four-room house. Using exactly
in the Dan inscription (Biran and Naveh 1995). the same method, there is the alternative, no less at-
Na'aman has suggested (1997a) attributing the de-tractive, of reconstructing this beautiful edifice as a
struction of Jezreel, Megiddo VA-IVB, Taanach IIB, bit hilani (fig. 2). The size of the building and the
Yoqneam XIV, and other sites in the north to Hazael's proportions of its units fit such a proposal.20 Two
conquests. At Dan, the city destroyed by Hazael isbeautiful proto-Ionic capitals decorated the entrance
most probably represented by Stratum IVA, which into the square leading to the staircase to the build-
is characterized by pottery similar to the Megiddoing (Yadin 1975: 165-68; Yadin et al. 1989: 93-
VA-IVB horizon (for a description of the finds and 94), or to the building itself.21 In any event, the
the destruction, Biran 1994: 142-46, 168). I find itpodium in Area B most probably carried a fortified
difficult to imagine that Hazael conquered Dan and
palace; according to my reconstruction it was built
laid havoc to other cities in northern Israel, east by Hazael in the second half of the ninth century and
and west of the Jordan, but left Hazor unharmed; aserved as the residence for his governor of Hazor,
Hazael destruction was missing in Yadin's recon-the commander of the ex-Israelite territories in the
struction of the history of Hazor. region.
After conquering Hazor, Hazael rebuilt the city Another stronghold that was probably built by Ha-
(Stratum VIII), fortified it by a massive wall, and
zael is Bethsaida, a prominent, fortified Iron Age II
constructed the "citadel" on the western, highest endsite on the northeastern shore of the Sea of Gali-
of the city.16 The material culture of Stratum VIII lee, more than 6 ha in area. A monumental Iron
cannot disclose the identity of the rulers and inhab-Age II building uncovered in Area B is probably a
itants of Hazor at that time. The four fragmentary bit hilani (Arav 1995: 24; Arav and Bernett 1997:
inscriptions found in Stratum VIII (Yadin et al. 198-202). Another massive building was unearthed
1960: 66-68) cannot tell us much, since a change of in Area A (Arav 1995: 7-12). A basalt stele depict-
ruler does not necessarily mean a total change ofing a deity found at the site in 1997 discloses the
population.17 Yet, it is noteworthy that of the fourAramaic character of the site (Bernett and Keel
inscriptions three are Phoenician or Aramaic and1998). The finds published so far do not allow an
one is not clear enough to decide (B. Sass, personalaccurate dating of the fortifications and the monu-
communication). None of the four have been in-mental buildings within the ninth-eighth centuries
cluded in Renz's Handbuch der althebrdischen Epi- B.C.E. However, educated guesswork allows one to
graphik (1995[I]: 124, n. 1); Renz accepted their suggest that the site was built by Hazael, or reached
classification as Phoenician by Delavault and Le-its zenith during his reign.
maire (1979: 5-12).18 Ninth-century Aramaic in- According to Yadin, Stratum VII at Hazor reflects
scriptions were found at Dan and Ein Gev (Avigad the decline of Stratum VIII, although in the main
1968; Naveh 1970: 13).19 Hebrew inscriptions
public buildings those strata form one architectural
appear in the eighth century B.C.E. (Strata VI and V phase evincing a raising of floors (e.g., Yadin 1972:
at Hazor are discussed below). 168-69; Yadin et al. 1989: 97, 181). According to
The citadel in Area B at Hazor deserves a spe-Ben-Tor (1997: 113-14) the two strata (VIII and VII)
cial note. This is a large, 25 x 21 m edifice, beauti-
belong to one architectural "profile" in the history
fully constructed with ashlar blocks at its corners. of Hazor. Stratum VII ended in a destruction by fire.
According to Yadin (1972: 170), the structure asIn the light of what has been said above on the po-
uncovered represents the basement of the build-litical affiliation of Strata VIII and VII, there is no
difficulty in identifying the destroyer of Hazor VII.
ing, that is, the substructure that supported the real

This content downloaded from 132.66.11.212 on Sun, 27 Nov 2016 09:37:44 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 62 ISRAEL FINKELSTEIN BASOR 314

Fig. 2. The citadel in Area B in Hazor, two possible reconstructions: a. four-room house (Yadin
1975: 165). b. bit bilani.

At the very end of the ninth, or in the very beginning
of the eighth century B.C.E., Adad-nirari III, King
of Assyria (810-783 B.C.E.), brought the hegemony
of Aram Damascus in the region to an end. The sub-
mission of Damascus is described in his inscrip-
tions as the major event in his campaigns to the west.
Adad-nirari besieged Mar'i, King of Damascus, in
his city. The latter surrendered and paid tribute to
Assyria (for the sources, the problem of the date of
the campaign to Damascus and the question of the
identification of Mar'i [with Hazael or with Bar-
Hadad, his son], see summary in Pitard 1987: 160-
67, and bibliography). These events terminated the
Aramaean pressure on Israel, which had included
a siege on Samaria by Bar-Hadad (Lipiriski 1979;
Lemaire 199322). The northern kingdom, under the
leadership of Joash, quickly recovered and started
regaining its territories that had been lost to Damas-
cus (2 Kgs 13:25).23 The expansion of Israel con-
tinued under Jeroboam II (2 Kgs 14:25, 28). It seems

This content downloaded from 132.66.11.212 on Sun, 27 Nov 2016 09:37:44 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
1999 HAZOR AND THE NORTH IN THE IRON AGE 63

assemblage
that in his day Israel became for Stratum IVA. power
the prominent The first significant
of
group of vessels
the region and even dominated Aram for this phase in the history
Damascus (on of
Megiddo
the "empire" of Joash and was uncovered during
Jeroboam, Haran the renewed
1967). excava-
tions in Area H,
The destruction of the Aramaean locatedof
city in the northernVII
Hazor sector of
the site to the expansion
should be related to the territorial north and northeast
ofof Israel
Assyrian Palace
in the north in the days of 1369
Joashof Stratum III. Almost 100 complete
or Jeroboam 11.24 or almost
completethe
After conquering Hazor from vesselsAramaeans,
were found in a thick
the destruction
layer in several
kings of Israel, most probably thedomestic structures built
powerful Jero- inside and
boam II, rebuilt it in a veryagainst City Wall 325.
different There can (Stratum
layout be little doubt that
VI; Yadin 1972: 179). This this
cityis the and the
destruction next by
of Megiddo (Stra-
the Assyrians
in the late inscriptions
tum V) yielded several Hebrew eighth century B.C.E. (e.g.,
(YadinDavies 1986:
97; Ussishkin 1992: 677;
et al. 1960: 68-71. Stratum VI apparently came to Shiloh 1993: 1021; contra
other authorities,
an end in an earthquake; I see no reason e.g., Wright 1950: 45; Aharoni and
to challenge
Yadin's identification of this event with the earth- Amiran 1958: 177).
quake of ca. 760 B.C.E. Yadin's dating and historical This pottery assemblage is significantly different
from the assemblage of Stratum VA-IVB, which
interpretation of Stratum V should also be accepted;
that is, Stratum V was destroyed by Tiglath-pileserpreceded it. The following types of Stratum VA-
III in 732 B.C.E. IVB are not present in our Level 3 in Area H (Uni-
versity of Chicago Stratum IVA):
MEGIDDO IVA * Hemispherical bowls with plain rim (Lamon
and Shipton 1939: pl. 30:119);
* Carinated
The destruction in the mid-ninth century bowls (e.g., Lamon and Shipton
B.C.E.,
1939: pl.
probably caused by the Aramaeans (Na'aman 32:168);
1997a),
* Bowls
is represented at Dan IVA, Hazor IX, with bar
Megiddo handles (Lamon and Shipton
VA-
IVB, Yoqneam XIV, Taanach IIB, Jezreel,1939: pl. 24:39);
Beth-shean
Lower V (Mazar's S-1), and smaller sites with
* Krater such as rim (e.g., Lamon and Ship-
folded
ton north,
Tel Amal in the Beth-shean valley. In the 1939: pl. 29:110),
the which also appears in
destructions led to a direct takeover Stratum
by Aram VIA Da-(Finkelstein, Zimhoni, and
mascus (Hazor VIII-VII). In the Jezreel Valley,
Kafri, in press, it fig. 2:7);
brought about decay or abandonment * Cooking
at many potsites,
with elongated, ridged rim (fig.
such as Jezreel and Taanach, which never 3:2 here);fully re-
covered from the shock. This phase-in* Elongated
the storage
second jar (Lamon and Shipton
1939: pl. a21:122);
half of the ninth century B.C.E.-represents period
of continuing decline of the northern* Black on Red decoration
kingdom, the ("Cypro-Phoenician";
power of which dwindled to the highlands Loud 1948: around
pl. 88).
The following
Samaria. Megiddo presents a problem: forms
is it appear in Stratum IVA for the
possible
first the
that in this period of general decline time: city reached

a peak in prosperity (Stratum IVA)? *In Flat,other

burnishedwords,
bowl (fig. 3:3);26
* Samaria
is it feasible that while Israel was under ware (fig. 3:4), though its presence or
continuing
absence
Aramaean pressure, the weakened Israelite from Stratum VA-IVB must be
monarchs
checked
had the power and economic means to build aninelab-
further excavations;
* Late Iron Age II cooking pot (fig. 3:5);
orate administrative center at Megiddo?
Several finds at Megiddo hint that *after
Decanter
thewithde-angled shoulder (fig. 3:6);
struction of Stratum VA-IVB the site was left in * "Torpedo" storage jar (fig. 3:7);
ruins for several decades. This is evident first from * Late Iron Age II holemouth jar (Lamon an
the study of the pottery assemblages from the rele- Shipton 1939: pl. 11:54-57).
vant strata.25 The excavations of the University ofThese differences call for a significant tim
span between the two assemblages. It is possible t
Chicago team yielded several large and safe assem-
blages of Stratum VA-IVB (from Buildings 51Megiddoand experienced continuing occupation, a
that these distinctions should be explained agai
10 in Area C in the eastern sector of the mound and
the background of the long period that separates
from Building 2081 and its surrounding in Area
destruction of Stratum VA-IVB and that of IVA.
AA in the north), but failed to produce a significant

This content downloaded from 132.66.11.212 on Sun, 27 Nov 2016 09:37:44 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 64 ISRAEL FINKELSTEIN BASOR 314

0 10cm.

6 7 1m.

8S 7

Fig. 3. P
Level K-
IVB); 3:
Level H

Megiddo VA-IVB and Megiddo IVA (see also

Altern
desertion of the site after the destruction of Stratum
Zarzeki-Peleg 1997: 284, table 5).
VA-IVB. The latter option seems to be supported This possible occupational gap at Megiddo in the
by a comparison of the Megiddo VA-IVB and IVA late ninth century B.C.E., following the destruction
assemblages and the pottery of Hazor VIII and VII. of Stratum VA-IVB, corresponds to the decline of
The hemispherical bowls and the cooking pots with Taanach, Jezreel, and Yoqneam (pits in Stratum
elongated ridge-rim, which appear in Megiddo VA- XIII). The revival of Megiddo came with the resur-
IVB and are absent from Megiddo IVA, are present rection of the entire northern state in the early eighth
in Hazor VIII-VII (Yadin et al. 1960: pl. 55 for thecentury B.C.E. (Na'aman 1997a: 127). A large-scale
first and pl. 57 for the second). A bowl with the building operation, such as the one conducted at
curve under the rim, which appears in Hazor VIII Megiddo in the days of Stratum IVA, requires much
(Yadin et al. 1960: pl. 53:15, 17) and has parallelslabor and many economic resources. It is hardly pos-
in Megiddo VA-IVB, is absent from the Megiddo sible that this could have been achieved in the days
IVA assemblage. These are clues that Hazor VIII-of a severe decline. The reign of Joash or Jeroboam
VII falls in the middle of the sequence, i.e., betweenII seems a proper time for such a construction effort,

This content downloaded from 132.66.11.212 on Sun, 27 Nov 2016 09:37:44 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
1999 HAZOR AND THE NORTH IN THE IRON AGE 65

TABLE 1. Chronological and historical recons

Strata X-V, according to Yadin (and Ben-Tor

Stratum Yadin (and Ben-Tor) Finkelstein

Chronology Chronology
(B.C.E.) Historical setting (B.C.E.) Historical setting

X Tenth century Israelite, Solomonic city Early ninth century Israelite: Omrides

IX Late tenth-early Israelite First half of Israelite: Omrides

ninth century ninth century
Destruction 885 B.C.E. Ben-Hadad ca. 835 Hazael
VIII First half of Israelite, Ahab Late ninth century Aramaean: Hazael
ninth century
VII Later ninth century Israelite End of ninth century Aramaean
Destruction Late ninth century Unnamed Aramaean ca. 800 Joash/Jeroboam II
campaign*
VI Early eighth century Israelite: Jeroboam II Early eighth century Israelite, Joash/
Jeroboam II

Destruction ca. 760 Earthquake ca. 760 Earthquake

V Mid-eighth century Israelite Mid-eighth century Israelite
Destruction 732 Tiglath-pileser III 732 Tiglath-pileser III

* According to Ben-Tor, this refers to Hazael, 810 B.C.E.

which was apparently connectedtime;to thethe

verdict must come from the general histor-
reorganiza-
ical logic.
tion of the northern state after a period of decay. It
Table II
appears that Joash or Jeroboam 1 summarizes
undertookthe two chronological
two and
historical
major building operations in the north: reconstructions for Hazor: Yadin's (which
the construc-
is basically accepted
tion of Megiddo IVA as the center for by Ben-Tor
the [Ben-Tor and Ben-
Jezreel
Valley and the rebuilding of Ami
Hazor1998]28) as
and my own.
a stronghold
in the territories which were taken back from the To sum up, I propose the following cultural/his-
Aramaeans.27 torical phases for northeastern Israel in the tenth-
eighth centuries B.C.E.:

SUMMARY
Phase I. Early stages of Aramaean territorial-
political formation in the tenth century B.C.E., repre-
In the stormy period of the ninth-eighth centuries
sented by Tel Hadar Stratum IV and Tell el-Oreimeh
B.C.E., Hazor served as a stronghold on the border
Stratum V. This phase ends with a total destruction,
between Israel and Aram Damascus. The biblical,
apparently followed at many sites by a short occu-
Assyrian, and Aramaean sources indicate that in the
pation gap.
course of this period the region changed hands sev-
eral times. Hence it is not surprising that the site
Phase II. Israelite expansion in the time of the
suffered so many destructions (the end of Strata IX,
Omrides (possibly starting shortly before them),
VII, VI [in an earthquake?], and V). These destruc-
represented by Hazor X-IX. This phase comes to an
tions and reconstructions of the city did not neces-
end with the conquests of Hazael and the takeover
sarily cause total population change. Rather, they
of large territories of the northern kingdom by Aram
brought about changes in the political and territorialDamascus.
setting. With almost no inscriptions, burials, or data
on the culinary practices of the inhabitants, there is Phase III. Aramaean control in the north, repre-
no way to decide from the material culture whether sented by Hazor VIII-VII and possibly by the lar
the site was in Israelite or Aramaean hands at a givenand elaborate site of Bethsaida. This phase came

This content downloaded from 132.66.11.212 on Sun, 27 Nov 2016 09:37:44 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 66 ISRAEL FINKELSTEIN BASOR 314

an end ca. 800 B.C.E. with the offensive of Adad- was then rebuilt. The excavators of Hazor were able
nirari III, which brought about the decline of Aram
not only to identify the main phases and destruction
Damascus and the expansion of the northern king- layers, but also to trace minute changes and devel-
dom of Israel. The latter resulted in the destructionopments, such as the raising of floors in the build-
of Hazor VII. ings. They should be praised for giving us such a
detailed and well-defined account of the remains,
Phase IV New Israelite activity in the north,
which opens the way to a comprehensive under-
starting with Joash or Jeroboam II and lasting until
standing of the events on the border between the
the Assyrian conquest. This phase is represented by
Strata VI and V at Hazor. It came to an end with the
northern kingdom of Israel and Aram Damascus.

destruction of the cities of the northern kingdom by

Tiglath-pileser III. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The stormy history of the region in general and of
Hazor in particular in the ninth-eighth centuries
I am grateful to Nadav Na'aman, Benjami
B.C.E. explains the large number of strata and phases
David Ussishkin of Tel Aviv University for t
found at Hazor from this relatively short period ofcomments on the manuscript of this article.
time. Hazor had to prepare for war time and again, mean that they accept the views expressed in
was destroyed several times, changed hands, and
sibility for the ideas expressed herein is min

NOTES

7For
1The duration of the strata cannot serve as five phases in Strata VIII-VII in Area A in the
an argu-
ment in the debate, as both the high and the low chronol-
1968 season, see Bonfil and Greenberg 1997: 150.
ogies present short-lived cities. According to8Inthe
one former,
place only, Yadin sounds somewhat hesitant
Megiddo VA-IVB with its ashlar palaces about
existed for no
this dating: "Had we been digging a site whose his-
more than 30 years (from Solomon to the toryShishak
was unknown cam-
from other sources, we would, of course,
paign); according to both, the elaboratenot
Jezreel enclo-
be in a position to ascribe Stratum X so precisely to the
sure lasted for 20 or 30 years (from Ahab
times to Jehu, The
of Solomon. or relative date based on the stratig-
Hazael). raphy, and the absolute date based on the pottery, were
21 thank Lily Singer-Avitz for her valuable comments
sound; but these two factors did not decisively exclude the
on this matter. possibility of dating the building to the end of the tenth
3The pre-fill bowls are not slipped, butcentury,
the same holds
or perhaps even to the very beginning of the ninth
true for some of the enclosure bowls. century" (Yadin 1975: 189).
4The following loci were used for the study of the pot- 9The Gezer evidence (Holladay 1990) is no excep-
tery of University of Chicago's Stratum VIA in Area AA: tion, as the entire discussion is based on Holladay's in-
Building 2072-Loci 2067, 2068, 2069, 2070, 2071, 2072, terpretation of the biblical testimony on Gezer in the days
2075, 2101 (Loud 1948: 160-61, 163 [register of finds], of Solomon: ". . . it seems reasonable to attribute the prior
pls. 75:1, 6-10, 13, 15-21, 23; 76:1; 77:2-6, 9, 11-12, 14;destruction of Gezer to the reign of King Solomon ... the
78:1-3, 5-7, 10, 14-15, 17, 20; 79:1-2, 5-11; 80:1-8). building of this gateway to the reign of King Solomon ...
Building 3021-Loci 2012, 3012, E= 3012, = 3012, 3021,and the first destruction to Pharaoh Sheshonq I.... Thus,
3023, =3023 (Loud 1948: 157, 167-68 [register of finds], tying our stratigraphically-derived relative chronology to
pls. 75:2-4, 10-12, 14-16, 20-21; 76:2, 4; 77:2-3, 10, absolute chronology seems to present few problems" (Hol-
13; 78:11-13, 16, 19; 79:7, 11; 80:1-3, 5). Note that sev- laday 1990: 24).
eral types were represented by more than one vessel. For 10Ben-Tor is apparently aware of this problem. He
representative types from our Level F-5 see fig. 1. therefore suggested that regarding the Aramaean conquest
5Stratum IB at Taanach should be compared with of Stratum VII, Yadin was in fact referring to the campaign
Megiddo VIA, rather than Megiddo VIIA (Finkelstein of Hazael "c. 810 B.C.E." (Ben-Tor 1997: 112). So far as I
1998b, contra Rast 1978). know, Yadin never mentioned Hazael in connection with
6The excavation of Stratum VIA in a large area on the any of the destruction layers at Hazor. Moreover, the sug-
southeastern sector of Tel Megiddo in the summer of 1998 gested date, 810 B.C.E., is much too late for Hazael's cam-
supports this evidence. It revealed a large assemblage ofpaign, which should apparently be placed in the early days
vessels, with no sign of Philistine Bichrome or degener- of the interval in Assyrian pressure on Aram Damascus
ated Philistine vessels of the Qasile X types. (837-805 B.C.E.).

This content downloaded from 132.66.11.212 on Sun, 27 Nov 2016 09:37:44 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 1999 HAZOR AND THE NORTH IN THE IRON AGE 67

11For summaries of the relations 19The Phoenicianbetween theapparently

and Aramaic scripts two split
only in the mid-eighth
states written before the discovery of the century
Tel (Naveh
Dan 1982:stele,78-81),
hence the difficulty
see B. Mazar 1962; Lipiniski 1979. For an in classifying
up-to-date the Hazor sum-
VIII inscrip-
mary see Halpern, in press. tions. The identification of the Dan and Ein Gev inscrip-
12Not even for Dan, except tions (and possibly
Avigad one of the
1968: 44. Hazor
TheVIII inscriptions)
pos- as
sibility of a site in the north Aramaic
changingis based onhands
the language rather than the
between script.
Israel
and Aram was considered only20Reich for (1992:
Ein208)Gev noted onthe the
similarity in size of
eastern
shore of the Sea of Galilee this(Mazar et
building to al.6000
Palaces 1964:
and 172333).
at Megiddo, which
13The biblical descriptionare
of Dan
usually as located
described "in
as bit hilani the
(Yadin 1970: 75;
Ussishkin 1973). (Judg 18:28) and the
valley which belongs to Beth-rehob"
21The capitals
claims of Hazael, in the Dan stele, to the were land
reused in
ofa later
that stratum, hence
city,
indicate that the kingdom of they could have originated from any
Zobah/Beth-rehob location around
extended
at least as far south as DanArea B. Their reconstruction
(Na'aman 1995:at the entrance
173). to Street 3318

14A group of tenth-century strata

is problematic: in isthe
one of them carved onnorth-
both sides, while
Megiddo VIA, Yoqneam XVII, there Beth-shean
is no proof for a freestanding
Upper pilaster
VI, at the
Telen-
Hadar IV, and Tell el-Oreimeh V-have
trance. For a similarsimilar
problem, that pottery as-
of the original location
of two largeby
semblages. They were all destroyed proto-Ionic
fire. capitals
Only foundaindetailed
the gate to the
Palace 1723
study of these assemblages will tell compound or in the palace they
us whether itself at Megiddo,
were
see Ussishkin
destroyed at the same time, or whether 1970. minute chronolog-
ical differences between them indicate
22It is a more
a broadly accepted complex
notion that the biblical de-
situation. The destruction of Stratum
scriptions V at
of the two Tel
sieges Dan in
of Samaria (Biran
the days of
Ahab and Joram
1994: 135, 155) apparently belongs to should
thebesame
dated to the events in the
chronolog-
ical horizon. days of Bar-Hadad III and Joash (Lipiriski 1979; Na'ama
1991).
15 One may argue that this part of the stele was written
to justify Hazael's attack on Israel and therefore does230n the widely accepted suggestion that the biblical
not necessarily depict real historical events. However, descriptions
the of the battles of the Omrides with Aram
fact that a century before Hazael Dan was consideredshould to be dated to later days in the history of the Israelite
be located in the territory of Aram Zobah (e.g., Na'amanstate see Jepsen 1941-1944: 155-58 (Joash); Whitley
1995), and the somewhat later expansion of the Omrides 1952
in (Jehoram); Miller 1966; 1968 (Jehoahaz). Reserva-
the north, seem to support Hazael's claim. tions concerning a wholesale transfer of these battles to the
16The Hazor water system was assigned by Yadindays to of the dynasty of Jehu were voiced by Noth (1960:
Stratum VIII, as the last layer cut by the builders was 243) and Yamada (1995).
Stratum X (and since the nearby four-room house was24The same holds true regarding the demolition of the
constructed in Stratum VIII [Garfinkel 1997: 246]). But Dan Stele (Halpern 1994; Biran and Naveh 1995: 8-9).
as Yadin himself noted, this fact provides only the earliest 25The idea of an occupational gap can also be sup-
possible date for the water system (Yadin 1972: 177). ported by the radical change in the layout and function of
the city in the transition from Stratum VA-IVB to Stratum
Though dating the hewing of the water system to Stratum
IVA (see Ussishkin 1992: 675), though this change may be
VIII is logical, a later Iron Age II date cannot be ruled out.
17The mixed nature of the population in the northeast explained on the background of the destruction of the city
of Stratum VA-IVB.
in the Iron Age II is attested in the meager, though varied,
epigraphic material from the region. I refer to the Phoeni- 26As mentioned above, a subtype of this vessel appear
earlier at Megiddo.
cian, Aramaic, and Hebrew inscriptions from Hazor, Dan,
Bethsaida, Tel Hadar, and Ein Gev (Yadin et al. 1960: 66-27It seems that the fortified city of Stratum XII a
71; Mazar et al. 1964: 27-29; Avigad 1968; Naveh 1970:Yoqneam should also be dated to this phase.
13; 1989; Delavault and Lemaire 1979: 5-12; Biran 1994:28Apparently, the only difference is that the renewe
199, 255-62; Kochavi 1994: 140; Arav 1995: 27-29). excavations added new subphases to the existing schem
18Although Yadin was aware of the character of (Ben-Tor 1997).
these inscriptions, he included them in the chapter titled
"Hebrew Inscriptions."

REFERENCES

Aharoni, Y., and Amiran, R. Arav, R.

1958 A New Scheme for the Sub-Division of the 1995 Bethsaida Excavations: Preliminary Report,
Iron Age in Palestine. Israel Exploration Jour- 1987-1993. Pp. 3-63 in Bethsaida: A City
nal 8: 171-84. by the North Shore of the Sea of Galilee, eds.

This content downloaded from 132.66.11.212 on Sun, 27 Nov 2016 09:37:44 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 68 ISRAEL FINKELSTEIN BASOR 314

R. Arav and R. A. Freund. Bethsaida Exca- fiir die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 107:
vations Reports 1. Kirksville, MO: Thomas 482-89
Jefferson University. Ephcal, I., and Naveh, J.
Arav, R., and Bernett, M. 1989 Hazael's Booty Inscriptions. Israel Exploratio
1997 An Egyptian Figurine of Pataikos at Bethsaida.Journal 39: 192-200.
Finkelstein, I.
Israel Exploration Journal 47: 198-213.
Auld, G. 1988 The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement.
1996 Re-Reading Samuel (Historically): 'Etwas mehr Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
Nichtwissen'. Pp. 160-69 in The Origin of1996
the The Archaeology of the United Monarchy: An
Ancient Israelite States, eds. V. Fritz and P R. Alternative View. Levant 28: 177-87.
1998a Bible Archaeology or Archaeology of Pales-
Davies. Journal for the Study of the Old Testa-
ment, Supplement Series 228. Sheffield: Shef- tine in the Iron Age: A Rejoinder. Levant 30:
field Academic. 167-74.
Avigad, N. 1998b Notes on the Stratigraphy and Chronology of
1968 An Inscribed Bowl from Dan. Palestine Explo- Iron Age Taanach. Tel Aviv 25: 208-18.
ration Quarterly 100: 42-44. Finkelstein, I.; Zimhoni, 0.; and Kafri, A.
Ben-Tor, A. In press Iron Age Pottery Assemblages from Areas F
1997 The Yigael Yadin Memorial Excavations at K and H and their Stratigraphic and Chronolog-
Hazor, 1990-1993: Aims and Preliminary Re- ical Implications. In Megiddo III: Seasons of
sults. Pp. 107-27 in The Archaeology of Israel: 1992-1996, eds. I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin,
Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present, and B. Halpern. Monograph Series of the In-
eds. N. A. Silberman and D. Small. Journal for stitute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.
the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement: Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv
Series 237. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. University.
Ben-Tor, A., and Ben-Ami, D. Fritz, V., and Vieweger, D.
1998 Hazor and the Archaeology of the Tenth Century 1996 Vorbericht tiber die Ausgrabungen in Kinneret
B.C.E. Israel Exploration Journal 48: 1-37. (Tell el-cOrjme) 1994 und 1995. Zeitschrift des
Bernett, M., and Keel, O. Deutschen Paldstina-Vereins 112: 81-99.
1998 Mond, Stier und Kult am Stadttor: Die Stele Garbini, G.
von Betsaida (et-Tell). Orbis Biblicus et Orien- 1988 History and Ideology in Ancient Israel. Tran
talis 161. Freiburg: Universititsverlag. J. Bowden, from Italian. New York: Crossroad.
Biran, A. Garfinkel, Y.
1994 Biblical Dan. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration 1997 The Iron Age Phases in Area L. Pp. 218-94 in
Society. Hazor V: An Account of the Fifth Season of
Biran, A., and Naveh, J. Excavation, 1968, by A. Ben-Tor, R. Bonfil,
1993 An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan. Y. Garfinkel, R. Greenberg, A. Maier, and
Israel Exploration Journal 43: 81-98. A. Mazar. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
1995 The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment. Halpern, B.
Israel Exploration Journal 45: 1-18. 1994 The Stela from Dan: Epigraphic and Histori-
Bonfil, R., and Greenberg, R. cal Considerations. Bulletin of the American
1997 Area A. Pp. 15-176 in Hazor V: An Account Schools of Oriental Research 296: 63-80.
of the Fifth Season of Excavation, 1968, by In press Notes on the Second Fragments of the Stela
A. Ben-Tor, R. Bonfil, Y. Garfinkel, R. Green- from Tel Dan. In Studies in the Tel Dan Stela,
berg, A. Maier, and A. Mazar. Jerusalem: Israel. ed. E Cryer. Sheffield: JSOT
Exploration Society. Haran, M.
Daviau, M. R M. 1967 The Rise and Decline of the Empire of Jeroboam
1997 Moab's Northern Border, Khirbet al-Mudayana ben Joash. Vetus Testamentum 17: 266-97.
on the Wadi ath-Thamad. Biblical Archaeolo-
Holladay, J. S.
gist 60: 222-28. 1970 Red Slip, Burnish, and the Solomonic Gate-
Davies, G. I. way at Gezer. Bulletin of the American Schools
1986 Megiddo. Cambridge: Lutterworth. of Oriental Research 277/278: 23-70.
Delavault, B., and Lemaire, A. Jepsen, A.
1979 Les inscriptions phrniciennes de Palestine. 1941- Israel und Damaskus. Archiv fir Orientfor-
Rivista di Studi Fenici 7: 1-39. 1944 schung 14: 153-72.
Dion, P. E. Kochavi, M.
1994
1995 Syro-Palestinian Resistance to Shalmaneser III The Land of Geshur Project, 1993. Israel Ex-
in the Light of New Documents. Zeitschrift ploration Journal 44: 136-41.

This content downloaded from 132.66.11.212 on Sun, 27 Nov 2016 09:37:44 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 1999 HAZOR AND THE NORTH IN THE IRON AGE 69

1998 The Eleventh Century B.C.E. Solomon:Tripartite Pillar

Scholarship at the Turn of the Millen-
nium, eds.in
Building at Tel Hadar. Pp. 468-78 L. K.Mediter-
Handy. Studies in the History
ranean Peoples in Transition,and Culture
eds.of S. the Ancient
Gitin, Near East 11.
Leiden: Brill.
A. Mazar, and E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Ex-
ploration Society. Na'aman, N.
Lamon, R. S., and Shipton, G. 1991
M.Forced Participation in Alliances in the Course
of the Assyrian Campaigns to the West. Pp.
1939 Megiddo
Oriental I: Seasons
Institute of 1925-34,
Publications 80-98 in42. Strata
Ah, Assyria
Chicago: I-V.
... Studies in Assyrian
University of Chicago. History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiogra-
Lemaire, A. phy Presented to Hayim Tadmor, eds. M. Cogan
1991 Haza6l de Damas, roi d'Aram. Pp. 91-108 and I. Ephcal. Scripta Hierosolymitana 33.
in Marchands, diplomates et empereurs, eds. Jerusalem: Magnes.
D. Charpin and F Joannes. Paris: Editions Re- 1995 Hazael of CAmqi and Hadadezer of Beth-rehob.
cherche sur les Civilisations. Ugarit-Forschungen 27: 381-94.
1993 Joas de Samarie, Barhadad de Damas, Zakkur 1996 Sources and Composition in the History of
de Hamat. La Syrie-Palestine vers 800 av. J.-C. David. Pp. 170-86 in The Origin of the Ancient
Eretz-Israel 24 (Avraham Malamat volume): Israelite States, eds. V. Fritz and R R. Davies.
148*"-57*. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament,
1994 Epigraphie palestinienne: nouveaux docu- Supplement Series 228. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic.
ments. 1. Fragment de stele aram6enne de Tell
Dan (IXe s. av. j.-c.). Henoch 16: 87-93. 1997a Historical and Literary Notes on the Excava-
Lipiiiski, E. tions of Tel Jezreel. Tel Aviv 24: 122-28.

1979 Aram et Israel du Xe au VIIIe siecle av. n.e.
Acta Antiqua 27: 49-102.
Loud, G.
1948 Megiddo II: Seasons of 1935-39. 2 vols. Ori-
ental Institute Publications 61. Chicago: Uni-
1997b Sources and Composition in the History of
Solomon. Pp. 57-80 in The Age of Solomon:
Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, ed.
L. K. Handy. Studies in the History and Cul-
ture of the Ancient Near East 11. Leiden:

versity of Chicago. Brill.

Margalit, B. 1997c Prophetic Stories as Sources for the Histories

1994 The Old-Aramaic Inscription of Hazael from of Jehoshaphat and the Omrides. Biblica 78:
Dan. Ugarit-Forschungen 26: 317-20. 153-73.
Mazar, A. Naveh, J.
1981 Giloh: An Early Israelite Settlement Site 1970 The Development of the Aramaic Script. Je-
Near Jerusalem. Israel Exploration Journal 31: rusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and
1-36. Humanities.
1985 Excavations at Tell Qasile, Part Two, The Phi- 1982 Early History of the Alphabet: An Introduction
listine Sanctuary: Various Finds, the Pottery, to West Semitic Epigraphy and Palaeography.
Conclusions, Appendixes. Qedem 20. Jerusa- Jerusalem: Magnes.
lem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew Univer- 1989 The Epigraphic Finds from Areas A and B.
sity of Jerusalem. Pp. 346-47 in Hazor III-IV, Text, by Y. Ya-
1997 Iron Age Chronology: A Reply to I. Finkel- din, Y. Aharoni, R. Amiran, A. Ben-Tor,
stein. Levant 29: 157-67. M. Dothan, T. Dothan, I. Dunayevsky, S. Geva,
Mazar, B. and E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration
1962 The Aramean Empire and Its Relations with Society.
Israel. Biblical Archaeologist 25: 98-120. Niemann, H. M.
Mazar, B.; Biran, A.; Dothan, M.; and Dunayevsky, I.1997 The Socio-Political Shadow Cast by the Bib-
1964 CEin Gev Excavations in 1961. Israel Explora- lical Solomon. Pp. 252-99 in The Age of
tion Journal 14: 1-49. Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millen-
Miller, J. M. nium, ed. L. K. Handy. Studies in the History
1966 The Elisha Cycle and the Accounts of the and Culture of the Ancient Near East 11.
Omride Wars. Journal of Biblical Literature Leiden: Brill.
85: 441-54. Noth, M.
1968 The Rest of the Acts of Jehoahaz (1 Kings 1960 20, The History of Israel. 2nd ed. Trans. S. Bed-
22:1-38). Zeitschrift fiir die Alttestamentliche man, from German. London: Black.
Wissenschaft 80: 337-42. Pitard, W. T.
1997 Separating the Solomon of History from the1987 Ancient Damascus. Winona Lake, IN: Eisen-
Solomon of Legend. Pp. 1-24 in The Age of brauns.

This content downloaded from 132.66.11.212 on Sun, 27 Nov 2016 09:37:44 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 70 ISRAEL FINKELSTEIN BASOR 314

Rast, W. E. 1994 Excavations at Tel Jezreel 1992-1993: Second

1978 Taanach I: Studies in the Iron Age Pottery. Preliminary Report. Levant 26: 1-48.
Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental 1997 Excavations at Tel Jezreel 1994-1996: Third
Research. Preliminary Report. Tel Aviv 24: 6-72.
Reich, R. Van Seters, J.
1992 Palaces and Residencies in the Iron Age. 1983 In Search of History: Historiography in the
Pp. 202-22 in The Architecture of Ancient Ancient Near East and the Origins of Biblical
Israel, eds. A. Kempinski and R. Reich. Jeru- History. New Haven: Yale University.
salem: Israel Exploration Society. Whitley, C. E
Renz, J. 1952 The Deuteronomic Presentation of the House
1995 Die althebrdischen Inschriften, Teil 1: Text of Omri. Vetus Testamentum 2: 137-52.
und Kommentar. Handbuch der Althebraischen Wright, G. E.
Epigraphik 1. Darmstadt: Wissenschafliche1950 The Discoveries at Megiddo 1935-1939.
Buchgesellschaft. Biblical Archaeologist 13: 28-46.
Schniedewind, W. M. Yadin, Y.
1996 Tel Dan Stela: New Light on Aramaic and 1970 Megiddo of the Kings of Israel. Biblical
Jehu's Revolt. Bulletin of the American Schools, Archaeologist 33: 66-96.
of Oriental Research 302: 75-90. 1972 Hazor. London: Oxford University.
Shiloh, Y. 1975 Hazor: The Rediscovery of a Great Citadel of
1973 The Four-Room House-The Israelite Type- the Bible. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

House? Eretz-Israel 11 (Immanuel Dunayev-Yadin, Y.; Aharoni, Y.; Amiran, R.; Dothan, T.; Duna-
ski volume): 277-85 (Hebrew), 32* (English yevsky, I.; and Perrot, J.
summary). 1960 Hazor II. Jerusalem: Magnes.
1993 Megiddo, The Iron Age. Pp. 1012-24 in The Yadin, Y.; Aharoni, Y.; Amiran, R.; Ben-Tor, A.; Dothan,
New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excava- M.; Dothan, T.; Dunayevsky, I.; Geva, S.; and
tions in the Holy Land, Vol. 3, ed. E. Stern. Stern, E.
New York: Simon and Schuster. 1989 Hazor III-IV: An Account of the Third and
Ussishkin, D. Fourth Seasons of Excavation, 1957-1958,
1970 On the Original Position of Two Proto-Ionic Text. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
Capitals at Megiddo. Israel Exploration Jour- Yamada, S.
nal 20: 213-15. 1995 Aram-Israel Relations as Reflected in the

1973 King Solomon's Palaces. Biblical Archaeolo- Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan. Ug
gist 36: 78-105. Forschungen 27: 611-25.
1980 Was the "Solomonic" City Gate at Megiddo Zarzeki-Peleg, A.
Built by King Solomon? Bulletin of the Amer- 1997 Hazor, Jokneam and Megiddo in the 10t
ican Schools of Oriental Research 239: 1-18. tury B.C.E. Tel Aviv 24: 258-88.
1992 Megiddo. Pp. 666-79 in The Anchor Bible Dic- Zimhoni, O.
tionary, Vol. 4, ed. D. N. Freedman. New York: 1992 The Iron Age Pottery from Tel Jezreel-An
Doubleday. Interim Report. Tel Aviv 19: 57-70.
Ussishkin, D., and Woodhead, J. 1997 Clues from the Enclosure-Fills: Pre-Omride
1992 Excavations at Tel Jezreel 1990-1991: Prelim- Settlement at Tel Jezreel. Tel Aviv 24: 83-109.

inary Report. Tel Aviv 19: 3-56.

This content downloaded from 132.66.11.212 on Sun, 27 Nov 2016 09:37:44 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms