In Search for Aram and Israel: Politics, Culture, and Identity 316153803X, 9783161538032

Table of contents :
Cover
Title
Table of Contents
Preface
List of Abbreviations
Omer Sergi and Izaak J. de Hulster — Some Historical and Methodological Considerations Regarding the Question of Political, Social and Cultural Interaction between Aram and Israel in the Early Iron Age
I. Aram and Israel: Political Relations, Political Borders
Israel Finkelstein — Israel and Aram: Reflections on their Border
Erhard Blum — The Relations between Aram and Israel in the 9th and 8th Centuries BCE: The Textual Evidence
Assaf Kleiman — The Damascene Subjugation of the Southern Levant as a Gradual Process (ca. 842–800 BCE)
II. In Search of ‘Aramaean’ Material Culture
Aren M. Maeir — The Aramaean Involvement in the Southern Levant: Case Studies for Identifying the Archaeological Evidence
Amihaimazar Mazar — Culture, Identity and Politics Relating to Tel Reḥov in the 10th–9th Centuries BCE (with an Excursus on the Identification of Tel Reḥov)
Jutta Häser, Katja Soennecken, and Dieter Vieweger — Tall Zirāʿa in north-west Jordan between Aram and Israel
Nava Panitz-Cohen and Robert A. Mullins — Aram-Maacah? Aramaeans and Israelites on the Border: Excavations at Tell Abil el-Qameḥ (Abel-beth-maacah) in Northern Israel
Yifat Thareani — Enemy at the Gates? The Archaeological Visibility of the Aramaeans at Dan
Benjamin Sass — Aram and Israel during the 10th–9th centuries BCE, or Iron Age IIA: The Alphabet
Izaak J. de Hustler — Material Aramaeisms? Sphragistic Reflections on the Aram-Israel Border Zone through a Case Study on Hazor
III. Aram and Israel: the Question of Identity
Guy Bunnens — Confrontation, Emulation and Ethno-genesis of the Aramaeans in Iron Age Syria
Stefania Mazzoni — Identity and Multiculturality in the Northern Levant of the 9th–7th century BCE: With a Case Study on Tell Afis
Herbert Niehr — The Power of Language: Language Situation and Language Policy in Samal
Omer Sergi — The Gilead between Aram and Israel: Political Borders, Cultural Interaction, and the Question of Jacob and Israelite Identity
Angelika Berlejung — Family Ties: Constructed Memories about Aram and the Aramaeans in the Old Testament
Nili Wazana — Ahaz and the Altar from Damascus (2 Kings 16:10–16): Literary, Theological, and Historical-Political Considerations
Manfred Oeming — “And the King of Aram was at war with Israel”: History and Theology in the Elisha Cycle 2 Kings 2–13
Index of Ancient Written Sources
Biblical References
Extra-Biblical References
Index of Ancient Names
Names of Persons and Deities
Toponyms
Index of Authors

Citation preview

Orientalische Religionen in der Antike Ägypten, Israel, Alter Orient

Oriental Religions in Antiquity Egypt, Israel, Ancient Near East

(ORA) Herausgegeben von / Edited by Angelika Berlejung (Leipzig) Joachim Friedrich Quack (Heidelberg) Annette Zgoll (Göttingen)

20

In Search for Aram and Israel Politics, Culture, and Identity Edited by Omer Sergi, Manfred Oeming, and Izaak J. de Hulster

Mohr Siebeck

Omer Sergi, born 1977; 2013 PhD; since 2014 Lecturer at the Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures, Tel Aviv University. Manfred Oeming, born 1955; 1985 PhD; 1988 Habilitation; since 1996 Ordinarius for Theology, Ethics and Hermeneutics of the Old Testament at the University of Heidelberg; since 2013 vice dean of the Faculty of Theology. Izaak J. de Hulster, born 1979; 2008 PhD; since 2014 University Researcher at the University of Helsinki.

ISBN 978-3-16-153803-2 / eISBN 978-3-16-155059-1 unveränderte eBook-Ausgabe 2021 ISSN 1869-0513 (Orientalische Religionen in der Antike) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2016 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Gulde Druck in Tübingen on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany.

Table of Contents Preface ...................................................................................................................... IX List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................. XVI OMER SERGI AND IZAAK J. DE HULSTER Some Historical and Methodological Considerations Regarding the Question of Political, Social and Cultural Interaction between Aram and Israel in the Early Iron Age......................................................................... 1

I. Aram and Israel: Political Relations, Political Borders ISRAEL FINKELSTEIN Israel and Aram: Reflections on their Border ............................................................ 17 ERHARD BLUM The Relations between Aram and Israel in the 9th and 8th Centuries BCE: The Textual Evidence ............................................................................................... 37 ASSAF KLEIMAN The Damascene Subjugation of the Southern Levant as a Gradual Process (ca. 842–800 BCE) .................................................................. 57

II. In Search of ‘Aramaean’ Material Culture AREN M. MAEIR The Aramaean Involvement in the Southern Levant: Case Studies for Identifying the Archaeological Evidence ........................................ 79 AMIHAI MAZAR Culture, Identity and Politics Relating to Tel Reov in the 10 th–9th Centuries BCE (with an Excursus on the Identification of Tel Reov) .............................................. 89 JUTTA HÄSER, KATJA SOENNECKEN, AND DIETER VIEWEGER Tall Zira in north-west Jordan between Aram and Israel ...................................... 121

VI

Table of Contents

NAVA PANITZ-COHEN AND ROBERT A. MULLINS Aram-Maacah? Aramaeans and Israelites on the Border: Excavations at Tell Abil el-Qame (Abel-beth-maacah) in Northern Israel .................................... 139 YIFAT THAREANI Enemy at the Gates? The Archaeological Visibility of the Aramaeans at Dan......... 169 BENJAMIN SASS Aram and Israel during the 10th–9th centuries BCE, or Iron Age IIA: The Alphabet .......................................................................................................... 199 IZAAK J. DE HULSTER Material Aramaeisms? Sphragistic Reflections on the Aram-Israel Border Zone through a Case Study on Hazor ............................................................................... 229

III. Aram and Israel: the Question of Identity GUY BUNNENS Confrontation, Emulation and Ethno-genesis of the Aramaeans in Iron Age Syria .. 253 STEFANIA MAZZONI Identity and Multiculturality in the Northern Levant of the 9 th–7th century BCE: With a Case Study on Tell Afis ............................................................................... 281 HERBERT NIEHR The Power of Language: Language Situation and Language Policy in Samal ........ 305 OMER SERGI The Gilead between Aram and Israel: Political Borders, Cultural Interaction, and the Question of Jacob and Israelite Identity ...................................................... 333 ANGELIKA BERLEJUNG Family Ties: Constructed Memories about Aram and the Aramaeans in the Old Testament ............................................................................................... 355 NILI WAZANA Ahaz and the Altar from Damascus (2 Kings 16:10–16): Literary, Theological, and Historical-Political Considerations ................................ 379 MANFRED OEMING “And the King of Aram was at war with Israel”: History and Theology in the Elisha Cycle 2 Kings 2–13 ......................................... 401

Table of Contents

VII

Index of Ancient Written Sources ........................................................................... 413 Biblical References ............................................................................................. 413 Extra-Biblical References ................................................................................... 418 Index of Ancient Names ......................................................................................... 419 Names of Persons and Deities ............................................................................. 419 Toponyms ........................................................................................................... 422 Index of Authors ..................................................................................................... 428

Preface This volume comprises papers presented at a colloquium held in Heidelberg, 1–4 September 2014 on the subject of “Aram and Israel: Cultural Interaction, Political Borders and Construction of Identity during the Early Iron Age (12 th–8th centuries BCE)”. The aim of the conference was to discuss the political and cultural interaction between Aram and Israel among archaeologists excavating throughout the Levant, epigraphers, and biblical scholars addressing the image of the Aramaeans in the Hebrew Bible. In the light of the different approaches employing material culture, images, and texts, this group of scholars met to highlight the question of social and cultural identity within the territorial kingdoms of the Iron Age Levant and to redefine the role of the Kingdom of Israel within the ‘Aramaean’ world. The reasoning behind this approach is to be found in the fact that throughout its history the kingdom of Israel interacted with the Aramaean kingdoms to its north. Contemporary studies of the process of state formation in the early Iron Age Levant further suggest that it occurred in Israel and in some Aramaean kingdoms quite contemporaneously (10th–early 9th centuries BCE) and through constant interaction between them (for further details see Sergi and de Hulster, this volume). In spite of that, most of our knowledge regarding the kingdom of Israel is derived from the Hebrew Bible, which reflects quite strong Judahite and even Judean perspectives. Therefore, and in light of the recent scholarly attention given to Aram and the Aramaeans, this volume contributes an approach examining the cultural interaction between them in reference to recent excavations in the region, to the broader archaeological and historical context, and to the memories of Aram and Israel in the Hebrew Bible. The main arenas of political (military) but also social and cultural interaction between the kingdom of Israel and the Aramaean polities were at the central and northern Jordan Valley (and its extension into Lebanon) and in the highlands of Gilead and Ammon, in Transjordan. The archaeological exploration of these regions was therefore at the focus of the conference, in an attempt to highlight the role of material culture in interpreting social and cultural interaction. Two further aspects of the Aram-Israel interaction were discussed – the political one, expressed by the constant struggle for political hegemony in the southern Levant; and the question of constructing social identities – whether within the different polities of the Iron Age Levant (Aramaean and Israelites alike) or whether in the cultural memory – namely, the way the interaction between Aram and Israel was memorized within biblical traditions. For that reason experts in the fields of the archaeology and history of the Levant and in the field of biblical studies gathered in Heidelberg for four days of what turned to be stimulating and fruitful discussions. Important part of that was the convenient platform provided by the conference to bring together archaeologists working on different sides of the current borders in the Middle East. These kind of meetings are, unfortunately, too

X

Preface

rare but nevertheless important in any attempt to ponder the nature of the Iron Age Levant. The result of all this is presented in this volume. The introductory chapter to the volume (Sergi and de Hulster, ‘Some Historical and Methodological Considerations Regarding the Question of Political, Social and Cultural Interaction between Aram and Israel’) offers some methodological and historical insights on the subject at hand. A brief summary of the socio-political evolution that occurred throughout the Levant in the early Iron Age forms the background for discussing the nature of political formations (territorial kingdoms), social identity (Israelites vis-àvis Aramaeans) and border zones (changing political borders and the ‘local’ sense of belonging). The first part of the book, ‘Aram and Israel: Political Relations, Political Borders’, focuses on the political interaction between Israel and Aram-Damascus. This part contains three articles that bring new insights on the archaeological and historical research in order to reconstruct the political relations between Israel and Aram-Damascus during the 10th–8th centuries BCE. Israel Finkelstein (‘Israel and Aram: Reflections on their Borders’) addresses the geographical-history aspect of the Israel-Aram relationship – the location of their political border. Through thoughtful examination of both archaeological data (i.e., architectural features, settlement patterns, destruction layers and occupational gaps) and textual information from biblical and extra-biblical sources Finkelstein reconstructs the borders between Aram and Israel in four different periods: the formative period (pre-Omride Israel), the Period of Omride rule over Israel, the second half of the 9 th century BCE and the first half of the 8th century BCE. He concludes the discussion with some insights regarding the cultural and ethnic affiliation of Tel Reov, the political and territorial organization of the northern Jordan Valley, the early historical memories embedded within the biblical literature and the nature of biblical narratives regarding the Aram– Israel border conflicts. Erhard Blum (‘The Relations between Aram and Israel in the 9th and 8th centuries BCE: The Textual Evidence’) examines the Tel Dan Stele based on fresh epigraphical and philological analysis and proposes some new readings. These confirm that the preserved text contains Hazael’s self-presentation as the successor of Hadadezer, king of Aram-Damascus, and his report of one specific war against Joram, king of Israel, and Ahaziah, king of Judah (also reported in 2 Kings 8:28–29). A critical examination of further biblical and epigraphical sources (inter alia from Tell Deir ‘Alla) allows outlining the relations between the kingdoms of Damascus and Samaria that involve major changes in political dominion and territorial expansion. Assaf Kleiman (‘The Damascene Subjugation of the Southern Levant as a Gradual Process [ca. 842–800 BCE]’) re-examines the archaeological evidence for the Damascene subjugation of the Southern Levant. He argues that three main stages, which differ from one another in date and nature, may be identified in the territorial expansion process of Aram-Damascus: (1) early conflicts with Israel in the Gilead during the final days of the Omride dynasty; (2) the annexation of the Israelite territories in the north after the Assyrian withdrawal from southern Syria in ca. 838–837 BCE; and (3) remote campaign(s) to the southern districts of Canaan, which were conducted toward the end

Preface

XI

of the 9th century BCE. Kleiman further argues that the gradual nature of the territorial expansion of Aram-Damascus under the rule of Hazael seems to attest to the calculated and structured policy taken by the Aramaeans; the execution of such a policy supports the idea that Hazael intended to establish permanent hegemony over the Southern Levant. The second part of the book, ‘In Search of Aramaean Material Culture’, raises the question of material culture in the context of the political and cultural interaction between Aram and Israel. This question is addressed by discussing the archaeological finds from sites located within the so called ‘border zone’ between Aram and Israel (throughout the Jordan Valley) and by discussing specific aspects of material culture like glyptic and epigraphic finds. Aren Maeir (‘The Aramaean Involvement in the Southern Levant: Case Studies for Identifying the Archaeological Evidence’) discusses the practical and methodological difficulties in defining the existence of Aramaean-related finds (from conquest to actual presence) at selected sites (Tell es-Safi/Gath, Dan, Hazor and Kinrot). He attempts to delineate how and when such identifications can be safely suggested. Amihai Mazar (‘Culture, Identity and Politics Relating to Tel Reov in the 10th–9th Centuries BCE, with an Excursus on the Identification of Tel Reov’) presents conclusions relating to the Iron IIA (10th–9th centuries BCE) strata in Tel Reov, the period most widely exposed in the excavations of the site (1997–2012). The subjects discussed include the geopolitical situation of the city, the stratigraphic sequence, continuity and change in the local material culture and aspects of architecture. In this context the issue of the ethnic identity of the population and the question when and how the Canaanite city became Israelite are addressed. Mazar further discusses the possible connections of the site with Syria and Anatolia based on the discovery of Anatolian bees in the industrial apiary discovered at the site, as well as on pottery altars similar to ones known from the Northern Euphrates albeit 300 years earlier. The possibility that the city was the home town of the Nimshi family and Jehu is raised and it is postulated, based on an inscription found in a unique building, that Elisha was present at this city close to its destruction. The violent and severe destruction of the Iron IIA city is attributed to Hazael, between the yeas 840–830 BCE. An excursus deals with recent suggestions made by I. Finkelstein concerning the identification of Reob/Reov in 2 Samuel 6–8 in relation to Tel Reov. Jutta Hser, Katja Soennecken and Dieter Vieweger (‘Tall Zira in north-west Jordan between Aram and Israel’) deals with the question, whether the inhabitants of Tall Zir‘a in north-west Jordan were affiliated during the Iron Age to Aram or to Israel. This question is addressed in three categories (politically, culturally/religiously, and ethnically) and accordingly three statements are pointed out: first, the destruction layer of the walled and rich Late Bronze Age city shows no signs of a military invasion and that the re-settlement followed almost immediately probably by the same inhabitants (not excluding the possibility that people from the surrounding became residents on the Tall as well); second, the cultural, religious, and economic orientation to the north and west continued from the Bronze to the Iron Ages as demonstrated by pottery, small finds and

XII

Preface

architectural features; Third, in the absence of written sources and archaeological material which is usable as ethnical marker – despite the strong connections to the cultures in the west and north – it is impossible to specify the political and ethnical affiliation of the inhabitants of Tall Zir‘a in the Iron Age. Nava Panitz-Cohen and Robert A. Mullins (‘Aram-Maacah? Aramaeans and Israelites on the Border: Excavations at Tell Abil al-Qame (Abel-beth-maacah) in Northern Israel’) discuss the recently initiated excavations at Tel Abel-beth-maacah, located on the Israeli-Lebanese-Syrian border. The site provides fresh data with which to explore the issues of Aramaean involvement at the site itself and within the broader context of Israelite-Aramaean relations in the Hula Valley. A brief summary of the excavation results of the first three seasons is presented and discussed in light of these issues. Yifat Thareani (‘Enemy at the Gates? The Archaeological Visibility of the Aramaeans at Dan’) discusses the Iron IIA city of Dan, situated at the crossroads of Assyrian, Aramaean and Phoenician spheres, and illustrates the complex relationships the city maintained with neighboring kingdoms. Thareani discusses the archaeological remains from Iron IIA Dan, which yielded a material culture crucial for understanding the complexity of the Aramaean presence in the city de facto, and she further questions the current suppositions regarding the extent of the Aramaean involvement in constructing the city. Benjamin Sass (‘Aram and Israel during the 10th–9th centuries BCE, or Iron Age IIA: The Alphabet’) addresses the earliest archaeological evidence for alphabetic writing in the Aram–Israel border zone, and for the implementation of the alphabet among the Aramaeans overall. He demonstrates how the wholesale adoption of the alphabet in its Proto-Canaanite form in the Levant and the Jazira soon after its move out of Philistia in the second half of the tenth century, and its transformation into a cursive in the first half of the ninth, may be related to the wave of state foundations, Aramaean and other West Semitic, at that time. Izaak J. de-Hulster (‘Material Aramaeisms? Sphragistic Reflections on the AramIsrael Border Zone through a case study on Hazor’) examines the possibilities to relate certain material expressions, especially in seals (shapes, motifs, style, etc.) with ‘Aramaeans’. Acknowledging the challenges of defining ‘Aramaean’ and the complications due to the particulars of studying cultural influences through small glyptic finds (e.g., related to the mobility of miniature art), de Hulster cautions against drawing too strong conclusions. Thus, with thoughtful reference to the portable nature of small finds (as precious objects worn on the body) and to the issues involved in studying identity, de Hulster turns to the glyptic material at Hazor (in the Northern Jordan Valley) and, in comparison with the material from Megiddo, carefully concludes a northern influence in Northern Israel. For Hazor this could be (still cautiously) exemplified with the find of imitated Luwian hieroglyphs, moon imagery, and a hammer seal. The comparison with Megiddo further suggested that the striding lion and the winged sun disk had become part of a larger stock of motifs shared throughout the Levant (koine) in the Iron Age.

Preface

XIII

The third and last part of the book, ‘Aram and Israel: The Question of Identity’, raises the question of social identity in the Iron Age Levant and its relations to political formations on the one hand and to the shaping of cultural memory on the other. Guy Bunnens (‘Confrontation, Emulation and Ethno-genesis of the Aramaeans in Iron Age Syria’) discusses the emergence of the Aramaeans as part of the reconstruction process that started in Syria about a century after the collapse of the Late Bronze Age political system. In a first stage, a group, which might have identified itself as “Aram(aean)”, progressively differentiated itself from the larger conglomerate of the Alamû. Kin-based groups, mercenaries and individual adventurers were marauding along the traditional communication routes in the Euphrates valley, in the Jezirah and across the desert. In a second stage some of them seized power in existing polities or founded new ones. They began to be individualized and often referred to by a name of the type Bt followed by a personal name. Such names may have designated a kin-based group (a “tribe”), or, as dynastic names, they may have referred to the sole ruling families. “Aram” in this context seems to have been any place where there were Aramaeans. Aramaean identity was forged through this reconstruction process. Competing with existing or emerging ethnic groups, Aramaean rulers asserted themselves as urban elite on a par with other urban elites, imposed their not yet standardized language as the administrative language of their polities and adopted forms of government as well as propagandistic art borrowed and adapted from an old Syrian tradition. Stefania Mazzoni (‘Identity and Multiculturality in the Northern Levant of the 9 th–7th century BCE: With a Case Study on Tell Afis’) addresses the question of identity in the Iron Age Levant. Following a review of the many difficulties stemming from the attempt to define identity through material culture, she suggests a further distinction between implicit and explicit identity. The former is inherent to the social context of the individual and is predisposed by tradition; the latter is inherent to an intentional and declared act. Using test cases from the Iron Age Levant, Mazzoni demonstrates the multicultural aspect of both implicit and explicit identities, which makes any attempt to define them through artefacts or material culture speculative. Thus, she suggests comparing the cultural orientation of the material assemblages of successive phases of occupation of a site, i.e. their cultural horizons on an inter-regional scale. This allows singling out distinct social dynamics of inclusion and separation that may reveal specific implicit identities. This method is consequently applied to Tel Afis, which demonstrates three different cultural orientations throughout the LBII–IAIII. Herbert Niehr (‘The Power of Language: Language situation and language policy in Samal’) provides an overview of the languages spoken and written in Samal. A catalogue of all the published material according to the languages comprises three Luwian, two Phoenician, six Samalian and twelve Old Aramaic inscriptions. This catalogue which demonstrates the language situation in Samal is to be supplemented by some unpublished inscriptions which, however, do not change the overall impression. As concerns the language policy the following points become clear: Luwian played only a minor role at the royal court. Phoenician was used as a prestigious language ad intra and as a trans-regional language ad extra during the time of King Kulamuwa (ca. 840–810 BCE). Phoenician was gradually superseded by Samalian which was during the time of

XIV

Preface

King Bar-Rakkab (ca. 733–713/711 BCE) replaced by Old Aramaic which opened a way to both inner Syria and also towards the Assyrians on whom he depended. Omer Sergi (‘The Gilead between Aram and Israel: Political Borders, Cultural Interaction and the Question of Jacob and Israelite Identity’) discusses the geographical region of the Gilead (in northern Transjordan) as a place of military conflict but also cultural interaction between Aram and Israel. This is done by discussing the political history of the Gilead on the one hand, and the social organization and cultural interaction of the region’s inhabitants on the other. Accordingly it is demonstrated that politically, the Gilead was more affiliated with Damascus than it was to Israel. It is further demonstrated that the highlands east and west of the Jordan with the Jordan Valley between them may be viewed as a single cultural unit within which agro-pastoral sedentary communities and local nomadic population maintained constant interaction. Due to the geographical and political proximity to Syria, groups living in northern Transjordan and especially in the highlands of Ammon and the Gilead were more influenced by AramDamascus (and more broadly by Northern Levantine culture) than those who resided in the highlands west of the Jordan. These conclusions set the base for discussing the place of the Gilead in the Israelite cultural memory, as it is reflected by the Jacob story (esp. Genesis 29–32) and by the story of Gideon’s pursuit of the Midianites (Judges 8: 14– 21), both attributed to Israelite narrators from the 8th century BCE. Angelika Berlejung (‘Family Ties: Constructed Memories about Aram and the Aramaeans in the Old Testament’) argues that the process of creating a collective memory and collective biography for ‘Israel’ included the Aramaeans in prominent places within the book of Genesis. She demonstrates how the genealogies construct a myth of origin which claims a primordial common affinity of ‘Israel’ and ‘Aram’. The pre- and non-P (presumably Genesis 10:22f), the priestly layer (Genesis 11:27–32) and post-P (Genesis 22:20–24) texts construct an ‘Israel-Aram-connection’ as an interwoven Eigengeschichte. This collective Israel-Aram biography emphasizes similarities, veils different origins and hides fractures on two levels: the historically existing differences of the different cultural and socio-political entities ‘Israel’ and ‘Aram’, and on the literary level the complex literary history of text units from different provenances and dates. The book of Genesis is not only constructing a myth of origin and continuity (for Israel and Aram), but also a myth of discontinuity, disrupting any closer links between Israel and Canaan, Egypt, Philistia, or Sidon (sons of Ham). The interplay between continuity and discontinuity drives the process of Israel’s identity formation forward. Nili Wazana (‘Ahaz and the Altar from Damascus (2 Kings 16:10–16): Literary, Theological, and Historical-Political Considerations’) deals with religious ties between Israel and Aram as reflected in the Deuteronomistic History, focusing primarily on the story of Ahaz and the altar from Damascus (2 Kings 16:10–16), while considering two other stories – that of Naaman the Aramaean army general (2 Kings 5), and that of the meeting of Elisha and Hazael (2 Kings 8:7–15). In the story of Ahaz copying the Damascene altar, Ahaz is not condemned, nor is it claimed that it had anything to do with foreign cult. Wazana suggests that the story belongs to the genre of reconstruction and reinstatement of an existing cultic object. The underlying assumption is that the Dama-

Preface

XV

scene altar was Yahwistic. Historically, a Yahwistic cult founded at the 9 th and 8th centuries BCE in Damascus is highly plausible. Literary-wise, all three stories emerged at the end of the 8th century, after the downfall of Aram and Israel. The replacement of the altar in Jerusalem, the stories of Israel-Aram religious ties and the roots of a Damascene Yahwistic altar in Israelite soil in former days cater to the needs of the refugees pouring in to Judah from the north, as well as to those of the Israelites and Aramaeans who remained in the north in the aftermath of the Assyrian destruction and deportations. Manfred Oeming (‘“And the King of Aram was at war with Israel” History and Theology in the Elisha Cycle 2 Kings 2–13’) discusses the Elisha stories (1 Kings 19:15–2 Kings 13:24) as they are embedded within a wider context of narratives about the conflicts between the Israelites and the Aramaeans. Following a review of the dating and literary character of these stories, Oeming concludes that even if the stories bear witness to a popular healer and miracle doer from the 9 th century BCE, in its final form the Elisha cycle belongs to the Persian period. Accordingly, there is not a great deal of historical reality reflected within it. Departing from the historical question, Oeming now analyses the deep theological intentions of the text and demonstrates how the Elisha stories are transformed into parts of a highly theological concept: prophecy is now an element in Israel’s history with Aram. He further demonstrates the changing attitude towards the Aramaeans; while the texts’ overall attitude is hostile, the prophet has to learn that God himself uses the Aramaeans as a tool against Israel in order to punish and educate. This is the same strategy employed to deal with catastrophes as seen in other prophetic books like Amos, Habakkuk, or Jeremiah. The war between the king of Aram and Israel is symbolic of YHWH’s control. Before concluding this preface, we would like to thank the many people and organization that enabled the realization of the Heidelberg Colloquium and of the present book. We would like to thank the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Grant for International Scientific Events) and the Fritz Thyssen Foundation (grant for international conferences) for supporting and financing the Heidelberg Colloquium. We would like to thank the Karls-Ruprecht Universitt Heidelberg for the warm hospitality and support of the event. Special thanks to the wonderful staff of the Internationales Wissenschaftsforum Heidelberg that hosted the discussions as well as to the participants of the conference. In addition to that we would like to thank Dr. Gabriela Rodrigues for the administrative organization of the colloquium and David Gropp, Dr. Verena Hug, Carolin Kloss, and Benjamin Sitzmann (Heidelberg) for their assistance in the preparation of the indices. Each of us, editors, expresses appreciation to his local and international academic environment for enabling and sustaining our research projects. Lastly, we would thus like to thank the Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung that supports the long standing cooperation between scholars from Tel Aviv University (Israel) and Germany. September 2016

Omer Sergi, Tel Aviv University Manfred Oeming, Heidelberg University Izaak J. de Hulster, University of Helsinki

List of Abbreviations AB AfO AOAT AThANT BASOR BN BWANT BZAW CBOT CBQ DMOA FAT FAT II FRLANT HdO HeBAI ICC IEJ JBL JNES JNSL JSOT JSOTS LAS NEA NEAEHL OLA OTL OTS PEQ PIHANS RIMA RlA SJOT

Anchor Bible Archiv für Orientforschung Alter Orient und Altes Testament Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Biblische Notizen Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Coniectanea biblica / Old Testament series Catholic Biblical Quarterly Documenta et monumenta Orientis antiqui Forschungen zum Alten Testament Forschungen zum Alten Testament / 2. Reihe Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Handbook of oriental studies = Handbuch der Orientalistik Hebrew bible and ancient Israel The international critical commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments Israel Exploration Journal Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of Northwest Semitic languages Journal for the study of the Old Testament Journal for the study of the Old Testament / Supplement series Leipziger altorientalistische Studien Near Eastern Archaeology The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (ed. Ephraim Stern) Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta Old Testament Library Old Testament Studies Palestine Exploration Quarterly PIHANS: uitgaven van het Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten te Leiden The royal inscriptions of Mesopotamia: Assyrian periods Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie Scandinavian journal of the Old Testament

Material Aramaeisms?

TA ThZ TUAT UF VO VT VTS ZAW ZDPV

Tel Aviv Theologische Zeitschrift Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments Ugarit-Forschungen Vicino Oriente Vetus Testamentum Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins

XVII

Some Historical and Methodological Considerations Regarding the Question of Political, Social and Cultural Interaction between Aram and Israel in the Early Iron Age Omer Sergi, Tel Aviv University Izaak J. de Hulster, University of Helsinki Introduction Throughout its history, the Kingdom of Israel interacted with the Aramaean kingdoms to its north, and especially to Aram-Damascus. Constantly changing relations – from rivalry and military conflicts to alliances and military cooperation – affected the history of the Levant as a whole, and left marks on both biblical and extra-biblical sources. Until now studies of Aram–Israel relations have concentrated mainly on reconstructing the political history of the Levant.1 And since most of our knowledge about the Kingdom of Israel is derived from biblical historiography, these reconstructions strongly reflect the Judahite, and not the Israelite or the Aramaean points of view. In light of this we suggest an approach that takes into account the geo-political setting of Israel within the Aramaean world. This approach is able to consider the two groups’ cultural and social interaction, and can focus not only on the struggle for power, expressed by the ongoing endeavour to define and re-define the borders between different political entities, but also on their cultural interaction – highlighting their shared traditions as against the construction of (sovereign) political or cultural identities.

‘Aram’ and ‘Israel’ in their Socio-Political Context The Late Bronze Age Levant was characterized by a system of regional powers (such as the Egyptian and the Hittite kingdoms) that held political and, to a certain extent, economic control over local powers.2 These ‘local powers’, which formed the basic unit of the social fabric, were mostly constituted by a territory, dominated by a city, in which there was a palace symbolizing the centralized institutions.3 The retreat of the regional powers from the Levant and the (partial) demise of the city-state system 1

There is a vast literature on this subject, and we cite here only the latest monographs: Reinhold 2016; Ghantous 2014; Hasegawa 2012; Robker 2012; cf. HafÞórsson 2006. 2 Liverani 1987. 3 Bunnens 2000:13.

2

Omer Sergi and Izaak J. de Hulster

(13th–12th centuries BCE) that followed resulted in a re-formation of political organization, which in the early Iron Age (12th–9th centuries BCE) took the form of territorial kingdoms. Bryce defined the Levantine territorial kingdom as: “independent kin-based political entity, ruled by a local dynasty whose capital served as the administrative centre of the whole kingdom, and to which other urban centres were subjugated”.4 This definition, as will be shown below, captures both the political and the social change that occurred in the Levant with the transition from the Late Bronze to the Iron Age. The political and territorial aspect of the Iron Age Levantine kingdom is highlighted by the assertion that its “capital serves as the administrative centre of the whole kingdom, and to which other urban centres were subjugated”. Examples from the Kingdom of Israel are Megiddo and Hazor, which were in the Late Bronze Age the traditional seats of local rulers who controlled their immediate surroundings; by the early 9th century BCE they probably maintained their former political role, albeit they were now integrated within a complex political-economic system, ruled from a centralized administrative centre, located in the highlands of Samaria.5 If we adopt the counter point of view – that of the ruling dynasty that resided in Samaria (defined by Bryce as ‘local’, and see below), the formation of the territorial kingdom was, in fact, a process of extending political power by integrating different territories, communities and polities under centralized rule.6 However, Bryce’s definition makes it clear that the act of ‘extending political power’ was only the political reflection of a much wider social evolution; the nature of which is highlighted by the assertion that the Levantine territorial kingdoms were ‘kinbased political entities, ruled by local dynasties’. In the past, it was assumed that the territorial kingdoms were formed by invaders – Hittites/Luwians in northern Syria, Aramaeans in Syria and Israelites in Canaan, who invaded/migrated into the Levant in the 13th–12th centuries BCE, and brought about the end of the Late Bronze regional systems.7 However, not only does this theory raise some serious historical difficulties,8 archaeological studies conducted in the last decades highlight the continuity in many aspects of the material culture throughout Syria and Canaan.9 This continuity may also be observed in some cultural aspects of the social life, like the use of language or the system of beliefs.10 It is therefore agreed today that ‘the Israelites’, ‘the Aramaeans’ or ‘the Luwians’ were not invaders or migrants, and certainly not foreign, but rather they were the indigenous population of the Levant in changing social conditions.11

4

Bryce 2012:202–204 and cf. Sader 2014:11–13. Niemann 2006. Cf. Finkelstein 2011a. 6 Routledge 2004:27–40, esp. 37–38. 7 E.g., Unger 1957:38–46; Albright 1975:532. 8 Bunnens 2000:15–16. 9 Sader 2014:17–20. For further discussion see: Schwartz 1989; Bunnens 2000; Mazzoni 2000a: 31–35; Bryce 2012:163–165,202–204. For Canaan, see: Finkelstein 1988; 2003. 10 Cf. Zadok 1991. 11 Cf. Sass 2005:63. But note the larger cultural background, e.g., the relationships between the Levant and Egypt, see: Staubli forthcoming. 5

Historical and Thematic Introduction to the Aram-Israel Border Zone

3

The demise of the social structure of the Late Bronze Age generated new (or renewed) forms of socio-political organizations, like ‘tribes’ or ‘clans’ which presupposed a familial relationship between members of the community. Consequently, it is the collapse of the Late Bronze Age hierarchy with its former urban elites that enabled the rise of ruling elites which originated in the newly formed socio-political groups. State formation in the Iron Age Levant should therefore be considered as a social evolution, a process during which the ruling elite – related to the former city-state system and to the regional powers – was replaced by new elite, of different origin, who found its legitimacy in a different social structure. Bunnens puts it well in discussing the Aramaeans, asserting that “the Aramaization of Syria results less from the conquest of the region by Aramaean invaders than from the emergence of new elite, whose legitimacy had its roots in the tribal system…”.12 Going back to the example of Israel, the Omride palace in Samaria, the centralized political centre of the newly formed territorial kingdom, was in a way reviving the former ‘palatial’ system of the Late Bronze Age, probably as it was the traditional political and economic model. Having said that, the Omride palace in Samaria was also lavishly built on what was previously an agricultural estate that had no preceding urban or monumental tradition; it was also located fairly close to (and somewhat above) the region’s traditional ruling centre in Shechem.13 Thus, on the one hand, it reflects some political continuity from the Late Bronze Age; on the other, it reflects the social evolution that occurred in the early Iron Age: the Omride palace manifests the power and wealth of newly emerged political elite that chose to reside in an entirely newly built political centre and not in the former, traditional one. In other words, though it adopts a pre-existing political model (palace economy), the palace in Samaria reflects a newly acquired political authority within a new form of sociopolitical organization.14 This social evolution also bears an important cultural aspect, as creating new political structures must have been involved with the construction of new social identities, defining the bonds between different members of the groups integrated under a new centralized rule. Another expression of this social evolution may be observed in the use of language and script: during the Late Bronze Age communication between local rulers and regional powers was made in the Akkadian language and through the cuneiform script. This communication system fell out of use in the Iron Age and was replaced with the earliest attempts to have the local spoken languages committed to writing through specific scripts. Various local dialects are directly attested since the 10th and 9th centuries BCE. They acquired the status of written official language as a result of state formation.15 From the second half of the 9th century we see in the epigraphic finds the earliest appearance of local dialects like Hebrew, Aramaic, Moabite or Ammonite 12

Bunnens 2000:16. For the Omride palace in Samaria, see: Stager 1990; Franklin 2004; Niemann 2007; 2011. For a different opinion, see: Ussishkin 2007; Finkelstein 2011b. 14 For a detailed discussion of the role of the Omride palatial architecture in Israelite state formation, see: Sergi and Gadot forthcoming. 15 Gzella 2015:20–22. 13

4

Omer Sergi and Izaak J. de Hulster

committed to writing through specific and differentiated script.16 These finds reflect an apparently conscious attempt at shaping official royal language.17 The shaping and the ongoing use of a standardized royal language and script must have contributed to a sense of self-awareness. This awareness, however, was restricted mainly to the ruling and intellectual (literate) elites, and not necessarily shared with the entire communities that came under their political control. In this sense we should also view the use of royal display inscriptions made by the rulers of the Levantine territorial kingdoms from the 9th century BCE and on. The appearance of Levantine royal inscriptions goes hand in hand with the emergence of new centralized polities that had autonomous scribal education and central administration.18 It marks another difference between them and their Late Bronze Age predecessors, as no such inscriptions were found in the Late Bronze Age Levant, when writing seems to have been largely restricted to administrative purposes. The appearance of royal inscriptions, a tradition probably adopted from Assyrian royal propaganda,19 was therefore a rather new media chosen by new rising elite as another source of their political legitimation. The content of these inscriptions creates the notion of culturally and politically unified territorial kingdoms, under the rule of a local dynasty.20 It demonstrates the further employment of writing and script in the service of state formation, and in a much broader sense – in the construction of new political identities and cultural memories, at least among the ruling elites.21 In light of all the above, what, then, are we talking about when we talk about ‘Aram’ and ‘Israel’? Apparently when we talk of ‘Aram’ we have in mind the entire region from north Canaan and up to the Jazira and the upper Euphrates. Yet this region was a composite of territorial polities that used different dialects and script traditions, the populace did not share the same ‘religion’, and there is no specific material culture that could be assigned to them.22 In this regard, perhaps we should ask to what extent it was the adoption of the Aramaic language and script by the Assyrian administration, and the consequent rise of Aramaic to the status of the Levantine lingua franca that facilitates our modern conceptions of ‘Aram’ and ‘Aramaeans’? A very brief review of the use of this term in ancient sources will clarify the problem. The ‘Aramaeans’ first appear on the historical stage in the inscriptions of Tiglathpileser I and his heir Ashur-bel-kala (in the late 12th and 11th centuries BCE), where they seem to be a component of a quite complex composite of a group of so-called ‘Aতlamu’; according to these inscriptions, they occupied a vast area and they mani-

16

Finkelstein and Sass 2013; Sass, this volume. Cf. Niehr, this volume. 18 Gzella 2015:60–61. 19 Cf. Naaman 2000; Sass 2005:56. 20 See for instance: Routledge 2004:133–153. 21 This subject is discussed at length in Sergi 2015, with further literature. 22 Niehr 2014; Bonatz 2014; Bunnens, this volume. See also the discussion of archaeological evidence from sites in northern Israel and northern Jordan by Mazar, Panitz-Cohen and Mullins, Thareani, and Hनser in this volume. For further discussion of material culture, see: Maeir, Sass, and de Hulster, in this volume. 17

Historical and Thematic Introduction to the Aram-Israel Border Zone

5

fested themselves in different social and political forms.23 Still, it should be asked to what extent these inscriptions reflect the Assyrian point of view, namely the way in which the Assyrians labelled different groups that might have had different identities and traditions, in order to define their own identity and role within the complex society they encountered.24 Later in the Iron Age, with the appearance of the Levantine royal inscriptions the term ‘Aram’ is employed to designate the Kingdom of Damascus (in the Zakkur inscription) or the Kingdom of Bit-Agussi/Arpad (in the Sefire Stele).25 In biblical historiographic narratives the designation Aram refers in most cases to the Kingdom of Damascus. Only in 2 Samuel 10 is it employed to designate other ‘Aramaean’ polities (Aram-Zoba, Rehob), but such entities were in the vicinity of Damascus and to a certain extent were also under its political hegemony. In this regard, it is interesting that Zakkur, king of Hamath and Luath, who bears a Semitic, if not Aramaic, name and who was taken in the past to be an Aramaean usurper of a Luwian dynasty from Hamath,26 used the term ‘Aram’ in order to identify his enemy, the king of Damascus. To sum up this point, historical sources dated to the Iron Age II – both biblical narrative and royal inscriptions – reflect quite a limited concept of the designation ‘Aram’ that seems to be used in a more geographic or political sense (and less ‘ethnic’) to define specific territory/kingdom ruled by a king. This is already different from the earlier (Assyrian) sources referring to ‘Aram’ in the Iron Age I in a more ethnic sense, defining a group, located all over the northern Levant. The written sources therefore attest to the fluidity of the use of the term ‘Aram’ which was by the Iron Age II employed in the service of state formation in order to construct new political and social identities. Whatever the original meaning of this term was, by the Iron Age II it was lost and reloaded with a new one.27 Coming back to the question of material culture, and to be more specific to the material culture related to the ruling elite, it is clear that ‘Aramaean’ dynasties, especially in north Syria and in the upper Euphrates, adopted local Hittite traditions of monumental art and royal culture in order to manifest their own political power (probably so too did the so called ‘Luwian’ rulers of Hamath).28 In other words, rulers (or ‘new elites’) – regardless of their ‘ethnic’ origin or social identity – employed a pre-existing and prestigious royal tradition in order to manifest their newly acquired political power. Both examples – that of the different use of the term ‘Aram’ and that of the use of Hittite monumental art in the service of Iron Age state formation – attest to the rather transferrable nature of cultural traits as a mean to construct social or political identity. Namely, different manifestation of ‘identity’, or for that matter, political power, could 23

For a detailed discussion see Bunnens, this volume. Cf. Fales 2013; 2015. 25 Bunnens 2015. Another common interpretation of the term ‘upper and lower Aram’ in the Sefire Stele is that it refers to the geographical region of north and south Syria (Sader 2014:15–16), but see the reservations of Bunnens, also in this volume. 26 E.g., Bryce 2012:137. 27 A similar case may be argued for the term ‘Israel’ since its appearance in the Merenptah Stele and till its use as a designation of the northern kingdom in Iron Age II sources. 28 Bryce 2012:60–61,134; Bunnens 2013. 24

6

Omer Sergi and Izaak J. de Hulster

be borrowed and adopted when they acquired a certain degree of prestige, and therefore they were transferable in time and space.29 These examples demonstrate that the appearance of new ‘ethnicities’ or rather identities in the Iron Age Levant,30 was the result of new social and political bonds – usually on the local political level – that in the absence of a dominant elite (as was the case in the Late Bronze Age) employed symbols of social identity from a set of prestigious cultural traits that were available to them whether inherited from the Late Bronze Age or newly constructed in the Iron Age. In many aspects, the construction of these new identities (i.e., Israel, Aram, Moab) may also be seen as an intellectual product of state formation. Namely, as the outcome of the constant need to form politically and socially unified structure under centralized rule, on the one hand, and to legitimize and manifest the power of this centralized rule on the other. All this leads to the conclusion that ‘Aram’ and for that matter the ‘Aramaeans’ (and also the ‘Israelites’) are social and cultural constructs, the result of a social evolution with its far reaching political implications that occurred in the early Iron Age. Such a social construct was mainly the product of a kingdom’s ruling and intellectual elite, and was not necessarily shared by all the communities that came under the rule of this elite. Even if these terms (Aram, Israel) previously had some ‘authentic’ meaning that can be historically traced and located, it is clear that by the Iron Age II they were already symbols employed in the constant process of state building and social construction. The fact is that the terms ‘Aram’ and ‘Israel’ continued to be employed – yet in different meanings – also in much later periods.31

State Formation in the Iron Age Levant and the Place of Aram and Israel within It Adopting a generalized ‘bird’s eye view’ of the social evolution that occurred throughout the Levant in the 12th–8th centuries BCE, we may describe it as a threefold process. The earliest phase (12th–11th centuries BCE) is usually identified with the emergence of the so called ‘Luwian/Neo-Hittite’ kingdoms in northern Syria and southeast Anatolia.32 The fact is that some of the former Hittite political centres (Karkemish and Melid) survived the transition to the Iron Age and maintained their former political power, thus providing the entire region of northern Syria and southeast Anatolia with a political model.33 The first stage of state formation in the Iron Age Levant is, therefore, characterized by the centralization of political power in the hands of local dynas29

Cf. Mazzoni, this volume. For some reservation from the term ‘ethnicity’ see: Sherrat 2005; Wimmer 2007; 2008a ;2008b; 2013. See also de Hulster, this volume. 31 Cf. Gzella 2015 for the cultural history of Aramaic. For the evolution of the term ‘Israel’, see the recent study of Weingart 2014. 32 Mazzoni 2000a:35–37; Bryce 2012:195–204. 33 Mazzoni 2000a:37–41; Bryce 2012:195–196. 30

Historical and Thematic Introduction to the Aram-Israel Border Zone

7

ties from north Syria and southeast Anatolia that adopted Hittite traditions to manifest their newly acquired political power.34 This is regardless of whether some of them belonged to ‘Luwian speaking’ dynasties or not. There should be little doubt that some of these dynasties originated in the former Hittite ruling class. However, and generally speaking, the ‘Luwian’ nature of these kingdoms, which was expressed mainly in royal inscriptions and royal art, has nothing to do with the ‘ethnicity’ of the ruling dynasties and even less to do with that of the local inhabitants. The second phase (10th– early 9th centuries BCE) is characterized by a similar social evolution that occurred in the regions of central and south Syria. The formation of the kingdoms in north Syria together with the Assyrian pressure from the east, in a period that saw the gradual growth of international trade (11th century BCE) were probably the main generator of this second phase: rural society, that settled throughout the 12th– 11th centuries BCE in the Syrian hinterland and the central Canaanite hill country, 35 clustered around local elite families, who translated their agricultural surplus to political hegemony. As the political and economic status of this sector grew in strength, it engaged in a relentless effort to expand both strategically and economically, extending its political power by integrating different territories and communities under centralized rule. Archaeologically, this process is marked in the rapid urbanization of Syria and Israel in the 10th–9th centuries BCE.36 The dynasties rising to power throughout Syria in the 9th century BCE are usually identified as ‘Aramaean’ based on their Semitic names, and thus the second phase of state formation may be attributed to the emergence of the so called ‘Aramaean kingdoms’. As we have seen above, there is nothing particularly ‘Aramaic’ about those kingdoms, which used different dialects, script traditions and material objects. However, unlike their northern neighbours, the dynasties rising to power in central and south Syria did not make use of Hittite royal art in order to manifest their newly acquired power, but elaborated on the local Syrian traditions (e.g., the palace in Samaria) while constructing some new ones (like the adoption of royal display inscriptions). The third and last phase of state formation in the Levant occurred during the 9th and early 8th centuries BCE when centralization of political power became realized in the more arid regions of southern Canaan. From the second half of the 9th century BCE these regions saw the emergence of territorial kingdoms on the desert fringe: Judah in southern Canaan and Ammon, Moab and Edom in Transjordan.37 This, indeed, rather generalized description of Levantine state formation places the formation of Israel together with that of the so-called ‘Aramaean kingdoms’ to its north and northeast, and probably contemporaneously with the formation of AramDamascus. Israel and Aram share much in common in respect to their formation – not only in regard to their chronology, but also in their means of social evolution. The fact that Israel and Aram-Damascus emerged as territorial polities contemporaneously 34

Mazzoni 2000a:35–41. Mazzoni 2000b:121–124; Sader 2014:17–20, and cf. Finkelstein 1988. 36 Mazzoni 2000a:41–47; 2000b:125–130; Sader 2014:21–27. For Canaan and Israel, see: Finkelstein 2011a. 37 For Judah, see: Sergi 2013. For Transjordan see, for instance: Routledge 2004. 35

8

Omer Sergi and Izaak J. de Hulster

(10th–9th centuries BCE) explains the nature of the conflict between them, but it also clarifies the nature of their social and cultural interaction. It also sheds light on the construction of these new identities.38 In this respect, much significance should also be given to the fact that from the early 9th century the ruling elite in Samaria claimed and re-claimed its political hegemony over the basin of the Sea of Galilee and the northern Jordan valley. During the Bronze Age, these regions maintained close cultural connections with the northern Levant (e.g., Hazor); during the Iron Age II these regions were the hub for urban centres whose rulers had to shift their loyalties between the kings of Damascus and those of Samaria.39 All this demonstrates that there is a good reason to locate the Kingdom of Israel within the so called ‘Aramaean’ world, and thus to redefine the nature of interaction between Israel and Aram-Damascus. This, however, leads us to the question of the borders between them.

Border Zones? If we look at a map of the period, we might get the impression of the Iron Age (political) world was an ordered whole. However, the rather modern concept – that political hegemony is equally distributed within a given territory marked by borders – could hardly be applied to the Iron Age Levant. Rather, the Iron Age Levant is characterized by more of a patchy, variegated political authority, which constituted a form of territoriality in which authority was not evenly distributed across the landscape, nor contained within a fixed border.40 Furthermore, continuity of land and settlement was not a necessary requirement for political control, as is demonstrated, for instance, by the fact that the Kingdom of Israel controlled in the early 8th century BCE the remote desert site of Kuntillet Ajrud.41 This nature of territorial-political authority was in many aspects the result of state formation as a process of extending political power. Namely, borders were the result of political acts, not necessarily of social or cultural ones. This act culminated in different groups, having different social structures and cultural practices that were brought together under the same centralized rule. Such a reality is reflected, for instance, by the Mesha Inscriptions,42 and by the archaeological evidence from the Judahite Negev.43 Moreover, under these circumstances the formation of political borders was the result of loyalty bonds and client relationships between local leaders (of a tribe, community, and town) and the new political powers, which further implies the borders’ fluidity. This fluidity may be demonstrated again by the Mesha Inscription, which describes the ‘men of Gad’ as the indigenous residents of the Madaba plain, now brought under the newly formed Moabite polity; while in biblical literature the 38

On this issue see the articles by Sergi, Wazana, and Berlejung in this volume. Sergi and Kleiman forthcoming. 40 For discussion see: Osborne 2013. 41 For details see: Finkelstein 2013: 135–138; Ornan 2016. 42 Routledge 2004: 133–153. 43 Thareani 2014. 39

Historical and Thematic Introduction to the Aram-Israel Border Zone

9

Gadites were considered to be an Israelite tribe, definitely not Moabite. In other words, the fluidity of borders also bears on the construction of communal identity. 44 In light of that, it is also clear that the very existence of a political border does not negate the constant interaction (on the economic and thus also social and cultural levels) between groups affiliated with the political hegemony of different rulers. 45 In other words, not only were borders fluid, in the sense that they were a reflection of struggle for political power, but they were also transparent, in the sense that they were not fixed barriers, separating different groups from one another by preventing social and cultural interaction. Borders, even when they exist on the political level, can hardly mark any clear cultural or social differentiation between groups living side by side. This brings us to the question of border zones. The very nature of border zones comprises numerous approaches and angles, and it is not our intention here to review the vast literature on the subject.46 As the subject at hand focuses on political, social and cultural interaction between Aram and Israel, it is sufficient to briefly review the status of the basin of the Sea of Galilee and the northern Jordan Valley as a border zone. These regions were the hub of local urban centres (Hazor in the Late Bronze Age, Kinrot and Abel-beth-maacah in the Iron I, et-Tell in the Iron II) that exhibited strong contacts to the northern Levant (especially Late Bronze Age Hazor, Iron I Kinrot and Iron II et-Tell).47 On the political level, they were probably more autonomous polities in the Iron I while in the Iron II their rulers had to shift their loyalties between Aram-Damascus and Israel.48 The groups residing in these regions were by no means culturally or socially unified. They were brought together under centralized political rule, which in many cases was remote, not stable, and hardly affected the daily life of most of the individuals. In this regard, it should be asked – to what extent can we talk about such regions as ‘border zones’? The local inhabitants and the local ruling elites in the basin of the Sea of Galilee may have been more related – economically and thus also socially and culturally – to Aram-Damascus, even when they were politically affiliated with Israel. In that case, they were only considered as a ‘border zone’ from a Samarian (Israelite) point of view, and probably less so when examined in their own 44 ‘Communal’ identity is also expressed with the words ‘social’ or ‘collective’ identity; cf. Feldman 2014:2. 45 Such for instance are the economic ties between Jerusalem and Gath in the first half of the 9th century BCE, recently confirmed by the archaeological evidence (Uziel, Szanton and CohenWeinberg 2015; Maeir, personal communication), in spite of the fact that the Philistines (and those from Gath particularly) were remembered as the arch-enemy of Ancient Israel. 46 Usually applied to contemporary issues, e.g., in the Journal of Borderland Studies (e.g., Konrad 2015; and with various perspectives: Custred 2011 linguistics; Zhurzhenko 2011 memory; Meier 2015 identity) as well as the handbooks D. Wastl-Walter 2011 (esp. Paasi 2011 and Newman 2011, cf. 2003; Van Houtum 2011) and Wilson and Donnan 2012 (with references). For an archaeological perspective, e.g., Mullin 2013 (cf. also Lightfood and Martinez 1995; Kletter 1999; Parker 2006; Bunimovitz and Lederman 2009: esp. 119). 47 For Late Bronze Hazor, see: Ben-Tor and Zuckerman 2008; Zarzecky-Peleg and Bonfil 2011. For Iron I Kinrot, see: Münger 2013. For Iron I Abel-beth-maacah, see Panitz-Cohen and Mullins, this volume. For Iron II et-Tell, see: Arav 2004. 48 Sergi and Kleiman forthcoming.

10

Omer Sergi and Izaak J. de Hulster

view. Furthermore, if the inhabitants of such zones were already organized in some pre-existing social structure (like the tribe or the city), and if it was only their ruling elite switching loyalties between the regional political powers, then their self-identity and image were probably more focused on the local level. Namely, their own community was conceived as the basic unit of the social structure and the main source of identity. Hence, in spite of the fact that the basin of the Sea of Galilee and the northern Jordan Valley switched hands between Aram and Israel, or even because of that, these regions should be first and foremost examined as their own social and cultural units and only subsequently should their political affiliation and its implications be considered. To conclude, borders in the Iron Age Levant were not a line drawn in the sand that created a clear geographical distinction between diverse political, cultural, ethnic or even administrative entities. Moreover, borders were not a physical barrier preventing the social and cultural interaction between groups inhabiting different polities. Therefore, it seems to be more useful to talk about political affiliation vis-à-vis the social and cultural structure on the local level. Borders, in this respect, are useful as a means to conceptualize the extent of political authority, and even then the nature of political authority in the Iron Age territorial kingdoms should be considered, namely: that it was not equally distributed within a continuous territoriality.

Conclusions Examined from the political point of view, state formation in the Iron Age Levant was effected by the local elite, which extended its political power beyond its core community and integrated other groups within a centralized political structure. From the social point of view, it was a process of replacing an old elite with a new one: the former Levantine elite, whose legitimacy was rooted in the city state system and the dominating regional powers, was replaced by new elites, most of which originated in a rural background, and found their legitimacy in new forms of social structures (like the tribe or the clan). The constant effort of these new elites to extend their political authority, which resulted in the emergence of Levantine territorial kingdoms, culminated in the construction of new social and cultural identities, by forming the notion that different communities coming under centralized rule were not only politically but also culturally unified. Hence, the Israelites and the Aramaeans (and for that matter also the Moabites, Judahites, etc.) were not pre-existing cultural and historical monolithic groups, but rather – they were more of a social construct, constantly in the making, the result of political formation. This does not mean that the attempt to trace the origin of these social-constructs is futile, but only highlights the fact that as a group they were fluid. Collective identity given to large scale political and social communities was conceived mainly by the ruling and intellectual elites of the territorial kingdoms. Thus, instead of looking for ‘Aramaeans’ or ‘Israelites’ in the historical and archaeological research of the Levant, it is constructive to focus on the local level, i.e., the local

Historical and Thematic Introduction to the Aram-Israel Border Zone

11

community and its interaction with other neighbouring communities vis-à-vis the centralized political powers.

Bibliography ALBRIGHT, W. F., 1975. Syria, the Philistines and Phoenicia, in: The Amarna letters from Palestine (Cambridge Ancient History II/2), W. F. Albright, Cambridge, 507–534 ARAV, R., 2004., Toward a Comprehensive History of Geshur, in: Bethsaida: A City by the North Shore of the Sea of Galilee, Volume Three, ed. R. Arav and R. A. Freund, Kriksville, 1–48 BEN TOR, A. and S. ZUCKERMAN, 2008. Hazor at the End of the Late Bronze Age: Back to Basics, BASOR 350: 1–6 BONATZ, D., 2014. Art, in: The Aramaeans in Ancient Syria (HdO 1/106), ed. H. Niehr, Leiden, 205– 253 BUNIMOVITZ, S. and Z. LEDERMAN, 2009. The Archaeology of Border Communities – Renewed Excavations at Tel Beth-Shemesh, Part 1: The Iron Age, NEA 72: 114–142 BRYCE, T. R., 2012. The World of the Neo-Hittite Kingdoms: A Political and Military History, Oxford BUNNENS, G., 2000. Syria in the Iron Age Problems and Definitions, in: Essays on Syria in the Iron Age (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 7), ed. G. Bunnens, Louvain, 3–19 –: 2013. Looking for Luwians, Aramaeans and Assyrians in the Tel Ahmar Stratigraphy, in: Syrian Archaeology in Perspective – Celebrating 20 Years to the Excavations in Tell Afis, ed. S. Mazzoni and S. Sebastino, Pisa, 177–197 –: 2015. On Upper and Lower Aram Again, UF 46: 39–48 CUSTRED, G., 2011. The Linguistic Consequences of Boundaries, Borderlands, and Frontiers, Journal of Borderland Studies 26/3: 265–278 FALES, F. M., 2013. Ethnicity in the Assyrian Empire – A View from the Nisbe (I): Foreigners and Special Inner Communities, in: Literature as Politics, Politics as Literature: Essays on the Ancient Near East in the Honor of Peter Machinist, ed. D. S. Vanderhooft and A. Winitzer, Winona Lake, 47–73 –: 2015. Ethnicity in the Assyrian Empire – A View from the Nisbe (II): Assyrians, Isimu: Revista sobre Oriente Próximo y Egipto en la antigüedad 11–12: 183–204 [FS Mario Liverani] FELDMAN, M., 2014. Communities of Style: Portable Luxury Arts, Identity and Collective Memory in the Iron Age Levant, Chicago FINKELSTEIN, I., 1988. The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement, Jerusalem. –: 2003. From City States to States: Polity Dynamics in the 10th–9th Centuries BCE, in: Symbiosis, Symbolism and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel and their Neighbours from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina, ed. W. G. Dever and S. Gitin, Winona Lake, 75–83 –: 2011a. Stages in the Territorial Expansion of the Northern Kingdom, VT 61: 227–242 –: 2011b. Observations on the Layout of Iron Age Samaria, TA 38: 194–207 –: 2013. The Forgotten Kingdom: The Archaeology and History of Northern Israel (Ancient Near East Monographs 5), Atlanta FINKELSTEIN, I. and B. SASS, 2013. The West Semitic Alphabetic Inscriptions, Late Bronze II to Iron IIA: Archeological Context, Distribution and Chronology, HeBAI 2: 149–220 FRANKLIN, N., 2004. Samaria: from the Bedrock to the Omride Palace, Levant 36: 189–202 GHANTOUS, H., 2014. The Elisha-Hazael Paradigm and the Kingdom of Israel: The Politics of God in Ancient Syria-Palestine (BibleWorld), Durham GZELLA, H., 2015. A Cultural History of Aramaic from the Beginnings to the Advent of Islam (HdO 111), Leiden

12

Omer Sergi and Izaak J. de Hulster

HAFÞÓRSSON, S., 2006. A Passing Power: An Examination of the Sources for the History of AramDamascus in the Second Half of the Ninth Century B.C. (CBOT 54), Stockholm HASEGAWA, S., 2012. Aram and Israel during the Jehuite Dynasty (BZAW 434), Berlin HOUTUM, H. VAN, 2011. The Mask of the Border, in: The Ashgate Research Companion to Border Studies, ed. D. Wastl-Walter, Farnham, 54–62 KLETTER, R., 1999. Pots and Polities: Material Remains of Late Iron Age Judah in Relation to Its Political Borders, BASOR 314: 19–54 KONRAD, V., 2015. Toward a Theory of Borders in Motion, Journal of Borderland Studies 30/1: 1–17 LIGHTFOOD, K. G. and A. MARTINEZ. 1995. Frontiers and Boundaries in Archaeological Perspective, Annual Review of Anthropology 24: 471–492 LIVERANI, M. 1987. The Collapse of the Near Eastern Regional System at the End of the Bronze Age: the Case of Syria, in: Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World, ed. M. Rowland et. al., Cambridge, 66–73 MAZZONI, S., 2000a. Syria and the Periodization of the Iron Age: A Cross-Cultural Perspective, in: Essays on Syria in the Iron Age (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 7), ed. G. Bunnens, Louvain, 31–59 –: 2000b. Syria and the Chronology of the Iron Age, Isimu: Revista sobre Oriente Próximo y Egipto en la antigüedad 3, 121–137 MEIER, D., 2015. (B)ordering South of Lebanon: Hizbullah’s Identity Building Strategy, Journal of Borderland Studies 30/1: 97–109 MULLIN, D., 2013. Border Crossings: The Archaeology of Borders and Borderlands: An Introduction, in: Places in Between: The Archaeology of Social, Cultural and Geographical Borders and Borderlands, ed. D. Mullin, Havertown, 1–12 MÜNGER, S., 2013. Early Iron Age Kinneret – Early Aramaean or Just Late Canaanite? Remarks on the Material Culture of a Border Site in Northern Palestine at the Turn of an Era, in: Aramean, Chaldeans and Arabs in Babylonia and Palestine in the First Millennium B.C. (LAS 3), ed. A. Berlejung and M. P. Streck, Wiesbaden, 149–182 NA‫ތ‬AMAN, N., 2000. Three Notes on the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan, IEJ 50, 92–104 NEWMAN, D., 2003. On Borders and Power: A Theoretical Framework, Journal of Borderland Studies 18/1:13–24. –: 2011. Contemporary Research Agendas in Border Studies: An Overview, in: The Ashgate Research Companion to Border Studies, ed. D. Wastl-Walter, Farnham, 43–53 NIEHR, H., 2014. Religion, in: The Aramaeans in Ancient Syria (HdO 1/106), ed. H. Niehr, Leiden, 127–204 NIEMANN, H. M., 2006. Core Israel in the Highlands and Its Periphery: Megiddo, the Jezreel Valley and the Galilee in the 11th–8th century BCE, in: Megiddo IV: The 1998–2002 Seasons (Monograph series / Tel Aviv University, Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology 24), ed. I Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin and B. Halpern, Tel Aviv, 821–842 –: 2007. Royal Samaria – Capital or Residence? Or: The Foundation of the City of Samaria by Sargon II, in: Ahab Agonistes: The Rise and Fall of the Omri Dynasty (Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament 421), ed. L. L. Grabbe, London, 184–207 –: Observations on the Layout of Iron Age Samaria, UF 43: 324–334 OSBORNE, J. F., 2013. Sovereignty and Territoriality in the City State: A Case Study from the Amuq Valley, Turkey, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32: 774–790. ORNAN, T., 2016. Sketches and Final Works of Art: The Drawings and Wall Paintings of Kuntillet ‘Ajrud Revisited, TA 43: 3–26 PAASI, A., 2011. A Border Theory: An Unattainable Dream or a Realistic Aim for Border Scholars?, in: The Ashgate Research Companion to Border Studies, ed. D. Wastl-Walter, Farnham, 28–42 PARKER, B. J., 2006. Toward an Understanding of Borderland Processes, American Antiquity 71: 77– 100

Historical and Thematic Introduction to the Aram-Israel Border Zone

13

PARKER, B. J. and L. RODSETH (eds), 2005. Untaming the Fontier in Anthropology, Archaeology, and History, Tucson REINHOLD, G. G. G., 2016. The Rise and Fall of the Aramaeans in the Ancient Near East, from Their First Appearance until 732 BCE: New Studies on Aram and Israel, Frankfurt ROBKER, J. M., 2012. The Jehu Revolution: A Royal Tradition of the Northern Kingdom and Its Ramifications (BZAW 435), Berlin ROUTLEDGE, B., 2004. Moab in the Iron Age: Hegemony, Polity, Archaeology (Archaeology, Culture, and Society), Philadelphia SADER, H., 2014. History, in: The Aramaeans in Ancient Syria (HdO 1/106), ed. H. Niehr, Leiden, 11–36 SASS, B., 2005. The Alphabet at the Turn of the Millennium: The West Semitic Alphabet CA. 1150– 850 B.C.E., the Antiquity of the Arabian, Greek and Phrygian Alphabets (Occasional Publications of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 4), Tel Aviv SCHWARTZ, G. M., 1989. The Origins of the Aramaeans in Syria and Northern Mesopotamia: Research Problems and Potential Strategies, in: To The Euphrates and Beyond: Archaeological Studies in Honor of Maurits N. van Loon, ed. O. M. C. Haex, H. H. Curvers and P. M. M. G. Akkermans, Rotterdam, 275–291 SERGI, O., 2013. Judah’s Expansion in Historical Context, TA 40: 226–246 –: 2015. State Formation, Religion and ‘Collective Identity’ in the Southern Levant, HeBAI 4: 56–77 SERGI, O. and Y. GADOT, forthcoming. The Omride Palatial Architecture as Symbol in Action: between State Formation, Obliteration and Heritage, JNES SERGI, O. and A. KLEIMAN, forthcoming. The Kingdom of Geshur and the Expansion of AramDamascus into the Northern Jordan Valley: Archaeological and Historical Perspective, BASOR SHERRAT, S., 2005. Ethnicities, Ethnonyms and archaeological labels. Whose ideologies and whose identities?, in: Archaeological Perspectives on the Transmission and Transformation of Culture in the Eastern Mediterranean (Levant Supplement Series 2), ed. J. Clarke, Oxford, 25–38 STAGER, L. E., 1990. Shemer’s Estate, BASOR 277–278: 93–107 STAUBLI, T., forthcoming. Cultural and Religious Impacts of Long-Term Cross-Cultural Migration Between Egypt and the Levant, Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections THAREANI, Y., 2014. The Self Destruction of Diversity: A Tale of the Last Days of Judah’s Negev Towns, Antiguo Oriente12: 185–223 UNGER, M. F., 1957. Israel and the Aramaeans of Damascus: A Study in Archaeological Illumination of Bible History, Grand Rapids UZIEL, J., N. SZANTON and A. COHEN-WEINBERG, 2015. Cultural Influences and Interconnections between Judah and Philistia in the Iron Age II: The Case of Jerusalemite Late Philistine Decorated Ware, New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and its Environs 9: 74–87 WASTL-WALTER, D. (ed.), 2011. The Ashgate Research Companion to Border Studies, Farnham WAZANA, N., 2013. All the Boundaries of the Land: The Promised Land in Biblical Thought in the Light of the Ancient Near East, Winona Lake WEINGART, K., 2014. Stनmmevolk – Staatsvolk – Gottesvolk? Studien zur Verwendung des IsraelNamens im Alten Testament (FAT II 68), Tübingen WILSON, T. M. and H. DONNAN (eds) 2012. A Companion to Border Studies (Blackwell Companions to Anthropology 26), Hoboken WIMMER, A., 2007. How (not) to Think about Ethnicity in Immigrant Societies: A Boundary Making Perspective (ESRC Centre on Migration, Policy and Society, Working Paper 44), Oxford –: 2008a. Ethnische Grenzziehung in der Immigrationsgesellschaft. Jenseits des Herder’schen Commonsense, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 48: 57–80 –: 2008b. The Making and Unmaking of Ethnic Boundaries: A Multilevel Process Theory, American Journal of Sociology 113: 970–1022 –: 2013. Ethnic Boundary Making: Institutions, Power, Networks (Oxford Studies in Culture and Politics), Oxford

14

Omer Sergi and Izaak J. de Hulster

ZADOK, R., 1991. Elements of Pre-Aramaean History, in: Ah Assyria… Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near eastern Historiography Presented to Haim Tadmor (Scripta Hierosolymitana 33), ed. M. Cogan and I. Eph‫ޏ‬al, Jerusalem, 104–117 ZARZECKI-PELEG, A. and R. BONFIL 2011. Hazor: A Syrian City State in Mittani’s Orbit?, UF 43: 537–567 ZHURZHENKO, T., 2011. Borders and Memory, in: The Ashgate Research Companion to Border Studies, ed. D. Wastl-Walter, Farnham, 63–84

Part I: Aram and Israel: Political Relations, Political Borders

Israel and Aram Reflections on their Border Israel Finkelstein, Tel Aviv University Introduction In this article I wish to discuss the geographical-history aspect of the Israel-Aram relationship – the location of their political border. I am well-aware of assertions in post-modern circles that scholars’ understanding of the meaning of borders in antiquity is influenced by modern perceptions of boundaries between nations, and that borders should be seen as ‘differentiators of socially constructed mindscapes and meaning’.1 Regardless of this theoretical scholarly discussion, in antiquity towns and villages paid taxes to kings and temple, and this means that borders can be delineated. Moreover, ancient textual materials, including Near Eastern ones, testify to hostilities that were caused by one side taken territory from another. For the discussion here, this includes complaint by Hazael of Damascus in the opening lines of the Tel Dan Stele that the king of Israel entered into his land. But how to delineate a political border in biblical times, especially in the case of one which seems to have shifted more than once in the two centuries of existence of the Northern Kingdom? The population in the border zones between Israel and Damascus was probably ethnically-mixed, that is, made of different clans which could have been dispersed in more than one place and hence paid taxes to different kings. If this were the case, most items of material culture would not help in identifying political borders, in fact not even ethnic ones. Burial and cult customs could have helped, but in the case discussed here information regarding these characteristics is limited if at all existing. Foodways may have helped, but the data on faunal assemblages in the border areas is limited – especially in the territory of Damascus. Inscriptions can help, but they come in small numbers and mainly in the later phases of the history of the two kingdoms; there is no evidence for the heartland territory of Damascus and there are no inscriptions in the heartland of Israel until ca. 800 BCE,2 not to mention the difficulty in distinguishing between Aramaic and Hebrew scripts in the very short inscriptions that make the majority of the corpus available for research. Moreover, in the 8th century BCE, Hebrew and Aramaic inscriptions are found in the same sites (below), either testifying, indeed, to the mixed nature of the population, or indicating different political and cultural influences on the inhabitants of these places. 1 2

Van Houtum 2005, describing the state of research ten years ago. Finkelstein and Sass 2013.

18

Israel Finkelstein

Hence reconstructing the Israel-Aram border in the early phases of the Iron Age is a matter of assembling and interpreting fragmentary information: 1) archaeological data, such as architectural features, settlement patterns, destruction layers and occupational gaps at key sites, and 2) textual information from biblical and extra-biblical sources. Needless to say, using textual materials puts one at risk of falling into the trap of ancient political propaganda, anachronistic claims and ideological writing. Yet, ignoring textual material means abandoning the project of delineating the Israel-Aram border all together; hence these materials must be used, needless to say, with extra care. In what follows I wish to discuss the Israel-Aram border in four historical phases: The formative period, before the rule of the Omride Dynasty in Israel (late 10th and early 9th century BCE); the reign of the Omrides (ca. 880–840 BCE); the period of Damascene hegemony under Hazael (ca. 840–800 BCE); and the recovery of Israel in the days of the later Nimshides (ca. 800–750 BCE).

The Formative Period: Before the Omrides From the biblical text’s perspective, there are two ostensible indications for the territorial extent of the Northern Kingdom west of the Jordan River before the Omrides: 1) the reference to the Jeroboam I cult at Dan (1 Kgs 12:29), and 2) the statement that in the days of King Baasha, Ben-Hadad king of Damascus “conquered Ijon, Dan, Abel-Beth-Maacah, and all Chinneroth, with all the land of Naphtali” (1 Kgs 15:20).3 Scholars did not doubt the tradition on the Jeroboam I cult at Dan (even the more critical ones4). Yet, Eran Arie5 has now convincingly argued from the pottery evidence that Dan had been destroyed at the end of the late Iron I; that it was deserted during much of the Iron IIA, certainly in the early Iron IIA – the time of Jeroboam I;6 and that it was rebuilt in the second half of the 9th century BCE, probably by Hazael. This means that the tradition about the erection of the bamah at Dan is a retrospective from a reality of the first half of the 8th century BCE. Berlejung has reached a similar conclusion from the biblical exegesis perspective: “1 Kings 12:26–33* is a polemic dtr fiction that has no reliable historical information about the time of Jeroboam I, but reflects historical facts [...] of the time of Jeroboam II.”7 This fits the analysis of the text of 1 Kings 12, which may conserve in verse 25 an old chronistic source, according to which Jeroboam I constructed Shechem and Penuel, whereas the story about the

3

Two stories allegedly describing events in the 10th century BCE before the rise of the Northern Kingdom – Sheba the son of Bichri at Abel-Beth-Maacah (2 Sam 20) and the Joab census (2 Sam 24:5–7) were probably written on a later, 8th century background (see below). 4 E.g., Ahlström 1993:551; Miller and Hayes 2006:275; Na’aman 2006:352. 5 Arie 2008. 6 For the chronology of the ceramic phases of the Iron Age see Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2010. 7 Berlejung 2009:1.

Aram and Israel: Reflections on their Borders

19

golden calves in Bethel and Dan is attributed to one or more dtr redactors,8 who perhaps wanted to put the construction of Bethel and Dan in the very beginning as the ‘original sin’ of the Northern Kingdom. Scholars took the report on the Ben-Hadad campaign in 1 Kings 15:20 as a description of a historical event that took place ca. 885 BCE.9 Yadin proposed that the destruction of Hazor IX was inflicted by this Ben-Hadad.10 Yet, 14C results put the destruction of this stratum significantly later, in the late 9th century BCE11 and leave no destruction layer at Hazor for such a campaign. In fact, from the 14C perspective one should note that: A) The only destruction layer in the north which may fit a campaign in the early 9th century is that of Rehov V – a site not mentioned in 1 Kings 15:20 and located outside of the theatre of operations described there. B) Most of the main sites in the upper Jordan Valley were not inhabited, or were not important, in the early Iron IIA – the time of Asa in Judah; this is true for Hazor12 (Stratum X was built, after a gap, in the late Iron IIA), Dan13 and Kinneret14 (the large city was destroyed in the late Iron I). Indeed, the description of Ben-Hadad’s campaign may have been adopted by the author of Kings from the account of the campaign of Tiglath-pileser III against the Northern Kingdom in 732 BCE (2 Kings 15:29). The two texts – though not identical in the list of places mentioned – are written in the same genre and describe the same campaign path. Moreover, the only king carrying the name Hadad known from extrabiblical records is Ben-Hadad son of Hazael who ruled in Damascus in ca. 800 BCE. Under these interpretations, I would propose that in the early days of the Northern Kingdom, before the rise of the Omride Dynasty, its lowlands territories west of the Jordan River were restricted to the Jezreel Valley.15 This notion seems to be supported by the list of cities taken-over in the course of Sheshonq I campaign in the second half of the 10th century BCE. In the hill country, the list mentions a group of sites in the highlands north of Jerusalem and another group in the area of the Jabbok River. In the north, the campaign reached the Jezreel Valley; the list refers to Megiddo, Taanach, Rehob, Beth-shean and Shunem. Excavations at Megiddo yielded a fragment of a stele of Sheshonq I, unfortunately not found in situ. Yet, Sheshonq I could not have been responsible for the destructions in the Jezreel Valley in the late Iron I because: a) at least some of these destructions are radiocarbon dated before the highest possible date for his reign; b) the radiocarbon evidence indicates a gradual demise of these cities, not a single event;16 c) there was no reason for a Pharaoh who was probably interested 8

E.g., Würthwein 1977:150–166. E.g., Dion 1997:182–183; LipiĔski 2000:372. 10 Yadin 1972:143; also Ben-Tor 2000:12. 11 Sharon et al. 2007; Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2009. 12 Finkelstein 1999. 13 Arie 2008. 14 Münger, Zangenberg and Pakkala 2011. 15 Liverani (2005:105) reconstructs even a smaller area, in the territory of the House of Joseph and the Gilead. 16 Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2009. 9

20

Israel Finkelstein

in re-establishing Egyptian rule in the area to devastate the fertile valley – the bread basket of the entire country;17 d) it is unreasonable to argue that Sheshonq I established a stele in a deserted Megiddo. Combining these arguments with the radiocarbon evidence for the late Iron I/early Iron IIA transition,18 it is now clear that the Egyptian pharaoh conducted his campaign in the Jezreel Valley in the early Iron IIA. The circumstances of the destruction of the late Iron I system (above) and the material culture evidence (drastic change from the late Iron I to the early Iron IIA and continuity later) both indicate that in the early Iron IIA the valley had already been dominated by the north Israelites. It seems, then, that the emerging Israelite towns of the Jezreel Valley were a major target of the campaign. Therefore, the fact that Sheshonq I did not continue further to the north is telling. This supports the notion that at his time the lowlands territory ruled by the highlands’ Israelites was limited to the Jezreel Valley. Archaeology has not revealed a dominating early Iron IIA site further north, especially in the upper Jordan Valley; unless such a site is revealed (e.g., Bethsaida Stratum VI)19 in the late 10th century the latter area could have been dominated by Damascus. Turning to the Gilead, once the identifications of the towns there are fixed,20 it is possible to delineate the core Israelite territory in northern Transjordan. I refer to the area actually settled by groups that considered themselves, and were deemed by their neighbours, as Israelite. In the area of the Jabbok and north of it the Israelite towns of Mahanaim, Penuel, Jabesh, Tishbe and Kamon are all located in the western slopes of the hill-country of the Gilead, at a distance of several kilometres from the Jordan Valley. None is situated further east, along the King’s Highway. The Jacob narrative is essential for understanding the territorial situation in the Gilead. This tradition includes two layers from the Iron Age, one written, from the first half of the 8th century BCE, and an older – an oral one – which can be considered as the earliest Jacob tradition.21 The latter probably comes from early phases of the Iron Age, when delineating a (settlement) border between Israelites and Aramaeans may have been an important issue. Genesis 31:45–54 puts the border between Jacob and Laban in the pasture areas of the north-eastern sector of the Israelite Gilead; the Land of benei Kedem (Gen 29:1) is to be found there. The account on the heap of stones (galed = cairn) built by Jacob (Gen 31:48), is probably an etiological story, aimed to explain a geographical feature in the Gilead, which was in one way or the other connected to the reality of the border between Israelite and Aramaean populations that lived in proximity in northern Transjordan. Locating the arena of this narrative is therefore important for delineating the settlement boundary in the Gilead.

17

Ussishkin 1990. Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2010. 19 See description in Arav 2013. 20 Finkelstein, Koch and Lipschits 2012. 21 Details in Finkelstein and Römer 2014 with references to previous research. 18

Aram and Israel: Reflections on their Borders

21

Figure 1: The northern and eastern border of the Northern Kingdom before the Omrides; the thick black line marks the settlement boundary between Israelites and Aramaeans in the Gilead. Copyright: Tel Aviv University.

A place named Mizpah (Gen 31:49), apparently located near the galed, plays an important role in the story. It should probably be identified in or near Tell el-Masfa (and the village of Suf) overlooking the upper valley of the Jabbok River, several km north-west of Jerash.22 The small site, which may preserve the ancient name, is situated in a commanding spot – it is one of the highest mounds in the Levant (ca. 1100 m above sea level). This fits the name (a place overlooking its surroundings), as well as the idea of a spot which can be seen from afar and hence serves as a territorial marker. This Mizpah seems to be the easternmost Israelite place in the Gilead, bordering on the territory of Aramaean Lidbir, probably to be identified with el-Husn south of Irbid. The other important identifiable site mentioned in the Jacob Cycle is Penuel, located in the lower ravine of the Jabbok. Indeed, the tradition regarding the 22

Lemaire 1981:44.

22

Israel Finkelstein

foundation of the temple there possibly also belongs to the older layer in the Jacob tradition, and related to the chronistic reference to the construction of Penuel by Jeroboam I in 1 Kings 12:25. All this seems to show that the earliest Jacob traditions were local to the Israelite territory in the Gilead, possibly, to the early core of the area named Gilead – in the Jabbok and south of it.23 The stories related to this ‘patriarch’ and his territory were probably first memorized and venerated at a sanctuary of El at Penuel. The realities depicted in this earliest layer in the Jacob tradition should be dated before the Iron IIB, when the Jacob tradition ‘migrated’ to Bethel,24 possibly when the settlement (and political?) border between Israelites and Aramaeans in this region was formed. This seems to best fit the late Iron I or early Iron IIA, that is, in the late 11th to early 9th century BCE time-slot. Perhaps the best stage-setting is in the formative days of the territorial kingdoms of Israel and Damascus, in the second half of the 10th century BCE. Note that the clash over Ramoth-gilead in the later days of the Omrides seems indeed to show that the border in the Gilead had been stabilized before the 9th century BCE. To summarize, in pre-Omride times the principal boundary between Israelites and Aramaeans was in a limited territory in the north-eastern Gilead; the situation to the north and north-east of the Jezreel Valley is not clear. There is no indication of a conflict at that time, neither in archaeology (destruction layers) nor in the textual material. Conflicts developed with the territorial ambitions and growing military powers of Israel and Damascus in the first half of the 9th century BCE.

The Period of Omride Rule For this period, the researcher faces an ostensible contradiction between the biblical testimony and archaeology. The Elijah-Elisha cycle in Kings contains genuine material about the Northern Kingdom in the time of the Omride Dynasty and slightly later (for instance regarding Jezreel, the end of the dynasty and the assault of Hazael king of Damascus),25 that is, tales told on the background of relatively detailed geography. The stories are focused on the Jezreel Valley and its vicinity, with no reference to Israelite sites further to the north. Sites mentioned are Jezreel, Megiddo, Beth-haggan (Jenin?) and Ibleam (located on the road connecting the Jezreel and Dothan Valleys). Places such as Hazor, Dan, Ijon, Abel-beth-maacah – or sites in the hilly Galilee referred to in the much later list of towns of Naphtali in Joshua 19 – are not mentioned.26 And no battle with Aram in the Jordan Valley to the north of the Sea of Galilee or its surrounding is cited. Therefore, from the biblical text point of view, there is no reason to assume that the Omrides expanded to the north of the Jezreel Valley.

23

Finkelstein, Koch and Lipschits 2012 and bibliography. Finkelstein and Römer 2014. 25 E.g., Lemaire 1991; Schniedewind 1996; Na’aman 2006:139–146,173–186. 26 See also Kuan 2001:143–144. 24

Aram and Israel: Reflections on their Borders

23

Figure 2: The northern and eastern border of the Northern Kingdom during the time of the Omrides; the thick black line marks the friction area with Aram. Copyright: Tel Aviv University.

This is also the case for the testimony of the available inscriptions: before ca. 800 BCE no Hebrew inscription is known north of the Beth-shean Valley.27 Yet, archaeology and possibly the Tel Dan Stele draw a different picture. In past articles I proposed identifying Omride architecture according to several characteristics, mainly a casemate fortification built on an elevated podium, supported by a glacis and surrounded by a moat, and equipped with a six-chambered gate.28 I suggested that all or most of these characteristics, evident at Samaria and Jezreel, can be identified in Stratum X at Hazor, which dates to the 9th century BCE.29 Of course, one can argue that similar architectural elements were deployed by Israel’s neighbours, especially Damascus. Aramaean affiliation of the inhabitants of Hazor X may be hinted by the fact that Hebrew replaced Aramaic in the Hazor 27

Finkelstein and Sass 2013. Finkelstein 2000; for Omride architecture in Moab see Finkelstein and Lipschits 2010. 29 For the date see Finkelstein 1999; Sharon et al. 2007; Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2009. 28

24

Israel Finkelstein

inscriptions only in the 8th century BCE.30 Yet, even if this is so (the data on Strata IX and VIII is limited to five fragmentary inscriptions), the language of the Hazor inhabitants does not necessarily indicate the identity of the ruling power there. More important, the architecture of Dan and Bethsaida – sites which can be labelled Aramaean in the 9th century BCE (Dan because of the Hazael Inscription and Bethsaida because of the moon god Stele)31 – does not express any of the typical Omride features; in fact they exhibit a different set of characteristics (below). Finally, the radiocarbon date for the destruction of Hazor X–IX, ca. 830–800 BCE,32 points in the same direction: the only candidate for an aggressor in the second half of the 9th century can be Hazael, meaning that before his time this place was in the hands of his adversaries. I therefore see no alternative to the Omride identity of Hazor X. The Omride affiliation of Hazor seems to be supported by finds in the Upper Galilee. A casemate fortress protected by a strong glacis was uncovered in the 1970s at Har Adir.33 According to the excavators the three phases at the site cover a long period of time, from the late-11th to the 9th century BCE. Ilan described the fort as measuring ca. 80 x 80 m, and compared its pottery to that of Hazor X.34 Ben-Ami reconstructed a contemporary fortress at the site of Tel Harashim, also located in the mountainous Galilee, to the southwest of Har Adir.35 Who could have built a strong casemate fortress supported by a glacis at isolated and remote Har Adir in the 9th century BCE? The only possibility except for the Omrides is Tyre. Yet, taking a long-term territorial history perspective, there can be no doubt that the Upper Galilee always belonged to territorial entities and administrative divisions to its south and southeast, while Tyre ruled only over the lower hilly areas to its east and southeast. This was so in the Ottoman, Mamluk and Crusader periods, as well as Roman-Byzantine times.36 In short, Tyre never ruled in the Upper Galilee and hence the only possibility for the builders of the Har Adir fortress is the Omrides. We are left with the question of Omride expansion in the area of the Sea of Galilee. The site of En Gev on the eastern shore of the lake provides an important clue. A casemate fortress, measuring ca. 60 x 60 m, was erected there on a fill. It was apparently protected by a glacis. The fort dates to the late Iron IIA, that is, to the 9th century BCE.37 In this case too, the question is who built the fortress – a king of the Northern Kingdom or an Aramaean ruler?38 A possible answer comes from the comparison between En Gev and Bethsaida, located a few kilometres away, at the northern tip of the Sea of Galilee. The fortifications of Bethsaida are very similar to those of Tel Dan. Both are surrounded by a solid wall with offsets and insets and both are equipped with similar, exceptionally broad, four-chambered city-gate. Aramaean 30

Sass 2005:85–86. Bernett and Keel 1998, and see also the article of Uehlinger in this volume. 32 Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2009. 33 Hadashot Arkheologiot 59–60 [1976]:9–10. 34 Ilan 1999. 35 Ben-Ami 2004. 36 Finkelstein 1981. 37 Mazar 1993; Hasegawa and Paz 2009. 38 For the latter see Na’aman 2006:45; 2012:96. 31

Aram and Israel: Reflections on their Borders

25

elements were found at both sites near the gate – basalt column bases and the famous inscription at Tel Dan and a stele with a representation of the moon god at Bethsaida.39 The casemate wall on a fill at En Gev, on the other hand, resembles the architecture of Hazor X and Har Adir. It is reasonable therefore to affiliate En Gev with the Northern Kingdom. The biblical references to the battle of Ramoth-gilead (1 Kgs 22; 2 Kgs 8:28–29; 9:1,4,14) seems to depict a genuine memory of a devastating clash during the end-days of Joram in 842 BCE.40 But who was the aggressor and who ruled at Ramoth? The site of Tell er-Rumeith, one of the candidates for the identification with Ramoth-gilead,41 is located in a strategic place in the plateau east of Irbid. It features typical construction method known in Omride sites.42 A stronghold here, on the road from southern Transjordan to Damascus, is in line with the construction by the Omrides of two fortified compounds in the southern part of the mishor of Moab, north of the Arnon.43 The control of the King’s Highway could have served economic goals, such as domination over the flow of copper from Khirbet en-Nahas. One can therefore trace a pattern in the Omride building program: casemate forts or administrative centres were built on the borders of the kingdom: Har Adir (and possibly Tel Harashim) facing Tyre; Hazor and En Gev facing the territory of Aram southwest of Damascus; Tell er-Rumeith facing Aram Damascus in the east; and Jahaz and Ataroth facing Moabite Dibon. To sum-up, considering all pieces of evidence, and despite of the fact that the Bible does not refer to Israelite rule in the upper Jordan Valley before the 8th century BCE, archaeology seems to point to the expansion of the Omrides into this area. The claim of Hazael in the Tel Dan Stele that the king of Israel entered into his father’s land may refer to this territorial expansion (and hence to the rule of Damascus in this area before the days of the Omrides), especially if one reconstructs the opening of the Dan Inscription (Line 2) as evidence that the King of Israel fought Hazael’s predecessor at Abel-beth-maacah.44 This is also implied by the erection of a Damascene victory stele at Tel Dan. Still, Hazael’s complaint may also refer to an Israelite expansion in northeastern Transjordan. In any event, in the 9th century Israel did not rule north of Hazor – at Dan, Ijon and Abel-beth-maacah. In the days of the Omrides, then, the friction with Aram Damascus was extended to the entire line from Hazor in the north-west to Ramoth-gilead in the south-east.

39

Biran 1994; Bernett and Keel 1998 respectively. E.g., Dion 1997:191–200; LipiĔski 2000:377–383. 41 Glueck 1943. 42 Finkelstein, Lipschits and Sergi 2013. 43 Finkelstein and Lipschits 2010. 44 E.g., Biran and Naveh 1995:13; Schniedewind 1996:79; Na’aman 2006:177. 40

26

Israel Finkelstein

The Second Half of the 9th Century BCE The period of Damascene hegemony45 poses a problem – an ostensible contradiction between territorial gains and building activities. Aramaic construction efforts can be identified at a few sites: Dan (Stratum IVA) was rebuilt, the stele was probably erected at the gate of the city, near the ‘canopy structure’ with the typical Syrian stone bases. At Bethsaida an elaborate gate was constructed and the Aramaean moon god stela was erected in front of it. It is possible that Stratum VIII at Hazor was also built by Hazael, after the takeover and partial destruction of the Omride city (Strata X–IX).46 At Tell er-Rumeith the Stratum VII construction phase can probably be dated to the same period. Both Bible and archaeology testify to the major devastation inflicted by Damascus on Israelite towns in the Gilead and the northern valleys west of the Jordan River.47 The rebellion of Moab against Israel was a result of the defeat of Joram in the battle of Ramoth-gilead. It is reasonable to suggest that as a result Hazael managed to take over Israelite territories in Transjordan – certainly along the strategic King’s Highway. West of the Jordan Hazael destroyed Gath48 – the most important Iron IIA city in the south – the city which probably dominated trade in the coastal plain. He made Judah a vassal, facilitated Judahite expansion to the Shephelah in the west and the Beer-sheba Valley in the south, and brought about cessation of production activity in the copper mining and smelting centres in the area of Wadi Faynan south of the Dead Sea.49 All this means that the king of Damascus was in control over most areas in the southern Levant, including Israel outside of its highlands territory and the southern coastal plain. Yet, surprisingly, there is no sign of any attempt of Aramaean construction southwest of Dan, Hazor, Bethsaida and Ramoth-gilead. How to explain this ostensible contradiction? Archaeology – combination of destruction events, pottery assemblages and radiocarbon dates – seems to hint that the Damascene expansion was gradual and that it took several decades. Some places, especially in the north, must have been destroyed as a result of the battle of Ramoth-gilead and immediately thereafter, that is, around 840 BCE. But the pottery evidence seems to hint that Gath was devastated somewhat later in the second half of the 9th century.50 This may indicate unrest in the region in the entire reign of Hazael, which may have prevented investment in building projects, especially in the south, which was ruled by Damascus for a shorter period of time. Hazael’s construction efforts were limited, therefore, to territories close to the friction line between Aram and Israel.

45

On Hazael see, e.g., Lemaire 1991; Na’aman 1995; HafÞórsson 2006. Finkelstein 1999. 47 Na’aman 2006:139–146. 48 Maeir 2004; 2012. 49 Fantalkin and Finkelstein 2006; Sergi 2013; Finkelstein 2014. 50 Kleiman 2014 and in this volume. 46

Aram and Israel: Reflections on their Borders

27

Figure 3: The north in the late 9th century: sites constructed by Hazael and sites destroyed during his campaign/s. Copyright: Tel Aviv University.

The First Half of the 8th Century BCE Assyrian pressure on Damascus in the days of Adad-nirari III brought about the recovery of Israel,51 including the last and most meaningful expansion of the kingdom in the north. The Second Book of Kings recounts that Joash “took again from Ben-Hadad the son of Hazael the cities which he had taken from Jehoahaz his father in war. Three times Joash defeated him and recovered the cities of Israel” (2 Kings 13:25). It is not clear where these cities were, but one could imagine that the author relates to the Jezreel Valley and/or the Gilead. The text is more explicit regarding the time of Jeroboam II: “He restored the border of Israel from the entrance of Hamath (Heb. Lebo Hamath) as 51

E.g., Lemaire 1993; LipiĔski 2000:395; Miller and Hayes 2006:331–347.

28

Israel Finkelstein

far as the Sea of the Arabah…” (2 Kings 14:25). An expansion of Jeroboam in the Valley of Lebanon as far as Lebo-hamath (Labu=Lebwe – below) and the continuing reference that Jeroboam “recovered for Israel Damascus and Hamath” cannot be taken as historical.52 At the same time, Israelite territorial gains in the north, which may have included areas considered as belonging to Damascus and Hamath, mainly the region of Ijon, Dan and Abel, are evident from other sources. Control of Jeroboam II over the plateau of the Gilead appears to be indicated by two Biblical sources: 1) Ramoth-gilead is mentioned as headquarter of a Solomonic district (1 Kgs 4:13); this list seems to depict early 8th century BCE Israelite administrative realities.53 2) Amos (6:13) hints at an Israelite take-over of Lidbir in the plateau of the north-eastern Gilead and Karnaim in the southern Bashan in the first half of the 8th century BCE.54 Domination of the Northern Kingdom in the upper Jordan Valley is confirmed by the biblical description of Tiglath-pileser III’s campaign in this territory (732 BCE): the Assyrian king is said to have conquered “Ijon, Abel-Beth-Maacah, Janoah, Kedesh, Hazor, Gilead, and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali” (2 Kings 15:29). A town named Abel is mentioned in a Tiglath-pileser III Summary Inscription from Nimrud as being located on the border of the Northern Kingdom (bit-Humria). Scholars had identified this toponym as Abel-beth-maacah,55 but based on George Smith’s original notebooks, Tadmor followed by Na’aman56 later read Abel-sitti=Abel-shittim.57 With no access to the original inscription, there can be no final verdict on this matter.58 Archaeology shows that in the first half of the 8th century the Northern Kingdom took back Hazor and took over Dan. Strata VI and V at Hazor feature Israelite material culture and the same holds true for Dan III–II.59 The smashing of the moon god stele at Bethsaida may be interpreted on the background of a take-over of the town by the Northern Kingdom in the days of Jeroboam II. This was the first time that the 9th century BCE Aramaean towns of Dan, Abel-beth-maacah and Bethsaida shifted hands to the Northern Kingdom. Inscriptions found in 8th century strata in the north are written in Hebrew (five of seven at Hazor, three of five at Dan); beyond political domination, this may testify to the expansion of Israelite population into Aramaean lands.

52

For Damascus and Hamath see Na’aman 2006:231. Na’aman 2006:102–119 relates it to the days of Assyrian rule. 54 LipiĔski 2000:401. 55 Tadmor 1962 and bibliography. 56 Na’aman 2005:40. 57 Tadmor 1994:139. 58 A group of toponyms in Israelite Galilee is mentioned in Tiglath-pileser III’s annals (Tadmor 1994:83). Na’aman (2005:202) identified all of them in the Lower Galilee, though some, such as Marom, can be located in the Upper Galilee, which would provide evidence that Israel’s northwestern border in the 8th century was similar to that of the Omrides. 59 Arie 2008. 53

Aram and Israel: Reflections on their Borders

29

Figure 4: The northern and eastern border of the Northern Kingdom in the first half of the 8th century; the thick black line marks the friction area with Aram. Copyright: Tel Aviv University.

It is clear, then, that in the days of Jeroboam II Israel reached its maximal territorial extent, to include the entire northern part of the Jordan Valley and possibly even beyond, in the southern Beqa of Lebanon. The border between Israel and Aram shifted, then, from the Hazor-Ramoth-gilead line in the days of the Omrides, to the Dan/Ijon (and beyond) Karnaim-Ramoth-gilead line in the days of Jeroboam II.

Discussion Knowledge of biblical author about the geography of the northeastern sector of the Northern Kingdom, on the border with Damascus was vague, especially in the period before Assyrian domination. This is clear from the confusion regarding the nature and location of Geshur60 and Maacah, as well as Rehob (for the latter see below). And it is also indicated by the fact that the biblical author needed to add the toponym ‘Gilead’ to place names north of the Jabbok (Ramoth-gilead, Mizpah of Gilead, Jabesh-gilead, Tishbe in Gilead) in order to make sure that the reader understands that this area too 60

I accept the identification of the site known today as Bethsaida with Geshur (Na’aman 2012).

30

Israel Finkelstein

belonged to the Gilead.61 The vagueness regarding the northeast stems from the distance from Jerusalem and the time that had passed from the fall of Israel to the compilation of the texts. The only possible pre-Omride memory of Aram in the Bible can be found in the early layer of the Jacob Cycle – the tradition regarding the delineation of the settlement border in the Gilead in the area of Mizpah of Gilead (Gen 31:45–49). The theatre of operations included several places in the valley of the Jabbok and next to it, mainly the shrine of Penuel. This tradition may be connected to the early days of the Northern Kingdom; the chronistic verse on the construction of Penuel by Jeroboam I (1 Kgs 12:25) may be authentic and related to the same phase in the history of the North, but this suggestion will need to be checked once proper excavations are conducted in this important place. The galed (=cairn) story does not indicate hostility between Israel and Aram, in fact, there is no credible textual reference to such confrontation in the 10th and early 9th centuries BCE, and no destruction layer that can be associated with this period has so far been identified.62 Confrontations between Israel and Aram seem to have started slightly later, with the consolidation of powerful dynasties and strong armies in both kingdoms. For the next phase, in archaeological terms the late Iron IIA, a question which remains open is the cultural nature of Iron IIA Tel Rehov south of Beth-shean. This area – between the central highlands and the western Gilead – should theoretically be viewed as Israelite, that is, within the Israelite territory. Yet, the material culture of Tel Rehov is different from that of the Israelite centres in the Jezreel Valley, e.g., Megiddo, in almost every aspect – in its layout, details of architecture and many of the finds, including the surprisingly large number of ostraca found there (four Hebrew and three unclassified non-Hebrew for the Iron IIA).63 Tel Rehov was destroyed twice in the 9th century BCE – at the end of the settlements represented by Strata V and IV. The excavators seem to identify Tel Rehov as an Israelite town and associate its final destruction with the assault of Damascus in the days of Hazael (“... the city was part of the Israelite geopolitical entity”).64 Yet, this layer is radiocarbon dated to 875–849 BCE (68.8% probability) 65 – before the accession of Hazael to the throne in 843/842 BCE. In view of the nature of the site and these dates, Iron IIA Tel Rehov should probably be interpreted as an Aramaean city and the destructions of Stratum IV (possibly also Stratum V) associated with assaults by the expanding Northern Kingdom. Tel Rehov is the location of Bronze Age Rehob, mentioned in the Iron Age in the list of Sheshonq I. Being one of the largest cities in the region and culturally the most important Iron IIA center in the north, and located in the Beth-shean Valley not too far from Jerusalem, it would be surprising if Rehob is not mentioned in the Bible (note that Rehob of the northern coastal plain is referred to several times). Even if the town 61

Finkelstein, Koch and Lipschits 2012. Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2009. 63 Ahituv and Mazar 2014; Finkelstein and Sass 2013. 64 Mazar et al. 2005:254; Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2007:211,218; Mazar 2008:2018. 65 Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2009. 62

Aram and Israel: Reflections on their Borders

31

lost its importance after it had been destroyed in the 9th century, one could have expected such a place to leave a lasting memory on later centuries of the Iron Age. Indeed, it seems to me that this Rehob is mentioned in the Bible at least in one context.66 A place named Rehob or Beth-rehob in the Beqa of Lebanon is mentioned in the Bible several times: The spies toured the land ‘from the wilderness of Zin to Rehob, near Lebo Hamath’ (Num 13:21). The latter town, also referred to in 2 Kings 14:25, is to be equated with Labu of Tiglath-pileser III and identified at Lebwe south of Hama=Hamath.67 Dan is described in Judges as being located ‘in the valley which belongs to Beth-rehob’ (18:28). Hadadezer the adversary of David is referred to as ‘the son of Rehob, king of Zobah’ (2 Sam 8:3,12); Zobah is Subat in the Beqa of Lebanon.68 These citations seem to match the reference in the Kurkh Monolith to ‘Ba’asa mƗr Ru‫ې‬njbi’.69 The reference to Rehob/Beth-rehob in relation to David’s war with the Ammonites (2 Sam 10:6–8) is a different matter:

ʠʕʡˣʶ ʭʸʔ ʠʏ -ʺʓʠʥʍ ʡˣʧʸʍ -ʺʩʒˎ ʭʸʔ ʠʏ -ʺʓʠ ˒ʸʍ˗ˈ ʍ ʑ ˕ʥʔ ʯˣ˙ʔʲ-ʩʒʰʡʍ ˒ʧʍʬˇ ʍ ʑ ˕ʥʔ ʣʑʥʣʕ ˎʍ ˒ˇʏʠʡʍ ʑʰ ʩʑ˗ ʯˣ˙ʔʲ ʩʒʰˎʍ ˒ʠʸʑʍ ˕ʥʔ ʧʔʬˇ ʍ ʑ ˕ʥʔ ʣʑʥːʕ ʲʮʔ ˇ ʍ ʑ ˕ʥʔ .ˇʩʠʑ ʳʓʬʠʓ ʸˈ ʕ ʲʕ -ʭʩʒʰˇ ʍ ʡˣʨˇʩʠʑ ʥʍ ˇʩʠʑ ʳʓʬʠʓ ʤʕʫʲʏ ʮʔ ˂ʓʬʮʓ -ʺʓʠʥʍ ʩʑʬʍʢʸʔ ʳʓʬʠʓ ʭʩʸʑ ˈ ʍ ʲʓ ʡˣʧʸ˒ ʍ ʠʕʡˣʶ ʭʸʔ ʠʏ ʥʔ ʸʔʲˉ ʕ ʤʔ ʧʺʔ ˝ʓ ʤʕʮʧʕ ʬʍ ʮʑ ˒ʫʸʔʍ ʲʔ˕ʥʔ ʯˣ˙ʔʲ ʩʒʰˎʍ ˒ʠʍʶʒ˕ʥʔ .ʭʩʸʖʑ ˎʑˏʤʔ ʠʕʡ˞ʕ ʤʔ -ʬʕ˗ ʺʠʒ ʥʍ ʡˌˣʩ -ʺʓʠ .ʤʣʓ ˊ ʕ ˎʔ ʭːʕ ʡʔ ʬʍ ʤʕʫʲʏ ʮʔ ˒ ʡˣʨ-ˇʩʠʑ ʥʍ I have no intention to dive here into the complicated questions regarding the identification of all places mentioned; to the problem whether Rehob (and Maacah) derive from place-names or personal names;70 to the issue of early Aramaean principalities and the date of their rise and demise; or to the historicity of references to these principalities.71 I wish only to discuss the mention of Rehob/Beth-rehob in 2 Samuel 10. Suffice it to say that the theatre of operations here is in the vicinity of Ammon and hence there is no logic in incorporating a place in the northern part of the Beqa of Lebanon. I would therefore suggest that these verses refer to Rehob in the Beth-shean Valley: Ammon’s allies are located to its north (Maacah), northeast (Tob) and northwest (Rehob). The confusion with Zobah and Rehob in the Beqa of Lebanon stems from the fading memory of Rehob of the Beth-shean valley and the importance of Subat (=biblical Zobah) south of Hamath as an Assyrian province,72 that is, closer to the time of the author.73 I should note here Na’aman’s proposal that much of the description of David’s wars is based on 9th century realities.74

66

See Finkelstein 2016 for details. Na’aman 1999 (=Na’aman 2006:359–385); LipiĔski 2000:322. 68 LipiĔski 2000:319–345. 69 Na’aman 1995; 2006:42; for the possible location of this Rehob see discussion in LipiĔski 2000:333. 70 See in detail Na’aman 1995; LipiĔski 2000:319–345. 71 For Geshur, see debate in Pakkala 2010; Na’aman 2012. 72 Na’aman 1999 (=Na’aman 2006:359–385); LipiĔski 2000:319–320. 73 See also LipiĔski 2000:337. 74 Na’aman 2006:38–61. 67

32

Israel Finkelstein

This makes 2 Samuel 10:6–8 as well as the tradition regarding Hadadezer king of Zobah (2 Sam 8:3,5,12; 1 Kgs 11:23) a fascinating case in biblical historiography. The author created the story from separate ‘memories’ from different centuries: Hadadezer probably refers to Hadadidri king of Damascus, the ally of Ahab in the battle of Qarqar; the idea of a strong Aramaean king hostile to Israel seemingly refers to the figure of Hazael;75 Rehob in the Beth-shean Valley – probably an Aramaean-byculture city-state is confused with Beth-rehob in the Beqa of Lebanon (which could not have survived as an independent principality after the Damascene expansion to the west); this is so probably because of the importance of Zobah=Subat as an Assyrian administration center in the days of Tiglath-pileser III and Sargon II;76 all this is deployed by a late 7th century author; and in order to serve the author’s goals, thrown back to the days of king David in the 10th century BCE. The Bible refers to Geshur and Maacah as located on the northern border of the Israelite inherited territory (Josh 12:5, 13:13; Deut 3:14); in another tradition Geshur is referred to as an Aramaean kingdom (ʭʸʠʡ ʸʥʹʢ – 2 Sam 15:8) in the northeast.77 In this case too I do not intend to discuss the complicated references, especially to Maacah,78 or to engage in the debate over the historicity of the references to Geshur.79 What is essential for the discussion here is that no independent Aramaean principality could have lasted south-west of Damascus much after the rise of Hazael (Na’aman thinks that the city-state of Geshur was taken-over after 838 BCE);80 probably not even in the time of Hadadidri (but note that the monolith inscription shows that Rehob was independent until at least 853).81 In fact, Maacah and Geshur are not mentioned in extra-biblical texts, texts which do not predate the mid-9th century.82 All in all, the Bible may preserve an early memory, from the first half of the 9th century. Indeed, as seen above, in the first half of the 8th century Israel ruled north of the Yarmuk River and beyond Hazor. Hence the references to Geshur and Maacah as being located on the border of the Israelites may reflect recollections from the days of the Omrides. This should not come as a surprise in view of the fact that north Israelite memories regarding Moab dated to the time of the Omride dynasty are embedded in several places in the Book of Numbers.83 Another possibility that cannot be overruled is that the reference to Geshur and Maacah is to Aramaean regions/clans known to the author, not necessarily to kingdoms (note the Deuteronomistic expression ‘to these days’ in Josh 13:13).

75

Na’aman 2006:46–48. Na’aman 2006:359–385. 77 Pakkala 2010. 78 See LipiĔski 2000:333–336. 79 Pakkala 2010; Na’aman 2012. 80 Na’aman 2012. 81 Na’aman 1995:386. 82 Na’aman’s proposal (2006:45; 2012) to read the name of the seat of Ba’il in the Shalmaneser III inscription from 838 BCE as Geshur is possible but at the same time hypothetical and certainly not the only possibility (e.g., LipiĔski 2000:385). 83 Finkelstein and Römer forthcoming. 76

Aram and Israel: Reflections on their Borders

33

Turning to the early 8th century BCE, on the background of my suggestion that the first expansion of Israel north of Hazor took place only at that time – I would propose the following observations: 1.

2.

3.

4.

As mentioned above, the reference to North Israelite cult at Dan (1 Kgs 12:29) probably reflects the erection of a cult place there (to replace the cult of Hadad?) by Jeroboam II.84 The biblical expression ‘from Dan to Beer-sheba’ describes the rule of the Hebrew kingdoms combined, referring to the two administrative centres in the far north and south. Though it is not necessarily anchored in a specific moment in Israelite and Judahite history, in the north it is based on the situation in the 8th century. The geography behind the Joab census (2 Sam 24:5–7) too is accumulative in nature. The mention of Aroer as the border of the Israelites in the south-east must come from the days of the Omrides – the only period in which Israel ruled over the mishor of Moab; but the reference to Dan and Ijon (Heb. ya‘an, probably corruption of Ijon)85 must reflect the situation in the 8th century BCE. All references to Abel-beth-maacah portray the reality of the rule of Israel over this previously Aramaean city in the 8th century. I refer to the chronistic reference to the conquest of this town by Tiglath-pileser III (2 Kgs 15:29), which is probably the source for the description of the campaign of BenHadad in 1 Kings 15:20, as well as to the story of Sheba the son of Bichri (2 Sam 20:14–15), which seems to imply that Abel is the furthest Israelite town in the north.

With all the confusions and anachronisms described above, it is clear from this discussion that the biblical authors accumulated a large body of facts, ‘memories’ and traditions regarding the border areas between Israel and Aram. This information must have originated from Northern sources; and since it is hard to imagine preservation of such details for centuries, it probably included Northern written sources of the 8th century BCE. How did these materials reach the later authors in Jerusalem? In this case too I have no better solution than to argue that they came with Israelites who moved to Judah after 720 BCE.86 Acknowledgement This article was prepared with the help of the Chaim Katzman Archaeology Fund, Tel Aviv University.

84

Arie 2008; Berlejung 2009. E.g., Aharoni 1979:297. 86 For the debate regarding this issue see recently Na’aman 2014; Finkelstein 2015, both with references to previous works on this subject. 85

34

Israel Finkelstein

Bibliography AHARONI, Y., 1979. The Land of the Bible: Historical Geography, Philadelphia AHITUV, S. and A. MAZAR, 2014. The Inscriptions from Tel Rehov and their Contribution to the Study of Script and Writing during Iron Age IIA, in: “See, I will bring a scroll recounting what befell me” (Ps 40:8): Epigraphy and Daily Life from the Bible to the Talmud Dedicated to the Memory of Professor Hanan Eshel (Supplements to the Journal of Ancient Judaism 12), ed. E. Eshel and Y. Levin, Göttingen, 39–68 AHLSTRÖM, G. W., 1993. The History of Ancient Palestine from the Paleolithic Period to Alexander’s Conquest (JSOTS 146), Sheffield ARAV, R., 2013. Geshur: The Southernmost Aramean Kingdom, in: Arameans, Chaldeans, and Arabs in Babylonia and Palestine in the First Millennium B.C. (LAS 3), ed. A. Berlejung and M. P. Streck, Wiesbaden, 1–29 ARIE, E., 2008. Reconsidering the Iron Age II Strata at Tel Dan: Archaeological and Historical Implications, TA 35: 6–64 BEN-AMI, D., 2004. The Casement Fort at Tel Harashim in Upper Galilee, TA 31: 194–208 BEN-TOR, A., 2000. Hazor and Chronology of Northern Israel: A Reply to Israel Finkelstein, BASOR 317: 9–15 BERLEJUNG, A., 2009. Twisting Traditions: Programmatic absence-Theology for the Northern Kingdom in 1 Kgs 12:26–33* (The “sin of Jeroboam”), JNSL 35: 1–42 BERNETT, M. and O. KEEL, 1998. Mond, Stier und Kult am Stadttor. Die Stele von Betsaida (et-Tell) (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 161), Fribourg BIRAN, A., 1994. Biblical Dan, Jerusalem BIRAN, A. and J. NAVEH, 1995. The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment, IEJ 45: 1–18 DION, P.-E., 1997. Les Araméens à l’âge du Fer: Histoire politique et structures sociales (Études bibliques 24), Paris FANTALKIN, A. and FINKELSTEIN, I., 2006. The Sheshonq I Campaign and the 8th-Century-BCE Earthquake – More on the Archaeology and History of the South in the Iron I–IIA, TA 33: 18–42 FINKELSTEIN, I., 1981. The Shephelah of Israel, TA 8: 84–94 –: 1999. Hazor and the North in the Iron Age: A Low Chronology Perspective, BASOR 314: 55–70 –: 2000. Omride Architecture, ZDPV 116: 114–138 –: 2014. The Southern Steppe of the Levant ca. 1050–750 BCE: A Framework for a Territorial History, PEQ 146: 89–104 –: 2015. Migration of Israelites into Judah after 720 BCE: An Answer and an Update, ZAW 127/2: 188–206 –: 2016. Does Rehob of the Beth-shean Valley Appear in the Bible?, BN 169: 3–10 FINKELSTEIN, I., I. KOCH and O. LIPSCHITS, 2012. The Biblical Gilead: Observations on Identifications, Geographic Divisions and Territorial History, UF 43: 131–159 FINKELSTEIN, I. and O. LIPSCHITS, 2010. Omride Architecture in Moab, ZDPV 126: 29–42 FINKELSTEIN, I., O. LIPSCHITS and O. SERGI, 2013. Tell er-Rumeith in Northern Jordan: Some Archaeological and Historical Observations, Semitica 55: 7–23 FINKELSTEIN, I. and E. PIASETZKY, 2009. Radiocarbon-Dated Destruction Layers: A Skeleton for Iron Age Chronology in the Levant, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 28: 255–274 –: 2010. Radiocarbon Dating the Iron Age in the Levant: A Bayesian Model for Six Ceramic Phases and Six Transitions, Antiquity 84: 374–385 FINKELSTEIN, I. and T. RÖMER, 2014. Comments on the Historical Background of the Jacob Narrative in Genesis, ZAW 126: 317–338 –: forthcoming. Early North Israelite ‘Memories’ on Moab, in: The Pentateuch within Biblical Literature: Formation and Interaction, ed. K. Schmid et al.

Aram and Israel: Reflections on their Borders

35

FINKELSTEIN, I. and B. SASS, 2013. The West Semitic Alphabetic Inscriptions, Late Bronze II to Iron IIA: Archaeological Context, Distribution and Chronology, Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 2: 149–220 GLUECK, N., 1943. Ramoth-gilead, BASOR 92: 10–16 HAFÞÓRSSON, S., 2006. A Passing Power: An Examination of the Sources for the History of AramDamascus in the Second Half of the Ninth Century B.C. (CBOT 54), Stockholm HASEGAWA, S. and Y. PAZ, 2009. Tel ‘En Gev: Preliminary Report, Excavations and Surveys in Israel 121 (http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp?id=1013&mag_id=115) HOUTUM, H. VAN, 2005. The Geopolitics of Borders and Boundaries, Geopolitics 10: 672–679 ILAN, D., 1999. Northeastern Israel in the Iron Age I: Cultural, Socioeconomic and Political Perspectives, unpublished PhD thesis, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv KLEIMAN, A., 2014. Tel Aphek and the Central Coastal Plain during the Iron Age IIA, unpublished MA thesis Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv (Hebrew) KUAN, J. K., 2001. Samsi-ilu and the Realpolitic of Israel and Aram Damascus in the Eighth Century BCE, in: The Land that I Will Show You: Essays in the History and Archaeology of the Ancient Near East in Honor of J. Maxwell Miller (JSOTS 343), ed. J. A. Dearman and M. P. Graham, Sheffield, 135–151 LEMAIRE, A., 1981. Galaad et Makîr: Remarques sur la Tribu de Manassé à l’est du Jourdain, VT 31: 39–61 –: 1991. Hazaël de Damas, roi d’Aram, in: Marchands, Diplomates et Empereurs (Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations), ed. D. Charpin and F. Joannès, Paris, 91–108 –: 1993. Joas de Samarie, Barhadad de Damas, Zakkur de Hamat. La Syrie-Palestine vers 800 av. J.C, EI 24: 148*–157* LIPIēSKI, E., 2000. The Aramaeans: Their Ancient History, Culture, Religion (OLA 100). LeuvenParis (Peeters) LIVERANI, M., 2005. Israel’s History and the History of Israel, London MAEIR, A. M., 2004. The Historical Background and Dating of Amos VI 2: An Archaeological Perspective from Tell es-Safi/Gath, VT 54: 319–334 –: 2012. The Tell es-Safi/Gath Archaeological Project 1996–2010: Introduction, Overview and Synopsis of Results. In: Tell es-Safi/Gath I: The 1996–2005 Seasons Volume I: Text, ed. A. M. Maeir, Wiesbaden, 1–88 MAZAR, A., 2008. Rehov, Tel, in: The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 5 Supplementary Volume. Jerusalem, 2013–2018 MAZAR, A. et al., 2005. Ladder of Time at Tel Rehov: Stratigraphy, Archaeological Context, Pottery and Radiocarbon Dates, in: The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science, ed. T. E. Levy and T. Higham, London, 193–255 MAZAR, A. and N. PANITZ-COHEN, 2007. It is the Land of Honey: Beekeeping at Tel Rehov, NEA 70: 202–219 MAZAR, B., 1993. En Gev: Excavation on the Mound, in: NEAEHL 2, Jerusalem, 409–411 MILLER, J. M. and J. H. HAYES, 2006. A History of Ancient Israel and Judah, Louisville MÜNGER, S., J. ZANGENBERG and J. PAKKALA, 2011. Kinneret – An Urban Center at the Crossroads: Excavations of Iron IB Tel Kinrot at the Lake of Galilee, NEA 74: 68–90 NA’AMAN, N., 1995. Hazael of ‘Amqi and Hadadezer of Beth-Rehob, UF 27: 381–394 –: 1999. Lebo-Hamath, Subat-Hamath and the Northern Boundary of the Land of Canaan, UF 31: 417–441 –: 2005. Ancient Israel and its Neighbors: Interaction and Counteraction, Winona Lake (Collected Essays, volume 1) –: 2006. Ancient Israel’s History and Historiography, The First Temple Period, Winona Lake (Collected Essays, volume 3) –: 2012. The Kingdom of Geshur in History and Memory, SJOT 26: 88–101

36

Israel Finkelstein

–: 2014. Dismissing the Myth of a Flood of Israelite Refugees in the Late Eight Century BCE, ZAW 126: 1–14 PAKKALA, J., 2010. What Do We Know about Geshur?, SJOT 24: 155–173 SASS, B., 2005. The Alphabet at the Turn of the Millennium, Tel Aviv SCHNIEDEWIND, W. M., 1996. The Tel Dan Stele: New Light on Aramaic and Jehu’s Revolt, BASOR 302: 82–86 SERGI, O., 2013. Judah’s Expansion in Historical Context, TA 40: 226–246 SHARON, I. et al., 2007. Report on the First Stage of the Iron Age Dating Project in Israel: Supporting a Low Chronology, Radiocarbon 49: 1–46 TADMOR, H., 1962. The Southern Border of Aram, IEJ 12: 114–122 –: 1994. The Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III, King of Assyria. Jerusalem (Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities) USSISHKIN, D., 1990: Notes on Megiddo, Gezer, Ashdod, and Tel Batash in the Tenth to Ninth Centuries B.C., BASOR 277/278: 71–91 WÜRTHWEIN, E., 1977. Die Bücher der Könige. 1 Könige 1–16, Göttingen YADIN, Y., 1972. Hazor. The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy, London

The Relations between Aram and Israel in the 9th and 8th centuries BCE The textual evidence∗ Erhard Blum, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen This paper will propose a re-evaluation of the available data concerning the territorial and political relations between the Aramaic kingdom of Damascus and the Israelite Kingdom of Samaria in the 9th and 8th centuries BCE. It will be confined to textual evidence, not only because the analysis of the material culture would not be the author’s area of expertise, but especially because this paper mainly deals with issues which Karl Marx would assign to the “Überbau” (superstructure) and which correspond to forms of thinking, consciousness etc. To identify such phenomena, textual and/or specific iconographic evidence will be indispensable. The most informative and detailed sources in this regard have come to us through the Hebrew Bible. The textual, i.e. epigraphic data from the kingdom of Damascus are extremely poor – with two most important exceptions: the royal inscription from Tel Dan and the literary texts from Tell Deir ‫ދ‬Alla.

I. Epigraphic Evidence (1): The Tel Dan Stele We shall begin with the highly pertinent stone inscription from Tel Dan. So far, three fragments have been found. The larger one (A) was discovered during A. Biran’s excavations in 1993, the two others (B1+2) in the campaign of 1994. All three had been reused in walls or in paving at different places outside the city-gate. Fortunately, it is possible to join the three fragments, a fact which allows a quite continuous reading in the upper part of the inscription. The joins as well as a basically correct deciphering were quickly published by A. Biran and J. Naveh in 1995.1 The join of A and B is contested inter alios by G. Galil (2000; 2001) and G. Athas (2003/2005). The main argument, however, that the direction of the lines in fragments

∗ The lecture underlying this article was based on my reading of the Tel Dan inscription presented to the joined AT-Sozietät of Heidelberg and Tübingen in July 2013 and on a public lecture given at the Humboldt Universität Berlin on behalf of the 70th birthday of my colleague and friend Matthias Köckert in April 2014. This contribution shall be dedicated to him. 1 Biran and Naveh 1995. Cf. also the arguments by Kottsieper 1998:476 n.4; Suriano 2007:176. For a presentation of different reconstructions and readings of the text, see Hagelia 2006:14–50.

38

Erhard Blum

A and B is different does not seem persuasive.2 On the other hand, the fact that it is possible to read the combined fragments easily across the fractures on seven instances (lines 3/4 [B-A]; 4 [A-B]; 4–5 [B-A]; 5 [A-B]; 5–6 [B-A]; 6–7 [B-A]; 7–8 [B-A]; 8 [A-B]; 8–9 [BA]) cannot be explained by pure coincidence. Skipping the rather superfluous debate about the meaning of byt dwd mentioned in line 9,3 we will single out some disputed readings in lines 3–9 and propose new readings in line 2 (and 1); finally, some historical implications of the proposed reading of the inscription will be discussed. The text presents a report in the first person singular of a royal figure relating his victory over two kings. Biran and Naveh already succeeded in identifying the author as Hazael, king of Aram-Damascus, and the kings defeated and killed as Joram son of Ahab from Israel and Ahaziah son of Jehoram from Judah. The case is clear, because there was only one coincidence of a northern king having a name ending with –ram and a Judean king with –ahu in his name: the concurrent regency of Joram son of Ahab and Ahaziahu son of Jehoram. Moreover, both were killed following a battle with Hazael from Damascus. In 2 Kings 8 we read:  ź Ąğ ĄġĠ īżė Ć þĜČĢ ĄĔţėĆĜęþ ąĚĀēź ąğ Ćġğ ăēīĆ řþ ĂĜź Ąğ ĄġĔ ĆēĚþ ąēČĢ ĄşĠ īżĜ Ć ğėĆ þ ģ ĆŘėīă řþ ĄĥČĠĜ ăųŘĭą þ ģ Řþ şĂ  đė ĖţėĜ ċĆ Ė Ćĥğþ ĂŠĭ ġ Ā ČĠ ĥė Ă Ćġ ĆĚ ğþ ŪĂ ąğĔ ĆēĚþ ąēČĢ ĄşĠīżĜČĭ Ć Ąēź ĄğăŦ Ęą  ć īĆ şĠ þ īĀĆ ēČź Ąğ Ąġğ ăēėĆęĚ đĠ īżĜČĭ ċĆ ĄēĠĜŪĂ īĀą ēţŨąŦ Ęą  ĠĜŨĂ ąŪ ąėČĢġğē Ă Ąĥīþ ęþ ĂĜĔē þ ăŮ īą ĭþ ėĂ ğź þ Ąğ ĄŪ ąėĠ īżĜĔ Ć ĆŘĆŦ Ęą  ĠīĀĆ ēź Ąğ Ąġğ ăēėĆęĚ Ā Čĭ ĄēżġĀĚ Ćũ ėĂ şė þ ĆġīĆ ĆşĠĜŪĂ īĀą ēţė ĉŨąĜī ĄŘĀē ć ČĜŨğē Ă Ąĥīþ þęĂĜşĔ þ ĆēĚþ ąēČĢ ĄşĠ īżĜČĭ Ć Ąēĭżēīþ ğĖ Ă īĆą ĜėĖţė Ć þĜź Ąğ ĄġĠīżė Ć þĜČĢ ĄĔţėĆĜęþ ąĚĀēĘą  đēţėė ĄğĚ 

The Jehu-Narrative also tells in 2 Kings 9 of Joram being wounded by the Aramaeans, but it assigns the actual killing of Joram and Ahaziah to the putschist Jehu son of Nimshi. Nevertheless, the Aramaean king boasting about his victory over these two kings of Israel and Judah4 can only be Hazael. In line 6, Biran and Naveh propose to fill the gap between fragments A and B with the expression ml[kn šb]ұծn, reading “I slew seventy kings”. However, this is difficult because in Old Aramaic, the numeral always precedes the noun.5 More reasonable alternatives are the suggestions of ml[kn tq]pծ n by A. Lemaire6 or ml[kn rbr]bծ n by P.-E. Dion.7 Both suggestions can rely on attested Aramaic idioms;8 however, the last 2 Cf. Weippert 2010:268: “die Zeilen sind einfach unregelmäßig”. Nevertheless, the suggestion of Schniedewind 1996:77: “a slight rotation of the fragments makes the lines match better and renders a more convincing join”, should be considered seriously (cf. Kottsieper 1998:476 n.4); see below n.39. 3 Cf. the reports about the debate by Ehrlich 2001 and Hagelia 2009:44–72. 4 The killing of the kings is related in the stilistic pattern of ěīħĘğğĞ: first the general statement w’qtl mlkn …, then the detailed naming of both kings in two sentences. The second one begins with wqtl[t], i.e. a perfect consecutive expressing simultaneity (see below); the beginning of the first sentence can not be restored with certainty (qtlt? ’qtl? hkt? Ҳkh? etc.). 5 Degen 1969:§72. 6 Lemaire 1998:7–8. 7 Dion 1999:148, followed by several scholars.

The Relations between Aram and Israel: Textual Evidence

39

one seems to be somewhat less probable with regard to the small trace of the letter preceding the nun.9 In any case, the reading is “strong/mighty kings”10 which goes very well with the continuation “who (were able to) harness thousands of chariots and thousands of horses”. The improved reconstruction is important for the context of lines 3ff as a whole: According to Biran/Naveh, Hazael would be speaking about his victories in a general way.11 According to the alternative reading, he is reporting on one specific battle which he fought against the Kings of Israel and Judah.12 Moreover, this understanding is decisively confirmed by lines 3 and 4 in which the king of Israel is depicted as the aggressor who invaded the land of the author’s father.13 We find here a clear narrative sequence: The former king of Damascus died, and then Hazael acceded to the throne. Between these two events, the king of Israel invaded Aram. Unfortunately, this dramatic succession is obscured by Biran/Naveh and Weippert who translate as if the invasion by Israel preceded the former king’s death. Linguistically, however, this interpretation proves to be unfounded, regardless of whether wyұl is equivalent to a “long-imperfect” *yaqtulu or to a wayyiqtol.14 Instead, the intention is to indi-

8

mlkn rbrbn is attested in KAI 216,10.13f. (Sam’al), malekin taqqipin in Ezr 4:20; cf. also Dan 3:33 with rbrbyn and tqypyn in a parallelismus membrorum. 9 In this respect, the argument of Suriano 2007:167, seems to be right (in spite of the slightly rounded beth in line 4). In contrast, I am not convinced by his criticism of Lemaire’s proposal (cf. pe in the line above). 10 Weippert (2010:269) follows Dion; his translation “viele Könige” would be, however, a Hebraism. 11 See Biran and Naveh 1995:18: “In his wars he killed ‘seventy kings’, among them Jehoram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah.” 12 Cf. Lemaire 2007:293–294. His proposal to read mlkn as dual (“two kings”), however, is not convincing. In this case, one would expect mlkyn (with diphthong), cf. Segert 1986:183–184 (5.2.3.3); Rosenthal 1968:§45. 13 Unfortunately, Suriano 2007 skips this sentence. Otherwise, a major part of his interpretation would not be possible. Athas 2003:55–57 insists that above the surface damage in line 4 between aleph and beth, the remnant of a lamed-stroke is still visible; therefore he reads ’lby. However, there is not enough room for this reading as is evidenced by the squeezed aleph and beth in the reconstruction, see Fig. 3.14 on p. 57. If his observation regarding the top of a lamed-stroke is right, we should rather assume an aberratio oculi to ’l in line 3 in the scribe’s Vorlage (virtually above the spot in question). Consequently, the scribe started by writing a lamed, but realized his mistake and wrote ’by. It may be that an additional attempt to correct this caused some damage which resulted in the deep lacuna. 14 Weippert and Weippert 1982:88=143 have convincingly shown that in the Tell Deir ‫ދ‬Alla plaster texts (DAPT), we have to reckon with the so called “perfect consecutive” – besides the recurrent “imperfect consecutive”. This means that the verbal tense system is basically the same as in Classical Old Hebrew. The same holds true for the Damascene Aramaic of the Tel Dan Stele which proves to be identical with the language of DAPT (see below). For systemic reasons, the Hebrew wayyiqtol cannot denote an action as pluperfect, which is always expressed by an interruption of a wayyiqtol series through an inversion, i.e. by “(we-)x qatal”. There is not even one reliable exception in the Hebrew Bible, as Driver 1892:84–89, and König 1897:§142f., have meticulously shown. It would be just as difficult to find a “long” yaqtulu/yiqtol expressing the beginning of pluperfect actions in any Northwestsemitic language.

40

Erhard Blum

cate that the king of Israel tried to take advantage of the king’s death in Damascus by attacking a land without a leader. Nevertheless, one element remains ambiguous: the meaning of qdm in line 4. Following the context, one might consider an adverbial expression “at first”15 (i.e., he started the aggression) or a nominal “as the first” or a verbal construction resembling syntactically Deut 1:5b and semantically Jon 4:2aß, i.e. “And the King of Israel hastened to penetrate into my father’s land.” However, a local meaning (“eastwards”16) cannot be excluded either. In any case, the detailed description provides the backdrop to Hazael’s own quick military response immediately after the festivities of his accession. In accordance with the suggestion of I. Kottsieper to complement the end of line 5 with the lexeme ywm, we read: [w]’pq mn šbұ [ywm]y mlky = “I went out after the week of my accession to the throne.”17 But the inscription contains even more important information. Line 2 speaks about the author’s “father” and about the wars or one of the wars he waged. We have here ]tծ l‫ۊ‬mh bҲ followed by the remnant of a stroke. Biran/Naveh define the options for restoring that letter as follows: “Two letters may be taken into consideration: beth or pe, although the stroke is too high for a beth … and too straight for a pe”. Nevertheless, they are inclined to restore a beth and to read “at Abel” or something similar.18 In fact, however, both options are out of the question: with regard to pe, the stroke is too 15 The popular reading (since the first publication) “previously, formerly” does not fit the syntactical context (see above). See recently also Knapp 2014 with detailed discussion (I owe thanks to the editor O. Sergi for drawing my attention to this article). 16 Preferred (with reservations) by CAL s.v. qdm (q‫ڴ‬am, qa‫ڴ‬mƗ) adj. (30/3/2015). Instead, Kottsieper 1998:481; 2001:178 assumes a place name. But this seems less convincing because a town named Kedem is not attested in Transjordan. Knapp 2014 proposed “Qedem” as “a geographical name” referring to “the peripheral region between cultivated land and desert in the northern Transjordan” (2014:113). But in the Bible such a “geographical name” does not exist: qedem appears only in genitive-constructions (bne qedem etc.) meaning “east”, and even more important: why should Aramaeans call the area south-west of Damascus by such a name? Contextually, one might be inclined to understand qdm in terms of “to penetrate” (Lemaire 1998:5), “vorrücken” (Knauf, de Pury and Römer 1994:62–63; Knauf 1996:9), “to advance” (Na’aman 2000:96); however, there is no clear evidence for such a meaning of the lexeme in Aramaic or Hebrew (besides Modern Hebrew). 17 Cf. Kottsieper 1998:481, who prefers the synonymous variant mn šbұt ywmy mlky which is, of course, also possible. But against his translation “nach sieben Tagen meines Herrschens” (478), I would insist on the rendering “nach den(!) sieben Tagen meiner Thronbesteigung(!)” which is not only contextually supported but also by the determination of šbұt ywmy mlky and by similar constructions with an inchoative meaning like 1 Sam 13:1 etc. Before Kottsieper, some scholars had already suggested inserting “days of” before line 6, basing themselves on fragment A only (Ahituv 1993:246, followed by Puech 1994:218–220; Dijkstra 1994:11). 18 See Biran/Naveh 1995:13–14 suggesting: b’b[y] = “against my fa[ther]”, b’b[l] = “at A[bel] (-Beth-Maacah)” or b’p[w] = “at Ap[hek]”. Schniedewind 1996:77,79 and Na’aman 2000:96,98 prefer “at Abel”; Kottsieper 1998:478,480 restores b’by because he translates htl‫ۊ‬mh as “sich verbünden”, claiming that “to fight” would be a Hebraism; an argument which does not reckon with the peculiarity of Damascene Aramaic; cf. Tropper 1993:301–306, with regard to the Tell Deir ‫ދ‬Alla plaster texts.

The Relations between Aram and Israel: Textual Evidence

41

short; with regard to beth, the position is much too high indeed, as the reconstruction with a copy of the preceding beth may demonstrate (fig. 1).

Fig. 1: Unlikely reading of a beth in line 2, reconstruction by the author.

The only possible letters are shin and (perhaps) yod. After this letter, there is space for one or two more letters.19 While it is hard to find an appropriate Aramaic name or word beginning with aleph-yod, it is much easier in the case of aleph-shin: Ҳšr = Aššur (Assyria). For the proposed reconstruction see fig. 2 (below, page 44). This reading is most likely to be accurate for another reason: We know from the annals of Shalmaneser III that the Assyrians fought against Hadadezer, king of Damascus, who was Hazael’s predecessor, no less than four times. The last campaign of Assyria against Hadadezer was in 845 BCE.20 An interesting question for us is whether the inscription deals with Hadadezer’s wars against Shalmaneser III in general or whether it is about a specific campaign. The answer depends mainly on how we should complement the expression ]tl‫ۊ‬mh. Since the alternative reading ml‫ۊ‬mh can be excluded21, we have to reckon with some form of infinitive of the tG/tD-stem of l‫ۊ‬m. Prima facie, two options should be considered. (1) Since the first edition (Biran/Naveh 1995), a vast majority of scholars have read in B line 2 an infinitive construct of the tG-stem with suffix (third person masculine singular) supposedly preceded by the preposition b- (“when he fought …”). Given this reading, the text most probably refers to a specific battle of Hadadezer with Shalmaneser III. Moreover, the question arises why Hazael mentions this war of his “father” just before reporting that his father lay down to die: wyškb ’by yhk ’el[ ’abhw]h? The most probable answer is that he died as a result of that battle – a connection already conjectured by A. Lemaire.22 If that was the case, we should expect a report of some injury of the “father” in line 2 preceding b’]tl‫ۊ‬mh.23 Since there is room only for 4–6 addi-

The measurement of the left edge is based on the transition from line 3 to 4: mlk ܸ[Ğ]|r’l. For recent presentations of the source-material see Yamada 2000 and Weippert 2010:249–265, for its interpretation see also Younger 2007. 21 Though this reading has been proposed for instance by Na’aman 1995a:389; 2000:96–97 and Tropper 1996:642, there is simply no room for the head of a mem (see Kottsieper 1998:480 n.16); the letter’s head must show to the right, which means that only taw ist possible. 22 Lemaire 1998:5; his argumentation, however, is mainly based on associating 2 Kings 8:7–15 and 8:28, and he does not explain how the assumed connection might have been expressed in line 2. 23 Since the DAPT show the tG/tD-stem with an aleph-prefix (instead of heh), this form should be preferred in the Tel Dan-reconstruction as well (cf. also LipiĔski 2000:373); cf. the discussion concerning the DAPT below. 19 20

42

Erhard Blum

tional letters,24 it would be unreasonable to derive ysq[ from the common root slq (”to go up”). Instead, we might consider the root sqb attested in (later) Aramaic in verbal (D-stem) and nominal derivations with the meaning “to injure, wound”, “wound”25 (or alternatively sql which means in Samaritan Aramaic “to cause a mishap/disaster”26). Though a full reconstruction will probably be impossible in view of the two lacunae, the meaning would be essentially: “… my father was injured when he fought against Assyria”, no matter whether the sentence started with the noun Ҳby ysq[b … b’]tl‫ۊ‬mh b’šr or with the verb ysq[b Ҳby b’]tl‫ۊ‬mh b’šr. In any case, the form is a prefix conjugation (active or passive). This might seem inappropriate because the verb obviously describes a singular event in the past. But there is an interesting parallel in 2 Kings 8:29a in the report about the battle between Hazael and Joram/Ahaziahu cited already:  ĠĜŨĂ ąŪ ąėČĢġğē Ă Ąĥīþ þę ĂĜĔē þ ăŮīą ĭþ ėĂ ğź þ Ąğ ĄŪ ąėĠīżĜĔ Ć ĆŘĆŦĘą ĠīĀĆ ēź Ąğ Ąġğ ăēėĆęĚ Ā Čĭ ĄēżġĀĚ ĆũėĂ şþ ė ĆġīĆ ĆşĠĜŪĂ īĀą ēţė ĉŨąĜī ĄŘĀē 

The imperfective aspect is used in this case to denote simultaneity in the past, which is quite a common usage.27 Since b-+infinitive construct expresses simultaneity as well, we have a pleonasm here which is quite common in similar cases.28 (2) As an alternative option, the infinitive construct in line 2 might be read as a ‘feminine’ form without suffix according to the standard in “Official Aramaic” of later times, i.e.’/htl‫ۊ‬mh “to fight”.29 In this case, we would have to presume that it was preceded by l- and accordingly by a form of slq as the main verb. Thus, possible restorations would be Ҳby ysq[ … l’]tl‫ۊ‬mh b’šr or ysq[ Ҳby l’]tl‫ۊ‬mh b’šr, “my father went up to fight against Assyria”. A convenient explanation of the prefix conjugation is possible as well: since Hadadezer made several campaigns against the Assyrians (see above), ysq can be read with an iterative/frequentative signification. This would mean that line 2 does not refer specifically to Hadadezer’s last battle – as in option (1) – and there would be no causal connexion between the king’s military activity and his death. The decision between options (1) and (2) appears to be difficult, since the evidence for infinitive construct forms in Damascene Aramaic of the 9th or 8th century BCE is limited. In addition, the morphology of the infinitive varies in Aramaic not only diachronically but also between regions and dialects and sometimes in one and the same 24

The actual number would differ depending (a) on the individual size of each letter, (b) on the exact position of fragments A and B; see n.2 above. 25 Cf. Sokoloff 2002:828 s.v. sqb Pa. “to injure, wound”; Sokoloff 2002:829 s.v. sqbҲ “sore spot”, and CAL (31. March 2015) s.v. sqb, sqbҲ “wound””; Sokoloff 2009:1037 (Brockelmann 1928:493) s.v. sqb’ “wound made by pressing” (“vulnus impressum”). In our context we have to assume some passive voice, be it G or non-G. 26 Tal 2000:608 s.v. sql “mishap, harm”, sql G “to let happen”, sqwl “mishap”; Sokoloff 1990:387 s.v. sqwl “accident”. 27 Blum 2008:125–132=181–186, with further literature. 28 Blum 2008:129–132=183–186, inter alia pointing out the pleonasm of Ҳz followed by yiqtol. 29 Such a reading has rarely been proposed, except by Kottsieper 1998:478,480; cf. Becking 1996: 28.

The Relations between Aram and Israel: Textual Evidence

43

text.30 In the Tell Fakhariya Bilingual Inscription from the 9 th century BCE, the infinitive construct in the G-stem with a m-prefix (lm’rk etc.) and in the D-stem without prefix or suffix, i.e. in the ‘masculine’ form (lkbr), are attested.31 In the Sefire Stele (8th century BCE), the G-infinitive is found without prefix or suffix, in derived stems with the feminine suffix -t in the construct state, while the inf. abs. appears once without suffix (hskr).32 At the same time in the local dialect of Sam’al, the infinitive is found so far only in the G-stem, again in the ‘masculine’ form without prefix. With regard to the Damascene dialect in the 9th century BCE, the Tel Dan Stele itself contains an instance of the G-infinitive in the masculine form (mlky). In the Tell Deir ‫ދ‬Alla plaster texts as well, only infinitives without prefix and feminine suffix are attested, even though with regard to infinitive construct forms,33 the verbal stems cannot be identified for sure34 and some readings remain difficult.35 Nevertheless, when we take into consideration all the available data, not least the known affinity of the Damascene language to Canaanite languages nearby (Hebrew, Moabite), it seems advisable to keep the established reading of the infinitive in line 2 of the Tel Dan Stele since Biran/Naveh, i.e. bh/’]tl‫ۊ‬mh. Finally, line 1 is so fragmentary that it cannot be reconstructed but it does allow some reasonable conjectures about its basic content: Biran/Naveh already pointed out the fact that the root gzr in Aramaic formed an idiom with ҳdn/ҳdyҲ analogous to the Hebrew krt bryt (“make a treaty”).36 The use of this idiom seems quite probable in the political context of the inscription. Moreover, the space left in line 1 can easily be filled with ҳdn. Furthermore, the context provides the most natural candidates for the treaty-making in question: Aram-Damascus on the one hand and Israel-Samaria on the other. If this is correct, the suggestion of E. LipiĔski37 that the ҳayin might be the first letter of “Omri” turns out to be a tempting conjecture. Based on these considerations, we get the following tentative reading: wyҲmr ҳmry Ҳ‫ۊ‬k Ҳnh wgzr ҳdn, i.e. “Omri said: ‘I am your brother’38 while making a treaty.”

30

Cf. Greenfield 1990 with literature. LipiĔski 1994:58: “All the pe‫ދ‬al infinitives have the m- prefix, which reflects an early NorthEastern Aramaic innovation … Instead, the pa‫ދ‬el infinitives are without the typical –h ending, which ought to be regarded as a secondary development”; Garr 2004:128–130. 32 Degen 1969:69–78; Garr 2004:128–130. The interpretation of ‫ۊ‬zyh in KAI 222A 13 is highly controversial; cf. Degen 1969:78; Garr 2004:140,163 n.407 and DNWSI I,358. 33 Infinitive absolute forms are attested in the first Combination (A): bkh and (probably) ‫ۊ‬šb, as well as in Combination B: qb (“curse”) frg. ix-a, line 3. 34 Combination B line 11: l‫ۊ‬lq (?), line 17: dbr (G or D: “to lead”). 35 In frg. x-d, line 4 (Combination B), the drawing of G. van der Kooij (Hoftijzer/van der Kooij 1976: plate 33) supports the reading wlhšršm which represents a causative infinitive construct with a suffix of 3rd person plural (“to let them root”). Unfortunately, the available photos are only partially helpful. 36 Biran and Naveh 1995:13. 37 LipiĔski 2000:373. 38 The conjectural sentence “I am your brother” is inspired by the formula used by Ahaz addressing Tiglath-pileser III in 2 Kgs 16:7. The preference of “son” or “brother” would depend on the implied hierarchal relationship. If we accept the proposal of Athas 2003:39–51 for the beginning of 31

Erhard Blum

Fig. 2: Reconstruction of the Tel Dan inscription by the author.39

44

39

line 2 ()b‫ۊ‬sdy, we could continue reading “thanks to the kindness of my father”. However, the evidence for this proposal remains fragile. 39 The reconstruction in fig. 2 is based on the drawing of A. Yardeni in Biran and Naveh 1995:12, but it includes a slight rotation of fragment A (through one degree); cf. above note 2. All added letters

The Relations between Aram and Israel: Textual Evidence

45

What was the aim of the inscription in the parts which were preserved? Apparently, it serves two main propagandistic interests of the royal author: one is the legitimation of his own kingship in succession to Hadadezer; the other interest is to show that it was the king of Israel who initiated the war between Aram and Israel by breaking the treaty between the kingdoms and by attacking Aram just when it lost its king. We will return to these points, but two historical implications of the proposed (new) reading should first be outlined – excepting the first line with its tentative reconstruction. The first implication is that there is no hint at small regional polities in our text. The players in the Southern Levant with whom Hazael reckons are only the kingdoms of Israel and Beth-David (Judah). It seems worthwhile to emphasize this point because there is a trend in scholarship to postulate all kinds of local, more or less independent polities in ancient Palestine. With regard to the ninth century BCE and with the exception of some Philistine city-states, these speculations have no foundation in the textual sources, neither the biblical nor the epigraphical, above all the royal inscriptions of Mesha and Hazael. In the case of our text, it is especially M. Weippert who favours the assumption that Hazael’s father was actually the ruler of some local polity in the region of Dan and that it was this area the king of Israel had invaded.40 Weippert’s main argument is that Hazael speaks of his predecessor as “his father” although we know from other sources that he was not the “son” of Hadadezer in a verbal sense. Nevertheless, the clear connection between the “father’s” death and Hazael’s accession to the throne proves that “my father” referred indeed to the king of Damascus. The reading of “Aššur” in line 2 provides further weighty evidence against the local hypothesis. But then, how should Hazael’s recurrent reference to “my father” be explained? The supposition of Kottsieper and others41 that ’ab is used here simply in the wider sense of “patron” has much to recommend it. Moreover, the insistence on this title seems to belong to the legitimizing efforts of the author. It is an attempt to cover (up) the probably weakest point of his kingship, his non-royal descent. We know that Shalmaneser III called Hazael disparagingly “son of a nobody”.42 The prophetical legend of Elisha in Damascus in 2 Kings 8 goes even further, describing Hazael as an usurper who murdered his ill master. Although the legend cannot be reckoned as a historical

are copies from existing letters in Yardeni’s facsimile. The inserted shin in line 2 is copied from line 5. As the following discussion will show, the degree of probability regarding the other additions in the figure ranges from almost certain to highly tentative. The preference of a specific reading does not necessarily rule out other reasonable options. In regard to the name “Joram” (l.7,8) a phonetic spelling is presumed, based on the pronounciation which Aramaeans could hear from northern Israelites. 40 Weippert 2010:266f.; cf. also Suriano 2007:167ff.; Niehr 2011:341; Berlejung 2013:73; note also the suggestion by Na’aman 1995a that Hazael came from the dynasty of Beth Rehob. 41 Kottsieper 1998:485 with reference to Lemaire 1994:92 and Dietrich 1997:31 n.81 who pointed already to 1 Sam 24:12 with David calling Saul Ҳabi. 42 RIMA 3, A.0.102.40 I 26. Cf. Weippert 2010:262–263 (no. 111). For a thorough treatment of this issue see Younger 2005.

46

Erhard Blum

source concerning the role of the prophet, it probably reflects a popular version of Hazael’s accession to the throne. The second historical implication concerns the royal chronology in Israel and Aram in the ninth century BCE, more specifically the year in which the kingdom of Hazael, the Jehu-dynasty in Samaria and the reign of Athaliah in Jerusalem began. According to the prevalent chronology in history books and commentaries, the year in question was 842/841 BCE (based on Thiele); according to the classical chronology by Begrich/Jepsen, followed by Noth and others, it was 845/844 BCE. Based on the prevailing interpretation of the infinitive in line 2 (see above) and relying on Hazael’s assertion that Hadadezer died as a result of his last war against Assyria in 845 BCE, we have almost direct evidence for the earlier date.43 The question proves important not only per se, but also in terms of the biblical Literargeschichte, because the later date is primarily based on the individual regnal years of the kings in the OT, whereas the earlier date relies not least on the synchronistic data of the book of Kings. The whole issue has therefore implications for the question since when the courts in Samaria and Jerusalem kept synchronistic chronicles of the two states.44

II. Biblical sources and epigraphic evidence (2): The Tell Deir ‫ދ‬Alla inscriptions Focusing on the textual data in the Hebrew Bible, the lasting wars between Damascus and Samaria turn out to represent the most intensively narrated conflict in the book of Kings, inter alia in the so-called “war-stories” which are connected to prophetical figures like Elisha or Micaiah son of Imlah. In terms of redaction history, these stories form post-Deuteronomistic insertions into the exilic DtrH;45 moreover, most of them show clear signs of post-exilic transformations of older north-Israelite traditions. Last but not least, the assignment of these war stories to the time of the Omrides is anachronistic for historical and exegetical reasons, as A. Jepsen showed long ago.46 They were moved from the time of the early Jehu dynasty to the Omrides for a simple reason: these awful wars should be attributed to the most evil kings and not to the relatively ‘good’ Jehu47 and his son Jehoahaz. 43

According to the second option for line 2 discussed above, there would be no indication of a causal connection between Hadadezer’s last war against Assyria and his death (though this connection would remain possible). For an attempt to reconcile the ‚data‘ of both the Tel Dan Stele and the biblical Book of Kings, and the predominant chronology which connects the war of Joram and Azariahu at Ramoth-gilead with the year of Shalmaneser’s III campaign against Hazael, see Yamada 2000:309–320. However, he does not include another essential event which was almost simultaneous to the Israel-Aram war (according to the Tel Dan stele): Hazael’s accession to the throne in Damascus. 44 The question of the Israelite/Judahite chronology as a whole is the subject of a comprehensive study prepared by Dr. Kristin Weingart, Tübingen. 45 Cf. especially Schmitt 1972:131–133; Stipp 1987:463–480; McKenzie 1991:81–100. 46 Jepsen 1941/1944. 47 See below.

The Relations between Aram and Israel: Textual Evidence

47

Thus, the first historical evidence appears in the notice in 2 Kings 8:28–29 which has been cited above. It forms an excerpt from the synchronistic chronicles of the kings of Israel and Judah and it refers as a primary source to the same war as Hazael’s inscription. Apparently, the royal chronicles were used also by the author of the Jehu narrative in 2 Kings 9–10 (cf. 9:15a, 16b) which reports the killing of Joram son of Ahab and Ahaziah son of Jehoram by Jehu in contradiction to Hazael’s claim. For several reasons, it is the Jehu-narrative which seems more reliable in this respect,48 although it was composed later than the Tel Dan Stele, probably in the first half of the 8th century BCE.49 At any rate, such an overstatement on the part of Hazael would not be unfamiliar in a royal inscription. Unfortunately, we do not know how Hazael presented his conquests and his achievements in the lost part of his inscription. Thus, we have to focus on the Hebrew sources supported by Assyrian data. According to Shalmaneser III, his first campaign against Hazael was held in 841 BCE. Hazael managed to survive in his capital Damascus while his land was destroyed by the Assyrians. Nevertheless, he became the predominant power in the Levant and succeeded in resisting Assyria until 837, when the Assyrians gave up. At least from then on, Hazael’s neighbours had to experience his imperialistic energy and ambitions. Our major source is the Bible, for instance 2 Kings 10: 

32

ğ ăēīĆ řþ ĂĜşĭż þ ů ąĪğėĆ þ Ęė þĜğ ăĚ ăėĠ ăė ĆėĠĜġĆĂ Ŧ ąş đğ ēċ ă īĆ řþ ĂĜğţĔ þŠČğ ĆĞ şğ þ ăēĆęĚ Ā Ġ ăŨąŦ Ęą  ĜŚą Ă ģġþ ąė þĘĜ Ăģ ăĔĘēīĉ Ćė þĘĜĖĆĂ Š ąėĖ Ćĥğþ ĂŠ ąėĨīĄ ĄēČğ ĆŨĭ ăēŘ Ąġ ĄŚ ąėĚ īą þęġĢ Ă šă īąþ Ŧ ąėČĢĂġ đĢ Ř ċ Ć Ćş ąė þĘĖĆĥğþ ĂŠ ąė þĘĢģć īþ ąēğ ąĚąģČğ ąĥī ĄŘĀēī ăĥī ć ĥ Ā ăġ 

In those days the LORD began to trim off parts of Israel. Hazael defeated them throughout the territory of Israel: 33 from the Jordan eastward, all the land of Gilead, 48 This issue has been discussed at length, cf. especially Halpern 1996; Schniedewind 1996; Kottsieper 1998; Yamada 1995, 2000; Na’aman 2000, 2006; Lemaire 2007. Unfortunately, the debate concentrates mostly on the fate of the two allied kings. But there is the massacre of the Judahite princes by Jehu (2 Kgs 10:13–14), an episode which presupposes the stay of the injured Israelite king at Jezreel and which cannot be explained as a literary fiction (see also its factual connection to Athaliah’s reign in Jerusalem). Moreover, there is independent evidence for the murderous beginning of Jehu’s kingship in Hos 1:4. Finally, 1 Kings 22 tells another story of an Israelite king injured (and finally dying) in a battle at Ramoth-gilead against the Aramaeans, whereas the allied Judahite king was saved. Although the paradigmatic prophetical story with Ahab as the ‘bad king’ is a post-DtrH insertion (Stipp 1995, pace Na’aman 1997), it appears to be the elaboration of an old underlying tradition based on the Joram-Ahaziah campaign against Hazael. In sum, “contemporaneous” epigraphic sources do not deserve preference over biblical sources per se (cf. Na’aman 1999:11). Instead, each one should be evaluated on the basis of its overall profile and of its diachrony. 49 In contrast to a widespread view, the Jehu narrative is not a “prophetical story”, but ‘courtliterature’ aiming at heroifying the founder of the dynasty of the Nimshides. The reference to prophets is just part of its political tendency. With regard to its promotional interests, we should, at the same time, be careful not to read the portrait of Jehu as a go-getter against both kings as an exact historical description. The self-confident presentation of the dynasty founder points to the time of consolidation since king Joash. For a date in the 8th century see also Otto 2001:97–101.

48

Erhard Blum

the Gadites, the Reubenites, and the Manassites, from Aroer, which is by the Wadi Arnon, that is, Gilead and Bashan. (NRSV) These verses are part of the Deuteronomistic frame of the Jehu story. The information given is not as precise as we would like it. On the one hand, we hear about a territorial decimation of Israel, and on the other hand about defeats by Hazael which Israel suffered “throughout its territory”. Not every victory, not every capture of a city results in annexation. This, however, was the fate of the territory east of the Jordan singled out in v.33, first by mentioning “all the land of Gilead” and the three eastJordanian tribes, then by naming three regions from south to north: “from Aroer by the Wadi Arnon, Gilead and the Bashan”. By the way, it seems that the Moabite conquests claimed by Mesha are subsumed here in both descriptions.50 The formulation of v.32a, ğ ăēīĆ řþ ĂĜşĭż þ ů ąĪğėĆ þ Ęė þĜğ ăĚ ăėĠ ăė ĆėĠĜġĆĂ Ŧ ąş reveals the point of view of the writer: Looking back from a later point in history, he suggests an answer to the question when the downfall of the Northern Kingdom actually began. Interestingly enough, we find a parallel note about Judah in 2 Kings 15:37. This means that 2 Kings 10:32a probably represents the evaluation of the main Deuteronomistic stratum at the time of the exile. At the same time, however, this statement sharply contradicts the theological evaluation of Jehu by the Deuteronomist: after all, he is the king who wiped out the worship of Baal in Israel! Therefore, he is the only northern king to whom YHWH could say: ĜģĜĥĔ īĬĜė ĭĘĬĥğ ĭĔĜěė. As a consequence, the Deuteronomistic scribes have no conclusive explanation for the disastrous fate of Israel precisely in the days of Jehu. It is clear, therefore, that they reproduce a tradition of old which simply could not be withheld. Moreover, it was deeply burned into the collective memory of northern Israel. This is proven by additional evidence. For instance, we read in Amos’s cycle on the nations in Amos 1:   ėĘĆė þĜī ąġ Ćēė Ũ ć  ţū ĄĔĜŘĀ Ă ēēć ğė Ćĥ Ćşīþ ąēČğ ąĥ þĘ_Ī ĄřĄŪ Ėą ĜăĥŘþ ŮĂ ė ĆŘžŘČğ þ ąĥ đĖ ĥ ċ Ć ğþ ĂŠ ąėČĭ Ąē_ğęĄīþ ąş ąėĭżĩīĉ Ě Ā ąşĠĆŘţšČğ ąĥ  đĖ Ėċ Ć ė Ā ČĢ Ąşĭżģġþ īþ ąēė ĆğĞþ Ćē þĘ_ğ ăēĆęĚ Ā ĭĜăĔþşŘăēĜųĂ Ěþ ąũŘĂ þĘ 

In the legend about Elisha in Damascus, we see the man of God crying because he knows the deeds of Hazael against Israel in the future: 

 ė ĄĞ Ĕ ć ĜĂģ Ė ć ē Ā ĥţš ą ąġğăēĆęĚ Ā ī Ąġēć ŦąĘ ėĆĥīğ Ć ăēĆī řþ ĂĜĜăģ Ĕþ ğĂ ė ĄřĀĥ ąųČī ĄŘĀēĭăēĜųĂ ĥþ ĖĆą ĜČĜŨĂ ī Ąġēć ŦąĘ ĕī ć ė Ā ąųĔīĄ ĄĚ ąşĠ ĄėĜīă Ě ċ ĉ ąĔţŘ ăē ĆşĚ ąũ ąŘųĠ þ ĄėĜīă ĩþ Ĕþ ġĂ  đĥą Űċ ă ąĔųĠ þ ĄėĜ ăĭī ć Ćė þĘŘăťīą ųĠ þ ĄėĜ ăğğþ ćĥ þĘ 

50 Actually, this might point merely to a difference of perceptions or claims (pace Na’aman 1999:9); see Lemaire 2007:291, referring to possible connections between Hazael’s massive pressure against Israel and Mesha’s territorial success north of the Arnon.

The Relations between Aram and Israel: Textual Evidence

49

A piece from the chronicles of the kings of Israel summarizes the situation in the time of Jehoahaz son of Jehu (2 Kings 13) as follows:  ĜğĂ þĕ īĠĜ ą ħĂ ĆğĀēĭīĄ ĄřĀĥĘą Ĕ ĄĞīė Ą īĆ ĆřĀĥĘą ĠĜŘĂ īĆ ĆŮĠĜŚĂ ġĂ Ě Ā ČĠ ēĜ Ă ŨĠ Ă Ćĥę ĆĚ ĆēżėĜğīĜ Ă ēĂ Řþ ėēć Ă ğĜŨĂ  đŘ Ėċ ĉ ĆğīĆħ Ćĥ ĄŨĠ ăġřĂ þĜąĘĠĆīĀēź Ąğ ĄġĠ ĖĆ şþ ēĜ Ă ŨĂ



This is not far from Mesha’s well-known summary: yĞr’l Ҳbd Ҳbd ҳlm. The diachronic analysis of chap. 13 as a whole is quite difficult. We find here several repetitions and inconsistencies in the narrative. One strand is connected to legends about the last deeds of Elisha before and after his death. It attributes the first successful actions against Ben-Hadad, son of Hazael, to Joash, son of Jehoahaz. He defeated, as is said in v.25, Ben-Hadad three times and reconquered the cities of Israel which Ben-Hadad had taken from his father Jehoahaz(!). Unfortunately, no names of cities are mentioned. Last but not least, we have indirect but important extra-biblical evidence concerning the Aramaean occupation of the Gilead by Hazael: the plaster-inscriptions from Tell Deir ‫ދ‬Alla (DAPT). The excavators M. M. Ibrahim and G. van der Kooij state with regard to the dating: “All three [scil. C14-analyses] point to a time between 770 and 880 BC, with a high probability of the date being at the end of the 9th century BC.”51 With regard to the language of the text, the lasting debate should have come to an end with the discovery of the Tel Dan Stele:52 It is the very same language, i.e. Aramaic containing strong so-called Canaanite elements, especially the verbal syntax which is almost the same as in Old Hebrew and Moabite.53 Thus, archaeology and philology both confirm the Damascene occupation of the Israelite territory east of the Jordan in the last decades of the 9th century BCE as is indicated by the biblical sources. A few decades ago, a regional solution was favoured in this case as well. There was talk of a specific Gileadite language and culture, so to speak between Aram and Israel. Such an idea, however, was always unlikely, not the least because of the nature of the texts. These are not only the most voluminous texts found so far in the southern Levant (more than twice as long as Mesha); they represent in fact the sole examples of high literature in a Northwestsemitic language from the first half of the first millennium BCE – except for the older parts of the Hebrew Bible. It is not convincing to claim such a Literatursprache for a hypothetical regional polity called “Gilead”.54

51

Ibrahim and van der Kooij 1991:27–28. According to them, these analyses “have been done with carbonized plant remains (grain and leaves) from the final destruction of Phase IX.” They also state: “A carbon-14 analysis of a sample from the preceding collapse of Phase IX gives a century older result; one from the preceding phase, two centuries older. Two carbon-14 dates from Phase VI point to the second half of the 8th century BC.” 52 Tropper 2001:215. 53 Pace Muraoka 2001 (and earlier studies), in principal concordance with Tropper 1996 and Emerton 2000 (and earlier studies); see my article “A ‘neglected’ Aramaic Idiom: The Language of the Kingdom of Aram-Damascus”, in a forthcoming Hebrew Festschrift. 54 Cf. already Lemaire 1991:47.

50

Erhard Blum

Both DAPT-texts contain features typical of Egyptian writing traditions and were apparently copied from papyrus-Vorlagen on the wall.55 The first Combination (A) with the narrative about Balaam bar Beor represents a sapiential text in Kunstprosa (poetical prose). Its layout is well planned, forming an almost perfect square with red frames on three sides and with rubra in the first and the second line which together comprise a full line in red. Combination B was much more voluminous, apparently containing a sapiential dialog between a master and his disciple about the troubling question “Why every living being becomes rot and earth [when it dies …]?” and about the conditions of a fulfilled life. The red line marks the structural centre of this work addressing the pupil directly and referring to his education and to his social responsibility.56 The closest parallel to this didactic work is a cuneiform dialogue text from the 2nd millennium BCE found in three versions in Ugarit, Emar and Hattusha.57 Neither the combinations A and B nor their architectural context show any sign of cultic or royal-representative purpose. Ibrahim’s and van der Kooij’s reconstruction of the room presents benches on two sides and a wall with the plaster texts written in one column. The plaster beside the texts was prepared for additional writing. As far as I know, the best parallel in every respect to this setting is a school from Roman times in Egypt (Dakhla) which has been found in a private villa.58 In my judgement, it is beyond any reasonable doubt that the DAPT room was destined to function as a school. Taking into account the nature of the literary texts in Damascene Aramaic and the masterly script, it seems clear that the institution was designed as a place of higher education, probably managed by a professional master. All this points to an institution maintained by the central administration of Damascus. It might have served to train not only the Aramaean personnel, but also some of the indigenous elite for tasks in their service. If this is correct, the extraordinary discoveries in Tell Deir ‫ދ‬Alla would give us hints as to the nature and purpose of the Aramaic occupation of the region in the time of Hazael and Ben-Hadad II: In this case, it was probably not just a military conquest but an enduring annexation which also aimed at Aramaizing the local population. At any rate, the balance of power between Aram and Israel changed already during the reign of Joash and was finally reversed in Jeroboam II’s time.59 In 2 Kings 14:25, it is stated that Jeroboam expanded the territory of Israel “from Lebo Hamath to the Sea of the Arabah”. Such an expansion would lead to an Israelite dominance over the neighbouring Aramaean states, a dominance which is obviously referred to in the summary in 14:28, although the text is unfortunately partly corrupt. At first sight, even the formulation in 2 Kings 14:25 sounds like a chauvinistic exaggeration. Amos 6:13– 55

For more detailed presentations of the following features of the DAPT-combinations see Blum 2015; 2016: with earlier literature. 56 Combination B, line 17: lydt spr dbr šծ n[h] ұl lծ šn lk mծ šծ p‫ ܒ‬wmlq[h] “After all, you know to write and to lead those who repeat by heart, your task is legal practice and speech.” 57 šimâ milka (or “The Instructions of Šnjpê-amƝli”). For a recent edition see Cohen 2013:81–128, with notes and an illuminating discussion (cf. also Cohen 2013/2014); for a short comparison with DAPT B see Blum 2016:33–34. 58 For a treatment in more detail see Blum 2016. 59 See recently LipiĔski 2013:140–141.

The Relations between Aram and Israel: Textual Evidence

51

14, however, seem to indicate that the expression reflects at least how the Israelite elite in Jeroboam’s time saw itself. As a matter of fact, v.13 quotes the triumph about the conquest of Karnaim close to the core area of Damascus. Moreover, the surprising discoveries at Kuntillet ‫ދ‬Ajrud clearly confirm the presence of Jeroboam’s kingdom even in the northern Sinai region, i.e. hundreds of kilometres away from the Northern Kingdom. At Kuntillet ‫ދ‬Ajrud, Samaria built and maintained a way-station in order to control international trade, probably in cooperation with Phoenician traders.60 In sum: Jeroboam II was indeed a major player in the southern Levant. There are no hints that the area of Gilead and northern Galilee did not remain under Israelite control after Jeroboam II and until Tiglath-pileser III’s campaign against Aram and Israel. This is supported inter alia by twofold evidence: an excerpt from the chronicles of the Kings of Israel in 2 Kings 15:29 about Tiglath-pileser III’s conquest of Galilee and Gilead, and the Summary Inscriptions 4 and 9 of Tiglath-pileser III mentioning Gilead as part of the boundary region of Israel with Aram.61 The list of territories conquered by Tiglath-pileser III in 2 Kings 15 actually begins with cities in the Dan area and in Galilee: Ijon, Abel-Beth-Maacah, Janoah, Kedesh and Hazor. Apparently, the Hebrew annalist assigned these cities to Israel. In the time of Hazael, however, Dan was under the control of Damascus as evidenced by Hazael’s inscription. So we now come back to the issue of Dan, confining ourselves to a few remarks. Dan belonged most probably to an area in which Aramaeans and Israelites lived close to one another. It could well be that neighbouring cities had populations of different ethnic or tribal origins. At the same time, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the ethnic-cultural identity and the political affiliation were not definitely correlated, be it through forced occupation or by voluntary agreement.62 At any rate, we have good evidence that Dan and its neighbours belonged to the kingdom of Israel at the beginning of the 9th century BCE. Skipping even older traditions like the Song of Deborah (Judges 5), at least two biblical texts should be pointed out. The first one is the report in 1 Kings 15 about the war between Asa and Baasha. When the northern king Baasha succeeded in advancing towards Jerusalem in Benjamin, Asa sent a heavy bribe to Ben-Hadad, King of Aram, declaring (15:19): “There is a treaty between me and you, between my father and your father. Look, I have sent to you silver and gold as a bribe. Come and break your treaty with Baasha, the king of Israel, that he may depart from me.” Ben-Hadad agreed and sent his troops “against the cities of Israel, and smote Ijon, and Dan, and Abel-Beth-Maacah and all Kinrot 60

Blum 2013:48–50 with n.21. Tadmor 1994:138–139,186–187; and recently Weippert 2010:294. Reading uruGa-al-[Ҵa-a-di ù uru ]A-bi-il-x1-x2 šá pa‫ ܒ‬kurBƯt-Hu-um-ri[a] as “Gil[ead, and] Abil-…, which are the border of BitHumria” (Tadmor 1994:138–139; cf. Weippert 2010:294, n.72) rather than as “… which is on the border of BƯt ঩umri” (Na’aman 1995b:105), the region of Gilead seems to be included in the Israelite kingdom, pace Na’aman 1995b (but see also Weippert 2010:310). At the same time, however, we should be aware that the Assyrians could only rely on informants from Aram or Israel with regard to the political affiliation of specific territories, and it is quite probable that in a case like Gilead, the information would differ from one source to the other. 62 Compare the instance of Libnah according to 2 Kgs 8:22b. 61

52

Erhard Blum

with all the land of Naphtali” (15:20). This tradition probably came from royal chronicles and, in view of its unfriendly Tendenz towards the Judahite king, not from a southern version. Did Ben-Hadad occupy this large area? We cannot know. The language might point to a campaign that aimed just at plunder and destruction. But even if not, it seems quite unlikely that kings like Omri and Ahab would tolerate a lasting annexation of such a close and important area. This means that Hazael had to conquer the city of Dan. If this was the case, his inscription at the entrance of the city gate with the apologetic tendency concerning his kingship and the accusations against the king of Israel was not least addressed to the Israelite inhabitants of the city. The other pertinent evidence can be found in the succession narrative of David which has to be dated no later than the first half of the 9th century BCE because of its unmistakable pragmatics.63 In 2 Samuel 20, when Joab and David’s men attacked Abel-Beth-Maacah where the separatist Sheba son of Bichri had fled, the famous wise woman saved the city by appealing to Joab: “you seek to destroy a city and a mother in Israel: why will you swallow up the inheritance of YHWH?” (20:19) The emphasis on the Israelite identity and loyality of Abel might well indicate that this very identity was not in fact beyond any doubt.64 In any case, the episode is pertinent because it testifies to Abel’s political affiliation to Israel.

III. Conclusion We conclude our investigation with a few remarks. Ethnical, tribal, cultural, religious and political identities are altogether social constructions which can change. Moreover, these identities and their extensions are not necessarily congruent. Therefore, when we speak about borders, we have to make clear to what kind of borders we are referring. In the 9th–8th centuries BCE, there was no other political entity between Aram-Damascus and Israel, neither Geshur nor Maacah nor anything else. The people of these former kingdoms probably formed tribal groups in the Kingdom of AramDamascus at the time. Anyhow, the social backbone of the Kingdom of Israel was constituted by kinship structures based on tribes, clans, etc.65 The definition of this ethnic concept of Israel, however, was never identical to the political borders of the Northern Kingdom in the 9th and 8th centuries, as evidenced by all pertinent sources from the old Song of Deborah and the Saul narratives to the north-Israelite Jacob cycle and other important traditions: There was never a concept of “Israel” which would not include Benjamin, and since the 10th century BCE, Judah was integrated into this genealogical system as well. With regard to our topic, this means that the population in the border areas of Transjordan and Dan was genuinely Israelite in terms of its tribal self-identification. In terms of the political balance of power, we can assume that both kingdoms were roughly equal in the days of the Omrides, which were followed by the 63

Blum 2010. Dietrich and Münger 2003:46 even surmise that the wise woman was declaring the affiliation of Abel with Israel. 65 See recently Weingart 2014. 64

The Relations between Aram and Israel: Textual Evidence

53

severe domination of Hazael with wide territorial annexations. The 8th century BCE showed in turn the clear supremacy of Jeroboam II with perhaps modest annexations, followed by a short period of Aramaean control until the termination of the Damascene kingdom by Tiglath-pileser III.

Bibliography AHITUV, S., 1993. Suzerain or Vassal? Notes on the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan, IEJ 43: 246– 247 ATHAS, G., 2003. The Tel Dan Inscription: A Reappraisal and a New Interpretation, Sheffield (republished 2005) BECKING, B., 1996. The Second Danite Inscription. Some Remarks, BN 81: 21–29 BERLEJUNG, A., 2013. Nachbarn, Verwandte, Feinde und Gefährten: “Die Aramäer” im Alten Testament, in: Arameans, Chaldeans, and Arabs in Babylonia and Palestine in the First Millenium B.C. (LAS 3), ed. A. Berlejung and M. P. Streck, Wiesbaden, 57–86 BIRAN, A. and J. NAVEH, 1995. The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment, IEJ 45: 1–18 BROCKELMANN, C., 1928. Lexicon Syriacum, Halle (2nd ed.) BLUM, E., 2008. Das althebräische Verbalsystem – eine synchrone Analyse, in: Sprachliche Tiefe – Theologische Weite (Biblisch-theologische Studien 91), ed. O. Dyma and A. Michel, NeukirchenVluyn, 91–142 = E. Blum, 2015. Grundfragen der historischen Exegese. Methodologische, philologische und hermeneutische Beiträge zum Alten Testament (FAT 95), ed. W. Oswald and K. Weingart, Tübingen, 155–193 –: 2010. Solomon and the United Monarchy: Some Textual Evidence, in: One God – One Cult – One Nation. Archaeological and Biblical Perspectives (BZAW 405), ed. R. G. Kratz and H. Spieckermann, Berlin, 59–78 –: 2013. Die Wandinschriften 4.2 und 4.6 sowie die Pithos-Inschrift 3.9 aus Kuntillet ұAЂrnjd, ZDPV 129: 21–54 –: 2015. Die aramäischen Wandinschriften von Tell Deir ‫ދ‬Alla, in: TUAT Neue Folge 8: Weisheitstexte, Mythen und Epen, Gütersloh, 459–474 –: 2016. Die altaramäischen Wandinschriften vom Tell Deir ‫ދ‬Alla und ihr institutioneller Kontext, in: Metatexte. Erzählungen von schrifttragenden Artefakten in der alttestamentlichen und mittelalterlichen Literatur (Materiale Textkulturen 15), ed. F.-E. Focken and M. R. Ott, Berlin, 21–52 CAL – The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon: http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/ COHEN, Y., 2013. Wisdom from the Late Bronze Age (Writings from the Ancient World 29), Atlanta –: 2013/2014. The Akkadian Wisdom Composition ‚Hear the Advice‘: Traditional Wisdom versus Rebellious Skepticism, Shnaton 23: 203–222 (Hebrew) DEGEN, R., 1969. Altaramäische Grammatik der Inschriften des 10.–8. Jh.v.Chr. (Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 48,1), Wiesbaden DIETRICH, W., 1997. dƗwƯd, dôd und bytdwd, ThZ 53: 17–32 DIETRICH, W. and S. MÜNGER, 2003. Zentrum und Peripherie – Die früheisenzeitliche Stadt Kinneret und ihr regionaler Kontext, in: Leben am See Gennesaret. Kulturgeschichtliche Entdeckungen in einer biblischen Region, ed. G. Fassbeck et al., Mainz, 43–46 DIJKSTRA, M., 1994. An Epigraphic and Historical Note on the Stela of Tel Dan, BN 74: 10–14 DION, P. E., 1999. The Tel Dan Stele and Its Historical Significance, in: Michael. Historical, Epigraphical and Biblical Studies. FS Prof. Michael Heltzer, ed. Y. Avishur and R. Deutsch, Tel Aviv, 145–156 DNWSI = J. HOFTIJZER and K. JONGELING, Dictionary of the Nort-West Semitic Inscriptions (2 vol.), HdO I,21, Leiden, 1995

54

Erhard Blum

DRIVER, S. R., 1892. A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew And Some Other Syntactical Questions, London 1892 third ed., reprint with new introduction by W. Randall Garr, Grand Rapids (reprint 1998) EHRLICH, C. S., 2001. The bytdwd-Inscription and Israelite Historiography: Taking Stock after Half a Decade of Research, in: The World of the Arameans II. Studies in History and Archaeology in Honour of Paul-Eugène Dion (JSOTS 325), ed. P. M. M. Daviau, J. W. Wevers and M. Weigl, Sheffield, 57–71 EMERTON, J. A., 2000. Two issues in the interpretation of the Tel Dan Inscription, VT 50: 27–37 GALIL, G., 2000. The Boundaries of Aram-Damascus in the 9th–8th Centuries BCE, in: Studies in Historical Geography and Biblical Historiography. FS Zecharia Kallai (VTS 81), ed. G. Galil and M. Weinfeld, Leiden, 35–41 GALIL, G., 2001. A Re-arrangement of the Fragments of the Tel Dan Inscription and the Relations between Israel and Aram, PEQ 133: 16–21 GARR, W. R., 2004. Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine, 1000–586 B.C.E., Winona Lake GREENFIELD, J. C., 1990. The Infinitive in the Aramaic Documents from the Judean Desert, in: ĜĬ ĢĜĔīĠĜĜĚğ. Studies on Hebrew and Other Semitic Languages. FS Chaim Rabin, ed. M. GoshenGottstein et al., Jerusalem, 77–81 (Hebrew) HAGELIA, H., 2006. The Tel Dan Inscription. A Critical Investigation of Recent Research on Its Palaeography and Philology, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis (Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 22), Uppsala –: 2009. The Dan Debate. The Tel Dan Inscription in Recent Research, Sheffield HALPERN, B., 1994. The stela from Dan: epigraphic and historical considerations, BASOR 296: 63– 80 HOFTIJZER, J. and G. VAN DER KOOIJ, 1976. Aramaic Texts from Deir Alla (Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui 19), Leiden IBRAHIM, M. M. and G. VAN DER KOOIJ, 1991. The archaeology of Deir ‫ދ‬Alla Phase IX, in: The Balaam Text from Deir ‫ދ‬Alla re-evaluated. Proceedings of the International Symposium held at Leiden 21–24 August 1989, ed. J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij, Leiden, 16–29 JEPSEN, A. 1941/1944. Israel und Damaskus, AfO 14: 153–172 KNAPP, A. 2014. The Dispute over the Land of Qedem at the Onset of the Aram-Israel Conflict: A Reanalysis of Lines 3-4 of the Tel Dan Inscription, JNES 73: 105–116 KNAUF, E.-A., 1996. Das “Haus Davids” in der alt-aramäischen Inschrift vom Tel Dan, Kirche und Bibel 51: 9–10 KNAUF, E.-A., A. DE PURY and T. RÖMER, 1994. *BaytDawƯd ou *BaytDǀd? Une relecture de la nouvelle inscription de Tel Dan, BN 72: 60–69 KÖNIG, E., 1897. Historisch-kritisches Lehrgebäude der hebräischen Sprache mit comparativer Berücksichtigung des Semitischen überhaupt. Zweite Hälfte 2. (Schluss-) Theil. Syntax, Leipzig KOTTSIEPER, I., 1998. Die Inschrift vom Tell Dan und die politischen Beziehungen zwischen AramDamaskus und Israel in der 1. Hälfte des 1. Jahrtausends vor Christus, in: “Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf”. Studien zum Alten Testament und zum Alten Orient. FS Oswald Loretz (AOAT 250), ed. M. Dietrich and I. Kottsieper, Münster, 475–500 –: 2001. A. Aramäische Inschriften. 1. Die Inschrift vom Tell Dan, in: TUAT. Ergänzungslieferung, ed. M. Dietrich et al., Gütersloh, 176–179 LEMAIRE, A., 1991. Les inscriptions sur plâtre de Deir ‫ދ‬Alla et leur signification historique et culturelle, in: The Balaam Text from Deir ‫ދ‬Alla re-evaluated. Proceedings of the International Symposium held at Leiden 21–24 August 1989, ed. J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij, Leiden, 33– 57 –: 1994. Epigraphie palestinienne: nouveaux documents. I. Fragment de stele araméenne de Tell Dan (IXe s. av. J.-C.), Henoch 16: 87–93. –: 1998. The Tel Dan Stela as a Piece of Royal Historiography, JSOT 81: 3–14

The Relations between Aram and Israel: Textual Evidence

55

–: 2007. West Semitic Inscriptions and Ninth-Century BCE Ancien Israel, in: Understanding the History of Ancient Israel (Proceedings of the British Academy 143), ed. H. G. M. Williamson, Oxford, 279–303 LIPIēSKI, E., 1994. Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics II (OLA 57), Leuven –: 2000. The Arameans. Their Ancient History, Culture, Religion (OLA 100), Leuven –: 2013. The Aramaeans in the West (13th–8th centuries), in: Arameans, Chaldeans, and Arabs in Babylonia and Palestine in the First Millenium B.C. (LAS 3), ed. A. Berlejung and M. P. Streck, Wiesbaden, 123–147 MCKENZIE, S. L., 1991. The Trouble with Kings. The composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History (VT.S 42), Leiden MURAOKA, T., 2001. The prefix conjugation in circumstantial clauses in the Tel Dan inscription?, VT 51: 389–392 NA’AMAN, N., 1995a. Hazael of ‘Amqi and Hadadezer of Beth-rehob, UF 27: 381–394 –: 1995b. Rezin of Damaskus and the Land of Gilead, ZDPV 111: 105–117 –: 1997. Prophetic Stories as Sources for the Histories of Jehoshaphat and the Omrides, Biblica 78: 161–171 –: 1999. The Contribution of Royal Inscriptions for a Re-Evaluation of the Book of Kings as a Historical Source, JSOT 82: 3–17 –: 2000. Three Notes on the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan, IEJ 50: 92–104 –: 2006. The Story of Jehu’s Rebellion: Hazael’s Inscription and the Biblical Narrative, IEJ 56: 160– 166 NIEHR, H., 2011. König Hazael von Damaskus im Licht neuer Funde und Interpretationen, in: „Ich werde meinen Bund mit euch niemals brechen!“ (Ri 2,1). FS Walter Groß (Herder Biblische Studien 62), ed. E. Gaß and H-J. Stipp, Freiburg, 339–356 OTTO, S., 2001. Jehu, Elisa und Elia. Die Erzählung von der Jehu-Revolution und die Komposition der Elia-Elisa-Erzählungen (BWANT 152), Stuttgart PUECH, E., 1994, La stele araméenne de Dan: Bar Hadad II et la coalition des Omrides et de la maison de David, RB 101: 215–241 ROSENTHAL, F., 1961. A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic (Porta Linguarum Orientalium 5), Wiesbaden SCHMITT, H.-C., 1972. Elisa. Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur vorklassischen nordisraelitischen Prophetie, Gütersloh SCHNIEDEWIND, W. M., 1996. Tel Dan Stela: New Light on Aramaic and Jehu’s Revolt, BASOR 302: 75–90 SEGERT, S., 1986. Altaramäische Grammatik mit Bibliographie, Chrestomathie und Glossar, Leipzig (3 ed.) SOKOLOFF, M., 1990. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period, Ramat Gan –: 2002. A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods, Ramat Gan –: 2009. A Syriac Lexicon. A Translation from the Latin, Correction, Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum, Winona Lake STIPP, H.-J., 1987. Elischa – Propheten – Gottesmänner. Die Kompositionsgeschichte des Elischazyklus und verwandter Texte, rekonstruiert auf der Basis von Text- und Literarkritik zu 1 Kön 20.22 und 2 Kön 2–7 (Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament 24), St. Ottilien –: 1995. Ahabs Buße und die Komposition des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks, Biblica 76: 471–497 SURIANO, M. J., 2007. The Apology of Hazael: A Literary and Historical Analysis of the Tel Dan Inscription, JNES 66: 163–176 TADMOR, H., 1994. The Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III King of Assyria. Critical Edition, with Introductions, Translations and Commentary, Jerusalem

56

Erhard Blum

TAL, A., 2000. A Dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic (Handbook of Oriental Studies. Section 1 The Near and Middle East 25), Leiden TROPPER, J., 1993. Die Inschriften von Zincirli. Neue Edition und vergleichende Grammatik des phönizischen, sam’alischen und aramäischen Textkorpus (Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-SyrienPalästinas 6), Münster –: 1996. Aramäisches wyqtl und hebräisches wayyiqtol, UF 28: 633–645 –: 2001. Dialektvielfalt und Sprachwandel im frühen Aramäischen. Soziolinguistische Überlegungen, in: The World of the Arameans III. FS Paul-Eugène Dion (JSOTS 326), ed. P. M. M. Daviau et al., Sheffield, 213–222 YAMADA, S., 1995. Aram-Israel Relations as Reflected in the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan, UF 27: 611–625 YAMADA, S., 2000. The Construction of the Assyrian Empire. A Historical Study of the Inscriptions of Shalmaneser III (859–824 BC) Relating to His Campaigns to the West (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 3), Leiden YOUNGER, K. L., 2005. ‘Haza’el, Son of a Nobody’: Some Reflections in Light of Recent Study, in: Writing and Ancient Near Eastern Society. Papers in Honour of Alan R. Millard (Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 426), ed. P. Bienkowski, C. Mee and E. Slater, New York, 245–270 –: 2007. Neo-Assyrian and Israelite History in the Ninth Century: the Role of Shalmaneser III, in: Understanding the History of Israel (Proceedings of the British Academy 143), ed. H. G. M. Williamson, Oxford, 237–271 WEINGART, K., 2014. Stämmevolk – Staatsvolk – Gottesvolk? Studien zur Verwendung des IsraelNamens im Alten Testament (FAT II 68), Tübingen WEIPPERT, H. and M. WEIPPERT, 1982. Die “Bileam”-Inschrift von Tell DƝr ұAllƗ, ZDPV 98: 77–103 = M. Weippert, 1997. Jahwe und die anderen Götter (FAT 18), Tübingen, 131–161 WEIPPERT, M., 2010. Historisches Textbuch zum Alten Testament (Das Alte Testament Deutsch / Ergänzungsreihe 10), Göttingen

The Damascene Subjugation of the Southern Levant as a Gradual Process (ca. 842–800 BCE) Assaf Kleiman, Tel Aviv University The Damascene subjugation of the Southern Levant during the second half of the 9th century BCE is mentioned in several places in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., 2 Kgs 8:7–15; 12:18–19; Amos 1:3; 6:1–2). For many years, these accounts constituted one of the sole sources for exploring the extent and impact of the territorial expansion of the Aramaean kingdom under the rule of Hazael (ca. 843–800 BCE),1 and consequently were the subject for various critics and prolonged scholarly debates.2 While the discovery of the Tel Dan stele dramatically improved our knowledge of the historical events,3 the overall insights that could be gathered from this source alone are predestined, all in all, to be limited. For that reason, the correlation between the destruction waves of cities at the end of the Iron Age IIA with the territorial expansion of AramDamascus was a real breakthrough, and significantly advanced the research of the historical events of the early Iron Age.4 The following article utilizes this correlation and re-examines the archaeological evidence for the Damascene subjugation of the Southern Levant (fig. 1). It will be argued that three main stages, which differ from one another in date and nature, may be identified in the territorial expansion process of Aram-Damascus: (1) early conflicts in the Gilead with the Kingdom of Israel during the final days of the Omride dynasty, (2) the annexation of the Israelite territories in the north after the Assyrian withdrawal from southern Syria in ca. 838–837 BCE, and (3) remote campaign(s) to the southern districts of Canaan, conducted towards the end of the 9th century BCE.

1

See, for example, Kraeling 1918; Unger 1957:62–82; Mazar 1962. For different critical evaluations of the biblical accounts on the territorial expansion of AramDamascus and its conflicts with the Kingdom of Israel, see Miller 1966; Pitard 1987:145–160; Na’aman 2002; 2006; Maeir 2004; HafÞorsson 2006:137–182; Hasegawa 2012:74–83; 2014; Sergi 2015:60–62. 3 HafÞorsson 2006, with earlier literature. For more textual evidences for Hazael’s activities, but without reference to events in the Southern Levant, see Eph‘al and Naveh 1989; Lemaire 1991; Niehr 2011; Amadasi-Guzzo 2014. 4 Na’aman 1997; 2002; Maeir 2004; 2012. For several works which make vast utilization of the archaeological record, see LipiĔski 2000; Maeir 2004; Na’aman 2006; Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2007; Arie 2008; Niehr 2011; Hasegawa 2012; Berlejung 2014. 2

58

Assaf Kleiman

Figure 1: Late Iron Age IIA destruction layers in the Southern Levant.

The Damascene Subjugation of the Southern Levant (ca. 842–800 BCE)

59

1. In Search of the Damascene Subjugation of the Southern Levant It is commonly accepted that Shalmaneser III’s campaigns to the hinterland of Damascus during the years 838–837 BCE mark a long pause in the Assyrian endeavours to control the territorial states of southern Syria.5 The remission of Assyrian aggression precipitated the short-term territorial expansion of Aram-Damascus under the rule of Hazael, and eventually paved the way for the prolonged clashes of the Aramaean kingdom with its southern neighbour, the Kingdom of Israel. The potential of the events to be reflected in the archaeological record was already recognised in the late 1950’s. Following his excavations at Hazor, Yigal Yadin argued that the destructions of Strata IX and VII at the site were the result of military campaigns conducted by the kings of Aram-Damascus, Ben-hadad I and Hazael respectively.6 His proposal was received among scholars, and in the following years was also applied to other sites located in the vicinity of Hazor, such as Tel Dan, Kinrot, et-Tell and En-Gev.7 Only during the 1990’s, in accordance with various corrections to the chronological framework of the Iron Age, Yadin’s paradigm was contested. Then, it was suggested that the absolute date of the Late Iron Age IIA destruction horizon (e.g., the presumed destruction of Hazor IX, which was attributed by Yadin to Benhadad I’s campaign) should be lowered by more than 50 years – to the second half of the 9th century BCE. In present, the dating of this destruction horizon found consistent support in various radiocarbon studies, and thus is accepted by many.8 As a result of the chronological debate, it also was acknowledged that the Late Iron Age IIA destruction horizon is a more suitable archaeological setting to reflect the consequences of the Damascene territorial expansion under the rule of Hazael (ca. 843–800 BCE),9 rather than the destruction horizon of the Iron Age IIB, which nowadays is attributed to the Assyrian campaigns to the Southern Levant during the late 8th century BCE.

2. Early Conflicts in the Gilead While the majority of the conflicts between the Aramaeans and the Israelites are assumed to have taken place only after the retreat of the Assyrians from southern Syria (ca. 838–837 BCE), some hostilities between the two kingdoms appear to have begun

5 E.g., Niehr 2011; Maeir 2012. For the Assyrian documentation, see Yamada 2000:205–209; cf. HafÞorsson 2006:73–136; Lemaire 1991:100–101; Pitard 1987:145–160. For a somewhat different view regarding the achievements of Shalmaneser III in the 838–837 campaigns to southern Syria, see Elat 1975. 6 Yadin et al. 1958:23; 1972:143. 7 Mazar et al. 1964:32; Ahlström 1985:94; Biran 1994:181–183; Arav 2004:11,18; Ben-Tor 2000; 2013. 8 Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2011; Mazar 2011; for radiocarbon studies see Mazar et al. 2005; Sharon et al. 2005; Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2007; Toffolo et al. 2014. 9 Na’aman 1997:126–127 followed by Maeir 2004; Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2006:167; Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2007:204; Ortiz and Wolff 2012:18; Finkelstein 2014:98–100 and many others.

60

Assaf Kleiman

even earlier. According to the biblical accounts,10 the conflicts between Hazael and the Kingdom of Israel commenced with the battle over Ramoth-gilead (1 Kgs 22; 2 Kgs 8:28–29; 9:14).11 Relying on the prophetic story in 2 Kgs 9, several scholars assumed that on the eve of the battle Ramoth-gilead was situated within the Israelite domain. Therefore, they argued that Hazael sought to annex the Israelite territories in the Gilead that were lost to the Aramaeans during the reign of the Omrides.12 Other scholars, in contrast, convincingly argued that it was Joram, the king of Israel, who initiated the hostile relations between the two kingdoms. 13 This view seems to find support in 1 Kgs 22:1–4, and in the Tel Dan stele, where Hazael explicitly claims that the king of Israel had previously entered his land.14 Either way, the final result of the clashes in the Gilead is clear: from this point on, the territorial conflicts between AramDamascus and Israel continued steadily deep into the 8th century BCE. Even though it is very likely that the conflicts between the Aramaeans and the Israelites are physically reflected in the archaeology of the Gilead, at the moment the archaeological data from this region is quite limited. The large mounds of the region (e.g., Tell el-Huৢn, Tell el-Fukhar and Ramatha) have not yet been sufficiently explored, and the Iron Age tombs unearthed in Irbid provide only limited data.15 Even the recent publication of Paul Lapp’s excavations at Tell er-Rumeith is not helpful in clarifying the early events, since only a few ‘secure’ loci from Strata VIII and VII were exposed.16 Thus, while the Gilead appears to be ‘ground zero’ for the conflicts under discussion, it remains quite obscure from an archaeological perspective. As a 10 Two biblical narratives could, in theory, precede the conflicts at the Gilead–both are highly disputed. The first account refers to Ben-hadad I’s campaign against Israel, as mentioned in 1 Kgs 15:18-20. While traditionally this account was accepted as an authentic remark (e.g., Yadin et al. 1958:23; 1972:143; Ben-Tor 2000; LipiĔski 2000:372; Arav 2004:10–11; HafÞorsson 2006:143–144; Niehr 2011:345), some scholars consistently reputes its supposed accuracy (e.g., Finkelstein 1999:59–60; 2007:272–273; 2013:75–76; Na’aman 2007:396). Their main argument stresses that the text was based on a later list, appearing in 2 Kgs 15:29 (but for a more optimistic view on the historical value of the passage, see Sergi 2015:60–62). Other accounts, which allegedly predate the conflicts in the Gilead, are described in 1 Kgs 20 and 2 Kgs 5–7. These accounts, as argued by many scholars in the past, are seemingly misplaced, and should be dated to the time of the Jehuite dynasty (Jepsen 1941/1944:157–158; Miller 1966; LipiĔski 1977; Na’aman 1991; 2007: 398; Yamada 2000:313–314, and for a drastic questioning of the historical value of the account in 2 Kgs 20, see Hasegawa 2012:111–113). 11 For the biblical accounts on Ramoth-gilead, see Ottosson 1969:32–34; for the identification of Ramoth-gilead with Tell er-Rumeith, see Glueck 1943 with critics in Knauf 2001; Herr and Najjar 2001; Finkelstein et al. 2013. 12 See, for exemple, Mazar 1962:114; Pitard 1987:146. 13 LipiĔski 1977; Lemaire 1991; Na’aman 2006. 14 See the recent discussion in Knapp 2014. 15 The excavations of Tell el-Huৢn began only few years ago (Khasswneh et al. 2011; for earlier soundings see Leonard 1987). For the tombs unearthed in Irbid, see Dajani 1966. 16 Barako 2015a: 71–72. For different reconstructions of the site’s history, see Glueck 1943; Lapp 1993; Finkelstein et al. 2015; Barako 2015b. The exposure of holemouth jars in Strata VIII and VII (Barako 2015a: fig. 3.24:1–2) and a single ‘Black-on-Red’ Cypriote import (fig. 3.42:1) suggests that both strata should be dated to the late horizon of the Iron Age IIA. Nevertheless, only a few fragments of these types were exposed, and therefore the relative dating of Strata VII and VIII to the Late Iron Age IIA should be taken with caution.

The Damascene Subjugation of the Southern Levant (ca. 842–800 BCE)

61

result, the recognition of the conflicts in the Gilead, and their attribution to the first stage in the Damascene subjugation process of the Southern Levant, relies at present almost solely on the textual accounts, their credibility and interpretation.

3. The Takeover of the Northern Valleys Considering the recent reassessment of the Iron Age II strata at Tel Dan,17 which suggests that the site was poorly settled during the Iron Age IIA, it seems that Hazor was almost certainly the northernmost city of the Israelite Kingdom.18 The tendency of the Omride kings to fortify only their border cities should further support this conclusion.19 At present, the absolute date of Hazor IX, the last Iron Age IIA stratum at Hazor, is disputed, and while many scholars tend to date its presumed destruction to the second half of the 9th century BCE,20 the current excavators of the site still argue for a late 10th/early 9th century BCE date for it.21 The ceramic assemblage exposed in Stratum IX consists of ceramic types known only in the late horizon of the Iron Age IIA, 22 while the ceramic assemblages of the subsequent strata, as maybe expected, already include transitional Iron Age IIA¼IIB types.23 Based on comparison with other sites (e.g., Dan IVA), the ceramic assemblages of Strata VIII and VII are likely to represent the late 9th/early 8th century BCE ceramic traditions. Therefore, and unless new data is presented to the contrary (e.g., additional radiocarbon results),24 the abandonment of Hazor IX should be fixed somewhere in the second half of 9th century BCE. As it seems, a similar fate to that of Hazor met the fortresses and peripheral centres of the Israelite Kingdom in the Upper Galilee and adjacent regions (e.g., Tel Harashim, Har Adir and Rosh-zayit); they were abandoned simultaneously or shortly after

17 Arie’s radical suggestion (2008) to date Tel Dan Stratum IVA to the late 9th century BCE and to downplay the extent of the settlement of the Iron Age IIA at the site found support in many contemporary studies (e.g., Hasegawa 2012:84; Finkelstein 2013:218; Berlejung 2014:350). 18 See also Finkelstein, this volume. 19 Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2006:172; Finkelstein and Lipschits 2010:36; Arie 2011:399–400. 20 Finkelstein 1999; Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2006:178–179; Berlejung 2014:353. 21 Ben-Tor and Ben-Ami 1998; Ben-Tor 2000; 2013. 22 Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2006:178–180. 23 Ben-Ami et al. 2012:473; cf. Arie 2008:30. 24 Only three samples are published from the Iron Age IIA strata at Hazor, two of which were assigned to Stratum Xa, and the other assigned to Stratum IXb (Sharon et al. 2007:43–44). As mentioned by Finkelstein and Piasetzky (2007:262), the dates were not only consistent with one another, but were also way too low to represent a reasonable absolute date for Stratum X – even according to the ‘low chronology.’ Accordingly, the samples were reassigned by them to Stratum IX. Yet, there is a solid ground to doubt the stratigraphic affiliation of the Hazor samples and consequently they should be excluded from any discussion, as noted correctly by Mazar and Bronk-Ramsey (2008:171).

62

Assaf Kleiman

the seizure of Hazor.25 Indeed, radiocarbon dates from the destruction of Rosh-zayit gave dates within the 9th century BCE, and thus seem to support such a scenario.26 After the annexation of the Israelite cities in the far north, a natural step in the subjugation of the Northern Kingdom was to takeover strategic locations in the Jezreel Valley, the ‘bread basket’ of Israel. The extensive archaeological field work in the fertile valley has led to a thorough understanding of the Late Iron Age IIA horizon at this region, including strata such as the Jezreel Compound, Ta‘anach IIB, Megiddo VA-IVB and Yokneam XIV. All of these strata exhibit clear Late Iron Age IIA features27–some of them were even radiocarbon dated to the second half of the 9th century BCE.28

4. Local Events in the Beth-shean Valley? The termination of the Iron Age IIA cities located east of the Jezreel Valley, in the Beth-shean Valley (e.g., Tel Rehov IV, Beth-shean S-1b, Tel Amal IV and the lower Iron Age IIA stratum at Tell el-Hammeh) is usually understood against the background of the conflicts between Israel and Aram-Damascus.29 Nonetheless, the radiocarbon results from Stratum IV at Tel Rehov, the last Iron Age IIA stratum at the site, impose some difficulties on such a historical reconstruction. The results were slightly too high to fit nicely within Hazael’s reign (ca. 843–805 BCE), and led Finkelstein and Piasetzky to suggest that the city was destroyed before his time.30 Mazar, on the other hand, endeavoured to solve the problem by constraining the absolute dates to the lowest part of the radiocarbon curve. Accordingly, he suggests that Tel Rehov was destroyed during the conflicts between the Israelites and the Aramaeans, but no later than ca. 830 BCE.31 As will be illustrated below, the destruction of cities in the Beth-shean Valley differs in more than one aspect from the main bulk of the Iron Age IIA destructions. Thus, it can be tentatively agreed that these destructions – whether they occurred as part of the Israel-Aram conflicts or not – represent a unique and localized set of cases and should be studied independently.32 25

The association of the aforementioned sites with the Kingdom of Israel is sometimes debated; but see Ben-Ami 2009; Finkelstein 2011:236–239 for several arguments supporting their affiliation with the Northern Kingdom based on the material culture exposed in these sites. 26 For the radiocarbon dates from Rosh-zayit, see Sharon et al. 2007: Table 7; Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2007: Table 2. 27 For a detailed survey of the Late Iron Age IIA horizon in the Jezreel Valley see Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2006, and more recently Arie 2013a with similar conclusions. 28 Toffolo et al. 2014; cf. Sharon et al. 2007; Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2007. 29 For discussions on the excavations of Tel Rehov and their contribution for the history of the Beth-shean Valley, see Mazar et al. 2005; Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2007; Ahituv and Mazar 2013, Mazar, this volume. 30 Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2007:272–273. 31 Mazar et al. 2005; Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2007: 204; Ahituv and Mazar 2013:51. 32 Based on radiocarbon dating, the destructions of Stratum IX at Tell Deir ‫ދ‬Alla (van der Kooij 1993:340–341) and the lower Iron Age IIA stratum at Tell el-Hammeh (Finkelstein and Piasetzky

The Damascene Subjugation of the Southern Levant (ca. 842–800 BCE)

63

5. South of the Jezreel Valley The correlation between destructions south of the Jezreel Valley and the territorial expansion of Aram-Damascus rests, first and foremost, on the account appearing in 2 Kgs 12:18–19, which mentions the seizure of Gath by Hazael and the subjugation of Judah.33 For that reason, many scholars assumed that Hazael conducted one or more military campaigns to the southern districts of Canaan in order to extend the Damascene hegemony over these regions.34 Others even speculated that Hazael attempted to monopolize the copper trade, and thus destroyed Gath, which likely controlled the transportation of copper from the Arabah to the Mediterranean coast.35 The exact date of the campaign to the south is unclear, and while some scholars prefer a higher date, somewhere around ca. 830 BCE, others suggest lower dates, generally toward the very end of the 9th century BCE.36 On their way to the south, the Aramaeans had to cross the Central Coastal Plain, where two Iron Age IIA destructions were identified: at Tel Michal (Stratum XIV) and at Tel Aphek (Stratum A7).37 While the ceramic assemblage exposed in Tel Michal was relatively small, the ceramic assemblage unearthed at Tel Aphek was comprised of large number of complete vessels, including typical Late Iron Age IIA ceramic forms, in addition to several vessels which presage later Iron Age IIB shapes. From here it is possible to deduce that that the destruction of the coastal sites occurred relatively late within the 9th century BCE, a date, which is supported by the radiocarbon results from Aphek. 38 In Philistia proper, the excavations of Tell eৢ-ৡafi/Gath revealed a substantial destruction layer dated to the Late Iron Age IIA (Stratum A3).39 Furthermore, excavations along the fringes of the mound unearthed evidence for a moat-like feature, interpreted by the excavators as evidence for an Aramaean siege-system. 40 Due to the textual synchronism with 2 Kgs 12:18, the meticulous analysis of the ceramic assemblage and the radiocarbon dates from this layer, the destruction of Tell eৢ-ৡafi/Gath is perhaps one of the most firmly dated destruction events in the country – securely dated to 2007: Table 2) might actually be later than that of Tel Rehov IV, somewhere toward the end of the 9th century BCE. A similar date should also be assigned to the destruction of Stratum XII at Tell esSa‘idiyeh (Tubb 1988: 40-46). The latter conclusion is based on the presence of Iron Age IIB cooking pots in the published ceramic assemblage (Tubb 1988: fig. 20:2; and for a similar ceramic forms at Tell el-Hammeh see Cahill 2006: fig. 11:3–4). 33 The enigmatic Lucian recession in 2 Kgs 13:22 might also support the attribution of the destructions layers on the coast to Hazael, and moreover date it to the reign of Joahaz (e.g., LipiĔski 2000:386). For other views and detailed discussions, see recently Richelle 2010; Hasegawa 2014. 34 LipiĔski 2000:386-388; Na’aman 2002:211–213; Maeir 2004; 2012:26–49; Berlejung 2014:353. 35 Fantalkin and Finkelstein 2006:30–32; Finkelstein 2013:124–127; 2014:98–100. For critics on this view see Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2011:172; Maeir 2012:27–28. 36 See a review of the different proposals in Maeir 2012:47–49. For different lower dates for Hazael’s campaign, see LipiĔski 2000:386; Rainy and Notley 2006:108; Kleiman 2015. 37 Moshkovitz 1989; Singer-Avitz 1989; Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2011; Kleiman 2015. 38 Boaretto et al. 2009: Table 24.1. 39 Zukerman and Maeir 2012; Shai and Maeir 2012. 40 Maeir and Gur-Arieh 2011; Maeir 2012:43–47. For some reservations on the function of the exposed feature proposal, see Ussishkin 2009; 2014:10–11, but see also Maeir, this volume.

64

Assaf Kleiman

the second half of the 9th century BCE. Many more destruction layers identified in the vicinity of the Philistine city (e.g., Tel Harasim, Tel Zayit and Tel Goded), have also been dated to the second half of the 9th century BCE, and accordingly are understood against the background of Hazael’s campaign.41

6. The Judahite Fortresses at the South and Hazael’s Campaign The dating of the Judahite fortresses exposed in the Shephelah and the Beer-sheba Valley (Lachish IV, Beer-sheba V and Arad XI) presents several complications, which ultimately obscure the circumstances in which they were abandoned. Much of the published data from these sites was recovered many years ago before the full development of modern excavation techniques (e.g., Arad XI and Beersheba V), or alternatively, originated from unsecure contexts (e.g., Lachish IV). The more recent publication of a rich ceramic assemblage from a tomb near Tel ‘Eton did not solve the problem,42 as the content of burial caves tends to accumulate over the course of decades and consequently represents several periods of usage. Complicating the problem of dating, scholars suggested dating the construction of some of the Judahite fortresses (primarily Lachish IV) to sometime after Hazael’s campaign to the south. Their major argument hinged on Judah’s inability to expand its influence to the west as long as the Kingdom of Gath was still at its zenith.43 Others have claimed that this proposal does not harmonize well with the archaeological data, favouring other scenarios and explanations.44 Similar to the Iron Age IIA sites in the coastal plain, the ceramic assemblages of Lachish IV, Arad XI, and Beer-sheba V generally consist of typical Late Iron Age IIA ceramic forms. Yet, in the first two strata, it is also possible to identify some forms, which herald the beginning of the Iron Age IIB ceramic traditions.45 Therefore, it seems that similar to the sites at the coast, these settlements came to their end only towards the very end of the 9th century, or during the early days of the 8th century BCE. It follows that if Hazael’s campaign was conducted relatively late within the 9th century BCE (ca. 810 BCE), then the possibility that these sites existed during the 41

Ortiz and Wolff 2012: 18; Givon 2008:1767; Tappy et al. 2006; Finkelstein et al. 2008:4–5; Gibson 1994:208. It is possible that more destructions layers in the south should be attributed to Hazael’s campaign (e.g., Tell el-Far‘ah, Tel Sera‘, and Tel Burna), but not much information is available on these sites at the moment, and therefore they were not included in this discussion. 42 Katz and Faust 2014. 43 Fantalkin and Finkelstein 2006; Lehmann and Niemann 2014; for a more reflexive view regarding Judah’s expansion see recently Sergi 2013. 44 Na’aman 2013:253–254; Ussishkin 2014:14–15. 45 As noted recently by Katz and Faust (2014; cf. Kleiman 2015), the ceramic assemblages of esSafi/Gath A3, Lachish IV and Arad IX are not strictly what one would except from Late Iron Age IIA assemblages, and consist of a few types that usually appear in Iron Age IIB contexts. These types include lamps with a high flat base (e.g., Singer-Avitz 2002: fig. 7.3), storage jars with a spout (Zimhoni 2004: fig. 25.44:10) and coastal storage jars, which became popular only during the Iron IIB (i.e. the ceramic horizion of Lachish III). For more details, see Katz and Faust 2014; Kleiman 2015.

The Damascene Subjugation of the Southern Levant (ca. 842–800 BCE)

65

campaign – and consequently were affected by it, or from its consequences – must be considered (see below).

7. Destruction and Abandonment Patterns Despite the tendency to write about Late Iron Age IIA destructions, it is readily apparent that most of the cities in the north were abandoned, rather than destroyed (fig. 2). In other words, this means that restorable vessels were found on floors, but minimal or no evidence for a conflagration was detected by the excavators. In some cases, as will be discussed below, the supposed evidence for a destruction episode seems to reflect internal incidents, or even evidence for completely different types of human activity.46 The most elusive Iron Age IIA destruction episode appears to be the presumed destruction of Hazor IX. While many restorable vessels were indeed found on the floors of this stratum, no conclusive evidence for conflagration was identified by the current expedition.47 This obviously calls into question Yadin’s suggestion, according to which Stratum IX was destroyed by Ben-hadad I. It should be recognized that while in the past it was common to correlate ash layers with destruction episodes,48 contemporary studies have demonstrated the diverse activities that actually create these supposed ‘ash layers’.49 Henceforth, and considering the results of the current expedition, it should be concluded that Hazor, despite its massive fortifications, was rapidly abandoned at the end of the Iron Age IIA and was not demolished by the Aramaeans. At Megiddo, the largest site at the Jezreel Valley, and by far the most investigated, no decisive evidence for a violent destruction has been found within any of the city’s monumental structures.50 Limited conflagration was identified only in two places around the site: within a storage facility in the south-eastern sector of the mound,51 and in a domestic structure in its north-western part (fig. 3).52 These isolated cases may be incidental and very likely reflect localized events that have nothing to do with the seizure of the city by the Aramaeans. Thus, it appears that also Megiddo was abandoned at the end of the period. Noteworthy is that similar abandonment episodes were also recognized at the nearby sites of Yokneam and Jezreel.53

46

Finkelstein 2009:119–120; Kislev and Mahler-Slasky 2009; Gafri and Shahack-Gross 2013. Ben-Tor and Ben-Ami 1998: 12; Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2006: 178; Finkelstein 2009: 120. For the ceramic assemblage of this stratum, see Ben-Ami and Ben-Tor 2012. 48 For few case-studies for misidentifications of destruction episodes, see Finkelstein 2009. 49 E.g., garbage accumulations, also known as ‘middens’ (Gafri and Shahack-Gross 2013), or threshing floors (Kislev and Mahler-Slasky 2009). 50 Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2006:170–171; Finkelstein 2009:117–118 with earlier references. 51 Lamon and Shipton 1939:3–4. 52 Arie 2013b:271–272. 53 Zarzecki-Peleg 2005:108; Ussishkin and Woodhead 1997:44–46,70; Franklin 2008:48. Based on few arrowheads found only at the south-eastern tower of the Jezreel compound, the possibility that the site was indeed taken by some limited force cannot be totally excluded. 47

66

Assaf Kleiman

Figure 2: Destruction patterns (circles mark regions with substantial evidence for conflagration).

The Damascene Subjugation of the Southern Levant (ca. 842–800 BCE)

67

Figure 3: Evidence for conflagration at the north-western sector of Megiddo (courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition).

In sharp contrast to the modest Iron Age IIA destructions at the Jezreel Valley, all the excavated sites at the Beth-shean Valley exhibits clear signs for a violent destruction. At Beth-shean itself, the two large buildings unearthed in the south-eastern sector of the mound were clearly destroyed by fire.54 A comparable case of severe destruction was also identified during the excavations of Tel Rehov, after which the lower mound was abandoned.55 The substantial nature of the destructions at the Beth-shean valley was observed in smaller sites as well, including Tel Amal and Tell el-Hammeh.56 South of the Jezreel Valley, the situation again changes dramatically. At Tel Michal, clear signs of a conflagration were exposed. Even stronger evidence for a violent destruction was found at Tel Aphek, including the exposure of dozens of restorable vessels, burnt mudbrick debris and arrowheads (fig. 4).57 Further south in the Shephelah, the nature of the Iron Age IIA destructions was similar. The substantial destruction of the Late Iron Age IIA city at Tell eৢ-ৡafi/Gath was identified all over the site (fig. 5), including in the lower city.58 Also the exposure of the moat-like feature mentioned above indicates the unequivocal pressure imposed on the city by the Aramaeans, who seem to be responsible also for the destruction of Tel Harasim, Tel Zayit, and Tel Goded.

54

Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2006:184–193. Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2007:204. 56 Levy and Edelstein 1972; Cahill 2006. 57 Moshkovitz 1989:64;Kleiman 2015. Not much data is available for the farmstead exposed at Tel Gerisa, but from the preliminary publication (Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2011), it is possible to identify the presence of complete vessels in the assemblages of Strata IV and III; these vessels suggest some disturbances in the site’s occupational sequence. 58 Maeir 2012:26–47. 55

68

Assaf Kleiman

Figure 4: Evidence for a destruction on the western slope of Tel Aphek.

Figure 5: Evidence for the destruction of Tell es-Safi/Gath (Zukerman and Maeir 2012: Pl. 9.46: A).

The Damascene Subjugation of the Southern Levant (ca. 842–800 BCE)

69

South of Naতal Guvrin, there is very minimal evidence for destruction episodes. At Lachish, for instance, only a few complete vessels were exposed on the floors of Stratum IV, and without any indication of fire.59 This situation was repeated at Arad, where signs for a traumatic event were found only in two places: in one of the northwestern rooms of the casement wall surrounding the site, and in a small structure at the southern part of the settlement. In the latter, a carbonized beam and ash were found.60 Nevertheless, it should be noted that the many installations and cooking vessels were also found within this structure;61 this may imply that the ash and carbonized beam were not the product of a violent destruction, but rather the outcome of an industrial or domestic activity.62

8. Discussion The examination of the archaeological data suggests three main stages in the territorial expansion process of Aram-Damascus into the Southern Levant, which differ from one another in date and nature. A summary of these stages and suggested timeframes for them are offered in Table 1. Stage First stage

Second stage

Region(s)

Suggested timeframe

The Gilead

Ca. 842/841 BCE

The Beth-shean Valley63

Before the Assyrian campaigns of 838–837 BCE?

The northern valleys

After the Assyrian campaigns of 838– 837 BCE (ca. 837– 830?)

The Central Coastal Plain Third stage

The Shephelah (north of Naতal Guvrin) The Shephelah (south of Naতal Guvrin) and the Beer-sheba Valley

After the subjugation of the Northern Kingdom (ca. 830–800 BCE)

Selected strata Tell er-Rumeith VIII/VII? Tel Rehov IV, Bethshean S-1b and Tel Amal IV

Abandonment mechanism(s) Unclear Severe destructions

Hazor IX, Rosh-zayit II, Megiddo VA-IVB and Yokneam XIV

Partial destructions or abandonments

Michal XIV and Aphek A7 Tell eৢ-ৡafi/Gath A3, Tel Zayit I and Tel Goded

Severe destructions

Lachish IV, Beersheba V and Arad XI

Severe destructions Partial destructions or abandonments

Table 1: Stages in the Aramaean Subjugation of the Southern Levant

59

Barkay and Ussishkin 2004:445–446. Herzog 2002:26; cf. Aharoni 1981:182. 61 Aharoni 1981:182; Singer-Avitz 2002: figs 8–9. 62 In the last preliminary publication on Stratum V at Tel Beersheba, it was stated that the destruction of the Late Iron Age IIA city was partial (Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2004:224). 63 The exact date of the destructions in the Beth-shean Valley is still disputed. Therefore their attribution to the first stage of the conflicts should be taken as no more than a tentative suggestion. 60

70

Assaf Kleiman

Evidently, the early conflicts in the Gilead are archaeologically undetectable at the moment, and the suggested date for them – ca. 842/841 BCE – relies mainly on the biblical accounts and their credibility. As many scholars have argued over the last years, the clashes between the two kingdoms probably commenced with Hazael’s usurpation.64 The radical move gave the king of Israel a justification for breaking the alliance between the two states, and consequently for claiming territories in the Gilead, which at that time were presumably already under a Damascene role.65 Although it seems that Aram-Damascus defeated the Israelites in the battle (e.g., 2 Kgs 8:28–29), the return of the Assyrians to southern Syria during the year 841 BCE66 perhaps forced the Aramaeans to retreat most of their armies from the Gilead, back to Damascus. It is reasonable to believe that only after the withdrawal of the Assyrians from southern Syria the kingdom of Aram-Damascus was free to expand its sphere of political influence. In view of the vast territories taken by the Aramaeans during that stage, it is appropriate to assign at least few years for it, during which most of the fortified and administrative Israelite centres in the northern valleys were abandoned (e.g., Hazor IX, Megiddo VA-IVB or Yokneam XIV). The leniency given to the Israelite cities alludes that the Aramaeans intended to reuse the inherited cities in the north, and therefore preferred not to raze them to the ground.67 In this case, the construction of Hazor VIII and Dan IVA during the late 9th century BCE may be working examples of such a scenario.68 The last stage in the process seems to be reflected in the ceramic assemblages of sites located south of the Jezreel Valley. All the sites dated to this stage exhibit typical Late Iron Age IIA vessels accompanied by occasional forms traditionally dated to the Iron Age IIB. This indicates a relative late date for the destruction of these sites within the 9th century BCE, probably a decade or two after the ultimate submission of the northern Israelite cities.69 A comparison of the violent destruction of Tell eৢ-ৡafi/Gath and adjacent sites (e.g., Tel Harasim, Tel Zayit, and Tel Goded) with the abandonment of the Judahite fortresses in the south reveals the different impacts of Hazael’s campaign(s) on the southern districts of Canaan.

64

On the textual sources for Hazael’s accession to throne, see Pitard 1987:145–160; Lemaire 1991; LipiĔski 2000:376–377; Yamada 2000:188–190. 65 LipiĔski 1977; Lemaire 1991; Na’aman 2006; Finkelstein et al. 2013. For more explanations for the beginning of the rivalry between the two kingdoms see Na’aman 1991; 2002:207; cf. Yamada 2000:189–190. On the Gilead see also Sergi, in this volume. 66 For the Assyrian annals mentioning the campaign of 841 BCE campaign, see Yamada 2000:185–195. 67 Finkelstein 2009:122. 68 Finkelstein 1999; 2009 contra Ben-Tor 2000; 2013. If Finkelstein’s interpretation is correct, then one may observe here an interesting practice of constructing royal cities on the border of the enemy’s land; indeed, such a policy was also carried out by Shalmaneser III, who transformed many cities that previously belonged to the Aramaean kingdom of Bît-Adini into Assyrian forts (LipiĔski 2000:193). 69 Despite the fact that this chronological stage has been manifested as several different designations over the last years (e.g., Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2006:165–166; Finkelstein and Sass 2013:152; Katz and Faust 2014:105–106; Kleiman 2015), all the designations referred, more or less, to the same timeframe–the last third of the 9th century BCE.

The Damascene Subjugation of the Southern Levant (ca. 842–800 BCE)

71

While the particular reasons behind the sudden abandonment of the Judahite fortresses are still vague, it is quite evident that they were not violently destroyed during Hazael’s campaign – possibly due to Judah’s earlier surrender to Damascus (2 Kgs 12:19) – but were rapidly abandoned sometimes after it. One possible explanation for the later desertion of these sites could be the sharp decline in the local trade after Hazael’s destruction of Gath, which most likely monitored goods from the desert to the coast.70 By contrast, if the Judahite’s fortresses were constructed only after the destruction of the Philistine city, then the reason for their abandonment is less clear– especially when considering that the ‘earthquake theory’ explanation has been consistently questioned in the last years.71

9. Conclusions This study re-examined the archaeological evidence for the Damascene subjugation of the Southern Levant. As argued above, the subjugation process seems to have a gradual nature and at least three chronological stages were identified within it (for summary, see table 1). The different expression of the events in the archaeological record (e.g., severe destructions, rapid abandonments, etc.) exemplifies how the subjugation process varied significantly between the different regions conquered by the Aramaeans. One way or another, the gradual expansion of Aram-Damascus attests, once again, to the calculated and structured policy taken by the Aramaeans, and moreover supports the idea that Hazael intended to establish permanent hegemony over the neighbouring states of the Aramaean kingdom.72

Bibliography AHARONI, M., 1981. Preliminary Ceramic Report on Strata 12–11 at the Arad Citadel, Eretz Israel 15: 181–204 (Hebrew) AHITUV, S. and A. MAZAR, 2013. The Inscriptions from Tel Reতov and their Contribution to the Study of Script and Writing during Iron Age IIA, in: “See, I will Bring a Scroll Recounting What Befell me” (Ps. 40:8): Epigraphy and Daily Life from the Bible to the Talmud, dedicated to the Memory of Professor Hanan Eshel (Journal of Ancient Judaism. Supplements 12), ed. E. Eshel and Y. Levin, Göttingen, 39–68 AHLSTRÖM, G. W., 1985. The Cult Room at ‫ގ‬En Gev, TA 12: 93–95

70

In contrast to Tell eৢ-ৡafi/Gath, which did not recover after the Iron Age IIA, the Judahite fortresses in the south were reoccupied very quickly (e.g., Lachish III, Beer-sheba IV and Arad X). The short duration of time passed after the abandonment of these cities and their resettlement is demonstrated not only by the ‘dense stratigraphy’ of the Iron Age IIB levels at these sites (e.g., Beer-sheba or Arad), but also in a very similar town planning (e.g., Barkay and Ussishkin 2004:447). 71 For questioning the ‘earthquake theory,’ see Fantalkin and Finkelstein 2006:22–23; Bunimovitz and Lederman 2009:136; Na’aman 2013:253. 72 I would like to thank Israel Finkelstein, Omer Sergi, Zach Dunseth and Adam Kaplan for their constructive remarks.

72

Assaf Kleiman

AMADASI-GUZZO, M. G., 2014. Tell Afis in the Iron Age: The Aramaic Inscriptions, NEA 77/1: 54– 57 ARAV, R. 2004. Toward a Comprehensive History of Geshur, in: Bethsaida: A City by the North Shore of the Sea of Galilee. ed. R. Arav and R. A. Freund, Kriksville, Missouri, 1–48 ARIE, E., 2008. Reconsidering the Iron Age II Strata at Tel Dan: Archaeological and Historical Implications, TA 35: 6–64 –: 2011. “In the Land of the Valley”: Settlement, Social and Cultural Processes in the Jezreel Valley from the End of the Late Bronze Age to the Formation of the Monarchy, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University (Hebrew with an English abstract) –: 2013a. The Iron IIA Pottery, in: Megiddo V: The 2002–2006 Seasons (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 31), Vol. 2, ed. I. Finkelstein et al., Tel Aviv, 668–828 –: 2013b. Area H: Levels H-9 to H-5, in: Megiddo V: The 2002–2006 Seasons (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 31), Vol. 1, ed. I. Finkelstein et al., Tel Aviv, 247–274 BARAKO, T. J., 2015a. The Iron Age Pottery, in: Tell er-Rumeith: The Excavations of Paul W. Lapp, 1962 and 1967 (American Schools of Oriental Research, Archaeological Reports 22), ed. T. J. Barako et al., Boston, 71–188. –: 2015b. Summary and Conclusions, in: Tell er-Rumeith: The Excavations of Paul W. Lapp, 1962 and 1967 (American Schools of Oriental Research, Archaeological Reports 22), ed. T. J. Barako et al., Boston, 189–195. BARKAY, G. and D. USSISHKIN, 2004. Area S: The Iron Age Strata, in: The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994) (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 22), Vol. 2, ed. D. Ussishkin, Tel Aviv, 411–503 BEN-AMI, D., 2009. Early Iron Age II Fortified Settlements in the Upper Galilee: Phoenician Fortresses or Fringe Settlements in the Northern Kingdom of Israel?, Eretz Israel 29: 48–53 (Hebrew) BEN-AMI, D. and A. BEN-TOR, 2012. The Pottery of Strata X-IX, in: Hazor VI: The 1990–2009 Excavations: The Iron Age, ed. A. Ben-Tor et al., Jerusalem, 411–435 BEN-AMI, D., D. SANDHAUS and A. BEN-TOR, 2012. The Pottery of Strata VIII–IV, in: Hazor VI: The 1990–2009 Excavations: The Iron Age, ed. A. Ben-Tor et al., Jerusalem, 436–473 BEN-TOR, A., 2000. Hazor and Chronology of Northern Israel: A Reply to Israel Finkelstein, BASOR 317: 9–15 –: 2013. Hazor in the Tenth Century B.C.E., NEA 76/2: 105–109 BEN-TOR, A. and D. BEN-AMI, 1998. Hazor and the Archaeology of the Tenth Century B.C.E., IEJ 48/1-2: 1–37 BERLEJUNG, A., 2014. Palestine, in: The Aramaeans in Ancient Syria (HdO 1/106), ed. H. Niehr, Leiden, 339–365 BIRAN, A., 1994. Biblical Dan, Jerusalem BOARETTO, E., GILBOA, A. and I. SHARON, 2009. Radiocarbon Dating, in: Aphek-Antipatris II: The Remains on the Acropolis. The Moshe Kochavi and Pirhiya Beck Excavations (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 27), ed. Y. Gadot, and E. Yadin, Tel Aviv, 575–579 BUNIMOVITZ, S. and Z. LEDERMAN, 2009. The Archaeology of Border Communities: Renewed Excavations at Tel Beth-Shemesh, Part 1: The Iron Age. NEA 72/3: 114–142 CAHILL, J. M., 2006. The Excavations at Tell el-Hammah: A Prelude to Amihai Mazar’s Beth-Shean Valley Regional Project, in: “I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times”: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, ed. A. M. Maeir and P. de Miroschedji, Winona Lake, 429–459 DAJANI, R. W., 1966. Four Iron Age Tombs from Irbid, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 11/1: 88–101

The Damascene Subjugation of the Southern Levant (ca. 842–800 BCE)

73

DION, P. E., 1997. Les Araméens à l’âge du Fer: Histoire Politique et Structures Sociales (Etudes Bibliques 34), Paris EPH‘ AL, I. and J. NAVEH, 1989. Hazael’s Booty Inscriptions, IEJ 39/3-4: 192–200 Elat, M., 1975. The Campaigns of Shalmaneser III against Aram and Israel, IEJ 25.1: 25–35 FINKELSTEIN, I., 1999. Hazor and the North in the Iron Age: A Low Chronology Perspective, BASOR 314: 55–70 –: 2009. Destructions: Megiddo as a Case Study, in: Exploring the Longue Durée: Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager, ed. J. D. Schloen, Winona Lake, 113–126 –: 2013. The Forgotten Kingdom (Society of Biblical Literature. Ancient Near East Monographs 5), Atlanta –: 2014. The Southern Steppe of the Levant ca. 1050–750 BCE: A Framework for a Territorial History, PEQ 146/2: 89–104 FINKELSTEIN, I. and O. LIPSCHITS, 2010. Omride Architecture in Moab: Jahaz and Ataroth, ZDPV 126: 29–42 FINKELSTEIN, I., O. LIPSCHITS and O. SERGI, 2013. Tell er-Rumeith in Northern Jordan: Some Archaeological and Historical Observations, Semitica 55: 7–23 FINKELSTEIN, I. and E. PIASETZKY, 2007. Radiocarbon, Iron IIA Destructions and the Israel – Aram Damascus Conflicts in the 9th Century BCE, UF 39: 261–276 –: 2011. The Iron Age Chronology Debate: Is the Gap Narrowing?, NEA 74: 50–54 FINKELSTEIN, I. and B. SASS, 2013. The West Semitic Alphabetic Inscriptions, Late Bronze II to Iron IIA: Archaeological Context, Distribution and Chronology, HeBAI 2.2: 149–220 FINKELSTEIN, I., B. SASS and L. SINGER-AVITZ, 2008. Writing in Iron IIA Philistia in the Light of the Tel Zayit Abecedary, ZDPV 124: 1–12 FRANKLIN, N., 2008. Jezreel: Before and After Jezebel, in: Israel in Transition, from Late Bronze II to Iron IIa (c. 1250–850 B.C.E.), Volume 1: The Archaeology, ed. L. L Grabbe, New York, 45–53 FANTALKIN, A. and I. FINKELSTEIN, 2006. The Sheshonq I Campaign and the 8th Century BCE Earthquake – More on the Archaeology and History of the South in the Iron I–IIA, TA 33: 18–42 GAFRI, M. and R. SHAHACK-GROSS, 2013. Geoarchaeological Study in Area K: Threshing Floor or Midden?, in: Megiddo V: The 2002–2006 Seasons (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 31), Vol. 3, ed. I. Finkelstein et al., Tel Aviv, 1262–1270 GIBSON, S., 1994. The Tell el-Judeideh (Tel Goded) Excavations: A Re-Appraisal Based on Archival Records in the Palestine Exploration Fund, TA 21: 194–234 GIVON, R., 1993. Harasim, Tel, in: NEAHL, vol. 5, ed. E. Stern, Jerusalem, 1766–1767 HAFÞORSSON, S., 2006. A Passing Power: An Examination of the Sources for the History of AramDamascus in the Second Half of the Ninth Century B.C. (CBOT 54), Stockholm HASEGAWA, S., 2012. Aram and Israel during the Jehuite dynasty (BZAW 434), Berlin –: 2014. The Conquests of Hazael in 2 Kings 13:22 in the Antiochian Text, JBL 133.1: 61–76 HERR, L. and M. NAJJAR, 2001. The Iron Age, in: The Archaeology of Jordan, ed. B. MacDonald, R. Adams and P. Bienkowski, Sheffield, 323–345 HERZOG, Z., 2002. The Fortress Mound at Tel Arad: An Interim Report, TA 29: 3–109 HERZOG, Z. and L. SINGER-AVITZ, 2004. Redefining the Centre: The Emergence of State in Judah, Tel Aviv 31: 209–244 –: 2006. Sub-Dividing the Iron Age IIA in Northern Israel: A Suggested Solution to the Chronological Debate, TA 33: 163–195 –: 2011. Iron Age IIA Occupational Phases in the Coastal Plain of Israel, in: The Fire Signals of Lachish: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Israel in Honor of David Ussishkin, ed. I. Finkelstein and N. Na‫ގ‬aman, Winona Lake, 159–174 JEPSEN, A., 1941/1944. Israel und Damascus, AfO 14: 153–172 KATZ, H. and A. FAUST, 2014. The Chronology of the Iron Age IIA in Judah in the Light of Tel ‫ދ‬Eton Tomb C3 and Other Assemblages, BASOR 371: 103–127

74

Assaf Kleiman

KISLEV, M. and Y. MAHLER-SLASKY, 2009. Food Remains, in: Aphek-Antipatris II: The Remains on the Acropolis. The Moshe Kochavi and Pirhiya Beck Excavations (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 27), ed. Y. Gadot and E. Yadin, E., Tel Aviv, 499–525 KHASSWNEH, S., Z. AL-MUSHEISEN and R. ABD-ALLAH, 2011. Thermoluminescence Dating of Pottery Objects from Tell al-Husn, Northern Jordan. Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 11.1: 41–49 KLEIMAN, A., 2015. A Late Iron IIA Destruction Layer at the Western Slope of Tel Aphek, TA 42: 32¼186 KNAUF, A. E., 2001. The Mists of Ramthalon, or: How Ramoth-Gilead Disappeared from the Archaeological Record, BN 110: 33–36 KRAELING, E. G. H., 1918. Aram and Israel or the Aramaeans in Syria and Mesopotamia, New York LAMON, R. S. AND G. M. SHIPTON , 1939. Megiddo I: Seasons of 1925–34, Strata I–V (Oriental Institute of Chicago Publications 42), Chicago LAPP, N. L., 1993. Rumeith, Tell er-, in: NEAHL 4, ed. E. Stern, Jerusalem, 1292 LEHMANN, G. and H. M. NIEMANN, 2014. When Did the Shephelah Become Judahite?, TA 41: 77–94 LEMAIRE, A. 1991. Hazaël de Damas, roi d’Aram, in: Marchands, Diplomates et Empereurs. Études sur la civilisation mésopotamienne offertes á Paul Garelli, ed. D. Charpin and F. Joannès, Paris, 91–108 LEONARD, A., 1987. The Jarash-Tell el-Husn Highway Survey, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 31: 343–390 LEVY, S. and G. EDELSTEIN, 1972. Cinq Années de Fouilles a Tel ‘Amal (Nir David), RB 79: 325– 367 LIPIēSKI, E., 1977. An Assyro-Israelite Alliance in 842/841 BCE?, Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies 1: 273–278 –: 2000. The Aramaeans: Their Ancient History, Culture, Religion (OLA 100), Paris MAEIR, A. M., 2004. The Historical Background and Dating of Amos IV 2: An Archaeological Perspective from Tell eৢ-ৡâfƯ /Gath, VT 54/3: 319–334 –: 2012. The Tell es-ৡafi/Gath Archaeological Project 1996–2010: Introduction, Overview and Synopsis of Results, in: Tell es-ৡafi/Gath I: The 1996–2005 Seasons, Part 1: Text (Ägypten und Altes Testament 69), ed. A. M. Maeir, Wiesbaden, 1–88 MAEIR, A. M. and S. GUR-ARIEH, 2011. Comparative Aspects of the Aramean Siege System at Tell es-Safi/Gath, in: The Fire Signals of Lachish: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Israel in Honor of David Ussishkin, ed. I. Finkelstein and N. Na‫ގ‬aman, Winona Lake, 227–244 MAZAR, A., 2011. The Iron Age Chronology Debate: Is the Gap Narrowing? Another Viewpoint, NEA 74.2: 105–111 MAZAR, A., H. J. BRUINS, N. PANITZ-COHEN and J. VAN DER PLICHT, 2005. Ladder of Time at Tel Reতov: Stratigraphy, Archaeological Context, Pottery and Radiocarbon Dates, in: The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating. Archaeology, Texts and Science, eds. T.E. Levy and T. Higham, London and Oakville, 193–255 MAZAR, A. and C. BRONK-RAMSEY, 2008. 14C Dates and the Iron Age Chronology of Israel: A Response, Radiocarbon 50: 159–180 MAZAR, A. and N. PANITZ-COHEN, 2006. Area S: The Stratigraphy and Architecture of the Iron Age IIA and Later Structures, in: Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996, Vol. 1: From the Late Bronze IIB to the Medieval Periods, ed. A. Mazar, Jerusalem, 173–201 —2007. It Is the Land of Honey: Beekeeping at Tel Reতov, NEA 70.4: 202–219 MAZAR, B., 1962. The Aramean Empire and Its Relations with Israel, BA 25/4: 97–120 MAZAR, B., A. BIRAN, M. DOTHAN and I. DUNAYEVSKY, 1964. ‘Ein Gev Excavations in 1961, IEJ 14/1–2: 1–49 MILLER, J. M., 1966. The Elisha Cycle (2 Reg. 3–9) and the Accounts of the Omride Wars, JBL 85: 441–454 MILLER, J. M. and J. H. HAYES, 20062. A History of Ancient Israel and Judah, Louisville

The Damascene Subjugation of the Southern Levant (ca. 842–800 BCE)

75

MOSHKOVITZ, S., 1989. Iron Age Stratigraphy (Strata XIV–XIII), in: Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel, ed. Z. Herzog et al., Tel Aviv, 64–72 NA’AMAN, N., 1991. Forced Participation in Alliances in the Course of the Assyrian Campaigns to the West, in: Ah, Assyria… Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor (Scripta Hierosolymitana 33), ed. M. Cogan and I. Eph‘al, Jerusalem, 80–98 –: 1997. Historical and Literary Notes on the Excavations of Tel Jezreel, TA 24: 122–128 –: 2002. In Search of Reality behind the Account of David’s Wars with Israel’s Neighbours, IEJ 52: 200–224 –:2006. The Story of Jehu's Rebellion: Hazael’s Inscription and the Biblical Narrative, IEJ 56.2: 160– 166 –:2007. The Northern Kingdom in the Late 10th–9th Centuries BCE, in: Understanding of the History of Ancient Israel (Proceeding of the British Academy 143), ed. H. G. M. Williamson, Oxford, 399–418 –:2013. The Kingdom of Judah in the 9th Century BCE: Text Analysis versus Archaeological Research, TA 40: 247–276 NIEHR, H., 2011. König Hazael von Damaskus im Licht neuer Funde und Interpretationen, in: “Ich Werde Meinen Bund mit Euch Niemals Brechen!” (Ri 2,1): Festschrift Für Walter Groß Zum 70 Geburtstag (Herders Biblische Studien 62), ed. E. Gass and H. J. Stipp, Freiburg: 339–356 ORTIZ, S. and S. WOLFF, 2012. Guarding the Border to Jerusalem: The Iron Age City of Gezer, NEA 75: 4–19 OTTOSSON, M., 1969. Gilead: Tradition and History (CBOT 3), Lund PITARD, W. T., 1987. Ancient Damascus: A Historical Study of the Syrian City State from Earliest Times until Its Fall to the Assyrians in 732 BCE, Winona Lake RAINY, A. F. and R. S. NOTLEY, 2006. The Sacred Bridge: Carta’s Atlas of Biblical World, Jerusalem RICHELLE, M., 2010. Les Conquêtes de Hazaël selon la Recension Lucianique en 4 Règnes, BN 146: 19–25

SERGI, O., 2013. Judah’s Expansion in Historical Context, Tel Aviv 40: 226–246 –: 2015. The Emergence of Judah between Jerusalem and Benjamin, New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and its Environs 9: 50–73 SHAI, I. and A. M. MAEIR, 2012. The Late Iron IIA Pottery Assemblage from Stratum A3, in: Tell esSafi/Gath I: The 1996-2005 Seasons, Part 1: Text (Ägypten und Altes Testament 69), ed. A. M. Maeir, Wiesbaden, 313–363 SHARON, I., A. GILBOA, T. A. J. JULL and E. BOARETTO, 2007. Report on the First Stage of the Iron Age Dating Project in Israel: Supporting a Low Chronology, Radiocarbon 49/1: 1–46 SINGER-AVITZ, L., 1989. Iron Age Pottery (Strata XIV–XII), in: Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel, ed. Z. Herzog et al., Tel Aviv, 76–87 –: 2002. Arad: The Iron Age Pottery Assemblages, TA 29: 108–211 TAPPY, R. E., P. K. MCCARTER, M. J. LUNBERG and B. ZUKERMAN, 2006. An Abecedary of the MidTenth Century BCE from the Judean Shephelah, BASOR 344: 5–46 TOFFOLO, M. B., E. ARIE, M. A. S. MARTIN, E. BOARETTO and I. FINKELSTEIN, 2014. Absolute Chronology of Megiddo, Israel, In the Late Bronze and Iron Ages: High-Resolution Radiocarbon Dating, Radiocarbon 56.1: 221–244 TUBB, J. N., 1988. Tell es-Sa‘idiyeh: Preliminary Report on the First Three Seasons of Renewed Excavations, Levant 20: 23–88 UNGER, M. F., 1957. Israel and the Aramaeans of Damascus: A Study in Archaeological Illumination of Bible History, Grand Rapids USSISHKIN, D., 2000. The Credibility of the Jezreel Excavations: A Rejoinder to Amnon Ben-Tor, TA 27: 248–256 –: 2009. On the So-Called Aramaean ‘Siege Trench’ in Tell es-Safi, Ancient Gath, IEJ 59/2: 137–159

76

Assaf Kleiman

–: 2014. Gath, Lachish and Jerusalem in the 9th Century BCE - The Archaeological Evidence, New Studies on Jerusalem 20: 7–33 USSISHKIN, D. and J. WOODHEAD , 1997. Excavations at Tell Jezreel 1994–1996: Third Preliminary Report, TA 24: 6–72 VAN DER KOOIJ, G., 1993. Deir ‘Alla, Tell, in: NEAHL 1, ed. E. Stern, Jerusalem, 338–342 YADIN, Y., 1972. Hazor: The Head of All Those Kingdoms, London YADIN, Y., Y. AHARONI, I. DUNAYEVSKY, T. DOTHAN, R. AMIRAN and J. PERROT, 1958. Hazor I: An Account of the First Season of Excavations, Jerusalem YAMADA, S., 2000. The Construction of the Assyrian Empire: A Historical Study of the Inscriptions of Shalmaneser III (859–824) Relating to His Campaigns to the West (Culture & History of the Ancient Near East, Vol. 3), Leiden ZARZECKI-PELEG, A., 2005. Part I: Stratigraphy and Architecture, in: Yoqne¶am II: The Iron Age and the Persian Period: Final Report of the Archaeological Excavations (1977–1988) (Qedem Reports 6), ed. A. Ben-Tor et al., Jerusalem, 3–232 ZIMHONI, O., 2004. The Pottery of Levels V and IV and its Archaeological and Chronological Implications, in: The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994) (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 22), Vol. 4., ed. D. Ussishkin, Tel Aviv, 1643–1788 ZUKERMAN, A. and A. M. MAEIR, 2012. The Stratigraphy and Architecture of Area A: Strata A1–A5, in: Tell es-ৡafi/Gath I: The 1996–2005 Seasons, Part 1: Text (Ägypten und Altes Testament 69), ed. A. M. Maeir, Wiesbaden, 183–220

Part II: In Search of ‘Aramaean’ Material Culture

The Aramaean Involvement in the Southern Levant Case Studies for Identifying the Archaeological Evidence Aren M. Maeir, Bar-Ilan University/ Minerva Center for the Relations between Aram and Israel in Biblical Times In last two decades, more and more evidence has amassed on the significant impact that the Aramaeans and their culture had in the Iron Age Southern Levant, in particular on the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah – and most recently, in Philistia as well. This is manifested both in cultural influences – for example in the appearance of Aramaean facets in Southern Levantine material culture and languages – but no less importantly, in the physical evidence of the actual presence and activities of Aramaeans in these regions during the Iron Age II. While in the past the various hints to the activities and presence of Aramaeans in the Iron Age Southern Levant were seen primarily from the historical, epigraphic and biblical sources, recently, steadily expanding amounts of archaeological data are being brought into this discussion. This includes new archaeological finds at sites from various parts of the Southern Levant, but also through a reappraisal of previously found materials. In this paper I would like to assess some of the evidence that has been discussed, as well as suggest some theoretical parameters which may assist in the identification of the archaeological evidence of Aramaean influences and presence in the Iron Age Southern Levant. I will start from finds that derive from the excavations that I direct at Tell eৢ-ৡafi/ Gath, where I have suggested that there is impressive evidence of Aramaean activities (the siege and conquest of the site by Hazael of Aram Damascus in ca. 830 BCE). I will then move on to finds from other sites and regions, and will discuss finds and interpretations – and the implications thereof – from other sites as well.

Tell eৢ-ৡafi/Gath Compelling evidence of a wide spread destruction at Tell eৢ-ৡafi/Gath, dating to the 2nd half of the 9th century BCE (late Iron IIA), has been extensively published.1 Likewise, evidence of a siege system which surrounds the site, which has been dated as

1

E.g., Maeir 2012; 2013; Namdar et al. 2011.

80

Aren Maeir

well to the same time frame, has been demonstrated in numerous publications.2 We have suggested to connect both the destruction and the siege, to a military campaign of Hazael, King of Aram Damascus, which is mentioned in the biblical text (2 Kings 12:18). Although there is no additional contemporaneous textual evidence, the dating of the destruction and siege system to the 2nd half of the 9th century, the apparent mention in the Zakkur inscription of a similar siege method used by Ben-Hadad, son of Hazael in his siege of Hadrak a few years later, seem to argue quite convincingly for the connection between the siege and destruction and the event mentioned in the Bible. While some have questioned whether or not it is a siege3 and whether or not it is likely to connect this to Hazael,4 no other well-argued and logical options have been suggested to explain this unique assemblage of archaeological features.5 Nevertheless, the question does remain – how robust is this suggested interpretation – and can one try and define a methodology to be used in other instances, which would strengthen the validity of the suggested connection between the archaeological remains and an event relating to the Aramaeans which is mentioned in the biblical text. As the conquest of Gath by Hazael is mentioned only once in the biblical text (though with two major versions), the possibility does exist that: 1) this is an imagined, literary event; 2) that even if it is an actual event, the destruction which was excavated and/or the features which we interpret as a siege system at Tell eৢ-ৡafi/Gath are not connected to this event. Likewise, one could add that it is quite likely to assume that if this was connected to major Aramaean activity at the site, there should be clear material evidence of this activity – such as in relation to the various siege-related features around the site. Despite these queries – the “Hazael scenario” is still the best, and “neatest” scenario to explain these remains at Tell eৢ-ৡafi/Gath. This is supported by several lines of argumentation:

2 E.g., Ackermann et al. 2005; Maeir et al. 2006; Gur-Arieh 2008; Maeir 2009a; Maeir and GurArieh 2011; Gur-Arieh and Maeir in press. 3 Ussishkin 2009; 2014. 4 E.g., Herr 2013. 5 Ussishkin (2014) repeats and expands his previous (2009) questioning of the identification of the trench surrounding Tell eৢ-ৡafi/Gath as a siege system. In my opinion, he still does not answer many of the points which were already raised to counter his doubts (e.g., Maeir and Gur-Arieh 2011). Likewise, additional suppositions which he suggests in the latest study are without basis. For example, he assumes that Gath during the Iron Age IIA is unfortified. However, finds from recent excavation seasons so far unpublished evidence to the contrary – both in Area D and in Area F (Chadwick and Maeir in press). Likewise, his lack of reference to the various features of the system, including the location of the sediments which were poured out of the siege trench during its construction along the entire length of the trench, is problematic. In addition, the other features relating to this system – such as the excavated towers, are left unexplained. And finally, his lack of reference to an MA thesis which expands on this issue and extensively presents and discusses much of the relevant evidence, which is available in libraries in Israel (Gur-Arieh 2008; a revised version of which will soon be published as well – Gur-Arieh and Maeir in press), is unfortunate. The fact that he once again cannot propose any other interpretation to this complex set of features – without sufficiently negating the explanation suggested by us – makes his scepticism regarding our interpretation hard to accept.

Aramaean Involvement in the Southern Levant

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6

81

No better historical explanation has been suggested. It should be stressed that the most “logical” explanation for such a siege – the Assyrians – well-known from other military activities (and sieges) during the Iron Age6 simply is untenable, as the date of both the destruction on the site, and the features surrounding the site are too early (2nd half of 9th century BCE) for the welldocumented Assyrian military activity in this area (which commences only in the mid/2nd half of the 8th century BCE). In addition, the use of a trench and related features as found at Tell eৢ-ৡafi/Gath is a method of siege which does not appear to be used by the Assyrians in any other documented siege. Thus, connecting this to the Assyrians is unsound. The historical scenario connecting between the destruction of Gath by Hazael and other developments in the region in the late Iron IIA – “works very well.” As extensively elaborated by myself and others,7 the historical significance of Hazael’s campaign against Gath, its destruction, and the ensuing geo-political changes are an event of utmost importance in the Iron Age IIA.8 There is no reason to assume that the destruction of such a major city – perhaps the largest in the Southern Levant at the time (ca. 45–50 hectares) would not have left substantial material remains. Ussishkin’s supposition to minimize the geopolitical role of Gath during this period,9 despite the fact that it is, most probably, the largest city in the early Iron Age IIA Southern Levant (even if one was to assume, mistakenly, that Gath was not fortified at this time) is simply untenable.10 The apparent similarity between the siege at Gath and the siege which is mentioned regarding Ben-Hadad’s siege at Hadrak is significant. As previously discussed, suggestions to interpret ‫ۊ‬rܲ in the inscription as referring to tunneling and not to a trench11 have been shown to be baseless.12 Possible evidence of some Aramaean-related ceramics – and perhaps a glazed object as well – have been found in the area of the siege trench.13 To this one can add the Aramaean-influenced “stone reliefs” which were found in the Bliss and Macalister excavations at Gath in 1899,14 as well as a possible Aramaean style seal found on the surface of Azekah.15 Finally, the fact that several other sites in the region of Gath have destructions which appear to be contemporaneous to the destruction of Gath (such as at Azekah, Tel Zayit and Gezer) seems to strengthen the claim that the destruc-

E.g., Yadin 1963; Ussishkin 1982; Nadali 2002–2005; Rey 2012; De Backer 2103 E.g., Maeir 2004; 2012; 2103 8 E.g., Na’aman 2002; Fantalkin and Finkelstein 2006; Mazar 2007; Koch 2012. 9 Ussishkin 2014; see as well Faust 2014. 10 On this, see, e.g. Avissar Lewis and Maeir 2015:117, n. 2. 11 As originally suggested by Eph’al 2008 and recently reiterated by Ussishkin 2014. See above, note 5. 12 Maeir 2009a. 13 Gur-Arieh and Maeir in press. 14 Maeir 2009b. 15 Gal 2009, see also de Hulster, in this volume. 7

82

Aren Maeir

tion of Gath was part of a regional military campaign – befitting the character of Hazael’s activities in the Southern Levant.16 Can one generalize from these points and extrapolate to other sites, contexts and historical scenarios? I believe that the primary insight – which is hardly something new to any responsible historian and archaeologist, is that one must utilize as many intersecting sets of data, archaeological, historical, biblical and other,17 and only then argue for the case for the most logical – and robust – suggestion to explain such archaeological remains – and their connection to historical and/or biblical events, and to identify them as being related to the activities of a specific culture and/or polity.

Other Cases Although I do not intend in any way to discuss or to survey all (and even a wide range) of examples of sites and/or finds which have been connected to the Aramaeans in the Iron Age II, I will mention a few cases of suggested connections with the Aramaeans that have been raised in the past. I don’t intend to discuss sites in the Southern Levant that are, for all intents and purposes clearly Aramaean – Bethsaida18 and Tel Hadar19 serving as the best examples, but rather mention some of the sites at which a shorttermed Aramaean presence has been suggested. Needless to say, if we are to identify archaeological remains as evidence of the presence of a specific cultural group and/or ethnicity, or even the political and cultural influences of one group identity on another one, it is well-known that one must muster a wide range of evidence to buttress such claims. While this is well-known and oftrepeated in discussions relating to the archaeology of the Iron Age Levant (e.g., vis-àvis the identification of Israelites, Judahites, Philistines, Canaanites, Aramaeans, etc.), in my opinion, too little attention has been paid to the fact that even if one can identify specific sets of material culture that can be associated with specific groups, such group identities are highly fluid and changing, and as often demonstrated, group identities can easily change – and members of a specific group can have multiple, and even conflicting – identities at the same time. Thus, for example, going back once again to questions relating to Tell eৢ-ৡafi/Gath, the au courant suggestions which clearly – and explicitly – define between Philistines, Canaanites and Israelites/Judahites in the Coastal Plains, Shephelah, and Judean Hills, drawing clear lines of cultural and ethnic differentiation,20 in my opinion do not take

16 For related destruction in Tel Zayit see: Tappy 2011; for related destruction in Gezer see: Ortiz and Wolff 2012:17. I would like to thank O. Lipschits for providing me information about a possible related destruction in Azekah. 17 E.g., Dever’s (2001:83) well-known “convergences”. 18 E.g., Arav 2013. 19 Yadin and Kochavi 2008. 20 Bunimovitz and Lederman 2011; Lederman and Bunimovitz 2014; Na’aman 2010; Faust 2013; 2014; Garfinkel et al. 2012.

Aramaean Involvement in the Southern Levant

83

into account the flexible, vibrant and ever-changing character of the inter-relations between groups with different and intermixed identities. While some of these discussions have attempted to infuse the debate with seemingly cutting-edge social perspectives, such as “boundary maintenance”, “resistance” and other jargon taken from the realm of social theory, in fact, much of these discussions are lacking in that they are not up-to-date with current social theory. For example, while just about all those who deal with the definition of ethnicity in the Levantine archaeological record relate to Barth as a veritable holy Bible,21 in fact, the current study of ethnicity, and the complexity of defining cultural and ethnic “boundaries” and the multi-faceted and fluid character(s) of such definitions,22 warrants substantial caution – and distancing – from facile and simplistic identifications of the supposed archaeological correlates of various ethnic groups and supposed clear-cut boundaries between them. Returning to our topic, in light of the above, it is clear that any discussion and suggestion to identify the presence of Aramaeans at a site should at the least be very hesitant and careful. I would like to briefly examine three such cases: 1. Dan: Various scholars have suggested that one can identify an Aramaean phase at Tel Dan, corresponding to the conquest(s) of Dan by the Aramaeans during the 9th and 8th centuries BCE.23 While the conquests of Dan by the Aramaeans are historical events without doubt, supported by the biblical text and epigraphic sources (e.g., the Tel Dan Stela), the argument that one can find significant evidence of an Aramaean presence at the site is much more difficult. Very little material evidence to such an Aramaean presence can be noted, and I follow Jonathan Greer’s assessment that even though we have not yet seen the fully published materials from the Dan excavations, as of now, the evidence does not convincingly argue for an extended Aramaean presence at the site (save for a single Aramaic inscription – but note that Israelite inscriptions are more common).24 That said, we currently cannot without any doubt deny this possibility; hopefully we will be able to have a better assessment once the excavations are published fully.25 2. Hazor: Edward LipiĔski has suggested that Hazor, Stratum VIII, should be identified as “Malaপa”, which according to an inscribed pearl found in Ashur (taken as booty from Aramaean Damascus), was a royal Aramaean city. 26 Likewise, Israel Finkelstein suggested that after conquering Hazor, Hazael rebuilt Stratum VIII with a massive fortification and a large citadel – which he 21

Barth 1969, at times with a smattering of other “standard” quotes – such as Emberling (1997), Jones (1997), and Sparks (1999). 22 For reviews of some of these issues, see, e.g., Nestor 2010; Curta 2011; Skinner 2012; Knapp 2014. 23 E.g. Noll 1998; Athas 2003; Arie 2008. 24 Greer 2013; See as well Davis 2013 who assesses the cultic manifestations of Iron Age Dan to be Israelite. 25 See now also Thareani, this volume. 26 LipiĔski 2000:351.

84

Aren Maeir

3.

suggests to see as being related to the bit-hilani type structure.27 He went on to suggest that the site continued to be settled by the Aramaeans in Stratum VII as well, and with the destruction of this level, with the rebuilding of Stratum VI, was the site was again settled by the Israelites. Once again, while one cannot negate the possibility that there was an Aramaean presence in Hazor, Strata VIII–VII, the evidence for this is hardly “overwhelming”.28 To start with, the ceramic repertoire, as far as can be seen, does not indicate an Aramaean presence (but one has to admit that the ceramic typology of Iron II southern Syria is not well-known). Likewise, the few Aramaic inscriptions in this stratum can be explained as deriving from other circumstances. And finally, even if the citadel building is to be identified as a bit-hilani type structure,29 it is not that clear that such structures are a clear indication of solely an Aramaean presence (since such buildings may exist in both the Luwian and Israelite contexts).30 Thus, LipiĔski’s suggestion to identity Hazor as an Aramaean royal city, and Finkelstein’s identification of Aramaean levels at the site are hard to accept without further, definitive evidence. Kinneret: Various suggestions have been raised to see the settlement at Kinneret, which was founded in the late Iron Age I as being Aramaean. I though concur with Münger’s scepticism regarding these interpretations.31 As he has demonstrated, based on the current state of our knowledge of the material culture of terminal LB/early Iron Age northern Canaan, and the various material correlates of early Iron Age Kinneret, it is best to see the inhabitants of this site as “Late Canaanites” – and not to specifically identify them as Aramaeans – and for that matter, as “Geshurites”.32

Summary From the above can be seen that although there are possibilities to identify Aramaean presence – and for sure influence – at many sites in the north of present-day Israel in the Iron Age, many of the suggested identifications cannot be seen as being of sufficient “robustness” – to enable us to accept this suggestions without hesitation. This said though, it should be clearly stated that the present state of knowledge on the regional material cultures of northern Israel, southern Syria and northern Jordan during the Iron Age I–II is insufficiently known (as opposed to other regions of the Iron Age Southern Levant). And as such, it may very well be that in the future, with a clearer view of the regional subtleties of these regions during the Iron Age, a more 27

Finkelstein 2000. See as well Ben-Tor 2001. 29 But see Lehmann and Killebrew 2010 30 For Luwian, see, e.g., Novák 2014: 267. 31 Münger 2013. 32 See my comments on this in Maeir 2015, regarding the problem of the very identification of a Geshurite Kingdom, specifically, but not only regarding Arav 2013. 28

Aramaean Involvement in the Southern Levant

85

nuanced understanding of the shifting cultural and ethnic identities at the various sites in these regions will be revealed. The full publication of more excavations, and the results of recently started ones (and in particular at Tel Abel-beth-maacah),33 may provide us with these desiderata.

Bibliography ACKERMANN, O., H. J. BRUINS, and A. M. MAEIR, 2005. A Unique Human-Made Trench at Tell eৢৡ۲fi/Gath, Israel: Anthropogenic Impact and Landscape Response, Geoarchaeology 20/3: 303–328 ARAV, R. 2013. Geshur: The Southwestern most Aramean Kingdom, in: Arameans, Chaldeans, and Arabs in Babylonia and Palestine in the First Millennium B.C. (LAS 3), ed. A. Berlejung and M. P. Streck, Wiesbaden, 1–29 ARIE, E., 2008. Reconsidering the Iron Age II strata at Tel Dan: Archaeological and historical implications, TA 35/1: 6–64 ATHAS, G., 2003. The Tel Dan inscription: A reappraisal and new interpretation (JSOTS 360), Sheffield AVISSAR LEWIS, R. A. and A. M. MAEIR, 2015. Bliss and Macalister’s Work at Tell eৢ-ৡafi/Gath: A reappraisal in light of recent excavations, in: Villain or Visionary? R.A.S. Macalister and the archaeology of Palestine (Palestine Exploration Fund Annual XII), ed. S. Wolff, London, 112–117 BARTH, F., 1969. Introduction, in: Ethnic groups and boundaries, ed. F. Barth, Boston, 9–38 BEN-TOR, A., 2001. Responding to Finkelstein’s Addendum (on the Dating of Hazor X–VII), TA 28/2: 301–304 BUNIMOVITZ, S. and Z. LEDERMAN, 2011. Canaanite Resistance: The Philistines and Beth-Shemesh – A case study from the Iron Age I, BASOR 364: 37–51 CHADWICK, J. R., and A. M. MAEIR, 2015. Chapter 5: The Stratigraphy and Architecture of Area FUpper, Strata F4-F8A, in: Tell eৢ-ৡafi/Gath II: Excavation Reports and Studies (Ägypten und Altes Testament), ed. A. M. Maeir and J. Uziel, Münster CURTA, F., 2011. Medieval Archaeology and Ethnicity: Where are we?, History Compass 9/7: 537– 548 DAVIS, A. R., 2013. Tel Dan in Its Northern Cultic Context (Archaeology and Biblical Studies 20), Atlanta DE BACKER, F., 2013. L’art du siège néo-assyrien (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 61), Leiden DEVER, W. 2001. What did the Biblical writers know, and when did they know it? What archaeology can tell us about the reality of ancient Israel, Grand Rapids EMBERLING, G. 1997. Ethnicity in complex societies: Archaeological perspectives, Journal of Archaeological Research 5/4: 295–344 FANTALKIN, A. and I. FINKELSTEIN, 2006. The Sheshonq I campaign and the 8th Century BCE earthquake: More on the archaeology and history of the South in the Iron I–IIA, Tel Aviv 32(1): 18–42 FAUST, A., 2013. The Shephelah in the Iron Age: A new look on the settlement of Judah, PEQ 145/3: 203–219 –: 2014. The Iron I – Iron II Transition in the South: Settlement, Demography, and Political Changes, in: New Studies on Jerusalem, Vol. 20, ed. E. Baruch and A. Faust, Ramat-Gan, 35–66 (in Hebrew with English abstract) FINKELSTEIN, I., 2000. Hazor XII-XI with an Addendum on Ben-Tor’s dating of Hazor X–VII, TA 27: 231–247

33

See Panitz-Cohen and Mullins, this volume; see also Panitz-Cohen et al. 2013.

86

Aren Maeir

GAL, D., 2009. A stamp seal from Tel ‘Azeka, Judaean Shephelah, IEJ 59/2: 158–163 GARFINKEL, Y., K. STREIT, S. GANOR, and M. G. HASEL, 2012. State Formation in Judah: Biblical Tradition, Modern Historical Theories, and Radiometric Dates at Khirbet Qeiyafa. Radiocarbon 54/3–4: 359–369 GREER, J. S., 2013. Dinner at Dan: Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sacred Feasts at Iron Age II Tel Dan and Their Significance (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 66), Leiden GUR-ARIEH, S., 2008. Siege systems in the Ancient Near East: A case study from Tell eৢ-ৡafi/Gath. Unpublished MA thesis Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan (in Hebrew with English summary) GUR-ARIEH, S. and A. M. MAEIR , in press. Chapter 3: Area C – The Siege Trench and Other Features, in: Tell eৢ-ৡafi/Gath II: Excavation Reports and Studies (Ägypten und Altes Testament), ed. A. M. Maeir and J. Uziel, Münster HERR, L. G., 2013. Review of: Tell eৢ-ৡafi/Gath I: The 1996-2005 Seasons (Ägypten end Altes Testament 69), ed. A. M. Maeir. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2012, BASOR 370: 240–242 JONES, S., 1997. The archaeology of ethnicity: Constructing identities in the past and present, New York KNAPP, A. B., 2014. Mediterranean Archaeology and Ethnicity. In A Companion to Ethnicity in the Ancient Mediterranean (Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World), ed. J. McInerney, Malden, 34–49 KOCH, I., 2012. The Geopolitical Organization of the Judean Shephelah during Iron Age I–IIA, Cathedra 143: 45–64 (in Hebrew) LEDERMAN, Z. and S. BUNIMOVITZ, 2014. Canaanites, “Shephelites” and those who will become Judahites, in: New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and Its Region, Vol. 8, ed. G. Stiebel, O. Peleg-Barkat, D. Ben-Ami, and Y. Gadot, Jerusalem, 61–71 (in Hebrew) LEHMANN, G. and A. E. KILLEBREW, 2010. Palace 6000 at Megiddo in context: Iron Age central hall tetra-partite residencies and the BƯt-঩ilƗni building tradition in the Levant, BASOR 359: 13–33 LIPIēSKI, E. 2000. The Aramaeans: Their ancient history, culture, religion (OLA 100), Leuven MAEIR, A. M. 2004. The Historical Background and Dating of Amos VI 2: An Archaeological Perspective from Tell eৢ-ৡafi/Gath, VT 54/3: 319–334 –: 2009a. Fragments of Stone Reliefs from Bliss and Macalister’s Excavations at Tell eৢ-ৡafi/Gath, Eretz Israel (Ephraim Stern Volume) 28: 270–276,291* (in Hebrew with English Abstract) –: 2009b. Hazael, Birhadad, and the ‫ۊ‬rܲ, in: Exploring the Longue Durée: Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager, ed. J. D. Schloen, Winona Lake, 273–277 –: 2012. Chapter 1: The Tell eৢ-ৡafi/Gath Archaeological Project 1996–2010: Introduction, overview and synopsis of results, in: Tell eৢ-ৡafi/Gath I: Report on the 1996–2005 Seasons (Ägypten und Altes Testament 69), ed. A. M. Maeir, Wiesbaden, 1–88 –: 2013. Gath, in: The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and Archaeology, ed. D. M. Master, New York, 443–451 –: 2015. Review of Angelika Berlejung and Michael P. Streck (eds.), Arameans, Chaldeans, and Arabs in Babylonia and Palestine in the First Millennium B.C., Review of Biblical Literature [http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/9425_10458.pdf] MAEIR, A. M., O. ACKERMANN, and H. J. BRUINS. 2006. The ecological consequences of a siege: A marginal note on Deuteronomy 20:19–20, in: Confronting the Past: Archaeological and historical essays on Ancient Israel in honor of W.G. Dever, ed. S. Gitin, J. Wright, and J. Dessel, Winona Lake, 239–243 MAEIR, A. M. and S. GUR-ARIEH, 2011. Comparative aspects of the Aramean Siege System at Tell eৢ-ৡƗfi/Gath, in: The Fire Signals of Lachish: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Israel in the Late Bronze Age, Iron Age and Persian Period in honor of David Ussishkin, ed. I. Finkelstein and N. Na’aman, Winona Lake, 227–244 MAZAR, A., 2007. The spade and the text: The interaction between archaeology and Israelite history relating to the tenth-ninth centuries BCE, in: Understanding the history of Ancient Israel (Proceedings of the British Academy 143), ed. H. Williamson, Oxford, 143–171

Aramaean Involvement in the Southern Levant

87

MÜNGER, R., 2013. Early Iron Age Kinneret: Early Aramaeans of Just Late Canaanites? Remarks on the materials culture of a border site in Northern Palestine at the Turn of an era, in: Arameans, Chaldeans, and Arabs in Babylonia and Palestine in the First Millennium B.C. (LAS 3), ed. A. Berlejung and M. P. Streck, Wiesbaden, 149–182 NA’AMAN, N., 2002. In search of the reality behind the account of David’s wars with Israel’s neighbors, IEJ 52/2: 200–224 NADALI, D. 2002–2005. Sennacherib’s siege, assault, and conquest of Alammu, State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 14: 113–128 NAMDAR, D. et al., 2011. The 9th century BCE destruction layer at Tell eৢ-ৡafi/Gath, Israel: Integrating Macro- and Microarchaeology, Journal of Archaeological Science 38/12: 3471–3482 NESTOR, D. A., 2010. Cognitive Perspectives on Israelite Identity (Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 519), New York NOLL, K., 1998. The god who is among the Danites, JSOT 80: 3–23 NOVÁK, M., 2014. Architecture, in: The Aramaeans in Ancient Syria (Handbook of Oriental Studies. Section 1. The Near and Middle East 106), ed. H. Niehr, Leiden, 255–271 ORTIZ, S. and S. WOLFF, 2012. Guarding the Border to Jerusalem: Guarding the Border to Jerusalem: The Iron Age City of Gezer, NEA 75/1: 4–19 PANTIZ-COHEN, N., R. A. MULLINS and R. BONFIL, 2013. Northern Exposure: Launching excavations at Tell Abil el-Qameত (Abel Beth Maacah), Strata: Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 31: 27–42 REY, S., 2012. Poliorcétique au Proche-Orient Ancien. Fortifications urbaines, procédés de siège et systèmes défensifs (Aux origines de l’art de prendre et de défendre les villes) (Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 197), Beyrouth SKINNER, J. E., 2012. The Invention of Greek Ethnography: From Homer to Herodotus (Greeks Overseas), Oxford SPARKS, K., 1999. Ethnicity and identity in ancient Israel: Prolegomena to the study of ethnic sentiments and their expression in the Hebrew Bible, Winona Lake TAPPY, R., 2011. The Depositional History of Iron Age Tel Zayit: A response to Finkelstein, Sass, and Singer-Avitz, Eretz Israel (A. Ben-Tor Volume) 30: 127*–143* USSISHKIN, D., 1982. The conquest of Lachish by Sennacherib (Publications of the Institute of Archaeology 6), Tel Aviv –: 2009. On the so-called Aramaean ‘siege trench’ in Tell eৢ-ৡafi, ancient Gath, IEJ 59/2: 137–157 –: 2014. Gath, Lachish and Jerusalem in the 9th century BCE – The Archaeological Perspective, in: New Studies on Jerusalem, Volume 20, ed. E. Baruch and A. Faust, Ramat-Gan, 7–34 (in Hebrew with English abstract) YADIN, E. and M. KOCHAVI, 2008. Hadar, Tel, in: NEAEHL 5, ed. E. Stern, Jerusalem, 1756–1757 YADIN, Y., 1963. The art of warfare in biblical lands in the light of archaeological study, Jerusalem

Culture, Identity and Politics Relating to Tel Reতov in the 10th–9th Centuries BCE Amihai Mazar, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Tel Reতov (often spelled Re‫ۊ‬ob; Arabic: Tell e‫܈‬-‫܇‬arem) is located in the Beth-shean Valley, 5 km south of Tel Beth-shean, between the Gilboa Ridge and the Jordan River, close to the main north–south route traversing the Jordan Valley and a route leading west to east from the Jezreel Valley toward Pella (figs 1–2). An abundance of fertile land and springs made this site a desirable location for a major settlement, even though its location in the valley lacked any strategic advantage. Eleven excavation seasons were conducted at the site between 1997–2012 (fig. 3).1 The most widely excavated areas yielded a detailed stratigraphic sequence of the 10th– 9th centuries BCE (Strata VI–IV), along with exceptional architecture, large pottery

Figure 1: Tel Reতov, air view looking north (Photo: Albatross). 1 The excavations were directed by the author on behalf of the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and sponsored by Mr. John Camp (USA). Nava Panitz-Cohen was the supervisor of the main area (Area C) throughout the seasons and is a co-editor of the final report.

90

Amihai Mazar

Figure 2: Map of Iron Age sites in northern Israel.

Culture, Identity and Politics Relating to Tel Re‫ۊ‬ov

91

Figure 3: Topographic map of Tel Reতov with location of excavated areas.

assemblages and extensive collections of various artifacts from this period. This is the richest collection of material culture finds ever to have been recovered from these centuries in northern Israel and one of the largest in the entire Levant. Some of these finds have already been published, and the final report is currently in preparation.2 In this article, I discuss the implications of the finds on several issues pertaining to the cultural history, political history, economy, ethnicity, religion and international connections in northern Israel in the 10th–9th centuries BCE. 2

For earlier summaries, see Mazar 1999; 2008a; 2013; 2016; Mazar et al. 2005; final report: Mazar and Panitz-Cohen (eds), in preparation.

92

Amihai Mazar

The Results of the Excavations: A Brief Survey Stratigraphy In each of the excavation areas the strata were given local numbers, and only in an advanced stage of the excavation was an attempt made to correlate between the areas, resulting in three major strata – VI, V and IV – attributed to the Iron Age IIA (Table 1). Stratum VI is an early Iron IIA city, differing in its architecture from the earlier and later strata. Strata V and IV, which in many excavation areas exhibited only minor distinctions, are in fact two phases of one city, dated to the late Iron Age IIA. Substantial differences between these two strata was found only in the southern part of Area C (the area of the apiary; see below), which suffered severe destruction at the end of Stratum V (local Stratum C-1b) and was built with a new plan in the subsequent Stratum, IV (fig. 4). Stratum IV is the final occupation layer in all the excavation areas in the lower city (Areas C, D, E, F, G); evidence for severe destruction was noted in Areas C, G and part of E. In the upper city, a destruction layer was detected in Areas B and J. Whereas the lower city was abandoned following this destruction, the upper city was rebuilt (Strata IIIB–A) and fortified, continuing to exist until the Assyrian conquest in 732 BCE. Evidence of squatters and Assyrian burials (Stratum II) attest to a short occupation phase following the Assyrian conquest.

Stratum

Local Strata in Areas B

C

Period

Dates

E

II

B-2

Iron Age IIC

late 8th/ early 7th c. BCE

III

Iron Age IIB

IV

B-3 B-4(?) B-5a

C-1a

E-1a

V

B-5b

C-1b

E-1b

Destruction ca. 840/830–732 BCE Destruction 9th c. until ca. 840/830 BCE late 10th–early 9th c. BCE

VI

B-6

C-2

E-2

Iron Age IIA (late phase) Iron Age IIA (early phase)

most of the 10th c. BCE

Table 1: Tel Reতov, Iron II strata (showing local phases in major excavation areas and final stratum numbers)

Culture, Identity and Politics Relating to Tel Re‫ۊ‬ov

93

Stratum VI

Stratum V

Stratum IV

Figure 4: Schematic plans of Strata VI – IV in Areas C and D at Tel Reতov. Each building is marked with a letter; the apiary is at the center of Stratum V plan.

94

Amihai Mazar

Continuity and Change at Tel Re‫ۊ‬ov The excavation at Tel Reতov has demonstrated a continuous urban presence throughout the 15th–9th centuries BCE, and to a lesser extent until the Assyrian conquest in 732 BCE. Founded in the 15th or early 14th century BCE, the city spanned an area of ca. 10 hectares, making it one of the largest Late Bronze Age cities in the Southern Levant. Eight major strata, many with several sub-phases, were dated to the LB–IAI continuum (15th–early 10th centuries BCE). These strata are known mainly from a single excavation area (Area D, an 8m wide step trench on the western slope of the lower mound), where the transition between these strata exhibited no dramatic destruction events. The same may be said about the transition from the late Iron Age I (Stratum VII) to the earliest Iron Age IIA (Stratum VI), discerned in Areas A, B and D as well: no dramatic destruction occurred in this transition with the possible exception of one room in Area D. Many of the Stratum VI walls in Area C were constructed immediately above walls of the last Iron I city, suggesting that the ruins of this city had been visible to the builders of the new city. Such continuity of a large, dense city throughout the LB I–IAIIA sequence is extremely rare. Most other major sites of northern Israel featured settlement gaps, exhibiting diverse patterns of development. Examples of this diversity are Hazor, with urban settlement gap from the 13th to the 10th century BCE; Megiddo, with a gap between the destruction of Stratum VIA and the reurbanisation that took place in Stratum VA–IVB (with Stratum VB denoting a rather poor settlement); Tel Beth-shean, with possible decline between Upper VI (=S2) and Lower V (=S-1a); Tel Kinrot, where an occupation gap followed the destruction at the end of the Iron Age I; and Tel Dor, where a relatively small LB town expanded dramatically during the Iron Age I and continued to survive throughout the Iron Age IIA.3 A peaceful transition from the Iron Age I to the Iron Age IIA is also exceptional, with many other sites (such as Megiddo VIA, Yoqneam XVII, Tel Kinrot V, Tel Hadar IV and perhaps Tell Abu Kharaz) suffering an abrupt destruction at the end of the Iron Age I, with the conflagration dated by 14C to the late 11th–early 10th centuries BCE.4 In terms of material culture, we detect both continuity and change in this period. Tel Reতov exhibits substantial changes between the Iron Age I and IIA: the painted pottery tradition of the Iron Age IB was replaced by new techniques of burnished red slip, although simple red painted decoration on pottery still survives to a certain extent in 3 For Hazor, see Yadin 1972; his basic results were confirmed during the renewed excavations led by A. Ben-Tor; for Megiddo, see Finkelstein et al. 2008; for Tel Beth-shean, see Mazar 2008b; for Tel Kinrot, see Münger et al. 2011; for Tel Dor, see Stern 2000. 4 Mazar and Bronk Ramsey 2008:164–168; Mazar 2011; Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2011; Finkelstein 2013b:1337. These dates, in my opinion, mark the end of the Iron Age I. Note that Finkelstein believes in an even later Iron I phase that came to an end during the second half of the 10th century. In my view, there is no evidence for such a phase (see also Arie 2013:743). The heavy destruction at Tell Abu Kharaz Phase IX yielded a rich pottery assemblage similar to that of Megiddo VIA. The destruction event is dated by Fischer, on the basis of the calibrated R-Combine date of 21 radiocarbon determinations, to 1128–1055 in the one sigma range (Fischer 2013:458–460,515). This is at least 50 years earlier than the destruction of Megiddo VIA.

Culture, Identity and Politics Relating to Tel Re‫ۊ‬ov

95

the earliest Iron Age IIA city (Stratum VI). Various Iron Age I pottery shapes continued into the early Iron IIA, while new vessel shapes appeared. Similar gradual development is evident in the transition from the early Iron Age IIA (Stratum VI) to the late Iron Age IIA (Strata V–IV) as well. Urban Planning In all three Iron Age IIA strata, a high degree of urban planning was detected. In Stratum VI (the early Iron Age IIA), well-planned buildings stood in a carefully designed and densely built urban block in Area C (fig. 4). In Areas B and G, parts of well constructed buildings and open spaces, with several phases of floors, cooking and storing facilities, were exposed. In Strata V–IV, well-planned blocks of buildings were revealed in all the excavated areas, with buildings standing in an almost identical orientation. In many cases, each house had its own external walls, so that a double wall, ca. 1.2m wide, was created between adjacent buildings; this differs from most private architecture in Iron Age Israel, where neighboring houses shared walls, and suggests a society that maintained the individuality of each household. The double walls may also evince a second storey, accessed through wooden ladders, which did not survive. The buildings were arranged around piazzas and along streets. In Area C, two insulae were separated by a street (3 m wide), leading onto an inner piazza. In Area B, three buildings were constructed along three sides of an open area, later built up. In Area E, an open-air sanctuary was attached to a dwelling, again pointing to the dense building activity in this city. Although the edge of the mound was examined in four different places, no city wall was detected. Since it is unfeasible that a city wall would have eroded without a trace, we conclude that the Iron Age IIA city remained unfortified. Although most other Iron Age IIA cities exhibited city walls, a comparable situation is evident at Megiddo, where both Strata VB and VA–IVB–were unfortified, even though the latter contained monumental architecture. The existence of a city wall should not, therefore, be considered imperative for an urban center in this period. Building Technique The architecture of all Iron IIA strata at Tel Reতov is characterized by mudbrick construction with almost no use of stone, even for foundations of brick walls. This phenomenon is exceptional and enigmatic, since in most cases in the Southern Levant mudbrick walls had stone socles, providing a solid foundation and protection from water damage. Moreover, such stone socles were the rule in the Late Bronze Age and in the Iron Age I architecture at Tel Reতov itself. Why did the Iron Age IIA population forego stone foundations for their walls? This question remains unresolved, unless we assume that this was part of their cultural heritage. The only possible origin of this building tradition with which we are familiar is in Egypt, where the construction of mudbrick walls without stone foundations was common, and this tradition is evident in a few Egyptian buildings in Canaan, as well as in several other cases along the Jordan

96

Amihai Mazar

Valley.5 Another technological innovation in the Iron Age IIA at Tel Reতov is the use of timber as foundation for walls and floors. This feature was introduced in Stratum V, following the end of Stratum VI, perhaps by an earthquake. The Stratum V builders constructed their walls on top of thin beams, often placed perpendicular to the wall, creating wooden rollers that provided the walls flexibility in the event of an earthquake. Unworked wood branches were used in this stratum as foundations for beaten earth floors. Such use of timber in architecture is unknown anywhere in the Southern Levant; this too could be either a local innovation or the influence of some external tradition, the origin of which is unknown. House Plans The architectural plans of residential buildings in the city are also unusual. While in most Iron Age II cities and farms in Israelite territories we find the typical ‘four-room houses’, ‘three-room houses’ and their variations – ‘pillared buildings’ with rows of monolithic pillars dividing their central space6 – no evidence for such buildings was found at Tel Reতov, with the exception of a single house with five stone bases for wooden posts. The few complete houses excavated in Area C, as well as fragmentary buildings excavated in the other areas, exhibit a variety of plans. Two exceptional buildings in Area C are noteworthy (fig. 4). One is Building CF (Strata V–IV; 53 m2 in area), consisting of a large hall, an inner chamber and a row of four side chambers, one inside the other, with benches lining their walls. Its plan resembles that of a building near the city gate at Megiddo StratumVA–IVB, related to the large space 2081, where a well-known cult corner with stone altars and pottery stands was found.7 The latter appears to have been the dwelling of a high-ranking family or official; the same may be true of our Building CF. This comparison suggests a similarity in the planning of elite buildings in these two sites. The rich finds from Building CF include a shrine model with unique decoration, an elaborate altar façade with two nude female figures, a jar inscribed with the inscription lšqy nmš (see below) and a unique pottery ‘treasure box’ located in the innermost room.8 The other house is the unique Building CP (‘Elisha’s House’) in the southeastern part of Area C, discussed in depth below. Between Buildings CF and CP, three buildings with a similar plan (CQ1, CQ2, CQ3) were uncovered: each had a front space leading into two back chambers, with a floor space of just 19–23 m2. They lacked cooking facilities, although they yielded a rich assemblage of household pottery, loom weights and grinding stones. They may have served as dwellings for very small families or for officials without families. A 5 Mudbrick structures without stone foundations are known from the Late Bronze Age at Deir elBalah, Tel el-Far‫ލ‬ah, and Beth-shean – all retaining Egyptian tradition. Other examples are known from the Jordan Valley, such as at Tell Deir ‫ލ‬Alla and Jericho. At Tel Reতov, a large public building in Stratum D-10, dated to the 14th century, also lacks stone foundations, but its walls had 2m deep foundations abutted by constructional fill. 6 Netzer 1992; Faust 2012:213–229. 7 Loud 1948:44–46, plan: fig. 388; reconstructed plan: fig. 100; Zevit 2001:220–225. 8 Mazar 2015:103–117.

Culture, Identity and Politics Relating to Tel Re‫ۊ‬ov

97

fourth, somewhat larger, building (CX) consists of a main space, divided by a row of five wooden posts, and a single large rear space. Some of these buildings (CF, CQ1, CQ2) were founded in Stratum V and continued in use in Stratum IV with various changes; others (CP, CX and perhaps CQ3) were founded in Stratum IV on top of Stratum V buildings of a different plan which were only partially excavated. Another partially excavated building in the northern part of this quarter (CW) appears to include a central courtyard or roofed hall flanked by rooms on both sides. In sum, the residential buildings at Tel Reতov exhibited various plans and were of different sizes, intended to meet particular functions. In addition to dwellings, several buildings of a public or special function were excavated. In Area C, Building CG (Strata V and IV), standing between two open spaces (piazzas), is a rectangular building with three chambers on its ground floor, surrounded by massive wide walls, without entrances. It may have served as a granary entered from an upper level. Building CL, attached to Building CP on the west in Stratum IV, included two large and two smaller spaces. Its plan and the finds indicate that it served either for storage or for some administrative function. In Area E, an open-air sanctuary was revealed, with two attached buildings, both designed to fulfill a particular cultic function.9 The core of this sanctuary was a platform with standing stones, suggesting local ancestor worship. Another unusual discovery is the apiary in Area C, Stratum V (see below). In terms of city plan and architecture, Tel Reতov is thus outstanding in that it retained its urban character and size throughout the LB–IAIIA sequence; in the Iron Age IIA, some unusual features were introduced both in building techniques and in planning. Finds The rich finds from the Iron Age IIA strata at Tel Reতov include 11 or 12 inscriptions,10 a large collection of cult objects,11 over 50 seals and seal impressions,12 26 stone weights, 49 clay figurines, 23 Egyptian faience amulets, 250 beads, close to 700 grinding stones of various types, 17 gypsum vessels, some 250 stone objects, some 150 clay objects, 54 bone and ivory objects, 43 spindle whorls, 1100 stone and clay loom weights, 150 metal objects, several hundred restored pottery vessels and many thousands of pottery sherds, including imported pottery from Phoenicia, Cyprus and Greece. The animal bone collection is extensive, with numerous fish bones, including many of Nile perch, imported from Egypt.13 This large body of finds has been studied by a group of experts and is currently being prepared for final publication (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, in preparation). When one bears in mind that less than 2% of the final Iron IIA city (Stratum IV) has been excavated and even less has been excavated of the 9

Mazar 2015:89–92. Mazar and Aতituv 2011; Aতituv and Mazar 2014. 11 Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2008; Mazar 2015:94–103; 2016. 12 Partially published in Keel and Mazar 2009. 13 For a preliminary study of some of the animal bones, see Marom et al. 2009; the fish bones were studied by Omri Lernau (unpublished manuscript). 10

98

Amihai Mazar

earlier strata, these numbers provide an idea of the exceptional richness of this Iron IIA city. The following sections address several historical questions related to Tel Reতov, with emphasis on northern connections.

When did Tel Reতov Become an Israelite City? When did the city at Tel Reতov, along with other sites in the Beth-shean Valley, become Israelite? The term ‘Israelite’ in this context denotes two different aspects: one is geo-political, and the other relates to the complex question of ethnicity. With regard to the first aspect, if one accepts the concept of a United Israelite Monarchy with borders that include most of Cisjordan and with a capital in Jerusalem, the Beth-shean Valley, including Tel Reতov, must have been part of this kingdom. However, although several scholars accept that such a polity may have been feasible, albeit not in its maximal borders as described in the Bible,14 others reject its existence or, at the very least, its territorial expansion to northern Israel.15 According to the latter view, the Beth-shean Valley continued to be a local Canaanite enclave throughout the 10th century BCE and with the establishment of the Northern Kingdom in the late 10th century, the Bethshean Valley must have become part of that kingdom. 16 This is the time span of Strata V–IV at Tel Reতov and Strata S-1a–b at Tel Beth-shean. The second aspect relates to ethnicity: to what extent and at what point of time did the local population became ‘Israelite’ in terms of religion and group identity? The archaeological evidence, although rich and varied, cannot resolve this matter. As noted, Tel Reতov was a thriving Canaanite city for several centuries. The material culture clearly indicates that throughout the Iron Age I (the late 11th century and perhaps the early 10th century BCE), indigenous Canaanite traits at Tel Reতov and Beth-shean were still at their peak. Biblical passages, such as Joshua 17:11–12 and Judges 1:27– 28 possibly retain an historical memory of this Canaanite continuity even though in their present form are part of much later edited texts. When the Beth-Shean Valley came under Israelite political rule (whether the postulated United Monarchy or just the kingdom of Northern Israel), the local population of Canaanite origin probably continued to serve as the main component and was not totally replaced by a new population. This is attested by the continuity of material culture in the city, notwithstanding 14 E.g., Miller and Hayes 1986:149–219; Mazar 2007a; 2010; Dietrich 2007:262–316; Rainey and Notley 2006:159–179. 15 Finkelstein 1996; 1999; 2010; Garfinkel et al. 2012; for papers presenting both sides, see Handy 1997; for an evaluation of current views, see Grabbe 2007:111–122. Note that Finkelstein, who rejects the existence of a Davidic-Solomonic ‘United Monarchy’, does accept Saul’s kingdom (his ‘Gibeon–Bethel entity’), which he dates to the 10th century, as ruling a vast stretch of territory from the Elah Valley in the south to the northern valleys and the Gilead (Finkelstein 2013:37–59). If such an entity could exist with its centre at Gibeon (where hardly any 10th-century remains were found), why could Jerusalem, with its monumental architecture, not serve in a similar role? (Mazar 2010). 16 For example, Na’aman 2007:404.

Culture, Identity and Politics Relating to Tel Re‫ۊ‬ov

99

changes and developments, such as the introduction of new building techniques and pottery typology and treatment. The evidence provided by inscriptions is not conclusive: several Tel Reতov inscriptions may be defined as Hebrew, yet they contain mainly private names, with no clear ethnic markers. None of them contain a Yahwistic theophoric component.17 Inscription no. 2, the only legible inscription from Stratum VI, reads mt’, a private name that could be rooted in 2nd-millennium Canaanite names and cannot be defined specifically as Hebrew, although it could be explained as a Hebrew name as well.18 The only theophoric component in the inscriptions from Strata V–IV is El, which appears in inscription no. 7 (from Stratum IV),Ҵl‫܈‬d[q] š‫ۊ‬ly, ‘Eliৢedek (son of) Shaতli’. The component lšqy in inscription no. 6, lšqy nmš, may be regarded as Aramaic (like the inscription lšqyҴ from En Gev,19 but even this is uncertain. As mentioned above, the pottery of Stratum VI retains some traits of the Iron Age I Canaanite tradition, such as several shapes and some dull red painted decoration, concurrent with the appearance of new traits, such as new forms and the increasingly popular burnished red slip. The pottery assemblage of the late Iron Age IIA Strata V– IV may be defined as a regional variant of the assemblage typical of the Northern Kingdom. It does not differ significantly from the pottery found at Megiddo VA–IVB and VB and is very similar to that uncovered at Rosh Zayit III–II and other sites along the northern valleys of Israel, but is quite distinct from the assemblages of Samaria, on the one hand, and of Hazor X–VIII, on the other. To what extent such an assemblage can serve as an ethnic marker remains an open question. With regard to religious activity at the site, masseboth were worshipped in an openair sanctuary, possibly related to an ancestors’ cult. House cult consisted of locallymade horned pottery altars, female fertility figurines, a uniquely-decorated clay model shrine, and Egyptian amulets, among other things.20 Many of these religious paraphernalia are rooted in second-millennium Canaanite practices and continued, albeit with changes, into the first millennium. They do not, however, contribute to the definition of ethnic identity. Any attempt to define the local population as Aramaic21 is untenable. In my view, the population is best described as descending from local Canaanite families, perhaps intermingling through time with Israelite families from the hill country; these families might have moved to the valley following its domination by Israel, perhaps from the 10th and certainly the 9th century BCE onwards. It is also possible that a component of the local population had Northern Syrian origins, as suggested by the use of horned altars (below) and perhaps by the exceptional material culture traits mentioned above. By the mid-9th century BCE, the local population must have been

17

Aতituv and Mazar 2014; 2016. Finkelstein and Sass (2013:164) defined the writing style of this inscription as Hebrew – one of the ‘two earliest Hebrew letter shapes’ (the other one, in their view, is an inscription from Tell eৢৡafi/Gath [sic!]). This definition is, in my opinion, unsubstantiated. 19 Mazar et al. 1964:27–29; Gibson 1975:5–6. 20 Mazar 2015:94–112. 21 Finkelstein and Sass 2013:178. 18

100

Amihai Mazar

well integrated in the socio-economic and political fabric of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, as suggested by the historical reconstruction outlined below.

Northern Connections The study of relations between Northern Israel and the Aramaeans, and in particular with Aram-Damascus, is hampered by a lacuna in the archaeological record: not a single excavation in southern Syria has yielded relevant comparative material; consequently, comparisons are possible only with central and northern Syria, in particular with the Upper Euphrates Valley. Only a few finds from Tel Reতov bear an affinity to material from this region. Pottery Altars Pottery altars (often called ‘cult stands’), shaped like a tower with an upper tray, a parapet and four horns, were popular in Tel Reতov Strata V–IV and may reflect traditions rooted in the Upper Euphrates at the end of the Late Bronze Age. Four complete altars of this type (two of them illustrated in fig. 11), a large fragment of a fifth and 34 smaller fragments were found in cultic, industrial and domestic contexts. All had four horns at the corners of a parapet above a flat tray; several had nude female figurines at the front. Such altars are rare in Israel: one example comes from Hazor Stratum X, two were uncovered in Pella (in an Iron Age IIA pit) and variants are known from Iron Age IIA contexts in Megiddo and Taanach. A later altar of this type, albeit smaller, was found in the Yavneh favissa, dated to ca. 800 BCE.22 Similar objects are known from the Upper Euphrates Valley (at Tell Munbaka, Emar-Tell Meskene, Tell Fray and Tell Faqous) in late 13th to early 12th-century BCE contexts,23 where they were defined as ‘architectural models’. Their resemblance to the Iron Age objects from the Southern Levant has been pointed out by several authors,24 yet the meaning of this resemblance remains elusive. The two groups are separated by a period of at least 300 years and a distance of 400km, and there is no data to fill this gap. Is the resemblance the result of immigration of population groups from this northern region into the Land of Israel, bringing the tradition with them? Do these objects reflect indirect influence, through unknown transmission points in Syria? Or perhaps these two groups of objects developed independently in two separate regions? In my view, the affinity of objects uncovered in our region to those found in northern Syria should not be ignored or considered a matter of coincidence. Perhaps it provides an archaeological clue to the possibility that some components of the Iron Age population at Tel Rehov originated in northern Syria, though this remains highly speculative.25 22

For references and additional details, see Mazar 2015:94–98. Margueron 1976; Muller 2002a; 2002b. 24 Potts 1992: 100; Katz 2006; Daviau 2008; Zwickel 2010; Mazar 2015. 25 Mazar 1981; Na’aman 1994:237–247. In a recent study of the patriarchal narratives, Na’aman (2014) surveys and, in a reversal of his earlier views, joins the view which rejects any secondmillennium traditions in these stories. Conversely, Fleming (2004) and Hess (2004) point to connec23

Culture, Identity and Politics Relating to Tel Re‫ۊ‬ov

101

Import of Anatolian Bees through Syria? One of the outstanding discoveries at Tel Reতov was the industrial apiary uncovered in Area C Stratum V (local C-1b), dated by 14C to the late 10th/early 9th centuries BCE (fig. 5). The plan, technology, ethnographic parallels, economic significance and biblical connotations of this apiary have been presented elsewhere.26 Based on ethnographic parallels and on estimates by experts on beekeeping, the annual yield of the apiary was ca. 300–500 kg of honey and 50–70 kg of beeswax, although this was dependent upon the number of hives active at a given time, the state of their upkeep and climatic conditions. Such a vast quantity of honey and beeswax, far beyond the scale of individual consumption, points to an industrial operation. The plan of the apiary, its organized establishment and efficient operation, as well as cultic practices related to it, point to a robust central authority that was able to conduct such a specialized industry and to force the population in a densely-built city to endure the huge amount of bees that would have been present. This could have been a strong local family – perhaps the Nimshi family, mentioned in an inscription from the apiary (see below). Northern connections may be gleaned from the discovery of bee remains in charred fragments of honey-combs in two of the hives. 27 The remains were identified as the sub-species Apis Melifera anatoliaca, well known to this day in Turkey, where it provides the basis for wide-scale honey production. This is a surprising discovery, since the local sub-species of the honey bee in the Southern Levant today – and probably in the past too – is the Apis melifera syriaca, a much less productive and very aggressive bee.

Figure 5: The apiary at Tel Reতov Stratum V, looking east; note thick destruction layer visible in the section. tions between north Mesopotamian and North Syrian sources in the second millennium to early Israelite traditions and laws. These are but a few examples of views regarding this debated issue. 26 Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2007. 27 Bloch et al. 2010.

102

Amihai Mazar

Apiculture was important in Anatolia since the Old Hittite period and certainly during the days of the Hittite Empire. In Hittite literature, the bee is a symbol of abundance, and it plays a central role in the myths of the search for Telepinu. Hittite law imposes severe punishment upon thieves of bee swarms and hives, and there are several Hittite terms related to beekeeping.28 Evidence of apiculture in the Luwian (‘NeoHittite’) states of south-east Anatolia during the Iron Age is slim, due to the scarcity of sources. Simon mentions a royal epithet from Gurgum and the Luwian term for honey (mallit) in ritual texts and conjectures that apiculture continued to be practiced in these states.29 The discovery of Anatolian bees at Tel Reতov begs the question whether the bees were imported from Anatolia or whether this was a sub-species local to the Southern Levant in the Iron Age. The latter possibility is unlikely since the Anatolian bee is suited to the ecological conditions of Anatolia. However, the import of bee swarms from Anatolia would necessitate sophisticated beekeeping knowledge and tradition. Continuity and an annual revival of swarms would be necessary, because otherwise the queens would mate with local Syrian drones and the subsequent generation would lose the qualities of the Anatolian species.30 Indeed, such trade was feasible, as is evident from the 8th-century BCE stele of Shamash-resh-uৢur, the Assyrian ruler of Suhu on the Middle Euphrates, who boasts how he initiated the rearing of bees in hives, an act never before undertaken by his forefathers.31 The bees were brought from the land of the Habhu, identified in the Zagros Mountains some 400km north of the Land of Suhu.32 If, indeed, Anatolian bees were imported to Tel Reতov from Anatolia, several questions arise. Were they imported directly or through mediators? What was the nature and framework of the trade? From which part of Anatolia were the bees brought? What political body traded in bees? What was the origin of the knowledge required for such a trade? In previous discussions we have suggested that this trade involved Phoenician mediators,33 since there is abundant evidence for trade relations between Tel Reতov Strata V–IV and Phoenicia, but little for connections with the Luwian states. Simon, challenging this interpretation, claimed that there is no evidence for connections between the Luwian states and Phoenicia before the 8th century. He suggested that trade between northern Israel and Anatolia could have taken place in the late 10th/early 9th centuries only through the Orontes Valley, through Hama. Thus, in his view, the bees may have been brought from one of the emerging Luwian states: Tabal, Hiyawa (Que), Karkemish, W/Pala/isatin(i), or, less securely, Gurgum.34 To this one should note the caveat that some of these states are south of the Taurus ridge and thus 28

Hoffner 1974:123–124; Crane 1983; Crane and Graham 1985:31–34; Simon 2014:717–719. Simon 2014. 30 I would like to thank Dr. Yossy Slabezky for his advice on this subject. 31 Dalley 1984:202–203; Na’aman 2007:112–114. My thanks are extended to Prof. Tallay Ornan for the reference to Dalley’s work. 32 Na’aman 2007:114, n. 30, citing A. Fuchs. 33 Bloch et al. 2010:11243; Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2008:630. 34 Simon 2014:719–723. I would like to thank Gershon Galil for this reference. 29

Culture, Identity and Politics Relating to Tel Re‫ۊ‬ov

103

outside Anatolia proper.35 However, the view that connections between the Phoenicians and the Luwian states did not exist can hardly be accepted, as can be learned from the adoption of the Phoenician script. Thus the possibility of transfer of swarms via the Phoenician littoral should not be excluded.

Other Aspects of Economic Activity at Tel Reতov Was the apiary related to a copper industry? Although honey must have been the commodity produced in largest quantities in the apiary, beeswax was perhaps even more precious. While beeswax had many uses in antiquity, its role in the casting of bronze in the ‘lost wax’ technique should be emphasized. The apiary was contemporary with the peak of activity at Khirbet en-Nahas in the Feinan region of the eastern Arabah.36 The biblical traditions concerning Solomon mention large-scale copper-smelting operations in the middle Jordan Valley, ‘between Succoth and Zarethan’ (1 Kgs 7:46), 30–40km south of Tel Reতov. Is it possible that this biblical reference retains the memory of an actual bronze-smelting operation in the Jordan Valley, in which copper from Feinan was a major raw material and beeswax was a necessary commodity?37 Can we tie these threads together and interpret the apiary at Tel Reতov as part of this larger economic enterprise? If this postulation is correct, what was the historical background to this activity, at a time preceding the rise of the Omride dynasty? This interpretation is raised cautiously, since it remains highly speculative. Western Trade Relations Located on the main transverse road from the coastal plain through the Jezreel Valley towards Transjordan, the city at Tel Reতov maintained long-distance commercial ties with Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Greece during the Iron Age IIA. Several Phoenician 35 Simon compares the bee trade with the trade in horses between Egypt and Que mentioned in 1 Kgs 10:28–29 in the context of Solomon’s economic activity (although he does not believe in the historicity of this source). In his view, the latter trade is comparable to the import of mules from Egypt mentioned in one of the inscriptions of Taita, ruler of W/Pala/isatin(i). Simon compares the views of scholars like D. Hawkins, M. Hutter, I. Singer and B. J. Collins, who accept the historicity of the account in 2 Sam 8:3–11 concerning David’s war against Hadadezer and the relations with To`i king of Hamath, to views of scholars like A.A. Fischer, E. Lipinski, H. N. Niemann and M. Gerhard, who consider this source to be a reflection of the situation in the 8th century (Simon 2014:728). The relationship between the name To`i king of Hamath in 2 Samuel and the name Taita of two rulers of the kingdom of W/Pala/isatin(i) (suggested by Collins 2007; Steitler 2010; see references in Simon 2014) remains enigmatic on philological grounds and is rejected by Simon (2014:724–725). 36 Levy et al. 2014. 37 Note that Shoshenq’s list mentions Succoth and perhaps Mahanaim in the same region. A scarab of Shoshenq was found at Feinan, and several authors have suggested that his campaign was to some extent aimed at taking over this copper industry. See Levy et al. 2014, in particular Chapter 15; Fantalkin and Finkelstein 2006:26–27.

104

Amihai Mazar

Bichrome Ware jugs appear in the Iron IIA strata. One is an elaborately painted Phoenician jar found in the 9th-century sanctuary in Area E, perhaps used as a dedicatory vessel in that sanctuary. Provenance studies have shown that some of the Phoenician vessels originated in sites along the Carmel coast and the Acco Valley, such as Dor, Tell Abu Hawam, Acco and Achziv, while others came originated from the Lebanese coast, perhaps from Tyre or Sidon.38 The pottery assemblage from the fortified building at Rosh Zayit, Western Galilee, bears a marked resemblance to that of Tel Reতov Strata V–IV.39 This site may have served as a trade post between Israelite territories to the east and Phoenician territories to the west. The storage jar known as ‘Hippo Jar’ was found in large numbers at Rosh Zayit as well as at Tel Reতov and in its vicinity; a computerized comparative study and a petrographic study indicate that these jars were foreign to Rosh Zayit and may have arrived from Tel Reতov and its vicinity.40 Cypriot pottery was found in all three Iron Age IIA strata at Tel Reতov: Cypriot White Painted Ware appeared in Stratum VI, joined by Black-on-Red I (III) bowls and juglets and some Cypriot Bichrome ware in Strata V–IV. Approximately a dozen imported Greek sherds were found. They represent Protogeometric, Sub-Protogeometric and Middle Geometric forms, mostly Euboean and some Attic. 41 These connections with Greece were probably indirect, and may have been through Tyre, where the largest quantity of contemporaneous Greek pottery in the east was revealed. Tel Reতov yielded more Greek sherds dated to the 10th–9th centuries BCE than any other site in Israel, an indication of its special status in that time. Connections with Egypt The main Egyptian product brought to Tel Reতov, as well as to many other Iron Age sites in Israel, was dried fish, particularly Nile perch and perhaps other species of freshwater fish.42 This trade, well attested at other Iron Age sites in Israel as well, may have been carried out through coastal ports such as Dor or Acco. Two dozen Egyptian faience amulets, representing various Egyptian gods and religious symbols, reflect another aspect of Egyptian import and religious influence in this region in the 10th–9th centuries BCE, as do several scarabs and an inscribed plaque.43

38

This was determined by a petrographic study conducted by Paula Weiman-Barak from the University of Haifa. 39 Gal and Alexandre 2000. 40 The computerized typology study was carried out by Ortal Harush and the petrographic study was conducted by David Ben Shlomo, both in The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 41 Mazar and Coldstream 2003; Mazar 2004. Several additional Greek sherds have been discovered since the publication of these papers. Of particular importance is a sherd of a Greek Middle Proto Geometric bowl found in a late Iron I context (Stratum D-3). 42 This is based on an unpublished study by Omri Lernau (forthcoming in the final publication report). I thank Prof. Lernau for this information. 43 The amulets were studied by Christian Herrmann; the glyptics was studied by Othmar Keel of Fribourg University. Both studies will be published in the final report of the Tel Reতov excavations.

Culture, Identity and Politics Relating to Tel Re‫ۊ‬ov

105

Destruction Events at Tel Reতov Let us consider two destruction events expressed in the archaeological record at Tel Reতov and their possible correlations to historical events known from written sources. Two archaeological destruction events are discussed in this section: the partial destruction of Stratum V and the total destruction of Stratum IV. The historical events discussed are the raid by Shoshenq I and the Aramean wars against Northern Israel. Shoshenq I at Re‫ۊ‬ov44 Both Reতov and Beth-shean are mentioned in Shoshenq I’s list of conquered cities at Karnak.45 The precise date of this campaign, as well as its motivation and consequences, are issues still under debate. On the basis of inner Egyptian chronology, the raid must have occurred at some point during the second half of the 10th century BCE, perhaps ca. 925 BCE.46 Such a date would correlate with the biblical reference to Shishaq’s attack on Jerusalem in the 5th year of Rehoboam (1 Kgs 14:25–28), dated more or less to the same years based on the inner biblical chronology as counted back from the 9th century. However, both these dates are tentative. Biblical archaeologists have commonly attributed Iron Age IIA destruction layers such as Taanach IIB, Megiddo VA–IVB and others to this campaign,47 but the question whether Shoshenq in fact destroyed the places mentioned in his list is under debate. Na’aman, for example, has claimed that Shoshenq did not deliberately destroy such places.48 In the days of Shoshenq, the city at Tel Reতov was certainly densely built and flourishing. But to what city was Shoshenq referring: to the one of Stratum VI or the one of Stratum V? The precise dates of these two strata and the transition date between them depend upon the results of a series of 14C dates. Even though Tel Reতov has yielded the largest number of such dates among all Iron Age IIA sites in the Southern Levant, their interpretation is not easy. 49 A Bayesian statistical model of the dates from Area C alone resulted in transition dates between Strata VI and V in the range of 918–907 (1ı) 44

In Shoshenq’s inscription: Reতob. See Rainy and Notley 2006: 186 name list No. 17 for exact transliteration. 45 Rainey and Notley 2006:185–189, with previous literature. 46 Shortland 2005, for example, concludes that Shoshenq accessed the throne during the middle of the 940s BCE and that the campaign took place towards the end of his reign, ca. 925 BCE. 47 For example, Mazar (1990:397–398), Rast (1978:26–27). Finkelstein (2002) attempted to end the Iron Age I with Shoshenq’s raid and has attributed to this campaign a series of destructions at the end of the Iron Age I, such as of Megiddo Stratum VIA, as well as destructions in places not mentioned in the list, such as Tel Miqne Stratum IV. However, in later years it became evident, on the basis of 14C dates that these destructions should be dated to the late 11th / early 10th century BCE (see above, n. 4). Compare now Arie (2013:743), who suggests that at Megiddo, Shoshenq captured the meagre settlement of Stratum VB. 48 Na’aman 2007:402–404. 49 For details and analysis until 2005, see Mazar et al. 2005. Additional dates have been measured since 2005. We now have three samples from Stratum VI in Area C, with 18 measured replications and five samples from Stratum V in Area C, with 18 measured replications, as well as additional dates from Area B. For the dates from the apiary, see Bloch et al. 2010.

106

Amihai Mazar

or 924–900 (2ı) and the transition between Strata V and IV in the range of 911–896 (1ı) and 916–886 (2ı). In Area B, the transition between Strata VI and V was 950– 896 BCE (1ı) and the transition between Strata V and IV was 916–860 BCE (1ı). Although these results may point to the Stratum VI city as the one that Shoshenq encountered on his campaign, the dates from Stratum V are only slightly lower and their 2ı range could also fit the date of the campaign. Bearing in mind the problems and limitations of Bayesian models, we should also take into consideration the unmodelled dates (without the Bayesian model). These provide a wider range of dates in the 10th century for Strata VI and in the 10th–9th centuries for Stratum V. The dates from Stratum VI and some of the dates from Stratum V may fit the date of the Shoshenq campaign.50 Following the discovery during the first seasons of excavation at Tel Reতov of a thick destruction layer in Stratum C-1b (general Stratum V) in Area C and the thenknown 14C dates from this layer, we proposed attributing this destruction to Shoshenq.51 It is now suggested that both Stratum VI and the southern part of Stratum V in Area C came to an end as a result of earthquakes. The former was probably severe enough to cause great damage to buildings of Stratum VI, but these were evacuated and rooms were found devoid of finds. The latter caused abrupt and severe collapse of a limited area around the apiary and resulted in tilted walls and brick collapse (fig. 6), while other parts of the city of Stratum V were not damaged.52 If these proposals are correct, it would mean that there was no single violent destruction at Tel Reতov that could be attributed to Shoshenq. He perhaps just captured an existing city – either of Stratum VI or of Stratum V. This scenario would be in keeping with the view that Shoshenq did not deliberately destroy sites named in his list.

50

Following is a list of dates from Stratum C-1b (=V): Sample 24: 902 (920)–843 (830) BCE sample R25: 928 (973)–900 (851) BCE sample R26: 926 (970)–878 (850) BCE sample R28: 894 (906)–836 (825) BCE sample R29a: 896 (918)–833 (811) BCE sample R29b: 1008 (1073)–1000 (945) BCE The sample numbers are those used in the final publication of Tel Reতov (R24 from Locus 2422), R25 (from Locus 2422) and R26 (from Locus 2441) and published in Mazar et al. 2005:201–202; R28 and R29 are samples from the apiary measured after 2005. For each sample an average of several repetitions was calculated. The calibrated dates are in the 1ı range (68% probability); dates provided within parentheses are the 2ı range. My thanks are extended to Johannes van der Plicht from Groningen University and Hendrik Bruins from the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev for measuring samples R24–R26 and to Katharina Streit for preparing the calibrations and Bayesian model, using OxCal 4.1 software. 51 Bruins et al. 2003a; debated in Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2003. 52 A study conducted by Erez Ben Yosef of Tel Aviv University has pointed to an earthquake at the end of Stratum V around the apiary. This study will be published in the final excavation report.

Culture, Identity and Politics Relating to Tel Re‫ۊ‬ov

107

Hazael and the Destruction of Stratum IV The heavy destruction by fire of Stratum IV was detected in almost all the excavation areas at Tel Reতov (fig. 8): in Areas B, C, G and J, thick burnt destruction layers were evident in some of the houses, less so in Area E. All these areas in the lower city were abandoned after the end of Stratum IV. In the subsequent occupation phase (Stratum III), the city shrank to half its size, and only the upper city continued to be occupied. Who brought about the destruction of Stratum IV? Our impression was that the destruction was man-made – most probably the result of a military conquest – since no evidence for an earthquake was found. This event can be dated on the basis of three types of data: typology of pottery and of other artifacts, including palaeographic considerations; radiocarbon dates; and historical considerations. A consideration of the pottery reveals that hundreds of restored vessels from the destruction layer are typical of the late Iron Age IIA, with close parallels at Megiddo VB and VA–IVB, at Taanach IIB, at Jezreel (pre-palace and palace levels) and at Rosh Zayit. The dating of this pottery assemblage has been at the center of a chronological debate since 1996.53 It is clear that this assemblage was in use throughout much of the 9th century, but its earliest date depends upon several considerations. At Tel Reতov, both Strata V and IV exhibit identical assemblages, and as shown above, Stratum V may have started sometime during the final two decades of the 10th century BCE. At Megiddo, a similar assemblage appears in both Strata VB and VB–IVA, the former now being dated to the 10th century BCE, prior to Shoshenq’s invasion. 54 At Jezreel, a similar assemblage appears in both the pre-citadel fills and in the citadel’s destruction layer, which could not have occurred prior to Jehu’s coup in 842/841 BCE.

Figure 6: Destruction by earthquake (?) at the southern edge of Building CG, near apiary. 53

Finkelstein 1996 and numerous later papers have dated all these strata to the 9th century BCE; cf. Mazar 2008b; 2011, who has suggested to date these assemblages to the late 10th and 9th centuries until ca. 830 BCE. 54 Arie 2013:741–743.

108

a

Amihai Mazar

b Figure 7: 7ZRLQVFULSWLRQVZLWKWKHQDPH1LPVKLD ʹʮʰʬOQPš, incised on a jar from the apiary, 6WUDWXP9E WKHLQVFULSWLRQʹʮʰʩʷʹʬOšqy nmš, incised on a jar from Building CP, Stratum IV.

Figure 8: Destruction layer of Building CX, Stratum IV.

Given the above, the most probable explanation for the destruction of Tel Reতov Stratum IV is, in my view, an Aramaean attack in the days of Hazael. Earlier Aramaean attacks are less probable. The earliest is the purported raid of Ben Hadad I son of Tabrimmon king of Damascus (1 Kgs 15:18–20). The historical veracity of this raid is disputed, and even if it occurred, there is no evidence that Ben Hadad reached

Culture, Identity and Politics Relating to Tel Re‫ۊ‬ov

109

the Beth-shean Valley.55 This raid would be very early within the chronological range of Stratum IV provided by 14C (though within the 1ı range of most of the measurements, with the exception of R39). The wars between Ahab and Ben Hadad (II?), described in 1 Kings 20, 22 and 2 Kings 6–8, are another candidate for the destruction of Stratum IV. In 1 Kings 20:12,16, the king of Aram is described as being located at Succoth (assuming that this is indeed a place name and does not just denote ‘huts’): he thus arrived from the Jordan Valley, probably through Wadi el-Farǥah, and laid siege to Samaria. However, historians are in disagreement whether these battles took place during the days of Ahab or later, during the reign of Jehu. Miller’s view, first raised in 1966, that these wars should be dated to Jehu, was widely accepted, based on the assumption that Ahab was in good terms with the Aramaeans at least from 853 BCE, when he fought alongside Hadadezer (Assyrian Adad-Idri) of Damascus in the battle of Qarqar.56 Other scholars attribute the Aramaean wars to the time of Ahab, before or after the battle of Qarqar. Thus, Rainey dates the Aramean attack on Samaria to 857 BCE57 and LipiĔski believes that there were hostilities between Aram and Ahab after 853 BCE.58 Based upon Ahab’s might and his control of Transjordan, I would accept Miller’s suggestion. Another possible event for the destruction of Tel Reতov IV is Shalmaneser III’s raid in 841 BCE, described in the Black Obelisk, close to Jehu’s coup. Since Jehu is shown surrendering to the Assyrian king, it is possible that the Assyrian army reached northern Israel. The identification of Ba’ali Ra’si (Baal Rosh), mentioned in the text, with Mt. Carmel is often suggested,59 though it remains unproved. Since no Assyrian threat existed until the time of Adad-Nirari III (810–783), we are left with Hazael as the most probable candidate for destroying Tel Reতov IV. Hazael is believed to have dominated Syria and northern Israel between 841 and ca. 800 BCE. The biblical account of 2 Kings 10:32–33 mentions his conquests during the reign of Jehu in Transjordan. If the Tel Dan inscription is correctly interpreted as evidence that Hazael killed Jehoram son of Ahab and Ahaziah son of Jehoram king of Judah, that event must be dated to ca. 842/1 BCE, followed by the succession of Jehu in Israel.60 Discussions of the Tel Dan inscription have attempted to reconcile the contradiction between the biblical narrative of the assassination of these two kings by Jehu and the inscription, which tells a different story.61 But what was the nature of the relations between Hazael and Jehu? Some believe that Jehu cooperated with Hazael, whereas Na’aman claims that hostilities existed between these two rulers against the backdrop

55

Cf., e.g., Miller and Hayes 1986:246–249, who negate such a campaign, with Rainey and Notley 2006:197, who accept it as an historical event. 56 Miller 1966; Miller and Hayes 1986:262,293,297; followed by Na’aman 2007:408–409; and others. 57 Rainey 2006:299. 58 LipiĔski 2000; for a summary of the research, see Grabbe 2007:146–149; Ghantous 2013:1–9. 59 For example: Aharoni 1979:341; Miller and Hayes 1986: 287; Rainey and Notley 2006:208. 60 Na’aman 2007:414; for recent discussion, see Ghantous 2013:37–65. 61 Na’aman 2000:100–104; see 92, n.2 for previous literature on the inscription; 2007:414–415.

110

Amihai Mazar

of their different attitudes towards Assyria.62 Regardless of the nature of these relations in the early days of Hazael’s rule, it is clear that after 838 BCE, when the Assyrians withdrew from Syria, he attacked the kingdom of Israel (1 Kgs 8:12–13; 10:32– 33), conquered and destroyed Gath, the largest Philistine city in those days, following a siege,63 and threatened Jerusalem during the time of Jehoash, who paid him tribute (2 Kgs 12:18–19). Hazael’s domination of Israel continued until the reign of Jehoahaz son of Jehu (2 Kgs 13:3–7).64 The severe and violent 9th-century destruction at Tel Reতov was probably contemporary with the destruction of Jezreel and perhaps with parts of Megiddo VA–IVB,65 and with Tel Beth-shean Stratum S-1a;66 though the date of the two latter destruction layers is still not entirely clear. The extent of destruction at Tel Reতov is unparalleled in northern Israel. The reason for this violent attack may be related not only to its status as one of the largest cities in the northern kingdom, but also to its being the hometown of Jehu. This possibility is based on the appearance of the name Nimshi in two inscriptions from Tel Reতov and in one from nearby Tel ‘Amal, a village perhaps related to Tel Reতov (fig. 7).67 One of these inscriptions, lnmš ‘belonging to Nimshi’, was incised on a jar found in the Stratum V apiary. The Tel ‘Amal inscription is identical to this one and appears on a similar jar in a context of material culture identical to that of Tel Reতov V–IV. The third inscription, found in Building CF of Stratum IV (see above), contains the words lšqy nmš, perhaps mentioning a high official in the service of the Nimshi family. The name Nimshi appears in the Bible twice: once as the name of Jehu’s father (1 Kgs 19:16) and once as the name of Jehu’s grandfather (2 Kgs 9:2,14). It seems to have been the name of Jehu’s family or clan;68 its appearance in the context of an important industry and prominent structures at Tel Reতov suggests that Reতov was the hometown of the Nimshi family and perhaps of Jehu himself. The relations between Jehu and Hazael were complex. Both rulers usurped the throne around the same time, but while Hazael fought Assyria, Jehu surrendered to Shamaneser III. It may be assumed that the conquest and burning of Tel Reতov was part of Hazael’s attacks on Israel, but the exceptionally severe sacking and burning of Reতov Stratum IV suggest that Hazael wreaked personal vengeance upon the hometown of Jehu. This event probably occurred early in the days of Hazael and Jehu, perhaps between 836 and 830 BCE.69

62 Na’aman 2000; 2007:414, with references to earlier literature; for a survey of the research on this subject, see Ghantous 2013:2–9. 63 Maeir 2012:43–49, who suggests that this event took place after 835 BCE. 64 Lehman and Nieman (2014:89–90) believe in an Aramaean conquest and domination of the entire Philistine plain and the Shephelah and subjugation of Judah to Hazael during the third part of the 9th century BCE. In my view, this is exaggerated. 65 Arie 2013:743. 66 Mazar and Panitz Cohen 2009:180–196,381–382. 67 Mazar and Aতituv 2011:302–304; Aতituv and Mazar 2014:43–45; 2016:212–218. 68 Gray 1964:486; Na’aman 2008:213. 69 Cf. Galil 2000.

Culture, Identity and Politics Relating to Tel Re‫ۊ‬ov

111

Figure 9: Building CP (‘Elisha’s House’): plan and view from above.

A series of 14C dates provides a wide timespan for Stratum IV at Tel Reতov, covering parts of the 10th and most of the 9th centuries BCE.70 70

14C dates from Stratum IV include three samples from a secure destruction layer in Area C (with 11 repetitions); two samples from Area B (with six repetitions) and two samples from Area E, the sanctuary courtyard (with six repetitions).The following are the uppermost and lowest dates of each sample after averaging all repetitions in a 1ı range; 2ı range is shown within parentheses: Area C: sample R35 (Building CF, seven repetitions): 922 (970)–850 (838) BCE sample R36 (Building CX, one repetition): 973 (996)–848 (838) BCE sample R37 (Building CP, three repetitions): 890 (896)–809 (807) BCE.

112

Amihai Mazar

The suggested destruction of Stratum IV by Hazael would correspond to the lowest available dates in the 1ı range from Building CP (‘Elisha’s House’), would be slightly later than two other samples from Area C and the samples from Area B, and would be within the range from Area E. The Bayesian results from Area C and B are slightly earlier than Hazael in the 1ı range from Areas C and B, but are well within the 2ı range and the 1ı range in Area E. In light of the complex problems related to the radiometric evidence, it seems that these results do not contradict the date proposed for the destruction of Stratum IV.71

The Case for Elisha To the above scenario I would add my conjecture concerning the presence of Elisha at Tel Reতov.72 Building CP, in the southeastern part of Area C (fig. 9), was exceptional both in architecture and in the rich finds uncovered in it. The two wings of this eightroom building were connected via a single small chamber (fig. 9, no.1), in which the ostracon with the name [’]lyšҵ ([E]lisha‫)ޏ‬, written in large letters in red ink, was found (fig. 10).73 Two clay altars (fig. 11) were situated near each of the entrances to this chamber, and four additional cultic objects were found in the building. The exceptionally large assemblage of artifacts and pottery vessels uncovered in this building provides evidence of domestic activity, as well as perhaps public banquets. The animal bones include right legs and a concentration of astragals, indicating religious activity.74

Area B: samples R40-41 (Building BD, six repetitions): 912 (926)–846 (836) BCE. Area E: sample R38: (one repetition): 920 (992)–835 (812) BCE sample R39: (five repetitions): 832 (832)–810 (810) BCE samples R35, R38 (Locus 2618) and R40-R41 (Locus 6229) were published in Mazar et al. 2005: 201–2012; The other samples were measured after 2005. Bayesian model for these three clusters result in the following ranges of dates: Area C: 905–865 BCE in 1ı and 910–817 in 2ı Area B: 905–838 BCE in 1ı and 905–832 in 2ı Area E: wider range in the 9th and early 8th centuries BCE. 71 Finkelstein (2013a:120–122) has suggested an earlier date, no later than 850 BCE, for the destruction of Stratum IV on the basis of 14C dates published until 2005; however, he was not aware of the new dates listed above. His attribution of the destruction of Stratum IV at Tel Reতov to earlier conflicts between Aram and Israel in the days of Ahab cannot be substantiated. His view that there was a gap between the destruction of Stratum IV and the rebuilding of the city in the Iron Age IIb (2013:128) is unsustainable. 72 For a more detailed discussion of this subject, see Mazar 2015:104–106. 73 Mazar and Aতituv 2011:306–307; Aতituv and Mazar 2014:48–50; 2016:223–226. 74 The animal bones were studied by Nimrod Marom of Tel Hai College. His study will appear in the final excavation report.

Culture, Identity and Politics Relating to Tel Re‫ۊ‬ov

113

Figure 10: Ostracon with the name [E]lisha.

Although Biblical scholars believe the Elisha cycle to be of a late date, the stories could nevertheless preserve kernels of historical truth.75 Elisha is described in these stories as a ‘man of god’, a healer and miracle worker, who is also involved in public affairs, including an appearance at Hazael’s court in Damascus. The many historical details in the stories are anchored in the 9th century BCE reality, and indicate in my view that he was a well-known personality during the second half of the 9th century BCE, though his vita might have been written much later, having been orally transmitted through the generations. In 2 Kings 9:13 Elisha played an important role in the anointment of Jehu who, as suggested above, may have come from Reতov. Elisha’s hometown was Abel Meতolah, identified with Tell Abu-ৡuৢ, ca. 10km southeast of Tel Reতov,76 and his early activity may have been on the eve of Jehu’s accession, a date that would correspond to the final years of Stratum IV. The Biblical and archaeological data, considered in conjunction, suggest, in my opinion, that Elisha had been at Tel Reতov for a while, during Jehu’s revolt and accession and a few years before the city was torched by Hazael. Building CP might well be a house fitted for special functions related to ritual, divination, and banquets; if this is the case, the inscription bearing the name of Elisha would not be coincidental. The house, located in an elite area of Tel Reতov, could have served Elisha for a while during his sojourn at the city at a time corresponding to the accession of Jehu, shortly before the destruction of the city between 836 and ca. 830 BCE. Other houses nearby also had a special function: Building CF was probably the house of a high official related to the Nimshi family, and the four small houses between these two could have served officials or others involved in the 75

Miller 1966; Na’aman 2007b:408–409; Ghantous 2013:114–182. Since the seminal work of Rofé (1970), most studies of the Elisha stories focus on the literary genre and on other aspects of literary criticism, rather than on the historicity of this personality. See the survey of recent literature in Manfred Oeming’s article in this volume. Miller (1966), however, deals with the Elisha stories in a historical context of the 9th century BCE. Na’aman also claims that some historical reality of the 9th century could be preserved in the narratives of Kings, including the Elisha cycle. According to him: ‘even if inserted in a later stage, their contribution to the history of the Northern Kingdom must be carefully examined, each story on its own right’ (Na’aman 2007:408– 409). 76 Rainey and Notley 2006:176.

114

Amihai Mazar

ritual activity (compare ‘Bnei Hanevi’im’ – Elisha’s followers in the Elisha stories). In one of these houses the inscription Ҵl‫܈‬d[q] š‫ۊ‬ly, Eliৢedek (son of) Shaতli, was uncovered. This proposal is, of course, speculative. A unique ivory statuette depicting an enthroned figure (probably royal) in a small piazza near Buildings CF and CP77 may be related to the rise of the new dynasty and as such, would be of significance.

Summary The excavations at Tel Rehov have revealed only a small part of one the largest cities in northern Israel which flourished for some 600 years, from the 15th to the 8th centuries BCE. The findings of these excavations shed some light on various aspects of the history of Israel in the 10th–9th centuries BCE. In this article, I have discussed the geopolitical situation of the city, the character of its material culture, the identity of the population, and its economic ties with neighboring regions, and I have suggested possible scenarios with regard to destruction events uncovered in the excavations. I have also suggested a possible relationship of the finds to the rise of Jehu and to the activities of Elisha, the latter, however, with due reservation.

Figure 11: Two pottery altars from Building CP (‘Elisha’s House’).

77

Mazar 2007b.

Culture, Identity and Politics Relating to Tel Re‫ۊ‬ov

115

Excursus In a short paper published while the present article was in proofs, Israel Finkelstein suggested that the name Reতob (or Reতov according to the MT punctuation) in 2 Samuel 6–8 refers to the city of that name that was excavated at Tel Reতov in the BethShean Valley, rather than to Reতob or Beth Reতob in the Lebanon Baqaǥh (Num 13:21; Judg. 18:28; perhaps also 2 Sam 8:3, 12), as is traditionally interpreted.78 This biblical text mentions ‘Aram of Beth Reতob’ in relation to ‘Aram of ਋obah’, also located in the Lebanon Baqaǥh, as well as Maǥacah (thought to be located in region of the Golan Heights) and Tob (identified in northern Transjordan) as allies of the Ammonites in their war against David. In order to justify this interpretation, Finkelstein claims that the story was composed by a late 7th century BCE author who invented it based on various sources, in which he mixed up Beth Reতob in Lebanon with the city of Reতob in the Beth-Shean Valley. However, if the entire story is invented and not based on any historical reality, and “was thrown back to the days of King David in the 10th century” (as Finkelstein claims), with ਋obah mentioned just because of its importance as an Assyrian administrative center, why is there cause to think that the biblical author referred to the city of Reতob, which did not exist anymore in the 7th century BCE? This is particularly questionable in light of the geographical arena of the story that focuses on Transjordan and the Lebanese Baq‘ah. It seems that the author of this source had a very specific geo-political concept in mind (no matter to what extent it was based on historical reality) which did not include Cisjordan. I thus doubt if Finkelstein’s suggestion can be accepted. In his discussion, Finkelstein wrote few statements which warrant comment. Among these are: “the material culture of Tel Reতov differs from that of the Israelite centers in the Jezreel Valley, e.g., Megiddo, in almost every respect”; “Iron IIA Tel Reতov should probably be interpreted as a late Canaanite city-state in the southern end of the sphere of influence of Aramean culture”; and: “the destruction of Stratum IV (as well as V) is associated with an assault by the expanding Northern Kingdom in the days of the Omride Dynasty”.79 I cannot agree with these three statements, at least as far as Strata V–IV are concerned. Tel Reতov indeed differs from other Israelite cities in its building technique, the lack of the typical Israelite pillared buildings, the strong Canaanite traditions that it maintains, and the rich finds. Yet, in all other aspects it resembles other sites in Northern Israel, in particular along the Jezreel Valley and in the Western Galilee. The pottery assemblage of Strata IV–V is virtually identical to that of Jezreel, Megiddo Strata VB and IVB–VA, Taanach Period II and ণorbat Rosh Zayit. The various finds belong to types well known from other sites in Israel, including Megiddo. The only parallel to the plan of Building CF at Tel Reতov was found at Megiddo in Stratum IVB–VA, as mentioned above in the present article. We could not define any clear Aramaean components in the local material culture at Tel Reতov. If 78

Finkelstein 2016. This is in contrast to his suggestion published in 2013 (cited in Note 64 of the present article) that Tel Reতov IV was destroyed as a result of conflicts between the Israel and Aram during the time of Ahab. 79

116

Amihai Mazar

Finkelstein is correct and Tel Reতov was conquered by the Omrides, we would have to claim that Megiddo VB and IVB–VA, as well as Jezreel, are also pre-Omride, since the pottery in all these sites is very similar. Finkelstein negates the attribution of the destruction of Stratum IV to Hazael because “Stratum IV at Tel Reতov is radiocarbon dated to 875–849 BCE”. If he is correct, the conclusion would be that Stratum IV was contemporary with the Omride dynasty, not conquered by it. However, the cited dates are a result of a Bayesian model based on dates published until 2005. As mentioned above in this paper,80 there are sufficient dates from Areas C and E which may fit the date of a destruction by Hazael. Finkelstein also writes that “after the destruction of Stratum IV [in the 9th century BCE] the site shrank in size and lost its importance.” Indeed, while the site lost about half of its size after the destruction of Stratum IV, in Stratum III of the 8th century it still covered 5 ha, and was fortified, making it one of the ten largest and strongest cities of the Kingdom of Israel before its conquest by the Assyrians.

Bibliography AHARONI, Y., 1979. The Land of the Bible: Historical Geography (revised edition), Philadelphia AHITUV, S. and A. MAZAR, 2014. The Inscriptions from Tel Reতov and Their Contribution to Study of Script and Writing during the Iron Age IIA, in: ‘See, I will Bring a Scroll Recounting What Befell Me’ (Ps 40:8): Epigraphy and Daily Life – From the Bible to the Talmud Dedicated to the Memory of Professor Hanan Eshel (Journal of Ancient Judaism. Supplements 12), ed. E. Eshel and Y. Levin, Göttingen, 39–68 –: 2016. The Inscriptions from Tel Reতov and Their Contribution to the Study of Script and Writing during the Iron Age IIA. Maarav 20: 215–246 (reprint of previous item with a postscript) ARIE, E., 2013. Chapter 13: The Iron IIA Pottery, in: I. Finkelstein et al., Megiddo V, The 2004–2008 Seasons, Winona Lake, 668–828 BLOCH, G. T. et al., 2010. Industrial Apiculture in the Jordan Valley during Biblical Times with Anatolian Bees. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107/25:11240–11244 (article no. 1003265107) BRUINS, H. J. et al., 2003a. 14C Dates from Tel Reতov: Iron Age Chronology, Pharaohs, and Hebrew Kings, Science 300, No. 5617: 315–318 CRANE, E., 1983. The Archaeology of Beekeeping, London CRANE, E. and A. J. GRAHAM, 1985. Beehives of the Ancient World, Bee World 66: 23–41,148– 170 DALLEY, S., 1984. Mari and Karana, Two Old Babylonian Cities, London DAVIAU, M., 2008. Ceramic Architectural Models from Transjordan and the Syrian Tradition, in: Proceedings of the 4th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near, ed. H. Kühne et al, Wiesbaden, 293–308 DIETRICH, W., 2007. The Early Monarchy in Israel: The Tenth Century B.C.E., Atlanta FANTALKIN, A. and I. FINKELSTEIN, 2006. The Sheshonq I Campaign and the 8th Century BCE Earthquake – More on the Archaeology and History of the South in the Iron I–IIA, TA 33: 18–42 FAUST, A., 2012. Archaeology of the Israelite Society in Iron Age II, Winona Lake FINKELSTEIN, I., 1996. The Archaeology of the United Monarchy. An Alternative View, Levant 28: 177–188 80

See note 63.

Culture, Identity and Politics Relating to Tel Re‫ۊ‬ov

117

–: 1999. State Formation in Israel and Judah, NEA 62: 35–52 –: 2002. The Campaign of Shoshenq I to Palestine: A Guide to the 10th Century BCE, ZDPV 118: 109–135 –: 2010. A Great United Monarchy? Archaeological and Historical Perspectives, in: One God – One Cult – One Nation. Archaeological and Biblical Perspectives (BZAW 405), ed. R. G. Kratz and H. Spieckermann, in collaboration with B. Corzilius and T. Pilger, Berlin, 3–28 –: 2013a. The Forgotten Kingdom, Archaeology and History of Northern Israel, Atlanta –: 2013b. Archaeological and Historical Conclusions, in: The 2004–2008 Seasons, Finkelstein, I. et al., Winona Lake, 1329–1340 –: 2016. Does Rehob of the Beth-Shean Valley Appear in the Bible?, BN 169: 3–10 FINKELSTEIN, I. and E. PIASETZKY, 2003. Comment on 14C dates from Tel Reতov: Iron-Age Chronology, Pharaohs, and Hebrew Kings, Science 302/5645: 568b –: 2011. The Iron Age Chronology Debate: Is the Gap Narrowing?, NEA 74: 50–54 FINKELSTEIN, I. and B. SASS, 2013. The West Semitic Alphabetic Inscriptions, Late Bronze II to Iron IIA: Archeological Context, Distribution and Chronology, HeBAI 2: 149–220 FINKELSTEIN, I. et al., 2008. Megiddo, in: Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ed. E. Stern, Jerusalem, 1940–1950 FISCHER, P.M., 2013. Tell Abu al-Kharaz into the Jordan Valley. Vol. III: The Iron, Vienna FLEMING, D.E., 2004. Genesis in History and Traditions: The Syrian Background of Israel’s Ancestors, Reprise, in: The Future of Biblical Archaeology, ed. J. K. Hoffmeier and A. Millard, Grand Rapids, 193–232 GAL, Z. and Y. ALEXANDRE, 2000. Horbat Rosh Zayit, IAA Reports 8, Jerusalem GALIL, G., 2000. The Boundaries of Aram Damaskus in the 9th–8th Centuries BCE, in: Studies in Historical Geography and Biblical Historiography Presented to Zecharia Kallai, ed. G. Galil and M. Weinfeld, Leiden, 35–41 GARFINKEL, Y. et al., 2012. State Formation in Judah: Biblical Tradition, Modern Historical Theories and Radiometric Dates at Khirbet Qeiyafa, Radiocarbon 54: 359–369 GHANTOUS, H., 2013. The Elisha-Hazael Paradigm and the Kingdom of Israel, Durham GIBSON, J. C. L., 1995. Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions II: Aramaic Inscriptions, Oxford GRABBE, L. L., 2007. Ancient Israel, London GRAY, J., 1964. I and II Kings. A Commentary, London HANDY, L. K. (ed.), 1997. The Age of Solomon, Leiden HESS, R. S., 2004. Multiple-Month Ritual Calendars in the West Semitic World: Emar 446 and Leviticus 23, in: The Future of Biblical Archaeology, ed. J. K. Hoffmeier and A. Millard, Grand Rapids, 233–253 HOFFNER, H. A., 1974. Alimenta Hethaeorum. Food Production in Hittite Asia Minor, New Haven JAMIESON-DRAKE, D. W., 1991. Scribes and Schools in Monarchic Judah: A Socio-archeological Approach, Sheffield, 1991 KATZ, H., 2006. Architectural Terracotta Models from Eretz Israel from the Fifth to the Middle of the First Millennium BCE, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Haifa (in Hebrew) KEEL, O. and A. MAZAR, 2009. Iron Age Seals and Seal Impressions from Tel Reতov, Eretz Israel 28: 57*–69* LEHMANN, G. and H. M. NIEMANN, 2014. When Did the Shephelah Become Judahite?, TA 41: 77–94 LEVY, T. E. et al., 2014. New Insights into the Iron Age Archaeology of Edom, Southern Jordan, Los Angeles LIPIēSKI, E., 2000. The Arameans: Their Ancient History, Culture, Religion (OLA 100), Leuven LOUD, G., 1948. Megiddo II, Seasons of 1935–1939, Chicago MAEIR, A. M., 2012. The Tell es-Safi/Gath Archaeological Project 1996–2010, Overview and Synopsis of Results, in: Tell es-Safi/Gath I: The 1996–2005 Seasons, ed. A. M. Maeir, Wiesbaden, 1–88 MARGUERON, J., 1976. Maquettes architecturales de Meskéné–Emar, Syria 53: 193–232

118

Amihai Mazar

MAROM, N. et al., 2009. Backbone of Society: Evidence for Social and Economic Status of the Iron Age Population of Tel Reতov, Beth Shean Valley, Israel, BASOR 354: 1–34 MAZAR, A., 1990. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, New York –: 1999. The 1997–1998 Excavations at Tel Reতov: Preliminary Report, IEJ 49: 1–42 –: 2004. Greek and Levantine Iron Age Chronology: A Rejoinder, IEJ 54: 24–36 –: 2006. Excavations at Tel Beth Shean 1989–1996, Vol. I, Jerusalem –: 2007a. The Spade and the Text: The Interaction between Archaeology and Israelite History Relating to the Tenth–Ninth Centuries BCE, in: Understanding the History of Ancient Israel (Proceedings of the British Academy 143), ed. H. G. M. Williamson, London, 143–171 –: 2007b. An Ivory Statuette Depicting an Enthroned Figure from Tel Reতov, in: Images as Sources: Studies on Ancient Near Eastern Artefacts and the Bible Inspired by the Work of Othmar Keel, ed. S. Bickel et al. (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis – Sonderband), Fribourg, 101–110 –: 2008a. Reতov, Tel, in: NEAEHL, ed. E. Stern, Jerusalem, 2013–2018 –: 2008b Tel Beth Shean, in: NEAEHL, ed. E. Stern, Jerusalem, 1616–1622 –: 2010. Archaeology and the Biblical Narrative: The Case of the United Monarchy, in: One God – One Cult – One Nation. Archaeological and Biblical Perspectives (BZAW 405), ed. R. G. Kratz and H. Spieckermann, in collaboration with B. Corzilius and T. Pilger, Berlin, 29–58 –: 2011. The Iron Age Chronology Debate: Is the Gap Narrowing? Another Viewpoint, NEA 74: 105–110 –: 2013. Rehob, Tel-, in: The Oxford Encyclopedia of Bible and Archaeology, Vol. 1, ed. D. M. Master et al., New York, 221–230 –: 2015. Religious Practices and Cult Objects during the Iron Age IIA at Tel Reতov and Their Implications on Religion in Northern Israel, HeBAI 4: 87–117 –: 2016. Discoveries from Tel Rehov, The Early Days of the Israelite Monarchy, in: It Is The Land of Honey, Exhibition Catalogue, Eretz Israel Museum, ed. I. Ziffer, Tel Aviv, 13–156 (Hebrew) and 9e–67e (English) MAZAR, A. and S. AHITUV, 2011. Inscriptions from Tel Reতov and Their Contribution to the Study of Writing and Literacy during the Iron Age IIA, Eretz Israel 30: 300–316 (in Hebrew) MAZAR, A. and C. BRONK RAMSEY, 2008. 14C dates and the Iron Age Chronology of Israel: A Response, Radiocarbon 50: 159–180 MAZAR, A. et al., 2005. Ladder of Time at Tel Reতov: Stratigraphy, Archaeological Context, Pottery and Radiocarbon Dates, in: The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating. Archaeology, Text and Science, ed. T. E. Levy and T. Higham, London, 193–255 MAZAR, A. and N. COLDSTREAM , 2003. Greek Pottery from Tel Reতov and Iron Age Chronology, IEJ 53: 29–48 MAZAR, A. and N. PANITZ-COHEN, 2007. It Is the Land of Honey: Beekeeping in Iron Age IIA Tel Reতov– Culture, Cult and Economy, NEA 70: 202–219 –: 2008. To What God? Altars and a House Shrine from Tel Reতov Puzzle Archaeologists, Biblical Archaeology Review 34, No. 4: 40–47 MAZAR, A. and N. PANITZ-COHEN (eds), 2009. The Excavations at Tel Beth Shean 1989–1996, Vol. III, Jerusalem –: The Excavations at Tel Reতov, 1997–2012, Vols. I–VI, Jerusalem (in preparation) MAZAR, B., 1981. The Early Israelite Settlement in the Hill Country, BASOR 241: 75–85 MAZAR, B. et al., 1964. `Ein Gev Excavations in 1961, IEJ 14: 1–39 MILLER, J. M., 1966. The Elisha Cycle and the Accounts of the Omride Wars, JBL 85: 441–455 MILLER, J. M. and J. H. HAYES, 19862. A History of Ancient Israel and Judah, Philadelphia MULLER, B., 2002a. Les “maquettes architecturales” du Proche-Orient ancien: Mésopotamie, Syrie, Palestine du IIIe au milieu du Iermillénaire av. J.-C., Beirut –: 2002b. “Maquettes architecturales” du Proche-Orient ancien, in: Maquettes architecturales de l’Antiquité (Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg, 3–5 décembre 1998), ed. B. Muller, Paris, 17–42 MÜNGER, S. et al., 2011. Kinneret – An Urban Center at the Crossroads, NEA 74: 68–90

Culture, Identity and Politics Relating to Tel Re‫ۊ‬ov

119

NA’AMAN, N., 1994. The ‘Conquest of Canaan’ in the Book of Joshua and History, in: From Nomadism to Monarchy, ed. I. Finkelstein and N. Na’aman, Jerusalem, 243–246 –: 2000. Three Notes on the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan, IEJ 50: 92–104 –: 2007a. The Contribution of the Suhu Inscriptions to the Historical Research of the Kingdom of Israel and Judah, JNES 66: 107–122 –: 2007b. The Northern Kingdom in the Late 10th–9th Centuries BCE, in: Understanding the History of Ancient Israel (Proceedings of the British Academy 143), ed. H. G. M. Williamson, Oxford, 399–418 –: 2008. Naboth’s Vineyard and the Foundation of Jezreel, JSOT 33: 197–218 NETZER, E., 1992. Domestic Architecture in the Iron Age, in: The Architecture of Ancient Israel, ed. A. Kempinski and R. Reich, Jerusalem, 193–201 POTTS, T.F., 1992. The Cultic Stands, in: McNicoll, A. W. et al., Pella in Jordan, Vol. 2 (Mediterranean Archaeology Supplement 2), Sydney, 99–100 RAST, W.E., 1978. Taanach I. Studies in the Iron Age Pottery, Cambridge RAINEY, A. F. and R. S. NOTLEY, 2006. The Sacred Bridge. Carta’s Atlas of the Biblical World, Jerusalem ROFÉ, A., 1970. The Classification of the Prophetical Stories, JBL 89: 427–440 SHORTLAND, A. J., 2005. Shishak, King of Egypt: The Challenge of Egyptian Calendrical Chronology, in: The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating – Archaeology, Text and Science, ed. T. Levy and T. Higham, London, 43–56 SIMON, Z., 2014. Remarks on the Anatolian Background of the Tel Reতov Bees and the Historical Geography of the Luvian States in the 10th c. BC, in: Studies in the Economic and Social History of the Ancient Near East in Memory of Péter Vargyas, ed. Z. Csabai, Budapest, 715–738 STERN, E., 2000. Dor – The Ruler of the Seas, Jerusalem YADIN, Y., 1972. Hazor, The Head of All Those Kingdoms (Joshua 11:10) (The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 1970), London ZEVIT, Z., 2001. The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches, London ZWICKEL, W., 2010. Clay and Stone Altars and a Piece of Mortar, in: R. Kletter et al., Yavneh I (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis – Series Archaeologica 30), Fribourg, 105–109

Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a in northwest Jordan between Aram and Israel Jutta Häser, Katja Soennecken, Dieter Vieweger, Biblisch-Archäologisches Institut Wuppertal

Introduction Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a is located in the WƗdƯ al-‫ޏ‬Arab in northwest Jordan close to the border with the modern state of Israel, 10 km south-southeast of the Sea of Galilee and 4.5 km southwest of the ancient Decapolis city of Gadara (fig. 1).1 Both topographically and geopolitically, it is lying at the point of transition between Palestine and the SyrianMesopotamian as well as the Egyptian cultural spheres. The settlement site was well chosen on a prominent hill on a major trade route through the WƗdƯ al-‫ޏ‬Arab linking Egypt with Damascus and Mesopotamia. Finds of imported goods, e.g., pottery from Syria, Mycenae and Cyprus, bitumen from the Dead Sea, copper ore, faience and raw glass, bear witness to the inhabitant’s contacts with neighbouring regions.

Figure 1: Location of Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a (BAI/DEI). 1

Vieweger and Häser 2013; Vieweger and Häser 2015. A complete list of publications can be found on www.tallziraa.de.

122

Jutta Häser, Katja Soennecken, Dieter Vieweger

An artesian, perennial spring providing water throughout the centuries made life on the tall possible on a continuous basis (fig. 2). Its first inhabitants settled the 20 mhigh, 5.6 ha-broad calc-sinter hill in the 4th millennium BCE. From then onwards, the hill was settled virtually continuously until the 19th century CE. As a result, over the 5000 years of settlement more than 16 m of cultural layers accumulated. Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a thus offers archaeologists the unique opportunity to develop a comparative stratigraphy for northern Jordan from the Early Bronze Age to the modern period. The first scholarly mention of Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a dates to 1885 by Gottlieb Schumacher. Its systematic exploration started in 2001 with an intensive survey and was followed in 2003 by the first excavation campaign, both conducted by the Biblical Archaeological Institute Wuppertal and directed by Dieter Vieweger. Since 2004, this project has continued with two campaigns per year as a co-operative project of the BiblicalArchaeological Institute Wuppertal and the German Protestant Institute of Archaeology directed by Dieter Vieweger and Jutta Häser. Three areas were excavated. Area I is situated in the northwest part of the tall. It measures 1750 m2 and was already dug to the earliest habitation layers of the site in the Early Bronze Age. Area II and III were excavated to the Hellenistic stratum and to the Byzantine stratum respectively. Regarding the present subject of political and cultural borders between Aram and Israel only the relevant strata from Area I will be treated below. Thinking about the affiliation of the inhabitants of Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a during the Iron Age, we have to consider this problem in different categories: 1. politically, 2. ethnically, 3. culturally and religiously. In the following, these categories will be investigated through time from the Late Bronze Age until the Iron Age IIC.

Figure 2: Overview on Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a (BAI/DEI).

Tall ZirƗҵa in northwest Jordan between Aram and Israel

123

Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a during the Late Bronze Age Tracing the political situation in the area during the Late Bronze Age (16th – 12th century BCE), we can summarize it as follows. During the Late Bronze Age, Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a was a walled city with a temple and large domestic houses (fig. 3), with elaborated craftsmanship (e.g. a glass and/or faience production) and cultural and economic connections to Syria and the eastern Mediterranean. Unfortunately, there is no clear evidence for its ancient name. However in 2005, Meindert Dijkstra and his co-authors assumed that Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a might be identified with the city ‘Qaduru in the land Hanma’ (qa-dú-rù m p3 t3 n ha-an-má) mentioned in an inscription on the northern wall of the hypostyle of the Amun-Re-Tempel in Karnak.2 Here, Sethos I described his first campaign against Retenu and the victory over several cities west and east of the Jordan River in 1293 BCE. In Hellenistic times, the name ‘Qaduru’ should be transferred from Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a to the new city on the nearby plateau and survived in the name Gadara. Whether this ‘Qaduru’ was the Late Bronze Age city on Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a or not, there are no signs of a strong Egyptian influence on its inhabitants. There are also no signs of a destruction caused by a military intervention. Therefore, it is more than questionable that Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a was under Egyptian political control. The Bronze Age city on Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a was rather part of the network of the Late Bronze Age city-states in the Southern Levant. Like most of the other cities it collapsed for unknown reasons around 1200 BCE. In respect to ethnicity, it has to be assumed, that a northwest Semitic population lived there subsumed under the term ‘Canaanite’ by the Egyptians. Its self-definition is unknown. In contrast to the political and ethnical affiliation, the cultural affinities are most obvious. The inhabitants of Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a belonged to the cultural sphere of the Southern Levant with strong influences from the north and west. The city was walled – at least partly – by a casemate wall (stratum 14). This type of fortification was invented in the Hittite/ Syrian region in the 16th century BCE.3 In the Southern Levant it became common during the Iron Age period. This shows that the 14th century casemate wall of Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a is a very early example of this kind of fortification in the Southern Levant. Another impressive representative for northern influence is a temple in antes (stratum 14) comparable to sanctuaries in Syria.4 The domestic buildings are courtyard-houses common in the whole Southern Levant and in Syria as well. Regarding the pottery, it belongs to the Late Bronze Age tradition of the Southern Levant with a large percentage (5%) of imported vessels from Cyprus and Greece like a ‘chariot cratere’ from the Mycenaean region or ‘milk bowls’ from Cyprus. However, there are also imports from Syria like the well-known ‘spindle flasks’. The small finds on Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a pertain also to the cultural sphere of the Southern Levant. Most interesting is the find of 38 cylinder seals whereof most of them belong

2

Dijkstra, Dijkstra, and Vriezen 2005:182–187. Seeher 2010:27–43; see also http://www.hattuscha.de/Deutsch/stadtmauer.htm. 4 Novák 2001:369; Werner 1994:15. 3

124

Jutta Häser, Katja Soennecken, Dieter Vieweger

Figure 3: Plan of Late Bronze Age stratum 14 of Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a (BAI/DEI, M. Voigt-Werling).

Tall ZirƗҵa in northwest Jordan between Aram and Israel

125

Figure 4: Cylinder seal of the ‘Common Style’ of the Mitanni Glyptik from Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a (BAI/DEI, E. Brückelmann).

to the so-called Common Style of the Mitanni glyptic (fig. 4).5 24 of them were found in the cella of the temple in antes. The remaining cylinder seals came to light in later occupation levels and were probably dispersed due to later building activities. Originally, they belonged most probable also to the offerings inside the cella. The seals in the cella were accompanied by a scarab bearing the cartouche of Amenophis III,6 a silver pendant with the depiction of a goddess7 and a lot of other valued finds. Offering cylinder seals and other precious finds in a temple was a well-known rite as can be seen in the temple at Alalakh, Ugarit, ণazor, Beth-shean, Tell Deir ‫ޏ‬Alla, Pella, and Amman at the same period.8 Additionally to the finds with comparisons to northern and western material, some imports from Egypt, the Eastern Mediterranean, and Syria, the inhabitants of Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a produced some objects combining cultural features in a unique way. The best example for the Late Bronze Age material is a pot painted with a scene depicting a man sitting on a small chair and playing the lyre (fig. 5). The man is surrounded by a lion, a bull, snakes, and some other animals.9 According to archaeometrical analyses, the pot is locally made and its red-black painting is common in the Southern Levant. However, the depiction is obviously singular.

Figure 5: Painted jar from Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a (BAI/DEI, E. Brückelmann). 5

Vieweger and Häser 2007:157; Häser, Soennecken, and Vieweger 2016. Vieweger and Häser 2007:157. 7 Vieweger and Häser 2007:157. 8 Häser, Soennecken, and Vieweger, 2016. 9 Vieweger and Häser 2007a:155. 6

126

Jutta Häser, Katja Soennecken, Dieter Vieweger

Summarizing, the findings from Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a reflect wealth and far reaching trade connections. It seems very likely that we are dealing with a prominent city or capital of a Levantine city-state. It was destroyed around 1300 BCE, however, not by an act of war, but rather by natural causes, such as earthquakes, which are common in this area.

Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a during the Iron Age After the collapse of the Late Bronze Age city states and the end of the hegemony of the great powers of Egypt and the Hittites, new political entities were formed all over the Mediterranean world and the Near East. Looking at the political structure of southern Syria, it is marked by a variety of clans with territories different in size. In the Old Testament and in neo-Assyrian texts, they were labelled as Aramaean. Their selfdesignation is different. It is constructed by the name of the founder of the clan and the word for house ‘Bit’ or by the name of a territory and again the word ‘Bit’.10 The only clan using the word ‘Aram’ in its name is that of Aram-Damascus. With this in mind, it is not possible to speak of the Aramaeans as a political entity. Therefore, we have to look at different south Syrian clans and kingdoms respectively and their influence on the neighboring regions. After a period of de-urbanisation – except along the Mediterranean coast – and the formation of rural settlements in the central Canaanite hill country, new political powers – like in Syria – were created in the Southern Levant. These were the Philistine cities located at the southern Mediterranean coast and in the bordering Shephelah, as well as Phoenician cities at the northern Mediterranean coast and the kingdoms of Ammon, Moab and slightly later Edom in Transjordan. Very soon, also the political entities of Israel and Judah came along with their heartlands in the highland of Judah and Ephraim. It can be assumed that the people living already in these highlands during the Late Bronze Age joint groups of local nomads as well as the ‘Moseschar’ from Egypt and other groups like the ঩apƯru or the Šasu (known from Egyptian texts) creating the new political powers of Israel and Judah.11 In respect to ethnicity, it can be stated that the population of Israel and Judah were not a special group in Palestine, but rather a mixture of different groups affiliated with their neighbours.12 During the Iron Age, Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a belonged to the region called ‘Gilead’13 in the Bible. According to the Old Testament, Gilead was part of the kingdom of Judah. The gist of these texts might go back to the times of king David and Solomon but the con10

Sader 2014:15. Vieweger 2012:292–293; Vieweger 1993:20–36 12 Vieweger 2012:293. 13 ‘Gilead’ can be used to describe the entire Transjordan area or just parts of it. The part north of the river Jabbok can also be called ‘the rest of Gilead’ (Deut 3:13). That means, Tall ZirƗ‘a is located outside the core of Israelite land, but in an area that might have been conquered during the 10th century BCE by Judah. 11

Tall ZirƗҵa in northwest Jordan between Aram and Israel

127

junction with the sphere of control of Israel has been constructed by the chronicler of the Iron Age IIB or IIC in the 8th or 7th century BCE.14 Therefore, the statement that Solomon has ruled over ‘sixty fortified towns, walled and with bolts of bronze’15 in Gilead remains questionable. During the reign from Omri to Joram all the region of Gilead might be dominated by the Israelites for the first time.16 According to biblical sources, Gilead was attacked by Ben-Hadad and Hazael, the kings of Aram-Damascus. If the region was just plundered or integrated in the kingdom is unclear.17 The time of changing supremacy over Gilead ended with the conquest of Israel, Aram-Damascus from 734 to 732 BCE and their conversion into Assyrian provinces. Since this time, also Gilead was under Assyrian control. Looking at Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a, there is no identifiable response of these incidents. After the Late Bronze Age destruction, the sequence of the strata and the archaeological material on Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a show a resettlement of the site after a very short time. The same is true after the destruction of the site at the end of the 10th century BCE. Although the new settlements reveal a change of the settlement layout and the introduction of new features in respect to architecture and pottery types, a strong continuity of building plots and craftsmanship can be asserted. These observations lead to the assumption that the site was resettled by the same inhabitants who lived there before. This does not exclude the possibility that people from the surrounding became residents on Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a as well.18 In respect to the ethnicity of the population of Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a during the Iron Age, the following can be stated. There is no ‘Aramaean’ ethnical identity and therefore no ethnical markers do exist. There are also no ethnical markers in the archaeological material for Israelites and Judahites. Due to this fact and the absence of a selfdesignation of the inhabitants of Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a, it is not possible to assign its population to a special ethnical group. Regarding the cultural affiliation of the inhabitants of Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a, a very similar tendency can be observed as it has been stated for the Late Bronze Age period. Probably shortly after the destruction of the Late Bronze Age city the site was resettled again. The inhabitants saw still the old wall foundations and used them for their new buildings (fig. 6). These are characterised by old and new features. In the southern part of Area I, a courtyard house in Late Bronze tradition was built up. In contrast, in the northern part of Area I, a house was constructed which reminds of the Iron Age Four-Room-House and served as a temple. The area in between was covered with small structures of stables and pits. No remains of fortification structures could be 14

Heyneck 2012:344–375 with discussion of former theories. NJB 1 Kgs 4:13 Son of Geber, in Ramoth-Gilead: his district was the Encampments of Jair son of Manasseh, which are in Gilead; he had the region of Argob, which is in Bashan: sixty fortified towns, walled and with bolts of bronze. / JPS 1 Kgs 4:13 the son of Geber, in Ramoth-Gilead; to him pertained the villages of Jair the son of Manasseh, which are in Gilead; even to him pertained the region of Argob, which is in Bashan, threescore great cities with walls and brazen bars. 16 Heyneck 2012:378. 17 Berlejung 2013:77. 18 Vieweger, Soennecken, and Häser 2014:57–77. 15

128

Jutta Häser, Katja Soennecken, Dieter Vieweger

Figure 6: Plan of Iron Age I stratum 13 of Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a (BAI/DEI, M. Voigt-Werling).

Tall ZirƗҵa in northwest Jordan between Aram and Israel

129

observed. The character of the settlement changed from a strongly fortified city in the Late Bronze Age period to an unfortified village in the Iron Age I. Concerning the crafts, the tradition of glass and faience production continued on the site. The current results of the pottery reading show that it was locally made or came from the region. However, it is still under examination. Although the character of the settlement has changed entirely, the cultural affiliation to the west and north continued as can be seen by some finds. One example is a ‘window pot’ (fig. 7) comparable to specimens from Late Bronze Age contexts in Ugarit, Kamid el-Loz, Hazor and Tell Deir ‫ޏ‬Alla as well as from Iron Age contexts in Kinneret, Tel Dan, Tel Hadar, and in Tel Reতov. Stefan Münger assumed that this special type shows affinities to the Syrian realm.19 This type of pot was probably used for the cult of families in their own houses. A kernos belongs also to a cultic context (fig. 8). The best comparisons can be found again to the west and north: in Tell Deir ‫ޏ‬Alla from a Late Bronze Age context, in Beth-shean and Megiddo from an Iron Age I context and in ণorvat Rosh Zayit from an Iron Age II context.20

Figure 7: ‘Window pot’ from Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a (BAI/DEI). 19 20

Münger 2013:163. Gropp 2014:412–415.

130

Jutta Häser, Katja Soennecken, Dieter Vieweger

Figure 8: Kernos from Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a (BAI/DEI).

Figure 9: Relief plate with human figures from Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a (BAI/DEI, E. Brückelmann).

Tall ZirƗҵa in northwest Jordan between Aram and Israel

131

Like in the Bronze Age, there are finds of the Iron Age I period from Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a without any comparisons. One of them is a ceramic plate with the depiction of a standing man, raising one arm and holding a cut human head in the other hand (fig. 9). The man is surrounded with four other cut heads scratched into the ceramic. The scene reminds of Egyptian and Assyrian stone reliefs showing kings holding or slaughtering their captives. However, a ceramic object like this has never been found elsewhere. The interpretation of the object in context is difficult. The man could be a local ruler who celebrated his victory over his enemies. The Iron Age settlement was destroyed probably around 1000 BCE by a natural catastrophe or another disaster. Shortly after, another settlement was built on top of the destruction layer (fig. 10). The architecture and the finds of the Iron Age II settlement on Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a resemble other settlements of this period in the Southern Levant. Two architectural phases can be distinguished which show the re-arrangement of some houses. However, no evidences for larger destructions caused by military activities were found. During the Iron Age II period, the population increased on Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a. The settlement was again surrounded by a city wall and had again an urban character (fig. 11). The settlement wall was less substantial than in the Bronze Age and was shaped in a zigzag-form by the outer walls of the domestic buildings what is typical for northern Israel and southern Syria. The architecture of the houses followed an agglomerative pattern, this means, they were built one directly next to the other. On top of the Iron Age I ‘temple’, a similar one was built in the Iron Age II period. In the adjacent house to the south, a glass workshop was discovered. Therefore, it is obvious that the tradition of glass production continued almost at the same spot. The pottery of the Iron Age II period on Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a is clearly linked to the western and northern ceramic tradition.21 However, archaeometric investigations of the cooking pots showed a special development of this type of pottery. It is extremely thin and highly adapted to its demands: it must be light but also strong and resistant against short-term variations of temperature.22 In the Iron Age II settlement again, finds have been found affiliated to northern traditions like a sitting god of the El-type made of bronze and plated with silver and gold (fig. 12).23 A seal impression – the only one found on Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a – shows a man standing on a bull and raising one arm (fig. 13). This reminds very much the depiction of the god Baal common in Syria and the Southern Levant.24 Also in the Iron Age II stratum, an object combining common features in a very special way was found (fig. 14). It is the head of a ceramic common Asherah-type figurine with a headdress and cow ears typical for the Egyptian goddess Hathor and the face of a woman from the front view. However, from the side view the head of a lioness can be recognized. The combination of the Asherah-type with the head of a lion was also 21

Schwermer 2015. Vieweger, Soennecken, and Häser 2014:360–366. 23 Vieweger and Häser 2007a:163–164. 24 Vieweger and Häser 2007a:163. 22

132

Jutta Häser, Katja Soennecken, Dieter Vieweger

Figure 10: Plan of Iron Age II stratum 12 of Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a (BAI/DEI, M. Voigt-Werling).

Tall ZirƗҵa in northwest Jordan between Aram and Israel

Figure 11: Plan of Iron Age II stratum 11 of Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a (BAI/DEI, M. Voigt-Werling).

133

134

Jutta Häser, Katja Soennecken, Dieter Vieweger

Figure 12: Bronze figurine of the El-type from Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a (BAI/DEI, E. Brückelmann).

Figure 13: Stamp seal impression from Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a (BAI/DEI, E. Brückelmann).

Figure 14: Head of a figurine from Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a (BAI/DEI, E. Brückelmann).

Tall ZirƗҵa in northwest Jordan between Aram and Israel

135

also found at Beth-shean and Tall Massad al-Jisl,25 but the change of front and side view in one object is unique. The end of the Iron Age II settlement on Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a can be dated to the 8th century BCE. Again, no signs of a military intervention could be observed but it is very likely that the city was affected by the Assyrian invasion as mentioned before. The Assyrian occupation in the 8th century was cataclysmic, having decimated all of the cities in northern Transjordan. While the southern kingdoms Ammon and Moab prospered under Assyrian rule and were able to reach great cultural achievements, northern Gilead was a sparsely settled region of small villages, presumably with similarly modest economic conditions. Only few architectural remains of the following period, the Iron Age IIC, were found on Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a. However, there is a lot of Iron Age IIC pottery clearly demonstrating the continuity of habitation probably in a diminished way.

Summary Resuming the investigations on Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a in respect to the subject of at hand, namely the political and cultural interaction between Aram and Israel, three points can be highlighted. The first one is the continuity of the settlement from the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age IIC, although destructions could be observed at the end of the Late Bronze Age, the end of the Iron Age I and the end of the Iron Age II. With this, the settlements development is synchronized with many other Southern Levantine sites. Though the destructions were severe and affected all of the excavated Area I, no definite signs of a military invasion could be recognized. The re-settlement of the site followed always shortly after these destructions. While changes in the settlement layout, house types and crafts are obvious, older traditions continued as well. Therefore, it is possible that the same people re-settled their destroyed place. This does not exclude the possibility that people from the surrounding became residents on Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a as well.26 The second observation is the continuous cultural, religious and economic orientation of the inhabitants on Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a to the west and north. Also during the domination of the Egyptians in the Levant during the Late Bronze Age, the inhabitants on Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a were only sparsely influenced by the Egyptian culture. This fact is not surprising, due to the geographical location of the site. The third observation is the lack of concrete evidence for the political or ethnical affiliation of the inhabitants on Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a during the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Ages. Although the cultural material from Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a can be compared with material from Syrian sites, there are no clear markers of ‘Aramaean’ ethnicity. And even if the residents on Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a would have used ‘Aramaean’ or ‘Israelite’ pots it would mean nothing for their political affiliation or their ethnicity. 25 26

Vieweger and Häser 2007a:162–163. Vieweger, Soennecken, and Häser 2014:57–77.

136

Jutta Häser, Katja Soennecken, Dieter Vieweger

Bibliography BERLEJUNG, A., 2013. Nachbarn, Verwandte, Feinde und Gefährten: Die ‘Aramäer’ im Alten Testament, in: Arameans, Chaldeans, and Arabs in Babylonia and Palestine in the First Millennium B.C. (LAS 3), ed. A. Berlejung and M. P. Streck, Wiesbaden, 57–86 DIJKSTRA, J., M. DIJKSTRA and K. VRIEZEN, 2005. The Gadara-Region-Project: Preliminary Report of the Sondage on Tall Zar‫ޏ‬a (2001–2002) and the Identification of Late Bronze Age Gadara, Annual of the Department of Antiquities Jordan 49, Amman, 177–188 DONNER, H. and W. RÖLLIG (eds) 1971–1976, Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften I–III, Wiesbaden GROPP, A., 2014. Die religionsgeschichtliche Entwicklung Nordpalästinas von der Frühen Bronzezeit bis zum Ende der Eisenzeit am Beispiel des Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a. Inauguraldissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades der Philosophie im Fachbereich A Geistes- und Kulturwissenschaften der Bergischen Universität Wuppertal, urn:nbn:de:hbz:468-20140528-100557-5 [http://nbn-resolving.de/ urn/resolver.pl?urn=urn%3Anbn%3Ade%3Ahbz%3A468-20140528-100557-5] http://elpub.bib.uni-wuppertal.de/servlets/DerivateServlet/ Derivate-4072/da1302.pdf HÄSER, J., K. SOENNECKEN and D. VIEWEGER, 2016. Cylinder Seals from Tall Zar‫ޏ‬a as indicators of transparent borders, Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 12: 497–507 HÄSER, J. and D. VIEWEGER, 2007. The ‚Gadara Region Project’ in Northern Jordan – The Spring Campaign 2006 on Tall Zar‫ޏ‬a (Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 51), Amman, 21–34 HEYNECK, M., 2012. Gilead – eine biblisch-archäologische Konstruktion der Eisenzeit Nordjordaniens (1200–520/450 v.Chr.) Inauguraldissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades der Philosophie im Fachbereich A Geistes- und Kulturwissenschaften der Bergischen Universität Wuppertal, urn:nbn:de:hbz:468-20130412-120125-3 [http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn=urn %3Anbn%3Ade%3Ahbz%3A468-20130412-120125-3] HERZOG, Z., 1992. Settlement and fortification planning in the Iron Age, in: The Architecture of Ancient Israel, ed. A. Kempinski and R. Reich, Jerusalem, 231–274 MÜNGER, S., 2013. Early Iron Age Kinneret – Early Aramaean or Just Late Canaanite? Remarks on the Material Culture of a Border Site in Northern Palestine at the Turn of an Era, in: Arameans, Chaldeans, and Arabs in Babylonia and Palestine in the First Millennium B.C. (LAS 3), ed. A. Berlejung and M. P. Streck, Wiesbaden, 149–182 NOVÁK, M., 2001. Hofhaus und Antentempel, in: Beiträge zur Vorderasiatischen Archäologie – Winfried Orthmann gewidmet, ed. J.-W. Meyer, M. Novák and A. Pruß, Frankfurt, 366–385 SCHWERMER, A., 2015. Die Kochtopfkeramik des Tall ZirƗ‫ޏ‬a – Eine typologische und funktionale Analyse der Funde von der Frühen Bronze- bis in die späte Eisenzeit, urn:nbn:de:hbz:46820150218-152008-8 [http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn=urn%3Anbn%3Ade%3Ahbz%3 A468-20150218-152008-8] SEEHER, J., 2010. Wie viele Türme braucht eine Stadt? Überlegungen zum Aufwand der hethitischen Befestigungsanlagen in der späten Bronzezeit., in: Aktuelle Forschungen zur Konstruktion, Funktion und Semantik antiker Stadtbefestigungen: Kolloquium 9./10. Februar 2007 in Istanbul; eine Veranstaltung des wissenschaftlichen Netzwerkes ‚Manifestationen von Macht und Hierarchien in Stadtraum und Landschaft‘ der Abteilung Istanbul des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Architekturreferat der Zentrale des DAI, ed. J. Lorentzen, F. Pirson, P. Schneider and U. Wulf-Rheidt, Istanbul, 27–43 VIEWEGER, D., 1993. Überlegungen zur Landnahme israelitischer Stämme unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der galiläischen Berglandgebiete, ZDPV 109: 20–36 VIEWEGER, D. 2012. Archäologie der biblischen Welt, Gütersloh VIEWEGER, D. and J. HÄSER, 2007a. Tall Zira‫ޏ‬a – Five Thousand Years of Palestinian History on a Single-Settlement Mound, NEA 70/3: 147–167

Tall ZirƗҵa in northwest Jordan between Aram and Israel

137

VIEWEGER, D. and J. HÄSER, 2007b. „... sechzig Städte, ummauert und mit eisernen Riegeln“, Antike Welt 2007/1: 63–69 VIEWEGER, D. and J. HÄSER unter Mitarbeit von S. Schütz, 2013. Der Tall Zira‘a – Fünf Jahrtausende Geschichte in einem Siedlungshügel, Berlin VIEWEGER, D. and J. HÄSER with S. SCHÜTZ, 2015. Tall Zira‘a – Five Thousand Years on a SingleSettlement Mound, Berlin VIEWEGER, D., K. SOENNECKEN and J. HÄSER, 2014. Verlieren hat seine Zeit, wegwerfen hat seine Zeit. Wandel und Kontinuität im Ostjordanland am Übergang von der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit, in: Nichts Neues unter der Sonne – Zeitvorstellungen im Alten Testament, Festschrift für ErnstJoachim Waschke zum 65. Geburtstag (BZAW 450), ed. J. Kotjatko-Reeb, S. Schorch, J. Thon and B. Ziemer, Berlin, 57–77 WERNER, P., 1994. Die Entwicklung der Sakralarchitektur in Nordsyrien und Südostkleinasien, München

Aram-Maacah? Aramaeans and Israelites on the Border: Excavations at Tell Abil el-Qameত (Abel-beth-maacah) in Northern Israel Nava Panitz-Cohen, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Robert A. Mullins, Azusa Pacific University

The excavations at Tell Abil el-Qameত were initiated by the authors for various reasons. Aside from being one of the last large multi-layered sites of biblical importance in Israel that had yet to be excavated, its location on the Israeli-Lebanese-Syrian border and the very name of the biblical city with which the tell is identified, Abel-bethmaacah, made it a prime candidate to explore one of the lesser-known topics in the archaeology of Israel – the material expression of Israelite-Aramaean relations. After a survey and four seasons of excavation,1 more questions than answers have emerged. In the following paper, the potential Aramaean affinity of the site is examined in light of the biblical text and geo-historical considerations, and the main results of the excavation to date are briefly presented against this background.

Abel-beth-maacah and Aram-Maacah Among the textual sources, those which are relevant to the question of whether Abelbeth-maacah was related to the Aramaean realm in the Iron Age are solely biblical, and thus, lack solid chronological or historical grounds. In fact, the biblical references that point to a possible Aramaean connection are not to the city of Abel-beth-maacah itself, but rather to an entity termed ‘Maacah,’ often cited as a component of the twin kingdoms of Geshur and Maacah, and regarded by the ancient biblical editors, as well as by most present-day scholars, as Aramaean (see further below). Scholars have made a de facto connection between the kingdom of Maacah and Abel-beth-maacah, based mainly on the geography and the name.2 Most recently, Na’aman has pegged Abel-

1

The excavations at Tel Abil al-Qameত are directed by the authors and Dr. Naama Yahalom-Mack under the auspices of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Azusa Pacific University in Los Angeles; the latter is also the primary and generous financer of the project; Ruhama Bonfil of the Hebrew University is the surveyor and stratigraphic advisor. The project began with a survey in 2012 and four excavation seasons, each lasting four weeks, in 2013–2016, have been conducted up to the time of the writing of this paper, which includes archaeological data from seasons 2013 to 2015. 2 E.g., Mazar 1961:17 (n3),27; Malamat 1965:80; Arie 2008:35.

140

Nava Panitz-Cohen and Robert A. Mullins

beth-maacah as “the capital of the kingdom of Beth-maacah,”3 while Finkelstein has asserted that “the name Abel-Beth-Maacah refers to an Aramean town”.4 However, close examination shows that the sources do not explicitly state that the former played such a role in the latter, nor that the kingdom of Maacah was necessarily Aramaean. In the three biblical sources that specifically mention the city (2 Sam 20:1–23, 1 Kgs 15:20, and 2 Kgs 15:29), it is regarded as an Israelite city, raising an ambivalent picture about its assumed ‘Aramaean-ness’ or, at least, how the biblical editors viewed its political loyalty, if not its national-ethnic makeup, at the much later time when these verses were written. This most likely reflects the complex situation of the town’s political affiliation that changed over time, a product of its border location. 2 Samuel 20 is the most detailed reference, relating how the Benjaminite Sheba ben Bichri rebelled against King David and fled to ‘Abel and to Beth-Maacah’ (v.14), where he sought refuge. It is interesting to note the separation of the name ‘Abel’ from ‘Beth-Maacah’ here. While it is most likely an editorial error (since the name appears in the following verse without the conjunction), it seems that such a separation might reflect political realities. Indeed, in the second millennium BCE sources, including the early Execration Texts, the list of cities conquered by Thutmosis III, and possibly, the Amarna letters,5 the name is Abel. Dever took this separation to indicate that prior to the reign of King David, the name of the town was Abel, and that it had belonged to ‘the well-known family of Maacah, whose tribal holding lay in northern Transjordan’.6 He further postulated that when Abel was ‘taken from the House of Maacah’ by the Israelites (although he does not state when or how this occurred), the name became Abel-mayyim, a rendering which appears in 2 Chronicles 16:4, the parallel account to 1 Kings 15:20; however, Abel-mayyim seems to be no more than a textual variant.7 Mazar8 claimed that the name ‘Abel-beth-maacah’ was the result of the expansion of the ‘House of Maacah’9 from its homeland in the Golan Heights (see below) to a point as far west as the town of Abel. Based on the separation of the names ‘Abil’ and

3

Na’aman 2012:95. Finkelstein 2013:106. 5 Mazar 1961:22; Dever 1986:211–214. 6 Dever 1986:214. 7 Dever 1986:214. Although most often translated as ‘meadow’, the name ‘Abel’ is also related to water (Dever 1986:208, n2, quoting Albright; Younger 2016: Chapter 3); thus, the addition of Mayim (water) to the name Abel might have been a gloss made by an editor who wished to express the lush and well-watered setting of the site. LipiĔski viewed this name as proof that Abel-Beth-Maacah is to be identified at Tell el-Qadi (identified by most as Dan), as it sits directly astride the headwaters of the Jordan (LipiĔski 2000:372, n144). Abel is, of course, a name commonly found in other Israelite site names, such as Abel-mehola and Abel-shittim. 8 Mazar 1961:27. 9 Kuhrt (1995:394) noted that some of the Aramaean kingdoms “bear a name composed with the word house or family (bitnj, beth) and a personal name”, suggesting that “the name of the state was derived from that of an ancestor or a prominent member of a dominant family”. However, this does not point to a necessarily Aramaean affinity for the addition of ‘Beth’ to ‘Maacah’, as such a designation is known in Canaanite and Israelite names as well. The name ‘Maacah’ itself is most likely West Semitic and not specifically Aramaean (Younger 2016: Chapter 3). 4

Aram-Maacah? Excavations at Tell Abil al-Qame‫ۊ‬

141

‘Ma‘akayu’ in the Execration Texts, Younger suggested that they were, indeed, two separate political entities at that time, and it seems that at some early stage, the city of ‘Abil’ became the capital of the tribal entity, ‘Beth-Maacah’.10 All of these proposals assume that the town’s name was originally ‘Abel,’ with the appellation ‘Beth-Maacah’ serving as an addendum that reflects the socio-political tribal/extended family organization up until and including Iron Age I, later to be replaced by a different political structure (specifically for Dever and Mazar, Israelite fortified cities subordinate to the central rule in Jerusalem at the time of the United Monarchy). It is possible that the addition of ‘Beth-Maacah’ to ‘Abel’ is a late second millennium or early first millennium BCE development, although it remains unclear which geographical-cultural processes are reflected by this. Whatever the name’s combination represents, there is no direct indication in these particular sources that Abel, or Beth-Maacah, were Aramaean at that time. 11 The story of the rebellion of Sheba ben Bichri in 2 Samuel 20, purportedly taking place during the reign of David, shows that the town self-identified as Israelite, with the Wise Woman of the town using the enigmatic epithet – ‘a city and a mother in Israel’ (2 Sam 20:19). Although this quite legendary narrative was written at a later date, it was intended to show that Abel-beth-maacah was the northernmost point that one could go from Jerusalem without crossing the border into Phoenicia or Syria and that the town was loyal to Jerusalem, fortified, and perhaps the seat of a local oracle. The two other biblical references mention the conquest of the city, first by the Aramaean king Ben-Hadad (probably Ben-Hadad I of Aram Damascus) as an outcome of his alliance with Asa king of Judah in the first quarter of the 9th century BCE (1 Kgs 15:20), and later by the Neo-Assyrian king Tiglath-pilesar III in 732 BCE (2 Kgs 15:29). Whether or not one or both of these sources are historically reliable,12 both events point to the memory of this city as being under Israelite hegemony during Iron Age II, rather than as an Aramaean city. Even so, the question remains if this was indeed the situation, or whether it was a later rewrite intended to belittle Aramaean involvement in the region and/or written down at a time when the Aramaeans were on the wane due to Assyrian aggression in the 8th century BCE. Virtually no extra-biblical sources exist to clarify this matter. Tadmor initially read ‘Abel-beth-maacah’ as the name that marked the southern boundary of Aram in an inscription on stone from Nimrud during the conquest of Tiglath-pilesar III,13 but subsequently rejected this.14 Various scholars have proposed that the partial word at the end of Line 2 of the Tel Dan Stele was ‘Abel’,15 suggesting that the erstwhile battle between the king of Israel and the Aramaeans alluded to in the stele took place at this location. LipiĔski went 10

Younger 2016: Chapter 3. Mazar 1961:27; Lipinski 2000:336; Younger 2016 Chapter 3. 12 Cf. Dion 1997:182–183; Rainey and Notley 2006:197; Finkelstein 2013:76. 13 Tadmor 1962. 14 Tadmor 2007:139; see also Dever 1986:222 and Na’aman 2005:40. 15 E.g., Schniedewind 1996:77; LipiĔski 2000:373–374; Na’aman 2012:95, n10; Ghantous 2014: 11

49.

142

Nava Panitz-Cohen and Robert A. Mullins

even further and also reconstructed the word at the end of Line 4 as ’aby(l) ([the land of] Abil) instead of ’by ([the land of] my father).16 This reconstruction is related to his identification of Tell el-Qadi with Abel-beth-maacah, instead of the generally accepted identification with Dan. 17 He consequently correlated Tell Abil el-Qameত with Dan.18 Apart from the highly speculative and uncertain nature of these reconstructions, even if the name of Abel-beth-maacah did appear in the Dan inscription, it would not securely determine whether it was of Israelite or Aramaean association at that time. Did the king of Israel attack an Aramaean site that Hazael’s ‘father’ was defending, or did Hazael’s ‘father’ attack an Israelite site in order to incorporate it into his kingdom? Was this the battle carried out by the Ben-Hadad of 1 Kings 15:20? If so, then the latter scenario would be more valid than the former. However, this speculation is moot, since the reference to Abel is only conjectural. In conclusion, the socio-political status of Abel-beth-maacah in Iron Age I and Iron Age IIA (12th–9th centuries BCE) cannot be securely reconstructed based on any of these sources, and various scenarios are possible. In all three direct biblical sources, nothing is explicitly stated about the city being the capital of (or belonging to) the Aramaean(?) kingdom of Maacah. This relationship is an unproven assumption, albeit possible, as the modern scholars quoted above have argued. We are now left to explore the Aramaean question with the sources pertaining to the kingdom of Maacah.

Maacah and Geshur Maacah is often paired with Geshur, and both are only explicitly mentioned in the Bible, where they are first described as an independent enclave during the Israelite conquest and settlement, as well as afterwards. Joshua 13:11–13 relates how they were incorporated into the conquered territory of Og, king of Bashan, while Deuteronomy 3:13–14 and Joshua 12:4–5 describe how their border adjoined that of the Israelite tribal territories.19 Either way, they were considered foreign and separate (ethnically, politically and geographically) from the Israelites in the mind of the biblical writer at a much later date (Josh 13:11, ‘the Geshurite and Maacahthite still live among Israel to this day’). The complex and often fuzzy relationship between Geshur and Maacah is expressed in the marriage of Maacah, daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur, to King David (2 Sam 3:3). While meant to reflect an alliance between Jerusalem and this northern entity in the 10th century BCE20 (whether Aramaean or not at this time is not clear from the narrative), it also seems to allude to a symbiotic interconnection between the two

16

LipiĔski 2000:378, n174. LipiĔski 2000:372. 18 See note 7 above. 19 Na’aman 2012:89–90. 20 Na’aman 2012:90–91. 17

Aram-Maacah? Excavations at Tell Abil al-Qame‫ۊ‬

143

kingdoms of Geshur and Maacah.21 It is possible that shared kinship ties and political interests, as well as geographic overlap (for example, the unclear border between the two in the northwest; see below), resulted in their operating (and being identified) as one and the same at certain points in time and during certain events.22 However, certain narratives, such as 2 Samuel 10, where Maacah joined an anti-David coalition, but Geshur is not mentioned, show that they were sometimes perceived separately. This could be the result of a chronological difference (one kingdom existed while the other did not), or could reflect differences in political affinity at different times during Iron Age II in relation to Israel and Aram. As noted earlier, Na’aman argues Abel-beth-maacah to be the capital of the kingdom of Maacah, and Bethsaida (et-Tell), the capital of Geshur in Iron Age IIA. 23 This assumption is based on historical-geographical considerations, as well as archaeological data from the latter site dating to the 9th and 8th centuries BCE, but not on any written sources. The Territory of Maacah Reconstruction of the physical realm of the kingdom of Maacah is wrought with problems, due to a lack of details in the biblical text, which was probably written down long after the exact location was forgotten and only a vague memory of its general placement remained.24 In fact, the few hints that may be gleaned from the texts refer to Geshur, and it is only by virtue of their association that conjectures have been proposed about the location of Maacah. 2 Samuel 15:8 states that ‘Geshur is in Aram’, but this is probably more of a political, rather than a geographical definition or memory.25 Mazar placed both kingdoms in the Golan Heights, between the hill country of Gilead in the south, Bashan in the east, and Mount Hermon in the north, with the Geshurites in the southern part and the Maacahtites in the northern part.26 This identification was based on the realm of neighbouring entities, such as the territory controlled by Og, king of Bashan, that ex-

21 LipiĔski (2006:208) went further and suggested that Geshur and Maacah were simply different names for the same ‘small Syro-Hurrian kingdom ruled in the 10th century by Talmay, located on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee’. 22 Na’aman (2012:91, n4) claimed that it does not make sense for the name of the Geshurite princess to be the same as that of the northern neighbour of Geshur and thus concluded that the name Maacah for the princess was most likely not authentic. The name Maacah in the Bible is multifarious and non-gender-specific, including one of the sons of Reumah the concubine of Nahor (Gen 22:24) (whose grandson was Aram), the daughter of Talmai who was David’s wife and mother of Absalom and Tamar (2 Sam 3:3), the daughter of Absalom, wife of Rehoboam and mother of Abijam (1 Kgs 15:2), and the father of Achish king of Gath (1 Kgs 2:39), among others. Thus, the name reflects both the memory of a distant Aramaean ancestry, as well as members of the Judahite royalty (also the mother of King Asa in 1 Kgs 15:13). 23 Na’aman 2012:94–95. 24 Na’aman 2012:90. 25 Pakkala 2010:156–159. 26 Mazar 1961:16–17.

144

Nava Panitz-Cohen and Robert A. Mullins

tended to ‘the border of the Geshurites and Maacahtites’ (Josh 12:1–6), as well as to ণavot Jair (1 Chr 2:23) at a later time. Another piece of evidence that Mazar used to support this geographic identification is the equation of the ‘land of Garu’, mentioned in one of the Amarna letters of the 14th century BCE, with Geshur of the Iron Age. The location of the former in the Golan Heights seemed to him to be further proof of its territorial boundaries.27 However, Na’aman and other scholars objected to this uncritical equation of Garu with Geshur, and concluded that we are left with very little real information with which to reconstruct the border of Geshur, let alone Maacah.28 The location of Maacah to the north of Geshur would not include the more westerly location of Tell Abil el-Qameত (as well as Dan), so that the affinity between the town of Abel-beth-maacah and the territory of the kingdom of Maacah would have existed only if and when the latter expanded towards the west, as noted above.29 The same can be said of Geshur, wherein sites on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, such as En-gev, Tel Hadar, Bethsaida (et-Tell) and Tel Kinrot, were beyond the traditional definition of the realm of this kingdom in the southern Golan. The assignment of these sites to Geshur, like those of Maacah, is not based on textual evidence, but rather on historical, geographical, and archaeological considerations.30 This westward expansion might have occurred in Iron Age I, in light of their interaction with both Israelites and Aramaeans (Maacah towards Abel and Geshur towards et-Tell [Bethsaida] and Tel Kinrot). In any event, the north-western border between Geshur and Maacah is unclear and might have been fluid, depending on the circumstances vis-à-vis the Israelites and Aramaeans. The ‘Aramaean-ness’ of Maacah Two possibilities exist concerning Maacah and Geshur: they were Aramaean entities from the outset31 or they were Canaanite kingdoms/territories that remained culturally, if not politically, independent and later became satellites of the Aramaean kingdom of Damascus sometime in Iron Age IIA.32 The former possibility would suit the scenario of an 11th century BCE Aramaean (tribal?) expansion to the south towards the Lebanese Beq’a and northern Israel from their ‘homeland’ in northern Syria.33 The latter possibility would better suit a scenario 27

Mazar 1961:18–21; see also n4. In discussing two of the cities (‘Ay۲nnu and Yabilîma) mentioned in this letter, Albright (1943:14–15) identified ‘Ay۲nnu with ‘Iyyon, a small Jewish town in the Roman period near Susita, and Yabilîma with Abel-Abila, one of the cities of the Decapolis. Dever (1986: 213–214), however, sought to identify the first as Ijon (Tell Dibbin) in the southern Lebanese Beqa’ and the second as Abel-Beth-Maacah (Tell Abil el-Qameত), thus linking this Amarna letter even more directly with what he viewed as the territory of Maacah. 28 Na’aman 2012:91–92. 29 Mazar 1961:27. 30 Münger 2013:166–167; see also the reservations expressed by Ilan 1999:185–186. 31 So Na’aman 2012:89, for Geshur, based on the analysis of the name. 32 So Mazar 1962:102, for Maacah and Tob; see also Münger 2013:167 and Younger 2016: Chapter 3. 33 Younger 2007:153.

Aram-Maacah? Excavations at Tell Abil al-Qame‫ۊ‬

145

of Aramaean city-state expansion from the Lebanese Beq’a and southern Syria in Iron Age IIA, and specifically, the conquests of Hazael of Aram-Damascus in northern Israel in the second half of the 9th century BCE34 and, along with it, the possible annexation of Maacah and Geshur.35 Ghantous viewed the process as two waves of expansion of Aramaean city-states, with ‘Beth-Maacah’ and Geshur belonging to the early wave, and the second wave including Beth-Rehob, Aram-Zoba and AramDamascus.36 1 Chronicles 2:23 tells of the Aramaean conquest of the Israelite ‘lands of Yair’ (ণavot Jair) by ‘Geshur and Aram’, possibly reflecting a territorial struggle in this border region from a time later than the Israelite conquest.37 Notably, in this verse, instead of the expected twin ‘Maacah’, the name ‘Aram’ appears. However, Mazar pointed out that it is most likely that the kingdom of Aram-Damascus was meant here (since ‘Aram’ is often the way it is referred to in the Bible), and not necessarily a sign that Maacah is synonymous with Aram.38 The story of the battle of the Ammonites against David, and the hiring of Aramaean mercenaries alongside the men of Maacah, can be construed as evidence that Maacah was one of the Aramaean entities, or that it was merely an ally. In 2 Samuel 10:6, we read that the king of Maacah contributed 1000 soldiers to this battle (the least amount compared to the 20,000 of Aram Beth Rehob and Aram Zobah, and the 12,000 men of Tob). In the parallel version in 1 Chronicles 19:6 it states ‘Aram-Naharaim, Aram Maacah and Zobah’; however, Mazar surmised that this text is corrupt, and the true reading should be ‘from Aram Zobah and from Maacah’, based on parallel references in 2 Samuel 10:6 and 1 Chronicles 19:7.39 This narrative does point to Maacah being in league with eminently Aramaean entities, but not necessarily Aramaean itself. Notably, the kingdom of Geshur is missing from this battle, which suggests that it was an independent entity at the time and apparently remained neutral in this conflict. It is also noteworthy that the Bible proclaims Abel-beth-maacah’s loyalty to David in the story of Sheba ben Bichri at purportedly the same time that the men/king of Maacah were taking part in an anti-David coalition. While this inconsistency is probably a result of this story being composed at a later date, it could reflect a situation wherein the city and the kingdom were not necessarily one and the same. Whether an editorial oversight or an historical kernel, this seems to reflect complex Aramaean and Israelite interaction in this border region, or at the very least, the memory of such complexity at a later time. As the above discussion shows, although most scholars tend to assume that Maacah and Geshur were small Aramaean kingdoms, many questions remain unanswered by the present data. What was the ethnic and political relationship between Abel and Beth-Maacah? Was the town originally populated by indigenous Aramaeans, or were 34

Bright 1972:250–253; Lipinski 2007:217 Mazar 1961:25; Arie 2008:38; Na’aman 2012:95. 36 Ghantous 2014:1. 37 Mazar 1961:24. 38 Mazar 1961:24, n28. 39 Mazar 1961:27. 35

146

Nava Panitz-Cohen and Robert A. Mullins

the inhabitants Canaanites who were politically absorbed into an expanding Aramaean polity? Was it then turned into an Israelite entity after David’s defeat of the Aramaeans and hence, the biblical memory? If Aramaean in the Iron Age IIA, was it a satellite of Aram Zobah or Aram Damascus, as Mazar40 suggested (or of Beth Rehob?), or was it a bona fide Aramaean kingdom, with Abel-beth-maacah the ‘seat of a local Aramaean dynasty’, as Na’aman concluded?41 What was its status vis-à-vis the northern kingdom of Israel, and what was the chronological framework of these events and processes during the course of Iron Age I and Iron Age IIA?42

The Contribution of Archaeology: Three Seasons of Excavation at Tell Abil el-Qameত Various questions related to the definition, territory, chronology, and socio-political affiliation of the city of Abel-beth-maacah and the kingdom of Maacah were presented above. The standstill that results from the nature of the texts and their present state of interpretation illustrates the importance of archaeological evidence in illuminating, complementing, or negating these interpretations. The archaeological data obtained from the first three seasons of excavation at Tell Abil el-Qameত will be briefly presented with these issues in mind. The Site The site is located on the present Israeli-Lebanese border, approximately 6 km slightly northwest of Dan, 30 km north of Hazor, 65 km south of Kamid el-Loz (ancient Kumidi), and 35 km east of Tyre (fig. 1). It was identified as the biblical town of Abelbeth-maacah in the 19th century by Victor Guerrin and Edward Robinson, based primarily on the list of cities located along the path of conquest from north to south.43 First it was the Aramaeans (1 Kgs 15:20) with ‘Ijon, Dan, Abel-beth-maacah and all Chinneroth’, and then came the Neo-Assyrians (2 Kgs 15:29) with ‘Ijon, Abel-bethmaacah, Yanoah, Kedesh and Hazor’. Another indication is the name preserved in the Palestinian village of Abil el-Qameত that occupied the tell and preserved the name Abel, which is not an Arabic word. The site sits astride the Iyyon river and commands the north-south road running through the Northern Jordan Valley, specifically here, the Hula Valley. The road then continued northwards into the Lebanese Beqa’, northwest to the Phoenician coast, and northeast towards Damascus, 70 km to the northeast. 40

Mazar 1962:102. Na’aman 2012:95. 42 An additional factor that must be kept in mind when analyzing the situation are the Phoenicians, with Tyre only 35 kilometers west of Abel-beth-maacah. The coalescing of the Phoenician nationality at the same time as the Aramaeans and the Israelites in the regions of southern Lebanon, southern Syria and northern Israel, definitely played a role, commercial and otherwise, in the geo-political equation. 43 Contra LipiĔski 2000:372; see above. 41

Aram-Maacah? Excavations at Tell Abil al-Qame‫ۊ‬

147

The mound is approoximately 10 hectares in size, and is elongated in shape on a north–south axis, with a large flat lower part in the south and a gradual asscent to the smaller upper mound inn the north (fig. 2). The lower mound is partly a naturral hill with a bedrock outcropping that runs along its central spine on a north-south axxis, and the archaeological remains found around it. On the other hand, the smaller uppeer mound in the north appears to bee mostly the result of the accumulation of ancient ruuins. About one-third of the tell covvering the lower slope of the upper mound and the noorthern part of the southern mound is occupied by ruins of the Palestinian village, Abil el-Qameত, which was abandoned inn 1948 (fig. 3).

F Figure 1: Location map of site and its environs.

148

Nava Panitz-Cohen and Robert A. Mullins

Figure 2: View of tell, looking east.

Figure 3: Aerial view of tell with Palestinian village, Abil el-Qameত; (Photo courtesy of Aerial Photographic Archive, Geography Department, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, taken by the Royal Air Force, Section 23, 1945).

Aram-Maacah? Excavations at Tell Abil al-Qame‫ۊ‬

149

History of Exploration-Surveys and Excavations The site was briefly surveyed in the 1960s by Yehudah Dayan (unpublished manuscript, in Hebrew), in 1973 by William Dever of the University of Arizona,44 and in 1990–1992 by Idan Shaked and Yosef Stefansky (unpublished). A limited salvage excavation at the foot of the eastern slope uncovered several Middle Bronze Age IIB vessels that might have been from a tomb.45 Byzantine era tombs occupy the southern part of this slope as well. 46 During a three-day survey conducted by the authors in 2012, sherds from EBA II– III, MBA II, LBA, Iron Age I, Iron Age II, Persian, Hellenistic, Roman-Byzantine, Early Islamic, Crusader, Mameluke and the Ottoman periods were collected.47 In light of the survey, two areas were chosen for excavation – Area A in the saddle between the lower and upper mounds, and Area F at the southern end of the lower mound. A third excavation area, Area O, on the western edge of the lower mound, was added during the second season and a fourth, Area B on the eastern side of the upper mound and Area K on the eastern slope of the lower mound were added during the third season (see fig. 4).48

Area A During the survey, three phases of superimposed walls and related layers with restorable pottery were visible on the eastern slope above the ascent road to the tell. An intact ring flask was found lying on a basalt slab in the lowest phase (fig. 5). Designated Area A, excavation began at the top of these walls, exposing four Iron Age I strata (A2–A5) and one Late Bronze Age stratum (A6; fig. 6). The earliest phase reached so far, Stratum A5 is, in fact, an earlier phase of Stratum A4, comprised of walls built of basalt ashlars directly underneath at least two walls of the latter. A large amount of fallen stones and pottery was found in association with these walls, although it is not certain as of yet if this occupation was violently destroyed. Stratum A4 consisted of three rooms along a north–south axis at the eastern end of the area. This layer is equivalent to the uppermost phase of walls found in the section of the eastern slope during the survey mentioned above. The eastern edge of the mound is eroded at this point, while the western part of the Stratum A4 structure is still buried below Strata A-2 and A-3 remains, and the northern and southern ends lie beyond the boundaries of the excavation area.

44

Dever 1986. Stefansky 2005. 46 Stefansky 1990. 47 Panitz-Cohen, Mullins and Bonfil 2013:35–36. 48 For a preliminary report on the first season of excavation, see Panitz-Cohen, Mullins and Bonfil 2013. For a preliminary report of the second and third seasons, see Panitz-Cohen, Mullins and Bonfil 2016. Field excavation reports for the 2012 survey and seasons 2013–2016 are posted at www.abelbeth-maacah.org. 45

150

Nava Panitz-Cohen and Robert A. Mullins

Figure 4: Tel Abel-beth-maacah, excavation areas (2013–2016).

Aram-Maacah? Excavations at Tell Abil al-Qame‫ۊ‬

151

This building was destroyed in a violent conflagration. The southern room contained burnt debris with whole fallen bricks and charcoal and many smashed vessels. The room was occupied by a unique installation composed of a stone floor, a stone bamah (on which a pithos and krater stood) attached to a semi-circle of stones that faced a unique partially worked stone that might have been a maৢৢebah (fig. 7). An entrance in the centre of the northern wall led to a room which was quite empty of finds. In the centre of the room was a round-topped standing stone alongside a low short wall that was possibly a bench. Nearby was a pit with many bones. A similar stone was found in the north-eastern part of the southern room and a complete dog skeleton was recovered in the entranceway between the two rooms. It thus seems that the nature of these rooms was cultic. The northernmost room contained burnt debris and fallen bricks with pithoi and cooking pots like the southern room. Above the burnt debris of Stratum A4 were rather scanty walls, ovens, installations and debris levels that preceded the substantial building of Stratum A2, which we designated Stratum A3. The nature of this occupation was domestic and it seems to have been rather short-lived. No traces of destruction were found and the pottery was identical to that of Stratum A2; thus, it should be dated to a time shortly before the latter. Stratum A2 represents the latest Iron Age occupation in Area A. On the east, it contained a large, well-built building with a large central space/courtyard surrounded by rooms on the north and south; the eastern end was eroded due to the slope, while the south-western end was not excavated due to the presence of a tree at that spot. The building had two phases, mainly in the south-western part of the structure. Its size (extant 10 x 12 m) and the nature of construction (solid well-built stone foundations with no brick superstructure preserved) allude to it having been a public building, possibly of an administrative nature, rather than a domestic dwelling. At a distance of some three meters to the west of this building was yet another very well-built structure, of which part of one room has so far been exposed. Two floors were exposed here, the lowest containing a complete pot bellows (fig. 8); it apparently was not in primary use at this time. Remains of bronze- and iron-working were found inside the pot bellows.49 Along the western wall of the A2 courtyard building were three buttresses adjoining the wall at equal distances. Opposite the two northernmost buttresses, lining the eastern wall of the western structure, were buttresses as well. It seems that these buttresses adorned a passageway, perhaps a street or the access of a gateway, running north– south between the buildings, lending an imposing look. Against the wall near the middle buttress of the eastern building was what seems to have been a cultic corner, composed of three stacked stones (an altar?) separated from the passageway by a low screen wall and paved with pebbles. The buildings did not suffer a violent destruction and seemed to have been abandoned, although a concentration of restorable pottery found in the western building, as well as several complete vessels found in the eastern building, alludes that excavation farther from the erosion line on the east will yield traces of such an event.

49

We thank Dr. Naama Yahalom-Mack for this information.

152

Nava Panitz-Cohen and Robert A. Mullins

Figure 5: Area A: walls and layers in section on eastern slope, with find spot of ring flask on basalt slab at bottom.

Figure 6: Superposition of Strata A2 to A6.

Aram-Maacah? Excavations at Tell Abil al-Qame‫ۊ‬

Figure 7: Cultic installations on Stratum A4 floor, looking north.

Figure 8: Pot bellows in situ in Area A, Stratum A2.

153

154

Nava Panitz-Cohen and Robert A. Mullins

Stratum A1 is composed of several Ottoman-period terrace walls under topsoil that were built directly on top of the Stratum A2 building. Since the former walls were flimsy and related to recent agricultural activity, it can be said that A2 represents the latest occupation in this field. Pottery and Other Finds The pottery found in all four strata (A2–A5) is virtually identical and may be dated to Iron Age I. Many of the vessels found in the destruction debris in Stratum A4 are completely restorable. The predominant vessels are pithoi and cooking pots, while other types of vessels include hemispherical and s-shaped bowls, painted carinated kraters, small oval-bodied storage jars, biconical and piriform jugs, small bag-shaped pyxides, ovoid dipper juglets, and round-bottomed lamps (fig. 9). The pithoi belong to the Galilean wavy-band type and the Central Hill Country collared-rim types, the latter being the most frequent. The cooking pots have a vertical neck and triangular rim, although with a wide typological variety in all strata. One complete cooking jug was found on the floor of the early phase of Stratum A2. A complete jug found on the floor of Stratum A4 has parallels in contemporary strata at Tel Dan and Tel Kinrot. Among the special finds are a painted petal chalice fragment (Stratum A2), a bull figurine fragment (Stratum A4), an iron blade, and a unique bronze arrowhead. Chronology Our assessment at this point is that this assemblage should be dated to the Iron Age I; further study and exposure is necessary to be more precise about the attribution of each stratum within this period. Based on some of the cooking pot rims, as well as the presence of a number of sherds of open and closed vessels with red slip and irregular hand burnish, we attribute the end of Stratum A2 to the transition from Iron Age I to Iron Age IIA, possibly ending in the first third of the 10th century BCE. The destruction of Stratum A4 might be ascribed to the late 12th or early 11th centuries, since there are at least two more phases below this level, one belonging to Iron Age I (Stratum A5) and the layer below that bore the ring flask in the survey belonging to Late Bronze Age Stratum A6.

Area B Area B at the eastern slope of the upper mound was the only excavation area in this part of the site, mainly due to the heavy overlay of the ruins of the Palestinian village in this section of the tell. Two seasons of excavation so far in this area have yielded substantial remains of the Middle Bronze II, Iron Age I, Iron Age II and the Persianearly Hellenistic period. Late Bronze Age pottery was recovered as well.

Aram-Maacah? Excavations at Tell Abil al-Qame‫ۊ‬

Figure 9: Vessels from Area A, Strata A2–A5.

Figure 10: Area B, Persian/ Early Hellenistic building above Iron Age II remains.

155

156

Nava Panitz-Cohen and Robert A. Mullins

The uppermost layer in Area B comprised a large and very sturdily built building with two phases (fig. 10). Several Phoenician Fine Ware juglets were found on the floors. Below a fill some one meter deep, remains of an Iron Age II building was reached, although it is not yet sufficiently exposed to determine a more exact chronology. To the east of the large outer wall of the Persian/early Hellenistic building was a layer of hard chalky material and collapsed bricks with much burnt debris, bordered on the south by a very large stone wall; the pottery associated with this layer was Iron Age II. An interesting find was a sherd of a storage jar with an incised letter, either a ‘bet’ or a ‘nun’.

Area F Area F at the southern end of the lower mound yielded architectural remains from the Middle Bronze Age, Late Bronze Age and Iron Age I, as well as pottery from Iron Age II and the Persian period. Six strata have been excavated in Area F to date, in an extremely tight sequence at a depth of ca. 2.0 meters to date (fig. 11); no destruction was noted between any of the strata, apart from some burning in one square at the end of Stratum F2. The earliest element (Stratum F6) is a fortification system consisting of a large tower and a rampart/wall. The excavated part of the tower measures 6.5 by 7.7 m and comprised four layers of widely spaced, roughly rounded field stones set into a white cement-like matrix that was lined on the north and northeast by extremely large worked boulders; the western side of the tower is damaged and the southern part appears to have collapsed and fallen down the slope beyond the limit of excavation. Adjoining the south-eastern face of the tower and running towards the northeast was a rampart composed of layers of dark brown soil and densely packed small chalky fragments. The northern end of this rampart was capped by a 3.0 meter-wide layer of stones, identical in make-up to those that comprised the tower. It was lined with large boulders on the north, so that from the top, it looks like a wall (fig. 12). Some of these large boulders were robbed and re-used to build a later wall running catty-corner to the rampart ‘wall’. A complex series of walls and layers abutted the northern wall of the tower, representing three strata (F5 to F3). These walls and related floors or debris layers utilized the northern wall of the tower and the rampart ‘wall’, and it seems that the fortification itself was in use during these three strata. On a Stratum F3 floor was a small jug that contained a silver hoard, found resting against the northern wall of the tower (fig. 13). The two latest strata, F1 and F2, consisted of a building exposed just under topsoil, and which included many pits and silos, most lined with stones. Many of these pits cut into the top of the Stratum F6 tower and rampart, indicating that at this time, the fortifications were no longer in use. The building (Stratum F1, two phases) was well built and had traces of stone floors. The excavated part consists of a narrow row of three rooms, two large and one small, on a northeast to southwest axis. The organization of this building recalls a casemate wall, especially in light of its position near the edge of

Aram-Maacah? Excavations at Tell Abil al-Qame‫ۊ‬

Figure 11: Area F, Strata F1 to F6.

Figure 12: Late Bronze II and Iron I activity north of Middle Bronze tower and rampart, looking south.

157

158

Nava Panitz-Cohen and Robert A. Mullins

the mound and just north of the Middle Bronze-Late Bronze fortifications. However, the width of the walls and the fact that there seems to have been an entrance in the north wall of the eastern room, appears to rule this out, although further exposure is necessary. A street or courtyard ran to its north, containing a large number of silos and pits. Pottery, Chronology, and Other Finds No in situ pottery associated with the Stratum F6 fortifications has yet been excavated. However, numerous Middle Bronze Age sherds were found in various loci and, in light of the nature of the fortifications and the fact that the structures built against its northern wall in secondary use date to the Late Bronze Age, they are tentatively dated to the Middle Bronze Age IIB, although this might change when excavation reaches associated floors. The pottery recovered from Strata F5 to F3 is largely fragmentary, and for the most part, can be dated to Late Bronze Age I to II. Diagnostic pieces include carinated bowls, thickened-rim storage jars and painted kraters, as well as sherds of Cypriot White Slip and Base Ring wares. The jug which was found on a Stratum F3 floor and contained the silver hoard (fig. 13) appears to be an imitation of a Base Ring (bilbil). Another interesting find from Stratum F3 is the lower part of a potter’s wheel, identical to one found in the Late Bronze Age II potters’ workshop associated with the Area C temple at Hazor.50

Figure 13: Area F, the jug and silver hoard as found (left); right: after cleaning by Miriam Lavi, Conservation Laboratory, Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (photos by Gabi Laron).

50

Yadin 1975:50–51.

Aram-Maacah? Excavations at Tell Abil al-Qame‫ۊ‬

159

The pottery from Strata F2 and F1 can be dated to Iron Age I. Diagnostic pieces include pithoi (collared-rim and wavy-band types) and cooking pots (vertical rim with triangular exterior, no handles), as well as jugs and pyxides, some of which were intact or almost complete, and restorable vessels that were found in the pits or silos; the assemblage is virtually identical to that found in Area A. One small Philistine Bichrome sherd and many Phoenician Bichrome sherds were found in the Stratum F1 building and its environs as well. A great deal of pottery was found in the north-western corner of the area, where there appears to have been a sizeable pit or some other type of disturbance. The earliest pottery in this context is dated to the Middle Bronze Age IIB and the latest to the Persian period. A large number of Phoenician Bichrome sherds belonging to open and closed vessels, red-slipped and hand-burnished sherds, and several Iron Age IIB bowl and cooking pot rim profiles, as well as a warped-handled Persian period coastal storage jar, were found here. Special finds include a circular disc made of gold sheet, identical to those found in the Mycenaean tomb at Dan,51 a bronze rod, and a group of astragali (one painted red) in Stratum F5, the aforementioned silver hoard in Stratum F3 (Late Bronze Age IIB), a complete iron blade from a pit in Stratum F1, a Ramses II scarab in topsoil above the Stratum F1 building,52 and two Persian period bronze fibulae in the disturbance.

Area O Area O consists of three squares located on the western end of the lower mound about 50 meters north of Area F (fig. 4). Architectural remains were revealed just below topsoil, and a total of three strata (O1–O3) were detected (fig. 14).

Figure 14: Area O, Strata O1 to O3 (by Ruhama Bonfil, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem). 51 52

Biran and Ben-Dov 2002:173. David, Mullins and Panitz-Cohen 2016.

160

Nava Panitz-Cohen and Robert A. Mullins

Stratum O3 was only exposed in a very small probe at the western end of the area. It contained what seems to be the top of a wide wall, composed of small stones bordered on the east by larger stones. The western edge was beyond the excavation boundary and no floors have been found as of yet. Early Bronze Age III pottery recovered nearby might be associated with this feature, possibly the city wall from that period, although it might belong to the Middle Bronze Age fortification system uncovered in Stratum F6 in Area F to the south. Stratum O2 was part of a building that continued beyond the borders of the excavation area to the north, south and east. Four parallel walls with stone thresholds were exposed, showing this to have been a very large and well-planned structure, oriented perpendicular to the cusp of the mound. Floors with restorable Middle Bronze Age IIB pottery related to these walls. Finds included two baby burials in storage jars and the skeleton of an elderly man lying on his stomach. A smashed pithos lay nearby, perhaps indicating the violent end of this stratum. Alternatively, this could have been a burial in a pithos that subsequently broke and the skeleton tumbled over by its side. The exposure here was too small to draw any solid conclusion. Notably, no traces of the impressive fortifications found in Area F just to the south were uncovered here, either because the Stratum O2 building is built above them or possibly, the Stratum O3 wall noted above belongs to this system, but it was built differently in this part of the tell; a similar phenomenon was noted in various segments of the Middle Bronze fortifications at Dan.53 Stratum O1 was represented by the western end of a room that lay directly over the easternmost room of the Stratum O2 building, and an additional wall to its west. Between these architectural remains is what might have been a courtyard, containing a large three-legged basalt mortars surrounded by several upside-down jug or bowl bases. The small amount of pottery collected from stratum O1 contexts points to a Late Bronze IIB-Iron Age I date, although the close proximity of these strata to topsoil that was heavily plowed precludes a secure dating at this point. To the west of the threshold in the westernmost wall of Stratum O2 was a concentration of pottery that appears to have been in a pit, which cut the edge of this threshold (fig. 15). It is not certain whether this concentration is contemporary with Stratum O1, or later. Three partially restorable storage jars and a number of bowls and cooking pots came from this context, which also contained a number of red-slipped and hand-burnished open and closed vessel sherds. This pottery may be ascribed to Iron Age I or to the transition from Iron Age I to Iron Age IIA, similar to Stratum A2 in Area A. Just under topsoil, above the Stratum O1 wall, we found a small stamp seal showing what appears to be three dancers or worshippers (fig. 16). It may be dated to Iron Age IIA based on comparative material.54

53 54

Biran 1994:67–70. Panitz-Cohen and Mullins 2016.

Aram-Maacah? Excavations at Tell Abil al-Qame‫ۊ‬

161

Figure 15: Concentration of Iron I/IIA pottery in pit, looking east.

Figure 16: Iron IIA seal, Area O.

Area K Area K was opened on the northern end of the eastern slope of the lower mound, at a spot where access to the tell was easiest and thus, a likely candidate for the location of a gate (see fig. 4). The top of a 3.5 m-wide stone wall on a north–south axis was revealed, with a chalky layer abutting part of it on the east, possibly representing a rampart similar to that in Area F. No pottery was recovered to date that would date it, so that it is as yet impossible to determine the date of this fortification and whether there is a gate in this area.

162

Nava Panitz-Cohen and Robert A. Mullins

Summary of the Occupation Sequence Data concerning the Bronze Age, Iron Age and Persian period occupation gleaned from the survey and first two seasons of excavation may be summarized as follows: Early Bronze Age II–III: pottery sherds (metallic ware, platters) and possible evidence for fortifications (Area O). Middle Bronze Age IIB(?): fortifications, including a tower and a partially stonetopped rampart (Area F); a large building revealed under late Late Bronze Age/Iron Age I remains with possible traces of destruction (Area O); representative pottery including carinated bowls, large kraters, cooking pots, baking trays, storage jars, pithoi, and juglets. Late Bronze Age: at least three strata of a tight sequence of occupation, with no traces of destruction; re-use of the Middle Bronze II fortifications; representative pottery including carinated bowls, painted kraters, cooking pots, jugs, storage jars, Cypriot imports and imitations; a silver hoard (Areas F and A). Iron Age I: a dense Iron I sequence (four phases) of well-planned and well-built structures; no fortifications; violent destruction in the middle(?) phase (Area A); peaceful transition from the Late Bronze Age to Iron Age I with no gap; two construction phases and numerous pits and silos; no fortifications (Area F); representative pottery including pithoi (collared-rim, wavy-band and Gailiean types) and cooking pots (the main bulk of the assemblage in all areas), hemispherical and S-shaped bowls, round-rimmed and carinated kraters, piriform and biconical jugs, Phoenician Bichrome sherds; other finds include iron and bronze blades, fragments of a petalled painted chalice and a bull figurine, a pot bellows with traces of metallurgical activity (Areas A, F, O). Iron Age II: lower tell apparently unoccupied during Iron Age II; typical Iron Age IIA seal (Area O); two phases of architecture with associated Iron II pottery (Area B); Iron Age IIA–IIB pottery sherds including red-slipped and hand-burnished open and closed vessels, Phoenician Bichrome, Black-on-Red Cypro-Phoenician, ‘Samaria’ bowls, stepped-rim cooking pots with handles, cooking jugs, strainer jugs, coastal and Hippo storage jar rims (Areas A, B, O, F). Persian Period: pottery, including warped-handle storage jars and mortaria, and two bronze fibulae (Area F); two phases of a massive building with associated pottery attributing it to the late Persian/early Hellenistic period (Area B).

Preliminary Conclusions and Future Research Questions The Middle and Late Bronze Ages The excavations have allowed us to place Abel-beth-maacah more securely on the geopolitical map of the second millennium BCE in the Northern Jordan Valley. Both Hazor and Dan were fortified during the Middle Bronze Age IIB, so it appears that Abel

Aram-Maacah? Excavations at Tell Abil al-Qame‫ۊ‬

163

was yet another unit vying for resources and status in this region at that time.55 The presence of several nearby large fortified city-states, each surrounded by villages and an agricultural hinterland (dominated by the metropolis of Hazor), raises questions about the settlement hierarchy, economic subsistence, and political affiliation that will require further analysis. During the Late Bronze Age, the region was dominated by Hazor in the south and Kumidi in the north, with Dan and Abel being smaller, but substantial city states. Both sites reused Middle Bronze Age II fortifications. The dense and continuous sequence of Late Bronze Age II occupation at Abel, and its apparently peaceful transition to Iron Age I, adds substantially to our knowledge of this period in the Northern Jordan Valley and differs from the scenarios at Hazor and Dan. It also affords us with the opportunity to further study Egyptian involvement in the region between the metropolises of Hazor and Kumidi, the latter an Egyptian governmental center. The Late Bronze Age IIB silver hoard is one of the earliest found in Israel and isotope analysis conducted on several of its pieces shows that the site had far-reaching connections.56 Iron Age I Following the destruction of the major Late Bronze Age cities of Hazor, Kumidi and Dan, as well as the departure of the Egyptians, the situation changed. In Iron Age I, Hazor (Strata XII–XI) was only sparsely occupied; Dan (Strata VI–IVB)57 and Kumidi58 were villages. Although limited in its exposure to date, the substantial occupation noted at Abel-beth-maacah (Strata A5–A2 and F2–F1), with its dense stratigraphic sequence and large public buildings, points to the possibility of it having been the major urban centre in the Northern Jordan Valley at that time, or at least vying with Dan for that status.59 Both were apparently unfortified, and it is possible that both sites suffered from the same destruction event, seen in Stratum V at Dan and Stratum A4 at Abel-beth-maacah. This would suggest a correlation between Abel-beth-maacah Stratum A2 and Dan Stratum IVB (and Hazor XI?), an occupation phase that most likely ended around the time of the transition from Iron Age IB to Iron Age IIA, parallel to Megiddo Stratum VIA and, in absolute terms, sometime in the first half of the 10th century BCE (980–950), following Mazar’s modified chronology.60 Notably, the violent destruction suffered by Megiddo VIA and the partial burning of Dan IVB was not as notable in the excavated parts of Strata A2 and F1 at Abel-beth-maacah,61 although some restorable pottery and burning was recovered from this stratum and more exposure is required to determine the nature of its end. 55

Probes and surveys show that Tel Kedesh should also be counted among these large sites. Note the suggestion that the Middle Bronze Age IIA fort uncovered in Kiryat-shemona, ca. 5 kilometers south of Abel-Beth-Maacah, might have been a satellite of Abel (Nativ 2012:78). 56 Yahalom-Mack, Panitz-Cohen and Mullins, forthcoming. 57 Ilan 1999:147. 58 Heinz 2010:29. 59 For Dan see: Ilan 1999:162,169. 60 Mazar 2005. 61 For Dan IVB Ilan (1999:55) suggesting an earthquake.

164

Nava Panitz-Cohen and Robert A. Mullins

When considering the Iron Age I population of Abel-beth-maacah, we tend to think that it comprised indigenous Canaanites, possibly joined by new population elements, who may be termed Israelite, although the presence of collared-rim pithoi is not to be considered an ethnic marker. These, and other developments, could have been the result of changing economic strategies and not necessarily, or only, migration. Phoenician pottery, mostly closed Bichrome vessels, was probably the result of developing trade connections and not settlement or political ties. It is possible that the town of Stratum A4 was destroyed by Aramaeans encroaching southward from the coalescing polities of Beth-Rehob and Aram-Zobah in the Lebanese Beq’a and southern Syria, respectively. An alternative scenario would be a Canaanite town, perhaps joined by people migrating from the north (Aramaeans?), and attacked by the settling Israelites. Natural causes, such as an earthquake, should be considered as well. 62 The question of who rebuilt the town (Strata A2/F1) would relate to the agent of destruction: Aramaeans, Israelites, the indigenous Canaanites, or possibly a mixture thereof. The border location of Abel-beth-maacah made it a prime arena for territorial clashes between fledgling polities during this critical period of state formation. The chronological and socio-political relationship of the ‘Abel-beth-maacah-Dan block’ to the other major Iron Age IB site, Tel Kinrot, some 40 kilometers to the south on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee, may be briefly noted; Tel Hadar, across the lake, should be considered as well. The former was a fortified, well-planned urban centre,63 while the latter was a central storage and distribution centre.64 Preliminary comparison of Abel-beth-maacah to Tel Kinrot shows that several traits are shared, while others differ. Both are densely settled urban entities. While Kinrot was fortified, it seems that Abel-beth-maacah was not. The remains in Areas A and F show buildings flanking streets, which might prove comparable to the fine urban planning at Tel Kinrot. Similar pottery shapes include Phoenician Bichrome and collared-rim pithoi, although wavy-band and Galilean pithoi, common at Abel-beth-maacah, are missing at Tel Kinrot, and types such as the two-handled storage jars or storage jars with three handles (found at Tel Hadar as well) that Münger regarded as reflecting Syrian traditions,65 are so far lacking at Abel-beth-maacah, although this might be the result of the present limited exposure. In the faunal assemblage at Tel Kinrot, cattle predominated over sheep-and-goat,66 while the preliminary faunal data from Iron Age I contexts at Abel-beth-maacah show the opposite pattern.67 While cattle is well-represented (22%), pigs were rare; the same pattern was noted at Tel Kinrot and Dan.68 What can be said at this point is that the new data from Abel-beth-maacah puts it on the map as one of the contenders for the replacement of Hazor as the major city in the Iron Age I in the

62

See footnote 61 above. Münger 2013. 64 Yadin and Kochavi 2008. 65 Münger 2013:156–161. 66 Münger 2013:166, n91. 67 Marom 2014. 68 Ilan 1999:109. 63

Aram-Maacah? Excavations at Tell Abil al-Qame‫ۊ‬

165

Northern Jordan Valley, while Tel Kinrot has been hitherto considered the only such candidate.69 The data being collected will allow us to explore the question of the affiliation of Abel-beth-maacah with the purported early stage of the kingdom of Maacah, and whether it fulfilled a role as its capital at that time, be it Aramaean or otherwise. Münger does not view the data from Kinrot as supporting an affiliation with a ‘Geshurite polity’ in Iron Age IB, but rather reflecting a ‘variegated and complex’ late Canaanite society with many culturally diverse features.70 It seems that there was a similar situation at Abel-beth-maacah, although further exposure of the Iron Age I material culture (and data from regional surveys) is necessary in order to explore this question. Iron Age II Concerning Iron Age IIA, Arie had proposed a gap, or a limited rural village, at Dan and down-dated Stratum IVA to the late 9th and early 8th centuries BCE.71 Strata III and II were attributed to the 8th century BCE, ending in the Assyrian destruction of 732 BCE. In light of this, an historical scenario was proposed wherein Hazael conquered the virtually uninhabited Dan and built it as an Aramaean urban centre (Stratum IVA).72 Arie suggested that at this time (late 9th century BCE), the Aramaean monarch also rebuilt Abel-beth-maacah, with Dan serving as the new center for the former area of the southern Aramaean kingdoms of Geshur and Maacah, which Hazael united and annexed to his ‘new great kingdom of Aram-Damascus’.73 Subsequently, Joash reconquered the city and rebuilt it as Israelite, until its destruction by Tiglathpilesar III in 732 BCE (Strata III–II). Another scenario was proposed by Ghantous, wherein Iron Age I Dan (Strata VI– IV) belonged to “the Aramaean kingdom of Beth-Maacah and then to the Aramaean kingdom of Beth Rehob”.74 This phase ended with the conquest of the city by Omri in the first half of the 9th century BCE and then by Hazael’s re-conquest of it in the mid 9th century, while Stratum III represents Hazael’s city. Stratum II is again Israelite, conquered by Joash or Jeroboam II in the second quarter of the 8th century BCE until the Assyrian conquest. The excavations at Abel-beth-maacah may contribute to the confirmation or alteration of these and other proposed Iron Age II scenarios, although at the present stage, 69

E.g., Finkelstein 2013:30. Münger 2013:167. 71 Arie 2008. 72 It is interesting to try to understand why the Omrides neglected occupying the supposedly uninhabited Dan and Abel-beth-maacah, two important border sites, just at the peak of their political and military expansion, when they were building forts and administrative centers along the border of their kingdom, reaching as far north as Hazor, but no further (Finkelstein 2011:239). In fact, it seems that this neglect might have been one of the factors that allowed Hazael to conquer those two sites and annex them to his kingdom, according to Arie’s scenario. 73 Arie 2008:38. 74 Ghantous 2014:37. 70

166

Nava Panitz-Cohen and Robert A. Mullins

any conclusions are preliminary. To date, no occupation stratum post-dating the Iron I was uncovered in the lower mound. Although red-slipped and hand-burnished pottery, as well as other types that suit an Iron Age IIA date (including Black-on-Red), were found, they were not in situ and might belong to the end of this period. The evidence for a stratum parallel to Dan IVA is just beginning to emerge. Future excavation, both in more central areas of the lower mound, and especially in the upper mound, might provide data that will help to clarify the picture. At the present time, it seems that the Iron Age II occupation at Abel-beth-maacah was limited to the northern part of the site. Whether there was Aramaean involvement in this town and its nature remains a central research question. We are thus, as of yet, unable to shed light on the scenarios proposed by Arie, Ghantous, or other scholars, or to offer one of our own. Methodologically, we attempt to examine the material culture of the site regardless of what we surmise the political or ethnic affiliation of the inhabitants were, acknowledging the gap between political affiliation and material culture. We have only just begun to scratch the surface of this large and important site, and at this point, we have more questions than answers.

Bibliography AণITUV, S., 1984. Canaanite Toponyms in Ancient Egyptian Documents, Jerusalem ALBRIGHT, W. F., 1943. Two Little Understood Amarna Letters from the Middle Jordan Valley, BASOR 89: 7–17 ARIE, E., 2008. Reconsidering the Iron Age II Strata at Tel Dan: Archaeological and Historical Implications. TA 35: 6–64 BIRAN, A., 1994. Biblical Dan. Jerusalem BIRAN, A. and R. BEN-DOV, 2002. A Chronicle of the Excavations and the Late Bronze Age “Mycenaean” Tomb, Jerusalem BRIGHT, J., 1972. A History of Israel, Philadelphia (second edition) DAVID, A., R. A. MULLINS, and N. PANITZ-COHEN, 2016. A Mnxprra Scarab from Tel Abel Beth Maacah. Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 9: 1–13 DEVER, W. G., 1986. Abel-Beth-Maacah, Northern Gateway of Ancient Israel, in: The Archaeology of Jordan and Other Studies, Presented to Siegfried H. Horn, ed. L. T. Geraty and L. G. Herr, Berrien Springs, 207–222 DION, P.-E., 1997. Les Araméens à l’âge du Fer: Histoire Politique et Structures Sociales (Études bibliques 34), Paris FINKELSTEIN, I., 2013. The Forgotten Kingdom: The Archaeology and History of Northern Israel, Atlanta GHANTOUS, H., 2014. The Elisha-Hazael Paradigm and the Kingdom of Israel: The Politics of God in Ancient Syria-Palestine, Durham ILAN, D., 1999. Northeastern Israel in the Iron Age I: Cultural, Socio-economic and Political Perspectives. PhD Dissertation, Tel Aviv KUHRT, A., 1995. The Ancient Near East c. 3000–330 BC, 2 volumes, London LIPIēSKI, E., 2000. The Aramaeans: Their Ancient History, Culture, Religion. (OLA 100), Leuven –: 2006. On the Skirts of Canaan in the Iron Age. Historical and Topographical Researches (OLA 153), Leuven MALAMAT, A., 1965. Aram, in: Lexicon Biblicum, ed. M. Solieli and M. Barkoz, Jerusalem, 78–83 (Hebrew)

Aram-Maacah? Excavations at Tell Abil al-Qame‫ۊ‬

167

MAROM, N., 2014. Preliminary Report on the Animal Bones of the 2013–2014 Excavations at Abelbeth-maacah, Internal report MAZAR, A., 2005. The Debate over the Chronology of the Iron Age in the Southern Levant. Its History, the Current Situation, and a Suggested Resolution, in The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating. Archaeology, Texts and Science. ed. T. E. Levy and T. Higham, London, 15–30 MAZAR, B., 1961. Geshur and Maacah, JBL 80/1: 16–28 –: 1962. The Aramaean Empire and its Relations with Israel, Biblical Archaeologist 25/4: 97–120 NA’AMAN, N. 2005. Ancient Israel and Its Neighbors: Interaction and Counteraction, Winona Lake –: 2012. The Kingdom of Geshur in History and Memory, SJOT 26/1: 88–101 NATIV, A., 2012. Petrographic Analysis of the Middle Bronze Age Pottery: A Preliminary Report, in: Kiryat Shemona (S). Fort and Village in the Hula Valley (Salvage Excavation Reports 8), ed. Y. Gadot and A. Yasur-Landau, Tel Aviv, 76–81 PAKKALA, J., 2010. What Do We Know about Geshur?, SJOT 24/2: 155–173 PANITZ-COHEN, N., R. A. MULLINS, 2016. Sealed with a Dance: An Iron Age IIA Seal from Tel Abel Beth Maacah, in: From Sha’ar Hagolan to Shaaraim: Essays in Honor of Prof. Yosef Garfinkel, ed. S. Ganor, I. Kreimerman, K. Streit and M. Mumcuoglu, Jerusalem, 307–321 PANITZ-COHEN, N., R. A. MULLINS and R. BONFIL, 2013. Launching Excavations at Tell Abil el Qameত (Abel Beth Maacah), Strata 31: 27–42 PANITZ-COHEN, N., R. A. MULLINS and R. BONFIL, 2016. A Preliminary Report of the Second and Third Excavation Seasons at Tell Abil el Qameত (Abel Beth Maacah); Strata 33: 35–59 RAINEY, A. F. and R. S. NOTLEY , 2006. The Sacred Bridge. Carta’s Atlas of the Biblical World, Jerusalem SCHNIEDEWIND, W. M., 1996. Tel Dan Stela: New Light on Aramaic and Jehu’s Revolt, BASOR 302: 75–90 STEFANSKY, Y., 1990. Archaeological News from Caves in the Eastern Galilee, Niqrot ਋ukim 17: 21– 34 (Hebrew) –: 2005. Tel Avel Bet Ma‘akah, Hadashot Archaeologiot Journal 117, http://www.hadashotesi.org.il/ report_detail_eng.asp?id=94&mag_id=110 TADMOR, H. 1962. The Southern Border of Aram, IEJ 12: 114–122 –: 2007. The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III King of Assyria: Critical Edition, with Introductions, Translations, and Commentary, Jerusalem YADIN, E. and M. KOCHAVI, 2008. Tel Hadar. In: New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Volume 5, ed. E. Stern, Jerusalem, 1756–1757 YADIN, Y. 1975. Hazor. The Rediscovery of a Great Citadel of the Bible, London YAHALOM-MACK, N., N. PANITZ-COHEN and R. A. MULLINS, forthcoming. A Late Bronze IIB Silver Hoard from Tel Abel Beth-Maacah YOUNGER, K. L., Jr., 2007. The Late Bronze /Iron I Transition and the Origins of the Aramaeans, in: Ugarit at Seventy-Five, ed. K. L. Younger, Winona Lake, 131–174 –: 2016. A Political History of the Arameans: From Their Origins to the End of Their Polities, Atlanta

Enemy at the Gates? The Archaeological Visibility of the Aramaeans at Dan Yifat Thareani, Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology – Hebrew Union College By the mid-ninth century BCE the hooves of Aramaean cavalry were to be heard ringing out across the southern Levant. The defeat of local cities and monarchs by King Hazael of Aram-Damascus marked the beginning of a tumultuous era in which territories were frequently won and lost.1 Material footprints of this event – the Hazael Inscription from Dan,2 the Aramaean stele from Bethsaida,3 and the siege trench from Gath4 – tell the story of this crucial moment in the history of the region. Although the Aramaean conquests are well documented in historical sources and the archaeological record (see below), the nature of Aramaean dominance which followed is far from clear. The ongoing task of identifying material culture which can be directly associated with the Aramaeans in north Palestine has been characterized by increasing scholarly confusion. But even so, the identification of a particular ‘Aramaean material culture’ has been fully adopted by archaeologists and historians,5 becoming a fundamental element in the currently favoured paradigm of the Aramaean presence in the region. This paper is a preliminary attempt to define a middle-range theory for the archaeological visibility of the Aramaeans in north Palestine, based on the material culture assemblage from Stratum III at Tel Dan. Naturally our discussion will concentrate on the major components of ‘Aramaean material culture’ – monumental architecture, cult objects, script and pottery – various aspects of which have already been examined. Nevertheless, a comprehensive view of the issues associated with the identification and characterization of so-called ‘Aramaean culture’ is required, in order to assess farreaching implications for the Aramaean presence as currently understood.

1 Kraeling 1918:80–81; Tadmor 1962:119; Pitard 1987:131–132; LipiĔski 2000:372–385; Finkelstein 2013:119–128. 2 Biran and Naveh 1993; 1995; Yamada 1995; Dion 1999; Na’aman 2000; Athas 2003. 3 Bernett and Keel 1998; Arav 2009:47–48, figs 1.35–1.36. 4 Maier and Ehrlich 2001:30–31; Maier 2003:244–246; 2004:323–325, Maier and Gur-Arieh 2011, contra Ussishkin 2009. See also Maeir, this volume. 5 Knauf, de Pury, and Römer 1994:65–69; Noll 1998:20–21; Athas 2003:255–258, Arie 2008:37; Finkelstein 2013:128.

170

Yifat Thareani

1. Defining the Aramaeans When attempting to discuss the archaeological visibility of the Aramaeans, one must first recognize that archaeologically it is very difficult to define ‘Aramaeans’. A region called ‘Aram’ is first mentioned in Middle Assyrian texts, in connection with groups called a‫ې‬lamû that are presented in opposition to the sedentary population.6 Assyrian royal inscriptions of the eighth century BCE mention Aramaeans as groups of a nomadic orientation. Tiglath-pileser III crossed the ZƗb River “to subdue the a‫ې‬lamû”7 and Sargon II designates the a‫ې‬lamû as ‘steppe-folk’ (‫܈‬Ɨb ‫܈‬Ɲri).8 The Assyrian sources indicate that the Aramaean territory stretched from the Khabur to the western bank of the Euphrates, although Aramaean groups reached as far as Jabal Bishri, Palmyra and Mount Lebanon.9 Politically, the Iron Age LuwoAramaean world comprised a number of small kingdoms and chiefdoms.10 While ‘Aramaeans’ became the most common name used for the Iron Age II Syrian population, the latter seldom used the word ‘Aramaean’ to describe themselves, or to designate their land.11 Since unlike its Assyrian counterpart the Aramaean culture had no ideological and political core, most scholars maintain that it is difficult to isolate a distinctive typical Aramaean material culture.12 In light of this, the Aramaeans are currently considered “an indigenous local group within Syria, which participated actively in the change of the social conditions that characterize the transition of the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age”.13

2. The Presentation of the Aramaeans in Biblical Sources The manner in which ‘Aram’ and ‘Aramaeans’ are perceived in the archaeology of the southern Levant is influenced for the most part by the way they are presented in the biblical sources. Generally, the biblical account weaves together two contradicting traditions regarding Israel-Aramaean relations: one of kinship and another of political rivalry. Aramaeans are found among the Book of Genesis genealogies, their relationship with the Hebrews being presented through family stories and lineages which demonstrated kinship ties.14 Since most of these texts are post-exilic – dating to the time

6

Sader 2010:276 with references. See also Bunnens, this volume. Tadmor 1994:64 Ann. 19*:13. 8 Gadd 1954:186–187, lines 71–72, 192–193, lines 57–58. 9 Dion 1997:19-21; Niehr 2014: Map 1; Sader 2014:11–12. 10 Novák 2014:255. 11 Sader 2010:277; 2014:15; Berlejung 2014:339. 12 E.g., Akkermans and Schwartz 2006:366–368; Bonatz 2014:205 contra Sader 2010:288 who asserts the existence of a distinctive Aramaean material culture in North Syria. 13 Berlejung 2014:339. 14 Axskjöld 1998:15–34; Loza Vera 2001:58–66. See also Berlejung, this volume. 7

Archaeological Visibility of the Aramaeans at Dan

171

when Judean deportees settled in the Aramaean heartland – they are beyond this article’s scope.15 The other biblical tradition refers to a political rivalry between the two kingdoms (mainly 1 Kgs 11:23–25; 15:18; 20:1–34; 22;1–4; 2 Kgs 6:8–33; 7:1–8; 8:7–15; 28-29; 9:14-16; 12:18–19; 13:3–7, 24–25; 15:37; 16:5–9) – a description that appears mainly in the historiographic Book of Kings,16 where Aram-Damascus is mentioned as the main Aramaean polity.17 Even though most of these texts on the Aramaean wars were written after the ninth century BCE – the period which they claim to describe – archaeologists, biblical scholars and historians have nevertheless willingly integrated the ‘biblical Aramaeans’ into their interpretations.18

3. Modern Research at the Service of the Biblical Account Two major discoveries – the Hazael Inscription from Dan, in which the Damascene king boasts of his victory over the kings of Israel and Judah,19 and the impressive siege trench at Tell eৢ-ৡafi/Gath20 – support the biblical account by providing strong evidence for hostile relations between Aram and Israel. The common practice in biblical archaeology of matching occupational phases with historical events has been employed in the longstanding debate over ‘Aram and Israel’. Consequently, various destruction layers in the southern Levant have been associated with Hazael’s conquests.21 These destruction layers include: Dan IVA,22 Hazor IX23 Tel Reতov IV;24 Beth-shean

15

Berlejung 2014:364. The biblical account depicting David’s wars with the Aramaeans (2 Samuel 8:3,12) borrowed details from the history of the ninth century BCE Hazael’s kingdom in order to fill in gaps left by the chronicle’s author (Na’aman 2006:27–28). The seventh century BCE biblical authors used a later territorial reality in their anachronistic descriptions of the pre-monarchical history of Israel (Na’aman 2005:52). 17 In the prophetic books Israel and Aram-Damascus share the same fate of punishment and deportation by YHWH. 18 See for instance: Mazar 1961; 1962; Tadmor 1962; Arie 2008; Finkelstein 2013. 19 Biran and Naveh 1993; 1995; Na’aman 2000; Athas 2003. 20 Maier and Ehrlich 2001:30–31; Maier 2003:244–246; 2004:323–325. 21 With some reservations, this study accepts the basic historico-archaeological critique of the traditional view and follows the Low Chronology framework (Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2007; 2009). 22 According to Biran 2002: table 1.1; IVB according to Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2009:268. 23 Finkelstein 1999:59; Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2007:270–271; contra Yadin et al. 1958:23 and Ben-Tor 2000:11 who related the destruction of Hazor VII to Hazael, while more recently Ben-Ami 2012:235 has suggested that Iron Age IIA Hazor was strong enough to withstand a lengthy Aramaean siege. 24 Mazar et al. 2005:254; Mazar in this volume. 16

172

Yifat Thareani

S1;25 Jezreel compound;26 Taanach IIB;27 Megiddo VA–IVB;28 Gezer VIII;29 and Tell eৢ-ৡafi/Gath A3.30 Hazael’s conquests left so strong an impression that they were instrumental in the creation of two dominant historical views. The first is the traditional narrative that credits the reliability of the biblical historiographic account and includes north Palestine within the confines of the Iron Age IIA Omride kingdom. According to this view, Upper Galilee and the Hula Valley were generally under the control of Samaria, except for a short Aramaean occupation during the reign of Hazael – soon to be terminated by an Assyrian intervention.31 The second approach gives more weight to Hazael’s words as commemorated in the inscription from Dan. Proponents of this view argue that Hazael’s territorial ambitions went far beyond the borders of Damascus proper and that the northern territories – previously dominated by the local city-states of Geshur and Maacah – were annexed by Damascus and remained under Aramaean control throughout the entire Iron Age IIA. This would mean that Hazael initiated the elaborate building programs we see at the cities of Dan and et-Tell.32 What these two theories have in common is the way their archaeological expectations for the Aramaean presence in Palestine are shaped. In both cases the biblical account, the extra-biblical sources and the archaeological evidence for major destructions have created a biased and over-generalized image of the Aramaeans. As a result, it is not clear if by using the term ‘Aramaeans’ we mean the political control of AramDamascus in the southern Levant, or the presence of a population of Aramaean ethnic orientation, or both. Moreover, our attempts to identify Aramaean imprints on the archaeological record are often accompanied by random checklists composed of architectural features and various objects that are intuitively thought to represent ‘Aramaeans’. Therefore, scholars using the ‘Aramaean paradigm’ point to similarities and differences between contemporary sites, without taking into account the possibility of ecological adaptation and regional sub-cultures. To sum up, the repeated appearance of the Aramaeans as enemies in the biblical historiography and the strong archaeological evidence for Aramaean destructions at southern Levantine sites created a powerful image that resulted in a wholesale adoption of this narrative by archaeologists. Ultimately, the biblical image of the Aramaeans dominated scholarly perspectives, and the role of archaeology was once again limited to confirming or refuting the biblical texts. 25

Mazar 2005: table 2.2. Na‘aman 1997:126; Ussishkin 1997:307. Finkelstein 1998a:216. 28 Finkelstein 1998b:170. 29 Finkelstein 2002:285. 30 Maier 2004; Sharon et al. 2007:39. For discussing the destructions attributed to Hazael see also Kleimann, this volume. 31 E.g., Unger 1957:75–84; Yadin et al. 1958:23; Mazar B. 1962:114–115; Biran 1994:165–209; Ben Tor 2000: 11; Haf‫ګ‬órsson 2006:218,222,229,235f; Mazar A. 2007:159–160. 32 Na’aman 1997:125–127, 2000; 2012:95; Arie 2008:37; Hasegawa 2012:141; Finkelstein 2013: 127–128; Berlejung 2014:352. 26 27

Archaeological Visibility of the Aramaeans at Dan

173

4. In Search of the Archaeology of the Aramaeans Any quest to identify an ‘Aramaean cultural assemblage’ should start with the material culture typical to sites located at the core of the Aramaean cultural sphere. Unlike the material culture of the Neo-Assyrian empire that was produced within a clear political and administrative entity, the vast territory considered ‘Aramaean citystates’ was multi-ethnic and its local art, architecture and other material culture manifestations show no clear distinction between states dominated by Luwians or Aramaeans, and furthermore bespeak a strong Phoenician influence.33 Since the nature of Iron Age II Syrian assemblages was determined by local autonomy, studies such as that of Masetti-Rouault,34 Kühne35 and Bonatz36 have emphasized the importance of regionalism in exploring Iron Age II Syrian material culture. Given the history of north Palestine’s political relations with the Aramaeans, it was expected that the latter’s influence on local material culture would stem from southern Aramaean city-states such as Hamat and Aram-Damascus. The lack of systematic archaeological investigations in central and southern Syria and the growth of modern cities directly over the ancient mounds have prevented archaeological access to these two important sites – and therefore any comprehensive study of their material culture. These methodological difficulties in attaching ethnic labels to the basic elements of the ‘Aramaean assemblage’ in border zones have resulted in a scientific approach that confuses Aramaean political domination with Aramaean ethnic affiliation – which in turn has given rise to a biased image of the Aramaean presence in Iron Age II north Palestine.37 In order for us to be able to untie this knot let us define and frame the archaeological remains that the Aramaean presence in north Palestine might be expected to have left behind. In order to develop such a theory, some means of differentiation between Aramaean political control and a population of Aramaean ethnic orientation is required. 4.1. Expected Archaeological Traces of Aramaean Political Control As was the case with other contemporary Iron Age II dominant political powers, the establishment of Damascene hegemony was achieved by territorial expansion through conquest, with state ideology playing an important role in motivating military action and legitimizing Aramaean rule. Once territorial conquest was achieved, it was to be followed by the imposition of Aramaean political ascendancy. Since the social relations in which such political dominance operates are based upon active expressions of cultural form,38 it is likely that an Aramaean occupation would leave some imprints on local material culture. The archaeological visibility of 33

Aro 2003:281-285; Akkermans and Schwartz 2006:367; Novák 2014:255. Masetti-Rouault 2001:5–8,127–133; 2009:142–143. 35 Kühne 2009:54. 36 Bonatz 2014:205–206. 37 See for instance: Arie 2008:37; Finkelstein 2013:127–128. 38 Miller 2005:64 with theoretical discussion. 34

174

Yifat Thareani

Aramaean political rule would largely be determined by pre-existing local political organizations and by the duration of Aramaean control. In cases where a physical Aramaean presence is minimal, Aramaean imprints would be less visible. In other cases, such as regions which lacked strong central authority, the Aramaeans may be expected to have undertaken a massive reorganization and centralization. Archaeologists are naturally more interested in the second scenario. Therefore, the areas in which Aramaean political rule is likely to have left traces include: town layout; monumental and public architecture; royal inscriptions; established (conformist) cult; and integration of material culture that appears in the core area of the ruling polity. 4.2. Expected Archaeological Traces of a Population with an Aramaean Ethnic Orientation Since the historical sources do not document the daily practices of Aramaeans in regions they conquered and settled in, the archaeological record becomes the primary source in exploring expressions of Aramaean ethnicity and relations with indigenous societies. While it is recognized that ancient ethnic identities were both complex and flexible, certain aspects of material culture may become involved in the self-conscious signification of ethnos.39 Social action and interaction take place in particular contexts –

Figure 1: Tel Dan – general plan of the site.

39 Hodder and Hutson 2004:3. For an example of the problematic nature of ‘the archaeology of ethnicity’ in Palestine, see: Bunimovitz 1990.

Archaeological Visibility of the Aramaeans at Dan

175

involving the production and consumption of distinctive material culture styles.40 Therefore, if groups of northern ethnic orientation had resided in Iron Age southern Levantine sites, they would probably have left some traces on the archaeological record. The following material culture expressions are considered likely to bear ethnic markers: domestic contexts; foodways; non-conformist (popular) cult; burial practices; script; onomastikon; and personal adornments such as jewellery and glyptics. Having established the methodological foundations for the archaeological visibility of both political rule and the presence of ethnic groups, we will now head to Dan.

5. Tel Dan as a Case Study for the Aramaean Presence Situated on one of the three main sources of the Jordan River, the site of Tel Dan (Tell el-QƗdi) exhibits an almost continuous occupation since the fifth millennium BCE (fig. 1). Led by the late Dr Aviram Biran, extensive archaeological excavations at the ‘Mound of the Judge’ since the mid-1960s have yielded a most rich and varied Iron Age II archaeological assemblage.41 The pre-Assyrian occupation at Dan is best represented by Stratum III, when the town covered large portions of the 200-dunam mound and was encompassed by a wellbuilt fortification system (fig. 2). A broad piazza was located in front of the city gate and a paved road led from a lower to an upper gate and from there to a Sacred Precinct.42

Figure 2: Plan of the four-chambered gate complex, Area A, Stratum III. 40

Jones 2003:120,122–123,126. Biran 1994. 42 Biran 1993:327–330. 41

176

Yifat Thareani

Basing itself on the reliability of the biblical record, the traditional view presented by Biran sees Dan as one of the two cultic capitals of the northern Israelite kingdom. According to this view, Dan was initially built by King Jeroboam in Stratum IVA, and later inherited by the Omrides in Stratum III. Biran originally assigned the destruction of Stratum IVA to the Aramaean conquest of Ben-Hadad, as depicted in 1 Kings 15:17–22.43 This conventional approach was challenged in 1993, with the discovery of the midninth century BCE Aramaean inscription in the outer gate complex.44 A different version of Aram-Israel relations emerged from this revelatory finding,45 and Biran modified his views accordingly.46 In 2008 Eran Arie published a reassessment of the Iron Age II strata from Dan, in which he argued that in the absence of clear IAIIA types from the ceramic repertoire of Dan, Stratum IVA should be down-dated to the late ninth-early eighth century BCE and that the once-thriving city was initially built by Hazael rather than by Jeroboam or the Omrides. Arie based this interpretation on various architectural features, ceramic vessels, metal objects and inscriptions, which he regarded as representing the Aramaean occupation at Dan.47 Several studies published since by archaeologists and historians alike have uncritically adopted this view. 48 Although material culture assemblages from Iron Age II Dan are still being processed and some time is needed before we will be able to provide definitive conclusions, a preliminary critical examination of the assemblage is possible as part of this attempt to reveal the nature of the Aramaean presence at Dan. For this purpose, I have divided material culture expressions into two main groups: that of Aramaean political control and that of groups with an Aramaean ethnic orientation. Each component will be briefly presented, along with parallels from contemporary sites in Syro-Mesopotamia and the Levant. 5.1. Archaeological Evidence for Aramaean Political Control Town layout and fortifications. The city of Dan was fortified by large unworked basalt boulders on which was built a mudbrick superstructure, coated with plaster and supported by buttresses. The southern side of the city was occupied by an elaborate gate complex consisting of an inner (four-chambered) gate with two towers in front, beyond which was set an outer gate (fig. 2).49 Biran asserted that the Stratum III fortifications were built by Ahab, sometime around 860–850 BCE.50 Finkelstein, on the other hand, determined that Dan – much like et-Tell – lacks architectural features typical of sites built by the Omrides, such as 43

Biran 1993:324; 1994:159–161,278. Biran and Naveh 1993; 1995. 45 E.g. Knauf, de Pury, and Römer 1994; Yamada 1995; Schniedewind 1996; Na’aman 2000; Athas 2003. 46 Biran 1994:277. 47 Arie 2008:33,35,37. 48 Hasegawa 2012:141; Na’aman 2012:95; Finkelstein 2013:127–128. 49 Biran 1994:235–245. 50 Biran 1993:246–247. 44

Archaeological Visibility of the Aramaeans at Dan

177

a solid wall with offsets and insets and broad four-chambered city gates. Rather, in Finkelstein’s view Dan presents architectural elements that are more properly associated with the Damascene building style.51 This reassessment – emphasizing the architectural difference between Dan, et-Tell and other Iron Age II Israelite sites – requires some critique. When building their cities, Iron Age II Syrian architects incorporated various features: rectangular, circular or semi-circular town layouts, as well as cities with nongeometric plans which followed the organic morphology of a given mound. 52 This ‘functional adjustment’ is too general for us to speak of any specific ‘Syrian’ town plan in north Palestine, especially since several Israelite sites of the ninth century BCE attest to the use of a solid wall with an offset-inset layout, as well as four-chambered gates. Phase C1/7 at Dor is an example of one such site.53 Moreover, the absence of a fortified citadel at Dan – one of the most important features of most Syrian cities (e.g., Karkemish, Til Barsib [Tell Ahmar], Hamath, Damascus, Sam’al [Zincirli], Guzana [Tell Halaf], Hadrak [Tell Afis] and others)54 and the lack of the typical bet Hilani calls into question the credentials of Dan as a typical Aramaean city. Other architectural features from Dan were suggested by Arie to be of Aramaean origin. Prominent among these are the Canopied Structure and decorated capitals. The Canopied Structure. To the right of the city gate – near the corner of one of its towers – was found a rectangular ashlar-built structure with a step in front, flanked by two decorated pumpkin-shaped stones (figs 3–4; Pl. 1:4). A hole at the center of each of these decorated stones probably served to hold up columns which supported a canopy.55 Similar structures appear on Neo-Assyrian reliefs and on the Balawat gates at the summer palace of Shalmaneser III.56 In the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Hittite worlds canopied structures were also used to house the statue of a deity.57 Whether this was the case at Dan or not, it seems that the canopy – often found throughout the entire Syro-Mesopotamian sphere – cannot serve as a clear Aramaean marker either. It should rather be seen as representing some sort of northern influence on the region: Luwian, Syrian or Assyrian. Decorative capitals. Decorative capitals shaped in various botanic forms such as the lotus motif were found among the rubble in the gate’s destruction layer (Pl. 1:1–3).58 The style of these capitals is unusual for sites in Palestine. Rather, they are similar in shape to the furniture decoration ivories from Arslan-Tash (ancient HadƗtu).59 These capitals most likely adorned some sort of monumental public structure that stood at the entrance to the city. It is also important to mention that not far away two Proto-Aeolic 51

Finkelstein 2013:127–128. Novák 2014:256,271. 53 Stern 1993:360; Gilboa and Sharon 2008:163. 54 Novák 2014:257–263 with literature. 55 Biran 1994:239–241, figs 197–198. 56 King and Litt 1915: Pl. XX. 57 See for example Perrot and Chipiez 1884: fig. 71. 58 Biran 1994:243, fig. 202. 59 Thureau-Dangin et al. 1931: Pl. XLIV:92,93. 52

178

Yifat Thareani

Figure 3: The Canopied Structure, view from northeast, Area A, Stratum III.

Figure 4: The Canopied Structure, a suggested reconstruction.

Archaeological Visibility of the Aramaeans at Dan

179

capitals were also found (Pl. 1:5).60 One of these was recovered from destruction debris on the flagstone pavement near the entrance; the other was found in secondary use, incorporated in the wall of the upper gate structure. Proto-Aeolic capitals have been uncovered at royal and administrative Israelite and Judahite cities such as Jerusalem, Megiddo and Hazor, as well as outside Palestine, in Phoenicia, Syria and Mesopotamia.61 The capitals from Dan present a mixture of architectural traditions – some prominent in the Syro-Mesopotamian sphere, others in Palestine. Royal inscription. The Hazael Stele (fig. 5) constitutes a royal summary inscription, the author of which might have selected events from different times and areas and organized them according to his ideological aims. As Na’aman has pointed out, the battle between the Aramaeans and Israelites could have taken place in a remote area and at a different time than the conquest of Dan.62 The act of erecting a royal stele at Dan constituted a deliberate attempt to justify the Aramaean assault and conquest of the Israelite city. However, while it is clear that Hazael captured Dan at a certain point – whether in his early63 or later years64 – the preserved segments of the inscription do not elaborate on the political status of Dan on the eve of the Aramaean campaign; nor do they specify the building initiatives that the Aramaean king carried out in the city following its subjugation.

Figure 5: Hazael Inscription, Area A, Stratum II, found in secondary use in a wall bordering the eastern part of the large pavement. 60

Biran 1994:241, fig. 201. Shiloh 1979; Lipschits 2011. 62 Na’aman 2000:100. 63 Na’aman 2000:100. 64 Yamada 1995:621–622. 61

180

Yifat Thareani

Conformist cult. Intensive excavations in Area T have uncovered the remains of a monumental four-horned altar, as well as other small stone altars, impressive metal implements, painted stands, a tub, a large ceramic assemblage, and burnt faunal remains.65 Following the biblical account of the cultic arrangements which Jeroboam I made at Dan (1 Kgs 12:25–33), Biran dated the initial phase of the Sacred Precinct to the tenth century BCE and the second phase (a headers-and-stretchers ashlar construction) to the ninth century BCE – that is, to the Omride dynasty. 66 Biran then pointed to direct links between the Dan material and the biblical description of the Solomonic temple and went so far as to suggest that – like the temple in Jerusalem – Phoenician masons were involved in its construction.67 On the other hand, line 4 in Hazael’s inscription clearly indicates that during the ninth-century BCE Dan was ruled by Aramaean kings who worshiped Hadad as their patron god. Might not the cult practiced at Dan have honored Hadad instead of YHWH?68 This revolutionary thesis, proposed by several scholars,69 seems to be supported by several unique objects found in the Sacred Precinct at Dan. A scepter or macehead. A bronze and silver scepter or macehead, its top possibly decorated with four lion heads (Pl. 2:1), was uncovered on a floor below the stone altar in one of the Precinct’s western rooms.70 Some fifty-four scepters or maceheads were discovered in Sargon’s Palace at Khorsabad (Dur Sharrukin). Barnett suggested that these objects were brought to Assyria from the west as booty – a notion that is supported by the West-Semitic alphabetic inscriptions on some of these objects, giving the names of their owners. 71 Millard, on the other hand, argued that an Assyrian relief from Khorsabad depicting Assyrian courtiers holding such objects attests to an Assyrian tradition as well. 72 A cuneiform inscription on a macehead or scepter from Nimrud may lend credence to this view.73 The fact that similar objects have been found at sites such as Byblos, Zincirli and Karkemish implies that they were widely distributed across the (northern parts of the?) ancient Near East and were consequently understood as symbols of rank which could apply to a range of dignitaries.74 Scepters or maceheads such as that from Dan are thus common across the entire region stretching from Phoenicia to Assyria. This object could have belonged to a highranking local official rather than the Aramaean ruler of Dan, as previously suggested.

65

Biran 1994:165–203. Biran 1994:165,168,181,184–191. 67 Biran 1994:168. 68 Greer 2014:7. 69 Knauf, de Pury, and Römer 1994:60–69; Noll 1998:4,19,23. 70 Biran 1994:198–199, fig. 156. 71 Barnett 1967:4*, 6*. 72 Millard 1983:103. 73 Curtis 1988:87, fig. 84a–b. 74 Millard 1983:103; Curtis 1988:87. 66

Archaeological Visibility of the Aramaeans at Dan

181

Figure 6: The ashlar-built platform (Bamah B) below the Hellenistic platform, Area T. Note the use of the headers-and-stretchers building technique.

Anthropomorphic faces. Fragments of several anthropomorphic faces were unearthed on a cobbled pavement to the east of a travertine block structure near Bamah A, Stratum IVA (Pl. 2:2). These objects included mask-like representations of a bearded man and a beardless woman or youth, both in relief and painted black and red. The faces seem to have been part of a clay vessel, perhaps a stand.75 Pakman has advanced a case for a Phoenician influence here, pointing to similar masks from Tyre, Sarepta and Hazor that date to the ninth-eighth centuries BCE.76 Monumental architecture. A massive square-like stone structure was discovered in the northern part of the Sacred Precinct (Bamah B) and was attributed by Biran to Stratum III (fig. 6). The structure is built of finely dressed ashlars laid in headers-andstretchers fashion.77 The same building technique appears in other contemporary sites in northern Palestine, such as Samaria, Jezreel and Megiddo, and is currently understood as an Omride architectural tradition.78 To sum up, Dan’s Sacred Precinct lacks Aramaean symbolic features and does not show similarities with any of the Syrian cultic centers, such as those at Ain Dara, Halab (Aleppo), Kunalua (Tell Ta‫ލ‬inat), Karkemish and Hadrak (Tell Afis).79

75

Pakman 2003: figs 1–7. Pakman 2003:199–200. 77 Biran 1994:184. 78 Finkelstein 2013:85–105 with references. 79 Novák 2014:267 with further reading. 76

182

Yifat Thareani

Examination of the architectural and other material culture manifestations from the Sacred Precinct at Dan reveals a clear Phoenician influence, specifically in the ashlar masonry, ceramic repertoire and cultic objects – all typical of the Iron Age II kingdom of Israel.80 5.2. Archaeological Evidence for a Population with an Aramaean Ethnic Orientation Let us turn now to the archaeological evidence for a population of Aramaean ethnic orientation. Perhaps the Aramaeans of Dan will be better seen ‘from below’. Ceramic assemblage. The Stratum III pottery from Tel Dan presents a repertoire that clearly continues the local tradition of Stratum IVA. Counted among these types are: flat bowls with straight walls (Pl. 3:1); round carinated slipped bowls with interior decoration (Pl. 3:2); decorated kraters (Pl. 3:3); cooking pots with pronounced inverted rims (Pl. 3:4–6); round carinated cooking pots with pinched inverted rims (Pls. 3:7–11); round cooking pots with no handles (Pl. 3:12–13); cooking pots with triangular rims (Pl. 4:1–4, 6); late Hippo storejars (Pl. 5:1); bag-shaped storejars (Pl. 5:2) and store jars with ridged neck (Pl. 4:7, 9) – all prevalent in contemporary assemblages of the second half of the ninth century, such as Hazor VIII and Megiddo IVA. Only two possible Syrian influences have been discerned in Dan’s ceramic repertoire thus far: a Cypriot/North Syrian cooking pot (Pl. 2:7) and a decorated amphoriskos (Pl. 2:8). The former, a round handmade cooking pot with plastic band decoration, was found in a domestic context in Area M, Stratum IB of the late eighth- early seventh century BCE. The vessel is made of gray clay that is alien to Dan’s local repertoire. Band-handled cooking pots are known from Iron Age II Cyprus, 81 North Syria and south-eastern Turkey.82 The petrographic profile of these vessels could fit production in either Cyprus or the North Syrian Coast. In Palestine this type appears along the coast at Tel Kabri, Achziv and Ashkelon, suggesting Phoenician distribution intermediaries rather than a direct Syrian influence. 83 The other item representing possible Syrian links, the complete decorated amphoriskos, was found in Area T and was assigned to Stratum IVA. The uniqueness of this type and its context – with parallels found only at En-Gev84 and Hama85 – suggests that it was considered a luxury item. Non-conformist cult. Two bronze plaques were uncovered near the southern wall of Structure B, in the extramural area of the so-called Hu‫܈܈‬ot. The first of these items (Pl. 2:4) comprises fragments of a circular bronze plaque engraved with a winged sun disc atop an offering table flanked by a chair – which probably held an adorned figure – and by a worshiper. Biran pointed out that scenes 80

Briquel-Chatonnet 1992:339–352. Karageorghis 1970: Pl. 50. 82 Lehmann 1996: Pl. 83. 83 Stager, Master, and Schloen 2011:112–114. 84 Mazar et al. 1964: fig. 7. 85 Riis and Buhl 1990: fig. 64:428. 81

Archaeological Visibility of the Aramaeans at Dan

183

such as this are known from the Neo-Hittite, Assyrian and Syrian worlds, and represent funerary meals, banquets and adoration scenes.86 The second plaque (Pl. 2:5) presents two individuals facing each other: a large winged figure, set on the back of a bull, holds a round object in its right hand while stretching out its left toward a smaller figure. Ornan has suggested that this locallymade plaque depicts an adoration scene of a worshiper standing in front of the Hurrian goddess Shaushka, who rides a bull – a tableau which is typical of north Syrian and Anatolian art in the first millennium BCE.87 The presence of such cultic expressions as these plaques in the extramural area of Dan may reflect groups with northern cultural-religious affiliations, practicing their rituals outside the fortified area of the city – but not inside.88 Script. An Aramaic inscription incised on the base of a bowl was discovered in an unauthorized trench dug at Dan during the 1960s (Pl. 2:6). Avigad read this as ēĜĚĔěğ (“of the cooks” or “of the butchers”). In Daniel 2:14 we see the title  ĜĖ ēĜĚĔě Ĕī 89 ēĞğġ (“the chief of the king’s butchers”). A jar bearing an Aramaic inscription ēĜĪĬğ was uncovered during Mazar’s excavations at En-Gev, considered to be an Israelite fortress.90 Avigad read this inscription as “belonging to the butlers or the cupbearers”.91 The two sherds, from Dan and En-Gev, were originally dated to the ninth century BCE92 – too high, according to Sass, who later dated them closer to 800 BCE.93 These two sherds were understood as representing “vessels… (that) were apparently in use in royal or other noble households where the various services had their own equipment”.94 Names. Finally, examination of the names appearing on Iron Age II inscribed objects from Dan reveals a clear Israelite and Phoenician ethnic orientation (e.g., Immadyo, Zecharyo, Amoz and Ba’al Pelet.95

6. Towards A New Framework for the Aramaean Presence at Dan This brief account poses some intriguing questions regarding the archaeological identification and characterization of the Aramaeans in general and their presence at Tel Dan in particular. The above-mentioned methodological difficulties are not surprising, considering the importance of regionalism as now recognized in the archaeological discourse of the ‘Aramaean material culture’.96 86

Biran 1999:52. Ornan 2006:309. 88 For the socio-cultural functions of extramural areas in Iron Age II Palestine see: ThareaniSussely 2008. 89 Avigad 1968:42. 90 Mazar et al. 1964:27–29. 91 Avigad 1968:44. 92 Gibson 1975:5–6. 93 Sass 2005:84. 94 Avigad 1968:44. 95 Biran 1994:255,260–264, figs 213,215,218. 96 Masetti-Rouault 2001:5–8,127–133; 2009:142–143; Kühne 2009:54 and Bonatz 2014:205–206. 87

184

Yifat Thareani

In light of this, a first step towards placing the Aramaeans of north Palestine in context should be deconstructing the vague ‘Aramaean’ entity into its socio-political components – thereby creating a clear distinction between external and internal elements, and between Aramaean political rule and settlers of an Aramaean ethnic orientation. 6.1. Aramaean Political Rule at Dan Hazael’s dedicatory inscription from Dan clearly celebrates a political conflict between Aram-Damascus and Israel, followed by the conquest of areas not previously dominated by Aram-Damascus. This most likely denotes Aramaean control over Dan by the mid-ninth century BCE. Unlike the Mesha Stele, the surviving fragments of the Aramaean inscription do not identify the ruling authority at Dan on the eve of the Aramaean conquest; nor do they specify much about the building activities that the Damascene king initiated in the conquered city. As this incomplete inscription constitutes the only contemporary written source for an Aramaean conquest – the biblical account having been composed relatively late – we are left with the silent archaeological evidence and plenty of questions. What was the nature of the Damascene presence in this border region? Was the latter merely subordinated, or was it colonized? Are we capable of tracing the archaeological imprints of the Aramaean political occupation in north Palestine? Several features of public architecture at Iron Age IIA Dan point to the existence of diverse architectural and artistic traditions: the well-elaborated fortification system – built from local basalt – which is distinct from the typical Israelite casemate wall (fig. 2); the Syro-Mesopotamian-style Canopied Structure (figs 3–4), with its column bases fashioned according to Phoenician and Luwian traditions (Pl. 1:4); the lotus capitals that bring to mind the ivories from Arslan Tash (Pl. 1:1–2); and Hazael’s Inscription (fig. 5) – most of these elements can be found in the so-called ‘Aramaean world’. However, also important for our understanding of the Aramaean presence at Dan is the lack of certain evidence: the absence of an Aramaean citadel or bit hilani, of the types often found at Iron Age II Syrian – not to mention Israelite – sites; the fact that we see nothing reminiscent of Aramaean cultic practice within the walls of Dan; and the lack of stela of the type found at et-Tell or other contemporary Syrian sites. This dearth of evidence challenges the currently favoured archaeological view of Aramaean political rule. Moreover, several public architectural features from Dan were fashioned in the typical Israelite spirit: the ashlar-built platform of the Sacred Precinct (Fig. 6), the cultic remains and the Proto-Aeolic capitals (Pl. 1:5) – all are reminiscent of contemporary Iron Age II sites in the kingdom of Israel. It seems, then, that archaeology does not provide us with clear answers regarding the nature of the Aramaean control strategy and the extent of its involvement in building the Iron Age IIA city at Dan.

Archaeological Visibility of the Aramaeans at Dan

185

6.2. Groups of an Aramaean Ethnic Orientation at Dan A different perspective on ‘Aram-Israel relations’ is provided by Joshua 13:13: Yet the Israelites did not drive out the Geshurites or the Maacathites; but Geshur and Maacath live within Israel to this day. (NRSV)

This passage, most likely written in far-away seventh century BCE Jerusalem, describes Israel’s failure to the autochthonic inhabitants of the land “until this day.” It denotes a clear Deuteronomistic concern with the existence of an indigenous nonIsraelite population in this peripheral region.97 In my opinion, this text also has farreaching implications for our understanding of social makeup in Iron Age II Israel’s northern border. Scholars have detected the presence of an indigenous Aramaean population in north Palestine dating back to as early as the Iron Age I.98 A survey of the material culture found at Iron Age IIA Dan supports the notion that the local population was composed of diverse ethnic elements: former Canaanites, Phoenicians and Syrians – some with sedentary origins, others of semi-nomadic roots. Certain of these social elements occupied the Hula Valley and adjacent regions long before the emergence of the territorial kingdoms of Aram and Israel; they developed an original culture with distinctive characteristics, in which material memories of their ethnic origins were manifested. The local ceramic repertoire, domestic architecture, script and names found in Stratum III – typical of contemporary Israelite sites – all point to a strong ‘Israelite’ and ‘Phoenician’ ethnic presence, while the non-established cult objects and the Aramaic inscription clearly reflect the existence of a local population element of Syrian ethnic orientation. This local multi-ethnic society developed as the regional culture of the Iron Age IIA Hula Valley. In this way, interaction between Israelites, Aramaeans and Phoenicians – attested through local material culture – resulted in a hybrid style in which various ethnic traditions were embedded.

7. Conclusions The longstanding methodological difficulty in isolating ‘Aramaean material culture’ within the larger regional repertoire resulted in local Iron Age IIA Hula Valley material culture being in part mistaken as a reflection of Aramaean political rule in the region. So-called ‘Aramaean material culture’ – a construct of modern research – is actually a mixture of cultural traditions that co-existed in the region during the ninth century BCE. The powerful impact of the biblical account, coupled with difficulties in discerning and isolating the archaeological correlates of the Aramaean cultural element, created a situation in which ‘Aramaean’ became a catch-all term for the various northern elements present in the region. ‘Aramaean material culture’ cannot be re97 98

Geoghegan 2003:215–216; Na’aman 2012:89–90, 97. Ilan 1999:212–213; Na’aman 2012:95–96 contra Pakkala 2010; 2013.

186

Yifat Thareani

garded as evidence for direct Aramaean political rule; nor can it be treated as corresponding to any ‘Aramaean’ ethnic group that resided at Dan during this period. From an archaeological point of view Dan is as Israelite or Phoenician as it is Syrian. Northern styles and influences – found throughout the entire kingdom of Israel – were naturally more visible along its northern border, in areas inhabited by local ethnic elements. Aramaean culture in north Palestine seems to display multiple structural aspects – regional, social, occupational and ethnic. What we see are the remains of a hybrid material culture reflecting the regional communities that developed in Syria and Lebanon. At this point archaeology cannot provide a decisive answer to the question: who initiated the building of the ninth century BCE city at Dan? What we may say is that – very much like the biblical account – the archaeological evidence from Dan tells the story of two conflicting yet simultaneous Israelite-‘Aramaean’ relationships: one of social kinship with a local population of Aramaean ethnic orientation, and another involving political rivalry between two neighbouring kingdoms. Acknowledgements My quest for the Aramaeans at Dan has been made possible thanks to the logistical and financial support of the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology, Hebrew Union College and the Shelby White and the Leon Levy Program for Archaeological Publications. The foundations for this study were laid during my post-doctoral studies at the École Pratique des Hautes Études, Paris under the ever-dedicated direction of Prof. Maria-Grazia Masetti-Rouault. I also wish to express my gratitude to Prof. Nadav Na’aman for challenging conversations and ideas, Dr David Ilan for clearing the fog over Dan, Conn Herriott for editing, Avraham Biran for taking the aerial photos, Ze'ev Radovan for photographing the objects, Noga Zeevi for producing figures and maps and Levana Zias for her constant help.

Bibliography AKKERMANS, P. M. M. G. and SCHWARTZ, G. M., 2006. The Archaeology of Syria: From Complex Hunter-Gatherers to Early Urban Societies (c. 16,000–300 B.C.), Cambridge ARAV, R., 2009. Bethsaida. A City by the North Shore of the Sea of Galilee, volume 4, Ann Arbor ARIE, E., 2008. Reconsidering the Iron Age II Strata at Tel Dan: Archaeological and Historical Implications, TA 35: 6–64 ARO, S., 2003. Art and Architecture, in: The Luwians (HdO 1/68), ed. H. C. Melchert, Leiden, 281– 337 ATHAS, G., 2003. The Tel Dan Inscription: A Reappraisal and a New Interpretation (JSOTS 360), Sheffield AVIGAD, N., 1968. An Inscribed Bowl from Tel Dan, PEQ 100, 42–44 AXSKJÖLD, C. J., 1998. Aram as the Enemy Friend: The Ideological Role of Aram in the Composition of Genesis – 2 Kings (CBOT 45), Stockholm BARNETT, R. D., 1967. Layard’s Nimrud Bronzes and Their Inscriptions, EI 9: 1*–7* BEN AMI, D. 2012. The Iron Age II (Strata VIII–VII), in: Hazor VI: The 1990–2009 Excavations. The Iron Age II, ed. A. Ben Tor, D. Ben Ami and D. Sandhouse, Jerusalem, 154–285 BEN TOR, A., 2000. Hazor and Chronology of Northern Israel: A Reply to Israel Finkelstein, BASOR 317: 9–15

Archaeological Visibility of the Aramaeans at Dan

187

BERLEJUNG, A., 2014. Outlook: Aramaeans Outside of Syria. Palestine, in: The Aramaeans in Ancient Syria (HdO 1/106), ed. H. Niehr, Leiden, 339–365 BERNETT, M. and O. KEEL, 1998. Mond, Stier und Kult am Stadttor: Die Stele von Betsaida (et-Tell) (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 161), Fribourg BIRAN, A., 1993. Dan, in: NEAEHL 1, ed. E. Stern, Jerusalem, 323–332 ௅: 1994. Biblical Dan, Jerusalem ௅: 1999. Two Bronze Plaques and the Hussot of Dan, IEJ 49: 43–54 ௅: 2002. Part I: A Chronicle of the Excavations, in: Dan II. A Chronicle of the Excavations and the Late Bronze Age “Mycenaean Tomb”, ed. A. Biran and R. Ben-Dov, Jerusalem, 3–32 BIRAN, A. and J. NAVEH, 1993. An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan, IEJ 43: 81–98 ௅: 1995. The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment, IEJ 45: 1–18 BONATZ, D., 2014. Art, in: The Aramaeans in Ancient Syria (HdO 1/106), ed. H. Niehr, Leiden, 206– 253 BRIQUEL-CHATONNET, F., 1992. Les relations entre les cités de la côte Phénicienne et les royaumes d’Israël et de Juda (OLA 24, Studia Phoenicia XII), Leuven BUNIMOVITZ, S., 1990. Problems in the “Ethnic” Identification of the Philistine Material Culture, TA 17: 210–222 CURTIS, J., 1988. Bronzeworking Centers of Western Asia c. 1000–539 B.C., London DION, P. E., 1997. Les Araméens a l'âge du Fer: Histoire politique et structure sociale, Paris ௅: 1999. The Tel Dan Stele and Its Historical Significance, in: Michael: Historical, Epigraphical and Biblical Studies in Honor of Prof. Michael Heltzer, ed. Y. Avishur and R. Deutsch, Tel Aviv, 145–156 FINKELSTEIN, I., 1998a. Notes on the Stratigraphy and Chronology of Iron Age Ta‫ދ‬anach, TA 25: 208–218 ௅: 1998b. Bible Archaeology or Archaeology of Palestine in Iron Age? A Rejoinder, Levant 30: 167– 174 ௅: 1999. Hazor and the North in the Iron Age: A Low Chronology Perspective, BASOR 314: 55-70. ௅: 2002. Gezer Revisited and Revised. TA 29: 262–296 ௅: 2013. The Forgotten Kingdom. The Archaeology and History of Ancient Israel (SBL Ancient Near East Monographs 5), Atlanta FINKELSTEIN, I. and E. PIASETZKY, 2007. Radiocarbon, Iron Age IIa Destructions and the IsraelAram Damascus Conflicts in the 9th Century BCE, UF 39: 261–276 ௅: 2009. Radiocarbon-Dated Destruction Layers: A Skeleton for Iron Age Chronology in the Levant, OJA 28: 255–274 GADD, C. J., 1954. Inscribed Prisms of Sargon II from Nimrud, Iraq 16: 173–201 GEOGHEGAN, J. C., 2003. “Until this Day” and the Preexilic Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History, JBL 122: 201–227 GIBSON, J. C. L., 1975. Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions II. Aramaic Inscriptions, Oxford GILBOA, A. and I. SHARON, 2008. Between the Carmel and the Sea. Tel Dor’s Iron Age Reconsidered, NEA 71: 146–170 GREER, J., 2014. Was “Israelite” Sacrifice Practiced at Tel Dan?, in: The Bible and Interpretation, ed. M. Elliott, http://www.bibleinterp.com/PDFs/Greer_Dan-Bible.pdf (accessed 20-06-2015) HAF‫ڪ‬ÓRSSON, S., 2006. A Passing Power: An Examination of the Sources for the History of AramDamascus in the Second Half of the Ninth Century B.C. (CBOT 54), Stockholm HASEGAWA, S., 2012. Aram and Israel during the Jehuite Dynasty (BZAW 434), Berlin HODDER, I. and S. HUTSON, 2004. Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology, Cambridge ILAN, D., 1999. Northeastern Israel in the Iron Age I: Cultural, Socioeconomic and Political Perspectives (PhD Dissertation, Tel Aviv University), Tel Aviv JONES, S., 2003. The Archaeology of Ethnicity, London and New York KARAGEORGHIS, V., 1970. Excavations in the Necropolis of Salamis, Vol. 2, Nicosia

188

Yifat Thareani

KING, L. W. and D. LITT (eds), 1915. Bronze Reliefs from the Gates of Shalmaneser King of Assyria B.C. 860–825, London KNAUF, E. A., A. DE PURY and T. RöMER, 1994. *BaytDawîd ou *BaytDod? Une relecture de la nouvelle inscription de Tel Dan, BN 72: 60–69 KRAELING, E. G. A., 1918. Aram and Israel: or, The Aramaeans in Syria and Mesopotamia, New York KÜHNE, H., 2009. Interaction of Aramaeans and Assyrians in the Lower Khabur, Syria 86: 43–54 LEHMANN, G., 1996. Untersuchungen zur späten Eisenzeit in Syrien und Libanon: Stratigraphie und Keramikformen zwischen ca. 720 bis 300 v. Chr (Altertumskunde des Vorderen Orients 5), Münster LIPIēSKI, E., 2000. The Aramaeans: their Ancient History, Culture, Religion (OLA 100), Leuven LIPSCHITS, O. 2011. The Origin and Date of the Volute Capitals from the Levant, in The Fire Signals of Lachish. Studies in the Archaeology and History of Israel in the Late Bronze Age, Iron Age and Persian Period in Honor of David Ussishkin, eds. I. Finkelstein and N. Na‫ތ‬aman, Winona Lake, 203–225 LOZA VERA, J., 2001. La berît entre Laban et Jacob (GN 31.43–54), in: The world of the Aramaeans I. Biblical Studies in Honour of Paul-Eugène Dion (JSOTS 324), ed. P. M. M. Daviau, M. Weigl and J. W. Wevers Weigl, Sheffield, 57–69 MAIER, A., 2003. Notes and News: Tell eৢ-ৡafi/Gath, 1996–2002, IEJ 53: 237–246 ௅: 2004. The Historical Background and Dating of Amos VI 2: An Archaeological Perspective from Tell eৢ-ৡafi/Gath, VT 54: 319–334 MAIER, A. and C. S. Ehrlich, 2001. Excavating Philistine Gath; Have We Found Goliath’s Hometown? BAR 27/6: 22–31 MAIER, A. and S. GUR-ARIEH, 2011. Comparative Aspects of the Aramaean Siege System at Tell eৢৡafi/Gath, in: The Fire Signals of Lachish: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Israel in the Late Bronze Age, Iron Age and Persian Period in Honor of David Ussishkin, ed. I. Finkelstein and N. Na’aman, Winona Lake, 227–244 MASETTI-ROUAULT, M. G., 2001. Cultures locales du Moyen-Euphrate. Modèles et événements, IIe– Ier mill. av. J.-C. (Subartu VIII), Turnhout ௅: 2009. Cultures in Contact in the Syrian Lower Middle Euphrates Valley: Aspects of the Local Cults in the Iron Age II, Syria 86: 141–147 MAZAR, A., 2005. The Debate over the Chronology of the Iron Age in the Southern Levant: It's History, the Current Situation, and a Suggested Resolution, in: The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science, ed. T. E. Levy and T. Higham, London, 15–30 ௅: 2007. The Spade and the Text: The Interaction between Archaeology and the Israelite History Relating to the tenth-Ninth Centuries BCE, in: Understanding the History of Ancient Israel, ed. H. G. M. Williamson, Oxford, 143–171 MAZAR, A., H. J. BRUINS, N. PANITZ-COHEN and J. VAN DER PLICHT, 2005. Ladder of Time at Tel Rehov: Stratigraphy, Archaeological Context, Pottery and Radiocarbon Dates, in: The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science, ed. T. E. Levy and T. Higham, London, 193–255 MAZAR, B., 1961. Geshur and Maacha, JBL 80: 16–28 ௅: 1962. The Aramaean Empire and Its Relation with Israel, BA 25: 98–120 MAZAR, B., et al., 1964. ‘Ein Gev Excavations in 1961, IEJ 14: 1–49 MILLARD, A. R., 1983. Assyrians and Aramaeans, Iraq 45: 101–108 MILLER, D., 2005. The Limits of Dominance, in: Domination and Resistance (One World Archaeology 3), ed. D. Miller, M. Rowlands and C. Tilley, London, 63–80 NAࡓ AMAN, N., 1995. Hazael of ‫ދ‬Amqi and Hadadezer of Rehob, UF 27: 381–394 ௅: 1997. Historical and Literary Notes on the Excavation of Tel Jezreel, TA 24: 122–128 ௅: 2000. Three Notes on the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan, IEJ 50: 92–104 ௅: 2005. Ancient Israel and Its Neighbors: Interaction and Counteraction, Winona Lake

Archaeological Visibility of the Aramaeans at Dan

189

௅: 2006. Ancient Israel’s History and Historiography: The First Temple Period, Winona Lake ௅: 2012. The Kingdom of Geshur in History and Memory, SJOT 26: 88–101 NIEHR, H. ed., 2014. The Aramaeans in Ancient Syria (Handbook of oriental studies 1/106), Leiden NOLL, K. L., 1998. The God Who Is among the Danites, JSOT 80: 3–23 NOVÁK, M., 2014. Architecture, in: The Aramaeans in Ancient Syria (Handbook of oriental studies 1/106), ed. H. Niehr, Leiden, 255–271 ORNAN, T., 2006. The Lady and the Bull: Remarks on the Bronze plaque from Tel Dan, in: Essays on Ancient Israel in Its near Eastern Context. A Tribute to Nadav Na’aman, ed. Y. Amit, et al., Winona Lake, 297–312 PAKKALA, J., 2010. What Do We Know about Geshur? SJOT 24: 155–173 -: 2013. The Methodological Hazards in Reconstructing the So-called Kingdom of Geshur, SJOT 27: 226–246 PAKMAN, D., 2003. “Mask Like” Face Reliefs on a Painted Stand from the Sacred Precinct at Tel Dan, Eretz Israel 27: 196–203 (in Hebrew with English Summary) PERROT, G. and C. CHIPIEZ, 1884. Histoire de l’art dans l’antiquité, II, Paris PITARD, W. T., 1987. Ancient Damascus, Winona Lake RIIS, P. J. and M-L., BUHL, 1990. Les objets de la periode dite Syro-Hittite (Age du Fer) (Hama, fouilles et recherché, 1931–1938: 2.2), Copenhagen SADER, H., 2010. The Aramaeans of Syria: Some Considerations on Their Origin and Material Culture, in: The Book of Kings: Sources, Composition, Historiography and Reception (VTS 129), Leiden, 271–300 ௅: 2014. History, in: The Aramaeans in Ancient Syria (HdO 1/106), ed. H. Niehr, Leiden, 11–36 SASS, B., 2005. The Alphabet at the Turn of the Millennium (Tel Aviv Occasional Publications 4), Tel Aviv SCHNIEDEWIND, W. M., 1996. The Tel Dan Stele: New Light on Aramaic and Jehu’s Revolt, BASOR 302: 82–86 SHARON, I., A. GILBOA, T. A. J. JULL and E. BOARETTO, 2007. Report on the First Stage of the Iron Age Dating Project in Israel: Supporting a Low Chronology, Radiocarbon 49: 1–46 SHILOH, Y., 1979. The Proto-Aeolic Capital and Israelite Ashlar Masonry (Qedem 11), Jerusalem STAGER, L. E., D. M. MASTER and J. D. SCHLOEN, 2011. Ashkelon 3. The Seventh Century B.C (Final Reports of the Leon Levy Expedition to Ashkelon), Winona Lake STERN, E., 1993. Dor, in: NEAEHL 1, ed. E. Stern, Jerusalem, 357–368 TADMOR, H., 1962. The Southern Border of Aram, IEJ 12: 114–122 ௅: 1994. The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III King of Assyria. Critical Edition, with Introductions, Translations and Commentary. Jerusalem THAREANI-SUSSELY, Y., 2008. Desert Outsiders: Extra-Mural Neighborhoods in the Iron Age Negev, in: Bene-Israel. Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and the Levant during the Bronze and Iron Ages in Honour of Israel Finkelstein, ed. A. Fantalkin and A. Yasur Landau, Leiden, 197–212 THUREAU-DANGIN, F., A. BARRIOS, G. DOSSIN and M. DUNAND, 1931. Arslan-Tash, Paris UNGER, M. F., 1957. Israel and the Aramaeans of Damascus: A Study in Archaeological Illumination of Bible, Grand Rapids USSISHKIN, D., 1997. Samaria, Jezreel and Megiddo: Royal Centers of Omri and Ahab, in Ahab Agonistes. The Rise and Fall of the Omri Dynasty (Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 421), ed. L. L. Grabbe, London, 293–309 ௅: 2009. The So-called Aramaean ‘Siege Trench’ in Tell eৢ-ৡafi, Ancient Gath, IEJ 59: 137–157 YADIN, Y., Y. AHARONI, E. DUNAYEVSKI, T. DOTHAN, R. AMIRAN and J. PERROT, 1958. Hazor I: An Account of the First Season of Excavations, 1955, Jerusalem YAMADA, S., 1995. Aram-Israel Relations as Reflected in the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan, UF 27: 611–625

190

Yifat Thareani

Plate 1

191

Archaeological Visibility of the Aramaeans at Dan

Table 1. Selected columns and capitals, Iron Age II Tel Dan, shown in Plate 1: No. 1

Object Lotus-shaped capital

Reg. No. 12802/2

Area T

Loc. 2452

Str. Mixed

2

Decorated capital

36043/2

T

9613

Mixed

3

Lotus-shaped capital Pumpkinshaped stone

15622/1

A

5112

III

3317/1

A

48

III

Proto-Aeolic capital

15736/1,2

A

5133

III

4

5

Context In secondary use – a fill in a wall, dated to the Hellenistic period In secondary use – a fill in a wall, dated to the Roman period Destruction level of the gate complex Southwest corner of the Canopied Structure, in situ Destruction debris on the flagstone pavement in front the gate

Date -

Mid-9th century Mid-9th century Mid-9th century

192

Yifat Thareani

Plate 2

193

Archaeological Visibility of the Aramaeans at Dan

Table 2: Selected objects and vessels, Iron Age II Tel Dan, shown in Plate 2: No. 1

Object Sceptre/mace head

Reg. No. 30123/1

Area T

Loc. 9057

Str. III

2

Anthropomorphic faces

12114/1

T

2311

III

3

Decorated stand

12122/1

T

2311

III

4

Bronze plaque with a worshipping figure Bronze plaque with a deity riding a bull Aramaic inscribed bowl (“ltbhya”) North Syrian/Cypriot cooking pot Decorated amphoriskos with a ring base and handles attached to the body

56897/1

A

5402

III

56501/1

A

5451

-

-

21161/1

11721/2

5

6 7

8

Context Under the stones of the altar On a cobbled pavement to the east of a travertine block structure On a cobbled pavement to the east of a travertine block structure Hussot, Structure B

Date Mid-9th century Mid-9th century

III

Hussot, Structure B

Mid-9th century

-

III?

Surface

M

8309

Ib

Atop a stone pavement

T

2093

Iva

Among restorable vessels on a surface

Mid-9th century 7th – early 6th century Early 9th century

Mid-9th century Mid-9th century

194

Yifat Thareani

Plate 3

Archaeological Visibility of the Aramaeans at Dan

195

Table 3: Selected pottery vessels, Iron Age II Tel Dan, shown in Plate 3: No. 1

Type BL

Subtype Flat bowl with straight walls

Reg. No. 6126/8

Area B

Loc. 417

Sherd Rim and body Rim and body

2

BL

Round carinated slipped bowl. Decorated interior

763/17

B

168

3

KR

Decorated krater

763/18

B

168

Rim

4

CP

3682/1

AB

916

Rim

5

CP

3682/2

AB

916

Rim

6

CP

3682/4

AB

916

Rim

7

CP

3732/1

AB

952

Rim

8

CP

3732/2

AB

952

Rim

9

CP

3663/1

AB

916

Rim

10

CP

3678/4

AB

916

Rim

11

CP

3678/3

AB

916

Rim

12

CP

6190/5

B

417

13

CP

Cooking pot with pronounced inverted rim Cooking pot with pronounced inverted rim Cooking pot with pronounced inverted rim Round carinated cooking pots with pinched inverted rim Round carinated cooking pots with pinched inverted rim Round carinated cooking pots with pinched inverted rim Round carinated cooking pots with pinched inverted rim Round carinated cooking pots with pinched inverted rim Round cooking pots with no handles Round cooking pots with no handles

6115/7

B

417

Rim and body Rim

Notes Exterior and interior red slipped and wheel burnished Red slipped. Rim burnished exterior. Brown horizontal stripe interior Bright slip exterior and on rim. Red and black horizontal stripes

196

Yifat Thareani

Plate 4

Table 4: Selected pottery vessels, Iron Age II Tel Dan, shown in Plate 4: No. 1 2 3 4 5

Type CP CP CP CP CP

6

CP

7 8 9

SJ SJ SJ

Subtype Cooking pot with triangular rim Cooking pot with triangular rim Cooking pot with triangular rim Cooking pot with triangular rim Round carinated cooking pot with pinched inverted rim Cooking pot with triangular straight rim Storejar with ridged neck Storejar with ridged neck

Reg. No. 6126/4 6211/2 6142/4 6199/1 6211/1

Area B B B B B

Loc. 417 429 417 423 429

Sherd Rim Rim and body Rim and body Half complete Rim and body

6114/2

B

417

Rim and body

3733/1 763/6 763/7-8

AB B B

952 168 168

Rim Rim Rim

197

Archaeological Visibility of the Aramaeans at Dan

Plate 5.

Table 5: Selected pottery vessels, Iron Age II Tel Dan, shown in Plate 5: No. 1 2

Type SJ SJ

Subtype Late Hippo storejar Bag-shaped storejar

Reg. No. 631/1 632/11

Area B B

Loc. 119 119

Sherd Complete Complete

Aram and Israel during the 10th–9th centuries BCE, or Iron Age IIA The Alphabet Benjamin Sass, Tel Aviv University 1. Introduction The present work sets out from the Aramaic segments in a recent article,1 and elaborates further on the Aram–Israel interface, and on the earliest alphabetic writing among the Aramaeans – in the tenth and ninth centuries. 1.1. Chronology The majority of the inscriptions dealt with herein are dated by their archaeological context. The focusing on stratified Iron IIA texts from an extended region was hardly ever undertaken before Finkelstein and Sass’s publication of 2013. Indeed most such texts emerged in excavations in the last 10–15 years. Royal inscriptions can alternatively be dated by the mention of a known ruler. I did not draw conclusions from nonroyal inscriptions with just palaeographical dating, and no context. The absolute dates employed are as follows:2 Early Iron IIA – ca 950–900/880 BCE Late Iron IIA1 – ca 900/880–840 BCE Late Iron IIA2 – ca 840–800/780 BCE3 The dates of the first two phases are often rounded off herein as “second half of the tenth century,” and “first half of the ninth” or “ca 900–850”. 1

Finkelstein and Sass 2013. See in detail, Finkelstein and Sass 2013:179–180; Sass forthcoming. 3 “Historical observations and destruction layers in sites such as Megiddo Stratum VA–IVB, Tel Reতov V and IV and Tell eৢ-ৡafi/Gath A3 lead us to propose an historical (not stratigraphic or ceramic) subdivision of late Iron IIA into late Iron IIA1 and IIA2. They represent the rule of the Omrides and of Hazael respectively. This distinction plays a role in our attempt to reconstruct the spread and development of the alphabet during the Iron IIA. The late Iron IIA1 is identified mainly in the north – Megiddo VA–IVB and its contemporaries, and the late Iron IIA2 mainly in the south – e.g., Lachish IV, Beer-sheba V and Arad XI. The late Iron IIA2 in the north is represented by the “post Jezreel enclosure” layers of Herzog and Singer-Avitz (2006:184–185). In the south, with no Hazael destructions in Judah (cf. Kleiman, this volume), the late Iron IIA1 may be represented by the latter part of chiefly early Iron IIA layers (for instance Lachish V and Tel Masos II), and the early days of late Iron IIA2 to early Iron IIB layers (for example Beth-shemesh 3).” (Finkelstein and Sass 2013:152). 2

200

Benjamin Sass

What led me in the first place to prefer I. Finkelstein’s absolute chronology was a point of particular relevance to several contributions in the present volume – the synchronization of the northern and southern halves of the Levant this system affords. In contrast, the high Biblical–archaeological chronology placed the Iron I–II transition in the southern Levant about 1000 BCE, parallel to David’s ‘traditional’ accession date, while in the northern Levant this transition was mainly associated with the formation of the first Aramaean states, documented in particular under Adad-narari II (912– 891).4 The gulf separating specialists working in Syria and in Israel often led to unawareness that the synchronization posed a problem, and in the few studies combining both halves of the Levant, this issue was more or less avoided.5 For the high Israeli archaeology chronology, too, this lack of synchronization proved to be of little interest. The relative chronology or archaeological periodization, on the other hand, should in principle be generally agreed, even though a stratigraphie comparée of both halves of the Levant remains largely a desideratum. The issue of a comparative stratigraphy is related to the question of whether early and late Iron IIA can be separated stratigraphically and ceramically in the northern and central Levant too, at sites such as Tell Ahmar, Tell Afis, Tell Ta‫ލ‬yinat and Tell Kazel. If they do, could the surge of West Semitic state-foundations belong rather to late Iron IIA, similarly to what has been proposed for Israel? These issues are beyond the scope of the present paper.6 1.2. History of Research Aramaic inscriptions dating to the eighth century BCE and later are common; earlier ones are quite rare. In 1970, when Joseph Naveh published his ground-breaking study on the development of the Aramaic script, he had at his disposal just one text dated historically to before 800 BCE: an inscribed ivory of Hazael, king of Damascus ca. 840–805 BCE (fig. 1 herein).7 Naveh also knew of two stratified non-royal Aramaic inscriptions on pottery vessels (figs 2–3 herein) from Iron IIA contexts;8 today we would label the period ‘late Iron IIA’. These came from north-eastern Israel; none from the Aramaic lands in present-day Syria or southern Turkey. In subsequent years a few more pre 800 BCE monuments and prestige objects bearing royal Aramaic inscriptions came to light, but not stratified alphabetic inscriptions of Iron IIA; Aramaic or other, they are an entirely new phenomenon in Israeli archaeology, most of them known for no longer than a decade. Beside Tel Reতov they were found at Khirbet Qeiyafa and Tell eৢ-ৡafi/Gath, two sites not addressed herein;9 still 4

E.g. Finkelstein, Sass and Singer-Avitz 2008:12; Mazzoni 2014:686–687. E.g. Klengel 1992:193, and passim. 6 They might constitute a worthy subject for a doctoral dissertation. 7 Naveh 1970:7. 8 Naveh 1970:13. 9 But see Finkelstein and Sass 2013:157–160; Sass forthcoming. In Iron I the alphabet – still probably restricted to Philistia – undoubtedly existed, but there are practically no stratified inscriptions that can be attributed to this period with absolute certainty (Finkelstein and Sass 2013: 157–161, and passim). 5

Aram and Israel during the Iron Age IIA: The Alphabet

201

none from excavations beyond present-day Israel as far as I know. 10 In contrast, older research of the alphabet ca 1100–800 depended largely on palaeographical dating of unstratified or unprovenanced texts, which was frequently too high.11 1.3. A Note of Caution Finkelstein and Sass 2013, the stepping stone for the present study, is but a first exploratory attempt.12 As noted above, the stratified inscriptions of the periods under discussion are still extremely rare, so that the picture we were outlining had to generalize from very few examples, occasionally in fact from a single one, as in the case of Tel Reতov inscription no. 2 for early Iron IIA. Our sketch will certainly change and evolve with new discoveries and insights.

Figure 1: Hazael ivory, Arslan Tash, originally Damascus; Arslan Tash: 135.

3

2 Figure 2: En Gev jar; Mazar B. et al. 1964: fig. 8: 1 [jar]; Ahituv and Mazar 2014: fig. 12, courtesy A. Mazar, Tel Tel Reতov Excavations, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem [inscription]. Figure 3: Hazor sherd 4440; Hazor III–IV: Pl. 357:1. 10

But see note 43 on the archaic-looking letters on the unstratified Halaf ‘altar’, and note 63 on the stratigraphic and 14C dating of the texts on plaster from Tell Deir ‫ޏ‬Alla in Jordan. 11 Addressed in Finkelstein and Sass 2013:182–183; see further notes 61 and 72 herein. 12 See Finkelstein and Sass 2013:203.

202

Benjamin Sass

2. The Earliest stratified alphabetic inscriptions on Aram-Damascus’ south-western border The present chapter deals with the alphabet’s development in the upper Jordan Valley, and the next one with its development in the Aramaean territories as a whole. 2.1. Inscriptions of Early Iron IIA, ca 950–900/880 BCE The Inscriptions. It is in early Iron IIA that stratified alphabetic inscriptions are first found beyond the core area of Philistia – on the border between Israel and Aram Damascus – at Tel Reতov,13 none yet in other sites in the region.14 Tel Reতov inscription no. 2 from Stratum VI is incised twice on a complete jar (fig. 4).15 The jar certainly belongs to the stratum in which it was found, while the same is less obvious for the two inscribed sherds, nos. 1 and 3 from the same stratum, with one and two letters respectively,16 that could alternatively be strays. Tel Reতov 2 came from an early phase of Stratum VI,17 which suits besides the specific type of the jar, whose floruit was rather in late Iron I.18 The text of Tel Reতov 2, a complete word, is just three-letters long – mtҴ. The script is taken up in Sections 2.3 and 3.2.

Figure 4: Tel Reতov jar 2; Ahituv and Mazar 2014: fig. 2, courtesy A. Mazar, Tel Reতov Excavations, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 13

Finkelstein and Sass 2013:177; note 72 herein. No inscriptions were found in Beth-shean Level S-1b, which might belong to the early Iron IIA (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2006:175; Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2006:185 – references from I. Finkelstein). At Hazor and Dan there is apparently a gap. 15 Mazar and Ahituv 2011:300–302; Finkelstein and Sass 2013:161; Ahituv and Mazar 2014:40– 42. 16 Loc. cit.; not illustrated herein. 17 Ahituv and Mazar 2014:40. 18 Arie 2006:212. 14

Aram and Israel during the Iron Age IIA: The Alphabet

203

The Language. For the question of the language of this text (or of any other as brief), three criteria might have been invoked, but in the present case they are only minimally helpful. 1. Considering the geographical position of Tel Reতov, the population may have included speakers of Aramaic as well as speakers of Israelite Hebrew. 2. At this early stage there was no difference yet between the letter-shapes used by speakers of the various West Semitic languages.19 3. Nor is mtҴ, probably a personal name, necessarily indicative of a specific language: If it is a hypocoristic with ntn, “to give”,20 it may be either Hebrew or Aramaic.21 But the etymology of mtҴ could be different;22 we do not know for sure. Summarizing the identification of Tel Reতov 2, there is no certainty that this inscription, dating to the middle or second half of the tenth century BCE, is the earliest Aramaic text known today, but the possibility exists. As Damascus remains unexplored, it is Tel Reতov in early Iron IIA that might furnish the first tangible evidence for alphabetic writing among the Aramaeans.23 2.2. Inscriptions of the Earlier Part of Late Iron IIA, ca 900/880–840 BCE The next archaeological period is late Iron IIA, or rather its earlier part.24 The Inscriptions. These first ‘post Proto-Canaanite’ texts at Tel Reতov Strata V–IV come in two variants – Hebrew and ‘undifferentiated non-Hebrew’. The latter variant is represented for certain at late Iron IIA Tel Reতov on just a single complete vessel, Tel Reতov no. 6 from Stratum IV, bearing a personal name (?) (fig. 5).25 Practically no contemporary texts were found in other sites on the Israel–Aram border (fig. 6): Much-excavated Beth-shean, not far away from Tel Reতov, yielded no Iron IIA inscriptions at all. At En-gev, a jar bearing one word was unearthed in a late Iron IIA context, probably quite late within this phase (fig. 2 herein).26 At Hazor the five earliest inscriptions, all of them on potsherds, come from Stratum VIII of the end of late Iron IIA and the beginning of Iron IIB; one among them could belong to either Stratum IX or VIII (fig. 3 herein).27 Continuing northwards, Tel Dan gave us the famous monumental inscription (fig. 7), which should probably date late in late Iron IIA, but no stratified inscriptions preceding the eighth century. If Dan was poorly settled in Iron IIA except at its very end,28 this could explain the said absence. 19

Finkelstein and Sass 2013:174–175. Cf. Zadok 1982:261; WSS:513; not in Ahituv and Mazar 2014. 21 On ntn in Aramaic see for instance Eph‘al and Naveh 1989:194; Amadasi Guzzo 1996:331. 22 E.g., WSS:513; Ahituv and Mazar 2014:40–41. 23 Finkelstein and Sass 2013:188. 24 Finkelstein and Sass 2013:152. 25 Finkelstein and Sass 2013:166. For two less certain sherds see note 65. For Hebrew inscriptions from late Iron IIA Tel Reতov Strata V and IV and from nearby Tel Amal see Section 3.2. 26 Finkelstein and Sass 2013:168. 27 Finkelstein and Sass 2013:171. 28 According to Arie 2008:34–36. 20

204

Benjamin Sass

Figure 5: Tel Reতov jar 6; Ahituv and Mazar 2014: fig. 7, courtesy A. Mazar, Tel Reতov Excavations, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Figure 6: Late Iron IIA inscriptions from North-eastern Israel (except Beth-shan); courtesy Assaf Kleiman.

Aram and Israel during the Iron Age IIA: The Alphabet

205

Figure 7: Tel Dan monumental inscription; Biran and Naveh 1995:12, drawing Ada Yardeni.

The Language. Concerning the language, most of the ‘undifferentiated nonHebrew’ texts found in late Iron IIA strata in north-eastern Israel are too short to tell;29 but the one from En-Gev, possibly also Hazor 4440 (figs 2–3), are identified as Aramaic by a decipherable word – lšqyҴ, “Belonging to the cup-bearer”, on the former, zy, the relative pronoun, on the latter.30 But they probably belong to the later part of late Iron IIA as certainly does the Tel Dan inscription, so that their testimony for Tel Reতov Strata V–IV is quite distant. Concerning Tel Reতov it is rather the geographical logic that could perhaps mark the non-Hebrew inscription found there as Aramaic. At northerly Hazor an alternative Phoenician identity is possible for some of the texts,31 but not, I believe, for inscription 4440.32

29

Finkelstein and Sass 2013:189–191. Naveh 1968:70; 1989. 31 Delavault and Lemaire 1979:10–11. 32 Delavault and Lemaire read the fourth letter from right as shin. Following Naveh, it seems a yod to me too, quite different from the shin in the first position on the right, hence the reading zy imposes itself and with it the Aramaic classification. 30

206

Benjamin Sass

2.3. The Spectacular Evolution of the Alphabet between Early and Late Iron IIA The present section juxtaposes the pre-cursive Proto-Canaanite script of the later tenth century BCE at Tel Reতov with the cursive of the earlier ninth in order to highlight the swift progress of the alphabet between these two archaeological phases. The straight strokes lend the script of Tel Reতov no. 2 a lapidary-like aspect, but it is rather ‘first-rate pre-cursive’. As regards the individual letters, the alep and taw of Tel Reতov 2 do not evolve much between the Proto-Canaanite stage and the following one.33 But the mem speaks volumes: It constitutes one of the latest manifestations of the original alphabetic letter-shape born in Sinai or Egypt from the Egyptian ripple-ofwater hieroglyph. The Tel Reতov mem is legless, a Proto-Canaanite feature soon to disappear, and oriented left-to-right.34 The four zigzags of equal length in Tel Reতov no. 2 (fig. 4) are less evolved than, indeed poles apart from, the next Tel Reতov mems of late Iron IIA Strata V–IV, only a few decades later.35 While the latter mems certainly differ from one another in form and stance, all of them, Hebrew and non-Hebrew, share new, advanced traits, distinguishing them clearly from their Proto-Canaanite ancestor. These are the uniform right-to-left direction, and the now-standard 2½ zigzags with the rightmost stroke lengthened to become the so-called leg of the letter (fig. 26). Within a short while at the turn of the tenth century BCE the alphabet thus seems to have accomplished a great leap forward: It has evolved away from pre-cursive ProtoCanaanite into a cursive, and it has given rise to the first regional variant, the Hebrew (but see note 77).

3. When Have the Aramaeans Begun to Write Their Own Language? In Chapter 2, the evolution of the alphabet in Iron IIA or the later tenth and ninth centuries BCE is traced from new stratified inscriptions coming from the upper Jordan Valley, on the Aram-Damascus border. The present chapter integrates the above with the contemporary epigraphic finds from other regions of Cis-Jordan and with the little that is known about the alphabet in the entire Aramaean territory. The inscriptions are 33 In Finkelstein and Sass 2013:161,174,177, we have taken the letter-shapes of Tel Reতov 2 to be transitional – a mix of Proto-Canaanite and ‘post Proto-Canaanite’ forms – the mem belonging to the former, the taw and alep to the latter. On second thoughts all may be late Proto-Canaanite – the Tel Reতov taw and alep are among the non-indicative letters in this respect, as noted. (Similarly several of the archaizing Tell Fakhariya letter-shapes; see Section 3.1.3.) 34 Finkelstein and Sass 2013:161, and note 47. 35 While Ahituv and Mazar (2014:41) noticed the differences between the earlier and later mems, they missed their significance: “From a palaeographic point of view, all the letters [of Tel Reতov 2] have parallels in the Gezer Calendar. Especially noteworthy is the elongated ¨ which differs from the one that appears in Inscription No. 5 from the subsequent Stratum V.” In fact the letters of the unstratified Gezer calendar, even though ‘monumentalized’ and clumsy at the same time, show an obvious cursive, ‘post Proto-Canaanite’ ancestry in the asymmetric waw in line 6 (beside symmetric ones), and the legged kap and mem, the latter pretty different from the legless Tel Reতov 2 mem, as noted.

Aram and Israel during the Iron Age IIA: The Alphabet

207

tracked in reverse chronological order, from the better-documented ones of the late ninth century BCE back to the late tenth, when Aramaic was apparently being written for the very first time. 3.1. The Earliest Dated Royal Inscriptions – From ca 830 3.1.1.

Background

The earliest royal Aramaic, and other West Semitic inscriptions on stone monuments and prestige items are dated historically to circa the last third of the ninth century. In much of the Levant and in the Jazira they constitute the earliest accurately dated firstmillennium attestations of the West Semitic alphabet altogether. They are found from Tell Fakhariya in the north-east to Moab in the south, passing in the Aramaean lands via Tell Afis, Damascus (see on Hazael below), and Dan (fig. 8).36 Aramaic was unquestionably spoken before the last third of the ninth century; also written (Section 3.2), though not on monuments: for this purpose the alphabetic script was apparently not considered dignified enough yet. Earlier in the ninth century BCE, possibly already in the late tenth, royal inscriptions of kings known or presumed to be Aramaean had been composed in the veteran Assyrian cuneiform or Luwian hieroglyphic scripts.37 Five of the six earliest royal Aramaic inscriptions are attributed to Hazael (ca 840– 805): In the Tel Dan inscription (fig. 7) his authorship is gathered by most specialists from a combination of the find-spot, palaeographical dating and historical interpretation;38 in the remaining four texts he is named. The Hazael ivory and bronzes (figs 1, 9, 10) must have originated in Damascus, even though excavated elsewhere.39 The tiny fragment of a basalt monument from Tell Afis (fig. 11) bears inter alia the letter sequence …]l‫ۊ‬zҴ[…, reasonably restored l‫ۊ‬zҴl.40 Amadasi Guzzo made a plausible case for Zakkur, king of Hamath and Lu‫ޏ‬sh, as author at the beginning of his reign ca 805, which overlaps Hazael’s last years.41 But it is in fact unknown who was the author of the monument – Hazael, Bir-hadad or Zakkur, nor whether Hazael is mentioned as a reigning monarch or as the deceased father of Bir-hadad, his successor (l‫ۊ‬zҴ[l Ҵby]?). From Tell Fakhariya next to Tell Halaf comes the sixth inscription, an Assyrian and Aramaic bilingual, on the statue of Hadyis‫ޏ‬i, son of Sasnuri, šakin mƗti / mlk of Gozan 36

For Phoenicia and its monumental Byblos inscriptions, a subject not treated in the present paper, see Sass 2005a:16–34,75–82; Finkelstein and Sass 2013:180–183. 37 From Kapara’s Gozan in the north-east via Hamiyatas’ Til Barsib and other places, to Hamath in the centre (e.g., Sass 2005a:57, with earlier references; Bunnens 2006:86; Younger 2014:868, note 20). If his attribution to the second half of the tenth century (Sass 2010:169–171) has any merit, the Luwian-writing Taita, king of Palistin, may have been a sixth-generation, if not eighth-generation Syrian, hence a possible native speaker of Aramaic. Turning to the southern Levant, this region mostly had no pre-alphabetic tradition of local monumental writing, except at Byblos with its ‘pseudo-hieroglyphic’ monuments (Sass 1988: notes 48,58; 2005a:54,78). 38 Others, e.g. Athas 2003; 2006, attributed the Dan inscription to Birhadad, Hazael’s successor. 39 E.g., Eph‘al and Naveh 1989:197–198; Amadasi Guzzo 1996:334–336; Younger 2005:259. 40 Amadasi Guzzo 2005; 2009. 41 Amadasi Guzzo 2009:341.

208

Benjamin Sass

(fig. 13). It constitutes the first and only documentation of these two rulers who, unlike Hazael, have no explicit links to the absolute chronology of Assyria. On the late-ninthcentury BCE dating of Hadyis‫ޏ‬i see Section 3.1.3.

Figure 8: Royal Aramaic inscriptions from the Levant ca 830 BCE (and Moabite); courtesy Assaf Kleiman.

Figure 9: Hazael horse frontlet, bronze, Samos, originally Damascus; Eph‘al and Naveh 1989:193, drawing Ada Yardeni.

Aram and Israel during the Iron Age IIA: The Alphabet

Figure 10: Hazael horse blinker, bronze, Eretria, originally Damascus; Amadasi Guzzo 2006:330, courtesy M.-G. Amadasi Guzzo.

12

11 Figure 11: Tell Afis fragment; Amadasi Guzzo 2009:336, courtesy M.-G. Amadasi Guzzo Figure 12: Archaizing and non-archaizing examples of Hazael’s monumental ductus (from figs 1, 7, 9, 11)

209

Figure 13: Tell Fakhariya Inscription; Abou Assaf, Bordreuil and Millard 1982: unnumbered page towards end of book.

210 Benjamin Sass

Aram and Israel during the Iron Age IIA: The Alphabet

211

Figure 14: Halaf ‘altar’/‘pedestal’; Dankwarth and Müller 1988:75.

3.1.2.

Hazael’s Ductus and Its Cursive Source ca 900–850

Hazael’s inscriptions on monuments and prestige objects, and most of those of his royal contemporaries, ca 830–800, composed in other West Semitic languages,42 are written in a slightly ‘monumentalized’ version of the cursive, the latter more fluid, born of pen and ink. The model is not the cursive of Hazael’s own day, itself probably close to that of Deir ‫ޏ‬Alla (notes 44, 63), but rather the earliest, somewhat less streamlined ductus, of the first half of the ninth century BCE (Section 3.2).43 Still this is not the entire picture. While the use of such time-honoured letter-shapes for formal royal inscriptions was the norm, more developed cursive writing, presumably contemporary with the royal monuments themselves, once in a while found its way into the same inscriptions (fig. 12). And so, the zayin in Hazael’s ivory is of the less developed ‘sideways-H’ shape, whereas in the Samos frontlet and the Tell Afis fragment it is of the evolved z-shape, originally devised in ink so that the scribe could write it continuously without lifting the pen from the page.44 The kap is another example of archaism vs. ‘modernism’: In the Tel Dan inscription it is of the earliest cursive type, still remotely evocative of the pictographic ‘palm of hand’ prototype, its three fingers springing from the same point, even while the rightmost finger has now developed an oblique cursive shaft. 45 In the Tell Afis fragment, on the other hand, an added cursive 42

E.g., Kulamuwa king of Sam’al and Mesha king of Moab. The inscribed limestone ‘altar’ or ‘pedestal’ from Tell Halaf, 13 cm high (fig. 14), is excluded from the discussion. Its text has been dated variously to the tenth or ninth centuries BCE (references in Dankwarth and Müller 1988; Sass 2005a: note 47; Fales 2013:23). The letters are archaic-looking, but perhaps essentially clumsy, the legged kap decidedly of cursive origin like the Tel Dan example mentioned in the main text below. On letter-typology, assuming there is no archaism, the text likely belongs to late Iron IIA or the ninth century BCE. As the ‘altar’ has no archaeological context, I would not attempt to refine this broad dating further. 44 Naveh 1970: note 43; Sass and Marzahn 2010:153; Lemaire and Sass 2013:124. The Samos and Tell Afis texts thus constitute the earliest known documentation of the z-shaped form in the Aramaean lands. In its true environment – written in ink – it is found for the first time in the Tell Deir ‫ޏ‬Alla ink inscriptions on plaster (Van der Kooij and Ibrahim 1989:66), whether one characterizes the writing as Aramaic or Aramaic-like. These inscriptions are often dated to the early eighth century, though see note 63 on an earlier possibility. Among the Kuntillet ‫ދ‬Ajrud texts in ink on plaster in Phoenician script no zayin is preserved (Ahituv, Eshel and Meshel 2012:126). 45 For comparison, in the inscribed Ruweiseh arrowhead, the only one of its kind unearthed in an authorized excavation if out of context (Finkelstein and Sass 2013:163; see fig. 15 herein), the kap 43

212

Benjamin Sass

development is manifest – the left-hand finger of the kap springs from the middle of the central one.46 Based on such cursive forms in the royal monuments, it becomes evident that writing with pen and ink was widespread among the Aramaeans and other West Semitic peoples already in the last third of the ninth century BCE. Yet as shown by stratified inscriptions from Israel (Section 3.2), the first cursive is earlier still. 3.1.3.

The Tell Fakhariya Ductus and Its Proto-Canaanite or Pre-Cursive Source ca 950–900

The Tell Fakhariya ductus shares with Hazael’s monumental inscriptions the occasional ‘modern’, cursive-inspired letter-shape; otherwise it is quite different. Most of the letters imitate an earlier, Proto-Canaanite ductus, which seems to have gone out of daily use ca 900. But why is the Tell Fakhariya script, principally Proto-Canaanite looking, archaizing and not truly archaic? As is long known, the combined study of the Assyrian text, style of the statue and historical setting favours the later ninth century BCE.47 Hadyis‫ޏ‬i is thus considered by many to be roughly contemporary with Hazael.48 The bulk of the Tell Fakhariya letter-shapes will have been copied from a source decades older than

Figure 15: Ruweiseh arrowhead; Sass 1988: fig. 208, drawing B. Sass. has the earlier, pre-cursive Proto-Canaanite shape – a legless trident. A palaeographical dating, the only one available, must take into account the writing technique: the letters were apparently punched in with a fine chisel, the short straight lines lending the legend a rigid, archaic air. A dating in late Iron IIA1 now seems to me the safest guess, rather than early Iron IIA suggested in Finkelstein and Sass 2013. 46 Both forms are present in the contemporary inscriptions of Kulamuwa, not addressed in the present paper (see Lemaire and Sass 2013:125). 47 See references in Sass 2005a:62–63. 48 E.g., Abou Assaf, Bordreuil and Millard 1982:112–113; Sass 2005a:93–95.

Aram and Israel during the Iron Age IIA: The Alphabet

213

the statue, if not close to a century.49 Certainly the Gozan scribes ca 830 have not taken their cue from as far afield as early Iron IIA Philistia, nor from Tel Reতov. It seems likely to me, though there is no direct evidence, that their model-document was local, and presumably valued as one of the first attestations of Aramaic writing at Gozan. Its ‘historic’ ductus was probably considered more befitting than the current (late ninth century) cursive for one of the first alphabetic monuments in the kingdom. As no earlier monumental Aramaic inscriptions are known, I assume the hypothetical model-document to have been a manuscript.50 (My working hypothesis for the alphabet in early Iron IIA is that it spread to the entire Levant, at the same time maintaining for a while its pre-cursive, Proto-Canaanite letter-shapes – Section 3.3.) Another answer (besides ‘historic ductus’) to the question “why archaizing” for Fakhariya lies in the two modes of imperfect imitation: – Inadvertent(?) Contemporary Forms. Mixed with the mostly Proto-Canaanitelooking letter-shapes, resembling those current in Cis-Jordan in early Iron IIA or the second half of the tenth century BCE, we find in the Tell Fakhariya inscription one or two more modern shapes copied from the cursive, closer to the actual time of writing (fig. 16). Such is the oblique, acute-angled he.51 As stratified late Iron IIA parallels in cursive texts are so few, the one presented in fig. 16 is the similar ‫ۊ‬et in Tel Reতov inscription 7. – Invented Forms. A few other Tell Fakhariya letters are more intriguing still in their outlandish shapes, which A. Millard dubbed ‘eccentric’.52 As I understand them, these letters were unclear or missing in the ostensible model-document, and so the Gozan scribes ca 830 thought up ‘old looking’ forms in their stead.53 The base-line added to the waw, and the vertical stance and excessive zigzags of the ‫܈‬ade, have otherwise no trace in the evolution of these letters: For the ‫܈‬ade compare the forms in the Ruweiseh arrowhead (see note 45) and Tel Reতov inscription 7 (fig. 16).

Figure 16: Non-archaizing and ‘eccentric’ examples of the Fakhariya ductus, with comparisons; from figs 14, 19. 49

This is a change from the “two or three generations” proposed in Finkelstein and Sass 2013:196–197, back to Sass 2005a:58. 50 Sass 2005a:50,52. 51 Sass 2005a:40–41, citing Millard, Naveh and Cross, all of whom observed the phenomenon but did not draw from it what I regard as the obvious conclusion. 52 In Abou Assaf, Bordreuil and Millard 1982:96. 53 Sass 2005a:26–27,31–33,40–43; Finkelstein and Sass 2013:196.

214

Benjamin Sass

The imperfect Tell Fakhariya imitation is not unique. The same phenomena – archaizing shapes mixed with invented, ‘old-looking’ or ‘eccentric’ shapes, and with ‘modern’ forms admitted inadvertently – also occur at Byblos.54 Moreover, similar approaches to sign-forms are known in Mesopotamia in the second and first millennia,55 and in the Levant among the Akkadian texts of the 13th and 12th centuries from Ugarit and Emar.56 3.1.4.

The Ductus of the Earliest Dated Royal Inscriptions: Background and Synopsis

The West Semitic alphabet was pictographic and lapidary in the beginning, in Sinai and Wadi el-Hol, when its letters mostly imitated Egyptian hieroglyphs and when the surviving inscriptions were all carved on statues or rock faces.57 Once in the Shephelah in the 13th and 12th century,58 stratified examples of the alphabet are known for now from inscriptions on pottery vessels only. 59 At this stage, possibly due to wider use, the letters have partly evolved away from the original pictographs, undergoing a certain linearization, not yet cursivization.60 Then, and until the tenth century BCE the letter-shapes have changed little, a significant transformation happening in the first half of the ninth century BCE, when the alphabet turned quite rapidly into a cursive (Section 3.2). It follows that when Aramaic and other West Semitic alphabetic monuments were envisaged ca 830 BCE, a script-style suitable for them had to be created first. An adaptation of the cursive to hard surfaces was mostly employed (Section 3.1.2),61 but at Tell Fakhariya a different choice was made – the latest Proto-Canaanite or pre-cursive ductus (Section 3.1.3). The ‘hand’ of Hazael’s inscriptions thus mostly harks back two

54

In its archaizing aspect, the alphabet of the royal Phoenician inscriptions from Byblos, not dealt with in this paper, is midway between the Fakhariya and Hazael ductuses (Sass 2005a:23,28–34,50). 55 E.g. Roche-Hawley 2015:89: “Certain scribes have deliberately given an ancient air, even in a clay tablet, to a more recent composition. One could cite the example of a prayer to Ištar […]: Dated palaeographically and linguistically to the Old Babylonian period (18th century) this tablet, judging by the use of a few characteristic signs, has probably been written four or five centuries later, during the Kassite period.” 56 Roche-Hawley 2012:135: “[…] the ঩A sign is illustrative. It also shows considerable formal variation, but none of the ‘palaeographic’ forms given in the LBA [Late Bronze Age] manuscripts seems attributable to a particular, identifiable older tradition”; see also Roche-Hawley 2012:139, who wrote “Sometimes, he [the Emar scribe Šaggar-abu] (apparently inadvertently) slips a contemporary Late Bronze sign form into an otherwise archaizing colophon.” 57 Sass 2005b:150–151. 58 Sass 2005b:152–156; Finkelstein and Sass 2013:183–184, and Map 1. 59 Finkelstein and Sass 2013:173. 60 Loc. cit. 61 The longstanding contrary view, deriving chiefly from palaeographical dating of unstratified or unprovenanced inscriptions (note 72), that a monumental ductus somehow preceded the cursive in the ‘post Proto-Canaanite’ alphabet of the early first millennium is still adhered to, e.g., by Rollston (2014b:202–203): “[…] extant lapidary exemplars normally antedate the earliest cursive exemplars, […]”.

Aram and Israel during the Iron Age IIA: The Alphabet

215

or three generations to the earliest cursive, that of Tell Fakhariya predominantly three or four generations – to the latest pre-cursive alphabet.62 In sum, when the first monumental and other royal inscriptions appeared, manuscripts in the West Semitic cursive (next section) will have been firmly in place for decades. 3.2. The Emergence of the Cursive (‘Post Proto-Canaanite’) in the First Half of the Ninth Century BCE A cursive style, the result of extensive writing with pen and ink, has not yet spread in early Iron IIA, while it is certainly documented a few decades later – in the early part of late Iron IIA (see note 82). Several cursive, language-related varieties of the alphabet are attested archaeologically on ostraca and other media since the eighth century BCE. In contrast, stratified ninth-century BCE evidence for the alphabet in present-day Israel is rare and in the rest of the Levant practically absent.63 But the cursive has certainly emerged earlier: As noted in Section 3.1.2, the monumental ductus ca the last third of the ninth century is an adaptation to hard surfaces of the cursive. It thus attests indirectly, though abundantly, to documents fast written in ink since ca 830. And there is more – discoveries of the last decade or two in Israel now push the cursive back, indicating its birth ca 900–850.64 The well-developed cursive employed in the pottery inscriptions, one to nine letters long, found in Tel Reতov Strata V and IV, circa the first half of the ninth century BCE (Section 2.3) is joined by brief contemporary cursive inscriptions, likewise stratified, from other sites (fig. 17). Most of these inscriptions are listed in Table 1.65

62

But see note 77. Whereas the monumental Hazael ductus has evolved moderately in the two following centuries – from Zakkur to the Nerab priests – absorbing a few more cursive modernisms along the way while simultaneously being monumentalized further, a distinct lapidary style is unknown in the Aramaic script before the later seventh, or sixth century (Naveh 1974:57–58; Sass and Marzahn 2010:151–152, with earlier references). The more archaizing ductus of Tell Fakhariya, and the midway Byblos ductus proved to be dead ends. 63 Stratified, potentially pre-800 cursive inscriptions from beyond Cis-Jordan may exist: At our symposium Erhard Blum remarked with reason on the absence from my presentation, as well as from Finkelstein and Sass 2013, of the Tell Deir ‫ޏ‬Alla texts on plaster. Indeed we have taken the Tell Deir ‫ޏ‬Alla ductus to be roughly contemporary with Kuntillet ‫ދ‬Ajrud, i.e. early in Iron IIB or the earlier eighth century BCE. But even so, Tell Deir ‫ޏ‬Alla should have been mentioned among the inscriptions outside the scope of the discussion, as has Kuntillet ‫ދ‬Ajrud (Finkelstein and Sass 2013:179). On reflection, since 14C places the context of the plaster texts on both sides of the year 800 (Van der Kooij and Ibrahim 1989:73), the ceramic dating may merit a reconsideration. 64 In Finkelstein and Sass 2013 we were employing the term “streamlined”, here given up in favour of “cursive”. 65 There are more such inscriptions – semi-legible Tel Reতov sherd 4, and sherd 10 with one letter (Finkelstein and Sass 2013:166), as well as illegible “[r]emains of inscriptions in red-brown ink […] on several […] storage jars” from Rosh Zayit Stratum IIa, mentioned but not illustrated in Gal and Alexandre 2000:133.

216

Benjamin Sass

Site/inscription Tel Reতov jar 5 Tel Reতov jar 6

Stratum V IV

Writing Incised Incised

Tel Reতov jar 7 Tel Reতov jar 8 Tel Reতov sherd 9 Tel Amal jar ৡafi jar 747028/1 ৡafi jar 1491025

IV IV IV IV-III A3 A3

Incised Incised In ink Incised Incised Painted

Rosh Zayit sherd

IIa

In ink

Script Hebrew Undifferentiated non-Hebrew Hebrew Hebrew? Hebrew Hebrew Hebrew Undifferentiated non-Hebrew Undifferentiated non-Hebrew

Fig. 18 5 19 20 21 22 23 24 2566

Finkelstein & Sass 2013: p. 164 166 164 164 164 164 164 [note 67 herein] 166

Table 1. Stratified cursive inscriptions, early part of late Iron IIA, ca first half of the ninth century

Figure 17: The earliest cursive from stratified inscriptions on pottery vessels ca 900–850 BCE: courtesy Assaf Kleiman For the Rosh Zayit sherd note the cursive ‫ۊ‬et, drawn herein somewhat differently than in the excavation report (Gal and Alexandre 2000:134), as well as the fourth letter from right, which might be a bet rather than a resh – the whole possibly a personal name: …n‫ۊ‬m b۪ …. The blotted third letter from right could be a mem as suggested in the excavation report, yet this remains uncertain. 66

Aram and Israel during the Iron Age IIA: The Alphabet

217

These earliest cursive inscriptions, all stratified, are to be regarded as rare nonperishable spin-offs of the lost scribal output in ink on papyrus or parchment – already in the first half of the ninth century BCE. Two of the nine texts in question are actually written in ink, and one is painted;67 the other six are incised. Cursive characteristics are for instance the acute angles and top-left inclination towards the next letter of the ‫ۊ‬et, and the lengthened downstrokes of the mem and nun (fig. 26). The preceding precursive forms are illustrated on the right – the mem from Tel Reতov 2, the ‫ۊ‬et and nun from the Ruweiseh arrowhead (note 45). The nine inscriptions corroborate the use of the cursive in Cis-Jordan not only in the Hebrew and (presumably) Aramaic alphabet-variants as we have seen for Tel Reতov in Section 2.3, but also among the Philistines (Tell eৢ-ৡafi/Gath) and Phoenicians (Rosh Zayit).68 That the cursive was formed at about the same time in these four groups could indicate the radiating inspiration of a single centre, say Damascus.69 And the fact that stratified ninth-century BCE cursive texts of the Aramaeans and Phoenicians largely stop at the borders of present-day Israel with Syria and Lebanon, probably reflects the circumstances of the excavations in the former country rather than an actual void.70 Now founded on stratified inscriptions these conclusions, clearly in favour of a beginning of the West Semitic cursive in the first half of the ninth century, with its indication of papyri, constitute a step forward compared with a less emphatic former assessment.71 3.3. The Earliest Spread of the Alphabet to the Entire Levant – Pre-cursive Proto-Canaanite ca the Second Half of the Tenth Century The first spread of the alphabet to the entire Levant and the Jazira probably occurred in early Iron IIA or the second half of the tenth century BCE – when the script was in its last Proto-Canaanite or pre-cursive stage. This is proposed on the strength of the 67

One of these three texts, the then unpublished Tell eৢ-ৡafi/Gath jar 1491025, was only briefly mentioned, and erroneously labelled “sherd”, in Finkelstein and Sass 2013:166. It was fully published a year later by Maeir and Eshel (2014:86–87), with the proposed reading Ҵbtm, probably to be amended to ҴbҴm: the third letter could be a smudged alep. ҴbҴm, “the mother’s father”, is an Ersatzname (Stamm 1965:422) analogous for example to epigraphic Hebrew and Edomite Ҵ‫ۊ‬Ҵmh (with the he a personal pronoun), “his mother’s brother” (Beit-Arieh and Cresson 1985:98; Beit-Arieh 2007:134–135; WSS:479; Keel 2010:312–313, no. 217), or epigraphic and Biblical Ҵ‫ۊ‬Ҵb–Ahab, “the father’s brother” (Stamm 1965:422; WSS:479). 68 The finding of two different cursive styles at both Tel Reতov and Tell eৢ-ৡafi/Gath, one of them Hebrew, raises interesting questions beyond the scope of this paper. Some of them are addressed in Finkelstein and Sass 2013:174–176,189–191,198, whereas other questions, and the issue of the earliest Hebrew cursive in general, deserve further study. 69 Sass 2005a:59. 70 This is perhaps supported by the presence north of the border, if an unstratified one, of items such as the Sarepta sherd and Byblos cone A, tentatively attributed to early Iron IIA by their transitional ductus (Finkelstein and Sass 2013:162,177). 71 In Finkelstein and Sass (2013:202) we have taken due notice of the nine pottery inscriptions, yet fell short of properly recognizing the impact of their testimony.

218

Benjamin Sass

movement of the alphabet out of Philistia at that time,72 combined with the indirect evidence of the mostly Proto-Canaanite-looking Tell Fakhariya letters (Section 3.1.3). 3.4. Outcome. The spread of the alphabet to the entire Levant 3.4.1.

Background

Plus–minus 900 BCE a wave of West Semitic state foundations, documented in the Assyrian sources, swept the Levant. 73 The growing needs of the newly-formed royal bureaucracies are supposed to have led to the adoption of the alphabet, soon to be followed in the archaeological record by the development of the cursive as the use of writing presumably surged. The total absence of stratified alphabetic texts in much of the Levant ca 900–850 BCE, together with the conviction that the new royal administrations are inconceivable without literate administrations, led me to assume that in this initial period writing was typically restricted to the state chancelleries and to papyri.74 Obviously, most documents written in ink on papyrus or parchment have not survived in the Levantine climate, and none is known from before the seventh century BCE.75 Until the discovery and publication of several stratified inscriptions on pottery not long ago (Section 3.2), the cursive of the early ninth century BCE was nearly invisible archaeologically. 3.4.2.

A Persisting Problem

The question remains why there are in the ninth century BCE no bullae with papyrus impressions on their backs, nor ostraca with longer texts.76 In the eighth and seventh centuries such items, for instance the Samaria and Arad ostraca written in ink, and the City of David bullae with papyrus impressions on their backs, corroborate the output of papyri, all now lost. The situation in the ninth century BCE was different.

72

See also Finkelstein and Sass 2013:177, updated in note 33 herein. For years the Phoenician script was regarded as the sole direct descendant of Proto-Canaanite, and progenitor of the Aramaic and Hebrew scripts – proposed by Cross, e.g. 1967:12*: “The Aramaic script was derived from the Phoenician probably in the eleventh century, and had become independent of Phoenician influence by the ninth century”. Similarly in the alphabets’ family tree in Naveh 1982:10, and up to the recent past – in Rollston 2014a:72: “The Aramaic and Old Hebrew alphabets developed not from Early Alphabetic, but from the Phoenician alphabet.” Yet the first alphabetic inscriptions in Phoenicia – all except the Kefar Veradim bowl unstratified or unprovenanced, hence datable by palaeography only – seem to belong to early Iron IIA or the second half of the tenth century BCE at the earliest (Finkelstein and Sass 2013:161–163). In the Shephelah/Philistia, on the contrary, the first stratified inscriptions date much earlier – to Late Bronze II or the 13th century (maps in Finkelstein and Sass 2013:154,158). 73 E.g., Mazzoni 1992:167; Sader 2000:69,72; 2014:23–27; for the alphabet see Sass 2005a:63–64. 74 Sass 2005a:51–52, 58–60 – following Millard 1979:616; 1991:112, and Lemaire 1985:116–123. 75 Ahituv 2008:213–215. 76 Finkelstein and Sass 2013:199. Inscribed seals too are practically absent in the ninth century BCE; Finkelstein and Sass 2013:171,192–193.

Aram and Israel during the Iron Age IIA: The Alphabet

3.4.3.

219

The Spread of the Alphabet to the Entire Levant and its Ensuing Cursivization

While the above absence remains unexplained, three phenomena just addressed bear out the spread of the alphabet in Proto-Canaanite form to the entire West Semitic speaking region in the course of the second half of the tenth century, and its evolution into a cursive in the first half of the ninth century BCE. Two of the phenomena – (1) the movement of the alphabet out of Philistia to other parts of Cis-Jordan in early Iron IIA or the second half of the tenth century BCE (Section 3.1.3), together with (2) the Proto-Canaanite inspiration on the Tell Fakhariya ductus (Section 3.1.3) – seem to reasonably substantiate the use of the alphabet in the farthest north-eastern corner of the Aramaean world already at the turn of the tenth century BCE if not somewhat earlier. During this short formative period alphabetic writing remained pre-cursive Proto-Canaanite, as noted. By the geographical logic, this writing will have taken root at the same time in royal West Semitic administrations in between – from Cis-Jordan to the Jazira. (3) The third phenomenon – the stratified occurrence of nine cursive inscriptions from four sites in present-day Israel in late Iron IIA layers suffices to indicate the use of pen and ink in the first half of the ninth century. By this time the alphabet had manifestly shed its last pictographic or Proto-Canaanite aspects, including multidirectional writing.77 The archaeological documentation of cursive writing on pottery plausibly implies the inspiration of papyri, and suggests the existence of chancelleries already at such an early stage – directly for the territory of present-day Israel, indirectly also for the territories further north (see end of Section 3.2). After all, a few names written on pottery could hardly have been the origin of the cursive. These brief texts should rather be regarded as offshoots, while the source of the alphabet’s streamlining, and of the regional or language-related variants, must have been an intensive scribal output. And what could this output have been if not the documents penned by the state administrations?

77

As this paper was already in production, Israel Finkelstein and I have concluded that one of our 2013 deductions was no longer defensible: Whereas the stratigraphic evidence for the emergence of the cursive since the beginning of late Iron IIA remains as strong as ever, it turned out that the disappearance of Proto-Canaanite did not occur at the end of early Iron IIA (thus Finkelstein and Sass 2013:200, and the present paper) but in the course of late Iron IIA. In other words, both script styles coexisted during a ninth-century transitional phase several decades long. Already the Ophel pithos sherd, published in 2013, has hinted in this direction (Finkelstein and Sass 2013:162–163). In addition, a few unstratified intermediate inscriptions – with cursive letters but left-to-right orientation – were long known (see note 70 herein). Then in the 2014 Megiddo season such an inscription was discovered in the final phase of Stratum VA–IVB, ca the mid ninth century. Yet it was too late to modify this paper save the addition of the present note. The new Megiddo inscription and the updated alphabet picture will be dealt with in Sass and Finkelstein forthcoming.

220

Benjamin Sass

19

18

Figure 18: Tel Reতov jar 5; Ahituv and Mazar 2014: fig. 5, courtesy A. Mazar, Tel Reতov Excavations, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem). Figure 19: Tel Reতov jar 7; Ahituv and Mazar 2014: fig. 8, courtesy A. Mazar, Tel Reতov Excavations, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem

20

21 Figure 20: Tel Reতov jar 8; Ahituv and Mazar 2014: fig. 9, courtesy A. Mazar, Tel Reতov Excavations, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Figure 21: Tel Reতov sherd 9; Ahituv and Mazar 2014: fig. 10, courtesy A. Mazar, Tel Reতov Excavations, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Aram and Israel during the Iron Age IIA: The Alphabet

22

24

23 Figure 22: Tel Amal jar; Levy and Edelstein 1972:336. Figure 23: ৡafi jar 747028/1; Maeir and Eshel 2014: fig. 6. Figure 24: ৡafi jar 1491025; Maeir and Eshel 2014: fig. 8.

221

222

Benjamin Sass

4. Conclusions The above picture indicates four turning points in the history of the alphabet between early and late Iron IIA, the later tenth and ninth century, and another one soon after:78 1. The diffusion of the alphabet ca 950–900. Confined to Philistia before, the linear alphabet spread in early Iron IIA, the second half of the tenth century BCE, to the entire Aramaean-speaking territory and the other West Semitic lands, briefly retaining its Proto-Canaanite letter-shapes and multidirectional orientation (Section 3.3). 2. The emergence of the cursive ca 900–850. It is probably no accident that the next turning point, a few decades later, coincided with the rise of numerous Aramaean royal cities mentioned in the Assyrian sources plus–minus 900 BCE: In the earlier part of late Iron IIA a ‘cursivization’, and stabilization in the right-to-left orientation brought the old Proto-Canaanite ductus to an end – evidently the result of increased usage of the alphabet in ink on papyri, all now lost. This development is attested by a non-perishable offshoot of the papyri – the nine stratified cursive inscriptions on pottery addressed in Section 3.2. 3. The first regional script, likewise ca 900–850. It was obviously in the fast-written cursive that the regional, or language-related alphabet-variants – Hebrew, Phoenician, Aramaic etc. – were born. Yet in the first half of the ninth century BCE the only such variant known so far is the Hebrew (Section 3.2), and examples are found at Tel Reতov and Tell eৢ-ৡafi/Gath on opposite margins of the Hebrew kingdoms, none from Israel and Judah themselves.79 For reasons still unknown the alphabet among the speakers of other West Semitic tongues seems to have remained undifferentiated until Iron IIB.80 4. The emergence of monumental alphabetic inscriptions ca 830. Since about the turn of the tenth century several Aramaean kingdoms were erecting monuments inscribed in Assyrian or Luwian. It was only ca 830 that the alphabet seems to finally have acquired enough prestige to justify its use in monuments (Section 3.1), yet there existed no lapidary style at the time. As the West Semitic cursive was already in use for some decades, it will have been the obvious model (for the Fakhariya and Byblos exceptions see Section 3.1.3), and a slightly monumentalized, or less fluid version of it was developed, appropriate to inscribing hard surfaces.

78

This is a change from Finkelstein and Sass 2013:187–194, where the turning points selected, three in number, were “Out of Philistia” in early Iron IIA, the regional or language-related scripts in late Iron IIA1, and the first proliferation of the alphabet in late Iron IIA2 – early Iron IIB. 79 See Finkelstein and Sass 2013:174–176,189–191. The Hebrew identification is by the closeness of the letter-shapes to those of the Mesha Stele and Samaria ostraca, between 50 and 100 years later. The similarity despite such temporal distance may be explained, in part at any rate, by the fact that the evolution of the Hebrew script was slower than that of the Aramaic (Naveh 1982:97; Röllig 1983:261). The language of the few brief texts, mostly written on jars, mostly personal names, is presumed to be Hebrew, but cannot positively be categorized as such. See also note 68. 80 Finkelstein and Sass 2013:174–176,189–191.

Aram and Israel during the Iron Age IIA: The Alphabet

223

Figure 25: Rosh Zayit sherd; tentative drawing from photograph by B. Sass; photograph courtesy Israel Antiquities Authority.

Figure 26: Examples of the earliest cursive ca 900–850 BCE, and antecedents; from figs 4, 5, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25.

5.

The proliferation of the alphabet in the eighth century. Beyond the scope of the present paper, the surge in the numbers of longer ostraca, inscribed seals, and bullae with papyrus marks on their backs since Iron IIB is noteworthy. The timing of this abundance remains ill understood, or rather the question of why such an abundance appears not to have begun earlier, say ca 830, in tandem with monumental writing.

224

Benjamin Sass

Among the results of the present study, the updated understanding of the earliest cursive is perhaps the principal one. The nine stratified cursive inscriptions on pottery addressed in Section 3.2, six of them from Tel Reতov and Tel Amal, resonate far beyond the Aram–Israel interface. A new element in the puzzle, they can be interpreted as the non-perishable offshoots of a significant output of papyri, the first concrete testimony for the beginning of such documents, sometime during the first half of the ninth century.81 The following is a scenario proposing to rationalize the emergence of the cursive. For at least 300 years in the 13th–10th centuries the alphabet retained its pre-cursive Proto-Canaanite aspect, most of this time while still restricted to the Shephelah/Philistia. Only in the second half of the tenth century has the alphabet spread from there to the entire West Semitic world, and a few decades later it was transformed into a cursive. What could have generated these two successive developments if not a need for writing, soon followed by the extensive application of the alphabet, in the administrations of the recently-founded West Semitic kingdoms from Gozan to Samaria and Judah? Clearly the streamlining, or ‘cursivization’ of the alphabet was not triggered by a word here, a word there, scribbled on a jar, but rather by a critical mass of writing with pen and ink. Below such a mass, the cursive is unlikely to have emerged, as is indicated by the just-mentioned preceding centuries of minimally evolving pre-cursive Proto-Canaanite.82 Some current views on the extent of alphabetic writing in the Levant may have to be thought over if my understanding of the above evidence is accepted. And questions may have to be asked, inter alia whether in the days of Hadadezer king of Damascus, Ahab king of Israel, and their West Semitic contemporaries mentioned in the Kurkh monolith, literature could or could not have been written down alongside the deduced administrative records – with potential consequences for historical and Biblical research.

81

The stratigraphical resolution is not sharp enough to pin down the said inscriptions to a point within that time span. 82 Pen and ink were already employed for alphabetic writing before, e.g., on the Lachish bowl fragment at the end of the Late Bronze Age and on the Khirbet Qeiyafa ostracon about the Iron I–II transition (Finkelstein and Sass 2013:153 and 159 respectively; Sass forthcoming). Surprisingly this has not led to an earlier cursivization, even though the alphabet scribes in the Late Bronze Age Shephelah had probably witnessed their neighbours, the Egyptian scribes, writing hieratic rapidly in ink. Millard’s observation (1979:616) on the potential for Proto-Canaanite papyri in the Late Bronze Age southern Levant drew on the abundant parallel usage of the cuneiform alphabet at Ugarit and Minat el-Beida (see now Roche-Hawley and Hawley 2013:258–261). In view of the lack of a ProtoCanaanite cursive, the issue of potential Late Bronze papyri (which I keenly adopted – e.g. Sass 2005b:153–154) now appears to be more complex. It merits a renewed consideration.

Aram and Israel during the Iron Age IIA: The Alphabet

225

Bibliography ABOU ASSAF, A., P. BORDREUIL and A. MILLARD, 1982. La statue de Tell Fekherye et son inscription bilingue assyro–araméenne, Paris AHITUV, S., 2008. Echoes from the Past, Hebrew and Cognate Inscriptions from the Biblical Period, Jerusalem AHITUV, S., E. ESHEL and Z. MESHEL, 2012. The Inscriptions, in: Kuntillet ‘Ajrud (ণorvat Teman): An Iron Age II Religious Site on the Judah-Sinai Border, by Z. Meshel, Jerusalem, 73–142 AHITUV, S. and A. MAZAR, 2014. The Inscriptions from Tel Reতov and Their Contribution to the Study of Script and Writing during Iron Age IIA, in: “See, I Will Bring a Scroll Recounting What Befell Me” (Ps 40:8), Epigraphy and Daily Life from the Bible to the Talmud Dedicated to the Memory of Professor Hanan Eshel (Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplement 12), ed. E. Eshel and Y. Levin, Göttingen, 39–68,189–203 AMADASI GUZZO, M.-G., 1996. Le harnais des chevaux du roi Hazaël, in: Scritti di antichità in memoria di Sandro Stucchi, ed. L. Bacchielli and M. Bonanno Aravantinos (Studi Miscellanei 29), Rome, 329–338 –: 2005. Area 1, Il frammento di stele in basalto con iscrizione, in: Tell Afis (Siria) 2002/2004 (Egitto e Vicina Oriente 28), ed. S. Mazzoni, Pisa, 21–23 –: 2009 [2010]. Un fragment de stèle araméenne de Tell Afis, Orientalia 78: 336–347 ARIE, E., 2006. The Iron Age I Pottery: Levels K-5 and K-4 and an Intra-Site Spatial Analysis of the Pottery from Stratum VIA, in: Megiddo IV, The 1998–2002 Seasons (Tel Aviv University, Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology, Monograph Series 24), ed. I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin and B. Halpern, Tel Aviv, 191–298 –: 2008. Reconsidering the Iron Age II Strata at Tel Dan: Archaeological and Historical Implications, TA 35.1: 6–64 Arslan Tash. F. THUREAU-DANGIN, A. BARROIS, G. DOSSIN and M. DUNAND. Arslan-Tash, Paris 1931 ATHAS, G., 2003. The Tel Dan Inscription: A Reappraisal and a New Interpretation (JSOTS 360), Sheffield –: 2006. Setting the Record Straight: What Are We Making of the Tel Dan Inscription? Journal of Semitic Studies 51: 241–255 BEIT-ARIEH, I. 2007. ণorvat ‫ޏ‬Uza and ণorvat Radum, Two Fortresses in the Biblical Negev (Tel Aviv University, Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology, Monograph Series 25), Tel Aviv BEIT-ARIEH, I. and B. CRESSON 1985. An Edomite Ostracon from ণorvat ‫ޏ‬Uza, TA 12: 96–101 BIRAN, A. and J. NAVEH, 1995. The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment, IEJ 45.1: 1–18 BUNNENS, G., 2006. A New Luwian Stele and the Cult of the Storm-God at Til Barsib-Masuwari (Tell Ahmar 2), Louvain CoS 2. The Context of Scripture 2: Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World, Leiden 2000 CROSS, F. M., 1967. The Origin and Early Evolution of the Alphabet, Eretz-Israel 8: 8*–24* DANKWARTH, G. and C. MÜLLER , 1988. Zur altaramäischen «Altar»-Inschrift vom Tell ণalaf, AfO 35, 73–78 DELAVAULT, B. and A. LEMAIRE, 1979. Les inscriptions phéniciennes de Palestine, Rivista di Studi Fenici 7: 1–39, pls 1–14 EPH‘ AL, I. and J. NAVEH, 1989. Hazael’s Booty Inscriptions, IEJ 39: 192–200 FALES, F. M, 2013 [2014]. All’inizio: l’aramaico mesopotamico più antico, AION 73: 15–32 FINKELSTEIN, I. and B. SASS, 2013. The West Semitic Alphabetic Inscriptions, Late Bronze II to Iron IIA: Archeological Context, Distribution and Chronology, Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 2.2: 149–220

226

Benjamin Sass

FINKELSTEIN, I., B. SASS and L. SINGER-AVITZ, 2008. Writing in Iron IIA Philistia in the Light of the Tel Zayit Abecedary, ZDPV 124: 1–12 GAL, Z. and Y. ALEXANDRE, 2000. ণorbat Rosh Zayit, An Iron Age Storage Fort and Village (IAA Report 8), Jerusalem Hazor III–IV. Y. YADIN et al. Hazor III–IV (Plates), Jerusalem 1961 HERZOG, Z. and L. SINGER-AVITZ, 2006. Sub-Dividing the Iron Age IIA in Northern Israel: A Suggested Solution to the Chronological Debate, TA 33: 163–195 KEEL, O., 2010. Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel von den Anfängen bis zur Perserzeit, Katalog Band II: Von Bahan bis Tel Eton (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis / Series Archaeologica 29), Fribourg KLENGEL H., 1992. Syria 3000 to 300 B.C., Berlin KOOIJ, G. VAN DER and M. M. IBRAHIM, 1989. Picking Up the Threads… A Continuing Review of Excavations at Deir Alla, Jordan, Leiden LEMAIRE, A., 1985. Vom Ostrakon zur Schriftrolle, Überlegungen zur Entstehung der Bibel, in: XXII. Deutscher Orientalistentag vom 21. bis 25. März 1983 in Tübingen (Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft / Supplement 6), ed. W. Röllig, Wiesbaden, 110–123 MAEIR, A. M. and E. ESHEL, 2014. Four Short Alphabetic Inscriptions from Iron Age IIa Tell eৢৡafi/Gath and their Contribution for the Development of Literacy in Iron Age Philistia and Environs, in: “See, I Will Bring a Scroll Recounting What Befell Me” (Ps 40:8), Epigraphy and Daily Life from the Bible to the Talmud Dedicated to the Memory of Professor Hanan Eshel (Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplement 12), ed. E. Eshel and Y. Levin, Göttingen, 69–88,205–210 MAZAR, A. and S. AHITUV, 2011. Inscriptions from Tel Reতov and Their Contribution to the Study of Writing and Literacy during the Iron Age IIA, Eretz-Israel 30: 300–316 (Hebrew, English abstract p. 154) Mazar, A, and N. Panitz-Cohen, 2006. Chapter 7, Area S: The Stratigraphy and Architecture of the Iron Age IIA and Later Structures, in: Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996, Volume I, from the Late Bronze Age IIB to the Medieval Period, by A. Mazar, Jerusalem, 173–201 MAZAR B., A. BIRAN, M. DOTHAN and I. DUNAYEVSKY, 1964. ‘Ein Gev, Excavations in 1961, IEJ 14: 1–49 MAZAR, E., D. BEN-SHLOMO and S. AHITUV, 2013. An Inscribed Pithos from the Ophel, Jerusalem, IEJ 63/1: 39–49 MAZZONI, S., 1992. Tell Afis e il Ferro I in Siria, in: Tell Afis e l’Età del ferro, eadem ed. (Seminari di Orientalistica 2), Pisa, 157–165, English summary 166–167 –: 2014. Chapter 45. The Aramean States during the Iron Age II–III Periods, in: The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant c. 8000–332 BCE, ed. M. L. Steiner and A. E. Killebrew, Oxford, 684–705 MILLARD A., 1979. The Ugaritic and Canaanite Alphabets – Some Notes, UF 11: 613–616 –: 1991. The Uses of the Early Alphabets, in: Phoinikeia grammata: lire et écrire en Méditerranée, Actes du colloque de Liège, 15–18 novembre 1989 (Collection d’études classiques 6; Studia Phoenicia 13), ed. C. Baurain, C. Bonnet and V. Krings, Liège, 101–114 NAVEH, J., 1968. A Palaeographic Note on the Distribution of the Hebrew Script, Harvard Theological Review 61/1: 68–74 –: 1970. The Development of the Aramaic Script, Jerusalem –: 1974. The Development of the Aramaic Script [with an addendum on pp. 57–58], Jerusalem (Hebrew) –: 1982. The Early History of the Alphabet, Jerusalem –: 1989. The Epigraphic Finds from Areas A and B, in: A. Ben-Tor and Sh. Geva. Hazor III–IV (Text): An Account of the Third and Fourth Seasons of Excavation, 1957–1958, The James A. de Rothschild Expedition at Hazor, Jerusalem, 346–347 ROCHE-HAWLEY, C., 2012. On the Palaeographic ‘Syllabary A’ in the Late Bronze Age, in: Palaeography and Scribal Practices in Syro-Palestine and Anatolia in the Late Bronze Age, Papers Read at

Aram and Israel during the Iron Age IIA: The Alphabet

227

a Symposium in Leiden, 17–18 December 2009 (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten te Leiden 119), ed. E. Devecchi, Leiden, 127–146 –: 2015. Les références à l’antique dans les inscriptions monumentales mésopotamiennes, in: Écriture et communications, Actes du 139e Congrès des sociétés historiques et scientifiques tenu à Nîmes en 2014, ed. D. Briquel and F. Briquel Chatonnet, Paris, 87–95 ROCHE-HAWLEY, C. and R. HAWLEY, 2013. An Essay on Scribal Families, Tradition and Innovation in Thirteenth-Century Ugarit in: Beyond Hatti: A Tribute to Gary Beckman, ed. B. J. Collins and P. Michalowski, Atlanta, 241–264 RÖLLIG, W., 1983. Review of Naveh 1982, Welt des Orients 14: 260–261 ROLLSTON, C. A., 2014a. The Iron Age Phoenician Script, in: “An Eye for Form”, Epigraphic Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. J. A. Hackett and W. E. Aufrecht, Winona Lake, 72–99 –: 2014b. Northwest Semitic Cursive Scripts of Iron II, in: “An Eye for Form”, Epigraphic Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. J. A. Hackett and W. E. Aufrecht, Winona Lake, 202–234 SADER, H., 2000. The Aramaean Kingdoms of Syria: Origin and Formation Processes, in: Essays on Syria in the Iron Age (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 7), ed. G. Bunnens, Louvain, 61– 76 –: 2014. Chapter Two, History, in: The Aramaeans in Ancient Syria (HdO 1/106), ed. H. Niehr, Leiden, 11–36 SASS, B., 1988. The Genesis of the Alphabet and Its Development in the Second Millennium B.C. (Ägypten und Altes Testament 13), Wiesbaden –: 2005a. The Alphabet at the Turn of the Millennium: The West Semitic Alphabet ca. 1150–850 BCE; the Antiquity of the Arabian, Greek and Phrygian Alphabets (Tel Aviv University, Institute of Archaeology, Occasional Publications 4), Tel Aviv –: 2005b. The Genesis of the Alphabet and Its Development in the Second Millennium B.C. – Twenty Years Later, De Kemi à Birit Nari 2: 147–166 –: 2010. Four Notes on Taita King of Palistin, with an Excursus on King Solomon’s Empire, TA 37: 169–174 –: forthcoming. The Khirbet Qeiyafa Ostracon in Its Setting, in Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Shephelah. Papers Presented at a Conference of the SGOA/SSPOA at the University of Bern, September 6, 2014 (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis), ed. S. Schroer and S. Münger, Fribourg SASS, B. and I. FINKELSTEIN, forthcoming. The Swan-Song of Proto-Canaanite in the Ninth Century BCE in Light of an Alphabetic Inscription from Megiddo STAMM, J. J., 1965. Hebräische Ersatznamen, in: Studies in honor of Benno Landsberger on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday, April 21, 1965 (Assyriological Studies 16), ed. H. G. Güterbock and T. H. Jacobsen, Chicago, 413–424 WSS. N. AVIGAD and B. SASS. Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals, Jerusalem, 1997 YOUNGER, K. L., 2005. ‘Hazael, Son of Nobody’: Some Reflections in Light of Recent Study, in: Writing and Ancient Near Eastern Society, Papers in Honour of Alan R. Millard, ed. P. Bienkowski, Ch. Mee and E. Slater, New York, 245–270 –: 2014. “War and peace” in the origins of the Arameans, in: Krieg und Frieden im Alten Vorderasien, 52e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Münster, 17–21 Juli 2006 (AOAT 401), ed. H. Neumann et al., Münster, 861–874 ZADOK, R. 1982 [1978–1979]. On Two Recent Works on the Biblical Onomasticon, Shnaton 5–6: 259–262 (Hebrew)

Material Aramaeisms? Sphragistic Reflections on the Aram-Israel Border Zone through a case study on Hazor Izaak J. de Hulster, University of Helsinki 1. Aram-Israel Border Zone The subtitle of this paper mentions two entities that existed only to a certain extent, having caused a memory of identification,1 and are so much harder to reconstruct from a historical angle: Aram and Israel. Aram can be either a reference to a more specific ‘Aram’, such as Aram-Damascus or it might function as an umbrella term for the socalled ‘Aramaean kingdoms’. Maybe it is easier to describe ‘Israel’, understood as the so-called ‘northern kingdom’ (defining it over against the southern kingdom of Judah). Nevertheless, a geographical-only description meets the challenge of how strict borders can be reconstructed, not to mention the issue of the smaller kingdoms at its ‘skirts’.2 As such, borders can be border zones with particularities distinguishing them from the (larger) entities around the border zone.3 Adding a chronological perspective emphasizes the fluidity such an approach needs: borders can be contested and change through politics and military activity. Moreover, the metaphor of border fluidity cannot only imply change but also permeability due to trade, migration, and cultural exchange – a focus on cultural processes sometimes shows how borders ‘fade’, due to economic permeability or despite political fixedness. Such issues of ‘fluidity’ are not only an issue of political borders or cultural delineations but also a matter of belonging.4 The issue of identity provides one of the perspectives that require a shift of focus from a political histoire evenementielle to a cultural histoire conjoncturelle. Thus the Aram-Israel border zone is understood here as the area between (the heartlands of) the ‘northern kingdom’ of Israel and Aram-Damascus, as the nearest welldefined neighbour on Israel’s north-eastern side of the border zone.5 Within the 1

Cf. Nestor 2010’s cognitive approach to ethnicity as an epistemological category; see below, towards the end of §2.1. 2 E.g., the kingdoms of (Beth-)Reতov, Geshur, and (Beth-)Maacah; cf. LipiĔski 2006:208–211, 225–265. For Geshur, see the discussion between Pakkala (2010; 2013) and Na’aman (2012), and, e.g., Arav 2004 on Betsaida. On Aram and Israel, see also Sergi and de Hulster, this volume. 3 Implying the relevance of possibly more than two ‘larger’ ‘neighbours’; see footnote 5 below. 4 So-called ‘natural borders’ foster cultural borders, borders of belonging, and also political borders, not in the least place when a (military or economic) strategic perspective is added. 5 The (possible) kingdoms of Reতov, Geshur, and Maacah have not been identified with certainty (see also footnote 1 above). To the west and north-west were the Phoenicians; to the north the main

230

Izaak J. de Hulster

framework of the present volume the main case study material is provided by the seals found at Hazor.6

2. Methodological Considerations 2.1. Identity and the Question of Ethnicity Before turning to art and iconography, a few remarks about what is often referred to as ‘ethnicity’ – especially because ‘Aramaean’ is often understood as an ethnic label – are in place. One might get the impression that biblical studies or Ancient Near Eastern studies, are a little behind other fields when embarking on interdisciplinary endeavours – in this case, for instance, ethnic studies or anthropology. The work of Andreas Wimmer provides three guiding principles to avoid classical pitfalls in the study of ‘ethnicity’, 7 or rather ‘identity’ (or: identification8). 1. geographical focus, 2. emphasis on human agents, 3. attention for historical developments. First of all, by not searching for a specific ‘ethnic group’ but by taking the broader perspective of a region, one gets a sense of the variety of people present in an area and can start noticing differences and similarities between them. This approach could be exemplified by a practical overview in Jan-Waalke Meyers’s study on the Amuq region, situating this region within the larger area of candidates for ‘Aramaean’ identity: – Hittite-Luwian: Malatya (Melid), Kommagene (Kummuh), Maraú (Gurgum), Karkemiš, and Pattin (঩attin / Unqi in the Amuq Valley); – Aramaean-Luwian: Sam’al (Zinçirli), Til-Barsip (Bit AdiniP); – Aramaean: Arpad (Bit Agusi), Damascus.9 Without entering into dialogue about the various attributions, this overview underlines the phenomenon of hyphenated identities – such hybridity makes it harder to distinguish between different cultures. In general, the notions of hybridity10 and city excavated is at Kamid el-Loz, which cultural affiliation in the Iron Age is not clear-cut; cf. Heinz 2010:28–30. LipiĔski (2000:331) states: “It is tempting to consider these small [successive Iron Age] settlements [at Kamid el-Loz] as Aramaean and to link them with the foundation of the state of BƝtReতob, but no univocal evidence confirms this hypothesis so far.” 6 Other important excavations were covered by individual papers at the colloquium (chapters by Panitz-Cohen, Thareani, and Mazar in this volume); at the conference Stefan Münger presented Tel Kinrot), the Bethsaida stele was discussed by Christoph Uehlinger. The author’s colloquium paper also addressed the Melqart stele but related thoughts on the relationships and cultural connections between ‘Israelites’, ‘Aramaeans’, and ‘Phoenicians’ as well as possible hybrid styles are beyond the scope of the present contribution (cf. Winter 2010:279–333, esp. 320 – earlier published in Winter 1987). 7 See Wimmer 2007; 2008a; 2008b; 2013; cf. de Hulster 2014:19–22. 8 As suggested by Uehlinger at the colloquium. 9 Meyer 2008:7; his distinctions relate to language and ethnicity. On language in Sam’al, cf. Niehr in this volume. 10 Cf. Stockhammer 2012.

Material Aramaeisms?

231

koine11 have been introduced to overcome the shortcomings of working with a concept of ethnicity, also in relation to art. However, a koine of expressions implies a measure of geographical cultural unity12 but leaves the question for chronological changes open. And even when observing a koine, the question of a possible regionalism should be addressed as well. Especially for the Iron Age Levant the issue of ‘cultural regionalism’ is an important question.13 If cultural expressions in a certain smaller or larger region are studied (possibly bearing the question of ethnicity in mind), a focus on material dimensions of the environment and a definition of culture in relation to a community would underline the importance of (human) agency.14 This leads to Wimmer’s second point. Second, an emphasis on human agents (even when sometimes dismissed as a fruit of modernity)15 points to the fact that identity also has to do with human choices (identification). This may be in particular true for individuals but also holds for the various collective perspectives on identity. One can present one’s identity differently depending on the context; in some cases a hybrid identity might be concluded in other cases an – often political – interest might stimulate certain expressions. To give three examples: Ninurta-bƝl-uৢur (Arslan Tash) wrote on lion statues in Assyrian style an inscription in three languages but at their back where they were harder to see, apparently intended to communicate with later generations of builders.16 Similarly two languages were used by Haddayis’i (Guzana); however, he inscribed his Assyrian style royal statue found at Tell Fekheriye in Aramaic with mlk (king) underlining his kingship and also in Akkadian with saknu (governor), presenting himself as a (loyal) governor to the Assyrians.17 Likewise, not only kings, but elites as well influence how their identity is represented and thus meanwhile shape their own identity – for their self-understanding and also in an attempt to influence their imago, how they are perceived. The last example comprises king Bar-Rakkab’s (Sam’al) two signets / seals: one is in Luwian hieroglyphs, the other Aramaic with a winged sun-disk (see figs 1a-b).18 A third perspective to be taken into account is a historical one. Identity changes over time. Not only do populations change, as with the so-called ‘arrival of the Aramaean tribes’ but various constellations – independent of whether they are called into existence more or less peacefully or violently – also influence identity. This leads 11

Cf. Versluys 2015 using the term ‘globalising koine’ for the Roman Empire. Cf. Burke 2014:403 on the Middle Bronze Age Levant. 13 Cf. Killebrew 2014:596. 14 Cf. Latour 2005 and Hodder 2012; and on the definition of culture, e.g., de Hulster 2009:52–58 where culture is defined as comprising “(1) means and measures of adaptation to/of one’s environment, (2) the verbal, habitual and ritual actions of a community and (3) the ideas of a community.” (54, italics original). Cf. also Ingold 2010 on creativity in relation to materiality. 15 Cf. Maran and Stockhammer 2012:1–3; Hahn 2012; Galaty 2014. Reflection on the relationship between humans and objects lead to an additional perspective of objects as agents; cf. also Ingold 2010. 16 Galter 2004:455. Bonatz 2014:223. 17 Bonatz 2014:237. 18 Hawkins 2000:576, plate 329:3. Bonatz 2014:244. 12

232

Izaak J. de Hulster

to cultural changes as well as to changes that can be described as ‘symbioses’ exemplified by the hyphenated identities enumerated above. Such symbiosis can be a conscious or an unconscious change and could have to do with identity (but not necessarily). To stimulate the discussion I want to add one more remark about a cognitive approach to ethnicity by a biblical scholar: Dermot A. Nestor’s Cognitive perspectives on Israelite identity, 2010. He claims that a cognitive approach “… allows one to analyse the workings of ethnicity and identity in ancient Israel without positing the existence of the ethnic group ‘Israel’.” (239)19 In line with this thesis I pose: ‘Ethnicity’ used as an epistemological (not ontological) category facilitates research of social dynamics, either etic imagology (otherness) or emic identity making/confirmation (self-perception/self-identification). Having discussed ethnicity and identity, it should be underlined that artefacts do not necessarily have one-to-one relations with ethnic groups because for a number of reasons an artefact can incorporate a variety of cultural elements (these can sometimes be identified as influences). Studying a Middle Bronze Age seal from Kamid el-Loz, Heinz and Linke conclude that the seal “incorporates single individual elements from Anatolia, several areas of modern-day Syria, Cyprus, Crete, Egypt, Palestine, Mesopotamia and Lebanon.”20 Instead of assuming that these particular elements can be reduced to ‘influences’, the question for the ‘local element’ remains: “the identification of the ‘local’ […] still presents a wide field for future cultural research.”21 The same may hold for the problems involved in distinguishing a local core in Hazor or defining what would be distinctive for Aramaean art – the subject of the following subsection.22 2.2. In Search for Aramaean Art Turning to art and iconography, especially Aramaean art in order to facilitate a comparison with material excavated in Israel, Dominik Bonatz’s statement comes to mind: “it is impossible to define ‘Aramaean art’.”23 He corroborates this with the observation that the Aramaean tribes/kingdoms were not centralized, and came into existence under different circumstances; moreover usually the elite can be identified as Aramaean and as such one cannot identify ‘Aramaean art’ with a demographic entity.24 Furthermore, archaeological research is always restricted to what has been unearthed, and among that material the finds from systematic, controlled excavations are most useful. For a study of the Aram-Israel border zone especially material from Damascus would be of great interest. Presently only two stone slabs are known (figs 2a-b). Nevertheless, three motifs can be mentioned as indicators for Aramaean art, being common but not (necessarily) typical: moon (worship) and the (striding) lion; the 19

Cf. Levin 2000, see also Sparks 2003. Heinz and Linke 2012:189. 21 Heinz and Linke 2012:189. 22 Cf. Thareani, this volume. 23 Bonatz 2014:205. 24 Bonatz 2014:205–207; furthermore he mentions the ethnic issue, see §2.1 above and ‘the Aramaeans’ nomadic legacy’ (Bonatz 2014:240). 20

Material Aramaeisms?

233

Figures 1a–b: king Bar-Rakkab’s (Sam’al) two signets / seals: one is in Luwian hieroglyphs, the other – its impression –Aramaic with a winged sun-disk. Source: Hawkins 2000: Plate 329.3.

Figure 2a: orthostat depicting a female sphinx from Damascus. Source: Orthmann 1975:485, plate 419.

Figure 2b: striding lion from El-Shykh Sa‘ad (close to Damascus). Source: Orthmann 1975:481–482, plate 409

234

Izaak J. de Hulster

Aramaeans also adopted the winged sun disk, e.g., in a royal seal (see fig. 1b).25 As these motifs are not typically Aramaean, they are present in a larger context. Furthermore, some have argued that adaptability caused a kind of disguise: as the Aramaean elite would have borrowed from other cultures,26 their own art is not distinctive. This kind of adaptability might be the main characteristic of Aramaean art in its day; “… once the Aramaeans arrived, visual art did not take on any fundamentally new form, but adapted to the structures of existing traditions.”27 Thus their artistic expressions do not stand out in their appearance. Nevertheless, a specific combination of elements (different motifs, media, styles, etc.) could correspond with finds from the Aramaean world. The hammer seal exemplifies such a particularly adopted medium and will be discussed below in this context. When studying iconography on miniature art, one needs to be aware of the high mobility of the image carriers. Besides one needs to distinguish between pieces of ‘foreign’ origin and influences on style, contents, technique, material, etc. Moreover, a single artefact may combine several influences, or at least show similarities with a variety of artefacts from elsewhere.28 Turning to miniature art and glyptic finds in particular, much of the material does not stem from controlled excavations. For the material found a further challenge is the mobility of miniature art as an object (spread as precious objects often worn on the body). That the object more easily spreads creates also a greater mobility for the motif (or even a detail).29 Thus it can combine elements (whether motif, style, etc. but possibly also technique or material) found in a variety of cultures. Beyond that, one needs to be aware of the possibility that a seal might have known various stages of production, as, for instance, an inscription such as a name could be a later addition – especially if it is not in mirror image, indicating that it was not engraved for sealing practices. One needs to consider these elements, especially if one studies identity. Another Middle Bronze Age example, that Othmar Keel and Silvia Schroer have worked on is that of the ‘ruler who is wearing the garment with thick fringes’ on scarabs. Whereas the image carrier, a scarab, is of Egyptian origin, the high cap worn by the ruler is Syrian. Of the three examples two were found in Israel, the other is from the market (see figs 3 a–d).30 The two examples from controlled excavations were found at Tel Hadar (eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee) and at Tel Esur (south of Carmel). Both would be ‘local production’ but it is not clear whether the one from Tel Esur was made there or came from a site more to the east, such as Tel Hadar.31 25

Cf. Bonatz 2014:242–245; Keel-Leu 1991:56–64,106–116 (incl. figs 65–76,127–137). E.g., to show loyalties, cf. the examples in §2.1 above. 27 Bonatz 2014:224. 28 Cf. the example of the seal from Kamid el-Loz; see above, end of §2.1. See also below in this section. 29 This is one aspect of approaching miniature art as ancient mass media; cf. Uehlinger 2005; cf. Keel 1995:36 et passim who speaks about Rameside bulk goods (‘Massenware’). In addition, Uehlinger (2005:XXV) mentions the mobility of the craftsmen. 30 Keel 2013:508 mentions a second example from the market. 31 Cf. Keel 2010:601–602 (Tel Esur 11; elsewhere Kibbutz Barqai is mentioned as origin: Gophna and Sussmann 1969; see the two entries: www.bible-orient-museum.ch/bodo/details.php?bomid= 26

Material Aramaeisms?

235

a

b

c

d

Figures 3a-d: ruler who is wearing the mantle with the thick fringes and a high cap; 3a Syrian cylinder seal (18,5x8,5mm) dated 1900–1500 BCE depicting an introduction scene. Source: Kühne 1980:82–83 (item 37); Winter 1983: fig. 232 (line drawing); Schroer 1985:56–57. And three scarabs (Middle Bronze Age IIB): 3b from Tel Esur (19x14,6x10mm). Source: Keel 2010:601–602; Tel Esur 11; 3c from Tel Hadar (19,3x13,2x8mm). Source: Keel 2013: 508–509; Tel Hadar 1; 3d: collection Fribourg (inventory number SK 2007.29). Black-and-white rendering after Staubli 2013:49, fig. 35i.

Before turning to the case study, the issue of ‘influence’ needs to be addressed in more detail. First of all, an object can be transported from one place to the other. Such an import32 can result in local imitation or reception. To decide in this matter, one needs to take into account material, technique/ workmanship/ execution, style, and the ‘image contents’;33 all these aspects of a seal (or other material image carrier) can be copied or adjusted. Still, not every example can be categorized as either import or

1281 and www.bible-orient-museum.ch/bodo/details.php?bomid=28603 – accessed 30 November 2015); Keel 2013:508–509 (Tel Hadar 1); Staubli 2013:49 (in the collection of the Bibel+Orient Museum, Fribourg). With thanks to Othmar Keel for our conversation on these items. The references to seals and seal impressions follow the numbering of Keel’s Corpus which is based on the chronology of excavation. 32 A piece of ‘foreign origin’, see above. Interestingly, such imports are explicitly attributed to either Israelites (e.g., Gal 2009:161 a hammer seal) or foreigners (Cogan 1995:161 a Lamashtu amulet/ plaque; Stern 2007:262 figurines). 33 Cf. Collon 2002 whose study of an Old-Assyrian style cylinder seal from Gaza points to the following factors indicating local (re)production: local materials for production, crude or cursory style, and anomalies, such as ‘errors’ of detail and scale, and local alterations to conform local fashion and customs. Technique would be another factor; there was not enough material to discuss this aspect in the present article; the burin technique (‘Grabsticheltechnik’ or ‘Kugelbohrertechnik’) is mentioned as a possible characteristic of north-Syrian but it was used more widely (cf. Keel-Leu 1991:45,54,57, 68,82,102,104; Meyer 2008:322).

236

Izaak J. de Hulster

imitation.34 Although the above considerations took ethnicity as a starting point, other methodological issues have been woven into the fabric of thought above. To single one out, one can emphasize issues of human agency. A human being decides to produce a seal or order one from a seal cutter. Within the environmental and cultural framework the reasons can vary between practical and ideological reasons, and be a matter of identity or mere fashion.35 Thus miniature glyptic material is to be recognized as a challenging case for studying cultural influences. Moreover, cultural influence (beyond import) can have a variety of reasons and ways of transmission, e.g., through economic means such as trade, political domination, or migration.36 And, once more: similarities do not imply (direct) influence, as some similarities are understood as a common koine, although not without the question of how this might have come into existence and examining whether within this koine regional variations in style or execution can be observed; if there is a (slight) chronological difference as well, this might be a starting point for examining influence. Meanwhile, difference can be a sign of independence, whereas in other cases it is clearly an issue of ‘adaptation’ (influence) in the sense of a reaction, for instance, doing the contrary to mark an own identity.37 Finally, one type of seal is associated with the Aramaeans: the hammer seal. Probably they received it from the Luwians and several scholars do not want to distinguish its reception as either neo-Hittite or Aramaean influence.38 Given that the Aramaeans borrowed from other cultures, they may have passed on the hammer seal to IsraelPalestine, as they probably did with the striding lion.39 Applying here the above observations concerning origins and influence, a hammer seal of possible Luwian origin was brought to Israel, probably by Aramaeans. However, this still leaves the question unanswered, how the Israelites (or Hazorites) would have perceived a hammer seal: as something Luwian, something Aramaean, or simply something beautiful or creative, maybe even something worth being distinguished by (for status, identity, etc.).

34

Sometimes origins can be studied through style and objects can be related to workshops (cf. Winter 2010: esp. 408–409). When studying influence, especially from an interest in ideas of ideology, one might look at the more ‘meaningful’ elements of seals, esp. iconography (even when the meaning of received images changes). 35 Although fashion is an element to be further elaborated on, Keel (1995:35) acknowledges this as a possibility by speaking about ‘Marktgängigkeit’ (marketability) of seals. Cf. Boardman 2000:393– 394 and Feldman 2014. 36 Cf. also Thareani, this volume. 37 Cf. §2.1 above. 38 Buchanan and Moorey 1988:34 states: “Even were it possible, and at present it is not, any systematic distinction between stamp seals of ‘Aramaean’ and ‘Neo-Hittite’ origin would be arbitrary in view of the close relationships of the people involved.” For hammer seals and similar shapes, cf. 33– 37; Meyer 2008:42–50,91–111,321; Gal 2009; cf. Shuval 1990:72–76. 39 E.g., van der Veen and James 2015:190–191 (with references). Cf. however also Heinz and Linke 2012:187–188.

237

Material Aramaeisms?

3. Case Study: Glyptic Material from Hazor This case study on Hazor employs material from Megiddo to test the observations on a small scale (§3.2). Although below a few ‘northern influences’ are mentioned, Megiddo is not in the border zone between Israel and Aram. 40 A focus on Hazor demands to start with a classic example that is slightly earlier. It shows a connection between Hazor and Anatolia. Yadin coined the solar motif on one of the seal impressions from his excavation at Hazor as a ‘royal Hittite sign’ (fig. 4).41 The Late Bronze Age jar fragment bearing this impression belonged to a vessel that was probably brought from the north.42 Before turning to the Iron Age, which is not rich in ‘works of (miniature) art’,43 an overview of the chronological distribution of the glyptic finds from Hazor will help to contextualize the finds in focus. This chronological distribution draws on Othmar Keel’s Corpus, in which he has published his research on the seals, seal impressions, and amulets from Hazor in 2013. He lists 118 items for Hazor. Given the present focus on the 12th – 9th century (Iron Age I and Iron Age IIA), the items can be divided as follows: PERIOD NUMBER

Before 1200 62

1200–1000 544

1000–800 1845

After 800 20

Not dated 13

Table 1: chronological distribution of glyptic finds at Hazor, after Keel 2013:582–637.

Figure 4: Middle Bronze Age seal impression from Hazor with – what Yadin called – ‘a royal Hittite sign’. Source: Keel 2013:608–609 (Hazor 59). 40

Although Megiddo was not void of contacts with the East; cf. Niemann 2003: esp. 427–434, 463–476. 41 “Before leaving the Late Bronze Age in this area, it is worth mentioning a handle with a seal impression of the so-called Royal Hittite sign (or Cappadocian sign), which is another proof of the connection between Hazor and that region.” Yadin 1958:10. 42 Keel 2013:608–609 (Hazor 59), with discussion and references. 43 Zwickel (2013:121) even states: “Auf die blühende spätbronzezeitliche Stadtstaatenwelt folgte eine ziemlich ärmliche und kulturell rückständige Epoche mit extrem wenigen Kunstwerken (z.B. Siegel). Auch ging die Zahl der importierten Produkte zurück.” 44 Of four, if Hazor 29 is not counted to this period; see below (§3.1), cf. footnotes 49 and 54. 45 These 18 seals and seal impressions represent 17 objects, as impressions 114 and 115 are each on a handle of the same vessel.

238

Izaak J. de Hulster

3.1. Material Aramaeisms in Hazor?46 Taken into account the methodological considerations concerning the attribution of material finds to certain ‘ethnic’ groups or to connect those finds to their influence, what criteria can be given to distinguish Aramaean items, motifs, styles, etc. for studying the Hazor material? At this stage, criteria discerned in research on this topic, as discussed above, will be taken into account as a heuristic tool for studying the Hazor material, especially the moon and the (striding) lion. Turning to the seals and seal impressions: those dated 1200–1000 BCE all appear to continue the Egyptianizing tradition of the Bronze Age (figs 5a–e),47 although the Bronze Age provides a few examples of ‘northern’ influence.48 The dating of seal impressions Hazor 29 and 69 is not certain but both are counted to the Iron Age I material in the table above. Hazor 29 might well be chalcolithic;49 Hazor 69 shows a nb sign and the legs of an anthropomorphic figure, symbols and a composition that would fit Egyptian influence.50 Hazor 1 probably mentions the Egyptian deity Amun.51 Keel identifies Hazor 8 as a ramesside scaraboid type.52 Hazor 116 shows a falcon-headed deity with a maat feather or a reed panicle, a motif typical for post-ramesside mass ware.53 Thus, all four54 show clear Egyptian connections. Even the majority of the material dated 1000–800 BCE is part of the same tradition. However, also four seals/ impressions can be singled out for their – possibly – Aramaeising characteristics. Seal impression Hazor 23 (fig. 6) depicts a standard with a moon crescent, similar to the one in the moon temple of Harran, flanked by two anthropomorphic figures.55 46 It needs to be noted here, that the present study takes a general approach, following Keel’s Corpus as its starting point; such an approach could be further refined by studying the specific loci where these glyptic finds were excavated. However, as indicated above, the mobility of the glyptic material often does not allow for sharp conclusions. Furthermore, it should be pointed out that Hazor in the Early Iron Age was not a thriving trade centre but possibly only even a temporary settlement, given the few remains from this period. See Ben-Ami 2001: esp. 165–170; 2006:123; 2013 and, although the present article does not draw conclusions about ethnicity, Finkelstein 2005. 47 The Egyptian character of these seals and seal impressions needs to be emphasized when addressing issues related to the contacts between Israel and the Aramaean world. Although the present contribution aims at contributing to the question of possible influence from the Aramaean world on the glyptic repertoire of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, an influence in the other direction would be worth considering as well, especially as Egyptian influence in general is most often associated with Phoenicia. With regard to scarabs and other seals (e.g., the tabloid shape), as well as their Egyptian of ‘imitation-Egyptian’ character several scholars rather point to Israel-Palestine as the way of transmission (e.g., Nunn 1999:20 for scaraboids; cf. for Palestinian workshops: Nunn 2004:30). 48 During the Bronze Age Egyptians and Hittites had their border disputes in the (‘Central’) Levant; cf. e.g., Collins 2008:71–89. 49 Keel 2013:594–595 (Hazor 29). 50 Keel 2013:612–613 (Hazor 69). 51 Keel 2013:582–583 (Hazor 1). 52 Keel 2013:584–585 (Hazor 8). 53 Keel 2013:636–637 (Hazor 116). 54 Or four out of five, if Hazor 29 is included; or three out of three, if Hazor 69 is dismissed. 55 Keel 2013:590–591 (Hazor 23).

239

Material Aramaeisms?

a

b

c d

e Figures 5a-e: seals and seal impressions from Hazor dated ca. 1200–1000 (except for 5c: probably chalcolithic); Hazor 1, 8, 29, 69, 116. Source: resp. Keel 2013:582–583,584–585,594–595,612–613,636–637.

Figure 6. Seal impression Hazor 23 (28mm diameter). Source: Keel 2013:590–591.

240

Izaak J. de Hulster

Hazor 99 (fig. 7) is a hammer seal, a type usually associated with Aramaeans, Hittites or Syria,56 and was probably imported. It depicts a winged sphinx (cherub) with a tree and a palmette. Keeping the mobility of miniature art in mind, the following has to be observed: another hammer seal (depicting a caprid and a scorpion) was found in Azekah (as a surface find); Gal assumes because of the northern type that an Israelite owner took it south after the fall of Samaria (722 BCE).57 As a further example from Israel/Palestine an ivory seal from Tel Gamma (with a winged man ‘im Knielauf’) can be offered.58 There is also an example from Jordan.59 A cooking pot has its handles stamped with the seal impressions Hazor 114 and 115 (figs 8a-b). Each of these impressions shows Luwian (like) hieroglyphs.60 The triangle with the cross resembles the sign REX, king,61 but it would be stamped upside-down. The signs on the other stamped handle look like Luwian hieroglyphs but are hard to identify. For the sign in the lower left corner Keel is reminded of the sign DEUS62 but one could as well see a relation with the sign SCRIBA (not turned!).63 From the excavation report it is not clear whether the cooking pot is deemed local or import. The seal impression might have been imperfect or the seal used might have been an imitation like pseudo-hieroglyphs imitating Egyptian hieroglyphs were employed as ‘lucky signs’ believed to contribute to the protection of the seal owner;64 however, this possible imitation seal would have used a Hittite example and beyond that, it has been used for stamping (and thus not only as an amulet). Whatever the exact origins of the cook-

56

Cf. Hogarth 1920:21–22,43,73–75,84–85,93,104–105; on page 99 Cappadocia is mentioned as origin (cf. 1922:214–215,218); Buchanan and Moorey 1988:33–36, plate IX; Meyer 2008:42–50, esp. 48–49; cf. and Keel and Uehlinger 1996:156–157; hammer seals are to be distinguished from knob, stud, stalk, fist, (animal) head, and pyramidal seals (cf. also Shuval 1990:72–76). 57 Gal 2009. 58 However, it could also be classified as a fist seal; Keel 2013:44–45 (Tel Gamma 99). 59 Eggler and Keel 2006:278–279 (Tell Abu Kharaz 2); comparable objects but not hammer seals: Eggler and Keel 2006:124–125 (Chirbat al-Mudayyina 8); 450–451 (Tawillan 99). The hammer is made in one piece with the seal, it is not attached as a handle or holder; cf. e.g., Eggler and Keel 2006:44–45 (‘Amman 61); 258–259 (Sahab 3). A seal from Khirbat al-Hadschdschar (item 1; Eggler and Keel 2006: 116–117) has a motif quite similar to the one on a hammer seal in Buchanan and Moorey 1988:35, plate IX, item 252. The collection of the Bibel+Orient Museum in Fribourg (Switzerland) comprises three hammer seals; Keel-Leu 1991:63–64 (item 75; VS 1981.53 – depicting two eagles; www.bible-orientmuseum.ch/bodo/details.php?bomid=75); Keel-Leu 1991:64 (item 76; VS 1981.54 – depicting a lion and a caprid’s head; www.bible-orient-museum.ch/bodo/details.php?bomid=76); Keel and Uehlinger 1996:156–157 (depicting an anthropomorphic winged sun disk and a horse). 60 The excavation report speaks about “A complete cooking pot […] two of its handles […] bearing impressions of an unclear nature (perhaps Hittite?).” Ben-Tor, Ben-Ami, and Sandhaus 2012:79; Keel does not discuss these impressions in his chapter on the glyptic material in the the report. 61 Cf. Payne 2010:162 (sign *17). 62 Keel 2013:634–635 (Hazor 114–115). 63 Cf. Payne 2010:183 (sign *326); Laroche 1960:167, sign 326, fourth variant. 64 Nunn 2004:27 writes: “Denn sie [die levantinischen Träger] betrachteten die Hieroglyphen als Glückszeichen, die sie ausreichend schützten.”

Material Aramaeisms?

241

ing pot with its “impressions of an unclear nature”,65 the resemblance of the signs on this rather unique item with Luwian hieroglyphs seems to materialize some form of contact with the north.

Figure 7: Hammer seal, Hazor 99. Source: Keel 2013:628–629.

Figures 8a-b: Hazor 114–115. Source: Keel 2013:634–635.

Figure 9: Hazor 97. Source: Keel 2013:632–633.

65 See Ben-Tor, Ben-Ami, and Sandhaus 2012:79, quoted in footnote 60 above. More precise knowledge of the cooking pot, e.g., where it can be categorized typologically (in Hazor, or Northern Israel, or in Anatolia, or somewhere in between) could lead to a more balanced argument.

242

Izaak J. de Hulster

Among the Iron Age IIA seals and seal impressions Hazor 97 (fig. 9) deserves attention as well. Although the relation between Aram, Israel, and Phoenicia is beyond the scope of this contribution, the resemblance of motifs used on seals and ivories requires a little excursion. The cherub employed as a throne on Hazor 97 has parallels in ivories. Likewise the earlier plaque seal Hazor 89 and the later scaraboid Hazor 41 depict ‘Phoenician-Israelite’ motifs, such as a cherub.66 Study of ivories might suggest a link with Phoenicia for Hazor 97 but a better context in ivory research would be needed, e.g., a better distinction of the South Syrian (Damascus) style 67 and the contribution of Israel in terms of style.68 Finally, the Iron Age II A glyptic material from Hazor did not exemplify the winged sun disk. The winged sun disk in its large variety of forms is found over a large area in many periods; likewise Hazor has a number of examples, mainly pointing to Egyptian influence.69 Of course, the more important question remaining is whether these parallels and commonalities largely draw on a koine or whether these can be more strongly linked to an Aramaean denominator for culture. This is an even more urgent issue for the seals and seal impressions linked with the ivory tradition. A brief comparison, beyond the comparative material discussed above, might shed some more light on this issue and safeguard against too hasty conclusions. 3.2. Concise comparison with the glyptic material from Megiddo Above we have pointed to the ruler who is wearing the garment with thick fringes and the high cap (§2.2), a motif found on Middle Bronze Age scarabs from Tel Hadar, at the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee, and Tel Esur, to the south of the Carmel. This parallel could be understood in light of the commonalities due to various influences during the Bronze Age. Likewise, Megiddo’s Late Bronze Age ivories (e.g., figs 10ab)70 show northern influence, as was discussed with the ‘royal Hittite seal’ for Hazor as well.71 For the Iron Age the example of the hammer seal72 raises the question of 66

Cf. Keel 2013:600. Speaking about a ‘cherub’ here implies an (Ancient) Israelite perspective; depending on particular characteristics, from different perspectives one could speak, for instance, about a sphinx or a lamassu. 67 For which the orthostats with the female winged sphinx lamassu (fig. 2a) and the striding lion (fig. 2b) could be parallels; Orthmann 1975:481–482, cf. Winter 1987 (=Winter 2010:279–333). 68 Cf. Liebowitz 1992; in relation to the Late Bronze Age: Liebowitz 1987. 69 Hazor 3 (IA IIB); 11 (MB IIA), 27 (MB IIB); Keel 2013:582–583,586–587,592–593. For the Egyptian origin of the winged sun disk and several of its receptions in Mesopotamia, see, e.g., LeMon 2010:119–126, cf. Parayre 1993. 70 The one is an ivory plaque representing a scene with a king seated on a cherub throne and tribute bearers and soldiers with captives approaching him (Loud 1939:13, plate 4,2a-b – the piece is published with inventory number 38.780 of the ‘Palestine Archaeology Museum’, now the Rockefeller Museum). The other is an ivory plaque representing Hittite cosmology with royal ideology (Loud 1939:10,14, plate 11; now in the Oriental Institute in Chicago, inventory number A22292; http://oiidb.uchicago.edu/#D/MC/58239/H/1440513344291, accessed 25 August 2015). 71 See the beginning of §3. 72 See the end of §2.2 and §3.1, the discussion of Hazor 99.

Material Aramaeisms?

243

mobility of the seal (owner) versus cultural dispersion. The former option is related to the agency of the (possibly subsequent) seal owner(s) as an individual case rather than the mobility of the seal cutter, as the latter would rather be related to cultural proliferation of the type (or motif, style, etc. in other cases). Although a full overview of the seals and seal impressions from Megiddo is not yet available, preliminary conclusions can be drawn based on the main publications.73 It appears that no hammer seal has been found at Megiddo, nor is there any evidence of imagery related to the moon cult for the period 1200–800 BCE. The latter accords with the evidence of the spread of moon cult in this period,74 and the broader use of moon and astral symbolism under influence of the Assyrian empire since the 8th century BCE.75 The striding lion, however, as well as ivory parallels, including the winged sun disk are present in the Megiddo corpus (figs 11a-b).76 Luwian hieroglyphs or pseudo-hieroglyphs have not been found either in Megiddo; the ones from Hazor (figs 8a-b) are thus far unique. Nevertheless, for Hazor they make a case for a northern connection. The question in the present context, however, is: can a northern influence (in particular in the Iron Age) be concluded? And do the Aramaeans have any role in this connection or case of influence? Likewise the hammer seal (fig. 7) indicates a northern link. Assuming an established relation with the Aramaeans, however, could turn out in a circular reasoning, making the hammer seals elsewhere (especially at Azekah, Tel Gamma, or Tell Abu Kharaz) a unique phenomenon. A similar train of thought could make the stamp used for the impressions of the cooking pot a unique case that gets filed as an exception. However, the cooking pot is not a miniature find and although the seal used for stamping is a miniature, its characteristics and its use indicate imitation: the hieroglyphs on the seal seem to be copied and the impressions seem to deny the person who made the impression competence in Luwian hieroglyphs, given the two opposite ways in which the seals have been applied to the pot (one ‘upside-down’). The various pieces of glyptic evidence from the Iron Age II77 could be taken together to make a cumulative case for Aramaean influence but the results to substantiate such a case sphragistically (through the study of seals/ glyptics) are too scant when only taking the glyptic evidence as brought to the attention in this article without other types of finds. Nevertheless, the glyptic material has a statistic significance, given that at least 18%78 of the Iron Age IIA material points into the direction of northern (possi73

Finkelstein 2000; 2006; Finkelstein et al. 2013; http://www.bible-orient-museum.ch/bodo/ (used with a registered account, providing ca. 150 seals, seal impressions, etc. excavated at Megiddo and dated between 1200 and 800 BCE, including some overlap with the mentioned publications). 74 So Uehlinger at the colloquium. See also Keel and Uehlinger 1998:144,296 et passim; cf. Theuer 2000. 75 Cf. Theuer 2000:518. 76 For this period there are more examples of lions, the ‘ivory parallels’ are significantly more frequent in the 8th century. Note that the dating of Shema’s seal (fig. 11a) is debated; given the possible later date, it might well testify to the same influence through the Aramaeans but in a later era. 77 Given the concluded continuity of Egyptian style seals (and seal impressions) in the Iron Age I. 78 When taking three out of seventeen items (see the footnote in Table 1); with a different calculation one could argue for four out of eighteen (if the cooking pot would have been broken, the two seal

244

Izaak J. de Hulster

bly Aramaean or Aramaean-transmitted) connections and probably also influence. Whereas one seal (Hazor 97) points to possible connections with Phoenicia or to a style related to a probable style of southern ivory production79 the rest roughly indicates a continuation of the Iron Age I. The comparison with Megiddo substantiates these conclusions but also adds new questions, e.g., through the motif of the striding (and roaring) lion raising the possibility of an Aramaean influence in the Aram-Israel border zone that spread further and may even have lead to a koine in a larger region.80

4. Conclusions: Glyptic Aramaeisms? Difficulties in studying glyptic miniature material for influences After pointing to a few issues in the delimitation of the entities to be compared, generally described as Aram and Israel, this article has addressed the notion of ethnicity in light of the larger search for identity – and identification in etic imagology and emic identity formation/confirmation (and possibly conformation). Furthermore it pointed to a number of challenges involved in examining small glyptic finds for the study of cultural influences. The difficulties related to the glyptic miniature material, such as its mobility as small but significant group of objects, also caution against too strong conclusions in relation to the places where they have been found. The focus on (possible) Aramaean art further complicated the task, the search for material Aramaeisms among the glyptic miniature material from the Aram-Israel border zone, in particular from Hazor. The small amount of data available and discussed above does not lead to strong conclusions about the possible Aramaean influence on Hazor, but the case provides a good occasion to illustrate a number of issues to be considered in studying seals and seal impressions (as part of the regional research in the Aram-Israel border zone) for connections and influences. Given the small number of data, conclusions about the material need to be made cautiously. Nevertheless, with the considerations above it seems justified to agree with Bonatz and others that the moon motif and the hammer seal might indicate an Aramaean influence and this holds for Hazor as well. Based on the comparison with Megiddo, however, the striding lion had probably become part of a larger koine; nevertheless, the Aramaeans probably played a role in the spread of this motif. For the Iron Age find

impressions 114 and 115 would have been individual evidence; so one could take the different seals and seal impressions instead of the number of items) which makes 22%. 79 A South Syrian style (so Irene Winter, see above) that might have been shared with Phoenicia and Israel. 80 One example of a lion on a seal from Hazor has been excavated in slightly later layers which is usually taken as an indication for later production. See Hazor 25 (Keel 2013:592–593, dated 830– 700); note the earlier lions: Hazor 32 (Keel 2013:594–595) and possibly 56–57 (Keel 2013:606–607; Yadin 1959: plates 89,5; 102,23; 162,5). Keel and Uehlinger 1998:189–190 mentions one additional 8th century seal from Hazor but this attribution is contested, and the seal (British Museum 484849) does not appear in the Corpus (Keel 2013); cf. Galling 1941:136–137,176, Avigad and Sass 1997: 442–443 (item 1169), and Strawn 2005:117,415 (fig. 3.150).

Material Aramaeisms?

245

a

b Figures 10a-b: Two Late Bronze pieces of worked ivory from Megiddo: a. depicting tribute and captives brought to a king (ca. 26x6cm). Source: Loud 1939: Plate 4:2b; b. depicting a ‘conceptual image’ of Hittite cosmology (10x9,5cm). Source: Loud 1939: Plate 11:b.

a b Figures 11a-b: seals from Megiddo: a. scaraboid depicting a striding, roaring lion on the seal – according to its inscription – belonging to Jeroboam’s servant Shema (Jeroboam I, 928–907 BCE, so Usshiskin 1994; or Jeroboam II, 784–748 BCE). Source: Avigad and Sass 1997:49 (item 2); b Half a scarab (9th century, possibly later) depicting a falcon with a whip, a winged sun disk, and a sphinx / cherub; Keel and Uehlinger 1998:257–258, fig. 259a.

246

Izaak J. de Hulster

of a cooking pot with copied/imitated Luwian hieroglyphs in Hazor, clearly a connection with the north, Aramaean agency could not be named (a role could neither be excluded nor identified). Moreover, a few challenges concerning conclusions of influence and identity need to be taken into account. First one makes a comparison. This comparison might lead to the conclusion of similarities. Similarities are not necessarily a sign of influence, and if they are – and maybe even the direction of influence can be established – they are not necessarily an indication of identity formation or expression. Similarities may have a wider range and be explained as a koine. Nevertheless, koines also have their history of origin, originating, and proliferation. One of the issues here is how quickly did a motif (or a style, type, etc.) spread? And what agencies are involved in this process? And for which reasons? Is it a matter of ethnicity or identity or mere fashion,81 etc.? Dividing influence in agencies of originating and transmission, studying the spread of the scarab as image carrier to Syria, it is seen as Egyptian influence, whether argued to be transmitted by Phoenician or Israelites.82 Nevertheless, the adoption of an image carrier (like imitation)83 can be seen as a form of influence but passing it on makes one also an agent in influencing. Thus, if the Aramaeans would have passed on the striding (and roaring) lion to Israel, there is a reason to acknowledge the Aramaean role in this and specify their contribution, at a local scale or in establishing a koine. Bringing the theory and the archaeological material together, we reflect once more on the three points of Wimmer, as above applied to the study of identity: 1. Geographical focus: this article has a focus on a border zone and included a perspective of larger areas, also with the question of the delimitation or identification of commonalities and – what at large scale is called – koine. The field of border studies could refine this kind of research with a focus on regionalism;84 the search for the extended borders of a koine draws attention to the different geographical scales that can be employed in planning research. 2. Emphasis on human agents. This article has underlined human choice (in seal, execution, incl. motif, style, size, etc., and mobility)85 as well as the agency and mobility of objects (including market mechanisms, and the role of seal cutters or workshops). Furthermore, the relation between art and elite has been touched on. Thus ‘Aramaean’ could turn into a label for luxury. A connected issue is how adaptation is related to identification.86 3. Attention for historical developments. The chronological dimension of this study pointed to the ‘influence’ from (continuity with) earlier periods; this

81 Including issues of agency, e.g., in the relation between fashions as demand at the market and mass production as supply. 82 Cf. the second footnote in §3.1. 83 Cf. Collon 2002 quoted above in §2.2. 84 Cf. Sergi and de Hulster, this volume. 85 Cf. parallel to agency of objects one could ponder the agency of the material (as a perspective on the practical limits of feasibility in production). 86 See, e.g., the examples in §2.1; cf. figs 1a-b.

Material Aramaeisms?

247

comprises questions about identity: how are objects understood (especially heirlooms) and do they reflect a similar identification? In sum, with thoughtful reference to the mobile nature of small finds, the issues involved in studying identity and the other methodological considerations above, we cautiously conclude a northern influence (beyond similarity) in Northern Israel.87 For Hazor (in the Northern Jordan Valley) this could be (still cautiously) exemplified with the find of imitated Luwian hieroglyphs, moon imagery, a hammer seal and the motif of the striding (and roaring) lion. The striding lion (like the winged sun disk) was (or: became) part of a (or: the) larger koine, as exemplified with material from Megiddo. What is part of a larger development? There are several difficulties in identifying this northern influence as Aramaean, as influence is often conceptualised in terms of origins and the Aramaeans adapted most of their expressions from their context. Their role or influence might have been in passing on motifs, carrier types, etc. A larger diachronic and synchronic approach and study could shed more light on what is part of delimitation and identification, as well as the emergence of koines and pictorial traditions (and their mechanism in relation to different agencies), glyptic material and the expression of identity, and the role of the Aramaeans in transmission. Furthermore, it would be important to advance border studies for its application in archaeology and to include the role of the Phoenicians in further study, especially for the ongoing excavation in Tel Abel-Beth-Maacah because of its proximity to the Phoenician city states, as corroborated by the finds. Thus the considerations and evidence presented at this colloquium/ in this volume can be elaborated on and brought to more fruition.

Bibliography ARAV, R., 2004. Toward a Comprehensive History of Geshur, in: Bethsaida: A City by the North Shore of the Sea of Galilee. Volume Three: Bethsaida Excavations Project, ed. R. Arav and R. A. Freund, Kirksville, 1–48 AVIGAD, N. and B. SASS, 1997. Corpus of West Semitic stamp seals (Publications of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Section of Humanities), Jerusalem BEN-AMI, D., 2001. The Iron I at Tel Hazor in Light of the Renewed Excavations, IEJ 51: 148–170 –: 2006. Early Iron Age Cult Places - New Evidence from Tel Hazor, TA 33: 121–133 –: 2013. Hazor at the Beginning of the Iron Age, NEA 76: 101–104 BEN-TOR, A., BEN-AMI, D. and D. SANDHAUS, 2012. Hazor VI: The 1990–2009 Excavations – The Iron Age, Jerusalem (with contributions by S. Bechar, M. Cimadevilla, J. R. Ebeling, O. Harush, Y. Israeli, O. Keel, J. Lev-Tov, N. Marom, M. Spaer, M. Tadmor) BOARDMAN, J., 2000. Iconography and archaeology: some problems east and west, in: Images as Media: Sources for the cultural history of the Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean (Ist millennium BCE) (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 175), ed. C. Uehlinger, Fribourg, 393–396 BUCHANAN, B. and P. R. S. MOOREY, 1988. Catalogue of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in the Ashmolean Museum. Volume III: The Iron Age Stamp Seals, Oxford COGAN, M., 1995. A Lamashtu Plaque from the Judaean Shephelah, IEJ 45: 155–161 87

In agreement with the idea/ ‘paradigm’ of the (Southern) Levant as the ‘Sacred Bridge’ (cf., e.g., Rainey and Notley 2005).

248

Izaak J. de Hulster

COLLINS, P., 2008. From Egypt to Babylon: The International Age 1550–500 BC, Cambridge COLLON, D., 2002. An Old Assyrian Cylinder Seal from al-Moghraqa, Gaza, Levant 34: 229–233 EGGLER, J. and O. KEEL, 2006. Corpus der Siegel-Amulette aus Jordanien: vom Neolithikum bis zur Perserzeit (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis / Series Archaeologica 25), Fribourg FELDMAN, M., 2014. Communities of Style: Portable Luxury Arts, Identity and Collective Memory in the Iron Age Levant, Chicago FINKELSTEIN, I. (ed.), 2000. Megiddo III: The 1992–1996 seasons (Monograph series / Tel Aviv University, Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology 18), Tel Aviv FINKELSTEIN, I., 2005. Hazor at the End of the Late Bronze Age: A Reassessment, UF 37: 341–349 –: 2006. Megiddo IV: The 1998–2002 seasons (Monograph series / Tel Aviv University, Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology 24), Tel Aviv FINKELSTEIN, I., D. USSISHKIN, and E. H. CLINE (eds), 2013. Megiddo V: The 2004–2008 seasons (Monograph series / Tel Aviv University, Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology 31), Winona Lake GAL, D., 2009. A Stamp Seal from Tel ‘Azekah, Judaean Shephelah, IEJ 59: 158–163 GALATY, M. L., 2014. Review of J. Maran and P. W. Stockhammer, Materiality and Social Practice, European Journal of Archaeology 17/1: 162–167 GALLING, K., 1941. Beschriftete Bildsiegel des ersten Jahrtausends v. Chr. vornehmlich aus Syrien und Palästina. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der phönikischen Kunst, ZDPV 64/2: 121-202 GALTER, H. D., 2004. Militärgrenze und Euphrathandel: Der sozio-ökonomische Hintergrund der Trilinguen von Arslan Tash, in: Commerce and monetary systems in the ancient world : means of transmission and cultural interaction ; proceedings of the Fifth Annual Symposium of the Assyrian and Babylonian Intellectual Heritage Project, held in Innsbruck, Austria, October 3rd–8th 2002, Mellamu Symposia V (Oriens et Occidens: Studien zu antiken Kulturkontakten und ihrem Nachleben 6), ed. R. Rollinger and C. Ulf, Stuttgart, 444–460 GOPHNA, R. and V. SUSSMANN, 1969. A Middle Bronze Age Tomb at Barqai, Atiqot 5: 1–13 (in Hebrew) HAHN, H. P., 2012. Words and things: Reflections on people’s interactions with the material world, Materiality and Social Practice: Transformative Capacities in Intercultural Encounters, ed. J. Maran and P. W. Stockhammer, Oxford, 4–12 HAWKINS, J. D., 2000. Corpus of hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions: Volume I: Inscriptions of the Iron Age (Untersuchungen zur indogermanischen Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft / Studies in IndoEuropean language and culture NS 8,1), Berlin (three volumes) HEINZ, M., 2000. Kamid el-Loz and the Lebanon in the course of time: an overview, in: Kamid elLoz: Intermediary between Cultures – More than 10 years of Archaeological Research in Kamid el-Loz (1997 to 2007) (Bulletin d’Archeologie et d’Architecture Libanaises: Hors-Série VII), ed. M. Heinz, Beyrouth, 23–30 HEINZ, M. and J. LINKE, 2012. Hyperculture, tradition and identity: How to communicate with seals in times of global action. A Middle Bronze Age seal impression from Kamid el-Loz, in: Materiality and Social Practice. Transformative Capacities of Intercultural Encounters, ed. J. Maran and P. Stockhammer, Oxford, 185–190 HODDER, I., 2012. Entangled: An Archaeology of the Relationships between Humans and Things, West Sussex HOGARTH, D. G., 1920. Hittite Seals: with particular reference to the Ashmolean Collection, Oxford –: 1922. Engraved Hittite Objects, The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 8: 211–218 HULSTER, I. J. DE, 2009. Iconographic Exegesis and Third Isaiah (FAT II 36), Tübingen –: 2014. Ethnicity and ‘the myth of the reborn nation’: investigations in collective identity, monotheism and the use of figurines in Yehud during the Achaemenid period, Approaching Religion 4/2: 16-24 (ojs.abo.fi/index.php/ar/article/view/823) INGOLD, T., 2010. The textility of making, Cambridge Journal of Economics 34: 91–102

Material Aramaeisms?

249

KEEL, O., 2010. Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel: von den Anfängen bis zur Perserzeit: Katalog Band II: Von Tel Gamma bis Chrirbet Husche (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis / Series Archaeologica 29), Fribourg (with contributions by Daphna Ben-Tor, Baruch Brandl and Robert Wenning) –: 2013. Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel: von den Anfängen bis zur Perserzeit: Katalog Band IV: Von Tel Gamma bis Chrirbet Husche (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis / Series Archaeologica 33), Fribourg (with contributions by Baruch Brandl, Daphna Ben-Tor and Leonardo Pajarola) KEEL, O. and C. UEHLINGER, 1996. Altorientalische Miniaturkunst, Die ältesten visuellen Massenkommunikationsmittel, Mainz (second edition) KEEL, O. and C. UEHLINGER, 1998. Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel, Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress (translated by Thomas H. Trapp; German original now in 7th edition: O. Keel and C. Uehlinger, 2012. Göttinnen, Götter und Gottessymbole: Neue Erkenntnisse zur Religionsgeschichte Kanaans und Israels aufgrund bislang unerschlossener ikonographischer Quellen Fribourg: BIBEL+ORIENT Museum; first edition 1992) KEEL-LEU, H., 1991. Vorderasiatische Stempelsiegel: Die Sammlung des Biblischen Instituts der Universität Freiburg Schweiz (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 110), Fribourg KÜHNE, H., 1980. Das Rollsiegel in Syrien: Zur Steinschneidekunst in Syrien zwischen 3300 und 330 vor Christus, Tübingen LAROCHE, E., 1960. Les hiéroglyphes hittites, Paris LATOUR, B., 2005. Reassembling the Social – An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory, Oxford LEVIN, C., 2000. Das vorstaatliche Israel, Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 97: 385–403 LIEBOWITZ, H., 1987. Late Bronze II Ivory Work in Palestine: Evidence of a Cultural Highpoint, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 265: 3–24 –: Ivory, in: Anchor Bible Dictionary 3, 584–587 LIPIēSKI, E., 2000. The Aramaeans: Their ancient history, culture, religion (OLA 100), Leuven –: 2006. On the skirts of Canaan in the Iron Age: Historical and topographical researches (OLA 153), Leuven LOUD, G., 1939. The Megiddo Ivories (Oriental Institute Publications 52), Chicago MARAN, J. and P. W. STOCKHAMMER (eds), 2012. Materiality and Social Practice: Transformative Capacities in Intercultural Encounters, Oxford MEYER, J-W., 2008. Die eisenzeitlichen Stempelsiegel aus dem ‘Amuq-Gebiet: ein Beitrag zur Ikonographie altorientalischer Siegelbilder (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis / Series Archaeologica 28), Fribourg NA’AMAN, N., 2012. The Kingdom of Geshur in History and Memory, SJOT 26/1: 88–101 NESTOR, D. A., 2010. Cognitive perspectives on Israelite identity (Library of Hebrew Bible/ Old Testament Studies 519), London NIEMANN, H. M., 2003. Kern-Israel im samarischen Gebirge und seine zeitweilige Peripherie: Megiddo, die Jezreelebene und Galiläa im 11. bis 8. Jh. v. Chr.: Archäologische Grundlegung, biblische Spiegelung und historische Konsequenzen, UF 35: 421–485 NUNN, A., 1999. Stamp Seals from the Collections of the Aleppo Museum, Syrian Arab Republic (BAR, International Series 804), Oxford (in cooperation with Hamido Hammade) –: 2004. ‘Die Skarabäen und Skaraboide aus Westvorderasien und Mesopotamien’, in: Skarabäen außerhalb Ägyptens; Lokale Produktion oder Import? (BAR, International Series 1205), ed. A. Nunn and R. Schulz, Oxford, 13–53 ORTHMANN, W., 1975. Der alte Orient (Propyläen Kunstgeschichte 14), Berlin PARAYRE, D., 1993. A propos des sceaux ouest-sémitiques: le rôle de l’iconographie dans l’attribution d’un sceau à une aire culturelle ou à un atelier, in: Studies in the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 125), ed. B. Sass and C. Uehlinger, Fribourg, 27–51

250

Izaak J. de Hulster

PAKKALA, J., 2010. What Do We Know about Geshur?, SJOT 24/2: 155–173 –: 2013. The Methodological Hazards in Reconstructing the so-called Kingdom of Geshur, SJOT 27/2: 226–246 PAYNE, A., 2010. Hieroglyphic Luwian: An Introduction with Original Texts (Subsidia et instrumenta linguarum Orientis 2), Wiesbaden (second edition) RAINEY, A. F., and R. S. NOTLEY, 2005. The Sacred Bridge: Carta’s Atlas of the Biblical World, Jerusalem SCHROER, S., 1985. Der Mann im Wulstsaummantel: Ein Motiv der Mittelbronzezeit II B, in: Studien zu den Stempelsiegeln aus Palästina / Israel. Band I (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 67), Othmar Keel and Silvia Schroer, Fribourg, 49–115 SHUVAL, M., 1990. Catalogue of Early Iron Stamp Seals from Israel, in: Studien zu den Stempelsiegeln aus Palästina/Israel III (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 100), ed. O. Keel, Fribourg, 67–161, 280–297 SPARKS, K. L., 2003. Genesis 49 and the Tribal List Tradition in Ancient Israel, ZAW 115: 327–347 STAUBLI, T., 2013. Kleider in biblischer Zeit, Fribourg (second edition) STERN, E., 2007. En-Gedi Excavations I: Final Report (1961–1965), Jerusalem STRAWN, B. A., 2005. What Is Stronger than a Lion? Leonine Image and Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 212), Fribourg THEUER, G., 2000. Der Mondgott in den Religionen Syrien-Palästinas: unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von KTU 1.24 (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 173), Fribourg UEHLINGER, C. (ed.), 2005. Images as Media: Sources for the cultural history of the Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean (Ist millennium BCE) (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 175), Fribourg USSISHKIN, D., 1994. Gate 1567 at Megiddo and the Seal of Shema, Servant of Jeroboam, in: Scripture and Other Artifacts: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of P. J. King, ed. M. D. Coogan, J. Cheryl Exum, and L. E. Stager, Louisville, 410–428 VEEN, P. VAN DER and P. JAMES, 2015. Early Iron Age Epigraphy and Chronological Revision: A Summary Article, in: Solomon and Shishak (BAR International Series 2732), ed. P. James and P. van der Veen, Oxford, 190–198 WIMMER, A., 2007. How (not) to Think about Ethnicity in Immigrant Societies: A Boundary Making Perspective (ESRC Centre on Migration, Policy and Society, Working Paper 44), Oxford –: 2008a. Ethnische Grenzziehung in der Immigrationsgesellschaft. Jenseits des Herder’schen Commonsense, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 48: 57–80 –: 2008b. The Making and Unmaking of Ethnic Boundaries: A Multilevel Process Theory, American Journal of Sociology 113: 970–1022 –: 2013. Ethnic Boundary Making: Institutions, Power, Networks (Oxford Studies in Culture and Politics), Oxford WINTER, I. J., 1987. Is There a South Syrian Style in Ivory Carving in the First Millennium B.C.?, Iraq 43: 101–130 –: 2010. On Art in the Ancient Near East. Volume I: Of the First Millennium B.C.E. (Culture & History of the Ancient Near East 34/1), Leiden WINTER, U., 1983. Frau und Göttin: Exegetische und ikonographische Studien zum weiblichen Gottesbild im Alten Israel und in dessen Umwelt (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 53), Fribourg (first edition, second edition: 1987) YADIN, Y., 1958. Excavations at Hazor, 1957: Preliminary Communiqué, IES 8/1: 1–14 YADIN, Y., 1959. Hazor II, Jerusalem (in Hebrew) ZWICKEL, W., R. EGGER-WENZEL, and M. ERNST (eds), 2013. Herders neuer Bibelatlas, Freiburg

Part III: Aram and Israel: the Question of Identity

Confrontation, Emulation and Ethno-genesis of the Aramaeans in Iron Age Syria Guy Bunnens, Université de Liège Iron Age Syria is usually viewed as dominated by two ethno-cultural forces, the Luwians, or Neo-Hittites, and the Aramaeans. Hence the name Syro-Hittite often used to refer to the late 2nd/early 1st millennium BCE in northern Syria. However, the origin of these groups has been a matter of debate for a very long time. Whereas the Luwian language and Luwian-speaking groups are well known in the second millennium,1 the Aramaeans are much more elusive in the period prior to the Iron Age. The interest in the Aramaeans stems, to a large extent, from the importance they have in Biblical narratives. The Bible includes many references to the Aramaeans, especially the Aramaeans of Damascus, and this, quite naturally, has aroused a desire to know more about them. As the Bible shows an Aramaean people active in Syria from the time of king David onwards, we search for the earliest evidence of this enigmatic people and, in so doing, we tend to take earlier, often equivocal, evidence as a proof that a later situation already existed in more remote times. However, if we consider the same evidence in a diachronic sequence starting with the earliest information available, if we evaluate it against its broader context and we go down the course of time, we find that the picture is much more complex than usually assumed. There are two main theories to explain the origins of the Aramaeans.2 One considers that they are nomads from the steppe or the desert, who invade lands occupied by agriculturalists. It tends to give way to another theory which sees in the Aramaeans the ultimate representatives of the pastoralist component of ancient Near Eastern society, of which the Amorites, considered as the Aramaeans’ ancestors, are the first attested manifestation. None of these explanations is entirely satisfactory as we shall see in the last section of this paper. In particular, why use a new name, Aram(aean), if the Aramaeans are nothing more than a moment in an anonymous continuum? A fresh look at the evidence might be useful. Parts 1 and 2 will examine the earliest evidence concerning the Aramaeans. Part 3 will be concerned with the ethnic and cultural identity of the Aramaeans, and Part 4 will place the early Aramaeans in a diachronical, historical, perspective.

1

Bryce 2012:9–31. M. G. Masetti-Rouault (2001:27–30) analyzes the theories that aim to explain the Amorite, Aramaean and Arab expansion in the Near East.

2

254

Guy Bunnens

1. The Origins – 12th/11th century There is agreement that the first certain occurrence of the name ‘Aramaean’ is in the royal inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser I at the turn of the 12th and 11th centuries. The name, however, is not used alone but, as is well known, in conjunction with A‫ې‬lamû. The exact phrase used by Tiglath-pileser is A‫ې‬lamû ArmƗyu, ‘Aramaean Aপlamû’. This means that the Aramaeans are not, or not yet, an autonomous group. They begin to emerge from the more general group of the Aপlamû, a term used to designate an illdefined ethnic or social group known since the Middle Bronze Age.3 Some kind of association between Aপlamû and Aramaeans will still be perceived in later times, to the point that ‘Aপlamû’ will occasionally be used as a synonym for ‘Aramaean’.4 There is also a tendency to assimilate the Aramaeans to the Sutu, another group known since de Middle Bronze Age,5 although there is no formal evidence to support this assimilation. The origin of their name is still unknown. Attempts have been made to trace it back to the Bronze Age, but none has gained acceptance among scholars.6 Consequently, as the Aramaeans only begin to be perceived as an autonomous group, albeit within the larger configuration of the Aপlamû, at the turn of the 12th and 11th centuries, this must be considered as the beginning of their history, less than a century after the Late Bronze Age political system collapsed. Their exact place of origin is unclear. The Assyrian spelling of their name is ambiguous and may give the impression that they derive their name from that of a land of Aram. The early Assyrian evidence consistently uses the determinative for geographical names KUR before their name, not LÚ, as would be expected for a people. Actually, there exist two different spellings of their name. Besides the spelling KUR ArmƗyu MEŠ, that is used by Tiglath-pileser I, the Assyrians also use, probably more often, KUR Arumu (MEŠ), which can mean ‘land of Aram’ or, especially with the determinative for plural MEŠ, ‘land of the Aramaeans’, but there is evidence that it can mean just ‘Aramaeans’, notwithstanding the determinative KUR and with or without the determinative MEŠ. For instance, the translation ‘Aramaeans’ is certain in a text of Adad-narari II, which says URU Gi-da-ra šá KUR A-ru-mu MEŠ URU Ra-qa-ma-tu iqa-bi-šu-ú-ni, ‘Gidara which the Aramaeans call Raqamatu’.7 There results from this that no formal criterion helps to decide between the two possible translations. We shall see below (pages 265–266) that a similar uncertainty characterizes the word Aram in early Aramaic inscriptions. It might be more productive to collect the toponyms that are associated with the Aramaeans and to check whether they concentrate in a particular region, be it their homeland or a place that they have occupied in large numbers.

3

Herles 2007. CAD A/1, s.v. aপlamû, 193; Fales 2013:20,28. 5 E.g. Brinkman 1968:285–287; Postgate 1981; Zadok 1991, passim; 2012:570 and passim. 6 Kupper 1957:112–113; LipiĔski 2000:26–35. 7 RIMA 2, A.0.99.2, 52. 4

Confrontation, Emulation and Ethno-genesis

255

Figure 1: Place names mentioned in connection with Tiglath-pileser I’s campaigns against the Aramaeans. The arrows show the direction of Tiglath-pileser I’s campaigns.

1.1. Tiglath-pileser I Tiglath-pileser I, who is the first to show them emerging from the Aপlamû multitude, mentions them in inscriptions that can be grouped into two sets of texts. First come texts relating the defeat of the Aramaean Aপlamû in one day from the land of Suhu to Karkemish of the land of Hatti, their crossing of the Euphrates and the destruction of six8 or seventeen9 of their cities at the foot of Jebel Bishri. This, for the sake of convenience, will be called the ‘one-day campaign’. In the second set, the king mentions his repeated crossings of the Euphrates10 in pursuit of the Aramaean Aপlamû up to the land of Hatti and their defeat from Mount Lebanon to Palmyra in Amurru, Anat in Suhu as far as Rapiqu in Karduniash (Babylonia). This will be referred to as the ‘crossings of the Euphrates’. The differences between the two sets may probably be explained by the fact that the ‘one-day campaign’ refers to a single battle, which was fought in the fifth year of the king as can be inferred from the inscription RIMA 2, A.0.87.1, whereas the ‘crossings of the Euphrates’ gives a summary of several military operations, among which is the ‘one-day campaign’. This being so, it is puzzling to see that the Aramaean Aপlamû are omitted from the narrative of a third expedition, the ‘Lebanon campaign’, during which the king went to Lebanon, where he had cedar trees cut down, then proceeded to Phoenicia, where he received tribute from Sidon, Byblos and Arwad before going fishing in the sea near Arwad, to ultimately receive 8

RIMA 2, A.0.81,1, v 44–63; 2, 28–29. RIMA 2, A.0.87.13, 4’–9’. 10 RIMA 2, A.0.87.3, 29–35: the number of crossings is lost in a break; 4, 34–36: twenty-eight crossings. 9

256

Guy Bunnens

tribute from Ini-Teshub of Hatti on his way back to Assyria.11 As is shown by the ‘crossings of the Euphrates’, Tiglath-pileser should have encountered them on his way from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean. The possibility is therefore raised that they were mentioned in a lost version of the ‘Lebanon campaign’. This campaign was probably unique, as was also the ‘one-day campaign’. The king recalls several times in his building inscriptions the cedars he brought back from Lebanon and the animals he killed on his trip near the island of Arwad. These ventures were the climax of his expeditions abroad. The repeated crossings of the Euphrates, which lack the lustre of the ‘one-day campaign’ and of the ‘Lebanon campaign’, are more routine activities showing that the pressure of the Aramaean Aপlamû, despite these glorious ventures, is going on unabated. This brief overview of Tiglath-pileser I’s inscriptions relating to the Aramaean Aপlamû gives a good illustration of what Assyrian royal inscriptions actually are, i.e. literary texts. They combine topoi and an organization of the material that does not have historical accuracy as its primary goal. There may be exaggerations – it is clear in the case of the ‘one-day campaign’ – and omissions, as it is probably the case for the ‘Lebanon campaign’. The second conclusion, more directly relevant to our purpose, is that the Aramaean Aপlamû are shown as active in a vast area extending all along the Euphrates and as far west as Mount Lebanon (fig. 1). Such a territory is much too vast to be considered as the homeland of the Aramaeans. It looks more like the area in which the Aপlamû were active at the time. The only piece of information that might be accepted as giving an indication concerning their place of origin is the mention of cities, i.e. permanent settlements, at the foot of Jebel Bishri. These texts say nothing about the internal organisation of the Aramaeans, nor about their culture or language. A Middle-Assyrian chronicle, discovered in Tiglath-pileser I’s library, may add an interesting piece of information. It refers, in a badly broken passage,12 to É.MEŠ KUR Ar-ma-a-ia M[EŠ], ‘houses of Aramaeans’, which seem to have been raiding the core of Assyria, near Nineveh, forcing the inhabitants to flee to the mountains at the time of the Babylonian king Marduk-nadin-ahhe’s death in 1082. The Aramaeans have thus managed to reach Assyria already at the time of Tiglath-pileser I despite the king’s repeated campaigns in the Euphrates region, although inscriptions of later kings show that the Aramaeans were not able to stay. More importantly, the chronicle shows that they are organised in ‘houses’, i.e. in kin-based groups or tribes. 1.2. Assur-bel-kala The second successor of Tiglath-pileser I, Assur-bel-kala (1073–1056), is next among the earliest sources concerning the Aramaeans. He too had to fight them many times. A first change with respect to Tiglath-pileser’s inscriptions concerns the spelling of the name, which is most often A-ri-me, in the genitive, probably corresponding to a nominative Arumu with Assyrian vocal harmony. Another change might also be a distinction between Aramaeans and Aপlamû, at least if we can trust a damaged tablet 11 12

RIMA 2, A.0.87.3, 16–28; 4, 24–40; 10, 28–35; 10, 28–35. Grayson 1975:189, line 3; Glassner 1993:177.

Confrontation, Emulation and Ethno-genesis

257

which mentions KUR A-ra-me on line 7’ and […A]‫ې‬-la-mi-i š[a…] on line 14’.13 The Aramaeans are increasing their visibility. Like Tiglath-pileser I’s inscriptions, Assur-bel-kala’s records also follow pre-set patterns. The text that has just been mentioned is sufficiently well preserved to help to recognize, despite lacunae, an account that is very similar to that of the ‘crossings of the Euphrates’ of Tiglath-pileser I.14 Another lacunary text is also reminiscent of Tiglath-pileser’s ‘crossings of the Euphrates’ but adds a mention of the Sajur river.15 A recurrent phrase used in connection with the Aramaeans is KASKAL šá KUR A-ri-me, ‘road/expedition of the land of Aram’ (or ‘of the Aramaeans’). It is used twice, albeit partially restored, in a summary of Assur-bel-kala’s military achievements.16 However, it is on the Broken Obelisk, which is assigned to Assur-bel-kala on the basis of similarities with others of his inscriptions and of the mention of one of Assur-bel-kala’s eponyms,17 that the phrase most often occurs. Each occurrence is followed by a place name and the verb i‫ې‬-ta-bat, ‘he fought’. The formula is elliptic and its translation uncertain. D. D. Luckenbill translates “during an expedition against the land of Arime, (in) the city GN he fought (a battle)”.18 A. K. Grayson understands “on campaign against the Aramaeans, he fought (with them) at the city GN”.19 The grammatical function of KASKAL, ‘road’, ‘expedition’, is not clear. It might just be a kind of label or subtitle, or it can be an indication of place or time. The most appropriate translation, however, is probably the one adopted by A. K. Grayson in an earlier publication: “he attacked a contingent of Aramaeans at GN”.20 KASKAL, in this case, is the object of the verb i‫ې‬tabat and there is no necessity to supply a complement such as ‘he fought (a battle)’,21 or ‘he fought (with them)’.22 A more accurate translation would therefore be ‘he fought a raid of the Aramaeans at GN’. The Broken Obelisk is the most informative of Assur-bel-kala’s inscriptions dealing with the Aramaeans. After the first legible name, Ša‫܈‬iri, unknown from other sources, comes a series of names which can be situated in Upper Mesopotamia and on the Upper Tigris. Such is Pauza in the district of Šauza at the foot of Mount Kashiyari, i.e. the Tur-Abdin (col. iii, line 8)23 and Nabula (col. iii, line 13) near modern Nusaybin on the Upper Jaghjagh.24 A name almost entirely lost is said to have been on the Tigris (col. iii, line 12), probably the Upper Tigris to the north of the Tur Abdin as the following names invite

13

RIMA 2, A.0.89.6. RIMA 2, A.0.89.6, 6’–15’. 15 RIMA 2, A.0.89.9, 3’–10'. 16 RIMA 2, A.0.89.2, iii 27'-28’; 3, 6'. 17 Borger 1964:138–142; Brinkman 1968:383. 18 ARAB 1, 120–121. 19 RIMA 2, 101–103. 20 Grayson 1976:2,53–54. 21 ARAB 1, 120–121. 22 RIMA 2, 101–103. 23 Radner 2006:285. 24 Radner 2006:299–300. 14

258

Guy Bunnens

Figure 2: Place names mentioned in connection with the Aramaeans in Assur-bel-kala’s Broken Obelisk.

us to think. Dunnu-ša-Libnjr-zƗnin-Aššur25 in the district of Šinamu (col. iii, line 14), is unknown, but not Šinamu, which points to a place in the Upper Tigris valley to the north of the Tur Abdin.26 Murarଢrirଣ in the land of Šubrie (col. iii, line 18) is unknown. However, its relation to Šubrie places it to the north of the Upper Tigris. Then comes a phrase referring to the Aramaeans without mentioning KASKAL, with the indication ‘from the land of Ma‫ې‬irani to the city of Šuppa of the land of Harran’ (col. iii, lines 19–20). The mention of Harran points to a location further west in northern Mesopotamia, somewhere in the upper Balih valley. 25

The former reading URU.ଢMEŠଣ-ni šá (I)Li-šur-‫܈‬a-la-(D)A-šur has been amended into the more convincing Dunnu-ša-Libnjr-zƗnin-Aššur by K. Radner (2004:91) and F. M. Fales (2012:101). 26 Kessler 1980:79–84; Fales 2012:101–104.

Confrontation, Emulation and Ethno-genesis

259

A second series of names points to the lower Habur valley. Magrisi of the land [Ma]-a-ri27 (col.iii, line 21) is either Hassake28 or a site closer to Tabete/Tell Taban.29 The identification of Dur-Katlimmu (col. iii, line 22) with modern Sheikh Hamad is now well established. A last name, Sangarite, appears, without mention of KASKAL, in a broken context where the Euphrates (col. iii, line 23) is also mentioned. Sangarite is Middle Bronze Age Saggaratum which H. Kühne situates at Tell Abu Ha’it near the confluence of the Habur with the Euphrates.30 Two last names must be mentioned, although their possible relation to a KASKAL šá KUR A-ri-me is lost in a lacuna. One, KUR Gu-ଢulଣ-gu-li (col. iii, line 26), is unknown. The other, KUR ‫ۏ‬a-ଢaଣ-ni (col. iii, line 27), refers either to the region around Terqa on the middle Euphrates or to a region between Habur and Balih as is indicated by texts from Sheikh Hamad.31 The general orientation of the list would tend to show that the region around Terqa is meant here, although the spelling ‫ۏ‬a-a-ni, as in the Sheikh Hammad texts, would rather favour the northern Hani. These toponyms seem thus to follow two lines, one going from east to west in Upper Mesopotamia along the Kashiyari/Tur Abdin towards the Harran region and across the Tur-Abdin to the Upper Tigris valley, and a second line from north to south along the Lower Habur river towards the middle Euphrates (fig. 2). These lines are the routes followed by Assur-bel-kala in his wars against the Aramaeans,32 not the boundaries of a land of Aram. It is possible that the Broken Obelisk referred to other expeditions against the Aramaeans without mentioning them, as Tiglath-pileser I was also probably doing. For instance Assur-bel-kala relates an expedition from the Habur to Karkemish and the Euphrates without mentioning Aramaeans (ii, 19b–23). As the text is damaged, it is possible that their name has been lost in a lacuna. This is not the case for another record, completely preserved, of an expedition in Mount Kashiyari (Tur Abdin) (iii, 15– 17a), where other sections of the Broken Obelisk show that Aramaeans may launch raids. The Assur-bel-kala’s inscriptions would thus show that the Aramaeans, whom Tiglath-pileser I was fighting in regions to the west of the Euphrates, can also launch raids to the east of the river, as was already shown by the Middle-Assyrian chronicle quoted above (page 256). No conclusion can be drawn concerning a specifically Aramaean region. The absence of permanent Aramaean occupation along the Euphrates or on the Lower Habur at the time of Assur-bel-kala can find corroboration in local evidence as 27

The reading Ma]-a-ri, instead of I]a-ri has been proposed by S. Maul (1992: 54, n.118). Kühne 1980:54, 57–58. 29 Charpin 2009:66–67; Charpin 2010:38–40. 30 Kühne 1974–1977:253. 31 Cancik Kirschbaum 1996:30, n.122, 31 [map], 108–109; Röllig 1997:289–290. F. M. Fales (2012:116–118) elaborates on a hypothesis of M. Valério (2011), who revived an old reading of ‫ۏ‬a-niGAL-bat as ‫ۏ‬a-ni-rab-bat, to assess the historical and geographical significance of the northern land of Hana. 32 R. Zadok (2102:578) considers that Assur-bel-kala wanted to secure the control of the important roads. 28

260

Guy Bunnens

H. Kühne has shown.33 Around Tell Taban, ancient Tabete, to the south of Hassake on the Lower Habur, existed a kingdom – called ‘land of MƗri’ – of which several kings are known.34 The local dynasty seems to come to an end at Tell Taban some time during the reign of Assur-bel-kala, or immediately thereafter.35 On the other hand, a king of KUR ‫ۏ‬ana called Tukulti-Mer is attested by a stone object inscribed in his name.36 It is usually considered that this Tukulti-Mer is the same person as the Tukulti-Mer,37 king of the land of MƗri, that has been defeated by Assur-bel-kala.38 Whether this Hana is the northern Hana/i, between Habur and Balih, or the southern Hana, on the Euphrates, the local evidence demonstrates that local dynasties are still in power at a time when Aramaeans are launching raids to the east of the Euphrates. Still in the 10th century, Bel-eresh, who is a vassal of Assur-resha-ishi II (971–967), can carry out renovation work at Shadikanni on the Lower Habur.39 H. Kühne is quite right when he says: “The quality of the political influence of the Assyrians on the local entities of the Lower Habur may be debated but these entities stayed loyal to Assyria, resisted the pressure of the Aramaean tribes, and kept them off the eastern Jazira and the Assyrian heartland.”40 Similarly R. Zadok notes that the Aramaeans are unable to conquer Assyrian fortified centres.41 1.3. Babylonia The Aramaeans are also bellicose towards the south-east, in Babylonia. 42 It is possible that a Babylonian inscription of king Simbar-Shipak (1025–1008), known through Neo-Babylonian copies,43 has kept the memory of an Aramaean incursion in Babylonia at the time of Adad-apla-iddina (1068–1047). According to the text a group of LÚ.KÚR Arumu, ‘hostile Aramaeans’, together with Sutu, would have sacked Nippur, Sippar and other places. The name of the Aramaeans is associated here with the determinative for people LÚ, on line 10, and recurs on line 14 without determinative at all. This Aramaean incursion is also mentioned by two Neo-Babylonian chronicles44 according to which Aramaeans would have replaced Adad-apla-iddina by an Aramaean usurper and would have sacked Akkad, Der, Nippur, Sippar and Dur-Kurigalzu.45 The most important piece of information we gather from these texts is the mention of an Aramaean usurper. This is probably the earliest example of an Aramaean attempt to seize power in a non-Aramaean state. 33

Kühne 1995:72–76. Shibata 2011. 35 Numoto et al. 2013. 36 RIMA 2, A.0.89.2001. 37 E.g., LipiĔski 2000:300; Masetti-Rouault 2001:52. 38 RIMA 2, A.0.89.1, 89, obv. line 14'. 39 RIMA 2, A.0.96.2001. 40 Kühne 2009:44. 41 Zadok 2012:576. 42 Brinkman 1968:279–280; LipiĔski 2000:409–416; Frame 2013:91–93. 43 RIMB 2, B.3.1.1, 9–19. 44 Grayson 1975: No. 24, lines 8–10; Glassner 1993: No. 45, 227 and No. 46, 228. 45 Cf. Frame 2013:92. 34

Confrontation, Emulation and Ethno-genesis

261

To sum up, and going beyond the literary – and therefore somewhat artificial – aspect of Tiglath-pileser I and Assur-bel-kala’s inscriptions, the early records concerning the Aramaeans show that, at the beginning of the Iron Age, they were operating in a vast region, along the Euphrates from Babylonia to Karkemish, across the desert via Palmyra to Amurru and Lebanon, along the Upper Tigris valley, throughout the northern part of the Habur triangle and on the lower course of the Habur. These have always been major lines of communication of the ancient Near East. They are the natural ways that marauding Aramaeans may have followed and tell nothing about their homeland, except for a possible link with the Jebel Bishri region. Nothing is said about the Aramaean political and social organisation. Apart from the Aramaean usurper in Babylonia, they are not portrayed as seeking to seize power in any polity of any kind. The Assyrians consider them en bloc, without making any distinction between them. We only learn, from a Middle-Assyrian chronicle, that they can form kin-based groups (‘houses’). No evidence is available about their language and culture in this early stage of their history.

2. The Age of State Formation – 10th/9th century References to Aramaean conquests appear in relation to Assur-rabi II (1012–972) and more specific designations become to be used. Under Assur-rabi’s reign ‘Aramaean Yahanu, or Yahanu of the land Aram, who/which are/is behind Pi-[x-x]’ ([... KUR I]a-‫ې‬a-a-nu KUR A-ru-mu ša ku-tal KUR Pi-[x-x]) would have captured cities of an Assyrian district according to Assur-dan II (934-912), who ravaged their settlements and deported them to Assyria.46 Several translations of KUR A-ru-mu, land or people, are again possible, but, whatever the translation, it qualifies the Yahanu as Aramaeans. The name Yahanu is problematic, because it is also mentioned in connection with BƯt Agusi in northern Syria. The same Yahanu may be meant here – E. Weidner situates it near Karkemish –,47 especially if Pi-[it-ru], name of a city on the Euphrates, is restored at the end of line 23. Such a possibility could find a confirmation in a text of Shalmaneser III, which will be dealt with in the next paragraph. However, the broad context situates Assur-dan’s campaigns to the east of Assyria, implying that the Yahanu may have been located in the same region. Anyhow, Assur-dan refers to a group of Aramaeans by its name, Yahanu, and he shows them established in a particular, even though ill defined, region under the reign of Assur-rabi II at the turn of the 11th and 10th century. Another conquest made by the Aramaeans in the time of Assur-rabi II is surely situated in a western region. Shalmaneser III (858–824) says that he rebuilt the cities of Pitru and Mutkinu, “which in the time of Assur-rabi, king of Assyria, the king (or ‘a king’) of the land of Arumu, or an Aramaean king (MAN KUR Arumu), had seized by

46 47

RIMA 2, A.0.89.1, 23–32. Weidner 1926:156, n.3.

262

Guy Bunnens

force”.48 Pitru, already mentioned, and Mutkinu are both on the Euphrates in the vicinity of Til Barsib. Again, an Aramaean king and two cities are mentioned, giving another indication that the process of state formation is under way at the time of Assurrabi II. Another conquest may have been made after the reign of a king called Tiglathpileser, who is usually assumed to be Tiglath-pileser II (966–935).49 Adad-narari II (911–891) says, in a text already quoted above (page 254), that the KUR Arumu captured Gidara/Raqamatu after the time of Tiglath-pileser.50 According to Shamshi-Adad V (823–811), Raqamatu is situated between Urakka, near Nasibina, and Huzirina, near modern Urfa.51 An Aramaean group is thus occupying a place in the northern Jezireh. In the inscription of Assur-dan II (934–912), an excerpt of which has already been discussed above, we find the name of another Aramaean group. Assur-dan claims a victory, in his first year (934) over the troops of the Ya’usu (ÉRIN.MEŠ KUR Ia-ú-saa-ia) and says that he plundered their settlements from the city Ekal-pi-nari to another place, the name of which is lost, and brought back booty from the heart of KUR Arimi.52 As we saw above, the broad context seems to place the action to the east of Assyria. The general trend of the narrative makes it clear that KUR Arimi is the place where the Ya’usu were living, although it is still impossible to decide between the translations ‘land of Aram’ and ‘land of the Aramaeans’. The 10th and 9th centuries witness a personalization and individualization of Aramaean communities, at least in the eyes of external observers as were the Assyrians. Names of Aramaean communities and individuals progressively replace global designations such as ‘Aramaean Aপlamû’ or ‘Aramaeans’. Aramaeans begin to control territories around Assyrian-dominated regions, especially on the northern tract of the Middle Euphrates (Pitru and Mutkinu), in the Upper Jezireh (Gidara/Raqamatu) and in the region to the east of Assyria (the Ya’usu community). It should come as no surprise that powerful Aramaean states, which will resist Neo-Assyrian expansion, make their first appearance during this period. Such are BƯt Adini under Adad-narari II (911–891),53 and BƯt Agusi under Ashurnasirpal II (883–859).54

3. Aramaean Communities and Cultural Individuality The socio-political organisation of the Aramaeans and the process through which they took control of powerful kingdoms can be partially reconstructed.

48

RIMA 3, A.0.102.2, II 35–38. E.g., Kupper 1957:117–118; Postgate 1981:53; Sader 2000:71; Zadok 2012:579. 50 RIMA 2, A.0.99.2, 52–53. 51 RIMA 3, A.0.103.1, i 47–48. See Postgate (1995:10), on the reading of the name. 52 RIMA 2, A.0.98.1, 6–15. 53 RIMA 2, A.0.99.2, 48. 54 RIMA 2, A.0.101.1, 77–78: Gusi, son of Yahanu. 49

Confrontation, Emulation and Ethno-genesis

263

3.1. Land of Aram? The exact place where the Aramaeans have started differentiating themselves from the Aপlamû remains enigmatic. We saw that the Broken Obelisk cannot be taken as evidence for a land of Aram that would have extended between the Balih and the Euphrates, as K. Nashef has hypothesized,55 or even for any land of Aram at all. Nonetheless, E. LipiĔski finds support in the Broken Obelisk as well as in later, especially Biblical, evidence to hypothesize that the original homeland of the Aramaeans would be in the Tur Abdin region and finds a confirmation of it in 13th century evidence for names such as BƯt Zamani, Hirana and Hasmi, which will be later attested as Aramaean communities.56 Against this northern origin R. Zadok objects that very few Semitic names occur in the texts from Giricano on the Upper Tigris.57 The reconstruction rests entirely on the identification of ethnic/tribal names, although it is not sure that these groups were already considered as Aramaean. For instance, Szuchman notes that BƯt Zamani was an Assyrian district in the 13th century, with no indication that it was already Aramaean.58 These names apply to communities which may have been ‘Aramaized’ in the wake of the Aramaean expansion. W. M. Schniedewind takes argument of the determinative KUR, which, as we saw, is frequently used with Arumu/ArmƗyu, to hypothesize that Aram is the steppe land along the Middle and Upper Euphrates – i.e. the region where Tiglath-pileser I fought them – and that the Aramaeans are the pastoral nomads living in this land.59 The use of the determinative KUR is, however, too uncertain, already in the Late Bronze Age, to draw firm conclusions from its usage. The more recent hypothesis of M. Fales,60 according to which the Assyrians would have considered as ‘land of the Aramaeans’ the region extending from the Middle/Lower Euphrates to the Middle/Lower Tigris, is also difficult as it does not find a confirmation in the toponyms associated with the early Aramaeans. Aramaeans may have found their way to the mountains situated to the east of Assyria by crossing the border zone between Assyria and Babylonia. Anyhow, this original ‘land of Aram’ does not seem to have left much memory in later times. The evidence is too uncertain to allow valid conclusions. We can only notice that Tiglath-pileser I’s inscriptions mention permanent settlements that Aramaeans would have had at the foot of Jebel Bishri, to the west of the Euphrates. This is the only piece of evidence we can rely on, but we must also observe that modern surveys conducted in the region of the Jebel Bishri failed to identify remains clearly associated with the Aramaeans.61 By and large, the early Aramaeans are described as mobile groups

55

Nashef 1982:35, followed by Sader 1987:271. LipiĔski 1989:33–39; 2000:45–50. 57 Zadok 2012:576–577. 58 Szuchman 2009:56. 59 Schniedewind 2002. 60 Fales 2013:20, with arguments that will be developed in a forthcoming paper that was not available to me at the time of writing. 61 See, for instance, the reports published in Lönnqvist (ed.) 2008, Onhuma (ed.) 2010, Morandi Bonacossi (ed.) 2014. The results concern mainly the Early and Middle Bronze Age. 56

264

Guy Bunnens

launching raids from an unspecified place, somewhere in the west, against areas placed under Assyrian control.62 3.2. Aramaean Mobile Communities A first mode of collective organisation of the Aramaeans may be based on kinship. We could call it ‘tribal’.63 It is evidenced by names composed with BƯt, ‘house’, followed by a personal name, such as BƯt Ba‫ې‬iani, BƯt Ru‫ې‬ubi/Beth Rehob. Such names, however, do not apply to the sole Aramaeans. For instance, the northern kingdom of Israel is known as BƯt ‫ۏ‬umri to the Assyrians. Having said this, we must be aware of the fact that the exact nature of the groups designated by a name beginning with BƯt may vary. They may be kin-based groups, as were surely the ‘houses’ of the Aramaeans that were threatening Assyria towards the end of Tiglath-pileser I’s reign, but they may also be ‘ruling houses’, ‘dynasties’, especially when the BƯt-PN is ruling a large territory. Invading Aramaeans could hardly have managed to expel or annihilate the entire population of a vast area. For instance, Tiglath-pileser III calls Damascus BƯt-‫ۏ‬aza’ili, ‘House of Hazael’,64 from the name of a ruler and not to designate an ethnic group. By the time of Tiglath-pileser III, the entire population of the kingdom of Damascus was probably ‘Aramaized’, but no ‘tribal’ name was used to refer to it. The early Aramaeans may also have manifested themselves in another way. They could have served as auxiliary troops or mercenaries fighting for another, not necessarily Aramaean, community, as J. N. Postgate has observed for the Sutu.65 For instance, Adad-narari II (911–891) says that Muquru, the Temannu, in Upper Mesopotamia (Hanigalbat), “trusting in his fortified city, his strong bow, his extensive troops, and the Aramaeans (KUR Arime), rebelled against me”.66 Clearly the Aramaeans are counted as an addition to the standard system of defence, even though Muquru may have been an Aramaean himself. They do not seem to be fighting for themselves. Such a role for Aramaean troops finds a confirmation in the Hebrew Bible. For instance, we read in the second book of Samuel: “…the Ammonites sent and hired the Aramaeans of Beth Rehob, and the Aramaeans of Zobah, twenty thousand foot soldiers…” (2 Sam. 10:6). The Aramaean troops have been hired as mercenaries. Again, they are not fighting for themselves. It is quite possible that, in some cases, a part of them is allowed to stay and so contributes to the Aramaization of the place. Small kin-based communities, ruling elites and mercenaries are probably three of the aspects under which the early Aramaeans made their first appearance on stage.

62

A discussion of the land of Qir which, according to Amos 9:7 (see also Amos 1:5 and 2 Kings 16:9), would be the homeland of the Aramaeans would take us too far without warranting an acceptable conclusion (see LipiĔski 2000:40–45, on this problem). 63 Dion 1997:225–231; Kühn 2014:38–40. 64 RINAP 1, 42, 7’; 49, rev. 3; 50, rev. 3 (the name is either partially or even entirely restored); Bagg 2007, s.v. BƯt-঩aza’il, p. 49. 65 Postgate 1981:54–55. 66 RIMA 2, A.0.99.2, 49–51.

Confrontation, Emulation and Ethno-genesis

265

3.3. State Organisation Aramaic inscriptions become available towards the end of the 9th century. An inscription from the second half of the 9th century, the so-called Melqart Stele discovered at Breij to the north of Aleppo,67 mentions a king of Aram called BarHadad. According to the reading established by É. Puech,68 it shows that this BarHadad is a son of Attarshumki, himself son of Adrame, both known as kings of BƯt Agusi/Arpad. Aram, in this inscription, would thus designate the kingdom of BarHadad, i.e. BƯt Agusi/Arpad. The state formation process is now complete and the name ‘Aram’ applies to a specific kingdom. On the other hand, the 8th century stele of Zakkur,69 king of Hamath and Luash (c. 796), said to be from Tell Afis, mentions ‘Bar-Hadad, son of Hazael, king of Aram’ which can only refer to the king of Damascus by that name. Not only the existence of Aramaean kingdoms is now firmly established, but the name ‘Aram’, which designates BƯt Agusi/Arpad on the Breij Stele, refers here to Damascus. With the inscriptions supposedly discovered at Sefire, to the east of Aleppo, we are brought back to BƯt Agusi/Arpad. These inscriptions mention twice Aram in the text of a treaty concluded by Bar-Gayah of KTK, of unknown location, with Mati-el of Arpad (c. 770/750). On line 5 of stele IA,70 it is said that an oath is established with ‘Aram in its entirety’, with MৡR and with, according to the most commonly accepted translation, ‘Upper and Lower Aram’, literally ‘all high Aram and its low’. The assumed reference to an Upper and Lower Aram has led to various explanations, which are discussed by D. Kahn.71 Unfortunately, little attention has been paid to A. Lemaire and J.-M. Durand’s observation, published in 1984, that the phrase could be an hendiadys for ‘Aram in its entirety’, a suggestion that, as I develop elsewhere, is likely to point in the right direction because a similar idiom is found in Akkadian where eliš u šapliš, ‘above and below’, can be used with place names to mean ‘everywhere’, ‘the place in its entirety’.72 For instance, Adad-narari II (911–891) says ‘I received [tribute] of the land Laqû to its entire extent above and below’.73 We should thus understand ‘all high Aram and its low’ as meaning ‘Aram in its entirety’, ‘everywhere in Aram’. The text probably makes a distinction between local officers, who operate everywhere on the territory of Arpad, and those who are allowed to enter the palace, i.e. the central administration. Here follows a tentative translation of lines 4b to 6a of stele IA: (4) …and the oath of ণB[R x x x x](5)W with Aram in its entirety and with MৡR and with his sons who will come in his place,

67

KAI 201, 1–3. Puech 1992. 69 KAI 222, 4. 70 KAI 222. 71 Kahn 2007:77–82. The author reaches the conclusion that ‘Upper and Lower Aram’ refers to the entire area dominated by Mati-ilu after he would have reduced the kingdom of Hamath to the status of vassal. 72 Bunnens 2015. 73 RIMA 2, A.0.99.2, lines 118–119. 68

266

Guy Bunnens

and with [the servants of] (6) all Aram, above and below (i.e. wherever they are), and with all those who enter the king’s palace…”

There would thus be only one Aram in this inscription, which would coincide with BƯt Agusi/Arpad as on the Melqart stele. The name ‘Aram’ is thus a place name which kings can include in their titles and which can apply to various areas, especially BƯt Agusi/Arpad and Damascus. In this the Aramaic use of the name meets that of the Biblical authors for whom Aram could refer to any place where there were Aramaeans, such as Aram-Zobah or AramDamascus. It must convey a sense of Aramaean distinctiveness which transcends local particularisms. Its function seems to be closer to that of an ethnic name than to that of a real place name. The land of Aram can be any place where Aramaeans are in power. The uncertainty in the translation of KUR Arumu in Assyrian records might be revised in the light of this Aramaean usage of the name ‘Aram’. The Sefire inscriptions allow another conclusion concerning the nature of Aramaean political and social structures. Aramaean society seems to be extremely diverse.74 BƯt Agusi is not only the state of the ‘tribe’ or dynasty of Agusi. It also includes other political/ethnic components. Faces A and B of stele I list various people from both KTK and Arpad, who are bound by the treaty. Besides the rulers and their successors, there are the lords of KTK and Arpad (IA, 4), and, for Arpad only, a possible league (ণB[R…]) (IA, 4), MৡR and his successors (IA, 5), the servants (or another kind of lords) of Aram (IA, 5–6), and those who are admitted in the presence of the king of Arpad (IA, 6). On face B are listed the sons of Gush (IB, 3) – who are thus recognized as only a part of the kingdom of Arpad –, BƯt ৡLL (IB, 3) and, perhaps, Aram in its entirety (IB, 3–4). It is tempting to see in MৡR of face A the leader of BƯt ৡLL of face B. The composition of Arpad’s population comprises thus ethnic or kinbased elements, which are distinct from BƯt Agusi, and individuals – the lords, MৡR – who seem to play a prominent role in the life of the state. A similar situation may have existed in the state of BƯt Adini, on the Euphrates, which is attested in the first half of the 9th century,75 from the reign of Adad-narari II (911–891) until its conquest by Shalmaneser III between 858 and 855.76 The leader of BƯt Adini defeated by Shalmaneser III in 855 is called Ahuni, already known to Ashurnasirpal II c. 878.77 Ahuni holds control over several cities, none of which can be considered as his main residence.78 Til Barsib, modern Tell Ahmar, which is often thought to be his capital city, is actually one of the strongholds from where he organizes the resistance against the Assyrians. Ahuni seems to still be a mobile leader, probably travelling from place to place. More information might perhaps be gleaned from the Luwian inscriptions discovered at Til Barsib and in its vicinity.79 These in74

More on this in Bunnens 2015. RIMA 2, A.0.99.2, 48. 76 Bagg 2007:44–45. 77 RIMA 2, A.0.101.1, iii 55. 78 It must be noted that Ahuni’s last stand was on mount Shitamrat, where one of Shalmaneser’s inscriptions says he had a palace (RIMA 3, A.0.102.2, ii 74). H. Sader (1987:92) thinks that Shitamrat may have been the capital city of Ahuni. 79 Hawkins 2000:1, 224–248; Hawkins 2006. 75

Confrontation, Emulation and Ethno-genesis

267

scriptions and the reliefs with which they are associated can be compared with the Karkemish reliefs and inscriptions of the Suhi-Katuwa dynasty, which are dated to the period 950–850.80 In other words the latter part of their period of production coincides with the period of existence of BƯt Adini and, consequently, it is not impossible that the Til Barsib reliefs and inscriptions were carved for members of BƯt Adini, the more so as the names of some of the rulers mentioned in these inscriptions could be explained as Semitic. For instance, there would be a local ruler, Hamiyata, whose name may mean ‘My-(divine-)kinsman-knows(-me)’. This Hamiyata has ‘brothers’, among which one Arpa,81 who is obviously politically subordinated to him, possibly under the overall supervision of the leader of BƯt Adini. This recalls the ‘lords’, the enigmatic MৡR and BƯt ৡLL of the Sefire inscriptions. Also complex seems to be the internal organisation of the kingdom of Sam’al, modern Zincirli. More about this will be found in H. Niehr’s contribution to this volume. 3.4. Acculturation and Ethno-cultural Competition A first factor that needs to be taken into account to evaluate the emergence of a possible Aramaean culture is the competition between various ethnic groups which begin to manifest themselves in the early Iron Age. A people called Mushku,82 for instance, is defeated by Tiglath-pileser I, in the north-western Jezireh, in the late 12th century, and later inscriptions show that they are still there in the 9th century. However, a people with the same name is known in central Anatolia where it is often considered as the ancestor of the Phrygians. If they both are the same people, their history may reflect, although on a smaller scale, an evolution that is not without analogy with that of the Aramaeans who are also found over a vast area at the very beginning of their history. The so-called Sea Peoples, who were long held responsible for the collapse of the Late Bronze Age system, are another of these groups that arrive in Syria in the early Iron Age. They have regained much interest recently, after it was discovered that the kingdom called Patina in Assyrian texts might have been named Walistin or Palistin in Luwian, a name that is strongly reminiscent of ‘Philistine’, from which ‘Palestine’ derives.83 The equation W/Palistin = Philistine is however imperfect. The name of the Philistines in Hebrew (Pilišti), Egyptian (Pr/lst) and Assyrian (Pilištu) is consistently spelled without the suffix ‘-in’. The ending ‘-ine’ in ‘Philistine’/‘Palestine’ is a Greek addition to an original ‘Palaist-’. It has no counterpart in the Oriental forms of the name. Its presence in ‘W/Palistin’ still needs to be explained.84 Whatever solution is given to this problem, two facts cannot be disputed. One is that Tell Ta‘inat, which was the main city of W/Palistin, yielded significant evidence of archaeological connections with the Aegean where the Philistines are supposed to have originated.85 The other is that local monumental inscriptions were written in Luwian. 80

Mazzoni 2000:37–38; Orthmann 2013:527–528. Hawkins 2000:1,235–238. 82 Wittke 2004. 83 Hawkins 2009:171–172. 84 J. D. Hawkins (2009:171) tentatively derives it from the Aramaic plural ending ‘-Ưn’. 85 Janeway 2006–2007; Harrison 2010:87–90. 81

268

Guy Bunnens

One or two kings of W/Palistin, both called Taita, left inscriptions in the Luwian language, which was probably not their native language, in Aleppo,86 and in Meharde and Sheizar near Hamath in the 11th century.87 At a time when the Aramaeans were supposed to infiltrate northern Syria, the kings of W/Palistin, in the Amuq plain along the lower Orontes River, had thus extended their control over Aleppo and Hamath, both later integrated in Aramaean kingdoms. The Luwians represent another possible ethnic group which deserves to be mentioned. The Luwian language was already in use in 2nd millennium Anatolia and a migration of Luwian-speaking people to South-East Anatolia and North Syria is often hypothesized to explain the emergence of the so-called Neo-Hittite or Luwian kingdoms in these regions.88 However, as T. Bryce has shown, no solid evidence supports this hypothesis. He goes even as far as wondering “how far beyond the scribal class knowledge of the Luwian language extended”.89 The Luwian rise to prominence is probably better explained in cultural rather than migratory terms. It has been demonstrated that there existed a dynastic relationship between the royal house of Karkemish in the early Iron Age and the second millennium kings of Hattusha. Similarly, the early Iron Age kings of Malatya claimed a dynastic relationship with the Late Bronze Age kings of Karkemish.90 Such a political continuity makes it extremely likely that both royal houses tried to perpetuate a cultural model inherited from their common ancestry, and promoted political and cultural standards which had their roots in the Late Bronze Age. In Aleppo, which was governed by a Hittite prince in the Late Bronze Age, the continuity is established by the excavations conducted in the temple of the Storm-God.91 As a result of these continuities Luwian has become prominent in the regions where Hittite power had been concentrated. In particular, the resilience capabilities of Karkemish,92 which has managed to preserve its political dominance through a time of turmoil, must have given considerable prestige to its culture. Consequently, the Luwian language was adopted by non-Luwian peoples to compose their own monumental inscriptions.93 Lacking a writing system of their own, these peoples adopted a script and a language that conferred an aura of nobility on them. There is no necessary link between the written language and the people who use this language. If there were any, Latin would have been the vernacular language of all mediaeval Europe. A good example of the adoption of Luwian by non-Luwian speakers is probably given by pre-Assyrian Til Barsib.94 We saw (pages 266–267) above that the Luwian inscriptions found at the site might have been written for Aramaean rulers.

86

Hawkins 2011. Hawkins 2000:2,415–419. 88 E.g., Hawkins 1982:372. 89 Bryce 2012:52–63, quotation 60. 90 Hawkins 1988, 1995. 91 Aro 2010; Kohlmeyer 2013. 92 Aro 2013; Weeden 2013. 93 Sass 2010:172. 94 Bunnens 2006:86–87; 2009; 2013. 87

Confrontation, Emulation and Ethno-genesis

269

At Hamath on the Orontes, Luwian is also used for monumental inscriptions95 and some of the rulers they mention bear names that are usually understood as Hurrian (Irhuleni/Urhilina) or Luwian (Parita, Uratami) ,96 but the same inscriptions mention several times a deity called ‘Pahalati’, which is obviously the Semitic divine epithet ‘Ba‘alat’, ‘Lady’, referring to a local goddess. The case of Sam’al also deserves a mention. Phoenician, Old Aramaic, a local Aramaic dialect and Luwian were used in the 9th and 8th centuries.97 It is probably not insignificant that the first Aramaic inscriptions are not earlier than the mid-9th century, more than two centuries after the Aramaeans were mentioned for the first time and despite the fact that language is a very distinctive feature of ethnic identity. The appearance of Aramaic inscriptions is a token of Aramaean assertiveness and a direct effect of the emergence of Aramaean-dominated polities. The Aramaic script derives, according to the most common opinion, from the Phoenician alphabet as it is represented by 10th century Byblian inscriptions and it is no coincidence if its first documented manifestations coincide with a period when the process of state formation was almost complete.98 Inscribed objects and especially display inscriptions are an integral part of the practice of government whilst the new bureaucracies need a means to record daily proceedings. More surprising is the adoption of a writing system that cannot note all the sounds of the Aramaic language. The Proto-Canaanite and Phoenician scripts lack signs to represent some of the Aramaic phonemes and no attempt seems to have been made to adapt or create letters to note them as, for instance, the Greeks did. The main consideration for adopting the Phoenician alphabet must have been different from mere convenience. Some kind of prestige must have been already attached to this writing system. It was part of a tradition that the Aramaeans wanted to assimilate. Until then Luwian was the only language used to compose monumental inscriptions and, as we saw, it is likely that the Aramaeans themselves have used it. Now Aramaic is considered on a par with Luwian. The influence of Luwian, however, is still noticeable. For instance some inscriptions have their letters carved in relief with a straight line also in relief to separate the lines of writing, as it is usually the case for Luwian inscriptions, whereas most alphabetic inscriptions are incised without separation lines (fig. 3, see page 271).99 As for the Aramaic language, linguists have tried to trace some of its features back to Semitic languages of the 2nd millennium,100 sometimes as far as Amorite in the early 2nd millennium, without being able to establish any genetic continuity over the centuries. On the other hand, the first Aramaic texts display a variety of linguistic features that prevents from considering them as written in one common language. They look more like a cluster of related dialects. This should come as no surprise. Standard lan95

Hawkins 2000:2,398–423. Hawkins 2000:2,400; Sader 2014:23. 97 Niehr, this volume. 98 Benjamin Sass (2005) has argued in favour of a lower date for the Byblian inscriptions in a debate that has not yet reached a conclusion, and see also Sass, this volume. 99 Bunnens 2005; Gilibert 2011:81. 100 Zadok 1991:107–108. 96

270

Guy Bunnens

guages are the product either of an administration or of a religion. It is imposed on a large group of people in order either that they understand the instructions of a centralized power and are able to act accordingly, or to ensure they understand a sacred text or a set of sacred texts that are essential to the practice of a religion. None of these conditions existed in Aramaean communities prior to the 10th century. The emergence of the Aramaic language is probably best understood in the light of a later, similar and better attested phenomenon. After the collapse of the western Roman empire, which, as we shall see below (page 273–274) can be compared with the collapse of the Late Bronze political system, there ensued a time of trouble and turmoil, marked by invasions, destructions and failed attempts at reconstructing the past political order. At the same time new languages emerged, first and foremost the Romance languages family. Although they all derive from Latin, they are all new languages. French, Italian, Spanish, etc. share common features with Latin, but they cannot be considered as just a new stage in the history of the Latin language, neither can they be considered as having been introduced by newcomers or invaders, such as the German tribes who were roaming over the entire territory of the former empire. Romance languages were new languages resulting from a local evolution, or deterioration, of late Latin, independently from any ethnic movements. In addition, the modern Romance languages result from a process of standardization that imposed one of their dialects as the common language. In the same way, we may imagine that Aramaic dialects evolved from the Semitic languages spoken in the region where the first Aramaean communities began to assert some kind of identity. The formation of the Aramaic language is a process that is concomitant with the formation of Aramaean identity itself, not a ‘cultural good’ that they would have brought with themselves. The diffusion of Aramaic is a secondary phenomenon, linked with the constitution of stable Aramaean polities, which needed an administrative language, and, above all, with the incorporation of these polities into the Assyrian empire. The ascent of Aramaean officials in the imperial administration contributed to promote the use and standardization of the Aramaic language, opening the path to the so-called Official or Imperial Aramaic. In a reversed move, Imperial Aramaic was redirected towards the provinces via the imperial administration, thus contributing to a wider diffusion of the language. The promotion of Aramaic to the status of lingua franca should be seen as a function of the imperial machinery, as much as, if not more than, an effect of the cultural prestige of the Aramaeans. The other aspects of Aramaean culture reveal a blend of tradition and innovation. In existing or newly created polities, the Aramaeans adopted the old principle of dynastic continuity. They also appropriated the traditional methods of government. The ruler was living in a palace, as we saw in the Sefire inscription, which was situated in a capital city – Arpad, Hamath, Damascus, etc. – from where he exercised his control over all the cities and villages of his kingdom. Practically, this amounts to recreating the world of extended city-states as it existed in the 2nd millennium. On the religious level, their beliefs and rituals were diverse, differing from one place to the other and

Confrontation, Emulation and Ethno-genesis

271

mixing old practices with new customs. As H. Niehr, the author of the most recent synthesis on the subject, observes: “there never was a pan-Aramaean religion”.101

Figure 3: a. Luwian inscription from Carchemish; b. Aramaic stele from Tell Sifr in northern Syria. Sources: a. Hawkins 2000:3, plate 22; b. photo Anwar Abd el-Ghafour.

101

Niehr 2014:127.

272

Guy Bunnens

Figure 4: Reliefs from North Syrian sites illustrating motifs shared by assumed Luwian and Aramaean communities. Sources: a: Hawkins 1972, fig. 4 [detail]; b: von Luschan 1902, III, plate XXXVIIIa [detail]; c: Orthmann 1971, plate 61c; d: Orthmann 1971, plate 11f; e: Orthmann 1971, plate 21b.

In the same way, the material culture of the Aramaeans is difficult to discern from that of other peoples. Material traces of their presence are impossible to recognize in the early period of their expansion. Attempts made to identify their appearance in the material record of the Upper Tigris region102 have produced results that cannot be extended to the entire Aramaean world. It is not much easier at the time of the Aramaean polities. The statement of D. Bonatz – “A discussion of the art created by the Aramaeans in Syria must begin with the sober observation that it is impossible to define ‘Aramaean art’”103– may be extended to the entire material culture. It is therefore better to talk of Syrian or Syro-Anatolian culture, which would include the so-called NeoHittite, Syro-Hittite and Luwian cultures.104 Particularisms seem to be linked with local pecularities more than with ethnic identities. A common feature of Iron Age SyroAnatolian culture is the prominent role of sculpture, comprising statues, stelae and architectural reliefs (fig. 4). Sculptors revive Bronze Age iconographies but integrate them in 102

E.g., Szuchmann 2009; Matney 2010. Bonatz 2014:205. 104 Masetti-Rouault 2001:5 and passim; Novák 2005. 103

Confrontation, Emulation and Ethno-genesis

273

new environments. The Aramaeans participate in this movement and, in so doing, contribute to recreating a stable Syrian society while diluting the marks of their identity into a larger Syro-Anatolian commonality.

4. The Aramaeans in Historical Perspective The historical framework within which the Aramaean identity developed can be split into three successive stages. (1) First comes the breakdown of the balance of power between the so-called empires of the Hittites, Egyptians, Babylonians and Assyrians in the early 12th century BCE. Until c. 1200 the Hittites had been dominating northern Syria, where local polities were organized in hereditary monarchies which were sharing common cultural features. (2) Secondly, this breakdown was followed by two centuries of instability, marked by invasions, turmoil and the emergence of new ethnic identities. (3) Lastly, especially from the late 11th and 10th century onward, local polities with hereditary monarchies and common cultural features, to a large extent inspired by the Late Bronze Age culture, were reinstated. A very similar sequence can be observed in Western Europe after the collapse of the Roman Empire in the 5th century CE, which can also be split into three successive stages. (1) The breakdown of a regional stable system (the Roman Empire), which had spread common cultural features across the Mediterranean. (2) A period of instability marked by migrations and invasions (Germanic invasions). (3) The recreation of stable political entities aiming at reviving the conditions of the system existing before the crisis whilst actually founding a new world (the early Middle Ages). The only difference is the time span during which the transformation took place: slightly more than two centuries, from c. 1200/1150 to 1000/950, for northern Syria; more than three centuries, from the 5th to the 9th century and the rule of the Carolingians, for Western Europe. The comparison is illuminating on several points. First and foremost is the confusion of identities and the kind of redistribution of cultural markers that characterize the nations that emerge from the early mediaeval disorder. The French speak a language that derives from Latin but they bear a name that derives from a Germanic word meaning ‘Valiant Men’. Spanish and Italians bear a name that goes back to pre-classical Antiquity – Hispania and Italia – without any ethnic implications. Romania preserves the name of Rome far away from the city of Rome. This is not without analogy with names such as A‫ې‬lamû and Sutu, often associated with the Aramaeans, which both go back to the Middle Bronze Age and cover various ethno-cultural realities. Another interesting point is that people on the move are not necessarily nomads. The Vandals, for instance, left Silesia, where they were established, to cross the Gauls

274

Guy Bunnens

as soon as the early 5th century CE, than the Iberian peninsula, where they gave their name to Andalusia, to finally settle down in North Africa before being politically annihilated by the Byzantine army of Justinian. They were no nomads, only a people in search of land. The emergence of Aramaean identity can be explained in similar terms, taking into account the specificities of the Syro-Mesopotamian context. The process is best explained by placing it, first, in a long term perspective – the longue durée of Fernand Braudel – that is against the background of the physical as well as cultural constraints that affect, most often unconsciously, human behaviour. Then the same phenomenon must be envisaged from the point of view of its idiosyncrasies Seen in the long term, the emergence of the Aramaeans finds its place in the endless movement of ebb and flow between the ‘desert and the sown’. People living on the margins of the steppe, in an environment where a slight change in rainfall could have dramatic effects on the conditions of existence,105 are dependent on their ability to control the physical settings that frame their lives. They are also obliged to make the most of it by splitting the population into sedentary communities tilling the land and a mobile component oscillating between long distance transhumance and nomadism, the so-called ‘enclosed nomadism’ to which M. B. Rowton devoted several studies.106 If the political control fades, if the natural conditions change, the precarious balance between the two lifestyles is shaken and people seek refuge in small and mobile kinbased communities which struggle to acquire enough territory to sustain them. This happened in the late 3rd and early 2nd millennium, and favoured the emergence of the Amorites. This happened again a few years after 1200 and favoured the development of the Aপlamû communities. These changes must be seen as occurring primarily within the indigenous population of the area, without a large influx of people coming from outside. The changes are internal and the movements concern people that are already there.107 So much for the general framework. Concerning the Aramaeans specifically, there is more than a change of ‘ethnic designation for sheep/nomadic pastoralists operating in the Euphrates and Habur regions’ as G. Schwartz says.108 They form a new identifiable entity, a sub-group of the Aপlamû, which becomes progressively autonomous. They should not be confused with the Sutu either, as is often implicitly or explicitly assumed. The place from which they originate is unknown. As it is usually accepted, it may be situated somewhere to the west of the Euphrates, possibly in the Jebel Bishri region and further south-east towards Babylonia. Groups, such as Hirana, Hasmi or BƯt Zamani, who, at some stage, will be Aramaean, have probably been ‘Aramaized’ in the course of Aramaean expansion. It is not unusual that a successful group incorporates smaller communities.

105

W. Kirleis and M. Herles (2007) review the literary and paleo-ecological evidence that shows an increasing aridity between 1200 and 950, which might have prompted the Aramaean expansion. 106 Especially Rowton 1974 and 1976. 107 Sader 1992; 2000:64–68; Masetti-Rouault 2001, passim. 108 Schwartz 1989:283.

Confrontation, Emulation and Ethno-genesis

275

The original social system of the Aramaeans seems to have been based, as might be expected, on kinship (‘houses’), but they also manifest themselves as auxiliary troops and as small bands led by kinds of condottieri who seize power wherever it is possible, and impose their authority on non-Aramaean communities. It is during this process that we may assume their language acquires its individuality without yet reaching linguistic homogeneity, more or less in the same way as Romance languages evolved from Late Latin. In a final stage they organize the new polities they control on the only model available to them, i.e. the extended city-state of the Late Bronze Age, more or less in the same way as the Carolingians tried to recreate the culture and political structures of the Roman Empire. A strong incentive must have been the pressure coming from polities such as Malatya and Karkemish, which could manage to preserve their autonomy through the difficult times that followed the collapse of Hittite control over Syria. The Aramaeans adopt a writing system, the alphabet, that is already in use and enjoying respectability. They develop an apparatus of state propaganda – monumental reliefs and stelae, grand architecture – inspired by, but not imitated from, Late Bronze Age practices. In so doing they are perpetuating as well as appropriating an old tradition in a process of re-elaboration of the past that marks not only the Aramaean polities but the entire Syro-Palestinian area, as M. H. Feldman has recently emphasized.109 These developments are stimulated by a process of dialectical relationship between various ethnic, social and cultural groups, among which the Luwians figure prominently. The most obvious features the Aramaeans have in common is a name, Aram – which can be used to designate specific polities, namely BƯt Agusi/ Arpad and Damascus – and a cluster of related languages. Although the old explanation of the emergence of the Aramaeans – the migration of a nomadic group from the arid margins of the sedentary world into the void created by the collapse of the Late Bronze Age urban system – is now almost entirely fallen in disregard, the more recent hypothesis – the Aramaeans would be the ultimate manifestation of the pastoralist nomads represented by the Amorites a few centuries earlier – is too reductive. It may be true on the anthropological level. It is not in the diachronic, historical, perspective. Cultural identities do not consist of blocks of fixed attributes, which traverse, undisturbed, time and space, as Herodotus already thought. Aramaean identity has been in the making for a long period of time in a complex process of confrontation and emulation which has crystallized in the 10th to 8th century to form a temporary and fluctuating combination of heterogeneous cultural features, among which only their name and their language(s) have enjoyed some kind of durability.

109

Feldman 2014, see especially 43–78.

276

Guy Bunnens

Bibliography ARAB 1 = D. D. LUCKENBILL, 1926. Ancient Record from Assyria and Babylonia, I, Historical Records from Assyria from the Earliest Times to Sargon, Chicago ARO, S., 2010. Luwians in Aleppo?, ipamati kistamati pari tumatimis: Luwian and Hittite Studies Presented to J. David Hawkins on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday, ed. I. Singer, Tel Aviv, 1–9 –: 2013. Karkemish before and after 1200, in: Luwian Identity, ed. A. Mouton et al., Leiden, 233–276 BAGG A. M., 2007. Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der neuassyrischen Zeit, Teil 1, Die Levante (Répertoire géographique des textes cunéiformes 7/1), Wiesbaden BONATZ, D., 2014. Art, in: The Aramaeans in ancient Syria (Handbook of Oriental Studies 1/106), ed. H. Niehr, Leiden, 205–253 BORGER, R., 1964. Einleitung in die assyrischen Königsinschriften, Erster Teil, Das zweite Jahrtausend vor Chr. (Handbuch der Orientalistik, 1. Abteilung, Ergänzungsband 5), Leiden BRAUDEL, F., 1958. Histoire et sciences sociales: La longue durée, Annales: économie, société, civilisation, 725–753 BRINKMAN, J. A., 1968. A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia 1158–722 B. C. (Analecta Orientalia 43), Rome BRYCE, T., 2012. The World of the Neo-Hittite Kingdoms: A Political and Military History, Oxford BUNNENS, G., 2005. From Karkemish to Nimrud: Between visual writing and textual illustration, in: Si un homme… Textes offerts en hommage à André Finet, ed. Ph. Talon and V. Van Der Stede (Subartu 16), Turnhout, 21–24 –: 2006. A New Luwian Stele and the Cult of the Storm-God at Til Barsib-Masuwari (Tell Ahmar II), with a chapter by J. David Hawkins and a contribution by Isabelle Leirens, Louvain –: 2009. Assyrian Empire Building and Aramization of Culture as Seen from Tell Ahmar/Til Barsib, in: Dossier: Interaction entre Assyriens et Araméens, ed. C. Kepinski and A. Tenu, Syria 86: 67– 82 –: 2013. Looking for Luwians, Aramaeans and Assyrians in the Tell Ahmar Stratigraphy, in: Syrian Archaeology in Perspective Celebrating 20 Years of Excavations at Tell Afis, ed. S. Mazzoni and S. Soldi, Pisa, 177–197 –: forthcoming. On Upper and Lower Aram Again, Ugarit-Forschungen CANCIK-KIRSCHBAUM, E. C., 1996. Die mittelassyrischen Briefe aus Tall ŠƝপ ণamad (Berichte der Ausgrabungen Tall ŠƝপ ণamad/Dnjr-Katlimmu 4, Texte 1), Berlin CHARPIN, D., 2009. Un itinéraire paléo-babylonien le long du Habur, in: Entre les deux fleuves 1 (Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 20), ed. E. Cancik-Kirschbaum and N. Ziegler, Gladbeck, 59–74 –: 2010. An Old-Babylonian Itinerary Along the ঩Ɨbnjr, in: Dnjr-Katlimmu 2008 and Beyond (Studia Chaburensia 1), ed. H. Kühne, Wiesbaden, 33–47 DION, P.-E., 1997. Les Araméens à l’âge du Fer: Histoire politique et structures sociales (Études bibliques N.S. 34), Paris FALES, F. M., 2011, Die Ausbreitung Assyriens gegen Westen und seine Fortschreitende Verwurzelung: Der Fall der nordwestlichen Jezira, in: Assur – Gott, Stadt und Land (Colloquien der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 5), ed. J. Renger, Berlin, 211–237 –: 2012. ‘঩anigalbat’ in the Early Neo-Assyrian Royal Inscriptions: A Retrospective View, in: The Ancient Near East in the 12th–10th Centuries BCE: Culture and History (AOAT 392), ed. G. Galil et al., Münster, 99–119 –: 2013. All’inizio: l’aramaico mesopotamico più antico, Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di Napoli 73: 15–32 FELDMAN, M. H., 2014. Communities of Style: Portable Luxury Arts, Identity, and Collective Memory in the Iron Age Levant, Chicago

Confrontation, Emulation and Ethno-genesis

277

FRAME, G., 2013. The Political History and Historical Geography of the Aramean, Chaldean, and Arab Tribes in Babylonia in the Neo-Assyrian period, in: Arameans, Chaldeans, and Arabs in Babylonia and Palestine in the First Millennium B.C. (LAS 3), ed. A. Berlejung and P. Streck, Wiesbaden GILIBERT, A., 2011. Syro-Hittite Monumental Art and the Archaeology of Performance: The Stone Reliefs at Karkemish and Zincirli in the Earlier First Millennium BCE (Topoi: Berlin Studies of the Ancient World 2), Berlin GLASSNER, J.-J., 1993. Chroniques mésopotamiennes, Paris GRAYSON, A. K., 1975. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (Texts from Cuneiform Sources 5), Locust Valley –: 1976. Assyrian and Royal Inscriptions, 2 vols, Wiesbaden HARRISON, T. P., 2010. The Late Bronze/Early Iron Age Transition in the North Orontes Valley, in: Societies in Transition: Evolutionary Processes in the Northern Levant Between Late Bronze Age II and Early Iron Age, ed. F. Venturi, Bologna, 83–102 HAWKINS, J. D., 1972. Building Inscriptions of Karkemish: The Long Wall of Sculpture and the Great Staircase, Anatolian Studies 22: 87–114 –: 1982. The Neo-Hittite States in Syria and Anatolia, in: The Cambridge Ancient History III/12, ed. J. Boardman et al., Cambridge, 372–441 –: 1988. Kuzi-Tešub and the ‘Great Kings’ of Karkamiš, Anatolian Studies 38: 99–108 –: 1995. ‘Great Kings’ and ‘Country Lords’ at Malatya and Karkamiš, in: Studio Historiae Ardens: Ancient Near Eastern Studies Presented to Philo H. J. Houwink ten Cate, ed. T. P. J. van den Hout and J. de Roos, Istanbul, 73–85 –: 2000. Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions: Inscriptions of the Iron Age, 3 vols, Berlin –: 2006. The inscription, in: A New Luwian Stele and the Cult of the Storm-God at Til BarsibMasuwari (Tell Ahmar II), G. Bunnens, Louvain, 11–31 –: 2009. Cilicia, the Amuq and Aleppo: New Light in a Dark Age, NEA 72/4: 164–173 –: 2011. The Inscriptions of the Aleppo Temple, Anatolian Studies, 35–54 HERLES, M., 2007. Zur geographischen Einordnung der a‫ې‬lamû – eine Bestandsaufnahme, Altorientalische Forschungen 34: 319–341 JANEWAY, B., 2006–2007. The Nature and Extent of Aegean Contact at Tell Ta’yinat and Vicinity in the Early Iron Age: Evidence of the Sea Peoples?, Scripta Mediterranea 27–28: 123–146 KAHN, D., 2007. The Kingdom of Arpad (BƯt Agnjsi) and ‘All Aram’: International Relations in Northern Syria in the ninth and eighth centuries BCE, Ancient Near Eastern Studies 44: 66–89 KAI = H. Donner & W. Röllig, 19662, 19692, 20025 Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften, 3 vols, Wiesbaden KESSLER, K., 1980. Untersuchungen zur historischen Topographie Nordmesopotamiens nach keilschriftlichen Quelle des 1. Jahrtausends v. Chr. (Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Beihefte, Reihe B 26), Wiesbaden KIRLEIS, W. and M. HERLES 2007. Climatic change as a reason for Assyro-Aramaean conflicts? Pollen evidence for drought at the end of the 2nd millennium BC, State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 16: 7–37 KOHLMEYER, K. 2013. The temple of the Storm-God of Aleppo, in: Archéologie et histoire de la Syrie, I, La Syrie de l’époque néolithique à l’âge du Fer, ed. Orthmann et al., Wiesbaden, 511–524 KÜHN, D., 2014. Society, Institutions, Law, and Economy, in: The Aramaeans in Ancient Syria (Handbook of Oriental Studies 1/106), ed. H. Niehr, Leiden, 37–70 KÜHNE, H., 1974–1977. Zur historischen Geographie am Unteren ঩Ɨbnjr: Vorläufiger Bericht über eine archäologische Geländebegehung, AfO 25: 249–255 –: 1980. Zur Rekonstruktion der Feldzüge Adad-nƯrƗrƯ II., Tukulti-Ninurta II. und Aššurnaৢirpal II. im ঩Ɨbnjr-Gebiet, Baghdader Mitteilungen 11: 44–70 –: 1995. The Assyrians on the Middle Euphrates and the ঩abnjr, in: Neo-Assyrian Geography, ed. M. Liverani, Roma, 69–85

278

Guy Bunnens

–: 2009. Interaction of Aramaeans and Assyrians on the Lower Khabur, in: Dossier: Interaction entre Assyriens et Araméens, ed. C. Kepinski and A. Tenu, Syria 86: 43–54 KUPPER, J.-R., 1957. Les nomades en Mésopotamie au temps des rois de Mari (Bibliothèque de la Faculté de philosophie et lettres de l’Université de Liège 142), Paris LEMAIRE, A. and J.-M. DURAND, 1984. Les inscriptions araméennes de Sfiré et l’Assyrie de Shamshi-ilu (École pratique des Hautes études, IVe Section, II, Hautes études orientales 20), Geneva LIPIēSKI, E., 1989. ‘Mon père était un Araméen errant’: L’histoire, carrefour des sciences bibliques et orientales, Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 20: 23–47 –: 2000. The Aramaeans: Their Ancient History, Culture, Religion (OLA 100), Leuven LÖNNQVIST, M. (ed.), 2008. Jebel Bishri in Context: Introduction to the Archaeological Studies and the Neighbourhood of Jebel Bishri in Central Syria (British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1817), Oxford MASETTI-ROUAULT, M. G., 2001. Cultures locales du Moyen-Euphrate: Modèles et événements, IIe– Ier mill. av. J.-C. (Subartu 8), Turnhout MATNEY, T., 2010. Material Culture and Identity: Assyrians, Aramaeans, and the Indigenous Peoples of Iron Age Southeastern Anatolia, in: Agency and Identity in the Ancient Near East: New Paths Forward, ed. S. R. Steadman and J. C. Ross, London, 129–147 MAUL, S. M., 1992. Die Inschriften von Tall Bderi (Berliner Beiträge zur Vorderen Orient, Texte 2), Berlin MAZZONI, S., 2000. Syria and the Periodization of the Iron Age: A Cross-Cultural Perspective, in: Essays on Syria in the Iron Age (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 7), ed. G. Bunnens, Louvain, 31–59 MORANDI BONACOSSI (ed.) 2014. Settlement Dynamics and Human-Landscape Interaction in the Dry Steppes of Syria (Studia Chaburensia 4), Wiesbaden NASHEF, Kh., 1982. Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der mittelbabylonischen und mittelassyrischen Zeit (Répertoire géographique des textes cunéiformes 5), Wiesbaden NIEHR, H., 2014. Religion, in: The Aramaeans in Ancient Syria (Handbook of Oriental Studies 1/106), ed. H. Niehr, Leiden, 127–203 NOVÁK, M., 2005. Aramaeans and Luwians: Processes of an Acculturation, in: Ethnicity in Ancient Mesopotamia, ed. R. Kalvelagen and D. Karz, Leiden, 252–266 NUMOTO, H. et al., 2013. Excavations at Tell Taban: Continuity and Transition in Local Traditions at ৫Ɨbatum/৫Ɨbetu during the second Millennium BC, in: 100 Jahre archäologische Feldforschungen in Nordost-Syrien: Eine Bilanz (Schriften der Max Freiherr von Oppenheim-Stiftung 18), ed. D. Bonatz and L. Martin, Wiesbaden, 167–179 ONHUMA, K. (ed.), 2010. Formations of Tribal Communities: Integrated Research in the Middle Euphrates, Syria (Al-RƗfidƗn, special issue) Orthmann, W., 1971. Untersuchungen zur Späthethitischen Kunst (Saarbrücker Beiträge 8), Bonn –: 2013. Stone Sculpture of the Iron Age in Northern Syria, in: Archéologie et histoire de la Syrie, I, La Syrie de l’époque néolithique à l’âge du Fer, ed. W. Orthmann et al., Wiesbaden, 525–542 POSTGATE, J. N., 1981. Nomads and Sedentaries in the Middle Assyrian Sources, in: Nomads and Sedentary Peoples, ed. J. Silva Castillo, Mexico, 47–56 (reprinted in Postgate 2007:61–70) –: 1995. Assyria: the Home Provinces, in: Neo-Assyrian Geography, ed. M. Liverani, Rome, 1–17 (reprinted in Postgate 2007:243–260) –: 2007. The Land of Assur and the Yoke of Assur, Oxford PUECH, E., 1992. La stèle de Bar-Hadad à Melqart et les rois d’Arpad, Revue Biblique: 311–344 RADNER, K., 2004. Das mittelassyrische Tontafelarchiv von Giricano/Dunnu-ša-Uzibi (Subartu 14, Ausgrabungen in Giricano 1), Turnhout –: 2006. How to Reach the Upper Tigris: The Route Through the Tnjr 'AbdƯn, State Archive of Assyria Bulletin 16 RIMA 1 = A. K. GRAYSON, 1987. Assyrian Rulers of the Third and Second Millennia BC (to 1115 BC) (The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods 1), Toronto

Confrontation, Emulation and Ethno-genesis

279

RIMA 2 = A. K. GRAYSON, 1991. Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium B.C. (1114–859 B.C.) (The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods 2), Toronto RIMA 3 = A. K. GRAYSON, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium B.C., II (858–745 B.C.) (The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian periods 3), Toronto RIMB 2 = FRAME, G., 1995. Rulers of Babylonia: From the Second Dynasty of Isin to the End of Assyrian Domination (1157–612 BC) (Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Babylonian Periods 2), Toronto RINAP 1 = TADMOR, H. and S. YAMADA, 2011. The Royal Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III (744– 727 BC) and Shalmaneser V (726–722 BC), Kings of Assyria (Royal Inscriptions of the NeoAssyrian Period 1), Winona Lake RÖLLIG, W., 1997. Aspects of the Historical Geography of Northeastern Syria from Middle Assyrian to Neo-Assyrian Times, in: Assyria 1995: Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, Helsinki, September 7–11, 1995, Helsinki, 281–293 ROWTON, M. B., 1974. Enclosed Nomadism, Journal of the Economic and social History of the Orient 17: 1–30 –: 1976. Dimorphic Structure and the Tribal Elite, Al-Bahit: Festschrift Joseph Henninger zum 70. Geburtstag am 12. Mai 1976 (Studia Instituti Anthropos 28), St Augustin bei Bonn 1976, 219–257 SADER, H., 1987. Les États araméens de Syrie depuis leur fondation jusqu’à leur transformation en provinces assyriennes (Beiruter Texte und Studien 36), Beirut –: 1992. The 12th Century B.C. in Syria: The Problem of the Rise of the Aramaeans, in: The Crisis Years: The 12th Century B.C. From Beyond the Danube to the Tigris, ed. W. A. Ward and M. Sharp Joukowsky, Dubuque, 157–163 –: 2000. The Aramaean Kingdoms of Syria: Origin and Formation Process, in: Essays on Syria in the Iron Age (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 7), ed. G. Bunnens, Louvain, 61–76 –: 2014. History, in: The Aramaeans in Ancient Syria (Handbook of Oriental Studies 1/106), ed. H. Niehr, Leiden, 11–36 SASS, B., 2005. The Alphabet at the Turn of the Millennium: The West Semitic Alphabet ca. 1150– 850 BCE, The Antiquity of the Arabian, Greek and Phrygian Alphabets (Tel Aviv Occasional Publications 4), Tel Aviv –: 2010. Four Notes on Taita king of Palistin with an Excursus on King Solomon’s Empire, TA 37: 169–174 SCHNIEDEWIND, W. M., 2002. The Rise of the Aramean States, in: Mesopotamia and the Bible: Comparative Explorations, ed. M. W. Chavalas and K. Lawson Younger, Jr., Grand Rapids, 276– 287 SCHWARTZ, G., 1989. The origin of the Aramaeans in Syria and northern Mesopotamia: Research problems and potential strategies, in: To the Euphrates and Beyond: Archaeological Studies in Honour of Maurits N. van Loon, ed. O. M. C. Haez et al., Rotterdam, 275–291 SHIBATA, D., 2011. The Origin of the Dynasty of the Land of Mari and the City-God of ৫Ɨbetu, Revue d’assyriologie 105: 165–180 SHIBATA, D. and S. YAMADA, forthcoming. The Building Inscriptions of Aššur-ketta-lešir II, ‘King of the Land of Mari’, in the Late Middle-Assyrian Period: Their Historical Implications, in: Après l’empire: Crise de l’État et de la monarchie en Mésopotamie du Nord et en Anatolie (XIIIème–Xème siècle av. J.C.), ed. M.-G. Masetti Rouault and O. Rouault SZUCHMAN, J., 2009. Bit Zamani and Assyria, in: Dossier: Interaction entre Assyriens et Araméens, ed. C. Kepinski and A. Tenu, Syria 86: 55–65 VALÉRIO, M., 2011. Hani-Rabbat as the Semitic Name of Mitanni, Journal of Language Relationship, 6: 173–183 VON LUSCHAN, F., 1902. Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli III, Berlin WEEDEN, M. 2013. After the Hittites: The kingdoms of Karkamish and Palistin in northern Syria, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 56: 1–20 WEIDNER, E. F., 1926. Die grosse Königsliste aus Assur, AfO 3: 151–161

280

Guy Bunnens

WITTKE, A.-M., 2004. Mušker und Phryger: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte Anatoliens vom 12. bis zum 7. Jh. v. Chr (Beihefte zum Tubinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B, Nr. 99), Wiesbaden. ZADOK, R., 1991. Elements of Aramean Pre-History, in: Ah, Assyria… Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor, ed. M. Cogan and I. Eph ପal, Jerusalem, 104–117 –: 2012. The Aramaean Infiltration and Diffusion in the Upper Jezira, ca. 1150–930 BCE, in: The Ancient Near East in the 12th–10th Centuries BCE: Culture and History (AOAT 392), ed. G. Galil et al., Münster, 569–579 The following publication was unfortunately not yet available to the author at the time of writing: SADER, H., 2010. The Aramaeans of Syria: Some considerations on their origin and material culture, in: The Books of Kings: Sources, Composition, Historiography and Reception (VTS 129), ed. A. Lemaire and B. Halpern, Leiden, 273–300.

Identity and Multiculturality in the Northern Levant of the 9th–7th century BCE With a Case Study on Tell Afis Stefania Mazzoni, University of Florence The renewal of the political landscape of the northern Levant in the early Iron Age was achieved through dynamic re-urbanization, and cultural and artistic regeneration. Old and new ruling forces actively lent their patronage to this process, building and decorating temples, gates and palaces and forging new visual languages for the representation of their rites of power and legitimacy (monumental architectural art). New technologies (textile manufacture, iron-working) and instruments (vertical loom, fibulae, weapons) were introduced and the material culture was renovated. The greater interaction and confrontation between the many actors in this scenario, Luwians, Aramaeans, Phoenicians, Sea Peoples and Assyrians, promoted cultural cross-communication and exchange, and the emergence of multicultural dynamics. Accordingly, different processes of either affiliation or opposition were encouraged, a dichotomy that permeates the history of the Levant during the Iron Age. The claim to distinct identity was connected with a substantial process of self-identification and self-determination and became a factor of separation, opposition and distinction. The quest for legitimization, instead, entailed assimilation and emulation and became a factor promoting affiliation and integration. Lastly, emulative behaviour had a substantial influence; the new rulers, in fact, assimilated models and traditions from the predominant partners in order to reinforce and legitimize their power. The Assyrian conquest eventually resulted in a successful and dynamic spread of Assyrian cultural traits across the whole of the northern Levant; the local elites were promptly Assyrianized, and empowered their identities in the face of their dominant antagonists. This process underwent different stages and changes over the course of Iron I–III, as can be documented by the archaeological sources. With its lengthy occupational sequence and its sacred compound, Tell Afis provides a unique study case for exploring the emergence and change of distinct cultural traits and identities in the context of a multicultural Iron Age northern Levant.

282

Stefania Mazzoni

Exploring Identities: A Controversial Issue How identities were elaborated and perceived and how they can be recognised in the sources is the focus of anthropological studies,1 especially for the Levantine Iron Age, and is reflected in a dense bibliography. 2 Attention has been paid to the problem of reconstructing collective identities that were probably not perceived as such in a distinct, conscious way. This is, for example, the case of the long-since debated Phoenician identity, and the question of the ethno-genesis of the “Phoenicians”. Despite the important datum of a common shared language and writing, the Phoenician identity responds to the image given by the classical sources more than it reflects an inner collective representation.3 This could also be the case of many communities of the Levant in Iron Age, which are defined by distinct names in the historical sources and by their languages in their texts but are not always visible as distinct components from their material or artistic culture; this is certainly the case of the Aramaeans who intensively interrelated with the Luwian rulers and the Assyrian conquerors over the course of their emergence to power between 10th -8th century BCE. The sources certainly provide evidence of different manifestations of identities but can also convey ambiguous information. Investigating collective identities on the basis of material culture and especially pottery, can be deceptive; no less insidious can be analysing the mechanisms of commensality and food styles as diagnostic tools for identifying distinct peoples and their origin. Similar problems rise from analysing images in monumental art, even when the inscriptions identify the languages of the personages represented. I will illustrate a few cases which provide contradictory elements of identity and try to explore their significance, adopting a distinct interpretative approach. Jan Assmann defined three forms of identity: individual, personal and collective.4 They are all representative of cultural and social aspects, are characterised by distinct 1 Since the 50’s anthropologists and social scientists have investigated identity as a cultural and social structure; for constructivists it is a stable, fluid and multiple category, a concept criticised by Brubaker, Cooper 2000 and Descombes 2013, who noted the equivocal aspect of the language of identity. Cultural and ethnic identity has been explored in different archaeological contexts and areas, see the papers in Shennan (ed.) 1989 and Insoll (ed.) 2006. On identity and ethnicity, see Jones 2002; identity and agency, see the papers in Steadman and Ross (eds) 2010. A presentation of the theoretical approaches in Faust and Lev-Tov 2011:16–17, discussing the question of the Philistine identity. 2 How identities where expressed and constructed by the different peoples interacting in the Late Bronze-Iron Age Mediterranean area, and how this impacted social and cultural change is the subject of an ungoing debate. See Sherratt 1988, connecting issues of identity and economic attitudes; van Dommelen, Knapp 2010, and Knapp 2014 connecting material culture, identity and ethnicity. This was also the subject of a conference held in 2013 in Rome (“Transformations and Crisis in the Mediterranean. “Identity” and Interculturality in the Levant and Western Phoenicia between 12th and 8th centuries B.C.”): Garbati and Pedrazzi 2015. I expand here some theoretical issues presented on that occasion; see Mazzoni 2015. 3 As said by Sherratt (2005:37): “Phoenicians in Homer are in part an entirely Greek creation, created in the process of defining Greek identity”. See Bonnet 2011; 2014; Pedrazzi 2009; 2012. 4 Assmann 1997:99–102.

Identity and Multiculturality in the Northern Levant: Tell Afis

283

stages of perception and representation, and are transmitted by the communicative and cultural memory, and their relative rites. Assmann asserted that none of these forms of identity, even the personal identity which is related to the “ego” characterisation, can be considered as the result of a natural aptitude but, emerge, instead, in a social and cultural context, and coalesce in memory and tradition. His interpretation of the mechanisms of memory and identity has certainly been seminal in our studies, and it was especially influential in Domink Bonatz’s Mnemohistory and his interpretation of the Syro-Hittite identity on the basis of the funerary performance.5 Two further aspects have to be taken into consideration as identity markers when investigating material culture and the arts. I define these aspects as implicit and explicit factors of identity.6 They can be both expressed and represented in different ways and, consequently, they can be explored in a variety of documents. The implicit identity is inherent to the social context of the individual and is predisposed by tradition. It can be an unintentional, and even unconscious, sharing of ways of life and distinct social models of behaviour, which are inspired by the forms of social aggregation and permanent or mobile state, by adaptive strategies and related drinking and eating costumes, and as well by symbolic representation and its rituality (religion, law). There are models with their styles of behaviour which are inherited through parentage, family links and community bonds; they all shape an implicit identity. This may or may not include stages of communication and consequent declared awareness, as well as stimulate mechanisms of integration and separation. Ritual performances are destined to mark the inclusion into a network of affiliation and draw borders which can be flexible. The explicit identity is inherent to an intentional and, more often than not, declared act. It is not only a conscious but also a deliberate behaviour resulting from a process of self-identification, and is destined to draw tangible political, religious, ethnolinguistic boundaries. This case implies not only awareness but also explicit adhesion and consensus and the performance of rites destined to consolidate and legitimate the inclusion in/belonging to the group or institution concerned. The explicit identity will operate through mechanisms of affiliation and emulation and as well exclusion and separation. It is possible to recognize different manifestations of implicit and explicit identity in the archaeological and artistic sources of Iron I and II which can be connected with distinct components and peoples. However, it is sometimes difficult to link there to obtain a coherent picture.

Critical Issues of Identity in the Northern Levant in Iron Age I Our first case is provided by monumental art. The Northern Levant in Iron I (12th–10th centuries) is characterized by elements of continuity and innovations in artistic and 5 Bonatz 2000:259–265; 2001:219. This model is also clear when Bonatz speaks of places of memory and mnemotope for some of the images of the orthostats at Guzana. 6 This is not the dichotomy (I and Us) criticised by Assmann 1997:100.

284

Stefania Mazzoni

material culture and in settlement distribution, despite the few, certainly not inconsistent and well known cases of ruptures.7 Monumental art in the capitals ruled by the Luwian dynasties show a consistent renewal of the tradition of decorating gates and outer walls of Hittite derivation and a repertory of images of both Hittite and local Syrian tradition. As often noted, different styles emerged mirroring the political and regional fragmentation of the area. We can, however, follow a line of development from the final 13th and 12th century BCE Yesemek and Sikizlar quarries8 and the temple of Ain Dara9 to the 11th century BCE temple of the Storm-god of Aleppo10 and the 10th century BCE cycles of reliefs of the rulers Astuwatimanza, Suhi II and Katuwa at Karkemish.11 We can certainly recognize expressions of explicit identity in these impressive documents. However, the case offered by the reliefs of Taita of Palistin facing the Storm-god in the temple of Aleppo with his dedicatory inscription in Luwian hieroglyphic is not so obvious. When we look at the relief and inscription of Taita, showing him as a Luwian ruler who performs his votes to the god, can we identify him other than through the explicit identity shown?12 We know that Taita was not a Luwian name and that Palistin was a new political entity emerging in Iron I between Cilicia and the Amuq plain.13 Palistin has been connected with the Philistines, Peleset and the Sea Peoples.14 Taita pays his devotion to the Storm-god of Aleppo, a local city god who was widely renowned in the area, with a gesture of veneration following the Hittite protocol.15 Language, script, iconography and artistic style all conform to the Hittite tradition; they constituted an explicit declaration of identity. The assimilation of the rituals and duties connected with kingship, and their representation in the decoration of the temple, were aimed at confirming Taita’s status as a ruler. His explicit identity in the visual image of the relief can be considered as a political statement. 7

Apart from some important sites that were abandoned after their destruction and remained unsettled, or experienced only limited squatting, such as Ugarit and Emar, other sites on the coast (Tell Suqas, Tell Tweini) and in inland (Hama, Tell Afis, Karkemish) were actively rebuilt. 8 The Yesemek quarry was crowded with unfinished protomes of sphinxes and lions, see Duru 2004; 2011; Mazzoni 2013:471,472, figs 2–3. 9 The temple of Ain Dara shows a plan in antis of Syrian tradition, but was provided with a peribolos, and had a sumptuous decoration of monumental protomes of sphinxes at the gate, rows of lions and sphinxes in the along the base, reliefs of mountain-gods and lion/griffin-headed gods in the cella, windows-grates of Hittite style in the vestibule, and on the rear peribolos a row of gods. See Kohlmeyer 2008; Novák 2012. 10 Presentation and analysis in Kohlmeyer 2008; 2012; 2013. 11 At Karkemish these Luwian rulers, related to the descendants of the Hittite dynasty, patronized a monumental rebuilding of their capital for ceremonial performance of kingship, on an unprecedented scale, renovating the Hittite architectural relief and the Syrian imagery. Mazzoni 2013:474–478. 12 Inscription: Hawkins 2013; Reliefs: Kohlmeyer 2013. 13 According to Steitler 2010, the name of Taita can be connected with Toi, King of Hamath (2 Sam 8:9–10) and is of Hurrian derivation. See Sass 2010, Harrison 2014:404–405. 14 The problem of the Luwian identities has been investigated from different sources and approaches by Mouton, Rutheford, and Yakubovich 2013. See Weeden 2013 for a re-consideration of the evidence of this period concerning the Sea Peoples and the kingdom of Palistin in connection with the inscription of Taita. 15 See on this gesture Mazzoni 2013:475–477.

Identity and Multiculturality in the Northern Levant: Tell Afis

285

How can we associate this evidence with the Sea Peoples and Philistines? The discovery of a kingdom of Palistin in northern Levant has added a new perspective to the search for the identity of these exogenous components16 moving and settling along the coast of the Levant in the final LB and initial Iron I phase.17 Material culture and especially pottery have so far constituted our main instrument for recognising their presence and nature: the diffusion of LH III C ware, the hole mouth cooking pots with their related cooking practices and distinct diet, the Barbarian ware, the violin-shaped fibulae, the loom-weights and the vertical loom, are the markers of their external and possibly Aegean provenance.18 When we compare these diagnostic features which define an implicit identity with the image and language of Taita of Palistin, with its explicit identity, we cannot resolve the contradictions that these different sources raise. We may certainly speculate on the different timing and waves of the Sea Peoples along the Anatolian and Levantine coasts; we may suppose an initial and consistent presence along the south-western coast of Anatolia, with substantial settlements (Arsuz, Tell Ta‫ލ‬inat) and eventually their taking power and exerting a territorial control over the area. They may have been acquainted with the local Luwian milieu for generations,19 eventually emulating their cultural models, but this remains a matter of speculation and cannot be supported by direct documents. Implicit and explicit representations of identity are not always overlapping instruments for recognising the nature, culture or, even less, the provenance of real peoples.

Critical Issues of Identity in Iron Age II and the Aramaean-Luwian Interaction The political emergence of the Aramaeans, no longer as mobile tribes raiding villages and towns but as a political and urbanised component with clan-based rulers, enhanced the cultural and ethno-linguistic landscape of the northern Levant. This process, possibly going back to end of the 10th or beginning of the 9th century BCE, as Aramaeans became visible with their inscriptions in the 9th century, is apparently characterized by a substantial interaction between Luwians, Aramaeans and Assyrians. In visual arts, Aramaean identity, even when inscriptions are associated with the images, cannot be clearly recognized by distinct traits.20 I have already used the case represented by the 9th century BCE stele of Kulamuwa as a document of the multicultural aspects of this 16

Pedrazzi 2015:65–66 arguing for five degrees of alterity; see also the use of the term “allogenic”. 17 Faust and Lev-Tov 2011. 18 Detailed discussions in Oren 2000; Yaser-Landau 2010:228–234,243–253; Killebrew and Lehmann 2013. On the subject of cooking and cooking pots as identity markers see Lipovitch 2007; Birney 2008, and the contributions to the conference by Karageorghis and Kouka 2011. From the perspective of the central and northern Levant, see Pedrazzi 2015; Venturi 2013, 2015. 19 Gilan 2013 has re-assessed the context of the Lukka peoples’ conflicts with the Hittites at the end of the Late Bronze Age as a background to the turmoil of the Sea Peoples. 20 As also stressed by Bonatz 2014:206.

286

Stefania Mazzoni

period. Kulamuwa bears a Luwian name, but is son of Hayanu, whose name is Aramaean; he is then represented in the Assyrian gesture of devotion of ubƗna tarƗúu (“stretching the finger”) under the symbols of the gods and dressed as an Assyrian ruler, but holding a wilted flower like a Syrian dead king, at the side of his inscription written in Phoenician (KAI 24).21 We can compare this gesture with the one performed by Taita; both convey an explicit identity as an intentional adhesion to protocols adopted from the predominant political milieu. We can then associate both images with the representation of Katuwa at Karkemish with the gesture of the hand folded at the mouth as an amu-figure, the Luwian sign for signifying the individual manifestation (I am) of the ruler.22 These images reveal in their different visual languages the explicit identities of the rulers represented; explicit and implicit identities did not always correspond. We can use a further case for exploring identities. Funerary practices, and especially the use of inhumations and cremations, may attest to distinct peoples. Cremation, especially, has been considered as an intrusive feature in the Levant in the Iron Age, associated with external components. Cremations were present in Anatolia in the 2nd millennium BCE,23 appearing in the Late Bronze Age in the northern Levant (Alalakh, Tell Sukas, Tell al-Nasriyah)24 and in Assyrian towns (Ashur, Tell Sabi Abyad, Tell Mohammed Diyab).25 In Iron I and II their presence increased, becoming predominant on the Phoenician coast.26 Here, however, we can document features of interaction: the cemeteries of Achziv and Khaldé reveal cremations from the 10th to the 8th century BCE and cases of cremations and inhumations in the same space and even in the same tomb, a fact probably attesting to a process of mixing of population and formation of inclusive families.27 The practice of cremation also prevailed in the northern coastal area (Tell Arqa, Tell Suqas, Ras el-Bassit),28 and as well in central Syria (1600 were excavated at Hama, a consistent number at Tell al-Nasriyah);29 it was also widespread along the Euphrates (Karkemish area, Tell Shuyukh Fawqani)30 and on the upper Khabur (Guzana/Tell Halaf), as well as in the middle Khabur and Upper Tigris, in the Assyrian milieu, but in a more limited percentage (Tell Sheikh Hamad,

21

For these multicultural characteristics, see Mazzoni 2000:44–45, Bonatz 2014:213. Mazzoni 2013:475–476. 23 Emre 1991; Taracha 2009:22–23,158–164. For the cases of occasional and ritual cremations, see Polcaro 2014. 24 Bienkowski 1982; Tenu 2013. 25 Kreppner 2008:266–268; Forza 2013:57–58. 26 The cemetery of Tyre al-Bass provides the main and diagnostic document for the Phoenician area, see Aubet 2004; 2010; and especially 2012 for its social significance. A re-eavaluation in Mura 2014. For the diffusion of the practice of cremation and the tophet in the Punic Mediterranean as a marker of identity, see Bonnet 2011; Quinn 2011; Quinn 2013; Xella 2013. 27 See Mura 2014. 28 Bienkowski 1982; Courbin 1993. A reassessment in Tenu 2013:424–425. 29 Faivre 2013; Tenu 2013. 30 Tenu 2013. 22

Identity and Multiculturality in the Northern Levant: Tell Afis

287

Ziyaret Tepe).31 The large number of cremations in areas under Luwian control and their supposed Anatolian origin has lead to cremations being attributed to the Anatolian segment of the population; on the other hand, the consistent diffusion in the coastal Levant has indicated a Mediterranean context for its development.32 In this regard, the case of the monumental tombs of Tell Halaf, ancient Guzana and Aramaean seat of Bit Baতiani at the time of Assyrian control over the region, can be particularly instructive, especially with regard to the intricate interaction between Luwians, Aramaeans and Assyrians. At Tell Halaf, the first village founded in the 11th century on the northern slope of the prehistoric tell and on the “Terrassenschüttung” to the east and north of the Hilani, consisted of small houses and a burial area in the north-west of the mound with mud brick cist graves containing inhumations, similar to the late Middle Assyrian ones found at Tell Fakhariya, as revealed by the renewed excavations on the site.33 These can be added to the two monumental mud brick tombs north-east of the Tempel-Palast discovered by Max von Oppenheim. One of these, the “Ältere Gruft” (or “Südliche Gruft”), contained an individual buried with a rich funerary apparatus consisting also of a golden mouth covering and golden sheets for the head and chest.34 These funerary decorations can be connected with the Mesopotamian tradition of gold funerary face-masks.35 As rightly noted by M. Novák “The architecture of the tombs and cist graves, as well as the objects, clearly show that the assimilation of Middle Assyrian culture by the local population had already reached a high degree at that time.” A second burial area was located near the citadel gate and included a ritual setting with two statues representing women, placed over the pits containing the urns with the burnt remains and rich funerary equipment.36 There are no elements that help determine the identity of the women; however, the style of the statues is certainly local and suggests a local (Aramaean?) identity of the deceased.37 The statues with their laps used as tables for performing the funerary rites and libations belong, in fact, to a Syrian tradition going back to the Middle (Ebla) and Late Bronze Age (Qatna) which was then adopted by both Luwian and Aramaean elites. In this case, the communicative elements and the rites performed denote a shared collective identity.38 A significant document of the interaction is revealed here by the presence of a golden mouth covering in the cremation burial under the statue A1;39 this may indicate that the body was prepared and dressed with rich ornaments and funerary paraphernalia before being cremated, not unlike the inhumated one of the “Ältere Gruft”. 31

Forza 2013, for a reconsideration of the diffusion of the practice of cremation in Upper Mesopotamia. 32 Gilmour 1995. 33 Novák 2013a:266; 2013b:297. 34 Orthmann 2002:46–50; Hrouda 1962:19, Pl. 1.8; 19, Pl. 1.1–7. A reassessment of stratigraphy and chronology of the tombs in Pucci 2008:96–97. List of objects found in the tomb: 232. 35 Curtis 1995. 36 Orthmann 2002:50–53; stratigraphic analysis in Pucci 2008:91–92. List of objects found in the two burials, 232. 37 Bonatz 2000:154–155. 38 Bonatz 2000:15,161–165. 39 Hrouda 1962:19, Pl. 2.9; at page 4 he noted this peculiar occurrence in a cremation burial.

288

Stefania Mazzoni

As in the case of the Phoenician graves, in the Aramaean Guzana two different funerary practices coexisted, possibly mirroring a mixed population, or mixed components in the higher social ranks. Once again, we are not able to solve the problem of the identity of peoples and elites by the types of funerary practices documented; inhumation and cremation did coexist with rituals of local native tradition and also customs of Assyrian orientation. This brings us to the multicultural and intercultural tendencies of Iron II–III, which was marked by substantial inclusiveness and homogenization of cultures, and by mechanisms of assimilation and emulation among the Luwian, Aramaean, Phoenician and Assyrian elements. It is in this framework, that we can posit the gradual formation of an Aramaic oikoumene40 which was fostered by the Assyrian imperial organization and was an essential facet of this scenario. To conclude, exploring implicit or explicit identities through artefacts or material culture can too often produce speculative and frustrating results. While it is, in fact, difficult to recognize peoples by their pots and sometimes by their images burdened with political intents, it is, instead, more convincing and legitimate to define, underlying the archaeological materials, distinct cultural traits with their social and economic contexts of relevance. It can, in fact, be more productive to compare the cultural orientation of the material assemblages of successive phases of occupation of a site, i.e. their cultural horizons on an inter-regional scale. This allows us to single out distinct social dynamics of inclusion and separation that may reveal specific implicit identities. The analysis of the Late Bronze II–Iron Age I–III sequence of Tell Afis can positively contribute to this end.

Tell Afis: Settlement Continuity and Changes of Cultural Orientation Tell Afis documents a lengthy and continuous sequence of occupation from the Late Chalcolithic to the Iron Age (fig. 1). From the Late Bronze II to Iron III Afis was densely occupied, with a main break at the very beginning of the 12th century BCE separating LBII from Iron I and a major transformation of the urban lay-out and organisation of the acropolis probably in the initial Iron II, around the beginning of the 9th century BCE when the domestic quarters (Areas E,A) were razed and the small Iron I temple substantially enlarged and transformed (Area A). In the course of Iron II other sacred and ceremonial structures were added to the temple, which was rebuilt on a monumental scale in Iron III, in the 7th -6th centuries BCE. The lower town was also densely built in Iron II–III and walled by a thick brick wall. While the Late Bronze Age and Iron I are documented only in the acropolis (Areas E,N1), Iron Age II–III are known from the acropolis (Areas A,E,G,I) and the lower town (Areas B,D,F,H,M). The relative sequence of Afis VI and VII (Late Bronze II, Iron I) was mainly based on

40

Bonatz 2014:208.

Identity and Multiculturality in the Northern Levant: Tell Afis

289

the stratigraphy and building phases of Area E on the western slope of the acropolis,41 with the addition of Areas A (Temple AIII.1–2) and N1. The Afis VII–VIII sequence (Iron II–III) was based on the concordance of the stratigraphies and building phases mainly of Areas A,J,L on the acropolis and Areas B and D in the lower town (fig. 2).42 Material culture and architectural sequence define three distinct cultural horizons and phases of development. The pottery horizons, especially, show a regional consistency and delineate a north-western inner province of Syria whose cultural borders show limited but significant variations throughout the Late Bronze II–Iron III period; besides, they illustrate different cultural orientations following upon each other over this same span of time.

Figure 1: Tell Afis: the acropolis with the excavated areas and sequence of occupation.

41

F. Venturi is preparing the final publication of the Iron I sequence in Area E and I owe to his analysis our ultimate comments on the characteristics of the Iron I culture at Tell Afis. See Venturi 2000, 2010, 2013. 42 Mazzoni 2014 for a reassessment of the Iron II–III sequence at Tell Afis, by comparing the pottery assemblages of the different areas excavated from 1986 to 2010.

290

Stefania Mazzoni

Figure 2: Tell Afis: schematic plan of the main buildings of Iron Age I–III on the acropolis.

Late Bronze Age II and the Anatolian Orientation The LB II local horizon, in the 13th and initial 12th century BCE, is characterized by lingering Middle Bronze II/LB I features, but also by a significant renovation of pottery production with its standardised fabrics and forms. 43 The mass-produced plain common ware makes up 84% of the total of selected diagnostic sherds of the period, while imported pottery is completely lacking, a fact that characterizes this site in comparison to the coastal sites. The standardization of the ware, the presence of drab ware

43

Venturi 2012:9–19, and 25–26.

Identity and Multiculturality in the Northern Levant: Tell Afis

291

and a few shapes such as the shallow bowls, the one-handled fusiform jugs with pointed bases, the straight-sided kraters and the large carinated pithoi, often with distinct potmarks (figs 3–6), make the Afis assemblage comparable with the Hittite tradition and indicate a clear Anatolian orientation.44 The presence of imported bronze weapons and a few seals also point to this same connection.45 Moreover, the small archive recovered in Building F of Phase VII and especially three diplomatic texts indicate that the site was certainly under Hittite political control, thus providing a historical consistency to the Anatolian elements revealed by material culture. However, the high official known from the texts had a West-Semitic name and other peoples mentioned had Hurrian names;46 these were, in fact, the predominant components in Northern Syria during the Late Bronze Age, as revealed by the Alalakh and Emar archives. Although the dynamics of the diffusion of the standardized Anatolianoriented pottery tradition outside the Anatolian plateau and the core of the Hittite kingdom have to be better understood,47 it is clear that this orientation is to be explained in the sphere of Hittite supremacy. This orientation does not mirror the distinct identity of the inhabitants of Afis in this period, but reflects instead their integration into the cultural and political network shaped in the area by the Hittite hegemony.

3

4 6 5 Figures 3–6: Tell Afis, Area E: shallow bowl, fusiform jug, krater and pithos with potmark, Phase Vb, Late Bronze II, end 13th century BCE.

44

Venturi, 2012, figs 4–8. Venturi 2014. Venturi 2012:19–23, fig. 9. 46 Archi 2012:32. 47 See Venturi 2013:237. To this topic was dedicated the workshop held in Florence on 14th–16th January 2015, Ceramic Identities at the Frontier of the Empires. The Regional Dimension of Pottery Production in Late Bronze Age Northern Syria and Anatolia, by M. Pucci and F. Venturi. 45

292

Stefania Mazzoni

Iron Age I and the Eastern Mediterranean Orientation Iron I was characterized by the continuity of occupation of all the acropolis of Tell Afis, and by many lingering traits in the material culture. However, innovative traits emerged which identify a new cultural horizon with a distinct coastal and Aegean orientation. As far as pottery is concerned, the presence of imports from the coastal sites constitutes the main trait of the period, with the diffusion of LH III C painted ware and the emergence of the local painted wares of coastal and Aegean inspiration. These represent a discrete percentage of the whole inventory and give an indication of the assimilation of the new types by the local producers (fig. 7).48 At the same time the decline of the standardized tableware and the decrease of open shallow bowls and plates seem to be consistent with this change in the regional orientation. Cooking pots, instead, show a clear continuity with minor inner transformations throughout the period; we register at Tell Afis a change only in the final part of the period when the outwardly thickened rim pot of LB derivation is substituted by the hole-mouth cooking pot, a diagnostic feature for the beginning of Iron II.49 Further significant materials sharing these same trends are the violin-bow fibulae and the small cylindrical loom weights in crude clay found on the floors of the domestic units of the E4 habitation quarter.50 This same coastal orientation is documented by the materials found in Temple AIII.1–2, such as the painted kernoi (fig. 8) and the cultic pedestalled cups.51 Tell Afis at that time was probably a seat of the cult of a local storm-god as indicated by a linear-style seal found in Temple AIII.1 showing the statue of the god standing on his bull in a scene of procession (fig. 9).52 This god may have been connected with the high pyramidal mountain visible on the north-western skyline of Tell Afis, the Jebel el ‘Aqra (Mount Zaphon/Casius). The mountain indicates the direction of the coast and the Mediterranean Sea. How can we explain the coastal orientation of this cultural horizon? Its regional distribution delineates a northern Levantine area, extending in inland Syria to the western bend of the Euphrates, to Tell Afis and Hama on the Orontes. In Tell Afis, a few biconvex seals with hieroglyphic signs and Luwian personal names indicate the presence of Luwian components.53 Karkemish was ruled by the descendants of the Hittite dynasty. Luwian hieroglyphic is also documented by the above mentioned inscription of Taita (I) of Palistin, the inscription of his descendants Taita (II) found at Meharde, near Hama and the inscription of Suppiluliuma found at Arsuz, near Iskenderun54 to be dated to the 11th and 10th century BCE, corresponding to Iron IB and C of the Tell Afis periodization. These inscriptions indicate the regional extension of the Palistin kingdom from Cilicia (Arsuz) to the Amuq, with its capital Kunalua at Tell Ta‫ލ‬inat, to

48

Venturi 2014:39–45. Analysis of the zoomorphic vase, TA.99.E.711/1, in Venturi 2011. Venturi 2000; 2014:41, fig. 3 for Iron Age I. 50 Cecchini 2011. 51 Mazzoni 2012:25–26, fig. 2; 2014:9, fig. 15. 52 Mazzoni 2014:50, fig. 16. 53 Venturi 2012:24, figs 9.3–4. 54 See Harrison 2013: 63. 49

Identity and Multiculturality in the Northern Levant: Tell Afis

293

Figure 7: Tell Afis: zoomorphic vase TA.99.E.711/1, Area E, Phase IIId, Iron I, 11th century BCE.

Figure 8: kernos, TA.07.A.9/1: Temple AIII.1, Iron I, 11/10th century BCE.

294

Stefania Mazzoni

Figure 9: cylinder seal TA.06.A.180: Temple AIII.1, Iron I, 11/10th century BCE.

Aleppo and Hama which was probably at its southern border. This area certainly corresponds to the area of the coastal and Mediterranean oriented horizon,55 but also to the area controlled by the Hittites in the final Late Bronze Age, and populated by Hurrian and West Semitic components, as we noted above. We probably do not need to turn to the presence of intrusive peoples to explain the dynamics of the emergence of this regional horizon, especially in inland Syria.56 The diffusion of the Luwian hieroglyphic by the local rulers seems to be in line with a local persistence of the Hittite culture, even through the Palistin rulers. The Sea Peoples may have settled in the coastal areas, being probably absorbed or integrated into the local milieu and may have contributed to an economic regeneration of this region and its maritime tradition. Towns on the Phoenician coast, such as Tyre, Saidah and Beirut emerged in this period as active harbours joining Byblos, while to the north, renewed and new towns in the coastal plains or on the sea, such as Tell Kazel, Amrith, Tell Syanu, Tell Tweini, Tell Suqas, Ras el Bassit, Sabuni and Al Mina were increasingly flourishing between Iron I and II, documenting a gradual intensification of maritime trade also over longdistances. This process again may have been connected with the arrival of the Sea Peoples,57 but was more probably based on the premises of the Levantine commercial network of the “international” Late Bronze Age. The eastern Mediterranean orientation of the Iron I horizon cannot illustrate distinct identities, but reflects a process of integration and gradual assimilation between the different foreign and native elements populating and ruling the northern Levant: this process would be further enhanced in the course of Iron II–III.

55

The cremation cemetery of Hama first revealed the Iron I assemblage with painted pottery and instruments such as violin-shaped bow fibulae of Aegean derivation. 56 As for Tell Afis, Venturi 2010; 2014:45 has stressed the persistence of the local population in Iron I. In the same vein, Pedrazzi 2014:75. 57 See on this Barako 2000.

Identity and Multiculturality in the Northern Levant: Tell Afis

295

Iron Age II–III and the Aramaean-Assyrian Orientation The third cultural phase was characterised by a substantial renewal of the urban layout of the site and its material culture. Tell Afis of this period can probably be identified with the town of Hadrak known by the Aramaic inscription of the stele of Zakkur, king of Hamath and Luath, and by him defended from the assault of a coalition of kings around 800 BCE and then rebuilt.58 The excavations have shown that Tell Afis in Iron II-III was transformed into a large town with an annular lower town surrounded by urban walls with dense residential units and an acropolis topped by a monumental sacred compound.59 Can we recognize in the documentation of this period any imprint of the Aramaeans? The monumental building conception that we find in Temple AI belongs certainly to an older local Syrian tradition, despite the innovations introduced in its plan. The new temple was constructed in two successive phases (AII–I), levelling the brick walls of the Iron I temple AIII.1 and filling it with its debris; in its place, stood a much larger building of a new technical and architectural style, which used massive stone work. The earlier phase (AII) is only sparsely documented by foundations which lay directly over the bricks of the AIII.1 temple. The latest temple (AI) was a freestanding tripartite “Langraum” structure, 38/32x28m, with a vestibule, a long hall, a rear room and rooms along the sides. The southern short façade was framed by square towers; a 8.50m line of square flat stones is all that remains of the base of a threshold or the step of a staircase rising to the interior; the floor of the central hall is in fact 1.67m above the level of the entrance. Even though we cannot find close comparisons for Temple AI, the use of rough massive stones in the foundations and the presence of rooms on the long sides connect it with the temple of Ain Dara; however, the side rooms, which characterized the Solomon temple as described in the Old Testament (1 Kings 6-7), may have also constituted an element of Assyrian derivation.60 Materials associated with Temple AI belong to different cultural spheres and show a ritual or ceremonial purpose. The interior was not preserved, being largely dismantled. The area of the vestibule was covered by a thick “Basalt Stratum” containing hundred of flakes of basalt and fragments of sculptures showing figurative elements of local Syro-Hittite style, together with a fragment of an Old Syrian stele. The most interesting find here was a fragment of a stele with an Aramaic inscription citing Hazael, the king of Aram-Damascus. These fragments may be residuals from sculptures and stelae which once decorated the entrance and the vestibule of the temple. The outer open spaces, a plaza (F) facing the entrance, the street on its western side and northern/rear side have revealed two successive floors and a limited but consistent corpus of materials. Fragments of bichrome painted incense burners decorated with geometric motifs and with plastic petals find comparisons especially on the coast and

58

Amadasi 2014:54, fig. 1 and bibliography. A general evaluation of the Iron II–III phase is presented in Mazzoni 2014. 60 For this hypothesis see Mazzoni 2012:30 with comparative references. 59

296

Stefania Mazzoni

in the southern Levant. 61 A large corpus of pottery “funnels”, with an end covered by a bluish-whitish glaze and a horn-like handle, are of uncertain use (figs 10–11).62 They were found on the whole circuit of the temple, a few grouped on the floor in front of the façade and on the western and the northern sides. Some smaller and unglazed funnels were also found in the Iron II eastern outer areas of temple AII. S. Soldi has suggested that they may have decorated the walls of the temple in comparison with the architectural “clous” found in front of the façade of the antis temple of Area M at Emar.63 A punctual comparison has been traced by Alexander Zukerman64 with four horned funnels from Hazor which he suggests were used as special stands in rooftop rituals (fig. 12). The Tell Afis funnels with their whitish-blueish glaze are more probably of Assyrian derivation and were found on the last floor of the open areas outside the temple, whose pottery assemblage has an Iron III–7th century BCE date, as indicated by the carinated bowls of Assyrian derivation but locally made.65

11

10

12

Figures 10–12: Tell Afis: 10–11: funnels TA.05.A.55/15, TA.05.A.59/9, Temple I Area, Iron III, 7th century; 12: Hazor, funnel, after Zukerman 2014, fig. 1.3. 61

Soldi 2005:26–27; Soldi 2009:114, figs 12–13 citing comparisons with examples from Al Mina, Zincirli and Mishirfe of the 7th century and further examples from Megiddo and Tell es-ৡafi/Gath. 62 Soldi 2009:108–112, figs 9–10; 2012. 63 Margueron 1980:304–308, figs 9-10; 1982:32–34, figs 9–10. The Emar “clous” were of two types, a trumpet-like type with a pointed closed base and a long funnel open instead at the base, similar to the glazed funnels from Tell Afis. Margueron compared the “clous” of Emar with the glazed nails from Nuzi and Tchoga Zanbil, see 1980:305. 64 Zukerman 2014. 65 Soldi 2005: fig. 20:2–4; 9–11; 2009:108; Mazzoni 2015.

Identity and Multiculturality in the Northern Levant: Tell Afis

297

The outer areas of the temple included different open air spaces and cultic installations: Plaza F in front, and the streets on the sides of the temple, annexe H to the south, terrace J to the east. They all provided rich evidence of cultic paraphernalia, basalt vats, incense burners, pedestalled vases and ex-voto figurines. A cylinder seal in frit in neo-Assyrian style, found in H5, with the serpenti-form horned dragon (bashmu) and the standard of Sin66 can be associated with other glazed seals of similar style found in the acropolis.67 Among the objects found probably discarded in H1,68 we find a group of anatomical parts and figurines: two anthropomorphic pillared figurines, one with only one arm, and another with a hunch, parts of legs and arms and a foot, that can be added to a discrete corpus of human legs with suspension holes, figurines and a vase with a human mask, also found at Tell Afis (figs 13–16).69 These can be connected with healing rituals and find comparisons in a group of anthropomorphic figurines, anatomical parts and a vase with a human mask of cultic function from Tel Beth-shean (figs. 17–19).70 Again, the presence of these cultic figurines documents the intensity of the intercultural relations and is suggestive of a network of cult places sharing distinct ritual performances with their related cultic paraphernalia. Also numerous were the materials found in the “mysterious” sunken open-air structure of Area G,71 built by cutting through the Iron I domestic unit, probably when also Temple II was built erasing the Iron I domestic quarters. This court was intentionally demolished and became a large waste-pit for refuse and was gradually filled up with animal bones, broken vessels, and particularly Red Slip open forms (quite rare in the other assemblages).72 Among the objects we can cite a bronze figurine of a smiting god, of local tradition, a jar handle of a small jug with a stamp seal impression bearing the inscription LB‘LHWW and the royal four-winged scarab, probably belonging to a Phoenician, and maybe Byblian personage, and an ostrakon inscribed []lwr, probably the name of the god Iluwer to whom Zakkur offered his stele.73

66

Mazzoni 2014:45–46, fig. 13. It is to be compared with seals from Nimrud: Collon 2001:118, no. 220, Pl. XVIII. 67 Soldi 2009:113–116, fig. 14. 68 Noteworthy is an ivory calf covered in gold foil, originally part of a lid of a pyxis, (similar to examples from Nimrud) of the north-Syrian 9th century BCE “Flame and Frond” group, see Mazzoni 2014:45, fig. 1. The materials found in HI may be residuals and come from the spoliation of the cultic area. 69 TA.09.A.31; TA.09.A.33. See also TA.97.G.13, TA.08.A.13, TA.04.A.242. For the anatomical parts, see the foot, TA.09.A.5, and the legs TA.09.A.6, TA.09.A.48, TA.96.G.238. D’Amore 2015:267,276–277, figs 2c, 15a,b. 70 Mazar 2009:540 comparing the pendants in the shape of a human leg and foot with a suspension hole, suggested that “the use of these objects as votive amulets with magical power, intended to help in curing maladies, may be deduced on the basis of parallels from Mesopotamia and Greece. Yet, the possibility also exists that these objects could have been toys.” 71 Analysis and interpretation have been provided by Cecchini 1998; 2000; 2014:62–63, figs 10– 13. 72 Soldi 2013 for the Red Slip ware at Tell Afis. 73 TA.97.G.2,3: Amadasi 2001; 2014:55–57, figs 3–4.

298

Stefania Mazzoni

Figures 13–19: 13–16: Tell Afis, TA.09.A.33, pillared female figurine; TA.06.A.1, anthropomorphic vase; ta.88.D.15, TA.91.E.32 miniature human legs. 17–19: Beth-Shean, pillared female figurine; anthropomorphic vase, miniature human legs, after Mazar 2009, figs. 9.1°, 9.5, 9.6.

The urban renovation of Tell Afis in this phase is associated with the renewal of the material culture and especially pottery, represented by the diagnostic Orange Simple Ware and Red Slip Ware with their standardized fabrics and selected inventory of forms. The Tell Afis assemblage belongs to a northern Levantine horizon characterized by very limited regional variants in an area which included sectors under Aramaean, Luwian and Assyrian control. Distinct characteristics of this pottery horizon were the uniformity and standardization of the production and its persistence across the 9th–7th centuries BCE. Mass-production and standardization were increased in Iron III, at the time of the Assyrian domination, and resulted in a higher homogeneity of wares and greater selection of shapes.74 The epigraphic findings assign this phase of the life of the town to the period of the Aramaean political emergence in the area. The stele of Hazael, found in the Basalt Stratum, has been attributed by M. G. Amadasi to the same scribal school as the stele of Zakkur and dated to shortly before it, by the end of the 9th century BCE; this stele

74 Whether the development towards industrial manufacture of pottery production may have been a local trend or the result of an Assyrian influence, it is difficult to ascertain on the basis of the current evidence (see Mazzoni 2014:364).

Identity and Multiculturality in the Northern Levant: Tell Afis

299

provides a further clue to the identification of Tell Afis with Hazrek.75 In synthesis, the archaeological evidence supplies for Tell Afis in Iron II–III the picture of a flourishing town, renovated and rebuilt on a monumental size, characterized by multicultural traits and also pervaded by the Assyrian culture. Apart from the inscriptions, we cannot detect an Aramaean identity76 in the materials found, in the pottery assemblage or in the distinct plan of Temple AI, even though the stele of Hazael assigns the site with certainty to the Aramaean sphere. More perceptible is, instead, the presence of a sizeable Assyrian acculturation.77 Like the stele of Kulamuwa, the documentation of Tell Afis produces the image of an Aramaean multicultural town permeated by the predominant Assyrian models. Indeed the Aramaeans flourished, forging their power and identity in the shadow of the Assyrian empire; the adoption of the Aramaic language and script by the Assyrians further enhanced their integration into the empire.

Bibliography AMADASI, M. G., 2001. Une empreinte de sceau de Tell Afis, Orientalia 70/3: 318–324 –: 2009. Un fragment de stele araméenne de Tell Afis, Orientalia 78: 336–347 –: 2014. Tell Afis in the Iron Age: The Aramaic Inscriptions, NEA 77/1: 54–57 ARCHI, A., 2012. Hittites at Tell Afis. The Cuneiform Tablets, Orientalia 81/1: 32–55 ASSMANN, J., 1997. La memoria culturale. Scrittura, ricordo e identità politica nelle grandi civiltà antiche, Torino (Italian edition) AUBET, M.-E. (ed.), 2004. The Phoenician Cemetery of Tyre Al-Bass. Excavations 1997–1999 (Baal Hors Série 1), Beirut AUBET, M.-E., 2010. The Phoenician Cemetery of Tyre, Near Eastern Archaeology 73: 144–155 –: 2012. La nécropole phénicienne de Tyr-Al Bass: idéologie et société d’après les données archéologiques, in l’Histoire de Tyr d’après les témoignages de l’archéologie, in: Actes du séminaire international, Tyr 2011 (Baal Hors Série 8), Beirut, 45–54 BARAKO, T. J., 2000. The Philistine settlement as mercantile phenomenon?, American Journal of Archaeology 104: 513–530 BIENKOWSKI, P., 1982. Some remarks on the practice of cremation in the Levant, Levant 14: 80–89 BIRNEY, K., 2008. Tracking the Cooking Pot à la stéatite: Signs of Cyprus in Iron Age Syria, American Journal of Archaeology 112: 565–580 BONATZ, D., 2000. Das Syro-hethitische Grabdenkmal. Untersuchungen zur Entstehung einer neuen Bildgattung in der Eisenzeit im nordsyrisch-südostanatolischen Raum, Mainz –: 2001. Mnemohistory in Syro-Hittite Iconography, in: ed. Historiography in the Cuneiform World I. Proceedings of the XLVE Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, ed. T. Abusch et al., Bethesda, 65–77 –: 2014. Art, in: The Aramaeans in Ancient Syria (HdO 1/106), ed. H. Niehr, Leiden, 205–253 BONNET, C., 2011. On Gods and Earth: The Tophet and the Construction of of a new Identity in Punic Carthage, in: Cultural Identity in the Ancient Mediterranean, ed. E. S. Gruen, Los Angeles, 373–387

75

Amadasi 2009; 2014. As noted by H. Sader, 2000:70. 77 S. Soldi (2015) concludes in the same vein, investigating the process of identity in the documentation of the Aramaean period at Tell Afis and Zincirli. 76

300

Stefania Mazzoni

–: 2014. Greeks and Phoenicians in the Western Mediterranean, in: A Companion to Ethnicity in the Ancient Mediterranean, ed. J. McInerney, Chichester (UK), 327–340 BRUBAKER, R., COOPER, F., 2000. Beyond “Identity”, Theory and Society 29/1: 1–47 CECCHINI, S. M., 1998. Area G. The Iron I-III Levels. Architecture, Pottery and Finds, in: Tell Afis (Siria). Scavi sull’Acropoli 1988–1992. The 1988–1992 Excavations on the Acropolis (Ricerche di Archeologia del Vicino Oriente 1), ed. S. M. Cecchini and S. Mazzoni, Pisa, 273–365 –: 2000. Un bâtiment mistérieux sur l’acropole de Tell Afis, in: Proceedings of the First International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Rome, May 18th–23rd 1998, I, ed. P. Matthiae et al., Roma, 199–204 –: 2014. Tell Afis in the Iron Age: The Official Buildings in the Eastern Acropolis, NEA 77.1: 58–63 COLLON, D., 2001. Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum. Cylinder Seals, V. Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian Periods. London COURBIN, P., 1993. Fouilles de Bassit. Tombes du Fer, Paris CURTIS, J., 1995. Gold Face-Masks in the Ancient Near East, in: The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East, (Oxbow Monograph 51), ed. S. Campbell and A. Green, Oxford, 226–231 D’AMORE, P., 2015. Iron Age Clay Figurines from Tell Afis, in: From the Treasures of Syria. Essays on Art and Archaeology in Honour of Stefania Mazzoni, (PIHANS CXXVI), ed. P. Ciafardoni and D. Giannessi, Leiden, 261–286 DESCOMBES, V., 2013. Les embarras de l’identité, Paris DOMMELEN, P. VAN and A. B. KNAPP, 2010. Material connections: mobility, materiality and Mediterranean identities, in: Material Connections: Mobility, Materiality and Mediterranean Identities, ed. P. Van Dommelen and A. B. Knapp, London, 1–18 DURU, R., 2004. Yesemek. The largest sculpture workshop of the Ancient Near East –: 2011. Yesemek heykel atelyesi ile ilgili iki bulgu, in: Karadeniz’den Fırat’a bilgi Üretimleri. Önder Bilgi’ye Arma÷an Yazılar / From the Black Sea to the Euphrates Knowledge Production. Studies Presented in honour of Önder Bilgi, ed. A. Öztan, and ù. Dönmez, Ankara, 147–158 EMRE, K., 1991. Cemeteries in Second Millennium B.C. B. in Central Anatolia, in: Ancient Anatolian and Syrian studies in the 2nd and 1st Millennium B.C. (Bulletin of the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan 4), ed. Prince Takahito Mikasa, Wiesbaden, 1-15 FAIVRE, X., 2013. Tell al-Nasriyah (Syrie) et le contact égéen: à propos d’urnes cinéraires, Syria 90: 312–352 FAUST, A. and J. LEV-TOV, 2011. The Constitution of Philistine Identity: Ethnic Dynamics in Twelfth to Tenth Century Philistia, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 30/1: 13–31 FORZA, M., 2013. Crematory Practices in Upper Mesopotamia in Iron Ages I and II: an Indication of Collective and Individual Identity. A Comparative Hypothesis between Bordering Regions and their Cultural Links, in: SOMA 2012. Identity and Connectivity. Proceedings of the 16th Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, Florence, Italy, 1–3 March 2012. Vol. I (BAR International Series 2581), ed. L. Bombardieri et al., Oxford, 55–60 GARBATI, G. and T. PEDRAZZI (eds), 2015. Transformations and Crisis in the Mediterranean. “Identity” and Interculturality in the Levant and Phoenician West during the 12th–8th Centuries BCE. Proceedings of the International Conference held in Rome, CNR May 8–9 2013 (Supplemento alla Rivista di Studi Fenici XLII, 2014), Pisa GILAN, A., 2013. Pirates of the Mediterranean – A View from the Bronze Age, in: Seeraub im Mittelmeerraum: Piraterie, Korsarentum und maritime Gewalt von der Antike bis zur Neuzeit, ed. N. Jaspert and S. Kolditz, Padeborn, 49–66 GILMOUR, G., 1995. Aegean influence in Late Bronze Age practices in the Southern Levant, in: The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East, ed. S. Campbell and A. Green, Oxford, 155–170 HARMANùAH, Ö., 2013. Cities and the Shaping of Memory in the Ancient Near East, Cambridge HARRISON, T., 2009. Lifting the Veil on a “Dark Age”: Ta‘yinat and the North Orontes Valley During the Early Iron Age, in: Exploring the Longue Durée: Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager, ed. David Schloen, Winona Lake, 171–184

Identity and Multiculturality in the Northern Levant: Tell Afis

301

–: 2013. Tayinat in the Early Iron Age, in: Across the Border, Late Bronze-Iron Age Relations between Syria and Anatolia. Proceedings of a Symposium held at the Research Center of Anatolian Studies, Koç University, Istanbul May 31–June 1 2010 (Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplementum 42), ed. K. Aslihan Yener, Leuven, 61–87 –: 2014. Recent Discoveries at Tayinat (Ancient Kunulua/Calno) and their Biblical Implications, in: Congress Volume Munich 2013. Papers presented at the 21st Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament held in Munich, Germany, August 4 to 9, 2013 (VTS 163), ed. C. M. Maier, Leiden, 396–420 HAWKINS, J. D., 2013. The Luwian Inscriptions from the Temple of the Storm-God of Aleppo, in: Across the Border, Late Bronze-Iron Age Relations between Syria and Anatolia. Proceedings of a Symposium held at the Research Center of Anatolian Studies, Koç University, Istanbul May 31– June 1 2010 (Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement 42), ed. K. A. Yener, Leuven, 493–500 HROUDA B., 1962. Die Kleinfunde aus Historischer Zeit, in: Tell Halaf IV, M. F. von Oppenheim, Berlin INSOLL, T. (ed.), 2006. The Archaeology of Identities. A Reader, London JAMIESON, A., 2012. Tell Ahmar III. Neo-Assyrian Pottery from Area C (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 35), Leuven JONES, S., 2002. The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in the Past and Present, London KARAGEORGHIS, V., and O. KOUKA (eds), 2011. On Cooking Pots, Drinking Cups, Loomweights and Ethnicity in Bronze Age Cyprus and Neighbouring Regions. An International Archaeological Symposium held in Nicosia, November 6th–7th 2010, Nicosia KILLEBREW, A. E., 2005. Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity: An Archaeological Study of Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines, and Early Israel, 1300–1100 B.C.E., Atlanta. KILLEBREW, A. E. and G. LEHMANN (eds), 2013. The Philistines and Other “Sea Peoples” in Text and Archaeology (Society of the Biblical Literature Archaeology and biblical studies 15), Atlanta KNAPP, A.B., 2014. Mediterranean Archaeology and Ethnicity, in: A Companion to Ethnicity in the Ancient Mediterranean, ed. J. McInerney, Chichester (UK) 2014, 34–49 KOHLMEYER, K., 2008. Zur Datierung der Skulpturen von Ain DƗrƗ, in: Fundstellen. Gesammelte Schriften zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altvorderasiens ad honorem Hartmut Kühne, ed. D. Bonatz, R. M. Czichon and F. J. Kreppner, Wiesbaden, 119–130 –: 2012. Der Tempel des Wettergottes von Aleppo. Baugeschichte und Bautyp, räumliche Bezüge, Inventar und bildliche Ausstattung, in: Temple Building and Temple Cult. Architecture and Cultic Paraphernalia of Temples in the Levant (2.–1 Mill. B.C.E.) (Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 41), ed. J. Kamlah, Wiesbaden, 55–78 –: 2013. Der Tempel des Wettergottes von Aleppo, in: Tempel im Alten Orient. 7. Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 11.13. Oktober 2009 (Colloquien der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 7), ed. K. Kaniuth et al., München, 179–218 KREPPNER, F. J., 2008. Eine außergewöhnliche Brandbestattungssitte in Dnjr-Katlimmu während der ersten Hälfte des ersten Jts. v. Chr., in: Fundstellen. Gesammelte Schriften zu Archäologie und Geschichte Altvorderasiens ad honorem Hartmut Kühne, ed. D. Bonatz, R. Czichon, and F. J. Kreppner, Wiesbaden 2008, 263–276 KÜHNE, H., 2009, Interaction of Aramaeans and Assyrians on the Lower Khabur, Syria 86: 43–54 LEHMANN, G., 2005. Al Mina and the East: A Report on Research in Progress, in: The Greeks in the East (British Museum Research Publication 157), ed. A. Villing, London, 61–92 LIPOVITCH, D., 2007. Modeling a Mycenaean Menu: Can Aegean Populations Be Defined in Near Eastern Contexts Based on Their Diet?, Scripta Mediterranea 27–28: 147–159 MARGUERON, J.-C., 1980. Emar: un example d’implantation hittite en terre syrienne, in: Le Moyen Euphrate. Zone de contacts et d’échanges. Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg 10–12 Mars 1977 (Travaux du centre de recherche sur le Proche-Orient et la Grèce antiques 5), ed. J.-Cl. Margueron, Strasbourg, 285–312

302

Stefania Mazzoni

–: 1982. Architecture et urbanisme, in: À l’occasion d’une exposition Meskéné-Emar. Dix ans des travaux 1972–1982. Mission archéologique de Meskéné-Emar, ed. D. Beyer, Paris, 23–39 MASETTI-ROUAULT, M.-G., 2001. Cultures locales du Moyen-Euphrate. Modèles et évènements IIe– Ier mill. av. J.-C. (Subartu VIII), Turnhout MAZAR, A., 2009. Clay Figurines and Cult Vessels, in: Excavations at Beth-Shean 1989–1996. The 13th–11th Century BCE Strata in Areas N and S, ed. N. Panitz-Cohen and A. Mazar, Jerusalem, 530–555 MAZZONI, S., 2000. Syria and the Periodization of the Iron Age. A Cross-Cultural Perspective, in: Essays on Syria in the Iron Age (Ancient Near Eastern Studies 7), ed. G. Bunnens, Louvain, 31– 59 –: 2012. Temples at Tell ƖfƯs in Iron Age I–III, in: Temple Building and Temple Cult. Architecture and Cultic Paraphernalia of Temples in the Levant (2.–1 Mill. B.C.E.) (Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 41), ed. J. Kamlah, Wiesbaden, 23–40 –: 2013. Arts and Cross-Cultural Communication in the Early 1st Millennium: The Syro-Anatolian Contact, in: Across the Border, Late Bronze-Iron Age Relations between Syria and Anatolia. Proceedings of a Symposium held at the Research Center of Anatolian Studies, Koç University, Istanbul May 31–June 1 2010 (Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement 42), ed. K. A. Yener, Leuven, 465–492 –: 2014a. Tell Afis in the Iron Age: The Temple on the Acropolis, NEA 77/1: 44–52 –: 2014b. The Archaeology of Tell Afis and the Iron Age II-III in Syria: A Reassessment, in: Tell Tuqan Excavations and Regional Perspectives. Cultural Developments in Inner Syria from the Early Bronze Age to the Persian/Hellenistic Period. Proceedings of the International Conference May 15th–17th 2013, ed. F. Baffi, R. Fiorentino, and L. Peyronel, Galatina (Lecce), 343–390 –: 2015. Redefined and Renewed Identities between Iron Age I and II. Introduction, in: GARBATI and PEDRAZZI (eds), 81–83 MOUTON, A., I. RUTHEFORD, and I. YAKUBOVICH (eds) 2013. Luwian Identities. Culture, Language, and Religion Between Anatolia and the Aegean, Leiden MURA, B., 2015. Archaeological Record and Funerary Practices in Iron Age Phoenicia: A Comparative Overview of the Cemeteries of Al Bass, Achziv and Khaldé, in: GARBATI and PEDRAZZI (eds), 99–110 NOVÁK, M., 2012. The Temple of Ain DƗrƗ in the Context of Imperial and Neo-Hittite Architecture and Art, in: Temple Building and Temple Cult. Architecture and Cultic Paraphernalia of Temples in the Levant (2.–1 Mill. B.C.E.) (Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 41), ed. J. Kamlah, Wiesbaden, 41–54 –: 2013a. GǀzƗn and GnjzƗna – Anatolians, Aramaeans, and Assyrians in Tell Halaf, in: 100 Jahre archäologische Feldforschungen in Nordost-Syrien – eine Bilanz. Internationales Symposium des Instituts für Vorderasiatische Archäologie der Freien Universität Berlin und des Vorderasiatischen Museums der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin vom 21.Juli bis 23.Juli 2011 in Pergamonmuseum (Schriften der Max Freiherr von Oppenheim-Stiftung 18), ed. D. Bonatz and L. Martin, Wiesbaden, 259–280 –: 2013b. Between the Mušku and the Aramaeans, The Early History of Guzana (Tell Halaf), in: Across the Border, Late Bronze-Iron Age Relations between Syria and Anatolia. Proceedings of a Symposium held at the Research Center of Anatolian Studies, Koç University, Istanbul May 31– June 1 2010 (Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement 42), ed. K. A. Yener, Leuven, 293–302 OREN, D. E., 2000, The Sea Peoples and Their World: A Reassessment, University Museum Publications, Philadelphia ORTHMANN, W., 2002. Die Aramäische Stadt Guzana. Ein Rückblick auf die Ausgrabungen Max Von Oppenheims in Tell Halaf (Schriften der Max Freiherr von Oppenheim-Stiftung Heft 15), Saarbrücken PEDRAZZI, T., 2009. L’identità etnica alla luce dell’archeologia post-coloniale: i Fenici, i Siriani e gli “altri”. Per un’interpretazione della ceramica dipinta monocroma del Ferro I, ǹīȍīǾ 4-5: 59–83

Identity and Multiculturality in the Northern Levant: Tell Afis

303

–: 2012. Fingere l’identità fenicia: Confini e cultura materiale in Oriente, Rivista di Studi Fenici XL.2 : 137–157 –: 2015. Foreign versus Local Components : Interaction Dynamics in the Northern Coastal Levant at the Beginning of the Early Iron Age, in: GARBATI and PEDRAZZI (eds), 65–77 POLCARO, A., 2014. Fire and Death: incineration in the Levantine Early-Middle Bronze Age cemeteries as mark of cultural identities, or as technical instrument of purification?, in: Proceedings of the 8th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 30 April – 4 May 2012, Warsaw, ed. P. BieliĔski et al., Wiesbaden, 137–148 PUCCI, M., 2008. Functional Analysis of Space in Syro-Hittite Architecture (BAR International Series 1738), Oxford. QUINN, J.C., 2011. The Cultures of the Tophet: Identification and Identity in the Phoenician Diaspora, in: Cultural Identity in the Ancient Mediterranean, ed. E.S. Gruen, Los Angeles, 388–413 QUINN, J.C., 2013. Tophets and the “Punic World”, in The Tophet in the Phoenician Mediterranean, ed. P. Xella (Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici 29-30), Verona, 23–48 SADER, H., 2000. The Aramean Kingdoms of Syria. Origin and Formation Processes, in: Essays on Syria in the Iron Age (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 7), ed. G. Bunnens, Louvain, 61– 76 SASS, B., 2010. Four notes on Taita king of Palistin, with an excursus on King Solomon’s empire, TA 37: 169–174 SHENNAN, S. J. (ed.), 1989. Archaeological approaches to cultural identity, London SHERRATT, S., 1988 Small Worlds: Interaction and Identity in the Ancient Mediterranean, Aegaeum 18: 329–343 STEADMAN, SH. R. and J. C. ROSS (eds), 2010. Agency and Identity in the Ancient Near East. New Paths Forward (Approaches to Anthropological Archaeology), London SOLDI, S., 2005. Area A1: il settore occidentale, in Tell Afis (Siria) 2002–2004, Egitto e Vicino Oriente XXVIII: 24–29 –: 2009. Aramaeans and Assyrians in North-Western Syria: Material Evidence from Tell Afis, in: Interaction entre Assyriens et Araméens, ed. C. Kepinski, A. Tenu, Syria 86: 97–118 –: 2012. Notes on the Glazed Funnels from the Iron Age Temple AI at Tell Afis, in: Proceedings of the 7th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. 12 April – 16 April 2010, the British Museum and UCL, London, ed. R. Matthews and John Curtis, Wiesbaden, 459– 477 –: 2013. Red Slip Ware from the Acropolis of Tell Afis: The Evidence of Area G, in: Syrian Archaeology in Perspective. Celebrating 20 Years of Excavations at Tell Afis (Ricerche di Archeologia del Vicino Oriente 4), ed. S. Mazzoni, S. Soldi, Pisa, 199–217 –: 2015. Identity and Assimilation at the Edge of the Empire: Aramaeans, Luwians and Assyrians through the Archaeological Record in the Northern Levant, in: GARBATI and PEDRAZZI (eds), 85– 97 STEITLER, C., 2010. The Biblical King Toi of Hamath and the Late Hittite State of 'P/Walas(a)tin, BN 146: 81–99 TARACHA, P., 2009. Religion of Second Millennium Anatolia, Wiesbaden TENU, A., 2013. Funerary Practices and Society at the Late Bronze-Iron Age Transition. A View from Tell Shuyukh Fawqâni and Tell an-Nasriyah (Syria), in: Across the Border, Late Bronze-Iron Age Relations between Syria and Anatolia. Proceedings of a Symposium held at the Research Center of Anatolian Studies, Koç University, Istanbul May 31–June 1 2010 (Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement 42), ed. K. A. Yener, Leuven, 423–441 VENTURI, F., 2000. La première Age du Fer à Tell Afis et en Syrie Septentrionale, in: Essays on Syria in the Iron Age, ed. G. Bunnens (Ancient Near Eastern Studies 7), Louvain, 505–536 –: 2010. Cultural Breakdown or Evolution?, in: The Impact of Changes in 12th Century BC Tell Afis, Societies in Transition. Evolutionary Processes in the Northern Levant between Late Bronze Age

304

Stefania Mazzoni

II and Early Iron Age, Papers Presented on the Occasion of the 20th Anniversary of the New Excavations in Tell Afis, ed. F. Venturi, Bologna, 1–16 -: 2011. Un vase zoomorphe du Fer I à Tell Afis (Syrie): Syria 88: 251–263 –: 2012. New evidence of cultural links between Syria and Anatolia through analysis of Late Bronze Age II Tell Afis material culture, Orientalia 81/1: 1–31 –: 2013. The Transition from Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age at Tell Afis, Syria (phases VII–III), in: Across the Border, Late Bronze-Iron Age Relations between Syria and Anatolia. Proceedings of a Symposium held at the Research Center of Anatolian Studies, Koç University, Istanbul May 31–June 1 2010 (Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement 42), ed. K. A. Yener, Leuven, 227– 262 –: 2014. The Late Bronze Age Sequence at Tell Afis, in: Tell Tuqan Excavations and Regional Perspectives. Cultural Developments in Inner Syria from the Early Bronze Age to the Persian/ Hellenistic Period. Proceedings of the International Conference May 15th–17th 2013, ed. F. Baffi, R. Fiorentino and L. Peyronel, Galatina (Lecce), 297–323 –: 2015. Ceramic Identities and Cultural Borders in the Northern Levant between the 13th and 11th Centuries BCE, in: GARBATI and PEDRAZZI (eds), 35–48 WEEDEN, M., 2013. After the Hittites: the Kingdoms of Karkamish and Palastin in Northern Syria, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, University of London 56/2: 1–20 YASUR-LANDAU, A., 2010. The Philistines and the Aegean Migration at the End of the Late Bronze Age, Cambridge ZUKERMAN, A., 2014. The Horned Stands from Tell Afis and Hazor and the “Crowns” from Nahal Mishmar, in: Material Culture Matters. Essays on the Archaeology of Southern Levant in Honor of Seymour Gitin, ed. J. R. Spencer, A. J. Brody and R. A. Mullins, Winona Lake, 309–321 XELLA, P., 2013. Introduction: Tophet as a Historical Problem, in The Tophet in the Phoenician Mediterranean, ed. P. Xella (Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici 29-30), Verona, III–X

7KH3RZHURI/DQJXDJH /DQJXDJHVLWXDWLRQDQGODQJXDJHSROLF\LQ6DP‫ގ‬DO +HUEHUW1LHKU(EHUKDUG.DUOV8QLYHUVLWlW7ELQJHQ 8QLYHUVLWHLW6WHOOHQERVFK ,QWURGXFWLRQ 0XOWLOLQJXDOLVPLVQRWDUHFHQWSKHQRPHQRQRIRXUWLPHLWDOUHDG\DSSHDUVIUHTXHQWO\ LQ $QFLHQW 1HDU (DVWHUQ VRXUFHV $ ILUVW DSSURDFK WR WKH VLWXDWLRQ LQ 1RUWKHUQ 6\ULD DQG 6RXWKHUQ $QDWROLD LV SURYLGHG E\ WKH SULQFH UHJHQW «@LQWKH&LW\¶VZULW LQJLQWKH6XUDHDQZULWLQJLQWKH$VV\ULDQZULWLQJDQGLQWKH7DLPDQLZULWLQJDQG, NQHZODQJXDJHV´  ,QKLVVWXG\RIWKLVLVVXH)6WDUNHSRLQWHGRXWWKHWHOOLQJRUGHURIWKHODQJXDJHVDQG VFULSWVLQWKHOLVW)LUVWQDPHGLVWKH+LHURJO\SKLF/XZLDQZULWLQJV\VWHP³WKH&LW\¶V ZULWLQJ´ DQGHYHQEHIRUH$VV\ULDQFXQHLIRUPIROORZV6XUDHDQWKH3KRHQLFLDQVFULSW QDPHGDIWHU7\UHৡXU /DVWLVWKH $UDPDLF VFULSW³7DLPDQLZULWLQJ´ 7KHSHUKDSV VXUSULVLQJGLVWLQFWLRQPDGHEHWZHHQWKHVFULSWVRI3KRHQLFLDQDQG$UDPDLFLVEDVHGRQ WKH QRZ YHULILDEOH GHYHORSPHQW RI WKH $UDPDLF VFULSW DQG LWV RUWKRJUDSK\ 7KLV LV GHPRQVWUDWHGLQWKHLQVFULSWLRQRI7HOO)DNKDUL\D   

 'LIIHUHQW YHUVLRQV RI WKLV DUWLFOH ZHUH SUHVHQWHG GXULQJ WKH ZRUNVKRS ³7KH &KLFDJR 7ELQJHQ $UFKDHRORJLFDO 3URMHFW LQ 6DP‫ގ‬DO´ RQ  WK RI -XQH  LQ 7ELQJHQ WKH &ROORTXLXP ³$UDP DQG ,VUDHO´RQWKHQGRI6HSWHPEHULQ+HLGHOEHUJDQGD3RVWJUDGXDWH6HPLQDURQ VWRI$SULO DW6WHOOHQERVFK8QLYHUVLW\6RXWK$IULFD ,DPREOLJHGWRDOOSDUWLFLSDQWVIRUWKHUHOHYDQWGLVFXVVLRQ IXUWKHUPRUHWR$QGUp/HPDLUH3DULV IRUKLVLQIRUPDWLRQRQWKHVWHOHIURPgUGHN%XUQXWR%HQMDPLQ 6DVV7HO$YLY IRUKLVH[SODQDWLRQVFRQFHUQLQJWKHVHDORI2]ED‫ޏ‬DOWR9LUJLQD+HUUPDQQ7ELQJHQ  IRU KHU LQIRUPDWLRQ RQ WKH XQSXEOLVKHG LQVFULSWLRQV IURP 6DP‫ގ‬DO DQG IRU D FULWLFDO OHFWXUH RI WKLV DUWLFOH WR -HVVLFD %DOGZLQ 7ELQJHQ  IRU WKH WUDQVODWLRQ WR 6XVDQQH 0DLHU 7ELQJHQ  DQG WR 7KHUHVD0D\HU7ELQJHQ IRUWKHLUDVVLVWDQFHLQWKHUHGDFWLRQRIWKHDUWLFOH   )RU WKH LQVFULSWLRQ VHH +DZNLQV D± DQG 3D\QH ± IRU