Tel Beth-Shemesh: Iron IIA Judahite Pottery Typology and Finger Impressed Jar Handles (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Chronology of the Iron Age IIA in Judah in the Light of Tel ʿEton Tomb C3 and Other Assemblages
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 2014
The chronology of Iron Age Israel in general, and that of the Iron Age IIA in Judah in particular, has received a great deal of scholarly attention over the last two decades, especially because of its implications for the debate on the historicity of the United Monarchy. The number of large and well-dated Iron IIA assemblages in Judah, however, is quite small, and in most cases the relevant assemblages are composed of sherds only. The authors of this article are currently preparing for publication a large assemblage of about 200 complete and intact vessels that were unearthed in 1968 by Trude Dothan in an Iron Age IIA tomb below Tel ʿEton. This, along with additional recently published “new” assemblages, warrants a reexamination of the chronology of Judah in this important era. The present article presents the ceramic finds from the tomb at Tel ʿEton and then analyzes the recently published assemblages from other sites in Judah. Those assemblages are then organized in relative sequence, from transitional Iron I—IIA assemblages, through early and late Iron IIA assemblages, and up to terminal Iron IIA (or even transitional Iron IIA—IIB) assemblages. Finally, we attempt to offer (approximate) absolute dates for those ceramic horizons.
Levant, 2006
Until recent years, absolute dates given to Iron I and Iron IIA strata were dominated by individual interpretations of the biblical record. The destruction of Megiddo VIA, Tel Qasile X and other sites, and the termination of the Iron I, were all linked to the conquests of King David and dated to ca. 1000 BCE (e.g., B. Mazar 1951; Dothan 1982, 296). This time frame was reached by calculating back from the reign of biblical monarchs confirmed by ancient Near Eastern texts and accepting the numbers given in the Bible for the reigns of the early Davididesforty years for both David and Solomon. By the same logic, and calculating back a few more steps, the destruction of Iron I Shiloh was dated by Albright (1960, 113, 118, 228) to ca. 1050 BCE: David ca. 1000 < Saul < Samuel < Period of the Judges. If one puts the beginning of Saul's reign at ca. 1025 and the battle of Eben-ezer at the end of the "Period of the Judges", it is indeed logical to reach a date ca. 1050 BCE. Iron IIA strata were dated to the mid-10 th century and associated with the United Monarchy of King Solomon (e.g., Yadin 1970; Dever 1997)-a well-known case which does not need elaboration. Since the historicity of the biblical testimony about the formative phase of the Israelite monarchy has been seriously challenged in recent years, these considerations and calculations-and the resulting dates-do not stand up under the scrutiny of modern scholarship. First, the forty-year reigns of the early Davidides should be taken as no more than a typological number (see, e.g., Handy 1997, 101-102 and bibliography; Ash 1999, 22-26). Second, the descriptions of widespread expansion of early Israel with the conquest of distant cities by King David and the consolidation of a prosperous state under King Solomon probably reflect realities of later centuries and the needs of the late-monarchic authors (e.g., Na aman 2002 for David's conquests; Knauf 1991 for the empire of Solomon). Third, assuming that Saul and David are historical figures, there is no indication that they lived and ruled one after the other, rather than parallel to each other. Fourth, the biblical sequence of a chaotic "Period of the Judges", followed by the golden empire of David and Solomon, is a theological construct of the latemonarchic authors (Finkelstein and Silberman 2001). The sequential, relative order of strata and pottery horizons in the northern valleys and the south (Finkelstein, Zimhoni and Kafri 2000; Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001, 274-276; Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2004) are now broadly accepted. A similar system is proposed below for the highlands. Synchronizing these regional systems is difficult because of strong regionalism in the ceramic repertoires. The highlands sites were poor and isolated and thus their pottery assemblages are relatively monotonous, with very few synchronic types, such as Phoenician bichrome, Philistine bichrome, and slipped and burnished material. In addition, the assemblages of the southern sites are strongly influ-c
The chronology of Iron Age Israel in general, and that of the Iron Age IIA in Judah in particular, has received a great deal of scholarly attention over the last two decades, especially because of its implications for the debate on the historicity of the United Monarchy. The number of large and well-dated Iron IIA assemblages in Judah, however, is quite small, and in most cases the relevant assemblages are composed of sherds only. The authors of this article are currently preparing for publication a large assemblage of about two hundred complete and intact vessels that were unearthed in 1968 by Trude Dothan in an Iron Age IIA tomb below Tel 'Eton. This, along with additional recently published "new" assemblages, warrants a re-examination of the chronology of Judah in this important era. The present article will present the ceramic finds from the tomb at Tel 'Eton, and will then analyze the recently published assemblages from other sites in Judah. Those assemblages will then be organized in relative sequence, from transitional Iron I-Iron IIA assemblages, through early and late Iron IIA assemblages, and up to terminal Iron IIA (or even transitional Iron IIA-Iron IIB) assemblages. Finally, we will attempt to offer (approximate) absolute dates for those ceramic horizons.
Book based on my habilitation treatise now in preparation. Download of introduction (earlier draft) as preview here now available.
There exists increasing evidence that the terminal phase of Iron Age IIB did not already end in 701 BC when the Neo-Assyrian king Sennacherib destroyed Lachish and some other sites in the Shephelah region. It is believed that the impact of the latter's raids was less dramatic than has been held by multiple scholars. Besides Jerusalem (which was besieged but not conquered) it is very doubtful that the Assyrians actually sought to destroy the infrastructure of Judah's flourishing towns and villages, let alone of the important trading stations in the Arad-Beersheba valley. Manifold examples will be presented (including lammelek stamps, Assyrian imported and imitated pottery styles, iconography on seals and bullae etc.) to show that the terminus ad quem of Iron Age IIB encompassed the reign of king Manasseh, Hezekiah's son and successor. Also the end of Iron Age IIA is believed to be later than hitherto thought as some evidence now suggests. This period may have lastet at least until the middle of the 8th century BC (as confirmed by 14C ) and in some areas could have overlapped with early Iron Age IIB as late as the reigns of kings Ahaz and his son Hezekiah (early reign). Contents Introduction 1 Neo-Assyrian Related Sillographic Elements and the terminus ante quem of Iron Age IIA 2 'Assyrian-Type Pottery' and its Implications for Iron Age IIB Chronology 3 Inscribed Jar Handles and (Other?) Fiscal Related Sillographic Evidence 4 A Tentative Reconstruction References Abbreviations Tables and Figures Bibliography Indices
Judea and Samaria Research Studies
In the past few years, there has been a significant increase in the archaeological evidence relating to the early Iron Age IIA (early 10 th c. BCE) in the Judean Shephelah, mainly due to the excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa and Khirbet al-Ra'i. This paper will examine this period through the lens of petrographic analysis of the relevant pottery assemblages of the two sites. The new results of petrographic analysis of 48 mostly restorable early Iron Age IIA pottery vessels from Khirbet al-Ra'i will be discussed in detail; these results will be compared to the previously published petrographic analysis of early Iron Age IIA pottery from Khirbet Qeiyafa (108 samples). The paper will also provide analysis of a group of Iron Age I pottery, including Philistine pottery and other forms, from Khirbet al-Ra'i. The assemblages are relatively homogenous in their fabrics and mostly locally made, with only few imports (mostly from the southern or central coast of Israel). However, the types of local clays that were used in the two sites were somewhat different.
IEJ Vol 71-1: Beyond the Southern Horizon: The Early Iron IIB Shephelite Ceramic Repertoire
Israel Exploration Journal , 2021
The recent excavation and publication of material from a number of sites in the Shephelah, Hill Country, Beersheba‒Arad Valley and Sinai have prompted a revaluation of the ceramic horizon of the Iron Age IIB (c. late ninth and eighth century BCE) in Judah. In this article we report on the discovery of a ceramic assemblage situated within a short-term refuse pit at Tel Azekah, which has further contributed to this growing corpus of material. A typological assessment of these material remains suggests a new ceramic peg for the region — one that rests between the existing pegs of Tell eṣ-Ṣafi/Gath Stratum A3 (c. late ninth century BCE) and Lachish Level III (c. late eighth century BCE), and aligns with material from Tel Beth Shemesh Level 3 (c. late ninth‒early/ mid-eighth century BCE). The identification of such a ceramic horizon provides the opportunity to elevate the current chronological resolution of the Iron IIB ceramic horizon into ‘early’ and ‘late’.