Gross, B., Wrathall, A., Koch, I., and Lipschits, O. 2022. Stamped Jar Handles from Tel Beth Shemesh (East): A Refined Lens for the Exploration of Site History during the Iron Age II, Persian and Hellenistic Periods. Maarav 26 (1-2): 79-122. (original) (raw)
Related papers
Proceedings of the 6 th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East
writing developed during the second half of the 4th millennium BC, Jordan did not use writing until over a thousand years later. In addition, it has been proposed that the South Levantine Early Bronze Age polities, which have been identifi ed as citysates, were neither cities nor states.However, the prevailing views in recent years of the origin of the Bronze Ages have been thoroughly modifi ed. Some scholars see that urbanisation was introduced to this part of the world by newcomers, while others argue for local development and do not exclude external infl uences. The appearance of self-suffi cient towns in the Early Bronze II is parallel to the First Dynasty in Egypt, and the subsequent period the Early Bronze III was marked by the growth of numerous sedentary communities. Moreover, the Early Bronze II-III periods are considered as the fi rst major expression of the Canaanite urbanism. The Early Bronze Age IV (ca. 2300-2000 BC) has been referred to as an interlude of non-sedentary pastoral life between the town urbanism in the Early Bronze II-III and the cities in the Middle Bronze Ages. The tell sites in Jordan had been abandoned, with the exception of very rare sites such as Khirbet Iskander, and regional Early Bronze IV settlement patterns imply extensive use of dry farming land. It has also been proposed that the inhabitants of the Early Bronze IV adopted a new economic strategy and turned to be seminomadic pastoralists. This hypothesis has been combined with the literary evidence documenting the expansion of the semi-nomadic “Amorites”, but has been denied by some scholars. Paul Lapp suggested that the source of the newcomers to Palestine during the Early Bronze IV is the North. The aim of this paper is at presenting a study to the Early Bronze Age major sites either surveyed or excavated in the are
The volume focuses on Transjordanian regions in biblical times, covering the early Iron Age I down to the Hellenistic periods. Unlike current research, Transjordan is not perceived here as a geographical or cultural marginal phenomenon, but the volume takes it upon itself to describe the integration of Transjordan both within the Southern Levant and then, however, also into the major supra-regional references of world of antiquity in the ancient Near East, namely its connections with the regions of the Mediterranean, Egypt and Mesopotamia along with their major political powers. Many questions surrounding Transjordan and its influence on history, religious history, and cultural history are currently unresolved. This volume captures these areas of discussion in its breadth. In particular, this volume is the first to present studies that deal with the Persian period in Transjordan from a multi-disciplinary perspective – a period that has been almost completely ignored in current research in favor of the Iron Age. The task of understanding the complex history of Transjordan and its entanglement with Cisjordan and especially Judah during these periods requires a multidisciplinary perspective. This task will be met by combining for the first time the research and methodological perspectives from the disciplines of archaeology, Hebrew Bible studies, social/cultural history, Assyriology, ancient history, and religious history, which will enable a comprehensive and precise treatment of the topic. Hensel, B. (ed.), Transjordan and the Southern Levant. New Approaches Regarding the Iron Age and the Persian Period from Hebrew Bible Studies and Archaeology - in collaboration with Jordan Davis, hg. von Benedikt Hensel (ArchB), Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2024 (accepted for publication; expected to be published: early 2024).
2011
This article deals with archaeological finds and theories related to the biblical text. David Ussishkin, my teacher in the 1970s, my partner at Megiddo since the beginning of the 1990s, and my friend for many years, has always insisted that the two be separated. He has always maintained that archaeological finds must be studied independently of theories which stem from one’s understanding of ancient texts. Needless to say, I fully adhere to this approach. Our only disagreement is about the next step to be taken. David sees the archaeologist as a technician who, upon completion of the archaeological aspects of his work, hands over the results to the historian, to draw the broader picture (Ussishkin 2007). I see myself as a historian who practices archaeology. I therefore do not hesitate to take the next step and deploy the finds for historical reconstruction.
Gnomon (München), 2021
The benefits of the CIIP project for the scholarly community are obvious and enormous and the team merits the admiration and thanks of all those with any interest in ancient Judaea/Palestine, both for the quality and the speed of their common work. By this point the series has already established itself as a reference and no further comment is required by way of introduction. Volume IV covers a geographical region of very special interest, over a period of extraordinary change: from Alexander to Muhammad. While the wise decision was made to devote a separate (2-part) volume to Jerusalem itself, Judaea and Idumaea represent the real heart of the territory explored in the CIIP. The distinctive and decisive social and religious history broadly binding the 172 locations handled in this volume-from tiny sites, quite off the map, to important centers like Hebron, Bethlehem, and Beit Guvrin-lends particular promise for further study of the multitude of micro-histories catalogued here. In various ways, the successive, intricate processes of Hellenization, Romanization, and Christianization are all detectable in the corpus, right up the moment of the Muslim Conquest. A vast deposit of information is naturally included in the 1580 concentrated pages and more than 1300 inscriptions (#2649-3978) comprising Parts 1 and 2. The format is like that followed in the other volumes, and no general historical and archeological introduction is offered at the beginning of the volume. This lack of a synthetic orientation, of course, reflects the challenging nature of the contents, which, besides the chronological and geographical diversity typical also of other similar collections (e.g. CIL, IG), is also unusually linguistically diverse, so that an adequate conspectus is simply very difficult to gain. The bigger sites are, nevertheless, given separate introductions proportioned to their importance; and obviously the true core of the publication is the assemblage and decipherment of the specific artifacts. Here the familiar presentation is attractive, compact, and complete. Each individual entry includes a brief description, including the findspot (when known), a transcription, translation, short (or sometimes rather developed) commentary, and a focused bibliography. Nearly always, photographs or drawings are also provided. A 60-page Index of Personal Names (cumulative with the earlier volumes) along with three maps and a key to the named locations is included at the back of Part 2. An additional index of foreign words and phrases would have been a large undertaking (not made easier by the multiple languages involved), but an
The Oxford handbook of the archaeology of the Levant: c. 8000-332 BCE
Choice Reviews Online, 2014
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work. 00_MargreetLSteiner_Prelims.indd iv 00_MargreetLSteiner_Prelims.indd iv 12/11/2013 2:34:50 PM 12/11/2013 2:34:50 PM Contents List of fi gures xi List of tables xvii List of contributors xix Map of the Levant xxiii
Age (e.g., Sass 1983; 2010; Golani and Sass 1998; Finkelstein et al. 2008; Finkelstein and Sass 2013). As we have spent the last 20-odd years studying the Philistine culture, it is with much pleasure that we present in Benny's honor this study of the definitions and relations between the Philistines and their neighbors in the region of the Shephelah during the early Iron Age. In a few recent discussions on the early Iron Age in southern Canaan and the cultural and ethnic entities existing at the time, particularly in Philistia and the Shephelah, the suggestion was raised that a distinct Canaanite entity (or enclave) can be identified in the Shephelah, e.g., Bunimovitz and Lederman 2009, 2011; Na'aman 2010; Faust and Katz 2011, 2015; Faust 2013, 2015d; Lederman and Bunimovitz 2014. This enclave was supposedly situated between the Philistines located to the west on the Coastal Plain and the Israelites located to the east in the Central Hills. In this brief paper, we would like to examine some of the suppositions, and relevant data, regarding the existence of this putative Canaanite enclave. The study of the Philistines and their culture has seen a floruit in the last few decades. Excavations at major urban and smaller rural sites, along with many topical studies, have produced much new data and many new interpretations. Among other issues, the question of how to identify a site as being of the Philistine culture, and even more basically, how the various levels of "Philistine identity" can be archaeologically defined, has been avidly discussed. Unfortunately, some of the attempts to differentiate between the "Philistines" and other ethnicities in the Iron Age Levant on the basis of a small set of material correlates have led to simplistic or simply mistaken differentiations. Thus, suggestions to characterize what we might call the "Philistinicity" of a site based on a small group of traits (often related to as Philistine type fossils) such as the presence/ absence of decorated Philistine pottery (particularly in drinking sets), consumption of pig and dog meat, "Aegean-style" pinched loom weights ("spools"), hearths, "Cypriot-style" notched scapulae, rectangular halls with worked column or pillar bases, are problematic at best. As already noted in the past, many of these specific cultural attributes can appear on "both sides" of the supposed Philistine/ Israelite ethnic boundaries-and even beyond (Hitchcock and Maeir 2013; Maeir et al. 2013; Maeir and Hitchcock in press). 1 Clearly, when viewed as a whole, the material assemblages at major sites in Iron Age Philistia are different from those of sites in regions associated with other groups (Israelite, Judahite, Phoenician, etc.). But time and again, specific types of objects can be seen in many areas and are used by many groups (such as pottery types appearing in different cultural areas; see, e.g., Ben-Shlomo et al. 2008). The appearance of supposedly Philistine objects should not be seen as necessarily indicating the expansion of the Philistine culture into other zones, and similarly, for the appearance of Israelite/Judahite facets among the Philistines. Rather, artifact assemblages should be examined in their contexts in order to draw out different cultural encounters, functions and entanglements as well as to elucidate new ones (e.g., Ross 2012).