The Real Israel Disembarked:: The Phoenician Origins of Samaria: Volume 110 (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology) [1 ed.] 9042946857, 9789042946859

Citation preview

C O N T R I BU T I O N S TO

BIBLICAL EXEGESIS & THEOLOGY

110

Nancy O. Meyer

The Real Israel Disembarked: The Phoenician Origins of Samaria

PEETERS

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED: THE PHOENICIAN ORIGINS OF SAMARIA

CONTRIBUTIONS TO BIBLICAL EXEGESIS AND THEOLOGY

SERIES EDITORS K. De Troyer (Salzburg) G. Van Oyen (Louvain-la-Neuve)

ADVISORY BOARD Reimund Bieringer (Leuven) Lutz Doering (Münster) Mark Goodacre (Duke) Bas ter Haar Romeny (Amsterdam) Annette Merz (Groningen) Madhavi Nevader (St Andrews) Thomas Römer (Lausanne) Jack Sasson (Nashville) Tammi Schneider (Claremont)

Nancy O. MEYER

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED: THE PHOENICIAN ORIGINS OF SAMARIA

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, 2022

CT

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. © 2022 — Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven ISBN 978-90-429-4685-9 eISBN 978-90-429-4686-6 D/2022/0602/74 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.

For my dad, Jack Meyer, whose love of history was one of the greatest gifts he gave to me, and Dr. Robert Eisenman, who taught me to be fearless in its pursuit.

CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

v

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xi

ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xiii

Chapter 1: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

The Problem with Israel Assumptions . . . . Methodology . . . . Chronological Scope Importance . . . . . . . Mythology vs. History . . Summary of the Work . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

1 4 4 5 6 7 10

Chapter 2: Exploring Ethnicity and Identity . . . . . . . . . .

13

The Problems with “Ethnicity” . . . . . . . . . . . . Ethnicity across Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Traditional Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ethnicity and Unconscious Processes . . . . . . The Purpose of Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Defining Ethnicity from Outside . . . . . . . . . Elements of Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Material Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A History of the Ancient Levant Cannot be Written . Markers of Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Style . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Symbolism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Established Norms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Purpose of Ethnic Constructions . . . . . . . . . The Archaeology of Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . .

13 13 14 15 16 17 20 20 21 21 22 23 24 26 27 29

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

VIII

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 3: Who Are the Phoenicians? . . . . . . . . . . . . .

31

The Construct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Bronze Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ebla and Byblos . . . . . . . . . . . . The Amarna Codex . . . . . . . . . . . Journey of Wen-Amon . . . . . . . . . Ugarit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Additional Sources for the Late Bronze The Early Iron Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phoenicians of the Early Iron Age . . . Cities and Architecture . . . . . . . . . Buildings Techniques . . . . . . . Religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sacred Spaces and Practice . . . . Important Deities  . . . . . . . . . The Gods . . . . . . . . . . . . . Melqart . . . . . . . . . . . . Eshmun . . . . . . . . . . . . The Lady of Byblos . . . . . . El . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ašerah/Athirat . . . . . . . . Ashtart/Astarte and Tanit . . . Adonis . . . . . . . . . . . . . Divine Presence . . . . . . . . . . Art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion: What is a Phoenician? . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

31 33 34 35 38 39 41 43 45 46 47 49 50 52 53 53 55 56 57 58 59 59 61 62 63 68 77 78

Chapter 4: What is an “Israelite”? The Work Thus Far . . .

81

Problems with the Evidence and Scholarship . . . . Problems in the Archaeology and Text . . . . . The Merneptah Stele . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypotheses of Israel’s Emergence in the Bronze Age Conquering Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . Infiltration Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Social Revolution Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . Was there a Bronze Age Israel? . . . . . . . . . . .

81 82 84 88 88 90 91 93

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The United Monarchy . . . . . . . . . The Tel Dan Inscription . . . . . The Divided Kingdom . . . . . . . . Problems in the Text . . . . . . . Problems in the Archaeology . . There is No Significant Polity Extra Biblical Texts . . . . . . . Assyrian Texts . . . . . . . . The Meshah Inscription . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Called . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “Israel” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

95 96 97 97 98 100 100 100 104 105

Chapter 5: Was Dor an Israelite City? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 The City of Dor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Archaeological and Historical Background Finds from the Tel . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pottery at Dor and Stratigraphy . . . . . . . . . Dor in Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Egyptian Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . Phoenician Texts . . . . . . . . . . . Biblical Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

109 110 111 115 118 118 119 119 122

Chapter 6: The Phoenician City of Samaria . . . . . . . . . . 125 The City of Samaria . . . . . . . . . . . Finds from the Tel . . . . . . . . . Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . Pottery . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion about Pottery . Ivories . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Assyrian Texts . . . . . . . . . The Moabite Stone . . . . . . Egyptian Texts . . . . . . . . . The Bible . . . . . . . . . . . Kings . . . . . . . . . . . Chronicles . . . . . . . . The Prophets . . . . . . . Ezra and Nehemiah . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

125 128 128 133 139 141 144 144 145 148 148 148 157 158 160

X

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Conclusions about Samaria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 Tirzah/Tel el Far‘ah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 Conclusions about Tirzah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 Chapter 7: Israelite Cities of Shechem and Jezreel . . . . . . 165 The City of Shechem/Tel Balata . . . . . . Finds from the Tel . . . . . . . . . . . Shechem in Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . Egyptian Texts . . . . . . . . . . . Samarian Ostraca . . . . . . . . . The Biblical Text . . . . . . . . . Conclusions about Shechem . . . . . . The City of Jezreel . . . . . . . . . . . . . Finds from the Tel . . . . . . . . . . . Jezreel in the Biblical Text . . . . . . . Conclusions about Jezreel . . . . . . . Final Thoughts about Shechem and Jezreel .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

165 167 171 171 172 172 173 174 175 178 180 181

Chapter 8: Final Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 Identity of the Northern Polity . . . . . . . . . . Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Who were the Phoenicians . . . . . . . . . . . . Who was at Samaria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What was an “Israelite”? . . . . . . . . . . . . . Final Thoughts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Questions Raised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Why is the Distinction between Mythology Difficult? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cultural Trauma and Re-Mythologizing . . . The Case of the Scots . . . . . . . . . . How and Why did “Israel” come to be? . . Remembering the Group Forward . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and History so . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

183 184 185 187 188 190 191 191 193 194 197 197

WORKS CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

LIST OF FIGURES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

Pot Q1352, Kenyon’s Period I and II . Iron IB example from Dor . . . . . . . Pot Q2258, Kenyon’s Period I and II . Late Iron IA example from Tel Keisan Late Iron IA example from Sarepta . . Iron IB example from Tyre . . . . . . . Pot Z166, Kenyon’s Period III . . . . . Pot Q 1747, Kenyon’s Period III . . . . Pot Q 1531, Kenyon’s Period III . . . . Example from Tyre . . . . . . . . . . . Example from Dor . . . . . . . . . . . Pot Q2480, Kenyon’s Period VI . . . . Example from Tyre . . . . . . . . . . . Pottery Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

135 135 136 136 136 136 137 137 138 138 138 139 139 140

ABBREVIATIONS AASOR

Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research

AJA

American Journal of Archaeology

AJSL

American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature

ANET

Ancient Near Eastern Texts Related to the Old Testament

BA

Biblical Archaeologist

BASOR

Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research

EA

El Amarna tablets

HTR

Harvard Theological Review

IEJ

Israel Exploration Journal

JAOS

Journal of the American Oriental Society

JBL

Journal of Biblical Literature

JNES

Journal of Near Eastern Studies

KAI

Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften

KTU

Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit

NEAEHL

The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land

VT

Vetus Testamentum

ZDPV

Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins

ZWT

Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION THE PROBLEM WITH “ISRAEL” The basic story of the Hebrew Bible is fairly well known. The Hebrews came from Egypt and settled in the land of Canaan, eventually establishing their own United Kingdom of Israel. The kingdom ultimately split into two polities: Israel in the north, and Judah in the south. Israel (the Northern Kingdom) was destroyed by the Assyrians. Judah was destroyed by the Babylonians but was later re-established by those who were exiled when the Persian Empire came to power in the region. Of course, the details are far more complex, but this is the most basic summary. The word Israel, though, presents problems. It refers to a person, the early ethnic group, an ill-defined land, two kingdoms, a later political vassal state, and the group of believers in that later state. As we move down through history it gets even more complicated; for the sake of this project, the problem will be limited to the Levant in the Iron Age. Israel first appears in the Hebrew text in Genesis 32.29, wherein the character Jacob is given the name Israel by a deity after a struggle with an un-named man. Jacob is known as Israel thereafter (though not entirely consistently). It is his children who initiate the story of the Hebrews in Egypt, which eventually leads to the Exodus story. Then, Israel gets complicated. The children of Jacob/Israel multiply greatly in Egypt (Genesis 47.27) and form the legendary 12 tribes of Israel (49.28). At this point, the group is called the children of Israel, and they continue to increase their numbers in Egypt (Exodus 1.7). The increasing numbers in Egypt lead to the Exodus cycle, led by Moses, which takes them through the desert and into the land of Canaan. As the text moves forward the emphasis on Israel the person becomes less. In Exodus 12.15, the text says that the person who does not follow the order to eat only unleavened bread for a week, “the soul/spirit will be cut off from Israel,” presumably the people descended from Israel, but would also have to include spouses and children that may not be direct descendents. Most of the text throughout Exodus continues to use titles such as “sons/children of Israel,” “elders

2

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

of Israel,” or “congregation of Israel,” but by this time the character of Jacob seems ever fainter as the group (and the label Israel) grows. The pharaoh refers to the group simply as Israel, noting “we sent Israel away from serving us” (14.5). Likewise, there are also different titles that work with the term Israel including “men of Israel” (Deut 27.14; Josh 9.6; 2 Sam 19.44/19.43), and the “people of the Israel” (Num 21.6; Josh 8.33; 2 Sam 18.7, etc). The name later also refers in part to the land of Canaan; it is the “land of Israel” (e.g. 1 Sam 13.19, etc.). This refers to the land that the people, also called Israel, have (theoretically) settled or conquered. However, the territories of Israel and Judah were (at least somewhat) distinct in the early narratives of David: “And all Israel and Judah loved David” (1 Sam 18.16), implying the Judah is not part of the people Israel. But later, the text seems to imply that all the people in both lands are Israel: “and Samuel died, and all Israel assembled and mourned for him” (25.1), implying that either Judah did not care or it assumes that everyone, including those in Judah are part of Israel. Then the text splits the land again, implying two distinct groups: “a son of 40 years, Ish-Boshet, son of Saul, was king over Israel … however, the house of Judah went after David” (2 Sam 2.10). Notice, Judah is not a land here, but a house that seems to be part of Israel. Israel, on the other hand, debatably implies a land. David soon brings “Israel” under his control, becoming the “king of Israel” (5.1). So begins the legendary United Monarchy, “Israel” (8.15), implying both land and people in the same word, and Judah disappears as a land with the tribe/ house entirely subsumed under the land designation of Israel. Unfortunately, this does not last long. After the death of his son and successor, Solomon, the land and people split again, and Jeroboam was made king “over all Israel, they (the people) did not follow after the house of David, save the tribe of Judah alone” (1 Kings 12.20). Although, the text calls Judah a tribe, we are forced to assume that the land they occupy is also intended. So, the tribe and land of Judah chose not to follow Jeroboam; the land is officially divided now between Israel in the north and Judah in the south, beginning the Divided Monarchy. The house of David loses the land, and seemingly, the people of Israel. The house of Judah, now a distinct land designation, abandons the name and association with “Israel”, the man, the people, the children, and the land. With all of this in mind, it is rarely completely clear what “Israel” is referring to. For this reason, new designations have been established for this project. Israel (the Northern Kingdom) will be called the Northern Polity from here on. The reasons for the choice of this term are twofold. First, the

INTRODUCTION

3

name Israel is unclear, as noted above in the Biblical story. This new title, Northern Polity, should help to avoid any confusion. Second, while some call Israel the Northern Kingdom, the word kingdom is too loaded with modern political ideas of what a kingdom is, was, or should be. It is not always entirely clear what leaders’ roles were, or exactly how far their authority extended in the past; this is especially true of the Northern Polity and its leaders in Samaria. The emergence of the Northern Polity is also a problem. There are “fundamental shared assumptions of biblical scholarship that the proliferation of highland settlements that emerge during the Late Bronze – Early Iron Age transition can in fact be identified with a clearly definable, singular entity: ‘Israel’”1 or as it is refered to here, the Northern Polity. The Hebrew Bible has held such a special spot in the hearts and minds of the western academic world that its narrative has been given a special status in the western imagination; its historical accuracy has, to greater or lesser degrees, been assumed – though this has been increasingly called into question in recent decades. This project fits into a more minimalistic analysis of the text and its relationship to history. Indeed, no assumptions should be made that the Northern Polity was somehow unique; no solid evidence has been found that can mark this polity as clearly definable in the archaeology. Beyond the Bible, other groups, such as the Assyrians and Egyptians, talk about the “house of Omri,” “Samaria,” and in two instances, “Israel.” However, this has not lined up with a unique material culture. In the past, texts have been applied to a people who were not actually well known. Israel is well known in a mythological sense, but not in a historical sense.2 The relationship between the Biblical text and Israel is not clear. The text evolved over time, as did the idea of Israel. The history of the people to whom the designation is applied is less clear. The people from the North took their stories to the South with them as they fled the Assyrian onslaught in 722 BCE, and those narratives were preserved in what became the Biblical text, but only in twisted versions that were integrated into the stories being told by the south (Judah) after the Assyrian invasion, and further so after the Babylonian exile of 586 BCE. We do not know the stories of the northern people because there is no text that belongs uniquely to them. Their story has yet to be 1

2

Dermot Nestor, Cognitive Perspectives on Israelite Identity, Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 519 (New York; London: T&T Clark International, 2010), 164. Mario Liverani, Israel’s History and the History of Israel, trans. Chiara Peri and Philip R. Davies (Oakville: Equinox, 2009), xv.

4

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

satisfactorily dug up. By necessity, this story is based primarily on the archaeology, and only secondarily on texts. This project is an effort to find at least a portion of the Northern Polity’s unique story. The starting point has to be in the text since there is no unique “Israel” yet distinguished in the archaeological record. Their story does not start with just the Biblical text, but also takes into account Assyrian and other extra-Biblical material to establish a starting point; this starting point is the house of Omri at Samaria. Samaria was well known to others and played an important role as a geographical focus in the Biblical text as the capital of the Northern Polity, which will be explored in detail in the section that focuses on the city. So, the question really becomes: what is Samaria and who ruled it? Assumptions There are several assumptions that are pointedly not the starting point of this project. First, the existence of the United Monarchy is not assumed. There is no good archaeological evidence for it, nor any extra-Biblical literature pointing to it. Therefore, it is not part of the foundation of this project. Likewise, in the absence of solid evidence for an Israelite material culture, no assumption was made that it existed as a unique ethnicity connected to the South, Judah. Many great scholars have spent countless years looking for Israel in the archaeology but nothing solid has been found. There are many brilliant hypotheses, and the insight and work put into these should not be (and has not been) taken lightly. However, nothing conclusive has yet been established and new perspectives are needed. This project stands on the shoulders of many great scholars, and their work will continue to be part of the conversation. Notably, the thesis that is the core of this project gives rise to multiple questions that will be addressed, including: what is Israel if it is not the same thing as the Northern Polity and not directly connected to Judah? How do Judah and Israel become connected? How did Israel become an ethnic identity? And, how did the Bible evolve? These will be at least briefly addressed in an effort to start conversations that need to go beyond the current project. Methodology Archaeology is the primary source used; the texts from the ancient Near East, including the Bible, will be treated as secondary sources working

INTRODUCTION

5

in conversation with the archaeological finds. Evidence of identity will be the focus of the work, with special attention paid to pottery, architecture, and art. All textual sources will be considered equal, and equally assumed inaccurate unless a second source – archaeology or another written source from another group – can be found to corroborate the text. The Bible will not be given special consideration: “History collapses … because an ancient historical source as remarkable as the Bible is not about history at all.”3 Indeed, ancient documents have historical contexts, and may include pieces of history but the authors were not concerned with modern historical concerns, so they should not be read as such. In an effort to emphasize the archaeological finds, the text of this project is organized to give it greater prominence. The sites that are the focus of the work will be described physically, a history of archaeology on the site will be summarized, and then the finds from the tels will be considered. Only after the material finds are described will the text be given a discussion to see if they align with the material culture found. All texts and material finds will be compared to see what conclusions might be drawn about the sites in question. Chronological scope Although this project will take into account the periods preceding and following its concentration, it will be focused on the Early Iron IIB period (900-700 BCE). Specifically looking at the foundation of the promontory of Samaria and, to a lesser degree, its surrounding area, including the Phoenician homeland and the area surrounding the Samarian hilltop. In addition to Samaria, four other cities (Dor, Tirzah, Jezrell, and Schehem) will be considered in detail for various reasons. Although the text and the common history of the land is approached skeptically, it does provide a place to start, not least because it is the text that has inspired the question at the heart of this project. The sites under consideration are closely tied to the northern kingdom. However, in the case of Dor, the situation is a bit different. Samaria became the focus of this work because it should answer, with bold statements, what Israel was and looked like. It was, according to the 3

Niels Peter Lemche, Israel in Transition: From Late Bronze II to Iron IIa (c. 1250850 B.C.E.), vol. 2, Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 491, 521 (New York: T&T Clark, 2008), 152.

6

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

Biblical text and therefore to common knowledge, the center of the Northern Polity, “Israel.” Samarians were wealthy; the city had a goodsized population available to it and was active in international trade under the house of Omri. They had the people and the money to express their unique identity, making Samaria a potential showpiece of what should be Israelite identity. What is found in Samaria is a strong ethnic group, just not what might be expected: The Northern Polity, centered at Samaria, was based in Phoenician ethnic identity. Dor was putatively an Israelite city taken by the tribe of Manasseh according to Judges 1.27, though the original inhabitants continued to live there according to the text. In 1 Kings, Naphoth-dor (which is either nearby and associated with the city, or is the city itself) is an area listed as providing food for king Solomon, thus part of his purview (4.7-11), at least in the mythology. If this narrative is taken seriously as having any historical gravity, Dor should provide a great opportunity to see proto-Phoenician and distinctly Israelite material culture side by side. Thus, Dor is an area of focus. Likewise, and perhaps more importantly, Dor has long been a focus of archaeological work with special attention given to a detailed pottery sequence, which also makes it very attractive as a focal point. Tirzah will be very briefly in focus due to its close connection to the Samaria in the text. The founders of Samaria supposedly came from Tirzah, according to the Bible. Hypothetically, there should be a foundation of material culture that connects the two cities (Tirzah and Samaria), and this should provide insight into what Israel was, and how it evolved. This is not the case. Again, although the text provides a starting place for investigation, it has not yielded any conclusions. Jezreel and Shechem were chosen for similar reasons. They are closely associated with Israel in the Biblical text. They were not well-built cities but their geographical locations gave them inherent power in the region: power over trade and the movements of armies. Both are located on important trade routes, at the crossroads of multiple trade routes. If they are truly part of The Northern Polity as the text tells us, the finds should again be a showcase for what “Israel” was and looked like. IMPORTANCE The identity of Israel is wrapped up in the identities of not just Israelis and Jewish people, but also Christians and Muslims all over the world. The question of who the ancient Hebrews were, what they became, as

INTRODUCTION

7

well as who they are now and what that group represented as a religious community has impacted nearly everyone else on the planet in some way. The mythic story of divine favor, righteous war, and forgivable murder is most often, if not entirely, based on the idea that one group has greater or even exclusive divine favor over everyone else, favor which has been passed down through generations in a chain reaching back to the mythic Abraham. Christianity arose and named itself the newly chosen group, creating a theology that swung the deity’s favor from Judaism to Pauline Christianity. Islam evolved in the cradle of Judaism and Christianity stating that the people of the book (Jews and Christians) were given their chance, but got it wrong – taking the divine favor from Israel. This is where history must step in and force a re-evaluation of the common story and its legacy. The chosen people, Israel, and the Promised Land, Israel, are inextricably linked. While today that focus is on Jerusalem (part of Judah and the center of David’s mythic kingdom), the origin of Israel in the northern country is part of the history. The mythology has given rise to the bigger phenomenon of “divine favor,” given and potentially revoked, that continues to play out in society today. Divine favor is a strictly mythological narrative. Ethnic and cultural evolution is a historical narrative. While the stories may be intertwined in the minds of many groups, it is the job of historians to make these distinctions and respect both mythology and history for their unique functions. If ‘Israel’ did not spring up uniquely, separate, and wholly distinct from its neighbors, the story of righteousness dissolves and must be regarded as a mythological current within the social-historical narrative. MYTHOLOGY VS. HISTORY Though focused on history, this project does not seek to question of the importance of the Biblical narrative. The question of mythology versus history is at the heart of its motivation. This is not an effort to devalue or disregard the importance of mythology in the human psyche. When referring to myth (mythology, mythological, mythic), it is with a very specific definition in mind. For the purposes of this project, a myth is a narrative that develops, mostly unconsciously but sometimes with intention.4 This narrative is 4

An example of this will be discussed in the next chapter.

8

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

told to the majority, if not all, members of a group both explicitly and implicitly, creating a common psychology within that community.5 The purpose of myth is to reify the group as an inheritor of a tradition that can be traced back to an ancient time, real or imagined (but usually a combination of the two).6 The story feels stable, and though it may change, members of the group do not typically acknowledge that change, or the change is considered a change back to an older tradition; again, this may be real or imagined, though it is always stated as real and true.7 The mythic story establishes and reinforces the group’s identity as a cohesive and whole unit and provides meaning that often cannot be expressed in objective historical or scientific terms.8 Mythologies typically raise the group up in some way to show they are somehow superior (ethically, physically, and/or divinely). This position of superiority also provides meaning to the group, answering existential questions. The reported source of the story is typically either obscure, divine, and/or from the ancestors; it is not considered a symbolic story.9 A deity is most often involved, but is not necessary to this endeavor. The point of mythology, for the purposes of this project, is create a stable “us” that is unified and different from “them.”10 History, for the purposes of this project, is a series of stories told that can be backed up with evidence. The sources of the evidence must be questioned and assessed for value in the historical process. To this end something like the scientific method must be engaged. All histories are theories (in the sense of a scientific theory) and must be measured against new evidence as it arises. To this end, history is not always stable (as mythology is perceived to be), and even our most basic assumptions about history may be questioned or discarded in the face of new, good 5

6

7 8 9 10

Carl G. Jung, Jung on Myth, ed. Robert A Segal, Encountering Jung (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998), 14, 62. C. Kerenyi, “Prolegomena,” in Essays on a Science of Mythology, 9th ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 6; Carl G. Jung, “The Psychology of the Child Archetype,” in Essays on a Science of Mythology, 9th ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 75. Kerenyi, “Prolegomena,” 9. Kerenyi, 3f. Kerenyi, 5. There are many levels of mythology from the personal to the global/racial. There is not time here to explore all of these levels, their purposes, and origins. Such an endeavor is well beyond the scope of this project, but the use and definition of the mythology used here should not be taken as a final or all-encompassing definition. Rather, it is a definition provided in an effort to create an effective dialogue about different types of stories, and so bring into higher relief the complexity of the problem.

INTRODUCTION

9

evidence. History is not always a good basis for identity because of this very fact: its instability and its inherent complexity. Another problem with history that makes it unstable is the real possibility of multiple perspectives of history that are mutually exclusive but still accurate to a group’s experience: individuals and groups are both actors in the unfolding of history and narrators of the experiences.11 For example, after the first day of class in any school there can be as many accurate stories as there are people in the room. Each story will reflect the experience of the individual, but from a unique perspective. The archaeology left behind has an additional, though sometimes less interesting, story to tell that adds yet another narrative to the event. None of these stories is absolutely complete. Adding to the complexity here, the transmission of the story/stories is a part of the history of the event.12 Eventually, the stories that are told about the first day of a class may become the mythology: history and mythology are not, and will never be mutually exclusive, but greater efforts need to be made to distinguish their boundaries, and their overlap. This intersection of history and mythology is a dangerous place. Historical facts may be used to verify the “truth” of a larger mythological story that carries immense meaning for a group. Likewise, historical facts may be twisted or completely rewritten to uphold the mythological story in an effort to reinforce the group’s identity, and often to reinforce the “other” group’s identity as separate, distinct, and often inferior: some stories “occupy an undefined position that seems to deny the very existence of a line” between mythology and history.13 When good historical studies are introduced they may be downplayed or worse, not because they represent bad history but because they call into question the veracity of the mythological story that holds a group together and gives them meaning; it calls into question their core identity. This is arguably the case for the existence of David and Solomon. Their kingdom is so ingrained in the popular mythic imagination that it has only recently been questioned at all. In the case of Israel, several questions arise immediately when looking at the story: why would the separating party get to take the name after the rise of Jeroboam? Why would Judah, if they had power, allow Israel to take their best land and most of their people? The Biblical text offers 11

12 13

Michel-Rolph Trouillot, Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History (Boston: Beacon Press, 1995), 2. Trouillot, 4. Trouillot, 8.

10

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

little historical help. “Even what some scholars consider as the early layers of the history of ancient Israel, such as the books of Samuel, … were written after the northern kingdom was vanquished by Assyria and its elite was deported.”14 The text itself is not a good witness to the history; it is a mythology – very important in its own right! – but it should not be read as an unquestioned witness to history, no matter how detailed the account or how passionate the author was. This is not to say that it does not contain any historical information, only that it must be viewed far more skeptically than has been customary. Ephraim Stern notes: “we must speak of a ‘development’ of the individual political units in this period. The individual history of each of these states – Israel, Judah, Philistia, Phoenicia, Edom, Moab, Ammon – in the latter part of the Iron Age is to a large extent unrelated.”15 While this may be true for the latter part of the Iron Age, the earlier histories of Israel and Phoenicia are intertwined, with the former springing from the latter. They evolved on their own trajectories later, eventually leading to a union with Judah as Assyria raged, and pressed the would-be Israelites (some, but not all, from The Northern Polity) south. There is nothing to distinguish Israel as unique before the eighth century BCE. SUMMARY OF THE WORK The Phoenician cities not only colonized in the West, but also attempted to move East, inland from their territories along the coast, including a move to Samaria, the putative capital of the Northern Polity (the northern kingdom, “Israel”). Samaria was established by the Phoenician ‘house of Omri,’ as it was often called by outsiders such as the Assyrians and Moabites. This eastward movement was likely an attempt to control the most important inland trade routes at Shechem and Jezreel, and makes sense given that part of Phoenician identity is based on trade, discussed below. The Phoenician identity of Samaria as well as the eastward movement of the Phoenicians will be argured based on archaeological data, non-Biblical and Biblical texts.

14

15

Israel Finkelstein, The Forgotten Kingdom: The Archaeology and History of Northern Israel (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013), 1. Ephraim Stern, “Hazor, Dor and Megiddo in the Time of Ahab and under Assyrian Rule,” Israel Exploration Journal 40, no. 1 (January 1, 1990): 16, http://www.jstor.org/ stable/27926166.

INTRODUCTION

11

The next chapter takes a closer look at what identity is and how it may be expressed. Likewise, there is a discussion on the difficulties surrounding this question of identity, including: who is identifying whom, how is that different from self-identification, how does distance (chronological and geographical), and knowledge or ignorance influence identity and its expression, and how does identity and its interpretation change. Chapter three is an exploration of what a Phoenician is. Since this project is drawing a straight line from the Phoenician homeland along the coast to the inland city of Samaria, the identity of who Phoenicians were, culturally and politically (i.e. ethnically), has to be considered. Chapter four is a summary of the ideas around who and what Israel was and where it came from. These are the hypotheses and theories posed within modern history about the foundation of Israel. The problems posed by these ideas will be briefly explored. Chapter five through seven are detailed considerations of the cities noted above. The archaeology will be compared to extra-biblical as well as Biblical texts in an effort to identify the inhabitants of Samaria at the time of the putative divided monarchy, after the death of Solomon. However, as noted above, the United Monarchy is not actually assumed in this project. For the sake of common parlance and clarity, this provides a point of reference but nothing more. Finally, Chapter eight will summarize the arguments made. These arguments lead to some important questions for which hypotheses will be offered as subjects for further study including the Bible’s evolution and its highly important mythology about a united people called Israel.

CHAPTER 2

EXPLORING ETHNICITY AND IDENTITY THE PROBLEMS WITH “ETHNICITY” The term ethnicity is not easily defined, but often serves as another term for “group identity” or cultural identity.1 Though, even here, further discussion is needed. Identity is a slippery term with overlapping and sometimes conflicting levels of meaning ranging from the personal up to the global. For the sake of this project, lines will be drawn around communities in cities, or otherwise obviously established polities. Group identity, ethnicity, can be considered internally or externally with very different conclusions. Unfortunately, the ancient world can only be viewed externally, with consideration of our own biases. All of the evidence available to us is subject to various problems discussed below. Ethnicity Across Time Although some consider ethnicity consistent across time,2 ethnicity in a modern context is very different due to the abundant input by groups and individuals under consideration. For example, an average person on the street today has input on how they define themselves ethnically. Their family also has input. Their government has input. Several other groups may likewise have input on how they are defined and what the most important characteristics are that contribute to their ethnicity (e.g. education, work, hobbies, friends, etc.). Modern ideas of ethnicity cannot be applied to the ancient world. Modern group identity is based largely on – or in reaction to – modern political structures that include countries with well-established boundaries. This does not apply to the ancient world. 1

2

Ann E. Killebrew, Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity: An Archaeological Study of Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines, and Early Israel, 1300-1100 B.C.E, Society of Biblical Literature Archaeology and Biblical Studies, no. 9 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 8. Paul R. Spickard and W. Jeffrey Burroughs, “We Are a People,” in ed. iidem, We Are a People: Narrative and Multiplicity in Constructing Ethnic Identity (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2000), 1.

14

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

Our definitions of ancient groups are modern constructs being imposed on those communities for the purpose of academic discussion, in this case focused on history. It is important to remember this, and easy to forget. A Traditional Definition Dever’s definition of ethnicity provides a good model of how the term has been used in Biblical studies up to this point. He defines it as: a population that is (1) biologically self-perpetuating; (2) shares a fundamental, recognizable, relatively uniform set of cultural values, including language; (3) constitutes a partly independent “interactional sphere”; (4) has a membership that defines itself, as well as being defined by others, as a category distinct from other categories of the same order; and (5) perpetuates its sense of separate identity both by developing rules for maintaining “ethnic boundaries” as well as for participating in inter-ethnic social encounters.3

Unfortunately, the nearly complete lack of written evidence from the Late Bronze Age into the Early Iron Age from the area of the Northern Polity negates much of his definition. The idea of “biologically selfperpetuating” should be a given assumption: they were having babies. However, this too is overly simplified as it excludes the possibility of diversity or outsider inductions into the group. The cultural values he refers to are typically defined by the Biblical text, which was redacted well after the fall of the Northern Polity, and is heavily biased toward Judah. How they defined themselves as the Northern Polity, Samaria, developed is unknown, and perhaps is unknowable. Their values may only be gleaned by hints from the Biblical text, and other ancient texts that can be substantiated in the archaeology. Whether or not the Northern Polity perpetuated “its sense of separate identity” is evident in the texts from Assyria that refer to it as unique (discussed in detail below). In addition to the problems above, groups that are united in many aspects may emphasize the small differences, and so not self-identify as a group. The ‘Phoenicians’ never identified themselves as a group, nor did the ‘Phoenician’ cities consider themselves a united polity. Yet, their material cultures were remarkably similar, and they used a single language. Self identifications, and identifications by outsiders can vary widely depending on biases, political and economic contexts, and sometimes 3

William G. Dever, “Ceramics, Ethnicity, and the Question of Israel’s Origins,” The Biblical Archaeologist 58, no. 4 (December 1, 1995): 201, https://doi.org/10.2307/3210496.

EXPLORING ETHNICITY AND IDENTITY

15

simple ignorance. For example, although many Californians may not culturally identify as the same as Texans, outsiders identify both as Americans. Alternately, similar problems would arise when looking at western Canada and America: though politically distinct, the language, basic values, and much of our material culture is shared. However, French speaking Quebec could more easily be seen as distinct, and therefore a different ethnic group. Ethnicity and Unconscious Processes Another difficulty in pinning down ancient ethnicity lies in the fact that group identity is largely an unconscious evolution. It is a series of responses among individuals in the group to their surrounding communities, the stories handed down from the past, and the physical environment. To a great degree, individuals are unaware of the choices that help create ethnicity. Until there is another group that contradicts particular ways of being, group identifiers may go entirely unrecognized by individuals who are native to a given ethnicity. For example, details about everyday life are most often missing from texts, in large part because the everyday trappings of life are boring and assumed; they slowly evolved and are often thought of as eternal. Cultures generally do not leave behind instructions about how to carry water unless there is something very special about the water, or the person or deity drinking that water; such mundane details are not for the laborious and expensive pursuit of writing in the ancient world. However, groups do leave their water pots behind. Ethnicity usually evolves slowly, with its expression coming through a group’s history, mythology, and religious language, which supports and promotes their identity on multiple levels – a constructivist understanding. The stories handed down, in writing or orally, often provide putative origins and support for the established political climate, and to a lesser degree, economic models.4 Ethnicity may also be the result “of political and economic interests and strategies”.5 Ethnicity generally represents a long-standing group identity that evolves over time. However, new group identities can also occur rather rapidly. Mythologies and genealogies can quickly develop to reflect allegedly long-standing relationships and practices, for the purpose of 4 5

Killebrew, Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity, 8. Killebrew, 8.

16

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

reinforcing new identities within a relatively few years. This is especially true if cultural trauma has occurred.6 This will be explored later. While ethnicity may be “superordinate to most other statuses, or social personalities, which an individual with that identity may assume”7, it can also be fluid with shifting boundaries as groups react to each other. Certainly, geographical boundaries, and other forms of isolation contribute to stable ethnicities, but cultural diversity is also maintained with the “flow of personnel across them.”8 In fact, group identity is preserved across boundaries, and relationships with other groups may be based in part on differences in ethnicity. These differences are “frequently based precisely on the dichotomized ethnic statuses”.9 Distinctions help build internal social systems, and identity. THE PURPOSE OF ETHNICITY Why ethnicity develops is also worth noting. Instrumentalist approaches hold that ethnicity develops based on the need for mediation between individuals, and groups; it is based on arbitration for resources rather than any need for belonging.10 Ethnic identity is a tool for survival. However, our need to belong is actually hard-wired into our brains. Cultural identity is built on neural pathways in the brain in the limbic system. People physiologically attract and are attracted to others. The brain is continually altered by these relationships, or lack thereof. This is true on the individual level, but the process also reaches into the group level.11 Indeed, without these relationships the brain does not function correctly. In the absence of relationships, the limbic system, the source of much of human emotion, breaks down and individuals may become mentally unstable.12 This physical need for inclusion and relationship has long been taken advantage of in military operations. Soldiers are trained to die protecting their own culture, society, and brethren while killing those who are not 6

7

8 9 10 11

12

An excellent example of this is in The Invention of Tradition by Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger. Fredrik Barth and Universitetet i Bergen, eds., Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference (Results of a Symposium Held at the Univ. of Bergen, 23rd to 26th Feb. 1967: Waveland Press, 1998), 17. Barth and Universitetet i Bergen, 9. Barth and Universitetet i Bergen, 10. Nestor, Cognitive Perspectives on Israelite Identity, 92. Thomas Lewis, Fari Amini, and Richard Lannon, A General Theory of Love, Reprint edition (New York: Vintage, 2001), 142. Lewis, Amini, and Lannon, 217.

EXPLORING ETHNICITY AND IDENTITY

17

part of their group.13 People naturally break the world down into ‘us’ and ‘them’. This does not, however, mean that the lines between ‘us’ and ‘them’ are neat, clear, and solid. Even within a given culture the lines of ethnicity can be ambiguous. Examples of this can be seen throughout the United States in all the cultural groups that hyphenate (Chinese-American, African-American, etc.) as they lay claim to both an ancestral ethnic identity and their American ethnic identity. However, the need to belong to a group, and be in relationship with others is clearly at the root of ethnic evolution. Ethnic identity is not primarily rooted in competition for resources. Rather, it is rooted in a physiological need to continually regulate the brain, and those long-term relationships eventually give rise to group identity (also referred to here as ethnicity) on multiple levels that may overlap and are fluid through time. No doubt, ethnic ties have contributed to survival, but it may also inhibit growth and actually contribute to failure when diversity is not accepted, and groups refuse to compromise and work together, leading to war and the potential loss of whole ethnic groups. Many early modern ideas about ethnicity considered it immutable, but identity has proven to be far less fixed than originally theorized.14 Additionally, group narratives (histories and mythologies) often give the impression that ethnicity is somehow genetically determined, but these biological groups do not exist in the ways portrayed in those stories, and ethnicity actually has little (if anything) to do with genetic ties.15 As generations are born in the U.S., they become more American than their hyphenated identity may indicate. A fifth generation American is more likely to prefer a hamburger and speak English over the food and language of their ancestors. Defining Ethnicity from Outside In addition to all of these issues, a whole new set of problems is posed when outsiders observe and analyze the ethnicity of others. First, throughout the course of its history, a desire to attach an identity or particular objects or monuments, most frequently expressed in terms of the group or people who produced them, has figured at the heart of archaeological enquiry.16 13 14 15 16

Lewis, Amini, and Lannon, 216. Nestor, Cognitive Perspectives on Israelite Identity, 92. Nestor, 6. Nestor, 46.

18

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

People, including archaeologists and historians, want to tell a story about the groups at the center of their study. This is done through analyzing material culture and text, creating pictures of groups and their relationships to each other, and ultimately their relationship to us. A potsherd or city without a story is of no value; nothing can be said about it and it has no importance to anyone. Upon finding an object, the next step is to say something about the object, its source, its function, and its people. This makes a studied group part of the observer’s story of ethnicity – all the people studied become part of a historian’s identity. However, outside perceptions of a given group are influenced by the observer’s past, and their own different understandings of culture and ethnicity. Observers may also be limited by ignorance, a lack of imagination, and unconscious biases. While this is certainly true of sociologists, archaeologists, anthropologists, etc. today, this is even more acutely true of the ancient world and its writers, which modern scholars are trying to understand. There is much assumed by ancient writers. Names are often used with an assumption that the intended readers understand who or what the given name refers to; modern archaeologists were not the intended readers. Likewise, modern scholarship tends to make similar assumptions. The Merneptah stele comes to mind: the use of the name Israel does not definitively point to the group in the Bible (as will be discussed below). Because of all this, identifying groups in the ancient world is a very complex matter. Several basic factors play into constructions of identity. First, does the group self-identify? Often people in the Levant operated on smaller scales of identity, focusing on their clan, tribe, or city. People are most often identified as Eblite, Tyrian, or Sidonian, for example. However, self-identification in a text is relatively rare.17 Second, what did others call them, and how far removed is that designation? The waters get muddied here because, it seems, sometimes outsiders had unique names for those being identified, or they were incorrect in their designations of the others – again, it is not entirely clear what is meant by the term Israel on the Merneptah stele. Communities generalized or used references to people in a given area without a good knowledge of the area or its people. For example, the Greeks ascribed the term 17

The Hebrew Bible is unusual in this regard since part of the motivation for the writing and redacting of the text was due to exile and the need to perpetuate their unique identity in the absence of most other ethnic markers, in particular religious markers like sacrificing in Jerusalem.

EXPLORING ETHNICITY AND IDENTITY

19

Phoenician to a whole group of people that were not politically linked, yet they seemed to have enough in common that, from an observers’ point of view, warranted an ethnic grouping. The Greeks and Egyptians were likely struggling with the same issues with which modern scholars now are dealing: large groups did not always readily self-identify, or groups with seemingly apparent similarities who were treated in similar ways by outsiders needed a single designation rather than a long list of cities. Additionally, the multiplicity of languages creates another barrier. Approximations in sound may not be possible, and names also may get translated instead of transliterated making this even more difficult for all concerned, ancient and modern. A third problem is posed by modern, outside designations of ethnicity: is there enough commonality within a group to warrant ethnic identification? Once a list of ethnic markers is established, and a theoretical line is drawn around a group, other groups need to be looked at to see if they too belong to the ascribed ethnic group. This step is often overlooked and is at the core of this project. In the end, “ethnicity, it seems, is more ascribed than inherent.”18 The results of any lines we draw are going to be artificial and simple compared to fluid nature of identity and the level of communication that was (and is) actually occurring. Likewise, any list of traits given will inescapably produce no more than a relatively few pieces of the puzzle, mere fragments and simplified patterns established by outsiders. Additionally, “ethnic groups only persist as significant units if they imply … persisting cultural differences.”19 An additional layer of difficulty is raised by the poly-ethnic nature of some large groups. As people move around and re-group in communities or join already established communities, multiple ethnicities may be present under a larger political or economic umbrella, with control dominated by a single ethnic group. This may leave some cultural diversity within a larger group overlooked.20 As long as these facts are acknowledged, and the purposes and methods of ascriptions are explained, there is good reason to proceed for the sake of clarifying and understanding as much of the history of a people as possible.

18

19 20

Robert D. Miller II, “Identifying Earliest Israel,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 333 (February 1, 2004): 56, https://doi.org/10.2307/1357794. Barth and Universitetet i Bergen, 16. Barth and Universitetet i Bergen, 16.

20

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

ELEMENTS OF ETHNICITY Material Culture Ascribing an ethnicity to a group can be done through its material culture. It is through material objects that groups show evolution; they display and reinforce their ethnicity in real time. This is especially true in mostly non-literate groups, where expressions of ethnicity come primarily through objects.21 This was at least as true then as it is now. Material culture may be seen as an “active intervention in the creation, perpetuation and/or formation of both community and self.”22 Without even realizing it, groups and individuals create markers of ethnic identity by creating and using mundane and specialized items, and constructing and using buildings. Most reasoning around culture and ethnicity rests on a basic assumption that there are cultural differences between groups: different communities do things differently, sometimes for the very purpose of being different.23 Conversely, groups may do things in similar ways to show varying degrees of connectedness. This is partly conscious, but mostly unconscious, and in large part manifested through material objects and buildings. Further difficulties, however, include attempting to discern distinctions and features that arise for purely practical reasons that have nothing to do with stylistic choices for the sake of distinction. Likewise, problems come from changes that naturally occur over time and distances.24 Groups evolve. Sometimes they grow ethnically closer; sometimes they grow further apart, eventually becoming a new ethnic group with unique traits in their material culture, differing from that left behind. Drawing lines when this happens is difficult at best, and must be understood as creating a spectrum of difference and change. Material culture can allow a window into a group’s priorities, ideas, and personality. Style is an element of communication among groups. It creates a context for social interactions, making those interactions predictable and therefore easier. Style communicates economic, social and religious ideas between groups and individuals.25 This is true for all forms of material 21 22 23 24

25

Nestor, Cognitive Perspectives on Israelite Identity, 155. Nestor, 155. Barth and Universitetet i Bergen, 9. Elizabeth Bloch-Smith, “Israelite Ethnicity in Iron I: Archaeology Preserves What Is Remembered and What Is Forgotten in Israel’s History,” Journal of Biblical Literature 122, no. 3 (October 1, 2003): 406, https://doi.org/10.2307/3268384. Nestor, Cognitive Perspectives on Israelite Identity, 137.

EXPLORING ETHNICITY AND IDENTITY

21

culture. The form of daily ware on the dinner table communicates individual status and creates context between individuals. The architecture of a palace may indicate a group’s wealth and power. Additionally, commercial ties often lead to political ties, and sometimes these result in significant connections, or disconnections, between groups. Material culture may not reveal the whole truth as neatly as would be preferred, but unlike texts, pots and buildings never intentionally lie. Texts Texts are often the source of the names we use to identify groups in the Ancient Near-East. Unfortunately, many were written well after the fact, and the memories of the authors, or the traditions that were handed down (or created) did not reflect the full reality, if at all. Likewise, these texts were influenced by political and economic factors that we can sometimes see at work. Unfortunately, sometimes the politics are hidden and we are left to interpret already biased texts through our own conscious and unconscious biases. If every text were taken at face value, the result would be a morass of names that overlap, may be incorrect, and sometimes have no currently discernable meaning. This is not to say that texts do not have value, only that they must be used critically. A HISTORY OF THE ANCIENT LEVANT CANNOT BE WRITTEN All of this leaves a burning question: can a history of the people of the Levant even be written? Indeed, this mirrors the quandary in which Oppenheim found himself, convinced that he could not, and should not attempt to present Mesopotamian religion. Of course, the chapter that follows his ruminations on the problem is his exposition and explanation of Mesopotamian religion.26 In the end, no genuinely comprehensive history can be written (indeed this is true of all historical pursuits) but surrendering is not an option. As in the hard sciences, the landscape shifts as new information comes to light, and newer theories that better account for the new data must be conceived; that is the very nature of good academic inquiry! Nothing is going to be absolutely correct; changes will happen. This is actually a desirable outcome because it means that growth is happening. 26

A. Leo Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization, Rev. ed (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977), 172ff.

22

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

In an effort to confront history and understand it, however, some kind of organizing principle must be assigned to groups. Names and descriptions of boundaries have to be set. Identifying ethnicity (group identity), as synthetic as it may be when we decide to place artificial constructs on these groups, is a reasonable goal. We are physically driven to be in relationship with each other. Without community, we quite literally become crazy.27 Likewise, the human condition seems to drive us toward understanding the past in an effort to understand our larger role within the global, historical community. Smaller communities create things to establish, reify, and propagate their relationships. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to identify communities and trace their evolutions and relationships to other communities and establish a line, a narrative, that leads to the present. Markers of Ethnicity Before tracing ethnicity, markers must be established to measure cultural connections, and boundaries. There are a few caveats to be aware of. First, identity is fluid, as noted above. Because of this, great care must be taken to specify the time and place that is being labeled. There is a tendency of scholars toward a “psychological essentialism,” wherein an assumed essential nature underlies the devised categories leading to an assumption that these artifices are more stable through time and place than is actually true.28 Indeed, the form and method of cultural belonging can change with varying contexts. Likewise, the scale of interaction within the group and with others can also change in time. Though ethnicity can persist over great periods, ethnicity is always in flux, and no stability can be assumed, either into the past from a given point of putative stability, or forward from that point. There has been relative stability in Judaism and Jewish identity in the modern era, but that does not indicate stability in the ancient world. Likewise, if we find stability at a point in some ancient period, that stability cannot be assumed in a later period. For this reason, definitions and markers of ethnicity need to be established before labels can be assigned, and a time period must be established as the focus of discussion. In this case the period in question is the Iron IIB, beginning in around 900 BCE and takes us no further than 722 BCE, the fall of Samaria to the Assyrians. 27 28

Lewis, Amini, and Lannon, A General Theory of Love, 142. Nestor, Cognitive Perspectives on Israelite Identity, 104ff.

EXPLORING ETHNICITY AND IDENTITY

23

Group identity in the ancient world can be manifested in, and defined by several group attributes. It may be seen in the political structures that govern a group. Group structures and political factors maintain ethnicity through governance of individuals by dictating what is allowed or forbidden, either through official channels or through social norms. Unfortunately, this is nearly impossible to trace archaeologically. However, ethnicity is also manifested in material culture. “In the creation and employment of material things, the social self is itself created.”29 Through all of these, a group expresses itself and its own unique qualities through its symbols, style, and established norms. Style Style, within the context of ethnic identification, is the result of habit, the constraints of time, economy, geography, and the choices made by producers. Because of these varying and unique factors, the styles produced in a group’s material culture create a traceable expression of identity. Styles, like symbols, may be influenced by a group’s past, and their relationships with other groups. It thereby also acts as a vehicle for the creation, maintenance and possible disruption of ethnicity, and navigation between ethnic groups.30 Even though style is not always consciously intended to be a signal for group identity, it can nonetheless be a signal of identity to outsiders.31 This will be highlighted in Phoenician pottery, and its presence in Samaria. An excellent, relatively recent example of this is to be found in the use of kilts by the Scottish highlanders. Far from being an ancient expression of Scottish identity, the kilt was actually created by an English Quaker, Rawlinson, in the mid eighteenth century out of a need for convenience for his workers, the residents of the Scottish Highlands, who worked for him cutting down trees and operating his furnaces in the area.32 His workers initially wore a popular belted plaid gown that proved to be cumbersome as they worked. Rawlinson hired a tailor who separated the skirt from the dress “converting it to a distinct garment, with the pleats already sewn.”33 Shortly thereafter, the garment was adopted by the majority of 29 30

31 32

33

Nestor, 153. Polly Wiessner, “Style or Isochrestic Variation? A Reply to Sackett,” American Antiquity 50, no. 1 (January 1, 1985): 160, https://doi.org/10.2307/280643. Miller, “Identifying Earliest Israel,” 57. Hugh Trevor-Proper, “The Highland Tradition of Scotland,” in The Invention of Tradition, ed. Eric Hobsbawn and Terence Ranger (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 21. Trevor-Proper, 22.

24

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

the highland Scots and then by the Scots of the lowlands.34 The garment was not born of a need or desire for a symbol of Scotland, but out of a need for a convenient and cheap garment for the poor who were cutting down trees and working with furnaces in smelting operations. The garment represents a style that marked the identity of the people due its popularity among them. It became popular because it was cheap, easy to wear, and easy to make. It was not a symbol for Scottishness in the beginning because it did not imply any deeper meanings; it was simply a popular item among that group. Its popularity mixed with some slightly later political and economic factors turned this style of dress from simply being a convenient and popular style into a symbol of Scottish nationalism. Symbolism Symbols also serve to create, maintain, and perpetuate ethnic identity. Symbols always imply something deeper than the actual item or mark. For example, the eagle is more than just a bird in a political context, and its use as a religious and political symbol is well known through much of history.35 The raptor invokes a sense of strength and fierceness with its deadly talons and beak, and its wide wingspan that can cast a sizeable shadow. The eagle is also at the top of its food chain, with no natural predators. Symbols, like the eagle, may be consciously presented by a group’s leadership, or by the people within that group. After 104 BCE, Rome used an eagle exclusively on its standards (they previously used a variety of animals, including the eagle), carried by the aquilifer (the eagle bearer) for each legion. The standard was also worshipped during certain times of the year by the military.36 Napoleon also made use of the eagle, to invoke the idea of Roman empire: the military, and cultural might of France was shown as equal to that of Rome through the eagle’s presence.37 Smaller groups, such as families, have also invoked or been granted this bird of prey on the coats of arms; the Cortes family of Spain was 34 35

36

37

Trevor-Proper, 22. Rudolf Wittkower, “Eagle and Serpent. A Study in the Migration of Symbols,” Journal of the Warburg Institute 2, no. 4 (April 1, 1939): 298ff, https://doi.org/10.2307/750041. Lesley Adkins and Roy A. Adkins, Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 64, 90. Richard Moss, “French Eagles Captured at Waterloo Reunited at the National Museum of Scotland” (Culture 24, May 2015), www.culture24.org.uk/history-and-heritage/militaryhistory/pre-20th-century-conflict/art526961-french-eagles-captured-at-waterlooreunited-at-the-national-museum-of-scotland.

EXPLORING ETHNICITY AND IDENTITY

25

granted this honor in 1525; the coat of arms included the Hapsburg eagle in one of its quadrants.38 The eagle, again, invokes a historical connection to past civilizations and their power. Indeed, even something as brood as the Neoclassical style in art and architecture, popular during Napoleonic age, strongly recalls Athenian Greek and Roman periods, with its attention to the perfected human form and realism.39 It also recalls the stability, and political power of both.40 Symbols may also appear spontaneously and unconsciously within an ethnic group; a common item used by a group may gain symbolic significance as political factors around it change. For example, Coca-Cola has become a symbol of American culture throughout the world, as have many other brands including Disney, Levi’s, and McDonalds. The French were concerned about the symbolic significance of the arrival of CocaCola in the 1950’s because it might corrupt the French people and unconsciously pollute the French culture. The actual debates were explicitly about other issues that the soft drink might raise, such as public health issues. However, the implicit argument was actually about its symbolic significance, and the Americanization of France.41 This was and is not a frivolous concern. Symbols are often used unconsciously and replicated within communities, thus perpetuating the ethnic identity until the symbol becomes obsolete in a new or changed context.42 Because boundaries among ethnic groups are important, symbols serve to broadcast different levels of identity, including the larger ethnic level, thereby “signaling the norms to which that group adhered.”43 Ethnicity can be traced, not just through the symbols a group uses, but also by how they use, borrow, re-contextualize, and communicate through those symbols. Examples of such ubiquitous and unconsciously circulated symbols of ethnicity can be seen all around. Symbols found on money are perhaps some of the most ubiquitous symbols in the United States. The dollar bill is a unique expression of Americanism. The symbols were very purposefully chosen for the currency, though individuals who participate in their 38

39 40 41

42 43

Juan Friede, “The Coat of Arms of Hernando Cortés,” The Quarterly Journal of the Library of Congress 26, no. 2 (April 1, 1969): 67, http://www.jstor.org/stable/29781347. Laurie Schneider Adams, Art Across Time, vol. 2 (Boston: McGraw-Hill, 1999), 701. Adams, 2:701. Richard F. Kuisel, “Coca-Cola and the Cold War: The French Face Americanization, 1948-1953,” French Historical Studies 17, no. 1 (April 1, 1991): 97f, https://doi.org/ 10.2307/286280. Nestor, Cognitive Perspectives on Israelite Identity, 120. Nestor, 107.

26

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

everyday circulation rarely take note of them now. Nevertheless, the pyramid with its floating eye, and the bald eagle with its shield are very American symbols that harken back to the founding of the country and the ideals of its founders. Even though the vast majority of Americans cannot explain the symbolism, the images remain potent. Symbols can quickly gain significance, especially if they are attached to a putative history that gives it increased gravitas. Looking again at symbols of Scottish nationalism, such as the kilt and clan tartans, for example, they are all relatively recent overlays to a culture that was actually descended from Ireland.44 Indeed the traditional kilts in tartan plaids that represent clan affiliation were unknown in 1745.45 The indiscriminant brown plaids worn by peasants in the highlands were banned by the British parliament shortly after a rebellion of the highlanders that year, and by 1773 – less than thirty years later – there was no evidence of the once popular kilt, let alone any sign of the tartan.46 A revival shortly thereafter saw the rise of the lowly peasant’s kilt, resurrected by the landed gentry as a symbol of quiet rebellion. Once the ban was lifted, the kilt enjoyed new life, its origins were highly romanticized, and a rich mythology rose up around these symbols that provided a common narrative supporting highland nationalism. The tartans, originally having nothing to do with clan affiliation, were used in battle by highland regimens. When the soldiers returned home with honor, the colorful tartans and regimen affiliations morphed into putative clan associations with an invented highland pedigree that promoted highland virtues and ‘traditions,’ beginning in 1778.47 In less than fifty years, the kilt and the clan tartans went from non-existent to highly charged, mythic symbols of Scottish Highland nationality. Established Norms Individuals generally prefer to associate with and create lasting relationships among members of their own group. Part of this is because, as members of the same group, the individuals can more easily communicate with one another, and assumptions within the group generally will go unchallenged – i.e., how the individual eats, what they eat, when, why, etc. Some of these norms are created by how symbols and styles that are 44 45 46 47

Trevor-Proper, Trevor-Proper, Trevor-Proper, Trevor-Proper,

“The Invention of Tradition,” 16. 23. 24. 25f.

EXPLORING ETHNICITY AND IDENTITY

27

used in the material culture. The tendency towards association within a particular group, generally the group one is born into or raised in, serves to help perpetuate symbols as they become established norms. However, once something becomes established, it may lose its symbolic significance until that normative behavior is put into a different context. This is most readily seen among different generations as they distinguish themselves from their parents. Articles of clothing are often used by younger generations to symbolically create distance from other groups, and other normative behaviors. A shortened skirt, and eventually the miniskirt. With time though, the generation that shortened their skirts becomes older, and what was once a symbol of rebellion within the culture becomes normal and accepted leaving the younger generations a challenge to come up with something new, or find a way to re-establish the symbolic significance of an older style. Through style, symbolism, and established norms, material cultures give keys to its group’s ethnicity. The categories overlap at times, but provide a framework for differing forms and a way to discuss the levels at which those forms may work. Identity is expressed unconsciously through its style of everyday, mundane things, like its daily pottery wares. Any style may become symbolic when a given group encounters a new context or neighbor. Over time the symbolic level of the ware, or any particular symbol, may lose its edge and disappear, or simply become an established norm. Again, establishing ethnicity in the ancient world is a practice of imposing an organizing principle on an otherwise tangled web of cultures. Self-identification is helpful, but by no means is it the end of the story – siblings may fight, and create distance from each other, but they are nevertheless members of the same family. The same may be true of ethnic groups. Purpose of Ethnic Constructions There has been doubt in recent years about the viability of assigning ethnic identification to groups in the ancient world because of the inherent ambiguity of ethnicity.48 However, there is little recourse to an alternative. Indeed, ethnicity is not an objective concept, and is subject to the changing perceptions of the observer. Human beings are inherently social, but our ability to associate with others on really large scales is, as yet, limited. 48

Miller, “Identifying Earliest Israel,” 56.

28

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

We are not quite capable of existing as a ‘brotherhood of man.’ Our ability to relate to and understand others who are very different from us on a long term and highly intimate basis is imperfect. Given this, ethnic constructions are part of the human condition. A person may have an identity on an individual level, in addition to multiple ethnic levels: a family identity, a work identity, a religious identity, a geographical identity, a city identity, etc. These levels of ethnicity may overlap harmoniously or come in conflict with one another. But, “while an individual can make any claim he or she desires, in order to have any effect this claim must be recognized, and endorsed, by others.”49 Such recognition may come from inside a group or from outside – including archaeologists and ancient historians. Identifying ethnicity is a valid endeavor because it is a recognition of distinctions and similarities among groups, new or previously established. Creating categories and artificial constructs from afar is not limited to the humanities. This has commonly been done in the hard sciences, and the groups created are not always obvious. There is no apparent reason to group dogs and dolphins, but they have been shown to have important characteristics in common and so they are accepted as part of the mammalian group. Likewise, constructed groupings in all academic endeavors will always encounter odd examples that do not neatly and predictably fit the patterns created – the duck-billed platypus is the punch line of many jokes because it seems to rest outside our established categories. One of the problems with creating categories is the assumption that there is some integral, metaphysical essence within the members of the group that make them somehow inherently part of the group. This is not the case. Dogs and dolphins are not metaphysically linked; they are members of the same group because scientists determined the boundaries of group identity and allowed the groupings to happen according to those pre-set definitions. Group members have to be defined by constructed parameters; these constructs may be established by the group members themselves or by outsiders. Of course, since the guiding characteristics are artificial constructs (especially those imposed by outsiders), unexpected groupings result. Within the Humanities, constructs created by outsiders versus insiders may conflict, and be mutually exclusive. Both results are valid, however, for their given purposes but care must be taken not apply labels carelessly.

49

Nestor, Cognitive Perspectives on Israelite Identity, 102.

EXPLORING ETHNICITY AND IDENTITY

29

The Archaeology of Ethnicity Archaeology cannot provide a total picture of “ideational norms” because the data do not allow for that. Even written texts cannot reliably provide good information about such things beyond a very few people,50 but archaeology does provide abundant material for creating organizing principles, around which we can establish defined groups of people. Most archaeological work has focused on luxury goods. In the beginning this was due in large part to their inherent prestige value in long distance trade, and their exotic nature versus the devalued mundane items of everyday life. Likewise, there is still an emphasis on high value goods due in part to their presence in the textual sources. Writers did not record the boring, and the commonplace artifacts widely or in great detail, likely because the profit margins on such goods did warrant the expense of recording them.51 Oil and wine, however, were widely traded in large enough quantities that such exchanges were recorded, and the wares associated with that trade can help establish ethnic identity and the associations between groups. Such exchanges may provide examples of style and established norms, and, to a lesser degree, symbol. The trade of ordinary things across larger areas where there is not a strong central governing body will help indicate ethnically connected groups even if they were not politically tied. This can be seen among the ancient Greeks and is well documented among the cities that are traditionally considered “Phoenician”. In this analysis, mundane, luxury goods, architecture, and simple pottery will all be taken into account. Pottery has long been used to help identify people, providing several points of information including: shifting settlements, continuity within geographical areas, levels of contact or lack thereof with other groups, shared aesthetics, and trade.52 Archaeological finds are not a blanket indicator of all levels of ethnic identification, and will not always vary with differing ethnic labels.53 Within pottery types some distinctions need to be made between possible ethnic forms and forms that were strictly functional. That said, an open mind must be maintained, to allow for differences that might accidentally arise from new styles as well as intentional 50 51

52 53

Nestor, 76. Michael Sugerman, Webs of Commerce: The Archaeology of Ordinary Things in the Late Bronze Age Israel and Palestine (Unpublished Dissertation, 2000), 3. Dever, “Ceramics, Ethnicity, and the Question of Israel’s Origins,” 204. Nestor, Cognitive Perspectives on Israelite Identity, 81.

30

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

symbolic differences. Indeed, “there has been a return to recognizing ethnicity as a factor in human behavior, and thus, in certain instances, ethnicity may be manifested in material culture”54 and that is where this tale of ethnicity begins.

54

Killebrew, Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity, 9.

CHAPTER 3

WHO ARE THE PHOENICIANS? THE CONSTRUCT Nearly everything known about the “Phoenicians” is a construct of outsiders trying to impose some kind of organization on a group of cities who were not ruled as a unified polity. These cities show cultural commonalities archaeologically and in texts, but they were often neither economically nor politically united – there is no political entity called Phoenicia. In fact, the ethnically Phoenician cities often quarreled amongst themselves unless there was a common enemy or threat, and even then cooperation appears to have been tenuous.1 The problem with the lack of clear demarcation between peoples in the ancient world cannot be overstated. As was indicated above, constructs are created to bring order to the seeming chaos of ethnicity (cultural identity). To this end, an exploration of what “Phoenicians” are – for the purposes of this project – is necessary.2 The word Phoenician is actually a Greek attempt to put a name to these littoral groups in the Levant. Their work with purple dyes was famous in the ancient world and this is likely the root of the name given to them.3 The Phoenicians in some cases considered themselves Canaanite,4 but there is no definitive name they gave to themselves as a group in early antiquity; as with most groups in the ancient Near East, individuals were 1

2

3

4

Glenn Markoe, Phoenicians, Peoples of the Past (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000), 10. Although this project focuses on the Early Iron Age (1200-722 BCE), little archaeological evidence has actually been assigned to this period, particularly where the 10th to 9th centuries are concerned. Coincidentally, this is the period of the legendary figures of David and Solomon. There is some reluctance to attribute physical data to this period, and there is not space enough in the current work to argue for or against an assigned date for any given object. With that in mind, an examination of the trends leading from the Late Bronze Age into the Iron Age are being closely considered, with sources and trends from the Late Iron Age and beyond being given somewhat less emphasis. Maria Eugenia Aubet, The Phoenicians and the West: Politics, Colonies, and Trade, Second (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 6; Amélie Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East, c. 3000-330 BC, Routledge History of the Ancient World (London; New York: Routledge, 1995), 403. Aubet, Phoenicans and the West, 10f.

32

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

referred to (and referred to themselves) by their city of origin.5 A person being discussed in a text would be called a Sidonian because they were from Sidon. Much later, in Carthage (a Phoenician colony), we find them calling themselves Kena’ani, Canaanite.6 However, the term Canaanite is far too general in its modern (and ancient) definition and, depending on who is defining whom, can refer to any number of groups active in the Levant, including Aramaeans, Moabites, Israelites, Judaeans, etc. The groups called the Phoenicians, as currently defined, are the inhabitants of cities on the coast of modern day Lebanon and northern Israel, down to the Akko plane. They are typically characterized by their mercantilism, colonizing activity, arts, and renowned sea faring abilities. They were traders and artisans, often tailoring their wares to the tastes of the groups to whom they sold. Their art has been found all over the ancient near east and throughout the Mediterranean; indeed, “the term ‘Phoenician’ in antiquity was broadly applied to any Semitic sea-trader.”7 Even in the ancient world, attempts to categorize and organize peoples were a messy endeavor. The cities associated with these merchants include Tyre, Byblos, Sarepta, and Sidon among others. The coastal cities, and the region in general, have a long history that goes back well beyond the identifiable emergence of Israel. It was these cities that provided a foundation for the polity established in Samaria, which would become the capital of what modern scholarship calls Israel (this will be discussed in further detail in the following chapter). Unfortunately, establishing details of Phoenician life has been a struggle. There are many factors that have worked against understanding the area and the people. First, the geography of the coastal Levant is narrow, with mountains giving only a mile or so of land before coming to the sea. Of course, the wet nature of the area means that anything perishable – not made of stone, or baked clay – is long gone, including leather, wood, and fabrics. Third, these cities were valuable assets for all invading groups that came into the land. Consequently, building by locals was over built by Persians, Greeks, and Romans in the later ancient period – not to mention additional building activity from even later periods up to the current era in some cities.8 5

6

7 8

J. Brian Peckham, Phoenicia: Episodes and Anecdotes from the Ancient Mediterranean (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014), 20. Sabatino Moscati and Sabatino Moscati, “Who Were the Phoenicians?,” in The Phoenicians, ed. idem (New York: Rizzoli, 1988), 17. Markoe, Phoenicians, 11. Ayelet Gilboa, “Sea Peoples and Phoenicians along the Southern Phoenician Coast: A Reconciliation: An Interpretation of Šikila (SKL) Material Culture,” BASOR, no. 337 (February 1, 2005): 50, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25066874.

WHO ARE THE PHOENICIANS?

33

Additionally, the politics of the area have prevented extensive excavations at various times.9 This is no less true now than it was in decades past. For example, modern-day Lebanon, the home of many ancient Phoenician cities, is densely populated, and has seen its fair share of war over the last century. Another important obstacle to understanding cultural groups in the area in modern scholarship has been the emphasis on the identification and further study of Biblical Israel. This was done specifically to prove or disprove the Biblical text, rather than to understand other groups beyond their impact on ‘Israel’ in past archaeological efforts.10 Only in more recent decades have excavators been interested in other groups for their own sake, independent of the Bible.11 Indeed, “until the late 1960s, the Phoenicians were known mainly from chance finds, and from a few excavations at their colonies around the Mediterranean.”12 For this project, the Phoenicians are seen as related to Israel, but the Bible is not the standard against which their identity is being measured or defined. The goal here is to understand the Phoenicians in and of themselves, and then compare these findings to the remains of the Northern Polity, putative Israel. A little bit of background is necessary to understand this group. Their context – geographic, temporal, and cultural – is as important as a source of their identity as their cities in the Iron Age. Evidence for this group begins to emerge well before they can be sufficiently and solidly be identified as Phoenicians. For this reason, a short explanation that begins well before their emergence in the Iron Age is necessary. THE BRONZE AGE The history of the Phoenicians is longer than most other identifiable ethnic groups in the Levant. Coastal cultural groups were active as early as the 4th millennium BCE and had trading ties to Mesopotamia.13 The 9 10

11

12 13

Gilboa, 50. Israel here is in semi-quotes to emphasize the shifting and pied nature of the word. Sometimes it refers to the land, sometimes the people (including northerners and southerners from Judah), at other times it refers exclusively to The Northern Polity. Patricia M. Bikai, Robert R. Stieglitz, and Richard J. Clifford, “Rich and Glorious Traders of the Levant,” Archaeology 43, no. 2 (March 1, 1990): 23, http://www.jstor.org/ stable/41765805. Bikai, Stieglitz, and Clifford, 24. Sandro Filippos Bondi, “The Origins in the East,” in The Phoenicians, ed. Sabatino Moscati (New York: Rizzoli, 1988), 23.

34

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

earliest layers at Byblos (a Phoenician city of the Iron Age) go back to this period. Likewise, there were long-standing, close ties to Ugarit, an ancient metropolis that rested on the northern borders of what would later be called the Phoenician homeland. In many ways Ugarit was a cultural ancestor to the Phoenicians.14 In the 3rd millennium BCE, the coastal groups became more organized and recognizable cities started coming to life with public buildings and sanctuaries.15 Likewise, during this period, multiple international groups became more active in developing the Levant economically, including the Egyptians, whose influence casts a long shadow.16 The rising power of Egypt, and the rising tide of urbanization on the coast have a strong correlation: by the end of the Late Bronze Age the Phoenicians are a recognizable cultural group that can be traced through multiple sources.17 Ebla and Byblos A city that provides clues to the importance of and activity at Byblos in the Middle Bronze Age is Ebla (Tell Mardikh). Ebla is located approximately 120 miles north-east of Byblos, in modern day Syria. It was discovered in 1964 by Paolo Matthiae.18 The Ebla archives cover nearly 150 years during the Middle Bronze I period, up to the end of the third millennium BCE. The role of Byblos as a trader is well attested, with Ebla importing several products including fabric, perfumes, and food products. They also exported articles of linen and finished objects to Byblos.19 No doubt the relationship between Ebla and Byblos was driven in part by their shared interest in the trade of lumber. “Ebla by its strategic position controlled the supplies of timber from Western Syria … developing a farsighted policy of alliances” with Byblos among other cities in the area “to protect its own trade in finished goods.”20 The close political relationship between the cities is also evidenced in a recorded marriage of an Eblite princess to the king of Byblos.21 There was also a gift or donation given 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21

Bondi, 28. Bondi, 23. Markoe, Phoenicians, 14. Bondi, “The Origins in the East,” 23. Paolo Matthiae, Ebla: An Empire Rediscovered, trans. Christopher Holme (New York: Doubleday, 1981), 40. Bondi, “The Origins in the East,” 25. Matthiae, Ebla: An Empire Rediscovered, 178. Bondi, “The Origins in the East,” 25.

WHO ARE THE PHOENICIANS?

35

to Ebla from a high official in Byblos, though the reason for the donation is absent from the record. The Byblos official gave Ebla “16 linen fabrics, 5 “tusks,” 9 red yarns contributed by Arratilu of Gublu” (v. VII 12-15).22 In the Main Archive, document L.2769 also records significant sales of cloth, with its destination in Byblos.23 One possible reason for the seemingly amicable, and prolific relationship between Ebla and Byblos at this time is Byblos’ relationship with Egypt.24 A similar relation between Egypt and Ebla is absent in the Ebla archives.25 Byblos likely acted as a middle-man between Ebla and Egypt, facilitating trade, and likely profiting from their position as distributor. Again, all of this emphasizes the Phoenician city’s role as trader and marketer. The Amarna Codex During the latter years of the Late Bronze Age (c. 1550-1200 BCE),26 the coastal cities of the Levant prospered. Around the same time, a dark age descended on Greece, and Egypt fell into instability. During the reign of Amenophis III, garrisons were present, but their function appears to have been mostly focused on maintaining peace between cities, and keeping the ‘Apiru at bay.27 With relative independence, the coastal people of the Levant became more firmly established as culturally different from the other Canaanite groups around them. Their economies were strong, with a special emphasis on craft industries and trade in commodities like cedar, wine, fabric, and oil.28 Of all the international powers working in the area, it was the Egyptians who generally held the most outside authority over the coastal regions up to Ugarit.29 However, there is ample evidence showing that, especially during the close of the Bronze Age, 22

23 24 25 26

27

28 29

Govanni Pettinato, Ebla: A New Look at History, trans. Faith Richarson (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins, 1986), 249. Matthiae, Ebla: An Empire Rediscovered, 180. Matthiae, 180. Matthiae, 180. As with ethnicity, the lines drawn by scholars are artificial and serve as an organizing principle. The people of the area did not suddenly wake up and find themselves in a new era of history. The lines drawn by scholarship are for convenience, and still being argued about today. Albert Leonard, “Archaeological Sources for the History of Palestine: The Late Bronze Age,” The Biblical Archaeologist 52, no. 1 (March 1, 1989): 17, https://doi.org/10.2307/ 3210180. Markoe, Phoenicians, 22. Bondi, “The Origins in the East,” 26.

36

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

there was considerable autonomy among the coastal cities, and the Egyptians had looser control than their texts admit to.30 There was relative peace and equilibrium in this period, with bookends of the greater dynamism and change. Much of this change at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age occurred under Akhenaton and is revealed in the Amarna Codex (13531336 BCE). The most extensive source of information for the beginning of the Late Bronze Age are the Letters from Egypt, written during the reign of the reforming king Akhenaten in his capital Amarna. According to the Egyptians, the littoral region of Syria-Palestine (the Phoenician cities) and the inland territory was under their auspices, even if loosely so at times.31 The New Kingdom (1530-1069) does not represent a period of stability in Egypt. Rather it was a period of change, and in some cases the old ways of doing things were entirely forsaken for a time.32 The Amarna archives are a rich source of information about the relationship between the Levant and Egypt for this period. The Pharaohs represented in the corpus include Amenhotep III and, more prominently, his son Akhenaten, who actually led the reforms and moved the capital from Aswan into the desert, to Amarna. During this period the northern region of the Levant – centered around Akko – was overseen by the ‘Governor of the Northern Lands’, though they are not directly mentioned in the Amarna codex, and their role is not entirely clear during this period.33 Governance of the southern region is even less clear during this period and the letters to and from Egypt do not give us any good clues. Although the Phoenician cities of Byblos, Sidon, and Tyre figure prominently in the Amarna archives, no other Phoenician city south of Byblos is directly mentioned in the corpus.34 The leaders of these three cities were appointed by, or at least had the approval of Egypt. However, with time the loyalty of the kings was tested as they worked to fight off the ‘Apiru, each other, and other groups working in the area. The letters

30

31 32

33 34

Michal Artzy, “The Carmel Coast during the Second Part of the Late Bronze Age: A Center for Eastern Mediterranean Transshipping,” BASOR, no. 343 (August 1, 2006): 342, https://doi.org/10.2307/25066964. Markoe, Phoenicians, 15. Jana Mynarova, “Egyptian State Correspondence in the New Kingdom: The Letters of the Leventine Client Kings in the Amarna Correspondence and the Contemporary Evidence,” in State Correspondence in the Ancient World, ed. Karen Radner (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), 10. Mynarova, 11. Markoe, Phoenicians, 17.

WHO ARE THE PHOENICIANS?

37

make their desperation apparent, though their pleas may have been exaggerated in an effort to get the Egyptian king’s attention. Also apparent is the disinterest of the Pharaoh. The leader of Byblos (actually called Gubla in the letters), Rib-Hadda, called his city “the loyal maidservant of the king” and his story begins by noting that the city is safe, but there are concerns about the ‘Apiru, with whom they are at war.35 Later letters report that the war against the ‘Apiru became increasingly severe, and a warrior named ‘Abdi-Asirta had become the leader of the ‘Apiru against Byblos. This leader threatened, and eventually took other territories previously under the control of Byblos.36 The king described himself, later, as a “bird in a trap (cage),” trapped in Byblos and surrounded by the enemy.37 With time, Rib-Hadda threatened to abandon the city and make an alliance with the enemy due to the lack of response from Egypt.38 Additionally, despite a reported command from the Pharaoh to the leaders of Sidon, Beirut, and Tyre to send help to Byblos, no help ever came.39 Ultimately, it appears that Byblos was tacitly forsaken by the Pharaoh.40 Regarding Tyre, the letters report tension between its ruler, Abi-Miku, and the ruler of Sidon, Zimredda, noting the abduction of palace attendants by the latter, and attempts to capture Tyre.41 Eventually, as reported by Rib-Hadda (of Byblos), the situation was further complicated as trouble with the ‘Apiru became dire. The leader of the ‘Apiru apparently took Tyre and killed Rib-Hadda’s family and the leader of Tyre, to whom he was related by marriage. To make his point clear that Tyre was important, he called the wealth of Tyre equal to the sea, and the palace as equal to that of Ugarit. All of it was reportedly lost to the ‘Apiru.42 Likewise, Sidon eventually became hostile to Byblos. Before that, however, similar letters were sent from Byblos to the Pharaoh pleading for help, and pledging allegiance to the Sun, the king of Egypt.43 With the rise and fall of the Amarna period, the Pharaoh’s ability (or perhaps willingness) to maintain control in Egypt waned, leading to a 35

36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

William L. Moran, ed., The Amarna Letters, trans. William L. Moran (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins, 1982), EA 68. Moran, EA 74, 75, 76, and 78. Moran, EA 79. Moran, EA 83. Moran, EA 92. Moran, EA 126. Moran, EA 148. Moran, EA 89. Moran, EA 144.

38

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

looser grip on the Levant, and the pharaoh was limited to police actions (if even that), rather than actual control of the region.44 This is evidenced in the Amarna codex by the continued pleading of leaders from the Levant, such as that of Byblos, and the apparent lack of response by the Pharaoh, even as the situation deteriorated. After the death of Akhenaten, Egypt was pre-occupied with finding new stability politically and religiously.45 Journey of Wen-Amon A report dating to the twenty-first dynasty (eleventh century BCE) from Egyptian sources records the journey of Wen-Amon, “the Senior of the Forecourt of the House of Amon”, to the Levant.46 It gives further information about a couple of things during the transition from the late Bronze Age into the Early Iron Age. First, it reinforces the Phoenician littoral as a center of trade in lumber. Wen-Amon was sent to fetch wood for Amon-Re. Notably, he was not sent to demand it, but to purchase it.47 The narrative also provides some information about the relationship between Egypt and the Phoenician coast, not only that they were not under the control of Egypt, but Egypt was not even particularly well esteemed. Wen-Amon was robbed in Dor (part of the Phoenician littoral at the time, and not part of the mythic Davidic monarchy) and the leader of the city did not make any effort to correct the issue, despite Wen-Amon’s pleas.48 He also traveled to Tyre, where he stole money from another person in an effort to recover his own lost property (that was actually intended for purchasing wood) and his “Amon-of-the-Road”, a portable cult statue.49 There is a break in the text, and the leader of Byblos becomes involved ordering the Egyptian to get out of the city, reflecting the less than ideal relations at the time.50 Finally, upon trying to leave after months in the harbor, the leader of the city says to the Egyptian emissary, “If the ruler of Egypt were the lord of mine, and I were his servant also, he would not have to send silver 44

45 46

47 48 49 50

Jacobus Van Dijk, “The Amarna Period and the Later New Kingdom,” in The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, ed. Ian Shaw (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 278. Van Dijk, 291ff. James B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 25. Pritchard, 26. Pritchard, 26. Pritchard, 26. Pritchard, 26.

WHO ARE THE PHOENICIANS?

39

and gold.”51 Indeed, if Egypt held sway at the time, this story would present the Egyptian messenger as powerful, and the lumber as a gift, or tribute. Rather, the littoral cities are presented as unconcerned with both the Egyptian messenger’s presence and his sad plight as he tries to fulfill his orders; indeed, his presence and his mission seem to be nothing but a nuisance to the locals. Ugarit Ugarit was a formidable economic force during the Middle and Late Bronze Age. It had close ties to the proto-Phoenician52 littoral cities to the south, and in many ways is culturally similar to them. Many of the texts found at the site contain the pantheon of the Phoenicians: since Phoenician inscriptions lack full mythologies, Ugaritic texts have become a source for information about the deities of the Phoenicians (described below). For these reasons, it is worthy of a closer look.53 The site was first occupied in the Neolithic period, and occupation continued through its destruction in roughly 1190 BCE54 (with a notable interruption in 2200 BCE that lasted between 100 and 200 years55). For most of its history, the community was small and rural, but around 3000 BCE noticeable new developments emerge that gradually led to urbanization.56 Between 1900 and 1650 BCE, Ugarit’s “spectacular urban development” reached its height: the entire tel was inhabited, and became enclosed by a defensive rampart.57 Some Egyptian artifacts have 51 52

53

54

55

56 57

Pritchard, 27. The cities at this point are in many ways still developing into the archetype of Phoenicianness. The hallmarks are mostly present but in some cases not entirely evolved into what is considered “Phoenician”. For example, the pottery has not yet become completely Phoenician. The site was accidently discovered in 1929 by a peasant who stumbled upon one of its tombs near the coast. This led to excavations of the bay by René Dussaud and Claude Schaeffer (Marguerite Yon, Thy City of Ugarit at Tell Ras Shamra (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 7). After several years, excavations moved up to the actual tell, named Ras esh Shamra, nearby. The initial report recorded the tel’s name as Rash Shamra, which has been the name used for the tell in the literature of the city, Ugarit (ibid.). Schaffer began excavating the site in 1939, but was interrupted by WWI. He resumed his work in 1948, and excavations continued with only brief interruptions through 2005 (ibid.). Marguerite Yon, Thy City of Ugarit at Tell Ras Shamra (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 15f. The interruption of occupation at this time mirrors the end of the Ur III period and the end of the Old Kingdom in Egypt. This was the close of the Middle Bronze Age. Yon, City of Ugarit, 15. Yon, 16.

40

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

been found from this period, but nothing that would indicate more than a trading relationship. These objects include a bead bearing the name of Sesostris I (1970-1936 BCE), some funerary figurines, statues, and a sphinx found in the temple of Baal.58 Ties between Ugarit, Cyprus, and the Phoenician littoral were generally close. Letters between Byblos and Ugarit, written in Ugaritic, heavily imply friendly relations.59 Similar letters also link the city closely to Sidon, though their relationship experienced some tension around Ugarit citizens who committed sacrilege in the Sidonian temple of the storm god.60 The king of Tyre also had correspondence with Ugarit, but this correspondence is mostly centered on business.61 Like the Phoenician cities to its south, Ugarit created its wealth through trade; its military was, however, less than impressive.62 This made it subject to the political tempests that swept through Canaan. Despite this, the city flourished into the reign of Ramses II (1303-1213 BCE). However, the mass migrations that mark the close of the Bronze Age also mark the end of Ugarit. Personal letters have been found that relate the fear and sense of impending doom sparked by the vision of ships coming to the city – the dreaded, though as yet ill-defined, Sea People.63 South of Ugarit, the destructions that mark the close of the Late Bronze Age (and Ugarit, itself) do not appear in the archaeology of Phoenician cities to any great degree. At Byblos, for example, there is a mix of early and middle LHIIIC (Late Helladic IIIC) pottery64 noting longer and sustained contact with the LHIIIC culture.65 At Sarepta (just south of Sidon), a conflagration layer was found, but the re-building that happened afterward seems to date to the thirteenth century, before the struggles with the Sea People north of the Phoenician littoral, and the reconstruction is marked by the presence LHIIIB pottery, and not the later LHIIIC forms.66 The sequence of kilns in Sarepta also reflects great consistency within 58 59 60 61 62

63 64

65

66

Yon, 16. Peckham, Phoenicia: Episodes and Anecdotes from the Ancient Mediterranean, 18. Peckham, 19. Peckham, 20. W. H. Van Soldt, “Ugarit: A Second Millennium Kingdom on the Mediterranean Coast,” in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, ed. Jack M. Sasson et al., vol. 1 and 2 (New York: Hendrickson, 1995), 1258. Van Soldt, 1265. The Late Helladic IIIC culture in Greece (1190-1020 BCE) is marked by the fall of Mycenaean culture, population movements and large scale destruction in the region. Assaf Yasur-Landau, The Philistines and Aegean Migration at the End of the Late Bronze Age (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 168. Yasur-Landau, 169.

WHO ARE THE PHOENICIANS?

41

the Phoenician culture there from the Late Bronze Age all the way to the Persian period.67 Finds in Tyre reflect a similarly smooth transition marking either no conflict or swift adaptation to an influx of foreigners.68 One possibility for the success of the Phoenician littoral is that as the cities turned west for trade, they created strong relationships with the Aegean cultures. This could have led to Aegean populations already being in their cities before those populations started migrating East to the Levant. With a diverse population already in the cities, the arrival of new-comers could have been softened. There is no definitive explanation about why the Phoenician cities faired so well relative to others at the end of the Late Bronze Age, but they survived relatively well, comparatively. Ugarit was finally lost around 1190 BCE, but their close relationships with the Phoenician cities to the south have contributed to a greater understanding of both civilizations. Additional Sources for the Late Bronze Age Eventually, some Egyptian activity in the Levant resumed under Horemheb and Ramses I, but it was limited.69 In the first year of Seti I (approximately 1290-1279 BCE), “Egyptian control was swiftly reaffirmed over the southern Phoenician coast from Akko to the north of Tyre – a clear demonstration of Egypt’s economic interest in the region”70 Again, however, much of this comes from Egyptian sources which must be taken with a grain of salt (as is the case with all ancient documents). According to the records of Seti I in Karnak, he established his authority in many cities including Akko and Tyre on the coast. The listing on the temple is confused though, and haphazard at best.71 In his second campaign to the area, Seti I fought the Amurru in Qadesh which marked the southern edge of Egyptian political influence, and later he went against the Libyans.72 In his fourth campaign, he fought the Hittites. Again, though, the details in the texts are vague.73 67

68 69

70 71

72 73

William P. Anderson, “The Kilns and Workshops of Sarepta (Sarfand), Lebanon,” Berytus 35 (1987): 49. Gilboa, “Sea Peoples and Phoenicians along the Southern Phoenician Coast,” 50f. Nicolas Grimal, A History of Ancient Egypt, trans. Ian Shaw (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1988), 246. Markoe, Phoenicians, 19. James Henry Breasted, ed., Ancient Records of Egypt, trans. James Henry Breasted, vol. 3 (Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1906), sec. 114. Grimal, A History of Ancient Egypt, 247. Grimal, 247.

42

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

The famous Ramses II (1279-1213 BCE) succeeded Seti I. His exploits in Canaan proper were also fairly extensive, but most of his energy in the earliest years of his reign was focused on the Amurru and the Hittites. He went through Phoenician cities on his way to and from dealing with the Amurru, including another conflict at Qadesh, which Ramses commemorated on no less than five temples and multiple papyri, of which several have survived.74 After that, in his eighth and ninth years on the throne, Ramses II went back to Syria and made his way to Akko, destroying that territory before going north to other Phoenician cities.75 Despite the re-emergence of Egyptian hegemony, trade and commerce continued on the Canaanite littoral. To the west, there is good archaeological evidence of significant bi-lateral trade between the Levant and Cyprus, including the conspicuous appearance of Mycenaean pottery at many sites in the Levant during the thirteenth century,76 including at Sidon.77 In the Phoenician coastal cities, native exports included purple fabrics, made from a dye created from particular kinds of sea snails, wood (which also made their sea faring possible), fish, wine, honey, glass, and olives, explored in more detail below.78 The closing of the Late Bronze Age also marks the start of an influx of the group known as the “sea people”– referring to a number of illdefined groups of strangers to the Middle East who brought with them (or their appearance corresponded with) tremendous changes throughout the Mediterranean.79 Their influx was neither quick nor uniform. Rather it seems to have been a slow, creeping incursion, highlighted by major battles in important cities. The incursion varied in speed and extent depending on what area the evidence comes from. The Sea People’s presence is marked in many places by the appearance of Mycenaean IIIC:1b pottery, in the Late Helladic tradition, in addition to the continuation of local pottery traditions. Also, at this time, the Hittite empire was lost. 74 75 76 77

78

79

Grimal, 253. Artzy, “The Carmel Coast during the Second Part of the Late Bronze Age,” 49. Markoe, Phoenicians, 21. Claude Doumet-Serhal, “Sidon – British Museum Excavations,” Archaeology and History in Lebanon, no. 18 (Autumn 2003): 15. A. Bernard Knapp, The History and Culture of Ancient Western Asia and Egypt (Chicago: The Dorsey Press, 1988), 244. It is worth noting that while many think the incoming strangers were Aegean, Greece also fell into a dark age at this point in history. Writing seems to have disappeared, and this is often blamed on an ill-defined group called the Dorians, who allegedly brought the Greek language with them. It is likely that the turmoil felt in the Levant is directly related to the turmoil in Greece, caused by an undefined event or group that threw the whole Mediterranean into chaos.

WHO ARE THE PHOENICIANS?

43

This loss may have been due, directly or indirectly, to the sea people.80 However, Amelie Kuhrt points out the sea-people’s long standing presence in the Egyptian literature, and their images in Egypt on both sides of various campaigns.81 Indeed, their presence, and the movement of so many people east and west of the Mediterranean are more likely the result of other longer standing issues that have yet to be identified. For example, a natural disaster such as recurring or longstanding drought is one possibility. Unfortunately, a bad drought is difficult to track in the archaeological record. Rather than the cause of the unrest, the mass migrations of Sea Peoples all over the Mediterranean could be the result of other, unseen forces. While the Sea People may have been part of the problem, there were multiple other forces at work creating changes throughout the area. The waning and waxing of Egyptian control in the region, strife between cities, migrations within the region – including the movements of nomadic groups such as the ‘Apriu, as well as other nomadic groups in Upper Mesopotamia – and migratory peoples from without all contributed to the changes that mark the transition from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age.82 THE EARLY IRON AGE The record of continuity between the Late Bronze Age and the dawning of the Early Iron Age among Phoenician cities in the archaeological record continues to grow.83 The coast was very active in the Late Bronze Age; that activity persisted and evolved. Likewise, there is strong evidence supporting close ties between inner Canaan, Phoenician cities, and Cyprus.84 While there was some measure of upheaval in most areas, the coastal cities survived multiple events that could have created chaos, including the incursion of the Sea Peoples, as well as the fall of Egyptian hegemony, 80

81 82

83

84

Yasur-Landau, The Philistines and Aegean Migration at the End of the Late Bronze Age, 165. Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East, c. 3000-330 BC, 388f. Mario Liverani, The Ancient Near East: History, Society, and Economy, trans. Soraia Tabatabai (Routledge, 2014), 381. Ora Negbi, “Early Phoenician Presence in the Mediterranean Islands: A Reappraisal,” American Journal of Archaeology 96, no. 4 (October 1, 1992): 601f, https://doi.org/ 10.2307/505187. Markoe, Phoenicians, 28.

44

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

the fall of Ugarit, and the fall of the Hittites. This record of surviving incursions and collapsing empires stood throughout the Iron Age. Though different groups gained political ascendency in the Levant, the Phoenician littoral was remarkably stable. Nevertheless, the Iron Age marks a huge change in the Levant, politically, economically, and socially. Multiple factors working together created varying levels of social change throughout the region beyond the coast. The relationships between these factors involved have yet to be definitively determined, but no doubt there were chain reactions that extended from Egypt all the way to Greece, and back again. As other foreign powers waned in the Levant, Assyria was gathering its strength. Assyrian sources, therefore, become the best source for written information for this period. At the very end of the second millennium, Tiglath-Pileser I (1114-1076 BCE) went to the coast of the northern Levant for commercial reasons, as much as anything military. While in the area, he picked up valuable goods including lumber, and went on a fishing trip with some of his hosts in the area.85 In a foundation stone for the Anu-Adad temple in Ashur, he notes, “I went to Lebanon. I cut timber of Cedars … I received tribute from Byblos, Sidon, and Arvad.”86 He also notes his trip to Lebanon on a prism, possibly from the royal palace. The tribute being paid by the major Phoenician cities, apparently except Tyre, does not seem to have hindered the merchant coastal cities. A deepening crisis in Assyria, including repeated skirmishes with the Aramaeans and continuing tensions with Babylon, kept the ties between Ashur and the coastal cities of the Levant relatively limited. The years following the death of Tiglath-Pileser I were difficult, and Assyria’s star seemed to fade. By the death of Ashurnasir-pal I (1049-1031), nearly all of the Assyrian gains made, including those in Mesopotamia, were lost.87 Assyria was not defeated for good, but their involvement in the Levant was limited at best until rise of Ashurbanipal II (883-859 BCE),88 and this is the next time we hear of the coastal cities in Assyrian documents. Again, his trip seems to have been primarily peaceful and commercial in nature. The Phoenician cities had become suppliers of raw materials for 85

86 87 88

Sandro Filippos Bondi, “The Course of History,” in The Phoenicians (New York: Rizzoli, 1999), 32. Pritchard, ANET, 275. Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East, c. 3000-330 BC, 362. Tammi J. Schneider, “Mesopotamia (Assyrians and Babylonians) and the Levant,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant, ed. Ann E. Killebrew and Margreet L. Steiner (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2014), 100.

WHO ARE THE PHOENICIANS?

45

the re-emerging kingdom, spurring their continued growth and the expansion of their networks.89 This does not mean that he made no demands of the coastal cities, and tribute was paid during his reign.90 Under the rule of Tiglath-Pileser III (744-727) the relatively friendly nature of the relationship changed, and Assyria started trying to establish its military and political dominance in the area, annexing the Levant into the empire.91 After Tiglath-Pileser III’s conquest, including that of Samaria, the Phoenicians turned south for trade,92 even as the inhabitants of Samaria and the surrounding area fled the hostile invasion, likely also turning south to Judah. Throughout this time, the Phoenician littoral was, to a great degree, culturally unified: though each city had its own history and government, they were culturally and economically intertwined. Byblos rose to prominence during the Late Bronze Age, but by the dawn of the Iron Age, its colors were fading, and its power and influence flowed to Sidon.93 Sidon then got a chance to flex its muscle and extend its power through the Early Iron Age. By around 700 BCE that too ended as Tyre re-emerged in history as an independent economic powerhouse.94 By the end of the Bronze Age, moving well into the Early Iron Age, the influence of Byblos, Tyre and Sidon can be seen all along the coastal region from Carmel, down to the Philistine city-states.95 In the end, Sidon and Byblos fell even as Tyre sustained is power and continued to colonize.96 Phoenicians in the Early Iron Age Although all the major Phoenician cities on the coastal Levant were established before and during the Late Bronze Age, their cultural affinities to each other, and therefor their identification as solidly Phoenician 89 90

91 92 93 94 95 96

Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East, c. 3000-330 BC, 409. Daniel David Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, ed. James H. Breasted, vol. 2 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1926), 166ff. Liverani, The Ancient Near East: History, Society, and Economy, 422. Markoe, Phoenicians, 41. Peckham, Phoenicia: Episodes and Anecdotes from the Ancient Mediterranean, 2. Peckham, 2. Peckham, 63. There are other cities that could serve as the focus of this section, providing equally adequate examples of the Phoenician world, Tel Akko, and Tel Abu Hawam, for example. The choice of Byblos, Sidon, and Tyre is based in their firm identification as Phoenician, their longevity, and their relative economic and cultural power in the area. Akko has been variously identified as Israelite and Phoenician, as has Dor. These will be addressed in the following chapter.

46

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

is best established from the end of the Late Bronze Age into the Early Iron Age, at a time when they were flourishing, likely benefitting from the collapse of other political centers.97 By this time, the major coastal centers were well established, and using the archaeological information from those sites, particularly Byblos, Tyre, and Sidon, with supplemental information from other cities, defining what “Phoenicians” are becomes possible. The idea of a collective group of Phoenicians appears in Greece at least as early as Homer – c. 800 BCE.98 In the early Greek literature (up to c. 700 BCE), the city of Sidon can be found (in the Odyssey and other works), but Tyre is not mentioned.99 Indeed the Phaeacians may well represent the Phoenicians, though seemingly idealized. Cities and Architecture Phoenician cities in the Levant shared several characteristics. First, they were fairly compact, with an emphasis on a small city, sometimes with secondary sites, and the production of goods, rather than on agricultural hinterlands.100 The larger urban centers were around 60 hectares (less a quarter mile square), but most were much smaller.101 Ancient Sidon was actually comprised of two locations. First, there was an upper city that was inland, also called Greater Sidon, or Sidon of the plains.102 The second location was the harbor town, also called Little Sidon, or Sidon of the Sea.103 The inland city, the larger of the two centers, was 16 hectares on its north/south axis.104 At Tyre, even though there is evidence that King Hiram I (c. 970 BCE) expanded the city, it still measured only about 40 acres, or slightly more than 16 hectares.105 Given the prosperity of Tyre at the time, its small size and the limits placed on its size by the 97

98

99

100 101 102 103 104 105

Ayelet Gilboa, “The Southern Levant (Cisjordan) during the Iron Age I Period,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant: 8000-332 BCE, ed. Margreet L. Steiner and Ann E. Killebrew (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2014), 634. In the Odyssey, the Phoenicians are mentioned as part of Odysseus’ fake life story that he tells to the Phaecians. In the story a Phoenician trader cons him into going to Libya as a slave (14.320-349). In all other instances they are traders, not necessarily to be trusted, but not to be hated either. Gregory R. Crane, ed., “Perseus Digital Library” (Tufts University), “Sidon”, “Tyre,” accessed July 22, 2016, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?q=sidon. Liverani, The Ancient Near East: History, Society, and Economy, 423. Markoe, Phoenicians, 68. Doumet-Serhal, “Sidon – British Museum Excavations,” 2. Doumet-Serhal, 2. Doumet-Serhal, 3. Bikai, Stieglitz, and Clifford, “Rich and Glorious Traders of the Levant,” 30.

WHO ARE THE PHOENICIANS?

47

geography, overpopulation was a likely result.106 Colonization was likely one solution to the problem, leading to the first Tyrian colony on Cyprus, Kition.107 Indeed, Cyprus, though often associated with Greece in the modern imagination, was “more closely linked to the Levant.”108 Byblos covered no more than 64 hectares in the pre-Roman city, but it was expanded in the medieval period to more than twice that size.109 However, the precise size of the ancient site is difficult to establish. At Sarepta, the settlement size is also difficult to establish, but may have covered as much as 100 hectares in the Roman period, after an expansion with settlements evidenced on two promontories, about 500 meters apart.110 The extent of the earlier ancient site at Sarepta is impossible to determine due to the long practice of terracing on the hillsides, and later construction throughout the ancient period.111 Despite their small size, important industries supported by the natural environment included: lumber from the forests of Lebanon (including pine, cedar, and cypress) purple dye and dyed fabrics using murex from the sea, fish salting, iron and lignite mines, leading to the cities’ tremendous success and relative stability.112 Building Techniques At the close of the Bronze Age, many Phoenician cities were in flux, with many expanding. In Tyre, old, destroyed walls were rebuilt, the land was leveled using ceramic fill, and the city’s increase was supported by terracing.113 Similar techniques were employed at Sarepta, and included the use of ashlar masonry.114 Also at Sarepta the ‘pier-and-rubble’ technique was employed during this period.115 106 107 108

109

110

111 112 113 114 115

Bikai, Stieglitz, and Clifford, 30. Bikai, Stieglitz, and Clifford, 30. A. Bernard Knapp, “Bronze Age Mediterranean Island Cultures and the Ancient Near East,” The Biblical Archaeologist 55, no. 2 (June 1, 1992): 59, https://doi.org/10.2307/ 3210346. Georges S. Zousain, ed., “Byblos-Lebanon Project: Identification & Implementation” (UNESCO, August 1999), 5, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001493/149352eo.pdf. James B. Pritchard, Recovering Sarepta, a Phoenician City: Excavations at Sarafand, Lebanon, 1969-1974, by the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978), 7. Pritchard, 7. Aubet, Phoenicans and the West, 16f. Markoe, Phoenicians, 30. Markoe, 30. Pritchard, Recovering Sarepta, 93.

48

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

Phoenician cities were located on or near the coast, most often on promontories.116 Little Sidon was located on a promontory between two natural harbors.117 Likewise, Tyre was built “at the tip of a promontory” on an island.118 Sarepta, likewise, was built on the top of a promontory, at noted above.119 Construction techniques, designed for the sea and coastal promontories could have easily been modified for inland mountainsides, allowing the top of a mountain to be leveled and expanded, as at Samaria (which will be considered in detail later). Construction on promontories is another archaeological indicator of Phoenician colonies,120 including sights that “have been identified in the mountains rising up on the coast west of Palermo.”121 Likewise at Sulcis on Sardinia, the fortified enclosure and necropolis were located on the mountain that dominated the islet and overlooked the natural harbor.122 Carthage was well established by 673 BCE,123 and shows evidence of habitation as early as the late eighth century BCE.124 While these dates are later than is the focus of the work at hand, the city, established by Tyre, has proven itself valuable as an archaeological witness for Phoenicians in the Levant. The center of Carthage society, both in Punic and Roman periods, was on the Byrsa promontory, the tallest of the hills occupied by Carthage.125 Phoenician harbor installations, and wall construction were strikingly similar among the cities as well. They are characterized by ashlar construction, using headers and stretchers, or a pier and rubble technique. Likewise, terracing was used to build up and expand promontories. 116 117 118 119 120

121

122 123

124 125

Aubet, Phoenicans and the West, 16. Doumet-Serhal, “Sidon – British Museum Excavations,” 2. Pritchard, Recovering Sarepta, 3. Pritchard, 71. Phoenician colonies seem to be politically and economically independent of their founding cities, though they were closely linked culturally; this is another point of reification for the idea of a Phoenician ethnic group despite their cities’ lack of other political ties. Mark A. Christian, “Phoenician Maritime Religion: Sailors, Goddess Worship, and the Grotta Regina,” Die Welt des Orients 43, no. 2 (2013): 184, http://www.jstor.org/ stable/23608854. Aubet, Phoenicans and the West, 237. Pierre Cintas, Manuel D’archeologie Punique I: Histoire et Archéologie Comparées, vol. 1, Collection des manuels d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’art (Paris: A. et J. Picard, 1970), 22. Markoe, Phoenicians, 77. Jo Anne Freed, “The Site of Carthage,” in Bringing Carthage Home: Excavations of Nathan Davis, 1856-1859, vol. 2, University of British Columbia Studies in the Ancient World (Oxford, UK: Oxbow Books, 2011), 58, http://www.jstor.org.ccl.idm.oclc.org/ stable/j.ctt1cfr854.

WHO ARE THE PHOENICIANS?

49

Working on the coast and in the sea forced Phoenician engineers to build solid walls that could withstand the constant pounding of the ocean’s waves. Atilit provides an excellent example of Phoenician harbors from the Iron Age.126 There, Phoenician engineers used vertical ashlar walls underwater with such accuracy that mortar clamps were unnecessary.127 The superstructure was also made of ashlar blocks as headers, creating a structure that withstood the punishing waves.128 Domestic architecture in Phoenician cities was constructed with three or four rooms in various arrangements.129 Frequently, there was a larger “horizontally aligned hall” that “provided access to two (and sometimes three) smaller adjacent rooms of equal size in the rear.”130 This type of house was common throughout the Levant, and though it was once considered a hallmark of ancient Israel, its presence in Phoenician cities is part of a larger tradition in Palestine, both on the coast and in the interior.131 Religion Phoenician religion must be reconstructed based on ancient secondary sources, in addition to the archaeological clues left behind in primary contexts. From this, however, some of the patterns found throughout the ancient near east become evident and can be matched to evidence found in Phoenician cities.132 Each city-state apparently favored its own deity, though that deity was not worshipped exclusively. For example, at Sarepta, Astarte was worshipped.133 However, like many cities through the ancient Near East, no 126 127 128 129 130 131 132

133

Markoe, Phoenicians, 69. Markoe, 70. Markoe, 70. Markoe, 71. Markoe, 71. Markoe, 71. It should be noted, yet again, that writing a complete and accurate history of religion of the Ancient Near East is not actually possible because of the heterogeneous nature of the evidence, coming from multiple geographic locales – often outside the area where a particular tradition was practiced – and multiple periods covering hundreds of years. Over time, perceptions of a given deity change based on the needs of the people in relationship with that deity. Likewise, religious traditions travel with groups to new locales (through migration or colonization), creating new and different needs, again leading to new evolutions in the deity. As groups encounter new people, syncretism often happens and the equations between deities create another path for evolution to occur. That said, there is still much benefit to be gained from drawing even a basic picture, and tracing religious ideas through time and space. Pritchard, Recovering Sarepta, 25.

50

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

deity was worshipped to the exclusion of others; among the relative paucity of inscriptions found at Sarepta other deities are mentioned including Baal, Melqart, Eshmun, Shadrapa, and Tanit, in addition to Ashtart/Astarte.134 Melqart was favored at Tyre; Eshmun in Sidon, and the Lady of Byblos was favored at Byblos. The Lady’s worship goes back at least to the Late Bronze Age, as reported in the Amarna letters, noted above,135 but the temple for her worship was found in the earliest layers of the city.136 These deities contributed to the unique character of each city. Sacred Spaces and Practice The Temple functioned as a civic and religious center.137 This too was common throughout the ancient world. The deities acted as patrons to the city, and the citizens worshipped the deity for helping the city (as well as any number of other reasons, political, economic, or personal). The patron god or goddess was worshipped in addition to others that were honored for various causes, such as safety at sea, or based on personal preferences. Physically, Phoenician temples were generally rectangular, often with benches lining the walls, as was the case in Sarepta.138 They tended to be reinforced buildings, with some of kind of sacred object or architectural feature at one end.139 This was found at Sarepta, where Pritchard noted the foundation walls were constructed with unusual care, noting that they were thick and deeply set.140 At one end of the temple various sacred features were found including a dais at Sidon in the temple of Eshmun,141 and an altar in Sarepta.142 In the temples there is also evidence for betyls – standing stones – or sacred poles for Asherah.143 Although there are thousands of inscriptions recovered from Phoenician sites, none of them are full myths. They include parts of descriptions of rituals, or records of prayers. We have but mentions of deities and 134 135 136

137 138 139

140 141

142 143

Pritchard, 95. Moran, The Amarna Letters, EA 84. Muntaha Said Saghieh, Byblos in the Third Millennium B.C.: A Reconstruction of the Stratigraphy and a Study of the Cultural Connections (Wilts, UK: Aris and Phillips Ltd., 1983), 52. Bikai, Stieglitz, and Clifford, “Rich and Glorious Traders of the Levant,” 29. Pritchard, Recovering Sarepta, 135f. Sabatino Moscati, The World of the Phoenicians (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1968), 48. Pritchard, Recovering Sarepta, 79. Rolf A. Stucky, Das Eschmun-Heiligtum von Sidon: Architecktur und Inschriften, Antike Kunst 19 (Basel: Vereinigung der Freunde antiker Kunst, 2005), 20. Pritchard, Recovering Sarepta, 25. Moscati, The World of the Phoenicians, 48.

WHO ARE THE PHOENICIANS?

51

rituals performed with little or no explanation.144 Likewise, “there is little direct evidence for the Phoenicians’ own view of the world’s origins.”145 The evidence does not provide a complete picture, but little fragments and hints of their religious lives. Equations between Phoenician cities and Ugarit need to be acknowledged as potentially tenuous, though very helpful. Indeed, Ugarit provides some indirect evidence showing what Phoenician mythology may have looked like. At Ugarit, the deities mentioned in the mythologies are also found among the paucity of religious writings at Phoenician cities.146 Among the few inscriptions are some hints at Phoenician cosmogony. Among them are phrases like “Baal Shamem and El the creator of the earth and the Eternal Sun.”147 There is evidence of what might be called personal religion: the religious practice of the average person could involve any deity of the pantheon. Again, this was common in the ancient world and was practiced in addition to the city-wide practices, as well as any rituals or worship mandated by the ruling house. Little can be said about the religion of the common household because there are no texts relating directly to it, but evidence for its practice can be seen in the votive offering found in temples, and in the smaller expressions of religion: small trinkets of deities, or potsherds that contain inscriptions about offerings from an individual. These types of offerings will be noted below in the discussion of the deities and archaeological finds in and around the ancient temples. There is evidence that Phoenicians believed in an afterlife. They referred to their dead as “rephaim,” a term also used in Late Bronze Age in “Ugarit to refer to the divine ancestors, or deified deceased.”148 The implication of such beliefs is found in the multiple dying and rising gods (Melqart, Eshmun, and Adonis). The relatively large quantities of funerary inscriptions also exhibit a concern with the deceased, and their continued existence in an afterlife.149 There are three texts that refer to gatherings that were marked by, among other things, offerings for the dead.150 Additionally, although there are few remains from adult cemeteries found in the Levant, the few graves revealed that the dead were (at 144

145 146 147

148 149 150

Bikai, Stieglitz, and Clifford, “Rich and Glorious Traders of the Levant,” 29; Richard J. Clifford, “Phoenician Religion,” BASOR, no. 279 (1990): 56, https://doi.org/10.2307/ 1357208. Markoe, Phoenicians, 119. Clifford, “Phoenician Religion,” 56. H. Donner and W. Rollig, eds., Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co., 1966), 26.III.18-19. Markoe, Phoenicians, 137. Clifford, “Phoenician Religion,” 56. Clifford, 58.

52

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

least at times) buried with pottery such as bowls; some bead work has also been found in graves.151 During the Late Bronze Age, Phoenicians buried their dead, but at the beginning of the Early Iron Age, cremation appeared in the Phoenician cities, and in neighboring areas of Syria-Palestine, complicating our understanding of their religious traditions.152 Important Deities The Sarepta inscriptions provide a quintessential example of how the deities among the Phoenician cities were often treated in vague ways. One of the longer inscriptions comes from a man named grmlqr[t], Germelqart (whose name invokes the god of Tyre, Melqart), and is intended as an offering to l’dnn, “our lord”.153 The sherd from the pot on which the inscription was made, held a lamb as the offering, as indicated by the inscription incised in the wet clay before the jar was fired.154 Two things may be extrapolated from this. First, the deities in any given city were not honored to the exclusion of any other deities: Germelqart was given a name for a deity from another city, though the man in question was seemingly from Sarepta. As always, care must be taken not to assume too much, but at the very least his name honors Tyrian Melqart, even if he did not necessarily worship Melqart. Second, the offering was planned well in advance, evidenced by the inscription that included not just the deity, but also the name of the purchaser, which had to be inscribed on the jar before it was fired. Likewise, the jar was purchased strictly for sacrifice: this involves longer term planning and some expense. This, in addition to other offerings discussed below, indicate some importance given to the religious offerings in daily life. Another issue that plagues the study of Phoenician religion is the use of generic titles. Ba’al, whose name is often seen among the Phoenician cities may be a name, or a simple title, similar to “lord.” The name Ba’al is well known in the Bible for lord, or master as well as for a specific deity; the names and titles overlap in the literature.155 Indeed deific titles were rarely specific, and information about the deity must be extrapolated from their association with particular locations and literary sources found 151 152 153 154 155

Pritchard, Recovering Sarepta, 146. Markoe, Phoenicians, 139. Pritchard, Recovering Sarepta, 98f. Pritchard, 99. Clifford, “Phoenician Religion,” 57.

WHO ARE THE PHOENICIANS?

53

outside their cities.156 This includes the ways they were perceived by foreign powers; their names and functions sometimes became syncretized. Again, care must be taken as conclusions are made, but the information is none-the-less valuable and allows some insight into how the deities evolved over time. The following is not a complete list of the deities encountered among Phoenician cities and Ugaritic literature, but represents some of the more important figures for the current project. The deities here are described broadly and a further caveat must be kept in mind, that a spectrum of amalgamations were frequent, and deities had varying associations with each other depending on the time and place of a given temple or piece of literature.157 With that in mind, as with all religious traditions, the pantheon of a cultural group may help to define them as a unified people, both within and among their cities. The Gods The first deities explored here are those that are centered in particular cities, whose rise is most notable after at the dawning of the Iron Age.158 These appear to have developed in the Iron Age, during or after the upheavals brought by the “sea people.” Although the Phoenician cities along the coast faired well, relative to their neighbors, there were changes, and the city deities were part of that.159 Melqart. Although Melqart of Tyre160 is not attested before the first millennium BCE (he is not in the Amarna archives, or in the tablets found at Ras Shamra, Ugarit), he likely existed in some capacity before that.161 156 157

158 159

160

161

Markoe, Phoenicians, 117. Additionally, the Biblical text will not be used here, as comparisons with the Bible are more pertinent to the following chapter, concerning the Northern Polity, Israel, and its relationship to the Phoenician territories. Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East, c. 3000-330 BC, 406. Sergio Ribichini, “Beliefs and Religious Life,” in The Phoenicians, ed. Sabatino Moscati (New York: Rizzoli, 1988), 124. Ernest Renan carefully surveyed the area of Tyre and published his findings in 1864 (Nina Jidejian, Byblos Through the Ages (Chicago: Argonaut Inc., 1968), 2. The site was again excavated by M. Pierre Montet between 1921-24 (O. Tufnell and W. A. Ward, “Relations between Byblos, Egypt and Mesopotamia at the End of the Third Millennium B.C.: A Study of the Montet Jar,” Institut francais du ProcheOrient Fasc. 3/4 (1966): 165). In 1925, M. Dunand took over the site excavations and continued to struggle with the challenges presented by local people. The stratigraphy of the site was very confused due its extremely long history and interference from the communities that occupied the site through its history (Jidejian, Byblos Through the Ages, 5). Markoe, Phoenicians, 115; Clifford, “Phoenician Religion,” 57.

54

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

Hiram promoted and institutionalized the cult of Melqart at Tyre, and built a temple to Melqart and ‘Ashtart/Astarte during the tenth century BCE, celebrating his “awakening.”162 This move by Hiram likely promoted Melqart over Ba’al Hadad, whose temple in Tyre is found at earlier levels, that is, well before the Iron Age.163 The first inscription that provides primary evidence for Melqart’s worship comes from the 9th century BCE in an Aramaic inscription, found near Aleppo. In the inscription, Barhadad, the king of Aram sets up the stele to fulfill a vow.164 Melqart was likely a vegetation deity, as noted by his apparent position as a dying and rising god,165 who “awakened”, and he likely had some similarities to Eshmun of Sidon.166 Dussaud also identified Melqart as a sea deity based on a coin found in Tyre with the god riding a sea horse. On a bilingual stele found in the colony on Malta,167 the Greek portion of the inscription the word archēgetis is used which connotes a founder of the city, not just its master or ruler, further connecting him to the sea.168 Melqart is also related to Baal, as shown in an inscription from present day Aleppo: atop an inscription where he is pictured as a storm deity with a semi-circular axe in his right hand, a symbol of lightning, also used by Baal, “le dieu-foundre par excellence” – the archetypal lightening god.169 He was equated with Heracles of Greece early on, at least as early as the second millennium.170 A bilingual inscription in Malta records a dedication to “our lord Melqart” (l’dnn lmlqrt b‘lsr), but in the Greek section the god’s name is rendered Heraklei.171 With time, a triad of Tyre evolved that included Melqart/Heracles, Astarte, and Eshmun/Iolaos, as found in Carthage.172 Melqart’s fate was tied to that of Tyre. As Tyre spread its 162

163 164 165

166 167 168 169 170

171 172

Clifford, “Phoenician Religion,” 59; Flavius Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews, VIII.146. René Dussaud, “Melqart,” Syria 25, no. 3/4 (1946): 208. Donner and Rollig, KAI, no. 201; Pritchard, ANET, 655. The category of the “dying and rising god” is vague. There is actually little known about the ceremonies but that they were cyclical, and the idea that the god had to be “awakened” does not necessarily mean he was dead or in the underworld. To this end, the idea of the “dying and rising” motif must be taken with a grain of salt, especially in the Phoenician religion where the myths of the deities, especially city deities that are not part of the Ugaritic material, are unknown. Dussaud, “Melqart,” 206; Markoe, Phoenicians, 119. Dussaud, “Melqart,” 206. Clifford, “Phoenician Religion,” 59; Donner and Rollig, KAI, no. 47. Dussaud, “Melqart,” 208f. Brian R. Doak, Phoenician Aniconism in Its Mediterranean and Ancient Near Eastern Contexts, Archaeology and Biblical Studies 21 (Atlanta, Ga: Society of Biblical Literature, 2015), 17. Clifford, “Phoenician Religion,” 59f. Dussaud, “Melqart,” 212.

WHO ARE THE PHOENICIANS?

55

colonies, Melqart went with the colonists and further changes to his character were made.173 Eshmun. Much like Melqart, there is not sufficient evidence from the Late Bronze Age to sketch a picture of Eshmun; he emerges at the dawn of the Early Iron Age.174 Eshmun is possibly another dying and rising god. He was the ba‘al (lord) of Sidon, as noted in a dedication: “to the lord of Sidon” (lb’l tzdn)175 and his resurrection is thought to have marked the beginning of spring.176 In his earliest iterations, he was a mighty protector similar to Baal, portrayed with a lion hide and mace177 (this too is an interesting cross over to Heracles in the iconography, though he is never equated to Heracles in writing). Eshmun was closely aligned with Adonis (Persian Tamuz) in his earlier incarnations, as a protector and chthonic deity.178 Later, he evolved into a healing deity, with an association with children.179 The fifth century king of Sidon, Eshmunazar, claims that he built the sanctuary, and established his place among the pantheon, “we are the ones who built houses for Eshmun, the Holy Prince, (at) the Ydll Spring in the mountain.”180 The temple appears to have been rebuilt twice, each time with enlargements.181 Eshmun also became associated with Greek Asclepius (a healing god with iconography that included a serpent, a symbol associated with healing, death and rebirth).182 The lord of Sidon was depicted at times as young, without a beard and alongside a serpent, similar to many other healing deities, including Asclepius.183 Unfortunately, according to Maurice Dunand, who excavated Sidon, in letters to S. Levin in 1981, “there is really nothing one could call the Eshmun temple…. there are only confusing ruins from various successive eras, including a fiery destruction of Sidon at the time of an attack by Artaxerxes III of Persia in 343-342 B.C.”184 However, in a temple area 173 174

175

176 177

178 179 180 181 182 183 184

Dussaud, 212. Paolo Xella, “D’Ugarit a la Phénicie: Sur les traces de Rashap, Horon, Eshmun,” Die Welt des Orients 19 (1988): 58, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25683289. William W. Turner, “The Sidon Inscription, with a Translation and Notes,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 5 (January 1, 1855): 245, https://doi.org/10.2307/ 592227. Markoe, Phoenicians, 119. Bettina Fischer-Genz, “Review: Das Eschmun-Heigtum von Sidon by Rolf A. Stucky,” Gnomon 80, no. 7 (2008): 623, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40494581. S. Levin, “Eshmun, Healing God of Sidon,” Adler Museum Bulletin 9, no. 1 (1983): 39. Fischer-Genz, “Review: Das Eschmun-Heigtum von Sidon by Rolf A. Stucky,” 623. Clifford, “Phoenician Religion,” 57; Pritchard, ANET, 662. Stucky, Das Eschmun-Heiligtum von Sidon: Architektur und Inschriften, 23. Clifford, “Phoenician Religion,” 57. Levin, “Eshmun, Healing God of Sidon,” 39. Levin, 40.

56

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

that appeared to be dedicated to Eshmun, votive offerings indicate that he was also connected to children, shown by the multiple statues of the children found in the area of the temple precinct that dated to the destruction layer created by Artaxerxes III.185 Rolf A. Stucky, who worked with Dunand, was charged with publishing the dig reports for Dunand’s last efforts in Sidon. He writes about a different temple area that was excavated before the start of the Lebanese civil war in 1975 (excavations were halted in 1979).186 In this extra-urban temple, marble fragments and friezes of children were found in the earlier layers from the fourth century BCE, again reflecting Eshmun’s later association with children.187 The lord of Sidon is also found in a treaty between Esarhaddon (681669 BCE) and Baal of Tyre. The deities in the treaty reflect the wide ranging implications of the treaty – its large geographic territory – but also the way deities were perceived within the region: one deity might be the patron of a city, but not to the exclusion of others. Among the directions (or wishes) to the deities is that they should visit disaster upon Tyrian kings if the treaty were broken: “May Melqart and Eshmun deliver your land to destruction, your people to be deported; from your land …” (emphasis mine).188 The joint directive to the two city deities again shows a point of connection between the two, otherwise independent, cities. The Lady of Byblos. The temple dedicated to the Lady of Byblos, Baalat-Gebal/Gubal, was at the center of the Byblos’ society. It appears in the earliest layers at the center of the city and was renovated through the ages.189 The role of the temple in the Early Bronze Age was significant. The remains of Egyptian goods and her early equation with Hathor points to a substantial role played by the temple in Egypt-Byblos relations, perhaps functioning as a patron goddess of that relationship.190 Even in Egypt, however, this equation between the Lady of Byblos and Hathor came to an end at the close the New Kingdom.191 185 186 187 188 189

190

191

Levin, 41. Fischer-Genz, “Review: Das Eschmun-Heigtum von Sidon by Rolf A. Stucky,” 621. Stucky, Das Eschmun-Heiligtum von Sidon: Architecktur und Inschriften, 19ff. Pritchard, ANET, 534. Saghieh, Byblos in the Third Millennium B.C.: A Reconstruction of the Stratigraphy and a Study of the Cultural Connections. Adres Diego Espinel, “The Role of the Temple of Ba’alat Gebal as Intermediary between Egypt and Byblos during the Old Kingdom,” Studien Zur Altägyptischen Kultur 30 (2002): 103–19. Anna Elise Zernecke, “The Lady of the Titles: The Lady of Byblos and the Search for Her ‘True Name’,” Die Welt des Orients 43, no. 2 (2013): 228.

WHO ARE THE PHOENICIANS?

57

Inscriptions from Byblos dedicated to or mentioning the Lady of Byblos range throughout the Iron Age and beyond. She is the object of gratitude and requests alike from the kings of Byblos.192 Her specific sphere of influence is unclear in all of this, however, except to say that she was the patron of Byblos. Yehaumilk, a king of Byblos, wrote about his dedications to her temple after she made him the king, noting a new bronze altar in her courtyard, and a golden gate, a new portico with pillars, etc.193 Her identity has also been equated with multiple other goddesses under the assumption that “Lady of Byblos” was not a name, but a title. However, given the plethora of potential identities put forward (Anat, Astarte, Asherah, etc.) and the lack of good evidence connecting her to anyone of them (beyond a temporary synchronicity during the Early Iron Age),194 it seems more likely that her name and title may in fact be the same.195 This is entirely reasonable, especially when considering the role of Ba’al as both title and proper name in the pantheons of the Levant. Unlike other goddesses who have distinctive spheres of influence, the Lady of Byblos does not seem to have such a distinction. El. Both El and Ba’al196 loom large in the world of the Phoenicians. El appears in personal names first at Ebla, followed by Mari and then in Amarna.197 However, his presence is most notable as the highest of the gods in Ugaritic literature; a builder of things, and father of the pantheon.198 192 193 194

195

196

197

198

Donner and Rollig, KAI, 4.3-5; 5; 10.2-3. Donner and Rollig, KAI, 10. There is a later piece of evidence, though small, that connects her to Astarte. A forth century BCE throne with no known provenance has a bi-lingual inscription, “The Great Goddess Astarte” in Greek, and “to the Lady of Byblos” in Phoenician. However, syncretism between cultures does not mean that any god or goddess should be re-named based on that syncretism, which was a common phenomena in the ancient world (Zernecke, “The Lady of Titles”, 230). Zernecke points out the transparency of other goddesses’ names, such as Hathor whose name means “house of Horus”, among other examples (Zernecke, “The Lady of Titles.”, 234f). As noted above, the dearth of full stories about the gods in Phoenician inscriptions is filled in by the literature from Ugarit which, at least in large part, shared a common pantheon with the Phoenicians, showing a cultural ancestry between the two groups. Dynastic deities, such as Melqart and Eshmun, are unique to Phoenician cities but the Ugaritic pantheon matches the pantheon used by Phoenicians in their shorter inscriptions for rituals, treaties, prayers, etc. Unfortunately, even the texts from Ugarit are badly damaged, and some of the missing sections have to be filled in based on inferences made based upon the fragments that have survived. Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugraitic Texts (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 135. Ulf Oldenburg, The Conflict Between El and Ba’al in Canaanite Religion, Dissertations Ad Historiam Religionum Pertinentes (Leiden: Brill, 1969), 16.

58

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

His supremacy among the gods is further attested by the fact that Baal must get his permission to build a palace in Ugaritic mythology.199 In the Cilicia inscription,200 though Baal is the focus of the inscription as the giver all the good things bestowed on ’ZTWD (a personal name), at the end of this person’s thanks-giving, the author adds the supreme deities name “El the creator of earth.”201 El is a god of the land and the heavens, not a chthonic deity, like Mot.202 He is notable in his apparent supremacy in treaties, though not typically in other inscriptions. In the seventh century treaty between Esarhaddon and Ba‘al of Tyre, staunchly traditional formulas were followed, but the dynastically supreme god of the city, Melqart, is not mentioned at all. However, at the top of the list of Tyrian deities is Bayt-il, the house of El, and Anat-Bayt-il, whose identity is debated but associated with El, perhaps as a hypostasis, or may refer to Asherah/Anat as a consort of El.203 In the Ugaritic cycles, El is strongly associated with a bull;204 he is also “the father,” “the bright one,”205 and “Creator of Creatures.”206 Baal. Following the deity of El/Il in the treaty of Esarhaddon and Baal of Tyre, is a list of storm gods, likely incarnations, or hypostases of Baal: “May Baal-samene, Baal-malage, and Baal-saphon raise an evil wind against your ships, to undo their moorings, tear out their mooring pole, may a strong wave sink them in the sea, a violent tide […].”207 That these deities appear in the treaty attests to their power in the minds of the Tyrians, or at least their leaders, that the threat of their anger was a greater hazard than the dynastic god or city patron, Melqart. In Ugarit, he is clearly a storm god: “let Baal set his rope [in the heavens], may [the Charioteer of the Clou]ds kindle his lightning.”208 He is also a dying and rising god, who eventually defeated death, Mot, with the help of Anat.209 In Ugaritic 199

200 201

202 203

204 205 206 207

208 209

N. Wyatt, Religious Texts from Ugarit, second, Biblical Seminar 53 (New York: Continuum, 2002), KTU 1.3 iv 45-55. The Cilicia inscription is a Phoenician inscription found near Karatepe, c. 740 BCE. Ralph Marcus and I. J. Gelb, “The Phoenician Stele Inscription from Cilicia,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 8, no. 2 (1949): 118. Oldenburg, The Conflict Between El and Ba’al in Canaanite Religion, 19. Clifford, “Phoenician Religion,” 60; Pritchard, ANET, 533; Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 137. Wyatt, Religious Texts from Ugarit, KTU 1.1 ii 15; 1.1 iii 5; 1.1 iii 25; etc. Wyatt, 1.3 v 5-9 etc. Wyatt, KTU 1.4 ii 10-14. Riekele Borger, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons Königs von Assyrien, vol. 9, Archiv für Orientforschung (Osnabrück: Biblio-Verlag, 1967), sec. 69; Pritchard, ANET, 533. Wyatt, Religious Texts from Ugarit, KTU 1.3 iv 25-29. Wyatt, KTU 1.5-1.6.

WHO ARE THE PHOENICIANS?

59

mythology Baal is mostly a fertility god, bringing rain with his storms, and as such played an important role in the mythology.210 His role may have changed somewhat among the Phoenicians but his importance did not wane. Anat. In Ugarit Anat was called “the virgin Anat”211 as one of her titles;212 she was a vicious war goddess.213 She is also featured with Astarte as a war goddess in Egyptian texts from the Middle Bronze Age.214 In the Baal cycle from Ugarit, she is extremely active. She defeats Yam, the god of the sea, one of the sons of El, saying “Surely I smote the Beloved of El, Yam? … Surely I lifted up the dragon, I overpowered him? I smote the writhing serpent Encircler-with-seven-heads!”215 Both she and Baal defeated Yam at different times in the text, a confusing situation since each has a story of killing Yam.216 However, it is Anat who earns the epithet, “Great Lady-who-tramples-Yam”.217 In the Baal cycle, the fight for a palace for Baal is lead by Anat, his sister, indicating a close relationship between these two, as well as between Anat and El, to whom she is married, and whom she physically threatens if he does not agree to building a palace for Baal.218 Anat threatens her father and husband, El, more than once in an effort to get a house built for Baal.219 Her relationship to Baal is emphasized when Baal is killed by Mot (death). She finds her brother, mourns him dramatically, and takes vengeance.220 She is not one to be messed with. Ašerah/Athirat. Ašerah221 is another goddess that plays an important role in Ugaritic and Phoenician religion. She shared the role as consort 210

211

212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221

Arvid S. Kapelrud, Baal in the Ras Shamra Texts (Copenhagen: G. E. C. Gad, 1952), 27. Though Anat is called a “virgin” throughout the texts, the definition of the word in the ancient world is unclear. In the Ugarit texts, Anat not only has intercourse, but bears child to her brother, Baal (Wyatt, Religious Texts from Ugarit, KTU 1.10 iii 1-37). The texts are very graphic about this (for example, ibid, KTU 1.11), and leave no doubt that strict, modern definitions about terms such as “virgin” are inappropriate and limited. Additionally, ideas about what “virginity” entailed for the gods may have been different than that of human beings. Wyatt, Religious Texts from Ugarit, KTU 1.3 ii 1; iii 10-14; iv 14-20 etc. Wyatt, KTU 1.3 ii 1-29. Pritchard, ANET, 250. Wyatt, Religious Texts from Ugarit, KTU 1.3 iii 35-45. Wyatt, Religious Texts from Ugarit, KTU 1.3 iv 35-39; 1.2 iv 10-29 respectively. Wyatt, KTU 1.3-1.6. Wyatt, KTU 1.3 v 1-25. Wyatt, KTU 1.3-1.4. Wyatt, KTU 1.5 vi 30-1.6 i 34. Her name is also spelled Atirat at times in the literature in Ugarit.

60

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

of El with Anat in the Ugaritic literature. Likewise in Ugaritic texts, Ašerah is referred to atiratu yammi, “she who treads upon the sea,”222 or “the Great Lady-who-tramples-Yam”223 and is called “the Mother of the gods”.224 She had definite connections to the sea in the Iron Age and into the Persian Periods.225 Albright also identified her as “lady of the serpent” in the Proto-Sinaitic texts.226 She is another key character in the Baal cycle as one of the those to whom Baal appeals in an effort to get permission to build a palace for himself, heavily implying her importance next to El in this process: “[Groaning he cr]ies to Bull [El his father], [to E]l the king [who begot him]; [he cr]ies to Athi[rat and her sons].”227 Baal also demands gifts be created for Athirat (Ašerah), after this demand (and about 16 missing lines from the text), “She took her distaff [in her hand], the spindle-whorl in her right hand” before the arrival of Baal and Anat to her dwelling:228 the implication being that she was about to make something. She is the only deity in the cycle to use any spinning tools, implying another role in the pantheon, that of the goddess of spinning and weaving,229 and perhaps some of the spheres of influence associated with spinning like wisdom and fate. She was most often represented by a column, or post. This is often taken as a symbol of a tree, and at times, by extension, a forest.230 However, given her association with the sea, it is worth noting that the pole may also represent a ship’s mast, again referencing her association with the sea. Asherah, as well Astarte and Anat, became well-known goddesses throughout the region, including among the Philistines.231 222

223 224 225

226 227 228 229

230 231

John Wilson Betlyon, “The Cult of ’Aserah/’Elat at Sidon,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 44, no. 1 (January 1985): 54, www.jstor.org/stable/544370; Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997), 30. Wyatt, Religious Texts from Ugarit, KTU 1.4 i 10-14. Wyatt, KTU 1.4 i 20-24. Betlyon, “The Cult of ’Aserah/’Elat at Sidon,” 54; Cross, Canaanite Myth, 30; Walter A. Maier, III, Aserah: Extrabiblical Evidence, Harvard Semitic Monographs 37 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1986), 194. Betlyon, “The Cult of ’Aserah/’Elat at Sidon,” 55. Wyatt, Religious Texts from Ugarit, KTU 1.4 i 5-9. Wyatt, KTU 1.4 ii 5-9. Susan Ackerman, “Asherah, the West Semitic Goddess of Spinning and Weaving?,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 67, no. 1 (2008): 8, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/ 586668. Markoe, Phoenicians, 122. Edward Noort, Die Seevölker in Palästina, Palastina Antiqua 8 (Kampen: Kok Pharos Publishing House, 1994), 171, 173.

WHO ARE THE PHOENICIANS?

61

‘Ashtart/Astarte and Tanit. Astarte/‘Ashtart was associated with several deities, including Yam (a sea god), and Ba’al Hadad, both of whom were sources for the evolution of Melqart, with whom Astarte is also united as a wife, or consort.232 Eshmun‘azar of Sidon (5th century BCE) listed her temple among his accomplishments, “(we are the) ones who built the houses of the gods, the house of [Astarte] in Sidon by the Sea, and we established Astarte in Shamem-Addirim” in Byblos.233 Further support of her connection to the sea is in an Egyptian text that shows friction between the Egyptian gods and the Sea, to whom they were supposed to pay tribute. Astarte plays the role of an intermediary between the gods and the Sea. Astarte, presented here as the daughter of Ptah, succeeded in her mission to appease the Sea and create some peace between him and the gods.234 ‘Ashtart/Astarte was typically a goddess of love, fertility, and war (like Inanna/Ishtar in Assyrian and Babylonian religion). As early as the 15th century BCE, she was associated with war by the Egyptians. Astarte was “mighty in the chariot” and “Anath and Astarte are a shield to (Ramses III)”.235 She was associated with battle in the treaty between Esarhaddon of Assyria and Ba‘al of Tyre. She is charged with destroying “your bow in the thick of battle.”236 Her role in a treaty comes at the very end though, after the city gods Melqart and Eshmun, implying that her status was beneath them.237 This is in contrast to Baal and El noted above. She was important within city politics, however, as the queen-mother apparently served as her priestess in the 5th century BCE.238 Tanit was a goddess often associated with children, though her exact role with children is not entirely clear, her name appears in connection with child burials, particularly in Carthage.239 Her symbol has been found on several types of objects including votive stone stela, boxes, amulets, etc dating from at least the forth century BCE.240 A stamped amphora with her name on it found at Tell Akko likely dates to the third century BCE.241 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240

241

Dussaud, “Melqart,” 212. Pritchard, ANET, 662. Pritchard, 16ff. Pritchard, 250. Pritchard, 534. Pritchard, 534. Pritchard, 662; Turner, “The Sidon Inscription, with a Translation and Notes,” 246. Pritchard, Recovering Sarepta, 148. M. Dothan, “A Sign of Tanit from Tel Akko,” Israel Exploration Journal 24, no. 1 (1974): 45. Dothan, 45.

62

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

She too is connected to the sea, and her sign has been found in caves along the Punic coast.242 A temple to Tanit-Ashtart in Sarepta243 was excavated by Pritchard in 1972, and he found a sizable cache of objects apparently dedicated to the goddesses.244 The votive offerings are varied, but share a common theme: they tend to relate to women and concerns that women had. The terracotta figurines are all female in form, including women sitting, at least one holding a bird, pregnant women, and women playing drums, or tambourines.245 Also found in the temple among the votive offerings was a cache of beads (96 of them), kohl jars, playing pieces, lamps, amulets, etc.246 Notably missing are the practical things of daily life such as bowls, cooking pots, tools, and weapons.247 Also in Sarepta, a small ivory plaque with an inscription was found: “The statue which Shillem, son of Mapa‘al, son of ‘Izai made for Tanit ‘Ashtart”.248 This implies a connection between the goddesses, if not full amalgamation, at this particular time and place. They were associated with each other regularly, but in other cases, amalgamation is not supported.249 Adonis. Adonis is at home in Phoenician cities and on Cyprus.250 He is an excellent example of how the stories and associated rituals regularly shifted from the Levant to Greece and eventually to Rome, leading to independent identities.251 The name Adonis does not appear in any of the Phoenician or Ugaritic literature, but the “name obviously derived from the Semitic ‘adan or ‘adanai, ‘lord’”252 He is another of the dying and rising gods, and a celebration was held in his honor in February/March, 242

243

244 245 246 247 248 249

250

251 252

Mark A. Christian, “Phoenician Maritime Religion: Sailors, Goddess Worship, and the Grotta Regina,” Die Welt des Orients 43, no. 2 (2013): 182. The temple was built with care and the foundation for the walls were deeper than other buildings around it (Pritchard, Recovering Sarepta, 133). Likewise the flooring was created with greater care, made with “a thick layer of hard, gray cement” rather than the simple clay flooring, helping to identify the building as a temple (ibid). Addition architectural features added to its solid identification, including benches lining the walls and an altar faced with gypsum on the West wall (ibid. 134ff). Pritchard, Recovering Sarepta, 131ff. Pritchard, 144. Pritchard, 146. Pritchard, 146. Pritchard, 105. In Carthage they were considered distinct: inscriptions that associate them contain the conjunction “and” (Cross, Canaanite Myth, 30; Donner and Rollig, no. 81). Noel Robertson, “The Ritual Background of the Dying God in Cyprus and SyroPalestine,” The Harvard Theological Review 75, no. 3 (July 1, 1982): 314, https://doi. org/10.2307/1509756. Clifford, “Phoenician Religion,” 57. Clifford, 57.

WHO ARE THE PHOENICIANS?

63

similar to Melqart.253 Though a second century author also notes that the Greek manner of celebrating Adonis and the festival held in Byblos were markedly different.254 Divine Presence There was a close connection between the king and the city deity.255 There is also some speculation that the king may have been identified with the city deity, or may have been divine himself.256 However, this was not common in the ancient near east in general, and the evidence is not strong enough to support this position beyond speculation. Nevertheless, being strongly connected with the gods would have been necessary, and the links between the two are highlighted in the above inscriptions noting the building of temples and establishment of the worship in the cities of Tyre and Sidon. Especially where colonies were concerned, having a close connection between the king and the god would have been helpful for ruling from afar, and creating and maintaining cultural connections between far flung colonies and their mother cities. It is notable that while the kings improved, or built temples for the gods, there is no mention of the cult statue. Indeed, within Phoenician religion is the lack of evidence for any cult statue in the temple, unlike the well demonstrated practice in Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, and Greece. For example, in Greece there is ample evidence for cultic statues going back at least to the Early Iron Age.257 Likewise in Babylon, the statues of Bel, Nabu, Inanna, and Marduk were given great honors every year by a priest in a very precisely defined ritual.258 In Egypt the statues of the gods and deified pharaohs were also honored regularly.259 These are only a few examples of cultic statues, and their centrality in the civic religious traditions. There is some possible evidence for a cult statue in the Ugaritic literature,260 but great care must 253 254 255 256 257

258 259 260

Dussaud, “Melqart,” 207. Clifford, “Phoenician Religion,” 57. Doak, Phoenician Aniconism, 18. Aubet, Phoenicans and the West, 148f. John Griffiths Pedley, Greek Art and Archaeology, Third Edition (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1993), 112. Pritchard, ANET, 331. Pritchard, 325. “The lord and master sat enthroned, in his hand the staff of sterility, in his hand the staff of widowhood. Those who prune the vine pruned him, those who bind the vine bound him; they let his tendril fall like a vine. Seven times shall it be recited on the throne-dais and the priests are to respond …” (Wyatt, Religious Texts from Ugarit,

64

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

be taken before assuming this ritual translates to a Phoenician equivalent, especially in the absence of direct evidence from the Phoenician homeland. In the temples of the Phoenician cities, altars have been found, such as that in Sarepta261 and in Sidon, the temple to Eshmun revealed two daises at two different levels (one at each level),262 but no evidence of a cult statue in either case. Likewise the presence of a throne dedicated to Astarte, noted above,263 also indicates some element of a divine presence, though the lateness of the find and the obvious influence from Hellenistic Greece must lend caution to any conclusions since Greece also had a long tradition of cultic statues in the temples. And, the presence of a throne does not necessarily imply a statue sitting on it: the arc in the temple of Jerusalem was the seat of the deity, but no statue of YHWH was ever introduced. There is evidence of use of a throne supported by two sphinx figures, but the throne was empty with no evidence for a figure seated on it (perhaps used for rituals wherein a person sat on the throne as the deity, or remained empty for the presence of the deity?). For example, at Sidon, “the surviving cultic images consist of empty sphinx-support thrones, a series of undecorated stone urns, and pyramidal cippus.”264 This tradition of nonfigural representations of the divine presence can be traced back to Bronze Age Byblos.265 This throne motif is also found on the sarcophagus of Ahiram of Byblos, and on a Phoenician ivory plaque found at Megiddo.266 There is some written evidence that a cultic statue could have been present in temples, but the references are often debatable, vague, or possibly part of formulas. An inscription from Karatepe notes how an image should be treated: “I have established … a sacrificial order … for all the molten images: for the yearly sacrifice an ox, at the [time of pl]owing a sheep, and at the time of harvesting a sheep.”267 Likewise, in an inscription from Ashurbanipal, the king claims that he conquered the mainland area of Tyre (Ushu) to punish them for not paying their tribute. He took “Their images, and the people I led as booty to Assyria.”268 Neither of these refer specifically to a temple image, and as noted above, other

261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268

KTU 1.23 R 5-14). The ritual described is the sacred marriage between either El or Mot and his wives. Pritchard, Recovering Sarepta, 136f. Stucky, Das Eschmun-Heiligtum von Sidon: Architektur und Inschriften, 20. Zernecke, “The Lady of Titles,” 230. Markoe, Phoenicians, 125. Markoe, 125. Pritchard, Recovering Sarepta, 141. Donner and Rollig, KAI, KAI 26; Pritchard, ANET, 653f. Pritchard, ANET, 300.

WHO ARE THE PHOENICIANS?

65

images were used as votive images but not in the same way that the Marduk statue was used in Babylon, for example. For instance, in one inscription Marduk himself curses demons as he is marched down the streets during the New Year festival, emphasizing his power.269 In any case, cultic statues, if they were used, were not considered as important in Phoenician religion as they were in other traditions around them based on the evidence currently available. At most, it would seem there was an ambivalence to any cultic statue that may have been used; its loss does not seem to have indicated a tragic state, its presence was not necessary for the deity to be present among their worshippers. One reason for this was likely the use of simpler symbolic forms of the divine presence including standing poles, massebahs, and baetyls. These were some of the symbols of the divine presence in the temples and elsewhere: the sacred pole of Asherah, the baetyl (a dressed standing stone that was typically placed in a temple or other holy site; the word translates to ‘house of god’) and the massebah (another form of sacred stone, perhaps dressed but possibly left rough, that might hold an inscription and was placed in an open-air, sacred spot). These ultimately may have served the same functions as an anthropomorphic statue of the deity. Indeed, the function of the statue was not a simple matter in the ancient world270 and the same must have been true of all other representations of the divine presence in or outside of the temple.271 Although the deity was likely not present as a cultic anthropomorphic statue, votive offerings are present in the archaeological record. “By far the most common form of votive offering was the bronze or terracotta image of a worshipper or deity … Mould made and mass-produced.”272 Pritchard’s list of votive offerings in the temple Tanit-Ashtart in Sarepta, noted above, is one example of such offerings.273 All of this is not to say that the Phoenicians did not produce images of deities. Their exports quite often included images of deities from several 269

270 271

272 273

W.G. Lambert, “An Address of Marduk to the Demons,” Archiv für Orientforschung 17 (1954): 310, https://doi.org/132.174.255.86. Doak, Phoenician Aniconism, 22ff. Although there have been some images interpreted as revealing “potentially anthropomorphic qualities” (Doak, Phoenician Aniconism, 29), the question of the spectrum of abstraction is automatically raised. At what point is something anthropomorphic or not. This discussion is beyond the scope of this project, and as no obviously anthropomorphic images have been found, the basic premise that Phoenician religion was aniconic in the temples remains a tenable thesis. Markoe, Phoenicians, 123. Pritchard, Recovering Sarepta, 144ff.

66

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

different cultures, especially that of Egypt. However, the images were not obviously organized, as would be the assumed case for official state cult practices, and quite often the images were used in ways that imply a distinct lack of understanding of their origins. For the Phoenicians themselves, “their artistic innovation and cultic practice in a variety of contexts moved the visual index of divine image-making in the Mediterranean and Near-Eastern worlds toward increasingly abstract and nonanthropomorphic forms.”274 By working in so many different cultural and religious environments (among the different Phoenician cities, in Cyprus and westward, and with Ugarit, Egypt, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Hittites, etc.) specific iconographic images of their own deities may have lost meaning, or perhaps never had the chance to gain much meaning within the temples of Baal, Eshmun, El, etc. However, the continuity of Phoenician artworks throughout the Ancient Near East point to its value in the eyes of those who consumed it, including Phoenicians themselves.275 One place that does reveal some other symbols of divinity is on seals and bullae. Common Phoenician motifs, found mostly in the colonies in the Middle Iron Age into the Persian period, include a six or eight pointed star, a disc and crescent moon, a winged disc, and images of the baetyl (the dressed standing stone that marked a sacred space).276 Much of the imagery on seals is borrowed from Egypt, including the use of the sphinx, the ankh, and rope or ladder design used on the edges; one such seal was found in Samaria.277 Another seal – of unknown provenance – found in Lebanon actually has a deity seated on the sphinx throne and has a worshipper in front of the deity. The impression also has the discand-crescent motif and a winged-disc.278 Another seal, thought to be from Tyre, includes a seated deity with the disc-and-crescent design in the background. The deity on this seal, however, is holding a spear, as has been found on a number of other seals.279 There is no detailed account of the afterlife, but kings (including a king of Ahiram of Byblos, Tabnit of Sidon, and Eshmunazar) were sure to put curses on their sarcophagi, ensuring their bodies were not plundered.280 274 275 276

277 278 279 280

Doak, Phoenician Aniconism, 2f. Doak, 42; Markoe, Phoenicians, 145. William Culican, “The Iconography of Phoenician Seals and Seal Impressions,” Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology, 1968, 55f, http://www.gospelstudies.org.uk/ biblicalarchaeology/pdf/ajba/01-1_050.pdf. Culican, 56f. Culican, 58. Culican, 61. Donner and Rollig, KAI, KAI 1; 13; 14.

WHO ARE THE PHOENICIANS?

67

This implies a belief in some kind of afterlife, even if it was not well defined to us or even among the Phoenicians themselves. The inscriptions also include a group called the rephaim, a term also used in Ugarit referring to ancestors who might be worshipped, or at least honored.281 The high places in religious traditions is also a common motif in the Mediterranean; people would look to places like mountaintops to find, talk to, or sacrifice to a deity. Sometimes these mountains were fictitious, such as Mt. Olympus. However, the mountains associated with deities were more often real. There was a Baal (Lord) of Mount Lebanon, and sacrifices were made to this deity on the mountain.282 Indeed, “high places” were common in Phoenician religion. They were sometimes enclosed, but could also include nothing but an altar, or dressed standing stone, such as a baetyl or massebah, marking the sacred spot.283 One such stone from Kition has an inscription dedicated to Eshmun-Adonis, and it refers to the stone itself as a massebah, or sacred stone. The tophet and Child Sacrifice. One of the most famous (or perhaps more accurately, notorious) elements of Phoenician religion is the practice of child sacrifice; this is well attested in the literature of polemic groups,284 and therefore must be approached with tremendous caution. Additionally, it must be remembered that many cultures throughout the world have practiced human sacrifice and the common knee-jerk reaction should be tempered before judgment is rendered. The tophet was located outside the city proper, separate from any necropolis, and it was not an enclosed space.285 Within the tophet, the remains of children and sometimes animals were buried in jars after they had been immolated.286 The animals included goats and sheep; they appeared in the tophet from the earliest layers. It is unknown if the animals acted as substitutes or if they were sacrificed alongside the children. The best evidence for this practice in Phoenician religion comes from the colonies, especially Carthage, from a later period. Excavations in Carthage have revealed “(a)s many as 20,000 urns containing infant and 281 282 283

284

285 286

Markoe, Phoenicians, 137; Moscati, The World of the Phoenicians, 41. Ribichini, “Beliefs and Religious Life,” 123. Sandro Filippos Bondi, “City Planning and Architecture,” in The Phoenicians, ed. Sabatino Moscati (New York: Rizzoli, 1988), 318. According to later sources that tried to explain the practice, especially in Carthage, the community would sacrifice a child to fulfill a wish (Plato’s Republic 337A). According to Diodorus (18:86), a general sacrificed a child for help in battle. Justinius (13.7) claims that another general sacrificed his own son before the city for divine help. Aubet, Phoenicans and the West, 245. Aubet, 251f.

68

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

animal bones … buried in the tophet … over a period of 600 years…. All were cremated.”287 Similar finds have been made in colonies such as Sulcis on the island of Sardinia, where a tophet was found dating from the fourth century BCE, though the colony itself was established some 400 years earlier.288 The reason for this is not clear. Sicily, Tharros, Nora, and Sardinia have also provided similar evidence.289 There is no way to tell in the archaeology if the children and animals were sacrificed alive or cremated. An average of 34 children per year were added to the tophet in Carthage, and a recent study of the skeletal remains has shown the systematic sacrifice of children is highly unlikely: many of the remains found were in fact within normal range of perinatal mortality for the period, including several burials of late-term prenatal infants.290 This does not mean that no sacrifice happened. A stele in Carthage, found among the urns of cremated or sacrificed children and animals, commemorates a rite, called molk, to Tanit and Baal Hammon in thanksgiving for their benevolence.291 Dussaud felt this should be directly linked to infant sacrifice.292 An additional piece of evidence comes from Malta, where no tophet has been formally found, but a small hill that would be a home for such a place records the molk, sacrifice of a child. This too is dedicated to Baal-Hammon “because he heard the voice of his prayers”.293 Art Art is a particularly important area to explore when establishing cultural identities. Art is a nexus point that links politics, economics, culture, trade, religion, societal priorities, and ethnic boundaries. While literature constructs an explicit and specific narrative about the past and present, visual art facilitates and may reconcile collective memory implicitly through a material, non-verbal story that embodies the past and present.294 287 288 289 290

291 292 293

294

Bikai, Stieglitz, and Clifford, “Rich and Glorious Traders of the Levant,” 29. Aubet, Phoenicans and the West, 238ff. Ribichini, “Beliefs and Religious Life,” 140. Jeffery H. Schwartz et al., “Skeletal Remains from Punic Carthage Do Not Support Systematic Sacrifice of Infants,” Plos One 5, no. 2 (2010), http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0009177. Ribichini, “Beliefs and Religious Life,” 140. Dussaud, “Melqart,” 210. John C. L. Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions: Volume III Phoenician Inscriptions, vol. III (Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1982), 74. Marian H. Feldman, Communities of Style: Portable Luxury Arts, Identity, and Collective Memory in the Iron Age Levant (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014), 75.

WHO ARE THE PHOENICIANS?

69

Winter points out that although this may lead to an assumption that the subject of art should be the forefront of the argument, it is not always a good indicator of geographic or chronological orientation.295 Pottery and art pieces may be kept for long periods of time and passed down or stored. This can easily place them out of chronological context within the stratigraphy of a site. Likewise, where Phoenicians are concerned there must be caution since they exported so much material. However, even with that caveat, art has an important role to play as it supports other finds and tells its own story of how groups worked together – or perhaps did not. As it turns out, Phoenician pottery plays an important role in the stratigraphy of dig sites, and the luxury goods that were sold, traded, or given as tribute have helped clarify the historical picture (and at times created more questions). Style (the way objects are made, decorated, or used) is one area of investigation that reveals these stories. Feldman points out that style is part of a learned ignorance within a community; “it is taken on by individuals in their ongoing production and consumption of the style itself, or, conversely, rejected … in the production and consumption of different styles.”296 People, as individuals and as groups choose objects based on what they are familiar with, and what they see around them; individuals make choices based on what other community members choose, or do not choose: in the case of the Phoenicians, style includes decisions on what international motifs to use and combine. Many motifs (decorative elements in an image) were handed down in the midst of the cultural upheaval of the transition into the first millennium BCE. They were important bridges between the past and the emerging present, between the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age. By maintaining the shared memories of that past and creating expressions of new ethnic identities at the same time, art creates continuity even as it exhibits change.297 As new communities emerged and solidified during the transition from the Late Bronze Age into the Iron Age, art was an important way to establish material symbols of community, not just among larger groups but also within the halls of power. 295

296 297

Irene J. Winter, “Establishing Group Boundaries: Toward Methodological Refinement in the Determination of Sets as a Prior Condition to the Analysis of Cultural Contact and/or Innovation in the First Millennium BCE Ivory Carving,” in Crafts and Images in Contact: Studies on Eastern Mediterranean Art of the First Millennium BCE, ed. Claudia E. Suter and Christoph Uehlinger, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 210 (Fribourg: Academic Press, 2005), 25. Feldman, Communities of Style, 60. Feldman, 46f.

70

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

Luxury goods, including the variegated motifs of the Phoenician traders likely “served an important function within the delicate diplomatic games of the time,”298 specifically in terms of soft power. Artistic style is a way to connect to the power of the past and insinuate oneself into those power structures, leading to greater gravitas in the present – or in this case, in the emerging world of the Iron Age. In other words, collective mythologies as expressed through art helped support community identity – ethnicity – and helped establish more solid community foundations from which to rule. Ethnic identity here is not always political, economic, or related to lineage, but community identity may exist on any number of levels, as was discussed above.299 These identities are continually shifting through time, and as they changed, recognizably separate communities emerged “as different networks of skilled practices form, change, or breakdown.”300 As the communities changed, so too did the art and the artists, adapting or leaving behind old forms and creating new ones. Artistic style and the use of certain motifs created gateways joining the past to the present. As political and social networks changed, art is one way to see some of the changes in economic power moving from large political centers to growing commercial centers. “As the integrated organization of the Late Bronze Age gave way to less centralized economies, a greater degree of separation between the political and commercial realms resulted.”301 The Phoenician homeland was not unified by political ties, but rather due to their intense commercial ties, which are reflected in their material culture and art. Where the Phoenicians are concerned, there are special problems presented in their artwork. First, it is not always clear how the word “Phoenician” is being used. It is extremely difficult to categorize Phoenician art, despite the best efforts of scholars to do so. There are no easily identifiable boundaries that might distinguish works from different cities, much less workshops.302 One of the problems is that most of the art is found abroad, so there is no control group that represents a solidly grounded sense of style, or technique. There is no cache of works from workshops where 298 299

300 301 302

Feldman, 73. Feldman, 40; E.J. Hobsbawm and T.O. Ranger, eds., The Invention of Tradition, Past and Present Publications (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983); Spickard and Burroughs, “We Are a People.” Feldman, Communities of Style, 63. Feldman, 74. Feldman, 6ff.

WHO ARE THE PHOENICIANS?

71

(even partially) finished pieces could confirm a point of origin for a given style or method.303 Rather, “(i)n the Early Iron Age Levant, the artistic evidence points to multiple fluid, intersecting, and overlapping networks of skilled artistic practices.”304 This leads to the next issue at hand: due to their characteristic trade with so many other groups, their art is “an amalgam of many different cultural elements – Aegean, north Syrian, Cypriot, Assyrian, and Egyptian.”305 The arts that were exported took on a new catalogue of symbols and motifs, but with their amalgamation with iconographic sets, the old references to ancient and culture specific mythologies were lost, and they became more decorative than religiously (or politically) meaningful.306 Additionally, within this larger context, does ‘Phoenician art’ mean the art originated in a Phoenician city, was created by Phoenician artists (or Phoenician trained artists), or does it strictly refer to the style of the art regardless of origin and artist?307 Establishing some definitions for Phoenician art has been done through careful studies of works, with hints from textual sources, from multiple locations – geographic and chronological. The art eventually showed itself to have a common cultural source, despite its incredible complexity of styles and themes. Likewise, scholars have looked to carved stone reliefs, orthostats, and excavated cities looking for architectural elements that may be shared. This provides some foundation for comparison, and while there are often multiple styles used within a single piece of work, there are at times, nevertheless, similarities between works at different sites.308 The definition of Phoenician art, for the purposes of this project, is purposely simple and a little flexible because of the shifting landscape of studies on this topic, and the apparently unique malleability of the Phoenicians in general – geographically and artistically. There are a “cluster of variables” that are needed to create a definition, to the extent that this is possible.309 Phoenician art is: art that was created by, or purposely in a style putatively from a Phoenician ethnic group that is associated with northern coastal Levant cities down to the Akko plain during, or very shortly before the Iron Age. This art is distinguished by its composition, using styles and motifs from different areas including heavy influences 303 304 305 306 307 308 309

Feldman, 18ff. Feldman, 6. Markoe, Phoenicians, 145. Liverani, The Ancient Near East: History, Society, and Economy, 425. Doak, Phoenician Aniconism, 42. Feldman, Communities of Style, 24. Winter, “Establishing Group Boundaries,” 26.

72

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

from Assyria, and Egypt.310 This amalgamation of styles into a single piece is the most important characteristic that signals a Phoenician ethnos, and part of its distinction is that lack of pure Egyptian and/or Assyrian style and motifs.311 Indeed, the seeming confusion of styles in their art became its own style.312 This lack of strict standardization has been interpreted in a couple of different ways. First, it may point to a lack of political or social unity.313 However, given the diversity of buyers that the traders were working with and the diversity of cultures that had already made their mark in the region, the plurality of forms in their art is completely understandable. Another explanation that seems more plausible in the Early Iron Age context, as so many people were moving around, is the openness of the market to so many ethnic groups (both at home and abroad), and the availability of raw materials.314 This variety and flexibility in the art may also provide some insight into how and why these cities were able to suvive the tumult at the close of the Bronze Age. The people were likely diverse and flexible, much like their art which likely reflects at least some of their social psychology being highly adaptable and able to incorporate new and foreign ideas. Another mark of Phoenician style is its tendency to be very symmetrical, as opposed to similar works in the Northern Syrian style which is generally similar but less symmetrical.315 Additionally, Phoenician work 310

311

312 313 314 315

There has long been a distinction made between Phoenician ivories and the North Syrian style. This distinction is made on smaller details in the works and likely reflects as much a chronological distinction as an artistic/ethnic distinction. In fact, the obvious relationship between these two groups is another element showing the relationship between the North Syrian coast and the cities further south. As noted above, Ugarit, a major urban center in North Syria fell, and in its wake the Phoenician cities flourished, implying a chronological relationship (Winter, On the Art of the Ancient Near East, 205f). This relationship also came up in their religious identity, which was closely related to Ugarit, as noted above. The two groups are different, however: their languages were different, and the Phoenician cities had their own unique city deities in addition to those in the mythologies of Ugarit. However, the closeness of this relationship is seen again in the art forms, where unique qualities are, once more, in the details and not in the primary forms. Winter and Feldman, like others investigating art in the Levant, acknowledge that no strict definition is going to work for all pieces, noting a need to give some parts of a definition more weight than others (Winter, “Establishing Group Boundaries,” 33; Feldman, Communities of Style, 6). Doak, Phoenician Aniconism, 11, 44. Feldman, Communities of Style, 76. Feldman, 76. Irene J. Winter, On Art in the Ancient Near East. Volume I: Of the First Millennium B.C.E., vol. 34.1, Culture and History of the Ancient Near East (Boston: Brill, 2010), 194.

WHO ARE THE PHOENICIANS?

73

tended to be highly Egyptianized – but obviously not purely Egyptian – and more concerned with visual reality than either Northern Syrian forms, or Egyptian for that matter.316 That is to say, while they used fantastic creatures, they tried to cover or incorporate the physical reality of wings on a lion rather than simply putting them on the side of an otherwise fairly naturalistic creature, for example. However, the distinction here is not as clean as it initially seems. Additionally, in at least among the ivory works, the Phoenicians tended to create openwork designs, drilling completely through the ivory, creating an open negative space.317 There were repeated themes used in Phoenician art. Some of the more consistently used themes include: a winged sun disc, sphinxes (typically seen in profile), proto-aeolic capitals, vegetation with animals, the ‘woman in the window,’ and Egyptian images including (usually garbled) hieroglyphs.318 It is through the art that all of the social relationships created by Phoenicians can be appreciated, and it is through those same mixed styles that a cohesive group, the Phoenicians, can be seen within that social network. The material art and the social connections among ethnic groups are bound together and interdependent within and among the communities participating in the art through selling, purchasing, and using the goods.319 Uniquely Phoenician art is found among all of their trading partners, and leaves a trail through the international relationships that were forged by the merchants. Art and crafts of the Phoenician tradesmen were spread not only through the merchants selling their wares, but also through tribute payments to other kingdoms, including Egypt and especially Assyria, as well as booty stolen from areas invaded (Phoenician and others).320 The Phoenicians filled a niche by providing small, transportable goods and the skills to produce those goods in situ – either by artists from the Phoenician homeland who resettled abroad or by native, non-Phoenician artists trained in Phoenician styles.321 Ironically, because of their roles as 316 317

318

319 320 321

Winter, 34.1:196. Amy Rebecca Gansell et al., “Stylistic Clusters and the Syrian/South Syrian Tradition of First-Millennium BCE Levantine Ivory Carving: A Machine Learning Approach,” Journal of Archaeological Science 44 (2014): 195. Georgina Herrmann, “Ivories of the North West Palace,” in Syrian and Phoenician Ivories of the Early First Millennium BCE: Chronology, Regional Styles and Iconographic Repertories, Patterns of Inter-Regional Distribution, ed. Serena Maria Cecchini, Stefania Mazzoni, and Elena Scigliuzzo (Pisa: Edizioni ETS, 2009): 9–26; Feldman, Communities of Style; Winter, “Establishing Group Boundaries.” Feldman, Communities of Style, 50f. Liverani, The Ancient Near East: History, Society, and Economy, 425f. Markoe, Phoenicians, 145.

74

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

traders, and the perceived value of their art, their art has been found mostly in foreign contexts.322 The impact of Phoenician traders (and by extension artists and crafters) was far reaching, economically and culturally. Indeed, by the seventh century BCE (and possibly well before that), under Esarhaddon (680-669), trading between Assyria and the Phoenician cities was organized through the traders themselves, though the leaders were still involved, no doubt.323 Ivories. The wide dispersion of luxury goods, particularly ivory carvings, reveals an extensive commercial network supported by colonization, and further undermining the imaginary hard lines of the political states, especially where trade was concerned.324 The dispersion of ivories creates a particularly good tool to see this network and how Phoenician art spread since they were extremely portable. Likewise, the portability of the craftsmen’s tools makes the wide dispersion even more understandable since their tools were relatively small and light, thus explaining the practice of not only importing Phoenician goods, but also of creating these goods in foreign locales.325 It is entirely possible that ivory carvers also worked with wood and soft stone since the materials are similar in density.326 Unfortunately, the recovery of these small works has been uneven, leaving many pieces missed and later recovered and recorded during different excavations: likewise, museums have not always recorded total number of finds from an excavation before cataloguing the pieces being introduced to their collections.327 Additionally, the dates of ivories can be difficult to distinguish because they were often kept for long periods of time in collections, as seen in Assyria and Samaria.328 The styles presented in ivory works have long been categorized into two primary groups: Northern Syrian329 and (proper) Phoenician with a transitional group sometimes considered a third group called the Southern 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329

Markoe, 143. Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East, c. 3000-330 BC, 407. Feldman, Communities of Style, 26. Feldman, 28. Feldman, 28. Herrmann, “Ivories of the North West Palace,” 10. Herrmann, 12. One of the schools of the Northern Syrian style ivories is the “flame and frond” school. There is a unique mark on this group – ivories and other works – usually on the haunches of an animal that resembles flames or vegetation fronds. Additionally, this groups typically has striations on the side of the chest, perhaps indicating ribs (Feldman, Communities of Style, 53).

WHO ARE THE PHOENICIANS?

75

Syrian style.330 The Phoenician ivories were highly egyptianized, but the confused hieroglyphics among other small details give them away as non-Egyptian.331 The distinctions between the Northern Syrian and Phoenician styles is likely more chronological than geographical, and may be due in part to the rise and fall of Ugarit, a close cultural relative to the Phoenicians. The changes in luxury arts, and in particular ivory works, show the changing political landscapes.332 Rather than thinking of Phoenician ivories as belonging to one stylistic tradition or another (either Northern Syrian or Phoenician)333 they should be considered “along a spectrum of difference,”334 though the distinctions are worthy of note and may help establish a longer history of the (proto-)Phoenicians into the Late Bronze Age, which is beyond the scope of this project. As far as ivories carved in the properly Phoenician style, no Phoenician ivories can be firmly dated to the ninth century or before.335 This is notable, not just in regard to Phoenician history, but this will become increasingly important when Samaria is considered below. Ivories, although not often found in situ in Phoenician cities, are closely connected with seats of power.336 This is seen in “the massive quantities of this very material among the hoarded wealth of the Assyrian Empire and the recurring references to such items in the lists of tribute and booty recorded as taken from the rulers of these city-states.”337 It is probable that the reason for this lack of Phoenician art – in particular the ivories – found within Phoenician cities is connected not only to their use in trade, but also in their use as booty and tribute due to their valued status. Herrmann notes that of the “overwhelming” number of ivories found in Nimrud, a minority were actually in the Assyrian style, the remainder were primarily in the North Syrian and Phoenician styles.338 It should 330

331 332 333

334 335 336 337 338

As noted above, the Phoenician style tends to be more Egyptianized, showing greater symmetry and sometimes labeled more ornately than the Northern Syrian style or the Intermediate style/Southern Syrian style. Herrmann, “Ivories of the North West Palace,” 14. Feldman, Communities of Style, 76. On occasion a third style referred to as Southern Syrian, or simply as Syrian. This represents a transitional phase between the Northern Syrian and Phoenician styles, sharing characteristics that cross over (Gansell et al., “Sylistic Clusters and the Syrian/ South Syrian Tradition,” 202). Feldman, Communities of Style, 16. Winter, On Art in the Ancient Near East, 34.1:206. Feldman, Communities of Style, 72. Feldman, 72. Georgina Herrmann, “The Nimrud Ivories, 1: The Flame and Frond School,” Iraq 51 (January 1, 1989): 85, https://doi.org/10.2307/4200298.

76

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

also be noted that Levantine ivories found in great quantities in Assyria were actually found in storage rooms, not in public arenas.339 Possession of the ivories was important, even if they were not shown off. This again points to the importance of art in the public sphere as an indicator of cultural identity; the Assyrians likely did not want to project as a Leventine ethnos in Assyrian spaces. Pottery. Phoenician pottery is not generally known for its beauty as, for example, Greek pottery is. It was made for utilitarian needs more than for art.340 It is plentiful throughout the Phoenician world, including their cities, colonies, and all the areas they traded with.341 Phoenician ceramic traditions were extremely conservative, showing little in the way of creativity over long periods of time: its value was in its commercial use, not as a luxury good (contra ivories).342 For this reason, finding stratified sequences of Phoenician ware is very helpful. The forms – coloring and shapes – are relatively limited, and the lack of great change over time, as well as its popularity throughout the region, make it a good measure for other dig sites.343 Indeed, some of the Phoenician forms reflect the transition from the Late Bronze Age, including an early form of a round-based jug that “developed from the pilgrim flask of the Late Bronze Age”, and later developed a square rim, which overlapped with the development of the red-slip ware repertoire.344 These forms create a good chronological measure for other sites, as well as in the Phoenician homeland. Sarepta is highly significant because it provided the first well sequenced stratigraphy of pottery in the Phoenician homeland.345 The first indication of the Iron Age Phoenician city was the discovery of burnished red-slip ware, from the later Early Iron Age period.346 This particular form has been found all over the Phoenician homeland – the coastal Levant – as well as in many colony sites, including Carthage in its earliest layers, and Cyprus.347 The production of red-slip required not only a high skill level, but also the proper clay with a high iron content, making it easier to 339 340

341

342 343 344 345 346 347

Feldman, Communities of Style, 95. Patricia M. Bikai, The Phoenician Pottery of Cyprus (Cyprus: A. G. Leventis Foundation, 1987), 48. William P. Anderson, “The Beginnings of Phoenician Pottery: Vessel Shape, Style, and Ceramic Technology in the Early Phases of the Phoenician Iron Age,” BASOR, no. 279 (1990): 295, https://doi.org/10.2307/1357207. Markoe, Phoenicians, 160. Bikai, The Phoenician Pottery of Cyprus, 1. Bikai, 48f. Doak, Phoenician Aniconism, 11. Pritchard, Recovering Sarepta, 72. Pritchard, 73.

WHO ARE THE PHOENICIANS?

77

track, and more easily identifiable as imported rather than locally made in a Phoenician style.348 Phoenician Bichrome ware was also found at Sarepta, and included important forms such as globular jugs and sidespouted strainers, which were also found at Tyre and Keisan from the eleventh century.349 At Tyre, two major pottery periods were distinguished: the first period lasting from 1050 to 760 BCE.350 This group is characterized by Bichrome ware and heavy storage jars.351 It also included polychrome forms, and usually had concentric circles (like a target) as decoration.352 The second period is much shorter, 760-700 BCE and “red-slip wares, mushroom-lip jugs, and crisp-ware storage jars were the dominant forms.”353 Red-slip ware was not as common, and the Bichrome ware continued alongside the newer development, but the older concentric circles were replaced with horizontal bands, though this was found almost exclusively in the Phoenician homeland, as noted by Gilboa.354 This point will become very important later, in the discussion of Samaria. Language With the closing of the Bronze Age, Assyria’s power waned in the region, and so did the influence of the Akkadian language. This helped give rise to the Northwest Semitic group of languages that emerged during the Early Iron Age.355 These newer, linear alphabetic scripts had been in development for centuries but had languished in the shadow of the older syllabic forms.356 Although Phoenician is often considered a unique language, it is actually a more general term that covers multiple dialects; the same is true of Hebrew.357 The forms represented by Tyre and Sidon 348 349 350

351 352 353 354

355

356 357

Pritchard, 73f. Doak, Phoenician Aniconism, 11; Anderson, “The Beginnings of Phoenician Pottery,” 279. Patricia M. Bikai, “The Late Phoenician Pottery Complex and Chronology,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 229 (February 1978): 47, http:// www.jstor.org/stable/1356486. Bikai, 47. Bikai, The Phoenician Pottery of Cyprus, 48. Bikai, “The Late Phoenician Pottery Complex and Chronology,” 47. Ayelet Gilboa, “The Dynamics of Phoenician Bichrome Pottery: A View from Tel Dor,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 316 (November 1, 1999): 48, https://doi.org/10.2307/1357499; Bikai, The Phoenician Pottery of Cyprus, 48. Holger Gzella, “The Linguistic Position of Old Byblian,” in Linguistic Studies in Phoenician in Memory of J. Brian Peckham, ed. Robert Holmstedt and Aaron Schade (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 170. Gzella, 171. Gzella, 172.

78

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

are considered standard, though a bit later; Byblos is the home of an older dialect.358 When Ugarit fell, Byblos and its dialect of Phoenician became more prominent; it was the center of the alphabetic world until Sidon and Tyre rose to greater prominence.359 Although there are a few caveats, just noted, Phoenician is a distinct language: distinct from Aramaic, Ugaritic, Biblical Hebrew, and the other members of the North West Semitic family of languages.360 Unfortunately, Phoenician documents are few (fewer than 10,000, which are largely short inscriptions or notes), and they cover a millennium, beginning in c.1100 BCE.361 Though the numbers may sound grand, the vast majority are small fragments, containing a few letters to a few words; the oldest and one of the longest is the sarcophagus of Ahiram from Byblos. CONCLUSION: WHAT IS A PHOENICIAN? Any work on the Phoenicians must be based primarily in the archaeology of well known, and generally accepted Phoenician cities (Tyre, Sidon, etc.).362 This group evolved within the larger Canaanite milieu, as many other groups did, rising from the ashes of the chaos that marks the end of the Bronze Age, and the emergence of the Early Iron Age; they emerged as a distinct group even as their cultural ancestor, Ugarit, fell to the mysterious Sea People. They primarily lived on the coast of the Levant, from modern day Lebanon down to the Akko plain in modern day Israel. They considered themselves Canaanites, or identified themselves by their city of origin, but the Greeks recognized cultural similarities among these coastal people and they have ever after been known as Phoenicians. Phoenicians were mostly, but not entirely, sea-farers who traded with a number of different groups, both local and distant. They had strong trading ties in various periods to Egypt and Assyria as well as to West Cyprus and Greece. From their ports they spread their wares and their alphabet, though not their language. 358 359

360 361

362

Gzella, 175. Gzella, 174; Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions: Volume III Phoenician Inscriptions, III:v. Doak, Phoenician Aniconism, 11. M.G. Amadasi Guzzo, “Les Sources Écrites,” in La Civilisation Phénicienne et Punique (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 20. Matthiae, Ebla: An Empire Rediscovered, 20.

WHO ARE THE PHOENICIANS?

79

The Phoenicians can be identified by several things. First, they built small compact cities. Their cities were built on promontories, forcing the small sizes and sometimes scattered centers, such as at Sidon. Building those port cities on promontories forced them to create forms of specialized architecture. Building on hilltops gave them some protection from the sea when the tides were high and created a naturally defensive position from the landed sides. They also heavily terraced their land, making the hills more useful. Their defensive walls were mostly created with headers, with rubble fill between doubled walls. They also used ashlar construction in their harbors, creating strong walls that could withstand the endless pounding of the sea. This creates a unique city form because fresh water sources may be difficult to access, and traditional hinterlands, where farms traditionally supplied the cities with their required produce, have been difficult to find or are entirely not present near Phoenician cities. All this implies an even stronger reliance on trade as a way for the city to survive. While the Phoenicians traded luxury goods and timber from the mountains on which they made their home, their payments for goods likely took the form of mundane goods like simple foodstuffs which were difficult for them to produce on their hilltops. Phoenicians worshipped gods that were worshipped at Ugarit, such as Baal, El, Adonis, etc. They also had city deities that were unique to a given city and exported them to colony sites established by the cities. These include deities like Melqart, Eshmun, and the Lady of Byblos. Unlike most other Ancient Near Eastern cities, though, there is no solid evidence for a temple statue that would have been at the center of civic worship. The divine was typically marked by a baetyl in or very near the temple, or a massebah outdoors, usually in a high place with no temple attached to it. Worship also may have included sacrificing children (though to what extent is impossible to say), and possibly animals at the tophet, the details and circumstances of which are clouded. Also, there was a strong connection between the king and city deity, but the details of that relationship are unknown and may have varied from city to city. The Phoenicians were famous for their art, which has been more easily identified than defined – a lack of strong definitive style being one of the trademarks. Their use of amalgamation and their emphasis on Egyptianizing styles and motifs are the most readily apparent element. They were famous for their ivory work, and their ivories are found all over their economic and political world. Ivories have not been found within the well-known Phoenician cities, likely because they were used not only for trading, but as booty and tribute – a beautiful piece of ivory could have

80

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

seen more than a few homes as it may have been traded or taken on multiple occasions. Easily carried off and culturally valuable. Ivories are readily connected to seats of power. If Phoenicians were known for their exquisite ivories, it must be said that their pottery falls on the other end of the scale – fairly plain, and created for utilitarian needs more than anything else. The pottery traditions were conservative and characterized by early bi-chrome ware with simple decorations, concentric circles, or wide bands of color. Later, the tradition was marked by red-slip ware, employing iron-rich clays. Examples of this pottery will be shown below, in Chapter 6, along with a detailed discussion of the pottery found at Samaria. The Phoenicians were traders, working in small home cities. They came into their own even as other larger cities fell, creating works of art that became legendary. They also became one of the foils against which the Biblical authors would rail against, forever pounding them with accusations by showing how they (the Hebrews/Israelites/Judaeans) were different, much as the sea still pounds against remaining harbor quays in the Phoenician homeland.

CHAPTER 4

WHAT IS AN “ISRAELITE”? THE WORK SO FAR PROBLEMS IN THE EVIDENCE AND SCHOLARSHIP There can, at times, be a level of inertia in academic disciplines; a desire to hold onto what has been accepted, and what has become comfortable. This is human nature, and it is true in all disciplines. However, it is especially pronounced in Biblical Studies. In this case, there are several a priori assumptions about the idea of “Israel,” and a lot of scholarship has been done to try to prove those assumptions. This is in part because of the relationship between Biblical Studies and Theology. Although the academic study of the Bible and its history (the history of the text and its historical context) and theology are separate disciplines, Biblical Studies has its roots in theology, and the ramifications of this are evident in some of the conclusions that have been drawn. Even in modern scholarship there are assumptions about the Biblical text that need to be more closely questioned. For example, when trying to find Israel in the archaeology, the assumptions are similar to: “Fortunately, texts – in our case the Bible – testify to what constituted a meaningful trait (though the documentation was not intended to be comprehensive), at least in retrospect.”1 However, these “meaningful traits” were only judged so when the text was redacted, likely around or after the Babylonian exile, and well after Samaria had fallen. With this in mind, historians are mindful of any conclusions that impact the theologies of faithful adherents. There is a vested interest in the text being more historical than mythological for many people. This is not just true of very conservative adherents. Historical revelations have the potential to shake theological paradigms even for liberal followers of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It is for these reasons and more that scholarship has, at times, overlooked evidence (or lack thereof), and justified arguments poorly. Some arguments have amounted to no more than 1

Bloch-Smith, “Israelite Ethnicity in Iron I,” 406.

82

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

‘the text is so rich with detail, it must be true’ even when the archaeology contradicts. This is not to say that serious historical issues that need to be investigated are not raised by the text and scholars, quite the contrary. There are, in fact, many problems that have been raised but not yet solved. Likewise, while history needs to be done independently of theology, the implications for theology and history should not be ignored. The problem at issue in this project is the origin of the people and land that came to be called Israel, north of the polity called Judah. There is a lot of potential evidence that may be considered, but some of that evidence has problems of its own that must be acknowledged before applying it to the larger argument. Problems in Archaeology and Text There are difficulties in finding and defining groups of the distant past, including Israelites. Archaeological evidence is often difficult to interpret, or too limited to make large definitive statements. Furthermore, archaeological remains can very often be interpreted in multiple ways. This often leads to an over-reliance on texts, mostly the Bible, to provide a feeling of certainty. This can be seen in the Albright school of thought, where the archaeology was not given a prominent role in the discussions, but used rather as dressing for the text, leading to a couple of major issues in arguments around Israel – the place and the people. The conclusions reached have been basically no more than rewritten biblical texts, and the arguments are circular with the text explaining the archaeology, and the archaeology being used to prove the text. Indeed, perhaps because faith is involved in this academic pursuit, scholarship has tended toward concrete statements with little or no actual evidence beyond the Bible. History, like any scholarly pursuit, has far more uncertainty than certainty: most answers are not an end, but they become the beginnings of more questions. In any scientific pursuit, the edges of knowledge are inherently unstable: they are ever shifting with new ideas, new questions, new evidence, and new interpretations, even the core of what is “known,” can be upset with new data at any given time leading to more instability in the narrative. This can, and in many ways has, led to a great willingness to trust ancient texts too much – especially the Bible. With the over-reliance on textual evidence, there is another plethora of issues raised, especially when trying to support claims about “Israel.” For example, von Rad felt there was “no doubt” the genealogies of Genesis

WHAT IS AN “ISRAELITE”? THE WORK SO FAR

83

were from a historical source.2 Even Finkelstein, well known for his skeptical views on this subject, notes that the “sheer number of name lists and details of royal administrative organization … in the Deuteronomistic History seems unnecessary for a purely mythical history.”3 Similar assumptions are made about the information given throughout the Hebrew Bible. However, mythologies, histories, and genealogies can be created in relatively short periods of time, especially when a group experiences cultural trauma and group identity is weakened or threatened (discussed briefly above in the Scottish example, and further discussed below). There are also questions of references that seem to give a text greater legitimacy and authority. Writers and redactors used references within their text, pointing to an outside authoritative source that certainly gives the air of good research and corroboration. This is found throughout the ancient world, and in the Hebrew Bible. It was a common practice not just in the Levant, but also in ancient Greece and Mesopotamia. Lists were common, but actual histories of the referenced events and people have often not been found. There is good reason to question these outside ‘sources.’ In his work on Chronicles, C.C. Torrey argued that the references in Chronicles may not have been genuine outside sources but were included to give the greater authority to the work.4 The Chronicler, in a series of allusion scattered through his book, presents us with the names of the most impressive collection of historical work, of which certainly most, and probably all, are otherwise unknown to us … But he plainly wishes to give the impression that he is writing with authority, and concerning matters which were well known, at least to the inner circle in Jerusalem.5

However, Torrey still considered the information historically accurate. In her studies on this issue, Katherine Stott notes a modern tendency to assume the allusions to historical works are references, like footnotes, or in-text citations.6 Fortunately, many scholars are at least somewhat 2

3

4

5 6

Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, trans. John H. Marks, Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 55. Israel Finkelstein, “Digging for the Truth,” in The Quest for the Historical Isarel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel, ed. Brian B. Schmidt, 17 (Atlanta, Ga: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007), 16. C. C. Torrey, “The Chronicler as Editor and as Independent Narrator (Continued),” The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 25, no. 3 (April 1, 1909): 188, http://www.jstor.org/stable/527928. Torrey, 193f. Katherine M. Stott, Why Did They Write This Way? Reflections on References to Written Documents in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Literature, Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 492 (New York; London: T&T Clark, 2008), 6.

84

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

skeptical: Grabbe considers referenced documents to be on a “spectrum of authenticity”, noting especially documents cited in the book of Esther, calling them a good example of documents as literary inventions to spice up a narrative … where various decrees are not just said to be issued, as in the Hebrew text, but are also “quoted” in full (3:1–7; 6:1–24; 8:13).7

There may have been some outside sources being used to help create the texts we have, but the use of fabricated sources to bolster the authority of a text was not unusual. The use of “found” books that were thereafter “lost” again creates a circular argument that always leads back to the author. The author has the authority of the “lost” text, and their work is the evidence of that lost text: we are left to assume that the author is portraying the information correctly. Problems in texts should be raised on the question of dubious secondary evidence. With any text in question here, if there is no genuine secondary evidence, archaeological or textual, then any information proffered must be questioned. There are several documents that are brought up by the scholastic community when the question of the antiquity of “Israel” is raised. These are the starting points of the investigation. THE MERNEPTAH STELE There are myriad texts that are used to support the early existence of Israel. The earliest record of the word “Israel” is in the Merneptah Stele. This is one example of a text that is used to establish the existence of Israel as a group as early as the Bronze Age. This is (slightly more tentatively) used as evidence for the unique and continuous existence of a group that became the ‘kingdom of Israel.’ The Merneptah Stele is therefore in need of a closer look. The stele dates to late 13th century BCE – we do not find the name Israel again until it appears the Mesha stele, c. 835 BCE, some four hundred years later. The Merneptah Stele records the triumphs of the pharaoh Merneptah at the closing of the 19th dynasty. It is the only Bronze Age documentation of ‘Israel’ in the extra-biblical record and many consider 7

Lester Grabbe, “The ‘Persian Documents’ in the Book of Ezra,” in Judah and Judeans in the Persian Period, ed. Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 564.

WHAT IS AN “ISRAELITE”? THE WORK SO FAR

85

it extremely significant.8 Israel is not mentioned before this in Egyptian inscriptions.9 However, the information that can be gleaned from the document is actually very small, and not without debate. The text reads: The princes are prostrate saying: “Mercy!” Not one raised his head among the Nine Bows Desolation is for Tehenu; Hatti is pacified; Plundered is the Canaan with every evil; Carried off is Ashkelon; seized upon is Gezer; Yanoam is made as that which does not exist; Israel is laid waste, his seed is not; Hurru is become a widow for Eygpt!10

Lemche describes the text as “almost like an appendix” at the very end of the fairly long inscription.11 At most, the stele indicates that a group called Israel, or something close to that name, existed, “although they are not precisely comprehensible with respect to origin, composition, and attachment area.”12 The determinative in front of Israel is different compared to the others used on the stele. It is not a land or city, but a people who seem to be unsettled, or at least unassociated with a city or specific land – notice the land of Canaan is considered seperate. Thus, the stele may provide a chronological anchor from which to work toward identifying Israel, though what this anchor represents is unclear: “Israel” is an entity somewhere in Palestine before the monarchy (the history of the Davidic monarchy has its own problems).13 The stele does not indicate any kind of polity or power, but is among a long laundry list of groups and lands that were subdued by the Pharaoh. Dever considers the text very important, showing Israel’s established existence is “beyond doubt … by about 1210 B.C. … they were considered a possible threat to Egyptian hegemony.”14 Dever also feels that the 8

9

10 11 12 13

14

Volkmar Fritz, The Emergence of Israel in the Twelfth and Eleventh Centuries B.C.E, Society of Biblical Literature. Biblical Encyclopedia, v. 2 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 80. Niels Peter Lemche, The Israelites in History and Tradition, Library of Ancient Israel (London, Louisville, Ky: SPCK; Westminster John Knox Press, 1998), 36. Pritchard, ANET, 378. Lemche, The Israelites in History and Tradition, 35. Lemche, 35. Norman K. Gottwald, The Politics of Ancient Israel, First, Library of Ancient Israel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 163. William G. Dever, Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research, Samuel and Althea Stroum Lectures in Jewish Studies (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1990), 44.

86

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

mention in other Egyptian texts of other groups referenced in the Bible further supports the existence of the menace that Israel posed to Egypt.15 Calling this group a threat of any kind is a stretch. More likely, given the general tendency of pharaohs toward extreme self aggrandizement, it would be safer to assume very little about this group, whom the pharaoh’s men encountered. Even in the best of circumstances, the most optimistic view that the writers of the stele could muster was that they were a people, a landless group. Lemche feels that the evidence presented by the inscription bolsters the picture presented in the Bible.16 Similarly, Gottwald sees the Merneptah stele as evidence for a tribal society in the central highlands that represents an ancestry, at least in part, of what became know as the biblical Israel.17 However, none of this is beyond a reasonable doubt, and the debate about what the designation continues. Indeed, if this group were an actual threat of some kind, we should have found it elsewhere in the myriad contemporary Egyptian texts. All royal inscriptions are part of a larger and continuous public relations campaign. Additionally, all royal inscriptions must be taken with a few grains of salt, and they must be corroborated before definitive and absolute statements about their contents can be made. Again, the hyperbole of the pharaohs is well documented. In the end, the designation is not clear. From an optimistic perspective the most that can be said is that there is an entity somewhere around ancient Palestine and Egyptians called it Israel, or something like that. As noted above in the discussion on ethnicity, foreign peoples did not always identify groups from distance with accuracy. This is not the biggest problem, however. The word “Israel” itself is also not without question. Driver’s work18 suggests that the Merneptah-inscription might be read Iezreel, pointing to the possibility of an inexperienced scribe struggling with the word for the valley in the north.19 Indeed if the word is pointing us to a place that was barren, without seed, the inscription makes good sense. However, there 15 16 17 18

19

Dever, 44. Lemche, The Israelites in History and Tradition, 38. Gottwald, The Politics of Anient Israel, 18. Driver suggests that the Egyptian sign for s may also be read z. (Godfrey Rolles Driver, Semitic Writing from Pictograph to Alphabet, Rev. ed., The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy, 1944 (London: Published for the British Academy by Oxford University Press, 1954), 135). Othniel Margalith, “On the Origin and Antiquity of the Name ‘Israel,’” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 102, no. 2 (1990): 229.

WHAT IS AN “ISRAELITE”? THE WORK SO FAR

87

are certainly philological problems with understanding the word as Iezreel. Hasel notes that the “Hebrew zayin is rendered d or t in Egyptian and not s,”20 making the designation Israel even less likely, and Iezreel more likely. Additionally, the designation of a people before the word poses a new problem at this point and must be taken as scribal error. It is worth noting that there is an assumption being made around the name in the discussions on the matter, namely that the scribe, or reporter to the scribe, had a written name from the area, and the scribe was simply transliterating the name into Hieroglyphs. This alone is a huge assumption, especially given the dearth of writing in this period, especially writing in Hebrew! If the word originated in Canaan, it was most likely transmitted orally, leaving the scribe to simply render the word as it was pronounced to him/her – likely through a secondary or even tertiary source. This, in addition to the current lack of material evidence linking the Egyptian source to the kingdom or people presented in the Bible demands an extremely cautious approach here. There is no good, objective reason to assume a connection. The word for “seed” is also problematic. Lexicographers have typically given the noun prt the generic meaning of “seed.” In translations into English, this can mean a number of things including a widely accepted euphemism for children. One of the earliest translations of prt within the context of the Merneptah stele by Spielberg was “Saatan,” that is “seed for planting,” giving a specifically agricultural context.21 The agricultural context is a more accurate use of the noun prt in the stele. The text may not be talking about descendants at all but may be referring to destruction of crops. In this case the question of what “Israel” means leads back to the possibility of it being a place name. Might it be a reference to farmers in the area, who do not necessarily have any other designation, similar to the ‘habiru’ in and around Egypt?22 In his work on the stele in ANET, Wilson also notes that there are multiple errors within the stele that should give pause to anyone making sweeping judgments about the significance of Israel in the text.23 In light of the Merneptah stele, very little can be said about the date of the origin of “Israel” as it is portrayed in the Bible. It hints that an entity might have been there, but that entity was neither organized well 20

21 22 23

Michael G. Hasel, “Israel in the Merneptah Stela,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 296 (November 1, 1994): 296, https://doi.org/10.2307/1357179. Nestor, Cognitive Perspectives on Israelite Identity, 180. Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East, c. 3000-330 BC, 320. Pritchard, ANET, 378n.

88

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

enough to be assigned a land, nor cohesive enough to rule over a city. The stele does not indicate anything more than an acknowledgement of something that the Egyptians called Israel, or Iezreel. So, the questions about what Israel was in the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age I remains wide open. There is silence on the question of Israel for three and half centuries after the stele, when the name appears again in the Mesha inscription, around the mid to late-ninth century BCE.24 HYPOTHESES OF ISRAEL’S EMERGENCE IN THE BRONZE AGE With near silence on the issue from outside sources, we have to turn to other sources – the Bible and archaeology – to figure out when and how the Northern Polity (Israel) came about. Theories about Israel’s (the Semitic people’s) appearance in the land is far from a settled debate. There are three generally popular theories about the emergence of the people’s emergence during the Bronze Age, though none of them are really accepted as being particularly good, and debates rage on. First, the people may have fought their way in from Egypt – the conquering theory based primarily on Exodus and Joshua. Alternately, they may have slowly taken over the land more peacefully – the infiltration theory, an attempt to align the Biblical text and archaeology. Last, they may have been partly indigenous to Canaan, having risen up against the autocratic overlords, both foreign and domestic, to create a new polity – the social revolution theory, also an attempt to rectify the Biblical text and archaeology. Unfortunately, they all have serious problems archaeologically. Conquering Hypotheis The earliest Biblical scholars, Albright for example, assumed that the Bible gave a fairly accurate picture of the Israelites entrance into Canaan. Early Biblical archaeology strived to prove the Biblical account accurate. The stories of Joshua, Judges, and Samuel create a varying picture of conquest and righteous annexation of the land, as commanded by the deity. A closer reading of the text, however, shows some inconsistency in that 24

Amihai Mazar, “On Archaeology, Biblical History, and Biblical Archaeology,” in The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel, ed. Brian B. Schmidt, 17 (Atlanta, Ga: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007), 30.

WHAT IS AN “ISRAELITE”? THE WORK SO FAR

89

picture. Joshua paints a picture of a land almost entirely under the control of Israel. However, Judges gives an extensive list of areas not yet under their control. The tribes, who were not yet a unified polity, did not control the land, and even struggled to keep what they had – theoretically – already conquered. Likewise, the northern tribes struggled to maintain the covenant, repeatedly falling to the temptations of indigenous Canaanite ways. Even within the text, conquering seems a less than likely historical reality. Archaeology does not back up the conquering theory. If the Israelites came into the land as a cohesive people, the archaeological record did not preserve it at all. The portions of the Bible that tell a story of the Late Bronze Age tend to reflect the realities of the Iron Age II with its geo-political and ideological realities. Such realities include the strict monotheism with a special focus on Jerusalem to the exclusion of other temple sites. Earlier realities are remembered, but inaccurately. The book of Joshua makes Shiloh an important spot, for example, where the Israelites set up camp, and “the land lay subdued before them” (Josh 8.1). However, archaeologically, later analysis of cities mentioned in the text, such as Jericho, showed that the many cities that were “conquered” were actually not even inhabited at the time.25 It is also from Shiloh that Joshua sent out scouts to observe the land, and he casts lots to assign the land to the different tribes (Josh 8.2-10). Later in the text, there is a temple and sacrifices are made at the site. Shiloh plays an important role in Judges, as a center of worship. The story of Samuel centers on Shiloh, as the spot where Hannah sacrificed so she might bear a child, and the place where she gave up that child to serve the deity (1 Sam 1.3-2.24). Samuel is the priest who reluctantly elected Saul as the new king over ‘Israel,’ thus making way for the story of David. This was an extremely important cultural spot according to the text. If the stories are accurate, Shiloh should contain fairly significant remains, even if crude, from the end of the Late Bronze Age (around 1100-1000 BCE). This is not the case. The first excavation at Shiloh was done in 1915. Later, between 1926 and 1932, more systematic excavations were done.26 The most recent excavations were carried out by Finkelstein, Bunnimovitz, and Lederman 25

26

Israel Finkelstein, “Patriarchs, Exodus, Conquest: Fact or Fiction,” in The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel, ed. Brian B. Schmidt, vol. 17, Archaeology and Biblical Studies (Atlanta, Ga: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007), 52. Ephraim Stern, ed., The Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavation in the Holy Land, vol. 4 (Israel: Simon and Schuster, 1993), 1365.

90

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

between 1981 and 1984. There was not much to find there. A room (called Room B) was identified, but with unclear stratigraphy. Pottery found therein dates to the Middle Bronze Age II (around 1500 BCE at the latest).27 There is also a house (House A), measuring about 4 × 3.1 meters, with a corner oven that is ascribed to the Iron Age I period. Its destruction is dated to the mid eleventh century BCE.28 This does not line up well with the rise of David in the text. “Archaeology is the sole witness for the tenth century BCE. … the “queen of the battle” when it comes to the history of early Israel – especially the formative periods.”29 There is nothing at Shiloh that indicates it was in significant use during the period of Joshua, Judges, or just before the David cycle is supposed to have begun. The Bible actually seems to be a poor witness to history, though some of the later books, around the Babylonian exile, have nuggets of accuracy. Those nuggets of accuracy, though, must be dug out of the mythic narrative woven around them. For the Bronze Age transition to the Early Iron Age, the Bible is not useful. Infiltration Hypothesis Albrecht Alt proposed a theory of a more peaceful infiltration into Canaanite society. According to this, the nomadic Israelites worked their way into Canaanite society, coming from the hills into the plains, and changed themselves into something unique. Alt notes that “territorial divisions, ultimately dependent on the lay of the land, are extremely persistent; even changes of population hardly ever overthrow them completely, but bring about at most, minor alterations.”30 There were several identifiable ethnic groups (Alt calls them tribes) in the region coming together as city-states (for lack of a better term), such as the Ammonites and the Moabites in the plains; the rise of Israel, theoretically, happened around the same time. According to Alt, city-states were slowly brought into varying levels of dependence on Israel before and around the time of Saul, some only partially.31 This might have solved the problem that archaeology posed to the conquest theory, which did not manifest in the destruction layers if the 27 28 29 30

31

Stern, 4:1365. Stern, 4:1365. Finkelstein, “Digging for the Truth,” 17. Albrecht Alt, Essays on Old Testament History and Religion, 1st ed. in the U.S.A. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1967), 176f. Alt, 208f.

WHAT IS AN “ISRAELITE”? THE WORK SO FAR

91

book of Joshua is the template. Indeed, it is highly unlikely that a group of nomads could have come into a land, already divided and inhabited by distinct cultural groups, and redrawn the lines of geographic demarcation as well as ethnic definitions. They could not have united an area divided by physical geography to make a single political unit. Even in the modern era with vastly better communication technology, groups of people remain ethnically secluded, and de facto, distinct from other groups due to mountain ranges, seas, and other geographical traits.32 Alt is also overly trusting of the Biblical text. His shift in emphasis from Joshua to Judges and his work on contextualizing the political shifts within the extensive influence of Egypt in the area provided a different perspective from previous scholarship. Still, he assumed that the emergence of Israel was novel and revolutionary within the context of the Levantine cities that were already established. This assumption of such novelty is dangerous: it is the result of theology influencing critical historical study. Novelty on such a large scale should be noticeable in the archaeology, leaving traces of unique characteristics from such a new group that is creating an entirely new political unity that is defined over and against those groups around them. We should see the novelty in the archaeology in the forms of art, new pottery styles, and/or new building styles. In order to be a distinct entity, something should be distinct. Additionally, the idea of peaceful infiltration was based on an understanding nomadism, and pastoralism that has been upended in more recent research. It was previously assumed that groups moved from nomadism into sedentary lives and mostly remained sedentary thereafter. This oversimplification of human behavior has not been supported in more recent research that shows nomadism and sedentarism to be more fluid. This makes sense; survival depends on the ability to adjust to changing needs and changing environments. There are a multitude of reasons for different pastoral patterns and transitions to and from sedentarism.33 Social Revolution Hypothesis Norman Gottwald proposed a third scheme that was largely inspired by Marxist theory. In this model, the people that became the Israelites 32

33

It may be argued that the Assyrians, Egyptians, and Babylonians created consistency to some small degree. However, these processes involved not only conquering lands, but also the transplanting of large groups of people, both military and civilian. Lemche, The Israelites in History and Tradition, 35.

92

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

were part of an oppressed, rural Canaanite peasantry that rose up against the wealthier classes.34 He attempted to account for two points in the text that were the starting point of all theories about Israel’s (the people’s) origin, and their development in Canaan: that of swift conquerors of Joshua and slow infiltrators who slowly took the land, based in Judges. This model attempts to forge a middle way between the two other dominant theories: first, that the people, Israel, were comprised of “a group of slaves, delivered from Egypt and worshipping the god Yahweh” (the focus of the conquering theories) and second, that they were “composed exclusively or even predominantly of diversely originated immigrants, on the other hand” (the focus of theories of infiltration).35 Most models prioritized the Israelite versus Canaanite polarity. Gottwald attempts to make sense of the more complex relationship presented in the various Biblical texts by contextualizing the politics of Israel’s (the people’s, and eventually the Northern Polity’s) emergence in the region. He points to two layers of hierarchy present in the land before the emergence Israel, both of which were subordinate to Egypt: native rulers and native populations.36 In his model, the removal of economic pressures brought by the hegemony of Egypt did not abate when the Egyptians left the Levant. Rather, the freer native rulers kept the pressure on as they maneuvered for power and wealth for their own “aggrandizement at the expense of neighboring cities.”37 Gottwald takes advantage of the group known in Egyptian texts as the ‘apiru, considering them nomadic workmen which include unruly surfs and farmers.38 In his model, these restive native groups combined forces with the incoming former slaves from Egypt (the would-be Israelites) and, where they were strong enough, “threw off their overlords and formed “tribal” rule by elders in deliberate rejection of centralized political rule by imperial-feudal “kings.”39 This tribal rule gave rise to stories of the judges and the skirmishes wherein kings were overthrown, and this gave rise to the stories from Joshua. 34

35

36 37 38 39

Norman K. Gottwald, “Two Models for the Origins of Ancient Israel: Social Revolution or Frontier Development,” in The Quest for the Kingdom of God: Studies in Honor of George E. Mendenhall, ed. H.B. Huffmon, F.A Spina, and A.R.W. Green (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 5. Norman K. Gottwald, The Tribes of Yahweh: A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel, 1250-1050 B.C.E (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1979), 211. Gottwald, 213. Gottwald, 212f. Gottwald, 213. Gottwald, 214.

WHAT IS AN “ISRAELITE”? THE WORK SO FAR

93

However, this theory presents a logical problem. “Israel” is presented as an original and unique event, politically and socially. This sudden appearance on the political stage in the Levant, if accepted, prevents any further study of the evolution of Israel, politically and socially due to its assumed uniqueness and freedom from rules of harsh logic.40 Additionally, the archaeology does not support the idea. His theory tries to account for an increase in population in the highland by assuming their movement from the lowlands, but there is no evidence to support this.41 While there was disruption between the end of the Bronze age and the Early Iron Age, many of the settlements in the Lowlands were continuously occupied into the Iron Age.42

WAS THERE A BRONZE AGE “ISRAEL”? The short answer is no. However, many have assumed the existence of a unique and traceable people as early as 1250 BCE based in the Merneptah stele. Dever asks an important question about the doubts raised regarding the stele’s identification of Israel: if the Israel on the stele is not the one we are looking for, then who is it?43 One optimistic answer comes from Gottwald, who also points out that in the two hundred years following the Merneptah stele’s creation, there was increase in the number of small villages “in the Canaanite highlands in the areas extensively referred to in the biblical traditions as settled by Israelites.”44 He also acknowledges that “nothing in the remains ‘proves’ that these were Israelite settlements.”45 Nevertheless, he feels that “it is a sound inference that it was this region and its populace that formed the demographic and material resource base of the first Israelite state.”46 Here too, however, even if the settlements could be called Israel, where did they come from and what exactly does it mean that they were “Israelite” versus 40 41

42 43

44 45 46

Nestor, Cognitive Perspectives on Israelite Identity, 44. Israel Finkelstein, “When and How Did the Israelites Emerge?,” in The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel, ed. Brian B. Schmidt, 17 (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007), 75. Finkelstein, 75. William G. Dever, “‘Will the Real Israel Please Stand up?’ Part II: Archaeology and the Religions of Ancient Israel,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 298 (May 1, 1995): 72, https://doi.org/10.2307/1357084. Gottwald, The Politics of Anient Israel, 163. Gottwald, 163. Gottwald, 163.

94

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

another Canaanite group? Nothing emerges from a vacuum: all things evolve from earlier forms. While the highlands show some level of continuity of style,47 this does not make them Israelite. The Bible also points to groups that we know little or nothing about that could be included in the morass of ethnic groups of the time somewhere in or around the vaguely defined Canaanite area: the Perizites and the Hivites, just to name a couple. There is no good reason to assume that we have Israelite remains in a village just because we identify it with something mentioned in the Bible that may have at some point been inhabited, wholly or partially, by the group mentioned in the Merneptah stele. Even if this group from the Merneptah Stele could be identified in some way in the archaeological record, a line would need to be drawn between them and the Iron Age group that developed into a clear identity much later. Native Americans of 400 years ago, including native groups in North America, Meso-America, and South America can be accurately called American, but they bear no resemblance to what we call Americans today; that term has been completely redefined. Groups from afar create their own designations based on what they perceive to be distinct communities. Those designations may or may not be accurate through time. Indeed, Native Americans are still (incorrectly) called Indians on occasion, but they have never had any relationship to anyone from India. The mis-identification from hundreds of years ago still stands, even though it is well known that “Indian” is a blatantly wrong term to apply to someone from the Cherokee Nation or any other Native American tribe. The term “Indian” continues to be used despite the plethora of information available. There may have been a people called Israel in Egypt, but there is no reason to assume that the designation is pointing to the Biblical people. No doubt, such misidentifications were harder to correct in the ancient world, when communication and information was less readily available. Although scholars have pointed to different characteristics that allegedly identified Israelite people, those traits have come to naught upon further investigation. The four-room building was initially considered a cultic structure, then re-designated as a storage facility within early Israelite settlements.48 Eventually, it came to be known as the four-room house, and was seen by several scholars as a marker of early Israelite settlements. However, this design is neither consistent, nor unique to 47 48

Miller, “Identifying Earliest Israel,” 57. Y. Shiloh, “The Four-Room House Its Situation and Function in the Israelite City,” Israel Exploration Journal 20, no. 3/4 (January 1, 1970): 180, http://www.jstor.org/stable/ 27925232.

WHAT IS AN “ISRAELITE”? THE WORK SO FAR

95

areas historically identified as ‘Israelite.’49 A similar case holds for the collard rim pithoi, largely considered an early Israelite ceramic form.50 Again, however, the evidence has shown that it is far more common throughout the area than would be useful for ethnic identification. Most recently Finkelstein has proposed the rock-cut moat and glacis defensive structures, hill-top podiums, and casemate compounds as uniquely Israelite forms.51 Even this new suggestion only applies to Omride architecture, distinctly from the Iron Age, and has no bearing on the elusive Bronze Age Israelites of the Merneptah Stele. The search goes on for definable traits of Israel from the Late Bronze Age. THE UNITED MONARCHY Even if ‘Israel’ in the Bronze Age cannot be identified, some feel that the Biblical portrayal of the United Monarchy with the Bible’s highly detailed account of David and Solomon gives us a somewhat historical picture. Again, if extra-Biblical sources are sought for corroboration, the trail quickly goes cold. Even Gottwald notes that with a close reading of the text “we are led to wonder about the alleged unity of the people … before the split into two kingdoms.”52 Nevertheless, a fundamental assumption about the existence of the United Monarchy underlies the vast majority of scholarship on ‘Israel,’ the place and people. In brief, this is the story: 1 Samuel tells of the rise of an upstart kid who served king Saul (16.21-22), defeated the mighty Philistine, Goliath (17.49), married into the existing royal household through Michal (18.27). Myriad machinations follow between the ruling king and David (19.1824.22). Eventually, Saul kills himself in the face of imminent defeat by the Philistines (31.4). One of Saul’s sons, Ishbaal, reigned for a couple of years, but we are told in the same verse that Judah (the southern tribes) followed David after the death of Saul (2 Sam 2.10). War ensued between the House of Saul and David (3.1). David established his own rule once Abner agreed to bring Israel (the north) into his kingdom (3.12). David 49

50 51 52

Israel Finkelstein, “Ethnicity and Origin of the Iron I Settlers in the Highlands of Canaan: Can the Real Israel Stand Up?,” BA 59, no. 4 (December 1, 1996): 201, https://doi.org/10.2307/3210562; Elizabeth Bloch-Smith and Beth Alpert Nakhai, “A Landscape Comes to Life: The Iron Age I,” Near Eastern Archaeology 62, no. 2 (June 1, 1999): 67, https://doi.org/10.2307/3210703. Dever, “Ceramics, Ethnicity, and the Question of Israel’s Origins,” 205. Finkelstein, The Forgotten Kingdom, 103f. Gottwald, The Politics of Anient Israel, 17.

96

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

moved his capital to Jerusalem seven and half years into his reign (5.5). He ruled over the North (Israel) and the South (Judah) until his death, whereupon he appointed his son Solomon as his successor (1 Kings 1.30). This mythic United Monarchy was called Israel. Despite the details given in the Biblical text, we know surprisingly little about David’s actual administration. Likewise, despite the long, detailed story, “the great biblical story of the United Monarchy is left with no material evidence.”53 Efforts to find monumental architecture in and around Jerusalem that support such an early kingdom of any substance have failed when brought under greater scrutiny.54 The only bit of evidence for anything regarding David and his kingdom is a small inscription from Tel Dan. The Tel Dan Inscription The stele fragment was found in 1993, and it mentions the house of David (betdawd) as well as the name Israel. This, at first sight, seems to confirm the rule of David, and by extension, the United Monarchy. However, this is not at all conclusive upon closer inspection: there are multiple problems with the artifact. The fragment was found in secondary use as part of the city wall.55 This alone makes the dating of the original writing very difficult, if not impossible. Its secondary use dates to a time before the fall of the northern kingdom to Assyria under Tiglath-Pileser III (723/2 BCE).56 Initial analysis from the excavation team put the initial inscription in the mid-ninth century BCE, based partly on a small pottery assemblage found beneath the inscription.57 “The nature of the biblical sources on the one hand and the fragmentary state of the Tel Dan inscription on the other, do not allow us to draw definite conclusions.”58 Based on the archaeology and paleographic data, the stele can be dated no earlier than 900 BCE.59 Additionally, its secondary use implies that the content was, at the time of use, not considered significant. 53

54 55

56 57 58 59

Israel Finkelstein, “King Solomon’s Golden Age: History of Myth?,” in The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel, ed. Brian B. Schmidt, 17 (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007), 115. Liverani, Israel’s History and the History of Israel, 104. Avraham Biran and Joseph Naveh, “An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan,” Israel Exploration Journal 43, no. 2/3 (January 1, 1993): 81, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27926300. Biran and Naveh, 85. Biran and Naveh, 86. Biran and Naveh, 98. Lemche, The Israelites in History and Tradition, 41.

WHAT IS AN “ISRAELITE”? THE WORK SO FAR

97

The implication of the Tel Dan inscription, that king David had existed and his kingdom as represented in the Bible, is not at all solid. Much like the Merneptah stele, the inscription contributes more to the imagination than history. The only thing it can tell us is that there may have been a polity of some kind who took the name of one of its founders, David. This does not say anything about a united monarchy, nor the range of power of the founder of the house of David. Care must be taken in history not to overstate what a single piece of evidence might mean. Here, it means little. We cannot say what kind of polity it was or anything about its power, wealth, or influence. In this case, David may have been the head of a powerful tribal family and no more. Indeed, assuming that anyone named David is the David is dangerous without any additional information.

THE DIVIDED KINGDOM The biblical story paints a picture of political discontent among the northern tribes. Solomon was able to hold onto them, but upon his death they seceded from the kingdom established by David and created their own polity, led by Jeroboam (1 Kings 11.43-12.19). Traditional dating puts this around 930 BCE.60 The list of rulers, their actions, and judgments on their moral characters for both Judah and Israel make up the remaining content of 1 and 2 Kings. The source of this ‘historical’ account for the Northern kings is taken from the “Book of the Deeds of the Kings of Israel” and that of Judah found throughout the text of Kings, appearing 34 times in the biblical text. Problems in the Text The problem with such references to authoritative texts, as noted above, is the circular argument it creates that always leads back to the work in hand: this history in your hand is accurate because it came from an older text and the evidence of that older text is in the history that is in your hand.61 Lists are well known in the Ancient Near East, but they do not generally go beyond lists into histories the way the Bible tries to do. Even when the books of Kings references these older documents that 60 61

Liverani, Israel’s History and the History of Israel, 104. Stott, Why Did They Write This Way?, 10.

98

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

are the alleged source of the Biblical material, it does so by telling the reader that the reference has even more material about the deeds of the kings (for example 1 Kings 15.7, “The remaining deeds of Abijam and all that he did, are they not written upon the Book of the Deeds of the Kings of Judah?”). Collecting (or creating) such stories with putatively authoritative references comes out of a concern for assembling “a historical continuum through a set period of time.”62 Biblical translators often translate the word ‫( ָד ָבר‬davar) as annals (NRSV), or chronicles (KJV) in this context, but we need to be careful with terms like annals, chronicles, and court histories – what those words mean, and how that type of text functions is not necessarily obvious – and the Hebrew word that is so often translated as such is even more vague.63 These terms are not at all obvious or clear in their meaning, if these documents existed at all, which is not likely. The Biblical text implies that there should be evidence for a northern kingdom as early as 930 BCE with the beginning of the rule of Jeroboam. There is, indeed, evidence of fortified cities with monumental architecture in the region around that time, or perhaps a bit later,64 but they do not represent ‘Israel’ as a far-reaching kingdom. The Biblical references to Israel are multivalent even after David’s ‘kingdom’ splits in two. It designates the northern territory, and the supposedly monotheistic religious tradition of the people in both territories (northern Israel, and southern Judah), as Israel.65 So, Israel is then the name of the unified people, the northern people, and the Northern Polity. This becomes confusing, to say the least. Problems in the Archaeology Tirzah provides a good example of some of the problems in archaeology. It was an inhabited site beginning in the Neolithic period, and was inhabited mostly continuousely until its abandonment around 600 BCE.66 Based on the story in the Bible, there should be fairly significant 62

63 64 65 66

John Van Seters, In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), 356. Van Seters, 354. Finkelstein, The Forgotten Kingdom, 83. Gottwald, The Politics of Anient Israel, 52. Roland de Vaux, “Les Fouilles de Tell El-Far’ah (Jordanie), Campagnes de 1959-1960,” Comptes Rendus Des Séances de l’Académie Des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 105, no. 2 (1961): 288, https://doi.org/10.3406/crai.1961.11337.

WHAT IS AN “ISRAELITE”? THE WORK SO FAR

99

archaeological remains at Tirzah where Baasha based his rule of the putative Northern Kingdom around 905 B.C.E., the tail end of the Early Iron I/the dawn of Early Iron IIA (1 Kings 15.21). The site, according to the Biblical text, continued to be in use by the rulers of Israel until Omri moved his capitol to Samaria in the middle of his reign (1Kings 16.23). This was the working theory under which Roland de Vaux worked.67 Even he noted the brevity of the city’s description in the text, and notes that the abandonment of the site seemed to coincide with the biblically noted establishment of Samaria.68 But the site does not reflect that of a well-used administrative center for a rising political power. Even though the Northern Kingdom was seemingly wealthier, larger, and well settled with a denser population, the center of its rule was an “unassuming, unfortified settlement with seemingly no monuments”69 despite being the putative center of the kingdom for roughly 50 years. De Vaux’s trepidation around the archaeological evidence for the biblical account was well founded. Looking at the site, there is no good evidence for a strong Early Iron I presence. Indeed, Finkelstein notes that there is “not a single sherd that can safely be attributed solely to this period” despite their prevalence in the highlands in general.70 However, the evidence of occupation matches the period when Tirzah should have been the capital of ‘Israel.’ But, while it was occupied at that time, the indication of habitation on the site for this period is meager, limited to a small section of the tel. The actual area of habitation on the acropolis measures less than a hectare, and its buildings were established on top of Late Bronze fortifications.71 Far from a capital for a “kingdom,” Early Iron IIA Tirzah is a small village. It could have been an administrative center of some kind, but not for something as grand as a “kingdom.”72 This will be discussed again in the next chapter. 67

68 69 70

71 72

Roland de Vaux, “La Troisième Campagne de Fouilles à Tell El-Fâr’ah (Palestine),” Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 95, no. 1 (1951): 8. de Vaux, 688f. Finkelstein, The Forgotten Kingdom, 82. Israel Finkelstein, “Tell El-Far’ah (Tirzah) and the Early Days of the Northern Kingdom,” Revue Biblique 119, no. 3 (2012): 335, http://www.academia.edu/4062301. Finkelstein, 340. More care must be taken in labeling polities. The term “kingdom” implies something much grander than what was, in all likelihood, actually going on at the time. The evolution toward something grand may have started at this time but without a strong, apparent capitol and little writing happening, “kingdom” is too strong a word.

100

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

There is no significant polity called “Israel” There is a fundamental problem with past research on early Israel; there is a primary assumption that early Israel existed as a unique and powerful entity in the Early Iron Age, and all evidence, archaeological and textual, has been tweaked, interpreted, molded, re-shaped, and sometimes contorted to support that assumption. The Bible refers to Early Iron Age realities, so there must have been an Early Iron Age Israel. Scholarship is too comfortable with the narrative presented by the Biblical writers and the assumption of a unique ethnic group that seemingly coalesced out of nothing called Israel. This assumption is – sometimes unconsciously – the starting conclusion of most of the work done on identity in the Northern Polity. It should also be noted that the relationship between what became Israel and Judah is most often glossed over, ignored, and is assumed to be close. This is directly connected to the assumption of the United Monarchy under David and Solomon, discussed above. Without assuming the United Monarchy, a new look must be taken at this relationship, and most importantly for this project, at how others saw the Northern Polity. Extra-Biblical Texts There is only one Egyptian text that notes “Israel,” the Merneptah stele, discussed above. In general, there is very little about “Israel” in extra-biblical material. There is more about “the house of Omri,” “the son of Omri,” and the “the city of Samaria.” Often in these texts such names are not translated, but are glossed as Israel rather than being translated more literally, lending to the false sense of solidity around the name “Israel” as a label for the Northern Polity from its initial formation all the way to its demise in 721. Assyrian Texts In Assyrian texts, we find only one reference to Israel during its formative stages, from the period of Shalmaneser III (858-824 BCE). It appears in the annals from his sixth year of fighting. Among the forces from the coalition standing against him, he notes “2,000 chariots, 10,000 foot soldiers of Ahab, “the Israelite (KUR Sir-’-la-a-a).”73 With the determinative 73

Shigeo Yamada, The Construction of the Assyrian Empire: A Historical Study of the Inscriptions of Shalmanesar III Relating to His Campaigns in the West, Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 3 (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2000), 157.

WHAT IS AN “ISRAELITE”? THE WORK SO FAR

101

KUR, we have a reference to a foreign land, but what that land is and its extent is vague at best, and certainly not unique.74 It may refer to a coalition of Canaanite groups that were working together under the leadership of Ahab – this possibility is discussed further in the next chapter. The term Israel does not appear again in Assyrian royal inscriptions. This does not mean that Assyria had no more dealings with the Northern Polity and Samaria. Whenever the texts want to refer to the Northern Polity, the scribes use “son of Omri” or the “house of Omri” and occasionally “city of Samaria,”75 This is seen, for example, in later reports of Shalmaneser III (859-824 BCE), after his defeat of the coalition, recorded on the well-known black obelisk. He records the receipt of tribute from Tyre, Sidon, and “Yau(a) mār Humri”, “Jehu son of Omri” around 841 BCE, in the sixteenth year of his reign.76 It may be that the change in name from “Israelite” to “son of Omri” reflects a change in the relationship during the time of Shalmaneser.77 Alternately, his focus may be on the Northern Polity, and not on his coalition of allies, the lack of a city designation after two Phoenician cities being listed in notable. Also, the use of “city of Samaria” in later royal documents may reflect an evolution of the northern polity through time, and with the change in designation, a clearer picture of a well-defined political state with a solid central ruling city – but short of evidence for this, the relationship between Assyria and the Northern Polity being reflected in the name given in a text is speculation. Adad-Nirari III (810-783 BCE) is the next to mention the Northern Polity. On a stone slab from Calah, he recorded a defeat of groups in the Levant, including “Tyre, Sidon, Israel (matHu-um-ri)78, Edom, Palestine, as far as the shore of the Great Sea of the Setting Sun, I made them submit 74

75

76 77

78

Such a reference gives us little more help than the Merneptah inscription did and does not give the impression of a well-defined geographical area. Indeed, it is a mistake to assume that any of the areas in the Levant had well-defined boundaries beyond well-established cities with walls. Political boundaries as we know them are a modern invention. Brad E. Kelle, “What’s in a Name? Neo-Assyrian Designations for the Northern Kingdom and Their Implications for Israelite History and Biblical Interpretation,” Journal of Biblical Literature 121, no. 4 (December 1, 2002): 640, https://doi.org/10.2307/3268575. Yamada, The Construction of the Assyrian Empire, 192f. Tammi J. Schneider, “Through Assyria’s Eyes: Israel’s Relationship with Judah,” Expedition 44, no. 3 (Winter 2002): 9, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct= true&db=aph&AN=8571632&site=ehost-live&scope=site. Scholars have a tendency to gloss over the use of actual Assyrian designations, changing them to Israel even though the term Israel does not actually appear the text giving a false sense of solidity in arguments about Israel in the Early Iron Age.

102

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

all to by feet, imposing upon them tribute.”79 Notice that while translations give the name Israel, the text is actually stating ‘the house of Omri.’ In the Rimah stele, from the same period, however KUR sa-me-ri-na-a-a (the land of Samaria) is used.80 The house of Omri and the land of Samaria are synonymous, and the reasons for the use of one over the other remain unclear. Tiglath-Pileser III (745-727 BCE) mentions the Northern Polity more than any other Assyrian ruler. He uses three different designations for the area with very slight variations that can easily be attributed to scribal judgments. He uses the determinative KUR (land), and URU (city) with Samaria, as well as KUR (land) with Omri.81 The use of the “the land of Omri” as well as the use of Omri (house of Omri or Son of Omri) in earlier inscriptions implies that the founder of the polity and the polity itself were in some way synonymous. However, the missing name ‘Israel’ is notable. This focus on Omri and Samaria re-enforces the idea that Israel was different in some way. From excavations at Nimrud, what is “most likely a colossal pavement slab” found in multiple pieces,82 two references were found. The first reads: “…which are the border of kurBīt-Hu-um-ri[a]”, the land of the house of Omri (Sum. 4:6)83. The second reference in line 15 is less clear in its context, but uses the exact same formula, the “land of the house of the Omri.”84 In 1955, at a Temple of Nabu, excavators found fragments of a clay tablet. Here again, the same formula is used when describing the annexation of regions in the Levant to Assyria: “[on the bor]der of kurBīt-Huum-ri-a I annexed to Assyria”.85 A bit later in that text, the same designation is used again in the declaration of the conquering of the “land of the house of Omri”.86 The next citing of the Northern Polity is on a bas-relief in Nimrud that was badly damaged, but still contained a note about “[the land of the house of Omri,] all [of whose] cities I had [devastated] in my former 79 80 81 82

83 84 85 86

Pritchard, ANET, 281. Kelle, “What’s in a Name?,” 640. Kelle, 640. Hayim Tadmor, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III King of Assyria: Critical Edition, with Introductions, Translations and Commentary (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1994), 136. Tadmor, 138f. Tadmor, 140f. Tadmor, 186f. Tadmor, 188f.

WHAT IS AN “ISRAELITE”? THE WORK SO FAR

103

campaigns,” and “…] its livestock I had despoiled and had spared uruSame-ri-na (the city of the Sameria) alone”.87 The reference to Omri is entirely reconstructed, but the later reference to the capitol city is not, and given the repetition of the formula on other inscriptions, the reconstructionis a safe assumption. A Stele from Iran also mentions the Northern Polity. It was broken into three fragments, seemingly long ago. The provenance of the stele is not known.88 The Section of stele that is of concern here involves a long list of rulers and regions that owe tribute to the king of the Assyria, each line representing a new vassal, including “Mi-ni-hi-im-me kurSa-me-ri-i-naa+a,” Menahem of the land of Samaria, with no mention of Israel.89 Finally, in the Annals of Tiglath-Pileser III, in section 13, there is another list of vassals who owe tribute to the king, including Mi-ni-hi-im-me uru Sa-me-ri-i-na-a+a, Menahem of the city of Samaria.90 The next Assyrian ruler to mention the Northern Polity is Shalmaneser V (726-722 BCE). There is only one record of his interaction in that area in extra-biblical literature, and it is actually from a Babylonian Chronicle noting his destruction of the city (using the determinative URU) of Samaria.91 Unfortunately very little is know about this Assyrian king, and he disappears from history with little note.92 Finally, the Northern Polity is discussed several times by its last conqueror, Sargon II (721-705 BCE) in an inscription. In the Nimrud prism, Sargon claims that the [city]93 of Samaria did not provide tribute and was therefore subsequently attacked. He then claims that he deported the people, “causing them to take their dwellings in the midst of Assyria”, and “the city of Samaria I restored, and greater than before.”94 In another inscription from a display of annals in a palace at Khorsabad, Samaria and its people come up a few times. He claims “…Samerinai (the people of the Samaria) …[of Shamash] who causes me to attain victory … [27,290 people, who lived therein] I carried away.”95 In the same record he 87 88 89

90 91 92 93

94 95

Tadmor, 202f. Tadmor, 91. Tadmor, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III King of Assyria: Critical Edition, with Introductions, Translations and Commentary. Tadmor, 68f. Kelle, “What’s in a Name?,” 640. Schneider, “Through Assyria’s Eyes: Israel’s Relationship with Judah,” 12. Gadd actually restores this to “[man] of Samaria” but given the pattern established thus far in Assyrian texts, the more likely restoration is “city”. Hasel, “Israel in the Merneptah Stela,” 179. Luckenbill, ARAB, 2:2.

104

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

records a revolt by Damascus and Samaria.96 This event is recorded again in the palace on another wall, summarizing events from his accession to the throne through the fifth year of his reign.97 Further in the record he describes re-settling people, “distant Arabs,” in Samaria during the seventh year of his reign.98 The Bull Inscription notes that he “overthrew Samaria, all of Bît-Humria…,” the house of Omri.99 A very similar inscription repeats this information, again at the palace in Khorsabad, this time in a pavement stone before the gates.100 It is worth noting that the name Judah is used, but a similar formula “house of David”, “son of David” or “land of David” is never used.101 Additionally, Assyrians do not see any special relationship between the two polities. Tiglath-Pileser III mentions Judah in a tablet found at Nimrud. It describes the kings and their territories brought under the yoke of Assyria, including Ia-u-ha-zi kurIa-u-da-a+a, Jehoahaz of the land of Judah.102 Neither Omri nor Samaria are mentioned in this tablet. This alone does not lead to any conclusion, but is certainly worth noting. The Meshah Inscription In the Meshah inscription, the king of Moab reports that: As for Omri, king of Israel, he humbled Moab many years (lit., days), for Chemosh was angry at his land … I have triumphed over him and over his house, while Israel hath perished for ever! And Omri took possession of the whole land of Medaba, and he lived there in his days and half the days of his son: forty years….And Chemosh said to me, “Go, take Nebo from Israel.” 103

The text continues with its discussion of the righteousness of Meshah and his victory before his deity Chemosh. The text gives the impression of the absolute defeat of the house of Omri, but it is a typical exaggeration of the situation. Samaria and its rulers continued to exist and flourished for another century before they succumbed to the power of Assyria and actually fell. 96 97 98 99 100 101 102

103

Luckenbill, 2:3. Luckenbill, 2:27. Luckenbill, 2:7. Luckenbill, 2:46. Luckenbill, 2:51. Lemche, The Israelites in History and Tradition, 51f. Tadmor, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III King of Assyria: Critical Edition, with Introductions, Translations and Commentary, 170f. Pritchard, ANET, 320f.

WHAT IS AN “ISRAELITE”? THE WORK SO FAR

105

This inscription serves a two-fold purpose here. First, it shows that the Northern Polity was a threat to Moab. Though Omri held sway over Moab for a time, the details may not be accurate here. It is not unusual to exaggerate the power of an enemy after vanquishing the threat to make a ruler look better. Much literature in the ancient world is intended to highlight a victory or understate a defeat to minimize the humiliation of such subjugation or any kind of loss. The house of Omri is identified more than once in the inscription, as is Israel, but they are separate. There is no assumption that they are the same thing. While Omri may have led Israel, he and his house are different from Israel. The coalition led by Omri, and later Ahab, is Israel. The second point to note here is the firm dating for the existence of a fully-fledged polity, the Northern Polity, with a military and a ruler that likely headed a coalition of small groups who worked together for common security (and likely trade, etc). This is textual evidence that can be corroborated with Biblical text (and vice versa) regarding the battle. 2 Kings 3 also recounts the battle, noting “there was great wrath upon Israel, and they withdrew from it/him and returned to (their) land” (2 Kings 3.27). It seems they lost, but the extent of the defeat or surrender is obscure. CONCLUSIONS The work thus far on finding the origin of the Northern Polity (Israel) has been unsatisfying. The archaeology and the Biblical text are more often at odds than is typically noted. The translations of ancient texts are often glossed in an effort to be clear, but that effort also obscures the lack of continuity that is shown in those texts, for example glossing ‘the house of Omri’ with ‘Israel’. There is little evidence of any Davidic kingdom, and the scant bits that have been found are highly questionable at best. The kingdom of Israel, as it is portrayed in the Bible, also has left nothing discernable to mark its presence on the Canaanite landscape. There is no distinct archaeological Israel. There was a polity – the extent and power of which is not entirely certain – that was led by Omri and his children, centered in Samaria. This was the Northern Polity, but it was not directly connected to Judah, though they likely cooperated with Judah just as they would have with other political groups. The historical Northern Polity and its origins are not to be found in the Bible.

CHAPTER 5

WAS DOR AN ISRAELITE CITY? It should not be assumed, a priori, that the Northern Polity was unique. It was part of the mosaic of peoples in the area, subject to (and a part of) the evolutionary forces around them. As with any other group, the archaeology and texts can lead us through their evolution – out of the morass of the Late Bronze Age through its progression into some clarity in the Iron Age. For example, there has been some consternation over theomorphic names throughout Canaan that include Jw, Ja’u, or Jawi in areas not previously considered ‘Israelite’ or Hebrew, “such as Syria.”1 The assumption being these forms could not be connected to Judaism in its earliest forms because of the allegedly foreign context – Syria, Ugarit, etc. and not in ‘Israelite’ territory. Yet, it is well attested that deities travel and evolve throughout history. They become syncretized with other deities, and take on new characteristics through time. “In this case the Ugaritic deity Yw has been welcomed as a solution of the problem,”2 especially if one is not willing to see the Biblical deity as less than entirely unique. It is possible that those names (Jw, Ja’u, or Jawi) from the Canaanite milieu are not related to the Israelite deity. Rather, those other cases could be attributed to some other god giving plausible deniability and support for the uniqueness of YHWH. However, nothing happens in a vacuum. Anything that seems to appear ex nihilo means that information is missing or being overlooked. As Israel Finkelstein notes: As far as I can judge, the rise of early Israel was not a unique event in the history of Canaan. Rather it was another repeated phase in the long-term, cyclic, socio-economic, and demographic processes that started in the fourth millennium B.C.E. The wave of settlement that took place in the highlands in the late-second millennium B.C.E. was merely another chapter in alternating shifts along the typical Near Eastern socio-economic continuum between sedentary and pastoral modes of subsistence.3 1

2 3

John Gray, The Legacy of Canaan, Second, vol. V, Vetus Testamentum (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1965), 180. Gray, V:180. Finkelstein, “When and How Did the Israelites Emerge?,” 76.

108

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

The views explored in the previous chapters have sometimes had a limiting effect on interpretations of where the Northern Polity came from because of the special place that the Biblical text holds in the western mind. Certainly, the Northern Polity grew out of the Bronze Age collapse and was one of the results of the ethnic reorganization moving into the Early Iron Age. There were, no doubt, multiple influences on the resulting group that eventually came to be known as Israel. But, there is “no way to distinguish the material culture of the proto-Israelites from the their peers in Transjordan.”4 Put slightly differently, there are no proto-Israelites in the archaeological record. Ephraim Stern does not even refer to a uniquely Israelite material culture, but calls it “the Israelite-Phoenician style” that continued well into the Roman period.5 In fact, there is good evidence that the leadership of what became the Northern polity, which came to be known as Israel, came from the Phoenicians. There has been much dialogue about Phoenician colonies, some of which is discussed above, because they have furthered our knowledge about that ethnic group and helped define what a ‘Phoenician’ is; part of that definition includes colonizing activities. There is no reason to assume that they never tried to move east into the land of Canaan. Indeed, given the limited land the archetypal Phoenician cities had (Sidon, Tyre, Sarepta, Byblos, etc.), it would actually make a lot of sense to at least try to move inland for political and commercial reasons. Why would such glorious traders turn their backs on inland trade routes without even trying their hand at it? With the definition of what constitutes Phoenicians above, cities of the Northern Polity – Israel – deserve a closer look. Four cities have been chosen to serve as archetypes for what the Northern Polity (Israel) looked like as it evolved: Dor (this chapter), Samaria (with a short note on Tirza), Jezreel, and Shechem (in the following two chapters).6 Each city will be examined according to: (1) the archaeology of the site, (2) what was said about it in the extra-Biblical literature of 4 5 6

Finkelstein, 77. Stern, “Hazor, Dor and Megiddo,” 15. Comparisons will be made with other putative Israelite cities, including Megiddo. Unfortunately, the work at Megiddo, a city long thought to be a crown jewel in the Davidic-Solomonic kingdom has become too confused with all of the work that has been done. In the word of Stern, “the multiplicity of excavators, the timing of the excavation reports and even the form and method of publications make them one of the most problematic sources of information in the archaeology of Palestine … I can attest to an almost total confusion of buildings, stratigraphy and chronology … Contradictions can even be found between the final report and the field diaries” (Stern, “Hazor, Dor, and Megiddo”, 14).

WAS DOR AN ISRAELITE CITY?

109

the period, and (3) what was said about it in the Biblical text. Finally, an interpretation of the data and its relationship to the Phoenicians will be given for each site. THE CITY OF DOR Dor has had a dual nature within scholarship as both Phoenician and Israelite. Finkelstein puts Iron Age Dor among the politically (and presumably ethnically) Israelite group – part of the Northern Polity.7 Meanwhile, Gilboa and Sharon put Dor solidly among Phoenician cities from the Iron II period (ca. 1100 BCE) all the way to the Roman period.8 Ephraim Stern considers the site very important for uncovering the history of the Phoenicians, but has also assumed the accuracy of “its conquest by David.”9 If there is anything uniquely Israelite among the cities that were ruled by Israel in the Early Iron Age – as the putative United Monarchy ruled, dissolved and gave rise to the Northern Polity as a unique entity – surely Dor would show some attributes of that culture as it moved from being a proto-Phoenician city in the Late Bronze Age to being an Israelite city under David, then Solomon, and finally an Israelite city in the Northern Polity of the ‘Divided Monarchy.’ It turns out that Dor is important in determining the western edge of the Omride Polity (the Northern Polity), and the southern edge of the Phoenician homeland, and points in the direction of cultural unity between the two. Dor is an excellent test site because the ancient city has had longstanding and on-going work done, both on the site and the immediately surrounding areas, for decades. Tremendous amounts of effort over the last 35 years have gone into providing a relatively clear stratigraphy, and the pottery yielded from each of those strata is being tested with Carbon 14 to find some relative and absolute dates. “A detailed stratigraphic sequence of early Iron Age remains has turned Dor into one of the most important sites for the study of this period on the Canaanite coast.”10 Dor will provide an excellent metric by which some of the finds at Samaria, and 7 8 9

10

Finkelstein, The Forgotten Kingdom, 31. Gilboa, “The Southern Levant (Cisjordan) during the Iron Age I Period,” 712. Ephraim Stern, “New Evidence from Dor for the First Appearance of the Phoenicians along the Northern Coast of Israel,” BASOR, no. 279 (1990): 27, https://doi.org/10.2307/1357206. Noa Raban-Gerstel et al., “Early Iron Age Dor (Israel): A Faunal Perspective,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 349 (February 1, 2008): 25, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25067055.

110

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

other cities may be (re)evaluated. Additionally, Dor presents a further interesting pedigree as the only city specifically mentioned by the Egyptians as a non-Philistine city of the ‘Sea People,’ the SKL.11 The culture of Dor was highly influenced by Cyprus, but not by anything further west than that.12 The people of Dor were also in contact with multiple cultures (including Cyprus, Egypt, the Philistines, etc.) through trade. Geographically, Dor is situated on the coast almost directly west of Megiddo, roughly twenty kilometers away. Archaeological and Historical Background The modern search for Dor’s past began in a 1924 excavation under the direction of J. Garstang.13 Later, work was done in areas near the tel – at a Byzantine church under Ja‘acov Liebowitz during the 1950s, and at a Roman theatre under the direction of Claudine Dauphin in the 1980s.14 These early efforts gave strong indications of the treasure still buried on the tel. Ephraim Stern began excavations on the tel in the 1980s, and work at tel Dor continued, led by some of his students, even after Stern left.15 Dor has become a testing and training ground for new archaeological techniques, and its long-standing status as a dig site has contributed to the site’s importance beyond its history. Stern initiated a consistently methodical process that has led to a detailed stratigraphy for the Late Bronze and Iron Ages, including a copious catalogue of sequenced pottery.16 The data from the site has been interpreted primarily based on physical finds, “(r)ather than the “text-first” strategy.”17 The emphasis on material finds for interpretation and the length of excavation have also led to a large library of pottery being used not just for cataloging, but also in scientific studies (Carbon-14 testing, 14C) to establish a dating sequence; testing has revealed a sequence that is lower than traditional dating,18 and more in line with Finkelstein’s low chronology. 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Raban-Gerstel et al., 27; Ayelet Gilboa and Ilan Sharon, “Between the Carmel and the Sea: Tel Dor’s Iron Age Reconsidered,” Near Eastern Archaeology 71, no. 3 (September 1, 2008): 146, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20361363. Gilboa, “Sea Peoples and Phoenicians along the Southern Phoenician Coast,” 66. Gilboa and Sharon, “Between the Carmel and the Sea,” 146. Gilboa and Sharon, 146. Gilboa and Sharon, 146. Gilboa and Sharon, 147. Gilboa and Sharon, 149. Gilboa and Sharon, 147.

WAS DOR AN ISRAELITE CITY?

111

Dor, like many Phoenician sites, sits above natural harbors.19 It is located roughly 18.6 miles south of Haifa,20 putting it on the extreme south end of what has traditionally been considered Phoenician territory. Beyond the two natural harbors, Dor’s inhabitants did not enjoy a favorable local ecology: the site is surrounded by marshes, and the hinterland is as yet unknown.21 The site is on a promontory that looks over the sea, as is the case with other Phoenician cities. Finds from the Tel Finds at Dor go back to at least the Middle Bronze Age (found very deep in the tel),22 with limited finds in the center of the ancient city going back to the Late Bronze Age.23 Harbour quays at Dor date back to roughly the thirteenth century BCE.24 Finds dating before the Iron Age confirm Dor’s status as a trading post and center for production, including copious amounts of material that was “heat-altered” including charcoal, copper and bronze slags, and ash found in a fill25 on the tell, along with a lot of Mycenaean and Cyrpiot ware also dating to the thirteenth century BCE.26 Late Bronze Age finds uncovered on both the east and west sides heavily imply that the entire tel was occupied during that time.27 The tel seems to have been almost continuously occupied from its foundation in the Middle Bronze Age up to Late Roman Period, with heavy construction happening on some part of the tel during each the intervening periods. This, of course, creates complications in stratigraphy. 19 20 21 22

23 24

25

26 27

Gilboa and Sharon, 149. Gilboa and Sharon, 149. Gilboa and Sharon, 149. Gilboa and Sharon, 147; Ephraim Stern, John Berg, and Ilan Sharon, “Tel Dor, 19881989: Preliminary Report,” Israel Exploration Journal 41, no. 1/3 (January 1, 1991): 60, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27926213. Gilboa and Sharon, “Between the Carmel and the Sea,” 149. Nick Marriner, Christophe Morhange, and Claude Doumet-Serhal, “Geoarchaeology of Sidon’s Ancient Harbors, Phoenicia,” Journal of Archaeological Science 33 (2006): 1525. This fill amounts to a trash dump; it was previously interpreted by Garstang as a destruction layer, giving further evidence of the invasion of the sea people. However, more recent investigations have shown it be evidence of habitation, and production with pottery mostly from the Early Iron Age (Gilboa and Sharon, “Between Carmel and the Sea,” 151). Gilboa and Sharon, “Between the Carmel and the Sea,” 150. Stern, “New Evidence from Dor for the First Appearance of the Phoenicians along the Northern Coast of Israel,” 28.

112

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

At the beginning of the Iron Age (c. 1200 BCE), a destruction layer “so fierce that it had turned the mud bricks red and crumbled the limestone” on the eastern side of Tel Dor was found during the 1988 campaign. 28 Stern eventually dated the destruction layer to c. 1050 BCE, but 14C dating pushes this forward to 1000 BCE.29 The middle of the tel (Area G) was excavated in 1992, and a corresponding conflagration layer was discovered, measuring about a meter thick, with almost no pottery in it.30 The pottery in the floor beneath this layer was crushed, though several pots were reconstructed, dating this layer to the end of the Late Bronze Age.31 This marked, according to Stern, the end of the occupation of the Tjeker – one of the tribes of the infamous Sea People.32 However, while pottery associated the sea people (the Tjeker being one of those ‘tribes’ in some texts) was found on the surface of the tel, there has been no sea people pottery found in situ on the tel,33 including in or under the burn layer (strata XI-X) that theoretically marks their tenure and exit from Dor – the occupation of the sea people at Dor “proved to be extremely elusive”.34 The pottery that has been found in situ from the (theoretically) Tjeker layer is a “very degenerate” Canaanite repertoire, with some Philistine sherds mixed in35 – since Dor is on the southern frontier of what is considered Phoenician territory, their trade with the Philistines a bit further south should be expected. However, all of this puts the role of Dor as a city of the Tjeker tribe of the Sea People in serious doubt, at the very least.36 The pottery on the tel, identified initially as Tjeker by Stern, is actually Philistine Bi-chrome war; its quantity was “miniscule” and “intrusive,” revealing the commercial ties, not a resident ethnic group. Given the absence further north of Philistine pottery,37 trade with the Philistines may have been actively avoided by proto-Phoenician groups in the north. The material culture at Tel Dor, as soon as it is solidly identifiable in the early Iron Age, was Phoenician. The scant pottery finds within the destruction layer reflect Phoenician styles, including the remains of “an 28 29 30

31 32

33 34 35 36 37

Stern, 28. Gilboa, “Sea Peoples and Phoenicians along the Southern Phoenician Coast,” 51. Ephraim Stern and Ilan Sharon, “Tel Dor, 1992: Preliminary Report,” Israel Exploration Journal 43, no. 2/3 (January 1, 1993): 149, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27926302. Stern and Sharon, 150. Stern, “New Evidence from Dor for the First Appearance of the Phoenicians along the Northern Coast of Israel,” 28. Stern, 29. Gilboa, “Sea Peoples and Phoenicians along the Southern Phoenician Coast,” 49. Gilboa, “The Dynamics of Phoenician Bichrome Pottery,” 1. Gilboa, “Sea Peoples and Phoenicians along the Southern Phoenician Coast,” 56. Gilboa, 56.

WAS DOR AN ISRAELITE CITY?

113

outsized pilgrim flask with red-painted concentric circles,” a common Phoenician motif, though in an earlier mono-chrome design.38 Based on this Stern posits that it was the Phoenicians who razed Dor (and ‘Akko to the north) in a struggle for control over sea trade routes, making Tel Dor part of the expansion of the Phoenician culture.39 The pottery finds from these strata parallel the pottery in Tyre, Sarepta, and other Phoenician sites in contemporaneous layers.40 In general the Iron I period ended with conflict and some towns were marked by violent episodes (including non-Phoenician sites like Megiddo, Yoqne‘am, and Tel Hadar).41 Some cities were re-established with different ethnic groups reflected in the archaeology, while others were temporarily abandoned.42 Unlike most inland cities at the end of the Iron I period, there was continuity at Tel Dor where the material culture seems to have evolved, but not altered to alien forms or designs. If the Tjeker had a solid hold on the city, it is logical that their pottery would have been found in the Late Bronze/Early Iron layers, but as it stands it appears more likely the same ethnic group continued to exist there, perhaps with a Tjeker population acting as a sub-group within Dor’s dominant population. The dominant group was proto-Phoenician, and in the Iron Age became identifiable as fully Phoenician – keeping in mind all of the caveats noted earlier about cultural identity. This explains the scant presence of the sea-people’s pottery, and the (incorrect) attribution of the city’s population as Tjeker in Egyptian text (discussed in more detail below). It also may account for the complete lack of presence of the Sea People in the Biblical accounts of the Levant littoral.43 The sea-people never took over the northern coastal cities, except perhaps Ugarit (as noted above), but were likely in business with Phoenician traders, with whom they had long standing relationships, and so may had been present in the cities from an early period. While foreign populations, such as the sea people, may have become larger or more permanent at the close of the Bronze Age, they never took over leadership, and they did not notably impact the ethnicity of the already present dominant culture – at least not as expressed in the archaeological record. 38

39 40 41 42 43

Stern, “New Evidence from Dor for the First Appearance of the Phoenicians along the Northern Coast of Israel,” 28f. Stern, 30. Gilboa, “The Dynamics of Phoenician Bichrome Pottery,” 2. Gilboa, “The Southern Levant (Cisjordan) during the Iron Age I Period,” 635. Gilboa, 635. Gilboa, “Sea Peoples and Phoenicians along the Southern Phoenician Coast,” 51.

114

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

After the destruction of the city, life seems to have quickly returned and prospered, and although pottery in these layers is not plentiful, the pottery that has been found is not different than that of the layers of devastation and those just below.44 Trade continued, noted by the presence of Cypriot ware dating to the latter half of the eleventh century.45 At the same time, Phoenician containers appear on Cyprus, reaffirming trade, and the expansion of the Phoenician influence.46 There was also “a large ‘Sidonian’-type pithos … typical of Cyprus” found in association with a new defensive wall on the tel.47 During this period, the town was fortified by a mudbrick, and composite stone and mudbrick wall with a later “thick plaster glacis”48 abutting the mudbrick section.49 The walls date to the transition of the eleventh and tenth centuries BCE.50 This fortification was dated partly by the new appearance of specifically Phoenician bi-chrome pottery.51 The wall was part of the fortification system that also included a rampart, which the wall supported, acting as a retaining wall. The sand fill in the rampart contained pottery from both the Middle Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age.52 The rampart appears to have been unique for its time,53 and was likely a reaction to whatever brought the intense conflagration that preceded its construction. During the Iron IB (ending around 920 BCE) the older town was replaced by a town measuring roughly 7 hectares.54 In some of this Iron Age settlement, habitation was “established directly on pristine sand dunes or bedrock.”55 The town was densely populated and fortified, with its acropolis overlooking the southern bay.56 The structures mirror much of its Canaanite milieu, using mud-brick building for mundane structures 44 45

46 47 48 49

50

51

52 53 54 55 56

Gilboa, “The Dynamics of Phoenician Bichrome Pottery,” 2. Stern, “New Evidence from Dor for the First Appearance of the Phoenicians along the Northern Coast of Israel,” 31. Stern, 32; Gilboa, “The Dynamics of Phoenician Bichrome Pottery,” 2. Stern, Berg, and Sharon, “Tel Dor, 1988-1989,” 59. Stern and Sharon, “Tel Dor, 1992,” 141. Ephraim Stern, Ayelet Gilboa, and Ilan Sharon, “Tel Dor, 1987 Preliminary Report,” Israel Exploration Journal 39, no. 1/2 (January 1, 1989): 36, http://www.jstor.org/stable/ 27926135; Stern, “Hazor, Dor and Megiddo,” 17f. Stern, Gilboa, and Sharon, “Tel Dor, 1987 Preliminary Report,” 36; Stern, “Hazor, Dor and Megiddo,” 17f. Stern, Berg, and Sharon, “Tel Dor, 1988-1989,” 59; Gilboa, “Sea Peoples and Phoenicians along the Southern Phoenician Coast,” 52. Stern, Berg, and Sharon, “Tel Dor, 1988-1989,” 60. Stern, Berg, and Sharon, 60. Gilboa, “The Southern Levant (Cisjordan) during the Iron Age I Period,” 632. Gilboa and Sharon, “Between the Carmel and the Sea,” 149. Gilboa, “The Southern Levant (Cisjordan) during the Iron Age I Period,” 632.

WAS DOR AN ISRAELITE CITY?

115

(such as storage facilities), and large stone construction for monumental structures, including one building that “is one of the most monumental buildings known in the Mediterranean in this period.”57 This larger structure was made using ashlar corners, “one of the earliest attestations of the type of construction in the Iron Age.”58 By the ninth century BCE, a four-chamber gate was added, similar to a gate found in Megiddo.59 The Tel Dor gate’s destruction appears to correlate with the reign of Tiglath Pileser III at the end of the eighth century BCE, confirmed by the appearance of Late Geometric pottery from Greece.60 A two-chamber gate built above was dated based on the destruction of the earlier gate and on the appearance of a stone socket, part of a door hinge that was common in the area during Assyrian hegemony.61 Associated with the Assyrian two-chamber gate is an offset-inset wall (also found at Megiddo of the same period).62 Above this gate was another fortification built in the Phoenician style “of limestone piers and rubble walls” with fourth century pottery associated with it.63 Stern attributes the four-chamber gate, and that of Megiddo, to the reign of Ahab based on 1 Kings 16.29-37, which notes that he built cities, but does not specify which cities, or what he built.64 If Ahab is a uniquely Israelite king, there should be some markers of a uniquely Israelite culture, but chambered gates are not unique in the area, much less to an ‘Israelite’ ethnicity. POTTERY AT DOR AND STRATIGRAPHY At Dor, during the Iron IA65 period (1000-980 BCE based on 14C dating), the ceramics attest to the international nature of the city. Examples of 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Gilboa, 632. Gilboa, 632. Stern, “Hazor, Dor and Megiddo,” 17. Stern, 20. Stern, 23f. Stern and Sharon, “Tel Dor, 1992,” 139. Stern, “Hazor, Dor and Megiddo,” 24. Stern, 21f. Gilboa and Sharon have broken down some of the chronology at Dor based on the results of 14C dating. The Iron 1a, Iron 1a/b, and Iron 1b correspond to the Iron IB, with dating from Dor pushing the horizons in either direction (1150-980 BCE in conventional chronology, versus an ending horizon of 1000-980 BCE for the Iron IA/B and 920 BCE for the Iron IB in Gilboa/Sharon’s chronology) (Gilboa and Sharon, “Between Carmel and the Sea,” 152).

116

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

Philistine bi-chrome ware were found along with Egyptian jars from the 21st dynasty.66 The Egyptian jars, however, are strictly commercial ware and were neither made locally nor used for everyday purposes.67 Phoenician Bichrome pottery first appears in the Iron IB stratum (c. 980-920 BCE).68 During the Iron 1/2 horizon (920-900 BCE), Euboean pottery appears in the form of Mid-proto Geometric patterns.69 In the Iron IIA period (900850 BCE) the pottery style changes to (what Gilboa and Sharon termed Israelite) a form that mirrors styles from Megiddo, Yoqne’am, Jezreel, Hazor and Dan.70 However, even with that change, Dor’s ceramic history shows continuity from the Late Bronze Age all the way to the to the Iron IIA period (1000-900 BCE); the same cannot be said of other sites, for example in Philistia to the south, where foreign designs appear suddenly in the archaeological record.71 As noted above, this continuity is common in Phoenician cities. The early Iron Age pottery evolves from the mono-chrome designs to bi-chrome designs that are typical of Phoenician presence by Iron IB (1150-1100 BCE), found on flasks, jugs, and strainer spouted jugs.72 The designs came to be the hallmark of bi-chrome ware: narrow black lines enclosing red bands. Also new to these forms are patterns of lozenges, triangles, and new crosshatching motifs.73 The newer patterns do not have antecedents in the Levant, but they do have precursors on Cyprus and in the Aegean.74 This period appears to have been experimental, though the typical Phoenician style also remains and develops into the well marketed and distinctly local bi-chrome design.75 The relationship between Cyprus and Dor is fully evident in the pottery, including forms noted above and in the appearance of “wavy-band pithoi” that appear in Dor, Sarepta, and in Upper Galilee (though notably absent from any Philistine sites).76 The pithoi were made in local production houses, with a few examples actually from Cyprus, from which 66 67 68 69 70

71 72 73

74 75 76

Gilboa and Sharon, “Between the Carmel and the Sea,” 17. Gilboa and Sharon, 159. Gilboa and Sharon, 157. Gilboa and Sharon, 161. Gilboa and Sharon, 163. This is not surprising, especially where Megiddo is concerned, since there are many examples from solidly Phoenician sites that mirror it. Gilboa and Sharon, 159f. Gilboa, “The Dynamics of Phoenician Bichrome Pottery,” 2. Gilboa, 5; Gilboa, “Sea Peoples and Phoenicians along the Southern Phoenician Coast,” 61. Gilboa, “The Dynamics of Phoenician Bichrome Pottery,” 9. Gilboa, “Sea Peoples and Phoenicians along the Southern Phoenician Coast,” 62. Gilboa, 54.

WAS DOR AN ISRAELITE CITY?

117

they can be traced in the Early Iron Age/Late Cycladic IIIA (c. 12001100 BCE).77 At that time Cyprus experienced its own disruption, which likely influenced its turn towards Dor and the Phoenician coast in a more concentrated way, likely also leading to the export of not just pottery, but potters as well.78 This relationship was long lasting, with “(t)he earliest, most abundant and well-stratified CG I (Cyprio-Geometric I) pottery ever found outside Cyprus” found among the assemblages of both Tyre and Tel Dor.79 Again, there are examples of imports and locally made imitations of merchant ware and daily ware.80 The daily ware that has been found with the bi-chrome ware, especially in the transition from the Iron IB to the Iron IIA (1000-925 BCE), also underwent some changes, becoming rougher and mostly losing what little design it had in the Iron Age IA and Late Bronze Age (though the basic forms are present, their variety was also reduced).81 This may represent a change in focus in the culture into a more outward looking group, more focused on trade, perhaps leading to greater stratification within that society. As traders became prominent and wealthy, the average citizen of Dor may have lost economic ground leading to a downgrade in the daily use of pottery into cheaper forms. The bi-chrome band design on commercial ware (with black thin lines around a red band) became very dominant, and seems to have become part of the ‘brand,’ or as Gilboa puts it “a genuine trademark, recognizable by consumers”82 both at home and abroad. This idea is further supported by a slightly later development: vessels with horizontal Phoenician bi-chrome designs. These designs are very rarely found outside the Phoenician homeland and are absent on Cyprus, their most prolific trading partner.83 In other words, it was the vertical designs that appear to have been used for commerce outside the ethnic Phoenician homeland, as well as within. However, the horizontal bands were for use only within Phoenician cities, and were not apparently intended for trade. However, the mass production of the both designs further entrenched the concentric circle 77 78 79

80 81 82 83

Gilboa, 54. Gilboa, 55. Maria Iacovou, “Cyprus During the Iron Age through the Persian Period: From the 11th Century BC to the Abolition of the City-Kingdoms (c. 300 BC),” in The Oxford Handbook of Archaeology of the Levant: 8000-332 BCE, ed. Ann E. Killebrew and Margreet L. Steiner (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2014), 803. Iacovou, 803. Gilboa, “The Dynamics of Phoenician Bichrome Pottery,” 2. Gilboa, 12. Gilboa, 12.

118

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

pattern (horizontal and verticle) as a sort of trademark, both at home and abroad. Examples of the horizontal design can be found in Tyre and Sarepta among other Phoenician cities.84 This too marks Dor as a solidly Phoenician city, and further distances it from any cultural influence from the putative Israelite group that theoretically controlled it. Dor in Texts Egyptian Texts Wenamun tells of reaching Dor fairly early in his journey. He calls it “a town of the Tjeker.”85 There is little information on the Tjeker. The name is found on a wall in a temple built by Ramses III at Medinet Habu. The Tjeker is mentioned among the seven groups named. Each of the groups is shown with different clothing and head dresses, but all seem to have the same boat.86 Other attempts to distinguish the boats of the various sea peoples have rendered some reward, but the work is on-going, and no definitive conclusions have been drawn. What the temple’s lack of distinction indicates is one of two things: either the Egyptians did not know about their boats, or they did not care. Wenamun’s time in Dor was not good. He states “a man of my ship” stole gold and silver. He then complained to the leader of Dor, who begrudgingly looked for the missing money, but did not recover it. This is odd because the text is clear that his own shipmate took the money from his ship, but he is holding the leader of the foreign city responsible, and he demands action by city officials. However, there is some confusion in the text due to some missing lines. After his money was taken, he “spent nine days moored in (Dor’s) harbor” and then left. Later, “I went out of Tyre at the break of dawn [break in the text] Zakar-Baal, the Prince of Byblos [break in the text].”87 The text resumes half-way through a sentence wherein he takes some silver that he happens to find as re-payment for his own losses.88 It appears that he takes the silver from Byblos, not Dor. Additionally, he finally leaves Byblos because “eleven ships belonging to the Tjeker” were coming 84

85 86

87 88

Gilboa, 15; Pritchard, Recovering Sarepta; Anderson, “The Beginnings of Phoenician Pottery,” 44. Pritchard, ANET, 25. Michal Artzy, “On Boats and Sea Peoples,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 266 (May 1, 1987): 75, https://doi.org/10.2307/1356932. Pritchard, ANET, 25. Pritchard, 25.

WAS DOR AN ISRAELITE CITY?

119

to arrest him.89 This ties in with the problem noted above, whether the ships of the Tjeker were really discernable or if this is just part of the story intended to heighten suspense. Although he names Dor as a Tjeker city, his travels are focused pointedly on the Phoenician homeland, where he can buy wood for a new ship of Amon-Re.90 He reports going to Dor, Tyre, and Byblos. The tale is filled with misfortune, as the protagonist is threatened over and over again with loss; loss of his treasure and his life from multiple groups during his journey. As tantalizing as the tale is, it is most likely a fictional work, the goal of which is unclear; it may be a simple story and nothing more. Phoenician Texts Eshmun’azar of Sidon mentions Dor on his sarcophagus, which dates to the early 5th century BCE. He notes that “the Lord of the Kings gave us Dor and Joppa”.91 The “Lord of the Kings” generally refers to the king of Egypt. This particular reference points to a time well after the fall of the Northern Polity and is of little help. Biblical Texts Dor appears in the Hebrew text only five times.92 In Joshua the king of Naphoth-Dor93 is mentioned in 11.2, as part of a group kings being warned about Joshua’s exploits. Dor was not conquered, and joined a coalition to fight Joshua (11.4-5). The text states that Joshua and Israel won, killing the kings and warriors, burning their cities to the ground 89 90 91 92

93

Pritchard, 28. Pritchard, 25. Pritchard, 662. The name appears a fifth time but as En-dor (1 Sam 28.7). Saul asks for a medium and he is told that there is a woman from Endor who can do the job. The formula is interesting because, as is the case with several other locations, ‘En’ (‘yn) in the text is a separate word and has multiple meanings, including “eye”. There is not enough time here to fully explore the implications of this or the possibility that this medium might actually come from Dor or its surroundings, but it is worth noting. ‫( נָ ֥פוֹת‬naphot) is connected to Dor as a single word by tradition in the masorah, but the word on its own implies a height. Perhaps the implication is something like “high dor.” The LXX took it as one word, translating it as Ναφεδδωρ, Napheddor (with no accents), and repeats this translation from the Hebrew text in Joshua 12.23, imitating the Hebrew where the word was unclear to them. In Joshua 17.11, the word is dropped; the city is just “Dor,” and the Greek version follows suit.

120

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

save those on their hill, or “mound” (‫)תּל‬. ִ 94 Then, the text tells us that Joshua defeated “the king of Dor in Naphath-Dor” (12.23), putatively making the city an Israelite city. In 17.11 the text states that “the inhabitants of Dor, and her villages” belonged to Manasseh.95 There is no evidence of anything like this at Dor in the period that text seems to reference, sometime in the Middle Bronze Age.96 In Judges 1.27 the text points out that Manasseh did not drive out the inhabitants of Dor or its villages. Rather, in Dor and the other towns listed, Canaanites began or continued living there.97 So Dor was, or continued to be proto-Phoenician. There was no ethnic change. Even if there was political change, the impact on the regular citizens of the city would have been minimal, if at all. Archaeologically, there was no impact of a foreign group coming in. The text all but admits they did little more than make a simple statement and move on. If this happened, the response appears to have been a collective yawn. 1 Kings 4.7 starts a list of Solomon’s officials who had to supply the food for the king for one month of every year. In 4.11, Dor is named as 94

95

96

97

In the LXX text the word given is κεχωματισμένας (kekomatismenas), “having been fortified by a dirt mound.” Dor was not fortified at the time the book of Joshua is trying to portray (the Middle Bronze Age). However, it should also be noted that the Hebrew does not refer to Dor as being on a hill or mountain, but on a ‫( תל‬tel), which actually refers to the ruins of a city built up over time. This too is not accurate to the period portrayed, as Dor did not have extensive ruins under the Bronze Age layers. This verse also lists En-Dor in the Masoretic Text. The LXX, however, either omitted the town, or it was missing from MT at the time of translation. While it would be easy to assume that the translators simply considered it a repetition, there are other cities missing from the Greek text in 17.11 including: “Ibleam and her towns … and the inhabitants of Taanach … third, Naphath.” This last part is more perplexing. Naphath is not the third city listed, and the number three/third is not written in a feminine form, to agree with Naphath, “‫שֹׁל֭ ֶשׁת ַה ׇנּ ֶֽפת‬.” ְ Ephraim Stern, Dor – Ruler of the Seas: Twelve Years of Excavations at the IsraelitePhoenician Harbor Town on the Carmel Coast (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994), 85. There is some distinction to be made between the Masoretic Text (MT) and the LXX. In MT the verb used is ֙‫וֹאל‬ ֶ ‫ ֙יּ‬which has the basic meaning of being willing or determined, whereas the LXX text uses ἤρξατο which pointedly means to begin or start something. There are also some differences in the verse regarding which towns were left alone by Manasseh. The LXX Beth-Shean (which also appears in MT) has information added to it about Scythians living there. The towns listed are also not exactly in the same order, and there is an added town of “Balam” in the LXX. This could be an error. Balam sits in the LXX where Balac is in MT, and Balac is added at the very end of the verse with the same formula used throughout, “And Manasseh did not drive out the inhabitants of X, nor her towns (lit. daughters), nor the inhabitants of X nor her towns...” Additionally, for all of the towns listed in the LXX, the translated imitated the use of “inhabitants of the X and her towns,” (literally daughters in both MT and LXX), but the LXX adds “τὰ περισπόρια αὐτῆς,” the meaning of which is unclear.

WAS DOR AN ISRAELITE CITY?

121

one of the regional areas, with a leader named Ben-Abinadab ruling over the area. However, the name given to Dor is actually Naphoth-Dor again.98 Also, there is still nothing in the archaeological record to show any impact of Solomon’s power over Dor. Based on this verse, Stern points to Solomon’s use of Dor as “one of the centres of maritime activity” for Israel under the United Monarchy.99 Again, the archaeology does not support this. Finkelstein believes this text refers to an eighth century BCE reality, with the Northern Polity establishing control before that: in the first half of the eighth century, Dor was “the main maritime gate” for Israel.100 The Bible never talks about Israel as a sea-faring people (during the United Kingdom or Divided). If there was any sea-faring culture in Israel, as it is commonly thought of today, the Bible knows nothing about it. 1 Chronicles 7.29 states that Ephraim’s sons possessed and lived in Dor (along with several other cities listed). Once again, however, the archaeology shows no evidence of this. Indeed, the lack of anything other than pointedly Phoenician ware or Phoenician (or generally Canaanite) architecture points to a serious problem for the text. Additionally, none of the claims made in the text on this matter can be corroborated with outside texts from Egypt, Assyria, or Babylon. What is not mentioned in the Bible is just as telling as what is there. There is no mention of Dor’s trading partner, Cyprus. Given the intense trading and mutual influence between Dor and Cyprus, if Dor were connected in any significant way to the Northern Polity or under an earlier political structure centered in Judah (the United Monarchy), there should be some mention of the island partner in the Biblical text. This kind of trade provides not only financial gains – so much so that other Phoenician 98

99 100

Another oddity appears in the text around this ruler: the MT creates a solid pattern, “Ben-X in Z city…”). There are some minor additions of details to the information, but these appear with the formula six times in a row, then changes to a slightly different formula, “X son of Y in city name” beginning in verse 15. At the end of the list patterns break down a bit more (in 4.19) as the list is completed. However, in the LXX text it reads “Χιναναδαβ καὶ Αναφαθι” (Kinanandab and Anaphathi), the name of Dor does not actually appear in the text. This may an error: mis-translating ‫( ֶבּן‬ben) as a foreign word and transliterating it, but all the other times it appears in the MT, it is correctly translated in the LXX as υἱὸς (huios), son. The other problem occurs where Dor ought to be. The Hebrew records the city as Naphath-Dor, but the Greek text leaves Dor off completely and seems to mis-translate ‫ ׇכל‬as “and” (και in Greek): these are some of the most basic words of any language and should not be subject to such blatant errors, especially in conjunction with the other error in this verse. Stern, “Hazor, Dor and Megiddo,” 17. Finkelstein, The Forgotten Kingdom, 108.

122

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

cities supported themselves almost entirely on it for a time – but also expanding political influence. Given the narrative thrust of conquering peoples and lands, Cyprus would have likely come into play in that endeavor if Dor and its harbors were politically under the control of Israel (under the United or Divided Kingdom). This is not the case. CONCLUSIONS According to Finkelstein: “In the west there is no indication that the Tirzah polity (Finkelstein’s name for Israel) managed to expand to the coast. Tel Dor is a test case.”101 He is absolutely correct. Unfortunately, putting Dor under Israelite rule creates a situation that is not reflected in the Bible, that is ‘Israel’ as a sea-faring nation. Efforts to rationalize this problem have generally failed. Making Dor a Northern Kingdom port is not supported archaeologically, and the idea of Israelites as sailors is not supported textually, or archaeologically. To say that Dor was (or was not) a port for the Northern Polity/Israel is an answer to the wrong question. The question is not whether Israel controlled the coast, but whether the coast controlled (culturally, if not politically, which is typical of Phoenician cities) ‘Israel’ (Finkelstein’s Tirzah Polity, and here, the Northern Polity). Dor was established well before any Israelite polity could have been established – including the putative United Monarchy, wherein Dor theoretically became part of ‘Israel.’ Although there is a destruction layer at the beginning of the Iron Age, it does not point to a Davidic take-over – much less anything earlier. It is not at a plausible time for this, and there is cultural continuity throughout the city’s history, though contraction and expansion are evident. Dor was completely Phoenician archaeologically by the time the Northern Polity (putative Israel) could have been established. The activity in the city is reflected in the heavy remains of imported wares denoting the substantial trade conducted in and through the city, primarily with Cyprus from the Iron Age forward. The textual evidence is thin at best, and no one has ever claimed that the Israelites were strong sailors. Many scholars (e.g., Finkelstein, and Stern) appeal to the Biblical text when trying to identify the ethnicity of Dor, looking at a list of Solomonic districts, noting that Dor “must have

101

Finkelstein, 77.

WAS DOR AN ISRAELITE CITY?

123

served as the main maritime gate of the northern kingdom.”102 But, again, there is nothing to back this up; there is no additional evidence and the Biblical text for this period is not reliable as a history. In fact, Dor was simply another gate to the sea for the Phoenicians who were expanding in all directions. It was most likely a diverse city with some contacts to the south among the Philistines as well as most likely with other groups that could have been members of the infamous Sea People. A Phoenician city could easily have expanded eastward and created a new polity that did not have the same economic sway to help them against later invading forces – like the Assyrians – due to its lack of direct access to the sea. Those inland groups, working together, eventually became known as Israel, with Samaria at its center, ethnically Phoenician and politically independent, just as all the other Phoenician cities were. Looking in places where, by all reasonable expectations, ethnic Israelites should be found, no markers of a distinct Israelite ethnos have been left behind. Dor, an ethnically proto-Phoenician city taken over by Solomon, according to the Bible, shows no substantive evidence of anything but culturally Phoenician people and their trading partners.

102

Finkelstein, 108.

CHAPTER 6

THE PHOENICIAN CITY OF SAMARIA While Dor represented a city that should have revealed two cultural strains in its history (Proto-Phoenician and then Israelite), Samaria, as the putative capital of the Northern Polity of the divided kingdom, should be a showpiece of what Israel was and what it looked like. This is where the distinctions between Israel and all the other ethnic groups should be found in high relief. A group with as much wealth and power as Samaria had should have had the cultural power and financial ability to express a unique identity; the wealth to create unique art and enough ethnic unity to establish a unique imprint on the larger cultural landscape. Alas, this is not the case. Excavations at Samaria were interpreted through a Biblical lens, under the assumption that it was a uniquely and specifically Israelite city. With new evidence always emerging, the city’s remains have been re-assessed through time. Likewise, as with the archaeology discussed above, the evidence points in another direction; it leads us away from the Bible. Attempts to identify Samaria as Israelite have been unsuccessful because all the material culture attested from the Iron Age is Phoenician. Even seminal works, such as that of Ron E. Tappy, which re-analyzes the site and the finds therein, do not often enough take Phoenician pottery into account when doing comparative work – the reverse has also been true. There is an occasional sentence referring to the other ethnic groups, but little, if any, real time given to comparative analysis. THE CITY OF SAMARIA The first excavations in Samaria were undertaken by Harvard in 19081910.1 This excavation was focused on “the threshing floors, which is just west of the (modern) village, the summit and the first two terraces west of the summit.”2 After facing several obstacles that stopped the 1

2

André Parrot, Samaria, the Capital of the Kingdom of Israel, Studies in Biblical Archaeology 7 (New York: Philosophical Library, 1958), 53. George Andrew Reisner, Harvard Excavations at Samaria, 1908-1910, Harvard Semitic Series (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1924), 7.

126

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

excavation at different times, the work was finally carried out using trenches. Some of the more interesting finds included a few ivories that foreshadowed the finds that would be made by the subsequent teams and a considerable number of ostraca, the script of which was dated to the eighth or ninth centuries.3 The ostraca, apparently tax receipts, also provided the town name from the surrounding area.4 They also discovered portions of the ashlar walls and some of the flooring of the original palace complex. The primary issue was created by the later layers of ancient buildings. During the Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine periods, Samaria was a busy city and “architects of those ages built so well that the stratification below their structures was generally destroyed.”5 Likewise, modern habitation on the site created problems for excavations. Plantations were well established on the site at the time of the joint expedition, forcing excavators of the Harvard expedition to use a trenching method wherever an area was free of olive trees or gardens being used by local communities. This, of course, created a dis-continuous excavation and made recording more difficult, making the results all the more questionable.6 The most significant work on the site was done by the second excavation, a joint venture running between 1931 and 1935 including Harvard, Hebrew University, the Palestine Exploration Fund, the British Academy, and the British School of Archaeology.7 The work was carried out under the supervision of J.W. Crowfoot, E.L. Sukenik, and Kathleen Kenyon. Site reports were published in three volumes completed in 1942 (vol. 1), 1938 (vol. 2), and 1957 (vol. 3). Kathleen Kenyon was a significant contributor to these excavations, and her work with the pottery (though it has been reinterpreted over time) was very impressive and continues to be at the center of the modern work done on pottery in any way relating to Isreal. The joint expedition focused on the acropolis. Unfortunately, the excavation was slow in progress due to cultivation of the site at the time. As they were obliged to restore the land to its previous state, they 3

4 5

6 7

Ivan T. Kaufman, “The Samaria Ostraca: An Early Witness to Hebrew Writing.” The Biblical Archaeologist 45 (1982): 229-239. Reisner, Harvard Excavations at Samaria, 1908-1910, 7. Ernest G. Wright, “Israelite Samaria and Iron Age Chronology.” (BASOR. Oct. 1959, pp. 13-29), 17. Parrot, Samaria, the Capital of the Kingdom of Israel, 53. The final year was carried out by the English expedition alone.

THE PHOENICIAN CITY OF SAMARIA

127

“were compelled ... to adopt the Strip System.”8 The system requires that a series of trenches be dug in sequence, each trench filled with the debris of the subsequent trench. The final trench is then filled with the debris of the first trench.9 Additionally, the area has a large number of trees, some of which were sacrificed to the dig.10 Finally, a brief excavation in 1967 uncovered the northern slope of the hill; unfortunately, there were no significant finds. However, the lack of common housing is notable. It is entirely possible that the town associated with the palace on the hilltop may lie underneath the modern, inhabited town of Sebaste, which cannot be excavated for obvious reasons. Though it was not a major urban center, a significant number of people must have lived there, even if only for administrative purposes. Geographically, the palace of Samaria was built on a promontory nestled among higher mountains. Close to its base was a major road that facilitated communication and trade between southern cities such as Jerusalem and northern powerhouses such as Damascus; the modern road is even closer along the base, but not far away from its ancient predecessor.11 Indeed, the view of the surrounding areas is advantageous from nearly all sides; “from his palace windows the king could watch Phoenician galleys sailing along the coast.”12 This might be a stretch, as it is about 15 miles inland. Nevertheless, the location is defensively advantageous since the hill rises sharply on all but the east side, yet these mountains that surrounded the royal city were not close enough to pose a threat from arrows or slings.13 A problem that immediately stands out for the ancient city is an apparent scarcity of water in the area that must have posed additional problems for the inhabitants. Although cisterns were built inside the walls of the palace compound, it “could not have been sufficient for many thousand inhabitants plus their horses and donkeys.”14 Additionally, good springs are a mile away in a deep valley.15 Samaria may have been a jewel in the 8

9 10 11

12 13

14 15

J.W. Crowfoot et al., The Buildings at Samaria, Samaria-Sebaste: Reports of the Work of the Joint Expedition in 1931-1933 and of the British Expedition in 1935, No. 1 (London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1942), 3. Crowfoot et al., 3. Crowfoot et al., 3. Kathleen M. Kenyon, The Bible and Recent Archaeology (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1978), 69. Crowfoot et al., The Buildings at Samaria, 1. Kathleen M. Kenyon, Archaeology in the Holy Land (New York: W.W. Norton and Company Inc., 1960), 259f. Kenyon, The Bible and Recent Archaeology, 1. Kenyon, 1.

128

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

crown of Israel, but it was not likely a major urban destination as a city center such as Megiddo. Some of the problems posed by this promontory include its generally rounded shape that forced some architectural ingenuity on the part of the first architects who undertook building on the site, and all of the subsequent inhabitants who expanded the platform. The living rock had to be leveled at the top of the hill and all expansions were supported by walls that clung to the steep sides; any cultivation had to be supported by terracing. While the space proved large enough for very appropriate royal accommodations and administration, it was never large enough to support a large urban center. “The royal acropolis was a huge leveled rectangular enclosure, measuring 89m × 178 m – covering an area of 4 acres, the average size of a town in the countryside.”16 The overall plan of the enclosure is obviously best suited for flat land and its application to the hill “argues a high standard of engineering practice.”17 Even Herod’s expansion to the farthest possible reaches allowed for an area “barely a kilometer across at the widest point.”18 Finds from the Tel Buildings The first layers of construction are not walls, but quarrying efforts, including installations that looks like they were used for wine or oil production, putatively from the Bronze age.19 As Franklin points out, the installations are not inconsequential, with over 100 examples of tub or bottle shaped pits.20 These features may have easily been used well into the Iron Age and could have been a part of why the Omride family took the hill as part of the Phoenician expansion east. Alternately, they may have been part of a proto-Phoenician settlement producing commodities for sale, but this is more difficult to prove and is therefore a less likely conclusion for now. Major changes came with the construction of a 16

17 18 19

20

Amihay Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 1st ed, The Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 1990). Crowfoot et al., The Buildings at Samaria, 9. Crowfoot et al., 1. Crowfoot et al., 91-93; Lawrence E. Stager, “Shemer’s Estate,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 277/278 (February 1, 1990): 93-107, https://doi.org/ 10.2307/1357375. Norma Franklin, “Samaria: From the Bedrock to the Omride Palace,” Levant 36 (2004): 190, https://doi.org/10.1179/lev.2004.36.1.189.

THE PHOENICIAN CITY OF SAMARIA

129

platform and walls to support it, marking the hilltop as an administrative and political center peaking with the rule of the Omrides, who likely built those initial walls.21 “The most prominent archaeological find of this period is monumental building activities … case study – the capital, Samaria.”22 One area that provides an intriguing beginning to understanding the city’s past are the walls. The fortifications seem to present a bit of a puzzle, comprising of at least two separate walls from different periods. Among their findings was a wall from an earlier period within a casemate wall that was apparently meant to further fortify (and in some places expand) the city shortly after the original wall was completed.23 Kenyon correctly points out that “One may in fact consider the Omri-Ahab building operations as a continuous process.”24 Assuming Omri established the site as a political center, based on the little literary evidence available, he may have spent a mere six years there (also based on textual evidence), so it makes sense that building projects would have been continued, and perhaps altered by his successors, but still may be considered a single building operation.25 Although the upper portions of the walls have disappeared, the foundation stones are still present in several places “and they are masterpieces of the builder’s craft.”26 The builders used ashlar masonry, likely with sun baked brick on top, to create the palace and its courtyard.27 Parallels of this type may be found at Dor (and Megiddo), but “the walls at Ugarit are the earliest examples. At Ugarit the style seems to have come in with the Phoenicians at the beginning of the Iron Ages” or may have even been introduced earlier at the end of the Bronze Age.28 However, Samaria and Megiddo are the only examples of this in the putative ancient Northern Kingdom, and the style, according to Kenyon and Crowfoot, “was short lived.”29 This was not, in fact, the case. Ashlar construction was used in the Late Bronze Age by proto-Phoenician cities, including Atillit and 21 22 23 24 25

26 27 28

29

Finkelstein, The Forgotten Kingdom, 73. Finkelstein, 85. Crowfoot et al., The Buildings at Samaria, 19. Kenyon, The Bible and Recent Archaeology, 69. David Ussishkin, “Samaria, Jezreel and Megiddo: Royal Centres of Omri and Ahab,” in Ahab Agonistes, ed. Lester L. Grabbe, Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 421 (London: T&T Clark, 2007), 296. Crowfoot et al., The Buildings at Samaria, 9. Crowfoot et al., 9. Yigal Shiloh, “The Proto-Aeolic Capital and Israelite Ashlar Masonry,” Qedem 11 (1979): 73, https://doi.org/132.174.255.86. Crowfoot et al., The Buildings at Samaria, 7.

130

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

Sarepta,30 likewise at Arwad and Tyre during the beginning of the first millennium.31 At Atilit the Ashlar harbor quays were dated to the Iron IIA period based on wooden wedges.32 Ashlar construction for large architectural buildings was fairly common in the Phoenician homeland including Arwad, Sidon, and Tyre.33 Although earlier theories from the Harvard excavation at Samaria posed that a rougher wall predated the ashlar construction, later excavations proved that the rough stones seen by Reisner were in fact later additions onto similar ashlar masonry. The Phoenician style of stonework, with well-cut headers and stretchers at the base of the walls, was actually primary and apparently part of the first major building projects on the site.34 The use of the style may have been somewhat limited, but its endurance seems to have lasted throughout the occupation of the hill.35 The puzzle lies in the lack of use of such a strong building technique in other areas of inland Palestine with rare exception.36 Other major cities where we might expect to find it, such as at Lachish, do not use this method.37 However, even Crowfoot briefly noted similarities between these earlier building techniques and finds at Tyre.38 Yet, a direct line between the Phoenicians and Samaria was not part of the analysis. At Samaria, the lower platform has “bossed stones … set in headers and stretchers, and its foundations were sunk in a trench cut in the rock.”39 Likewise at Sarepta, the temple of Tanit-Ashtart was built with stones with headers and stretchers, and the “foundations for its walls are deep,” sunken into the ground.40 This construction technique is another 30 31

32

33 34 35 36

37 38 39 40

Pritchard, Recovering Sarepta, 82. Ibrahim Noureddine, “New Light on the Phoenician Harbor at Tyre,” Near Eastern Archaeology 73, no. 2/3 (September 2010): 178, https://doi.org/132.174.255.86. Arad Haggi, “Report on Underwater Excavation at the Phoenician Harbour, Atilit, Israel,” Nautical Archaeology 39, no. 2 (December 2009): 278-85, https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1095-9270.2009.00254.x; Arad Haggi and Michal Artzy, “The Harbor of Atlit in Northern Canaanite/Phoenician Context,” Near Eastern Archaeology 70, no. 2 (June 1, 2007): 79, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25067699. Shiloh, “The Proto-Aeolic Capital and Israelite Ashlar Masonry,” 79. Crowfoot et al., The Buildings at Samaria, 7. Crowfoot et al., 7. Finkelstein has noted the use of Ashlar building techniques in Megiddo, where the use of a mason’s mark on some of the stones reflects a mason’s mark found in Samaria, the only other place in ‘Israel’ where the mark has been found (Finkelstein, “King Solomon’s Golden Age: History of Myth?,” 113). Crowfoot et al., 7. Crowfoot et al., The Buildings at Samaria, 6. Finkelstein, The Forgotten Kingdom, 92. Pritchard, Recovering Sarepta, 133.

THE PHOENICIAN CITY OF SAMARIA

131

characteristic Phoenician construction, and marks this area as architecturally Phoenician. The lower platform was likely constructed after the upper platform in an effort to extend the site. However, this may have easily been a continuous project in an effort to make the site useful as quickly as possible, using the upper platform, and upon its completion extending construction outward from there. Finkelstein notes two distinct possibilities for the construction of the lower, secondary platform: first, that it was constructed during the second flowering of the site c. 800-750 BCE, or second, both the upper and lower platforms were constructed in the ninth century BCE.41 The most likely period is during the time of Omri and Ahab as the dynasty accumulated power and became known to outside political entities like Assyria. The site was more active before Omri than previously believed, and it is possible that the Phoenicians who were working on the site in oil and wine production may have started the upper platform before Omri’s rise in the late tenth century into the early ninth century BCE. Certainly, the lower platform was constructed during the period of Omri and Ahab as the importance of Samaria grew and political power became more concentrated there, focused on production and exports as well as creating political alliances. On the site, there are two possible religious sites. First, a tomb complex was found on the northwestern slopes. The best-preserved tomb contained three adults and one child with their heads facing East.42 Inside, pits and assorted grave goods including “pots, beads of semiprecious stones, bronze and stone objects” were found.43 The pits were explained by the Harvard expedition as “the receptacles of offerings connected with the cult of the dead as regularly practiced in ancient Israel.”44 There are remains of a rock pillar, but the roof it once supported collapsed.45 There is no indication in the site report of the date of the grave, and the assumption about its place within the Israelite milieu is highly debatable. The second possible religious site is a shrine, also assumed to be Israelite by the Harvard excavation, located outside the city proper.46 There is no overt indication that this was a shrine, but an apparent “mass of potsherds on the surface” and the “trapezoid-shaped area” inside a trench 41 42 43 44 45 46

Finkelstein, The Forgotten Kingdom, 93. Crowfoot et al., The Buildings at Samaria, 21. Crowfoot et al., 21. Crowfoot et al., 22. Crowfoot et al., 21. Crowfoot et al., 24.

132

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

with rounded corners are obviously unusual.47 There was also a niche cut into the wall at the southwest corner.48 The uniqueness of the structure led excavators to theorize about the function, but the accuracy of this theory is highly debatable. Additional graves were cut in the western half of the area at a later date.49 Whether or not the later addition of graves adds weight to the argument of this feature being a shrine is also debatable. Ultimately, the “religious” sites render little in the way of usable information. The domestic buildings within the ashlar walls were broken down into six Israelite building/pottery periods by Kathleen Kenyon, of which the ashlar masonry was attributed to the first two periods. The seventh period marks the destruction layer of the Assyrian conquest.50 Kenyon dated the first period of buildings, connected to the first enclosure wall, to approximately 880 BCE, and states that “with this identification the pottery in the associated deposits is in entire agreement, for it is in close connection with tenth and ninth centuries B.C. pottery found elsewhere.”51 These could be moved into the end of the tenth century as well, given the activity on the site discussed above. Buildings inside the secondary, casemated wall appeared to Kenyon to come from Period III; these are generally coarser, using blocks from previous buildings and in some cases inhabitants cut through the rooms of buildings from Periods I and II. Buildings of Period IV also appear rough.52 Kenyon’s periods V and VI “seem to have been a fairly complete reconstruction of the buildings on the north of the courtyard.”53 If there was any decline after the Omrides peak in addition to any damage to the city during the conquest and occupation of the hilltop during the tenure of Hazael (who may well be represented as period V, a period poorly represented in the pottery record, discussed below), rebuilding during the subsequent period VI makes perfect sense. The Omride period likely spans Kenyon’s period II and III, from the establishment of Samaria as more than a commodities manufacturing site to its height. This is more difficult because the extent of the work done on the site in commodities trade (wine and oil) is difficult to establish 47 48 49 50 51 52 53

Crowfoot Crowfoot Crowfoot Crowfoot Crowfoot Crowfoot Crowfoot

et et et et et et et

al., al., al., al., al., al., al.,

23. 23. 23. 8. 97. 105. 106.

THE PHOENICIAN CITY OF SAMARIA

133

during the first two periods. It is entirely likely that the construction of the upper and lower platforms, which extended the site and established its political importance, destroyed much of the evidence from the previous periods. Pottery Kathleen Kenyon supervised the pottery found at the site and Crowfoot correctly states that, based on her work, “the study of Israelite pottery has made great strides.”54 Indeed, it is in pottery (and the ivories) that some of the most interesting results are found, but these are not actually Israelite. In fact, they are Phoenician in origin. Kenyon established a correlation between Building Periods and Pottery Periods based on the Biblical account of Omri’s purchase of the hill, assuming the promontory was an essentially blank slate.55 This is a problematic assumption. On the site, Kenyon identified some remains from the late Chalcolithic or Early Bronze Age, paralleling some of the pottery at Tel el Farcah and Megiddo.56 She assigns the pottery from Periods I and II to the Early Iron I, with no real distinction between the pottery in her two Periods; these Periods correlate to the pottery with the two walls from Periods I and II and are attributed to Omri and Ahab. However, later analysis has shown this to be incorrect. Ron E. Tappy has re-evaluated the work of the Harvard Excavation and re-aligned the periods created by Kenyon, distinguishing Pottery Periods and Building Periods. Pottery Periods I and (at least part of) II57 actually belong to the Early Iron Age I in the 10th century (and perhaps a bit earlier). Although Kenyon did not take into account occupation on the site before Omri,58 there is evidence of business and industry before Omri’s time. There was a large cistern cut into the rock in the Southern 54 55

56

57

58

Crowfoot et al., 5. The Bible does not say it was devoid of habitation. As in many things, it really does not address this question at all (1 Kings 16.24). The text states that Omri purchased the hill from Shemer, but ends the description of the site there, leaving it open for interpretation. J.W. Crowfoot and Palestine Exploration Fund, The Objects from Samaria, SamariaSebaste: Reports of the Work of the Joint Expedition in 1931-1933 and of the British Expedition in 1935, no. 3 (London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1957), 94f. In order to distinguish Kenyon’s work and his own, Tappy employs the use of the Pottery Periods and Building Periods with Arabic numerals. Kenyon did not distinguish the two and used Roman numerals. Tappy’s designations will be used except when specifically referencing Keynon’s work. Crowfoot and Palestine Exploration Fund, The Objects from Samaria, 1.

134

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

courtyard that contained fill from Pottery Periods I and III.59 The cisterns must have been in use either before Kenyon’s period I, or concurrent to it, then filled in period III. Additionally, the Harvard team found a “bath-shaped hole cut into the rock surface” that was either a wine or olive press. The press contained pottery stemming from the Early Bronze Age, but more numerous were sherds from Pottery Period I, similar to other hollows on the tell.60 Again, the hollows in the stone must have been in use before Tappy’s Pottery Period 1: cutting into the rock as a trash dump does not make sense; that would be too much effort for simple trash and it would create more waste. This courtyard press was sealed by a floor, Layer XI, leaving it protected against later intrusion.61 In short, the promontory was not a blank slate when Omri inhabited the site, rather it was likely a small functional town wherein production and trade were already happening in olive oil and/or wine at least as far back as the Late Bronze Age.62 The pottery from Kenyon’s Period I is largely quite plain and coarse and burnished by hand.63 Kenyon was not able to distinguish periods I and II in the pottery; the remains were relatively scant, not allowing for an analysis of any development.64 Among the pottery examples recorded by Kenyon, however, is a pot (Q1352) with two handles, measuring 20cm high, “Ware greyish … Reddish brown slip with design in darker red” 65. The design includes horizontal lines on the neck, and simple chevrons on the body, drawn with two close parallel lines and hash marks between them, enclosed by 2 to 3 horizontal lines. It also includes a small spout on the body. Similar designs in monochrome ware are to be found in Early Iron IB context at Dor 66. This type of design will be seen again in Tyre on another pot, the style of which shows continued affinity with Samaria, noted below.

59

60 61 62

63 64 65 66

Ron E. Tappy, The Archaeology of Israelite Samaria, vol. 1, Harvard Semitic Studies, no. 44, 50 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1992), 77. Tappy, 1:78. Tappy, 1:78. The importance of the oil and wine industry continued throughout the occupation as reflected in some sixty-three ostraca, found (out of their original contexts) referring to the production in Samaria – further evidence of the industry is attested in the surrounding area along increasingly dense populations in the eighth century (Finkelstein, The Forgotten Kingdom, 132). Crowfoot and Palestine Exploration Fund, The Objects from Samaria, 94. Crowfoot and Palestine Exploration Fund, 94. Crowfoot and Palestine Exploration Fund, 103. Gilboa, “The Dynamics of Phoenician Bichrome Pottery,” 9.

THE PHOENICIAN CITY OF SAMARIA

Fig. 1 (Pot Q1352, Kenyon’s Period I and II)

135

Fig. 2 (Iron IB example from Dor)

One of the more interesting pots found in the Period I/II layers established by Kenyon is a pilgrim flask (Q2258), which is a very common form among Phoenicians. The Samarian example has vertical “dark purplish red” concentric circles on the body 67. Parallels to this form can be found at Phoenician sites in the late Iron IA layers 68. However, the handles on the Samaria flask are different from typical Phoenician designs, which connect from the body to the neck. The Samarian flask has lug handles on either side of the body. Correlates to the handle can be found in Cypriot jugs.69 The close trading relationship between Cyprus and the Phoenician coast is well attested in the evolution of pottery from both sides of the Mediterranean.70 This particular flask was the only one of its kind found in Samaria, having lug handles.71 All other jugs and flasks have handles that connect the body to the neck in the typical Phoenician style. Kenyon’s Period III pottery is distinguished by its increased coarseness in daily wares, such as bowls, and was termed by Kenyon as “Samaria Ware.”72 The coarseness of Period III also marks the distinction between it and Period IV. Period III represents the transition between Iron Age I and II, according to Kenyon; the daily ware is made from coarser clay, but there is a new burnishing technique, using a wheel that “almost 67 68 69 70

71 72

Crowfoot and Palestine Exploration Fund, The Objects from Samaria, 100. Gilboa, “The Dynamics of Phoenician Bichrome Pottery,” 4. Gilboa, 10. Bikai, Stieglitz, and Clifford, “Rich and Glorious Traders of the Levant”; Bikai, The Phoenician Pottery of Cyprus; Gilboa, “The Dynamics of Phoenician Bichrome Pottery.” Crowfoot and Palestine Exploration Fund, The Objects from Samaria, 101. Crowfoot and Palestine Exploration Fund, 134.

136

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

Fig. 3 (Pot Q2258, Kenyon’s Period I and II)

Fig. 4 (Late Iron IA example from Tel Keison)

Fig. 5 (Late Ir IA Example from Sarepta)

Fig. 6 (Iron IB Example from Tyre)

superseded hand-burnishing.”73 The same clay is used in both III and IV, but the Period IV clay was better levigated and is consequently finer.74 The transition period for Period III to IV, according to Kenyon, occurs around 800 BCE.75 She found parallels for Period IV at Megiddo, Stratum IV, and states that “The material of no other site seems to fall within the same limits.”76 However, the Period III pottery may actually come from an earlier period. At other Phoenician sites, Early Iron B daily ware (c. 1100 BCE) also becomes increasingly coarse and is notable for its lack of designs.77 Tappy dates Pottery Period III to the Omrides in the Iron IIB period (c. 900 BCE) and also notes parallel pottery in Phoenician 73 74 75 76

77

Crowfoot and Palestine Exploration Fund, 95. Crowfoot and Palestine Exploration Fund, 95. Crowfoot and Palestine Exploration Fund, 95. Ibid., 95. Megiddo was originally going to be addressed as part of this problem, but it did not anywhere profitable because in many of the confused layers that make dating far less than reliable; it seems unwise to try to answer a somewhat complex question with a more complex question. Gilboa, “The Dynamics of Phoenician Bichrome Pottery,” 12.

THE PHOENICIAN CITY OF SAMARIA

Fig. 7 (Pot Z166, Kenyon’s Period III)

137

Fig. 8 (Pot Q 1747, Kenyon’s Period III)

ware.78 Most of the pottery recorded by Kenyon lacks design entirely and may be considered daily ware.79 As Gilboa noted, vessels with horizontal Phoenician bi-chrome designs are very rarely found outside the Phoenician homeland and are absent on Cyprus.80 The horizontal bi-chrome design on fig. 8 is unmistakable and is not the only example. The vertical designs are most often found on pilgrim flasks, designed and intended for travel outside the home city. The strainer-spouted jug from period III is a representative form found in Sarepta and Tyre.81 It typically has an open trough on the spout,82 as is the Samaria example given by Kenyon. The Samaria jug was produced in the typically Phoenician red-slip style,83 and the all other aspects of its design fall in line with other examples described by Anderson in his work on early Phoenician pottery: the spout, on one side, is tilted up at roughly 90o “from the plane of the handle” and has a strainer in the base.84 Strainers in the Phoenician homeland were both decorated and plain, 78 79 80 81 82 83

84

Tappy, The Archaeology of Israelite Samaria, 1:159. Crowfoot and Palestine Exploration Fund, The Objects from Samaria. Gilboa, “The Dynamics of Phoenician Bichrome Pottery,” 12. Gilboa, 15. Anderson, “The Beginnings of Phoenician Pottery,” 37. The strainer spouted jug has also been found among other ethnic groups, including the Philistines, but these examples typically have white slip in the earlier forms, and only later have red slip applied to them (Anderson, “The Beginnings of Phoenician Pottery,” 37). Anderson, “The Beginnings of Phoenician Pottery,” 37.

138

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

Fig. 9 (Pot Q1531, Kenyon’s Period III)

Fig. 10 (Example from Tyre)

Fig. 11 (Example from Dor)

some were burnished in red slip (as the Samaria example is) .85 The Iron IB/Iron IIA example of Tyre is decorated in a geometric design as well as the horizontal bands from a Phoenician homeland.86 There are similar decorated examples from Dor also dating from the Iron IB/Iron IIA periods.87 Globular jugs are also present among the Samaria repertoire. This is “among the first Phoenician pottery known to have come from the Phoenician homeland”88 and makes its appearance in Samaria by period III, with several examples given by Kenyon through period VI.89 Most examples are undecorated red slip that were burnished. These forms often have mushroom lips in both the Phoenician homeland as well as at 85 86 87 88 89

Anderson, 37; Crowfoot and Palestine Exploration Fund, The Objects from Samaria, 111f. Gilboa, “The Dynamics of Phoenician Bichrome Pottery,” 15. Gilboa, 15. Anderson, “The Beginnings of Phoenician Pottery,” 43. Crowfoot and Palestine Exploration Fund, The Objects from Samaria, 111ff.

THE PHOENICIAN CITY OF SAMARIA

Fig. 12 (Pot Q2480, Kenyon’s Period VI)

139

Fig. 13 (Example from Tyre)

Samaria and Dor.90 This form represents as evolution of the pilgrim flask into a footed form, creating the jug.91 A good example from the Phoenician homeland may be found at Tyre .92 Conclusion about Pottery The pottery catalogue of Samaria reveals a society that is typical of Canaan, and more specifically entirely typical of the Phoenicians. There was most definitely occupation on the tell before the storied purchase by Omri. What he purchased (or ruled over) was already a production site for oil or wine by the end of the ninth century BCE. Additionally, the pre-Omride pottery of Iron IIA transition to Iron IIB is similar in quality and form to other tenth century BCE Phoenician sites, the daily ware being coarse, hand burnished red slip ware. The Spouted jug has designs that easily link it into early Phoenician monochrome ware, comparable to that found at Dor (identified with the Iron IIA) and at Tyre (identified with Iron IB/IIA). Therefore, Kenyon’s Period I/II may actually belong to the pre-Omride occupation of the site when commodities were being produced on the hilltop. Omri (culturally Phoenician himself) takes over or buys control of the promontory and transforms the basic wine and 90

91 92

Richard Fletcher, “The Cultural Biography of a Phoenician Mushroom-Lipped Jug,” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 25, no. 2 (May 2006): 173-94, http://onlinelibrary. wiley.com.ccl.idm.oclc.org/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0092.2006.00255.x/full; Crowfoot and Palestine Exploration Fund, The Objects from Samaria; Gilboa, “The Dynamics of Phoenician Bichrome Pottery.” Anderson, “The Beginnings of Phoenician Pottery,” 42. Bikai, “The Late Phoenician Pottery Complex and Chronology,” 49, 51.

140

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

olive oil complex into a political center. With him comes the transformation of the pottery, Period III-IV. These periods include the trademark of Phoenician home ware, horizontal concentric bands in red and black. Period V with its lack of material finds may indicate the tenure of Hazael who inhabited the city for a time. Period VI introduces new forms alongside older classically Phoenician forms, such as the pilgrim flask with vertical concentric circles in red and black. The following chart summarizes the above discussion, and gives a visual representation of the evolution of the discussion regarding the pottery, and by extension the history of occupation on the promontory. Approximate Dates BCE

Kenyon Building/ Pottery Periods93

Tappy Pottery Periods94

New Pottery Periodization

10th c /Ir IIA

Proto urban

I/II

I/II Late Bronze – Early Iron IB: hand burnished, Phoenician monochrome ware; rough daily ware; possible construction of upper platform

880 /Ir IIB

I

II95

Early III Omri establishes his dynasty with political center at Samaria; increased coarseness of daily ware without decoration parallels other Phoenician sites; new wheel burnishing introduced; increased emphasis on commerce; finishing upper platform, beginning lower (?)

860

I/II

Early III

III/IV better levigated clay

840

III

III

IV/V Hazael’s tenure on the mountain; commerce and normal operations slow leading to a scarcity of pottery for period

93 94 95

Samaria Sebaste I, 90-98. Tappy, 253. As discussed above, some elements from Pottery Period III may come from an earlier date, contemporaneous with the Kenyon’s Period II. It seems fair to move Period III into the period of Omri’s arrival alongside II, perhaps extending it to account for its irregularity as a group. Additionally, Finkelstein points out that “The inland, hilly parts of the country are relatively isolated and hence were culturally more conservative than the northern valley” (BASOR, 116).

141

THE PHOENICIAN CITY OF SAMARIA

820

III

III

800

III

Late III/IV

780

IV

IV

760

IV/V

V/VI

740

V/VI

VI

720

VII Assyrian

VII Assyrian

VI during and/or after the tenure of Hazael; return to commerce, typical Phoenician ware, including horizontal bands indicative of a Phoenician homeland VII Assyrian

Fig. 14. Pottery Chart with New Dating

While several scholars have noted the presence of analogous pottery between Phoenicians and Samaria,96 a direct line between the two has not thus far been drawn. In fact, there is no pottery that could be considered uniquely Israelite from its founding, nor during its period of apparent power under the house of Omri. The pottery does not reveal a simple relationship between it and the Phoenician cities, but the native Phoenician culture of the city; it is part of the Phoenician homeland! Ivories While architecture and pottery can certainly offer windows into the relationships between sites and therefore the potential relationships between political powers, there is yet another window through which we may look. Samaria offers a dazzling array of carved ivories. These little pieces of art offer a taste of the potential extravagance of the rulers of the Samarian promontory. Certainly, ivory was not rare for rulers; ivory art was sought after by rulers all over the Middle East and Africa. Rulers boasted of their kills in elephant hunts and proudly displayed the results of their work. “During the first three or four centuries of the last millennium B.C. ivory was used on a profligate scale” and, by the end of the eighth century, the Syrian elephant was extinct.97 The inhabitants of the palace at Samaria were no exception. The ivories of Samaria were well known in the Biblical text and their presence has been born out in the archaeology. Unfortunately, the caches 96

97

Bikai, “The Late Phoenician Pottery Complex and Chronology”; Ron E. Tappy, The Archaeology of Israelite Samaria: The Eighth Century BCE, vol. 2 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2001); Gilboa, “The Dynamics of Phoenician Bichrome Pottery.” J.W. Crowfoot and Palestine Exploration Fund, Early Ivories from Samaria, SamariaSebaste: Reports of the Work of the Joint Expedition in 1931-1933 and of the British Expedition in 1935, 2 (London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1938), 1.

142

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

of art (numbering more than 500 pieces) were not in pristine contexts; some of them were among sherds of Hellenistic pottery along with bits and pieces of other debris spanning hundreds of years; one cache of ivories had apparently “been moved en bloc in, or after, the Hellenistic period” and were encased in the remains of decaying mud brick.98 Ivories were found in several caches along an inner enclosure wall with no discernable room around them. The locations of many caches “must be described either by the co-ordinates on our plan or by the letters we used to designate the working field strips.”99 They were found in varying degrees of disrepair, from white and nearly whole to blackened shards; many were entirely destroyed, leaving behind little more than ivory dust, barely discernable. Some twenty stray pieces were found in fields to the south-east of the summit and “are of the same character… and they were all found in association with other objects of the Israelite period,”100 (c. 900-722 BCE). Comparable ivory works have been found at Tell Nimrud and in North Syria at Arslan Tash. Their shared characteristics include themes, style, and skill. In fact, those of Tell Nimrud and Samaria “look as if they came from the same workshop.”101 Those of Arslan Tash are a little different in the level of apparent skill of the artist and are likely older than those at Samaria.102 However, “one series... once decorated the framework of a bed (and) was found lying just as the plaques fell when the wood rotted away”103 is one of the most interesting finds. Another interesting detail comes from this group: a name was inscribed on one of the ivories, that of “our lord Hazael,” a king of Damascus (c. 845-800 BCE).104 Damascus made significant gains over a large region that included Samaria and its surrounding area, including into the south into Philistine territories during the reigns of Hadadezer and Hazael.105 The ivory laden bed in Samaria did not belong to the city of Omri or Ahab, but it is a witness to the political fortunes of Samaria in a later time. 98 99 100 101 102 103 104

105

Crowfoot and Palestine Exploration Fund, 2. Crowfoot and Palestine Exploration Fund, 2. Crowfoot and Palestine Exploration Fund, 4. Crowfoot and Palestine Exploration Fund, 5. Crowfoot and Palestine Exploration Fund, 5. Crowfoot and Palestine Exploration Fund, 5. Ibid., 6. The date of Hazael has been confirmed with a secondary inscription from Nimrud, giving an inventory of loot taken from Damascus during the reign of the Assyrian king Adad-narari III (809-782). The inventory included ivory beds and tools from the palace (Samaria Sabaste, 2:6). Liverani, The Ancient Near East: History, Society, and Economy, 439.

THE PHOENICIAN CITY OF SAMARIA

143

Of the ivories pictured by the joint expedition (1933-1935), many show attributes of being in a transitional style between being proper Phoenician and earlier Northern Syrian styles. As noted above in Chapter 3, Phoenician ivories tended to be symmetrical, highly Egyptianized (though not purely so), more naturalistic, and often had open, negative space. The Northern style tended to be asymmetrical, less naturalistic, and did not typically employ methods that went all the way through the ivory – that is, they did not have open spaces. Those at Samaria do employ open work methods that create negative space, but all other attributes refer back to the Northern Syrian style. The Samarian pieces thus represent a transitional style along the chronological spectrum. They are not very naturalistic: the eyes are over-sized and the supernatural elements, like wings on otherwise normal animals, are not placed on the bodies of animals in a way that accounts for natural biology. They are not symmetrical: the wings of the creatures depicted often break borders – that is, the wings cannot be fully depicted because they do fit inside the confines of the piece, making one side of the object visually heavier than the other. Many of the pieces are highly Egyptianized, but others reflect influence from Assyria. Ivories were not typically kept in Phoenician cities, or at least they have not been found in the archaeological record in the coastal cities. There are several possible reasons for this, and the exception to this is in Samaria – though with good reason. First, Assyria used the coastal cities longer without destroying them. The ivories as valuable articles could have easily been taken as booty or given as tribute or gifts. Likewise, the cities on the coast may have used them, especially in a time of need or economic oppression, for easy export income. The fact that the ivories in Samaria were found in such disarray and in such odd places without distinctive context may indicate some efforts to hide the ivories. It seems highly unlikely that this art form that was so elevated as a status symbol would have been used as simple fill with broken pots or pebbles. Additionally, care must be taken in assuming how the ivories got there. The bed with Hazael’s name on it was likely brought there as a show of might by the king, assuming he was actually able to occupy the hilltop for a significant time, which the bed provides evidence for. The Biblical text supports the occupation of the hill by Hazael, and with two sources corroborating the theory, this becomes the most likely reason for the presence of the ivories in Samaria. This is explored in greater detail below where the texts are taken into account.

144

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

Texts As mentioned above, the name Israel barely exists in the extra-Biblical material, rather the polity was variously called the house of Omri, the land of Omri, or specifically refers to Samaria. It is typically assumed that these designations refer to the Biblical polity, Israel, the Northern Kingdom that seceded from the Davidic kingdom and took the name of the kingdom with them, leaving the southern polity to establish themselves with another name – a highly unlikely scenario in itself. More likely, Israel was a name that came to designate the Northern Polity, whose most famous (and most likely founding) ruler was Omri at some time during the ninth century or later. At this point in time, there is no way to determine how or why that happened and it is beyond the scope of this project. One possibility is that it was the name of coalition led by the house of Omri. This coalition also included other ethnic groups (including Phoenician Samaria); this is why there is no distinct material culture of Israel: it was not initially a distinct identity, but a name used to refer to multiple groups with their own identities (an example of this type of group would include NATO or the European Union). The coalition Israel was still limited, so calling them simply Canaanite was/is too big. Assyrian Texts Shalmaneser III (858-824 BCE), according to the Monolith-Inscription noted in the previous chapter, identifies “Ahab the Israelite.”106 This is the only time the name Israel is actually used in Assyrian inscriptions. The reasons for the use of the name Israel here and nowhere else are completely unknown and perhaps unknowable. By this time, if both inscriptions are current to the times they record, the name of Israel is known, but what it actually designates remains a mystery; a different way to see this is ‘Ahab, a member of Israel.’ Israel’s only other appearance is on the Moabite stone, discussed below. In a building inscription, Tiglath-Pileser III mentions Samaria, but it is unclear exactly what was intended as the text is fragmented. He obviously intended to punish the polity by attacking Samaria and punishing its people, although he did not force them to leave. “In my former campaigns I had considered all the cities [which … as …] and I had carried them away as booty and … the town Samaria only did I le[ave/except … ] their king 106

Yamada, The Construction of the Assyrian Empire, 157; Pritchard, ANET, 279.

THE PHOENICIAN CITY OF SAMARIA

145

[… like a] fog/snow storm.”107 The text later returns to Samaria, which it refers to as Bit Humria (House of Omri), saying: “… all its inhabitants (and) their possessions I led to Assyria. They overthrew their king Pekah and I placed Hoshea as king over them. I received from them 10 talents of silver as their [tri]bute and brought them to Assyria.”108 Notably missing, as noted above, is the actual use of the term “Israel” in the inscription. Rather, he refers to the city and uses the putative founder of the polity, Omri. Sargon II also described his attack on Samaria in an inscription: “conqueror of Samaria and of the entire (country of)” the house of Omri.109 The text continues with multiple other peoples and places destroyed by the Assyrian ruler.110 This is again recorded in an annalistic report with additional details of his actions: “At the begi[nning of my rule, I … the town of the Sama]rians” followed by additional information about leading away 27,790 people and 50 chariots. He then claims to have rebuilt it and settled people from elsewhere in the city.111 This is all repeated in another inscription, with the added details that he made the foreign people remain in Samarian and “assume (their) social positions. I installed over them an officer of mine and imposed upon them the tribute of the former king.”112 This is correlated with the pottery from Period VII. The Moabite Stone The Moabite Stone (alternatively called the Mesha Stele) is dated to roughly 830 BCE,113 concurrent to the inscription of Shalmaneser III. The language of the text implies that it was written after his reign was over, “I reigned after my father,”114 using the perfect tense of the verb (line 2: ‫מלכתי‬/mlkty).115 In the text he discusses the triumph of the house of Omri over Moab and his revenge. The text is quoted again here for convenience: 107 108 109

110 111 112 113 114

115

Pritchard, ANET, 283. Pritchard, 284. The text actually reads Bit-Hu-um-ria, but translator (Luckenbill) put “Israel” in his English translation. Pritchard, ANET, 284. Pritchard, 284. Pritchard, 284f. Pritchard, 320. Pritchard, 320; Kent Jackson, “The Language of the Mesha’ Inscription,” in Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab, ed. Andrew Dearman, Archaeology and Biblical Studies 2 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1989), 97. Jackson, “The Language of the Mesha’ Inscription,” 104.

146

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

As for Omri, king of Israel, he humbled Moab for many years, for Chemosh was angry at his land … but I have triumphed over him and over his house, while Israel hath perished forever! Omri had occupied the land of Medeba, and had dwelt there in his time and half of the time of his son, forty years; but Chemosh dwelt there in my time (lines 4-9).116

The end of the text gives the feeling that the inscription was created after the death of Mesha, “Chemosh dwelt there in my time” rather than something like ‘Chemosh dwells there now.’ As it is written, it implies that Chemosh may not dwell there anymore as future generations (or the generation in which it was written) read the inscription. However, Jackson translates the passage a bit differently, saying “Kemosh returned in my days.”117 Additionally, it is worth noting that the author treats Omri and his house as a separate entity from Israel, even after calling him “king of Israel.” There are three items: “him” referring back to Omri, “his house” which could refer to his kin or his entire polity, and, separately, Israel. Additionally, king is a loaded term in any ancient language and its definition and function is not always clear, if the word “king” is replaced by something more general like “leader,” it becomes entirely feasible that Israel and the house of Omri are not one and the same but related to each other more loosely – perhaps like a United States general might lead United Nations troops: he has command over the joint military operations but he does not have political power in the territories from which the troops come. He may have kept the title king because that was his title within his own political context – if a president or prime minister were to lead troops into battle in a modern context, they would likely not lose their political title. The text creates further mysteries with a note that Mesha was told by Chemosh to “Go, take Nebo from Israel” (line 14).118 Nebo is not commonly known as part of the Moabite pantheon, but is rather well known among Babylonians and Assyrians (a god of writing, also written as Nabu in Babylonian texts, became a chief deity alongside Marduk in Babylonia119). Neither did the house of Omri nor Israel conquer the Assyrians at any time, and the home for (presumably) the statue of the 116 117

118 119

Pritchard, ANET, 320. Jackson, “The Language of the Mesha’ Inscription,” 97. For a full discussion of the difference, see ibid., 110. Pritchard, ANET, 130. Tammi J. Schneider, An Introduction to Ancient Mesopotamian Religion (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 56f; Wathiq Al-Salihi, “The Shrine of Nebo at Hatra,” Iraq 45, no. 1 (Spring 1983): 141, http://www.jstor.org/stable/ 4200192.

THE PHOENICIAN CITY OF SAMARIA

147

god is unknown.120 Mesha does not tell his readers the city from whence the statue came, leaving the impression that Nebo’s home was in Israel; the city that Nebo may have called home is, again, unknown. Sadly, very little can actually be said about Moabite religion, leaving this a mystery.121 The inscription goes further to note that during his raid to capture Nebo, he took Israel, but again, there is no indication what that means or which cities it would include: I went by night and fought against it from the break of dawn until noon, taking and slaying all, seven thousand men, boys, women, girls, and maid-servants … And I took from there […] of Yahweh, dragging them before Chemosh. And the king of Israel had built Jahaz, and he dwelt there while he was fighting me.122

If the text is to be taken literally, serious questions arise immediately. Surely Mesha did not conquer the multiple cities of Israel – a term that is itself unclear to say the least – in one morning or even in one day. Given the size of Samaria proper, he was not just attacking the mountaintop capital, since that could not have supported so many people given its size and lack of a good water supply (as noted above). Again, however, the text is likely unreliable here and numbers are often inflated by rulers when their achievements are recorded for posterity. The text contradicts itself later, lending further to its dubious nature where details are concerned, at the very least, when Mesha states that he “cut beams for Qarhoh with Israelite captives,” though he just stated that he killed “all 7,000 men, boys, women, girls, and maid-servents.”123 This may be a symbolic number, which, again, serves to weaken the text and its reliability as a historical document with accurate details. Rather, it should be seen as more of a public relations document within a historical context. Moab likely struggled against the coalition of Israel and may have even had victories over them, but the nature of that victory and exactly who was affected has, at least for the time being, been lost to history. 120

121

122 123

The temples in Mesopotamia were quite literally the houses of the gods, and their statues dwelt therein as the focus of cultic activity (Schneider, An Introduction to Ancient Mesopotamian Religion, 73). Gerald L. Mattingly, “Moabite Religion and the Mesha’ Inscription,” in Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab, Archaeology and Biblical Studies 2 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1989). Pritchard, ANET, 320. Pritchard, 320.

148

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

Egyptian Texts The period of the house of Omri (or perhaps Israel) coincides with the Third Intermediate period in Egypt. This period does not mark a time of expansion or great power for Egypt. It was a time of internal strife and struggles for power among competing groups in the area. Finkelstein notes that Sheshonq I may have even promoted the rise of the house of Omri in order to help his own political standing in the area.124 However, there is no direct evidence of this in the literature, so it remains an interesting hypothesis. The Bible The Biblical text refers to Samaria in 102 verses throughout the text. The Bible is really the only place where information on the religion of Samaria can be found. Unfortunately, the Biblical text is not there to report facts, but to prove a point from its own theological perspective, namely how bad the kings of the Northern Polity were in an effort to give meaning to the later historical realities. This is not to say that there is no history in the texts, only that they were (like all other ancient texts) not written to be good history books in the modern meaning of history (studied and critically analyzed to be as objective as possible and subject to change whenever new data become available). Ancient texts, including the Bible’s ‘historical’ texts were at least as much public relations and theological documents as they were records of past events. The dating of the texts is debated, but its later redactions and final form are solidly focused around the Babylonian exile of 586 BCE and its consequences as part of the Deuteronomistic History.125 Kings. In 1 Kings 13.32, before the reported purchase of the mountain, there is a condemnation against the high places, including those “that are in the cities of Samaria.” This seems anachronistic since, based on the text, Samaria did not belong to Omri until 1 Kings 16.24, when he purchased it and subsequently was buried there (16.28). His son, Ahab, then 124 125

Finkelstein, The Forgotten Kingdom, 61. Marvin A Sweeney, I & II Kings: A Commentary, The Old Testament Library (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007), 4; Gary Herion, David Graf, and John David Pleins, eds., Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, vol. 3 (New York: Doubleday, 1992), Kings, Books of; Gary N. Knoppers, “Theories of the Redactions of Kings,” in The Books of Kings: Sources, Composition, Historiography, and Reception, ed. Andre Lemaire and Baruch Halpern, Vetus Testamentum 129 (Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2010), 69.

THE PHOENICIAN CITY OF SAMARIA

149

took the throne in Samaria (16.29) and he “put up an altar for Baal in the house of Baal, which he built in Samaria” (v. 32) after marrying Jezebel, the daughter of a Sidonian king (v. 31). A famine reported in 18.2 brings the entrance of Elijah and a competition between him and the prophets of Baal (18.2-46) – predictably, the contest goes badly for the prophets of Baal. While Ahab is ruling in Samaria, however, Elijah is forced to flee the house of Omri. In 1 Kings 19.15, Elijah, who has left Samaria in fear for his life (under a threat by Jezebel), is instructed by the deity to anoint Hazael on his way back, setting the stage for future conflict in the story. The deity further elaborates the plan for the deaths of anyone who has not been loyal, “they who escape the sword of Hazael will die by Jehu, and they who escape the sword of Jehu will die by Elisha” (v. 17): Jehu, a future king, and Elisha, Elijah’s inheritor, are also to be anointed by Elijah as he returns to Samaria (v. 16). Hazael has the explicit approval of the deity, and proves to be a thorn in the side of Samaria. He appears again in 2Kings, after the report of his father (Ben-Hadad) sacking Samaria. In 2Kings 8.9 King Ben-Hadad, who lays ill, hears of Elisha’s approach and tells his son to meet the prophet with a gift. Elisha foretells of the king’s recovery but eventual death, as wells as the coming conflict between Israel and the heir to the throne, Hazael (v. 12). 9.14-15 tells of Hazael’s success against Israel, leaving Joram wounded and forced to flee the battle. In 10.32 the text says that Hazael “defeated all the borders of Israel” which was under the command of Jehu. The text tells of continued problems with Hazael for both the north and the south (12.17, 18; 13.3, 22). An earlier conflict between the House of Omri and Ben-hadad of Aram is remembered in 1 Kings 20.1, “He marched against Samaria, laid siege to it and attacked it.” The conflict eventually ends in a treaty in 20.34. The struggle was not entirely settled though, and the two armies marched against each other once again; Ahab was victorious (20.29). Ben-hadad soon makes a deal with Ahab, promising all the towns that were taken in previous conflicts as well as rights to sell in Damascus, and thus another treaty was signed (20.34). Unfortunately, a prophet finds Ahab on the road and predicts his demise for allowing the treaty and “the king of Israel walked to his home, sullen and vexed, to Samaria” (20.43). In chapter 21, Ahab decides he wants a vineyard belonging to Naboth of Jezreel “next to the palace of the king Ahab of Samaria” (2 Kings 21.1). His possession of that land brings further anger from Elijah who predicts his death for the actions (21.18-19).

150

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

This section highlights the role of Jezebel in Samaria and her role in the royal family. Likewise, it is through her story that a little bit about the religion of Samaria is learned. Ahab marries the Phoenician woman, Jezebel, who is “the daughter of Ethbaal, king of the Sidonians” (1 Kings 16.31). She brings her religion with her to the royal house. Ahab followed her lead and “served and worshipped Baal” (v. 31), creating altars and a house for the Phoenician deity in Samaria (v. 32). She did her job as a royal wife and queen in a foreign land.126 However, the theologically driven text paints her as a whore (2 Kings 9.22, 30), she murders the prophets of YHWH (1 Kings 18.4) for unspecified reasons, and her doom is prophesied: she would be eaten by dogs (21.23). All the purported evil of Ahab is sourced back to his Sidonian wife (21.25). Elijah sets up a competition between himself and the prophets of Baal and Asherah who have been “eating of the table of Jezebel” (18.19). She is powerful enough to threaten the prophet (19.2) and scare him, causing him to run away (19.3). Her influence is seen again when she writes a letter in the name of the king creating a ruse to kill Naboth (21.8-14), thereby giving the desired vineyard to Ahab (v. 15). In all, her name appears twenty times in the text. It appears that she is the reason the Biblical text is more focused on Ahab than Omri: all the texts outside the Bible refer to the house of Omri and give little notice to Ahab. In chapter 22 the text reports “three years with no war between Aram and Israel” (22.1). At this time Jehoshaphat went to Samaria to visit (22.3), and while the two kings were sitting “at the entrance of the gate of Samaria,” prophets came before them and commanded them to overtake Aram (22. 10-12). The two kings undertook the new war. Ahab died in the war, and was buried in Samaria (22.37). His chariot was washed in a pool of water nearby, from which dogs drank and prostitutes bathed (v. 38), thus defiling him as his blood mixed with the water. In 22.39, the text describes “the ivory palace that he built and all the towns that he fortified,” presumably referring to Samaria and the surrounding towns. The identification of Samaria as an ivory city is likely based on a memory of a time after Omri and Ahab, when the Aramaeans took the city and imported ivories for display, which was discussed above and will be revisited shortly. Ahaziah began his reign in Samaria upon the death of his father, Ahab (22.51). He is not seen favorably in the text, the theme is repeated yet again about his infidelity to YHWH, and his worship of Baal (22.53-54). 126

Tammi J. Schneider, “Jezebel: A Phoenician Princess Gone Bad?” (Society of Biblical Literature, Chicago, Ill, November 2012).

THE PHOENICIAN CITY OF SAMARIA

151

This too implicitly refers us to Jezebel who likely taught her son the ways of her religion, Phoenician religion. 2 Kings begins with a report about Moab rebelling against “Israel” after the death of Ahab (2 Kings 1.1). This is an awkward place for the verse since it is isolated in the midst of Ahaziah’s story, and does not connect the new king to the rebellion. The Moabite Stone backs up the story told here, “As for Omri, king of Israel, he humbled Moab for many years.”127 However, the Moabite Stone does not mention the ruler they are rebelling against, and the Bible does not mention Moab again until chapter 3 when it repeats the story under a different king in Samaria, Jehoram (discussed below). In 2 Kings 1.2 the story about Ahaziah continues the narrative from the previous chapter, noting that “Ahaziah fell through the lattice in his chamber in Samaria,” injuring himself. This brings Elijah back into the narrative when the king sends messengers for Baal-zebub’s help rather than YHWH’s, and Elijah sends word that the king will not recover, but die (1.4). The Elisha narrative in 2 Kings also partly takes place in Samaria. Again, the common theme of disloyalty to YHWH is emphasized in the text. Elisha’s position as being chosen by the deity is confirmed before he reaches Samaria. He curses some children who have teased him, causing bears to maul 42 of the children on the road to Bethel on his way to Samaria (2.23-25), establishing his credentials as a prophet of the correct deity and his ability to wield the deity’s power. In 2 Kings 3.1 Jehoram becomes king in Samaria.128 The narrative quickly returns us to the conflict with Moab, noting that when Ahab died, Mesha rebelled, leading to Jehoram responding with troops along with a coalition from Judah and Edom (3.4-8). The coalition met with difficulty 127 128

Pritchard, ANET, 320. There is considerable confusion about this king. For example, 2 Kings begins by calling him Jehoram, the brother of Ahaziah (2 Kings 1.17), and it reports his reign as beginning in the second year of the reign Jehoram in Judah in the same verse. There seems to be possible confusion over the names as both kings are named Jehoram. Later, in chapter 3, the confusion continues as the text reports that Jehoram became king in Samaria during the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat in Judah (3.1). However the text does not record his death or who succeeded him. Rather, it seems to switch to the name Joram, calling him the son of Ahab (just as Ahaziah, and Jehoram were previously) (8.16). Equally interesting, that verse re-affirms the paternity of Jehoram of Judah, the son of Jehoshaphat. Later, however, the texts say that “In the twelfth year of king Joram son of Ahab of Israel, Ahaziah son of King Jehoram of Judah began to reign” (8.25), but Ahaziah was originally the son of Ahab in Samaria! The text is not even sure who is ruling where or when, or the ruling families failed to use ordinals in their names. In any case, it creates a confusion.

152

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

on the way to confront Moab and he called on Elisha to help (12). Elisha is willing to help only because of the presence of Jehoshaphat of Judah (14), but tauntingly asks Jehoram why he does not go to the prophets of his parents, the prophets of Baal (13). Again, this is an implicit dig against the religion of Samaria, and more specifically Jezebel. The religion of Samaria is a consistent line that distinguishes it from Judah according to the text. In other words, the Phoenician-ness of Samaria makes it the ‘other’ from the perspective of Jerusalem. However, the recurring theme of calling on the prophets of YHWH implies a couple of things. First, it provides a continuing link between the north and south in the story. Second, the consistent role of Judah’s deity in the text props up the theological righteousness of the south. Both points contribute to the story told later about why the north fell – providing some meaning to its defeat and a bit of solace to the south since they worshipped correctly. It also provides a backdrop to why the south would fall to Babylon later: incorrect religious worship. This construct continues in 2 Kings. When the Moabites attack in the Biblical text, broadly paralleling the story on the Moabite Stone, “They (the Moabites) entered the Israelite camp” (3.24). The text becomes confused here, though, with regard to the battle. The battle seems to be going well for the coalition against Moab, “they went into the camp of the Israelites, and Israel stood and struck Moab, and they (Moab) fled from before them. And they (Israel) went in it and attacked Moab” (v. 24). Verse 25 reports the destruction of the towns and fields of Moab. The king of Moab, “saw that it (Israel) was strong from the battle, and he took 700 swordsmen to cleave the king of Edom but they could not. And he took his firstborn son who was to reign after him and offered him as a burnt offering on (or to) the wall” (v. 26-27). Verse 27 takes an odd turn here, going back to Israel, saying: “and there was great wrath upon Israel, and they withdrew from it and returned to the land” (v. 27). These verses verify what the Moabite Stone claims, that Israel lost the battle against Moab, but there are a couple of oddities that need to be noted in this text. First, as cited above, the Moabite stone is only one of two sources that mention Israel in addition to the house of Omri or a similar designation. Here Moab is at war with Israel, but Mesha (the king of Moab) attempts to kill the king of Edom, who is presumably part of a coalition, Israel, working against Moab. In the outside texts, Israel is only mentioned when battles are involved, as in this battle. Edom, then, is part of Israel as witnessed by the Biblical text – Israel is a military coalition, not a political kingdom at this time.

THE PHOENICIAN CITY OF SAMARIA

153

Additionally, the theological nature of 2 Kings is betrayed by the end of the chapter with the final verse seeming to inadvertently confirm the power of the Moabite deity/deities. The Moabite king sacrifices his son, and Israel is routed and forced to go home with no apparent explanation, seconding the Moabite sources that claim the coalition lost. While Samaria is not mentioned in these particular texts, the king’s role as the leader of the coalition is confirmed yet again. In chapter 5, Samaria is mentioned again. This time it is an Aramaean commander who, on the advice of a young woman who became his wife and was taken from the “land of Israel”, goes to Samaria to be cured of Leprosy (5.3). This is particularly odd for a couple of reasons. First, the text has been quite clear that the religion in Samaria is not based on the worship of YHWH. On the face of it, she seems to be recommending a prophet of Baal. However, when he “brings the letter” which the king Aram wrote for him (5.6), “the king of Israel read the letter and tore his clothes” in his grief that he could not do anything, assuming that the Aramaean king wants to pick a fight with him. Elisha sends word to the king, saying “Let him come now to me and he will know that there is a prophet in Israel” (5.8), implying that he is the only true prophet and that the king knows this – in other words, the theological point of the text is driven home again: the prophets of Baal and Asherah are false and the king knows this. Predictably, the cure put forth by Elisha works and the commander is cured (5.14). In chapter 6, Jehoram seems to be a devotee of YHWH, or at the very least he wants to do what Elisha tells him to do. In the text, Aram was at war with “Israel” (6.8). The Aramaean king’s plans were foiled repeatedly, so he sends men to Elisha to apprehend the prophet, the source of the information that continually leads to his defeats (v. 9-18). Elisha blinds the company sent by the Aramaean king and takes them to Samaria (6.19). Upon entering the city, he returns their sight (20). Jehoram comes out and asks Elisha whether he should kill the enemy contingent (21). He takes the advice of the prophet and, instead of killing them, sets a great feast for them which led to an end to the raids carried out by the Aramaeans (22-23). Never do the kings at Samaria openly say that YHWH is a false god, but religion was fluid in general (having multiple gods working for or against a group was not uncommon) and the kings of the Northern Polity included YHWH among their gods that they acknowledged, also including some that are commonly found in the Phoenician pantheon such as Baal and Asherah. The problem comes with the desire among the prophets (and later theologically driven writers) for exclusive worship of YHWH.

154

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

At an undisclosed time later, Ben-hadad (of Aram) attacked Samaria, leading to extreme famine (6.24-25). This long siege leads the king to doubt YHWH (33). The story continues into chapter 7 wherein Elisha foretells of an end to the famine in Samaria the following day (7.1), though the king will not benefit from it (2). This is re-affirmed in 7.18 as an event. Again, YHWH is highlighted as the correct deity. In chapter 10 the text reports that the seventy sons of Ahab in Samaria had letters sent to them from Jehu of Judah. Joram, the reigning king in Samaria, was killed by Jehu of Judah in 9.24,129 and it is unclear by chapter 10 who has taken kingship, if anyone, after that. The text is very confused at this point, and it is difficult to know who is related to whom. The story in chapter 10 reflects some of this confusion with Jehu apparently declaring war with the throne in Samaria, but the message he sends is cryptic. The letters are sent to the sons in Samaria, as well as to the “leaders of Jezreel, the elders, and all the guardians of Ahab” (presumably his sons, or their legal guardians) (10.1). This is a declaration of war by Jehu; the reason given is vague but he notes that they (Samaria and 129

Jehu is not technically the king of Judah at this point. Ahaziah is named the king in Jerusalem and was friendly with Joram, reigning from Samaria. However, Elisha commands his disciples to anoint Jehu “king of Israel” (2 Kings 9.1-3). They do this (v. 6), essentially making Ahaziah theologically illegitimate. In fact, the reason for making Jehu king is so that he can take down the house of Ahab and take vengeance on Jezebel (v. 7). There are a couple problems here. First, it is not clear exactly what Israel means. Is he to rule from Samaria? Since Jehu is from Judah, it seems reasonable that he should rule over Judah: one might assume that this is a throw back to the Davidic United Monarchy, and that he should be king over both the north and the south (especially since the house of Ahab had influence in the south through Ahaziah, the grandson of Jezebel). However, his focus is pointedly on the north. Once declared king of Israel, he goes to fight Ahaziah (v. 23), with particular focus on the affair surrounding the vineyard of Naboth, the Jezreelite (v. 25-26). Although Joram, the king of Judah, is present at the meeting, Jehu’s focus is on Ahaziah. Likewise, if the center of the deity’s worship should be in Jerusalem, David’s capital, why is Jehu buried in Samaria? It would be more logical to focus on Ahaziah, since he maintains the cult of his mother, the daughter of Jezebel, in the south. Ahaziah is taken down by Jehu after Joram is killed (v. 27), but it seems to be an afterthought. Another solution to this problem is to locate Jehu entirely in the north (Tammi J. Schneider, “Rethinking Jehu,” Biblica, no. 1 (1996)). The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III refers to “Jehu son of Omri” (Pritchard, ANET, 280), and does so again in the report of the battle of Qarqar (Pritchard, 281) placing him firmly in the dynastic line of the Northern Polity in Samaria, as the Assyrians were likely not ignorant of the political situation in the area (Schneider, “Rethinking Jehu,” 100). Likewise, the Bible does not treat his ascension to the throne in a standard way, giving his lineage back to his grandfather and portraying his relationship with Joram as very familial (Schneider, 101). Additionally, the Bible never states that the house of Omri was overthrown; rather it was the house of Ahab that fell. Jehu’s coup was not over the dynasty as a whole, just Ahab who is quite possibly his brother (Schneider, 102).

THE PHOENICIAN CITY OF SAMARIA

155

Jezreel, notably not Israel) are able to wage war since they have chariots, horses, a fortified city, and weapons (v. 2). Having inspired fear in the sons of Ahab, Samaria is essentially and inexplicably handed over with no struggle (v. 5). Jehu meets the princes in Jezreel and all seventy of them are killed (v. 11). Jehu also killed anyone associated with the house of Ahaziah (v. 14). Likewise, upon reaching Samaria, he killed all the prophets and worshippers of Baal (v. 20-28). All of this left the throne of Samaria and the house of Omri to Jehu to occupy – a successful coup d’état. This should be considered the re-unification of the Davidic kingdom, but the text notably does not state this. During Jehu’s tenure in Samaria, “Hazael smote them throughout the territory of Israel” (10.32). There is little more information on Jehu, save that he was not entirely righteous: after killing everyone associated with Baal, “only the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat who caused Israel to sin, Jehu did not turn from, the golden calves at Bethel and at Dan” (v. 29). Finally, Jehu passes away after a reported forty-eight year reign and is buried in Samaria; his son Jehoahaz succeeds him (v. 35-36). This is particularly interesting because it highlights the importance of Samaria to Judah. The choice of a Judahite to lead the coup in the Northern Polity and its coalition, Israel, drives home the desired theological connection between the two, though the descendants of Ahab are left to rule in Judah – Jehoram of Judah marries a daughter of Ahab (8.18) and their son ascended the throne in Judah (v. 25). It is also worthy of noting that Hazael reportedly took Israel but apparently not Samaria since Jehu is buried there. The Biblical text quickly glosses over Hazael here and returns to the intrigues of royal politics. Although the text seems to make clear that everyone is dead – there is no heir apparent – chapter 11 reveals that this is not actually the case. Athaliah, Ahaziah’s mother, is alive, as well as Ahaziah’s son Joash. Athaliah, upon hearing of Ahaziah’s death, kills everyone who is left who has royal blood. However, Jehosheba, the daughter of Joram, cleverly hides away the remaining son of Ahaziah, young Joash, and keeps him safe for six years while the former Queen Mother, Jezebel’s daughter, reigns (11.1-3). Samaria is not mentioned here, but the political connection created by the marriage of Athaliah to Joram connects the two polities again. Samaria is not mentioned again for a while, but in chapter 13 it re-emerges as “Jehoahaz, son of Jehu, became king over Israel in Samaria” (v. 1). At this time, Aram was still a problem for Samaria, and Jehoahaz takes back Israel from Ben-Hadad (v. 5) who took over upon the death of Hazael. However, Jehoahaz also continued with what the Bible considers

156

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

the apostasy of Jeroboam, and “the Asherah (sacred pole) remained in Samaria” (v. 6). Jehoahaz eventually dies and is buried in Samaria, succeeded by his son, Joash (v. 8-9). The very next verse names Joash as a king in Judah, and the king coming to power in Samaria is Jehoash (v. 10). However, Joash, upon his death, was buried in Samaria (not Jerusalem) (v. 13). Chapter 14 begins with “In year two of Joash son of Jehoahaz king of Israel, king Amaziah son of Joash was king of Judah” (v. 1). The text continues, focusing on Joash of Judah. Eventually, Amaziah of Judah and Jehoash of Israel go to war. Jehoash comes out on top, whereupon he “took all the silver and gold and all the tools found in the house of YHWH and in the treasury of the king, as well as the sons of the hostages and returned to Samaria” (v. 14). He, too, was buried in Samaria, and his son Jeroboam succeeded him in that city (v. 16-23). In chapter 15 the rise of Zechariah, son of Jeroboam, is recorded, but his reign is reported as being a mere six months (v. 8). Shallum follows him on the throne in Samaria, but he reigns for only one month (v. 13). Shallum was killed by Menahem from Tirzah, taking the throne in Samaria and reigning for ten years according to the text (v. 14-17). He did not stop the “sins of Jeroboam” (v. 15). The text also points out that he tried to pay off the king of Assyria, Pul, in an effort to solidify his own rule (v. 19), and “took the silver from Israel” (v. 20). Following Menaham, Pekahiah, his son, reigned for two years. Pekah attacked Pekahiah’s Samaria, killing the king and taking the Samarian throne, sitting on it for twenty-two years (v. 27). Hoshea then killed Pekah and became king (v. 30), though Samaria is not mentioned in connection to his kingship until 17.1. Hoshea fell to Shalmaneser, the Assyrian king, when Samaria became the target of siege for three years (17.5). Samaria was captured and Shalmaneser “exiled Israel to Assyria” (v. 6). Subsequently, foreign people, also conquered by Shalmaneser were “settled in the cities of Samaria instead of the people of Israel” (v. 24). Problems develop quickly in Samaria between the new residents and those who are ardently devoted to “the law of the deity of the land” (v. 26). Oddly, the name YHWH is not used here, but elohay (‫ֹלהי‬ ֣ ֵ ‫)א‬. ֱ This is not unique in the text, but given the previous emphasis on YHWH, the absence of the name is worthy of mentioning here since there could be a question of which deity the Samarians are worshipping, Baal for example (or perhaps even Elohim?). In an effort to solve this problem, an exiled priest who “taught them how to fear YHWH” was dispatched back to Samaria (v. 28). Nevertheless, polytheism proliferated, and the gods of the nations were imported with foreigners to Samaria (29). Chapter 18 continues this theme, repeating

THE PHOENICIAN CITY OF SAMARIA

157

the basic story of the fall of Samaria and using it as a foil against the people of Judah who hope that their proper worship will save them from a similar fate (18.9-34). Once Samaria falls to the Assyrians, it is used as an example for what happens when the deity, YHWH, is displeased. Chapter 21.13 begins this usage that becomes common for much of the text, “I will stretch over Jerusalem the line of Samaria, and weights of Ahab.” Josiah brought his reforms to Bethel as well, in part by digging up the graves of the residents, save for a prophet of YHWH from Judah, and another from Samaria (23.18). He then took his reforms to “all the houses of the high places which were in the cities of Samaria which were made by the kings of Israel … he did to them as all the works which he did in Beth-el” (23.19). This is where Samaria disappears from Kings. Chronicles. Chronicles is not as interested in Samaria. The first appearance of the city is in 2 Chronicles 18.2 wherein we find Ahab’s father-in-law is Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah, and he came to Samaria to visit Ahab (18.1-3). There is much discussion on whether they should work together and go to war with the Aramaeans; prophets are consulted, including Micaiah who prophesied a bad end for Ahab (vs. 3-27). Of course, this prophecy is proved correct and Ahab dies in the battle (vs. 28-34). This account differs from the Kings account. Jezebel, with whom 1 and 2 Kings is very concerned, does not appear at all in Chronicles. Ahab is directly connected by marriage to Judah instead of being connected to to the Phoenician city of Sidon.130 Chapter 22 only briefly mentions Samaria. Ahaziah becomes the king of Judah (22.1), but while visiting Jehoram a coup is hatched by Jehu. Ahaziah is found in Samaria, hiding, and is killed there (vs. 6-9). Chapter 25 presents a small puzzle. Amaziah initially recruits soldiers “from Israel” to add to his own forces for war (v. 6). However, upon the advice of a prophet, he releases them to go back home (vs. 7-10). The released troops are angry due to the loss of the job (v. 11) and they take their vengeance: “they raided in the cities of Judah from Samaria up to Beth-horon” (v. 13). This seems to include Samaria as part of Judah, indicating a level of confusion in the text or an assumption that the polities were united at this time. If that is the case, then Israel is considered somehow distinct from the united polity. Just a few verses later in the 130

This may be for theological reason, perhaps a later attempt to further connect the two realms in the past so that, once the refugees end up in Judah after the Assyrian conquest, a unified people might be created with a mythological ‘history’ in place that would give them common ground as a single community.

158

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

text, the distinction between Samaria and Judah is clear again. “Joash, king of Israel captured Amaziah, king of Judah,” and attacked Jerusalem (v. 23). Joash then “returned to Samaria” with booty taken from the temple and the king’s house (v. 24). Samaria is definitely distinct from the center of Judah. Attacks on Judah continue in the text. In chapter 28 Judah suffers multiple defeats under the kingship of Ahaz, first to the Aramaeans and then to “the king of Israel” (v. 5). Under Pekah, “the sons of Israel took 200,000 of the their brothers, wives, sons, and daughters. As well, they plundered great spoils from them and they took the spoils to Samaria” (8). Upon their return to Samaria, a prophet declares that they were used as a tool by the deity to punish Judah, but Israel went further than was apparently intended (v. 9). With the warning given, the captives were taken to Jericho, and the soldiers then returned again to Samaria (v. 15). Samaria is not mentioned again in Chronicles. Its function in Chronicles is simply as a foil. The relationship with Judah is not always clear, but it is not a favored city and continues to represent a bad element. There is no reference to its connection to the Phoenicians through Jezebel (or otherwise). The author(s) of Chronicles do not seem have much information about the city, or they simply may not have cared. The Prophets. The prophets tend to use Samaria as a foil, an example of theological apostasy that leads to political disaster. Isaiah used Samaria this way, noting that Samaria did not stand firm in its faith (7.9), foretelling its impending doom at the hands of the Assyrians (8.4) and using the city’s inhabitants as examples of arrogance (9.9). He uses Samaria – and Jerusalem – as an example of idolatrous cities that will be taken by Assyria (10.9-11). According to Isaiah, Samaria is no longer the tool of the deity’s anger, but Assyria now fills that role (10.5), though it too will fall for the arrogance of the king (10.12). In the last note about Samaria, the prophet uses the city again as a foil, noting that the deity will not save them, using Samaria as one of his examples of fallen cities. Jeremiah only mentions Samaria three times. He and his followers were writing later than Isaiah, not as Assyria flexed its power, but under the hegemony of Babylon much later. Still the memory of the north and the city on the mountaintop was present in his mind. He, too, used it as an example of bad behavior that leads to being conquered, noting “In the prophets of Samaria, I saw unseemly prayer, they prophesied with Baal, and caused the people of Israel to err” (23.13). However, he also uses Samaria as a symbol of hope for the future, saying that vineyards will again produce fruit in the area (31.5).

THE PHOENICIAN CITY OF SAMARIA

159

In Ezekiel, Samaria is the elder (or greater) sister to Jerusalem (16.46). It is unclear if this implies that Samaria was older than Jerusalem, or simply bigger geographically or economically. Again, the city is a measure of sinfulness, and paired with Sodom at times (her smaller/younger sister), including in verse 46. Judah, though, is called more sinful: “Samaria did not commit half of your sins” (16.51). Much like Jeremiah, the text then moves to making Samaria a symbol of hope for the future, saying: “I will return the treasures of Sodom and her daughters, and I will return the fortunes of Samaria and her daughters and I will return your fortunes in their midst” (v. 53). The author emphasizes this return in the next verse, promising to return all three to their former state (v. 54). In chapter 23, Samaria is used with Jerusalem in a parable that poses them as sisters who “were harlots in Egypt” (23.3), but became the possessions (or more conventionally, wives) of the deity and bore children to the deity (v. 4). In the parable, Samaria was a prostitute while (allegedly) belonging to the deity, she “lusted after lovers, after Assyria, warriors” (v. 5). The text further explains that Samaria adopted the religion of Assyria, and she “was defiled in their idols” (v. 7). Samaria is the example that Jerusalem should learn from, but has not. In 23.33 the author states: “You will be filled with drunkenness and sorrow. It is a cup of horror and desolation, a cup of your sister Samaria.” Direct mentions of Samaria drop out of the text of Ezekiel after that. In Hosea, Samaria is again held up as an example of wrongdoing. The people have done “evil things” (7.1). The deity rejects its calf (8.5), and it is in pieces (v. 6). The people of Samaria “tremble for the calves of Beth-aven” (10.5), and the king of Samaria will die (v. 7). The city is to bear guilt for not following what the prophet considers a pure religious form (13.16). In Amos, Samaria is mentioned five times, again as a negative example. 3.9 is a warning to those from the “strongholds of Ashdod and the strongholds of Egypt” who should go to the “hill of Samaria and see the great panic in her midst, the oppressions within.” Amos further notes the people in Samaria “do not know to do the right thing” (v. 10). The coming calamity is described as analogous to a failed shepherd who “rescues from the lion’s mouth two legs or a piece of an ear,” so shall the fugitives of Samaria take with them “a corner of a bed and a cover of a couch” (3.12). They will not be able to save their wealth, but will only be able to take bits of it, remnants salvaged. In chapter 4, wealthy Samarians are referred to as “cows of Bashan, those oppressing the poor, crushing the needy” (v. 1). The prophet also draws a line between “those at ease in Zion and those secure on the hill of Samaria,” both groups equally living

160

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

at ease in luxury and arrogance but equally heading towards ruin (6.1-7). He berates Samaria, noting “those swearing by the guiltiness of Samaria … will not rise again” (8.14). Samaria is not a symbol of hope for the future here, and eternal desolation seems to be her sentence. Obadiah mentions Samaria but once, this time with some measure of hope. “Those of the Negev (the houses of Jacob and Joseph) will possess the mountain of Esau, and the Shephelah, the Philistines, and they will possess the field of Ephraim and the field Samaria, and in Benjamin, Gilead” (1.19). Micah begins with a proclamation that the prophet is focused on Samaria and Jerusalem in his work (1.1), though he only brings up Samaria by name twice after this. In 1.5, Samaria is the sin of Jacob, and so YHWH “will turn Samaria to a heap, the field for planting a vineyard” (v. 6). The list of disasters that will be visited on the mountain city continues (6-7) and this will bring sorrow to the deity (or the prophet, it is not entirely clear which), who will mourn (v. 8) because “Her wound is incurable” (v. 9). Samaria is irredeemable. Ezra and Nehemiah. Finally, after the Babylonian exile ended, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah bring up Samaria three times. In Ezra 4.10, Samaria is part of an odd text that seems to elaborate on verse 8, expanding a list of people who wrote a letter to Artaxerxes (v. 9-11) which includes people who were re-settled in Samaria (v. 10). The letter is a complaint about returning Jews rebuilding Jerusalem (v. 12). This helps to introduce the animosity later expressed towards the people of Samaria by the returning community coming from Babylon. The king responds to larger groups, including the Samarians, saying that Jerusalem should not be rebuilt (v. 17-22). In Nehemiah 3.34, Sanballat, the governor of the area, chides the returning Jews as they attempt to rebuild their cities: “and he spoke before his brothers, and the army of Samaria and he said, what are the feeble Jews doing? Will they restore things? Will they sacrifice? Will they finish in a day?” Again, this re-enforces the rift between returning Jews, coming from Babylon, and those who dwell in Samaria; ‘real’ Jews versus illegitimate Jews. Conclusions about Samaria In the Bible, Samaria is the measure of what people are not supposed to do. They are ruled by Sidonian influence, Jezebel, whose legacy is long-lasting and even spreads into Jerusalem. They do not practice anything correctly, despite the presence of Elijah and Elisha, because of the

THE PHOENICIAN CITY OF SAMARIA

161

Samarians’ worship Baal and Asherah. They are wealthy (whether or not all of that wealth was actually theirs) and rule from an ‘ivory palace.’ It was hypothetically founded by ethnic Israelites; Samaria has no material culture to point us toward such a group. Rather, the material culture is ethnically Phoenician. The memories of what Samaria was and its role in the region is not entirely clear to the southern writers, but they use the fragmented memories and reports to create the tool they need to achieve their goals, one of which is to create unity between the Northern Polity and Judah after the 722 BCE influx of refugees who no doubt went south under the pressure of Assyria as it took over. These refugees were likely not just from Samaria and its surrounding area, but likely included a number people from different groups that belonged to the military coalition, Israel; this coalition included Judah at times; they fled to an ally. The effort to create a unifying story was furthered around 586 BCE in the Babylonian exile, when their identity as a group was further threatened and what had become the center of their faith – the temple in Jerusalem – was wrested away from them as many (if not most) went into diaspora. The sacred stories that would come together and make up the Hebrew Bible were further edited, redacted, and added to. With their return to the region (around Jerusalem and Samaria), further demarcations were made to help define who was Jewish (now we can read Israel as a people and a defined land) and who was not, with Samaria, not Israel, at the center of that non-Jewish identity. Those who returned from exile were the true Israel, the inheritors of David’s storied Israel from a putative golden past when the world was better (at least in their imagination). Samaria was the center for everything that was unrighteous, the example of what not to do! Israel, however, became the designation of the righteous group. This only makes sense if Samaria and Israel were not supposed to be synonymous; Israel and Samaria (the land of Omri, the house of Omri, etc.) were not the same thing and Israel was not a historically political entity until after the Assyrian conquest of 722 BCE and possibly not until after the Babylonian exile of 586 BCE. As for the ‘ivory palace,’ this is a case where text and archaeology have come together to clarify each other. At least some of the ivories found in Samaria, including the bed, are remains of the conflicts with Aram. That ivories were not found in Phoenician home cities but have been found in Samaria does not speak against its foundation as a Phoenician city, but provides witness to its conquer by the Aramaeans under Hazael and further evidence of Phoenician ivories being used to show wealth by

162

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

conquerors, this time of Phoenician polities. The city was, in all likelihood, an ivory city not because of the local rulers but because of the Aramaean rulers who took control for a time, fully occupying the city. Upon being driven out of the city, the ivories obviously remained and probably continued to be a symbol of status, wealth, and strength since they were wrested from their owners like so much booty – to be found by archaeologists thousands of years later. Religion in Samaria can only be seen through the written evidence. However, several conclusions are reasonable when the archaeology is taken into consideration. Samaria and its rulers were never fully devoted to YHWH, though they respected the deity as one of many – normal in the ancient world. Since Samaria is part of Phoenician culture and identity, the worship of Baal is not only unsurprising, but to be expected; likewise, the appearance of Asherah is entirely predictable. That Jezebel is depicted as bringing, or least supporting, the existing worship of these deities (if not others) is not surprising, but again, to be expected. If Israel is a coalition of political groups, at times including Judah, the respect paid to the multiplicity of deities would have been one of the key factors in making such an alliance work. Cooperating within the internal political maneuvering as well as on the battlefield would not have been possible if open disdain had been shown for the allies or their deities. We see this not only through the Elijah cycle wherein respect for YHWH is openly shown by the leaders of Samaria, but also in the fact that the leaders of Judah in the narrative do not openly curse Baal or any other deity – they might have a preference, but there is no strict exclusivity. Likewise, the presence of Asherah and other deity forms in Jerusalem is well documented in the Biblical text and used as a target by the prophets and writers of Kings and Chronicles. TIRZAH/TEL EL FAR‘AH It is worth adding a short note to the work on Samaria here. The Bible very closely connects Tirzah to Samaria in 1 Kings 16.24. However, the city shows up before this in a list of kings that Joshua supposedly conquered (Joshua 12.7-24). In 1 Kings 14.1-17 Tirzah is home of the king Jeroboam, whose son dies because of his sins against the deity (again, the common polemic which is particularly harsh to the kings of the Northern Polity). In 15.21 the text reports that Baasha was building in Ramah but was forced to live in Tirzah when Ben-Hadad marched on the

THE PHOENICIAN CITY OF SAMARIA

163

territory of Ramah. 15.33 reiterates Tirzah as the home of Baasha, and in 16.6 reports his burial there. Elah, his son, also ruled from Tirzah (16.8), and was killed there by a commander, Zimri (16.10). Zimri also ruled from Tirzah (16.15) (though what these men ruled over is not explicit in the text beyond calling it Israel, which as has been noted many times, is not a clarifying term). The people were unhappy about this and, in Tirzah, made Omri their new king (16.16). He, “with all of Israel” went to Tirzah from Gibbethon and destroyed Tirzah (16.17). After a brief struggle to solidify his power, Omri ruled in Tirzah (16.23), but then purchased a hill and built Samaria (16.24). Based on this, there should be a noticeable connection in the material culture between Tell el Far‘ah/Tirzah and the lower strata of Samaria. The assumption of their political ties are highlighted in modern scholarship when Finkelstein suggests “labeling this territorial entity the ‘Tirzah polity’”131 to reflect the role of Tirzah in the early development of ‘Israel,’ or the Northern Polity (taking Israel as a political and military union of multiple ethnic groups). Tirzah was excavated Roland de Vaux in two separate years, 1946 and 1960.132 The tel covers five hectares, of which only about 15% has been excavated. The stratigraphy has been re-evaluated several times, each time pushing the occupation date forward: what de Vaux initially took as a Late Bronze layer has since been revised to up to the Late Iron I/ Early Iron IIA by Herzog & Singer-Avitz, and Finkelstein.133 This layer, named VIIa, matches the years that Tirzah would have been the center of the Northern Polity134 (if the Bible were accurate). However, the tel was not widely inhabited: “the remains of Period VIIa were found in a restricted area, in the northwest of Chantier II. The negative evidence is no less significant.”135 Most of this section, Chantier II where VIIa material was found, revealed a distinct gap of VIIa material, the material that should link it to Samaria. If the leadership left Tirzah, where they occupied only a portion of the acropolis136 for the Samaria hill-top, they did not leave a home that was in any way sizable, therefore the likelihood of having enough wealth to establish Samaria and build on that promontory – to pay not only for construction but for expert design and high quality 131 132 133 134 135 136

Finkelstein, Finkelstein, Finkelstein, Finkelstein, Finkelstein, Finkelstein,

The Forgotten Kingdom, 63. “Tell El-Far’ah (Tirzah),” 333. 334. 338. 339f. 340.

164

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

craftsmen that could turn a mountain top into even a small administrative center with trade – seems unlikely. Though Finkelstein believes that Tirzah was the capitol of a newly formed polity in the north, even he has to admit that “In its formative days, the northern kingdom ruled over a larger, richer, and much more densely settled territory than Judah” based on the text. However, if the Northern kingdom held anything significant before Omri “it was ruled from an unassuming, unfortified settlement with seemingly no monuments.”137 Whatever kind of polity Jeroboam held from Tirzah, it “was a relatively small, sparsely built, unfortified settlement.”138 There is no strong archaeological reason to link Tirzah to Samaria. In the end, no definitive answer can be given. However, there is alignment between the two cities. In the VIIa layer of Tirzah (c. 950-875 BCE), the small portion of the acropolis that was occupied came into being after a roughly 200 year gap in habitation.139 After the initial paltry town, the site flourished in the VIIb layer. There was greater planning and denser habitation; the period ended with some kind of destruction and the site was abandoned.140 In Samaria, Pottery Periods I and II (from c. 1000 to 870 BCE) were also relatively sparse, but Pottery Period III represents a flourishing beginning in c. 870 BCE, roughly the same time that Tirzah was built up. Unfortunately, the pottery record from Tirzah was not well recorded. The pottery that did get recorded does not line up well with Samaria, though both are rough, utilitarian, and generally unremarkable. There are not adequate samples to make any definitive judgments. Conclusions about Tirzah While Tirzah is closely connected to Samaria in the Biblical text, there is nothing substantial in the archaeological record to backup that claim. They may have had parallel periods of prosperity (c. 870 BCE), but that does not mean they were politically or culturally all that close, much less necessarily directly connected. There is nothing archaeologically to directly link the two sites as one political unit beyond the Biblical text.

137 138 139 140

Finkelstein, Finkelstein, Finkelstein, Finkelstein,

The Forgotten Kingdom, 82. 73. “Tell El-Far’ah (Tirzah),” 342. 341.

CHAPTER 7

ISRAELITE CITIES OF SHECHEM AND JEZREEL Shechem and Jezreel are cities that are strongly identified as Israelite in the Bible and are commonly refered to as such in academia. As with Samaria, this assumption, mostly about the definition of Israel, has worked as a filter through which all the finds were seen. They were important centers near Samaria and are connected to the land of Omri/ The Northern Polity. They were very likely Israelite cities, but this only makes sense if the term Israelite is freed from implications put on it in the Biblical narrative post 722 BCE and the flight of refugees from the North. (Of course, the implication of the word Israelite and Israel became even more entrenched and defined with the redactions around the Babylonian exile of 586 BCE.) Shechem and Jezreel were Israelite in that they functioned as hubs for trade, political engagement, and military meetings for all the groups that worked together as Israel, including, and at times led by, the Northern Polity, but it was not exclusive to the Northern Polity. Calling them Israelite here is intended to show these cities’ importance to the coalition of Canaanite groups. In this regard, perhaps Shechem and Jezreel are, quite possibly, two of a very few cities that can genuinely be called Israelite. THE CITY OF SHECHEM/TEL BALATA Geographically Shechem sits in a valley with 7 entry routes into that valley and 3 smaller branches “bringing the number of approaches to ten.”1 It is about 12 kilometers south and slightly east of Tirzah, about 13 kilometers south-east of Samaria. The ancient city was located on the slopes of Mt. Ebal “above the deepest cut of the valley floor”, and contains 24 strata of occupation, with the most recent ancient strata being from 1

Edward F. Campbell, Shechem II: Portrait of a Hill Country Vale: The Shechem Regional Survey, Shechem II 2 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1991), 3.

166

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

the Late Hellenistic period.2 There is a good water supply for the city that is sourced in the hillside of Mt. Gerezim.3 In 1903 Tel Balata was identified as the Biblical Shechem by a German expedition.4 The site was excavated sporadically beginning in 1913, with the most work recorded from six campaigns between 1957 and 1968.5 The initial campaigns in the early-twentieth century did not collect stratigraphic data, but exposed what the early campaigns called a casemate wall, with two associated entryways, most likely from the Iron Age structures.6 These German excavations cut deeply into the site creating artificial geographical features (man-made hillocks and plateaus) with the displaced earth.7 They recorded no stratigraphy and threw away the pottery. Their work took place over approximately 20 years (1913-1934) and ceased at the outbreak of WWII.8 Most of the German expedition’s work has been lost and the final reports were never published: the preliminary manuscripts had been completed but were destroyed in the allied bombings toward the end of WWII.9 During and after that time there were regular surveys done in the area, including larger scale explorations by Nelson Glueck and separately by the Deutsche Evangelische Institut between 1932 and 1947.10 This created a larger geographic matrix into which Shechem could be tied. The more detailed, site-specific work came later.11 In 1956, a new campaign focused on Shechem was established, called the Drew-McCormick Expedition with a focus on political history. By 1957, the campaign was expanded to include additional institutions and 2 3

4

5 6

7

8 9 10 11

Campbell, 13. G.R.H. Wright, Shechem III: The Stratigraphy and Architecture of Shechem/Tell Balatah, 1st ed., vol. 2, American Schools of Oriental Research Archaeological Reports 06 (Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2002), 8. G. Ernest Wright, Shechem, the Biography of a Biblical City, 1st ed., The Norton Lectures of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary 1963 (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965), 8. Wright, Shechem III: The Stratigraphy and Architecture of Shechem/Tell Balatah, 2:2. G. Ernest Wright, “The First Campaign at Tell Balâtah (Shechem),” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 144 (December 1, 1956): 11, https://doi.org/ 10.2307/1355859. Edward F. Campbell and ebrary, Inc, Text the Stratigraphy and Architecture of Shechem/ Tell Balatah, American Schools of Oriental Research Archaeological Reports, no. 06 (Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2002), 4f, http://ccl.idm.oclc.org/ login?url=http://site.ebrary.com/lib/claremont/Doc?id=10022948. Wright, Shechem III: The Stratigraphy and Architecture of Shechem/Tell Balatah, 2:4. Wright, Shechem III: The Stratigraphy and Architecture of Shechem/Tell Balatah, 1:4ff. Campbell, Shechem II: Regional Survey, 2. Campbell, 2.

ISRAELITE CITIES OF SHECHEM AND JEZREEL

167

was thereafter called the Joint Expedition.12 By the end of the 1964 season multiple phases of stratified pottery were collected, including two phases dating to the Iron I period, and five phases attributed to the Iron II and Persian periods.13 The Joint Expedition also surveyed twenty-four additional sites nearby.14 Work at Shechem has extended over 50 years, and in that time archaeology as an academic discipline, including the politics of archaeology and attitudes about history and the role of archaeology in Biblical scholarship, have all changed tremendously. There have been various shifts in emphases and purposes behind excavations, including movements from focusing on political histories to cultural histories, from focusing on large forms (such as monumental architecture) to a more balanced focus that equally looks at small objects and stratigraphy, and includes new interest in the life of the common person (though this is extremely difficult to track).15 This means that the evidence and its interpretations need to be reviewed (perhaps a bit more critically), and comparisons to newer sites and more recent data may yet bring further insight into the ancient city, its evolution, and its role within the larger ancient near eastern context, including its relationship with Phoenician Samaria. At the time of the joint expedition in the mid-twentieth century, the assumption of this being an “Israelite site” (that is, belonging to the Northern Polity centered at Samaria) continued to color all of the work of the expedition.16 Finds from the Tel Finds on tel Shechem date back to the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age, with similar pottery finds in the surrounding areas. By the Middle Bronze II, Shechem was protected by walls and outposts in the surrounding area at access points to the plain leading to the city.17 In the Late Bronze IA there was an apparent gap in habitation in Shechem proper, with only a single find reflecting Late Bronze pottery in a cave tomb, among which were “several vessels decorated in the distinctive Bichrome style which T. el-‘Ajjûl, Megiddo, Lachish and other sites point unerringly to LB

12 13 14 15 16 17

Campbell, Campbell, Campbell, Campbell, Campbell, Campbell,

1. 3. 9ff. 1. 1. 92.

168

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

IA.”18 However, in neighboring areas the Late Bronze IA is represented with abundance, including more than 2,000 Bichrome vessels and evidence of Aegean and Egyptian imports, and ivory inlay implements among myriad other items.19 After the Late Bronze Age hiatus in Shechem, the newer fortifications were created by partially reusing the Middle Bronze IIC/Early Iron I systems.20 Additionally, according to Campbell, the network of the Iron Age city-state may have included fortified towns and unfortified villages, including Tirzah – discussed above.21 Also found in Shechem were Iron Age ostraca including ostraca with characters resembling forms from Samaria.22 Unfortunately another perceived hiatus interrupted the Early Iron Age I, and settlement patterns in the plain dwindle to nearly nothing in the eleventh century.23 The putative gap spans roughly 1125-975 BCE: stratum XI at the beginning of the gap shows a destruction layer with “substantial continuity with the Late Bronze Stratum XIII that precedes it.”24 The last occupants of the city before the destruction had been there for quite some time. This layer also contains Iron IA sherds mixed into the debris.25 Stratum X shows renewed habitation and has been dated to 975-920 BCE.26 Stratum IX continued the growth started by stratum X. Inhabitants moved from re-using structures already on the tell to creating an “organized and fortified city at the end the tenth century, with continuity that probably covered about a century.”27 This layer appears to have been built on top of some areas of MB II walls in an effort to re-fortify the city.28 This layer is connected to Samaria by its pottery. At the beginning of the period represented by stratum IX, ten “pieces of Samaria Ware” were found. This pottery form “grew more common as the period unfolded, and then continued through Strata VIII and VII.”29 As discussed above, this ware, 18 19 20

21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Campbell, 93. Campbell, 20. Edward F. Campbell, Shechem III: The Stratigraphy and Architecture of Shechem/Tell Balatah, vol. 1, American Schools of Oriental Research Archaeological Reports 06 (Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2002), 169. Campbell, Shechem II: Regional Survey, 101. Howard C. Kee and Lawrence E. Toombs, “The Second Season of Excavation at Biblical Shechem,” The Biblical Archaeologist 20, no. 4 (December 1, 1957): 97, https:// doi.org/10.2307/3209221. Campbell, Shechem II: Regional Survey, 94. Campbell. Campbell, 95. Campbell, Shechem II: Regional Survey; Campbell, Shechem III, 1:235. Campbell, Shechem III, 1:247. Campbell, 1:250. Campbell, 1:250.

ISRAELITE CITIES OF SHECHEM AND JEZREEL

169

from Pottery Period III, is coarser than preceding and subsequent ware at Samaria and marks the beginning of wide spread wheel burnishing. The new pottery form at Samaria parallels patterns of increasing coarseness in Phoenicians cities at the same time. If the pottery forms are indeed linked, the date for this period starts in about 900 BCE.30 This form of pottery is generally undecorated, or minimally so. Given the lack of distinctiveness in the pottery, it is difficult to securely connect it to anything (such as to an ethnic group) beyond its broad geographical context. At the very least, it proves that Shechem was solidly connected to the larger milieu with no significant foreign intrusion. Stratum VIII was only thinly preserved, and mostly disrupted by buildings of stratum VII.31 Stratum VIII appears more closely related to stratum VII than IX.32 Unfortunately stratum VII and VI are also “difficult.”33 Stratum VIB revealed some Assyrian pottery forms, putting VII “in the final quarter of the eighth century BCE,”34 and potentially in the period of Omri. Again, however, the pottery preserved is not remarkable. The pottery of stratum VI shows development of VII forms, and influences from Assyria.35 In all, either pottery was not well recorded in later excavations (as was the case in earlier campaigns) or it was not well represented at the site. In either case there is not enough information in the pottery to connect it solidly to an ethnic group, unlike in Samaria and Dor. The Iron II pottery may be roughly connected to Samaria, but given the lack of specialized pottery (decorated, imported, etc.), it is too difficult to connect it to anything more specific than its more general Canaan context. Generally, the building standards of Shechem were not impressive. Domestic structures were “rubble stone walls and foundations held together by a matrix of mud mortar.”36 The Iron II occupation of Shechem is generally marked by simple degraded plain buildings.37 In the monumental structures, large stones were dressed in “Cyclopean” form, that is, using huge but not well-dressed stones.38 Late Bronze walls, for example, around the city and gate tower are rough rubble filled walls of largely 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

Tappy, The Archaeology of Israelite Samaria, 1:159. Campbell, Shechem III, 1:270. Campbell, 1:270. Campbell, 1:276. Campbell, 1:276. Campbell, 1:295. Wright, Shechem III: The Stratigraphy and Architecture of Shechem/Tell Balatah, 2:4. Campbell, Shechem II: Regional Survey, 96. Campbell, Shechem II: Regional Survey, 4.

170

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

undressed stones. Flooring adjacent to these walls was made of cobblestone with debris beneath it.39 Orthostats were also found, and earthworks created by layers of earth and crushed limestone formed scarps and platforms.40 When pottery was used as fill, it represented multiple periods and appears to have been brought from other areas of the tel.41 Likewise, there was a widespread use of mudbrick. Iron Age monumental structures were limited, including fortifications and a granary that was attached to a Bronze Age temple. There may yet be monumental architecture and significant pottery finds left on the tel. The joint expedition did not open much new ground; much of their work was focused on domestic buildings.42 One building of note was a granary. Unfortunately, only the lowest sections were preserved, leaving many questions unanswered. It was, not surprisingly, connected to a temple and may have served as part of a food distribution center.43 “Some of the pottery within the granary walls and in the layer was Iron II, of the ninth/ eighth centuries establishing the founding date of the Granary.”44 All of this does not mean that Shechem was not important. “Shechem’s position as a crucial hub throughout Iron II is supported by Dorsey’s reconstruction of the road system for the central hill country (1987: 57-70).”45 Dorsey used four points of reference to reconstruct the roads that networked the regions: textual evidence, Iron Age settlement patterns, routes of later roads, and topography.46 His efforts show Shechem at the intersection of at least two major highways, and several smaller roads.47 “An important north-south highway” that connected multiple major cities, and two east-west highways that ended in Shechem on their eastern end, along with a third east-west highway that connected to the north-south highway near Shechem.48 All roads lead, quite literally, to Shechem. This would make the city extremely important and potentially lucrative, but also hard to control. 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

47 48

Campbell, Shechem III, 1:169f. Campbell, Shechem III, 1:4. Campbell, Shechem III, 1:Ch. 5. Campbell, 1:169. Campbell, 1:176. Campbell, 1:176. Campbell, Shechem II: Regional Survey, 97. David A. Dorsey, “Shechem and the Road Network of Central Samaria,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 268 (November 1, 1987): 57f, https://doi. org/10.2307/1356994. Dorsey, 268. Dorsey, 58.

ISRAELITE CITIES OF SHECHEM AND JEZREEL

171

Shechem in Texts Egyptian Text In Egyptian literature, Shechem appears in a text from the period of the Middle Kingdom (around the mid-nineteenth century BCE) from a member of the royal family who was buried in Abydos. The text recalls his trip to the Levant, and the Pharaoh’s conquest of Shechem, with little more detail than that.49 Another letter from the thirteenth century BCE relates some of the difficulties of geography in the Levant including the question “Whence does the mountain of Shechem come?”50 In the Amarna archives (fourteenth century BCE), Lab’ayu is of concern to some of his neighbors. He is the leader of Shechem at the time, and “has carried out hostilities against me” (Biridiya, the writer of this letter, claims, though he does not name his own town in the letter).51 Biridiya goes on to warn that Lab’ayu has his eyes on Megiddo, and that he is preparing to take that city.52 In a separate letter Lab’ayu protests his innocence, claiming he was provoked and victimized. Noting the claim about his violence, he tries to explain his actions with an analogy: “when ants are smitten, they do not accept it, but they bite the hand of the man who smites. How could I hesitate this day when two of my towns are taken?”53 Lab’ayu was eventually caught and taken to the king (in Egypt) after being “removed from Megiddo” by Zurata who received “ransom money” for the capture of Shechem’s leader.54 He is reported dead in another letter, but another bothersome leader is reported as “another Lab’ayu, and he seizes our towns!”55 However, it is unclear whether this new person is a representative of Shechem. Perhaps the most interesting note about the town of Shechem comes from EA 289 wherein ‘Abdu-Heba complains about the sons of Lab’ayu who continue to take towns that belong to the king (presumably the king of Egypt). In the letter, as he laments the lack of action, he suggests (sarcastically) “shall we do like Lab’ayu, who gave the land of Shechem to the ‘Apiru?”56 Unfortunately, little about the ‘Apiru is actually known. 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

Pritchard, Pritchard, Pritchard, Pritchard, Pritchard, Pritchard, Pritchard, Pritchard,

ANET, 230. 477. 485. 485. 486. 485. 487. 489.

172

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

The ambitions of Lab’ayu to gain control of a large part of Canaan is evident, the fact that he felt it was genuinely possible under the rule of Akhenaton provides a glimpse into the breakdown of Egyptian control of the Late Bronze Age. Without the active role of the Pharaoh, Canaan was all but left to its own devices. Lab’ayu took advantage of this situation. He lost, but created enough anxiety to leave us a dramatic script of intrigue in the Amarna archives. Despite (or perhaps because of?) the heavy political activity in Shechem in this time, life was interrupted after the 12th century and the city was abandoned for a long time, until c. 975 BCE.57 There were also two tablets found at the tel. One is a contract with a list of witnesses.58 The other, however (dated to about 1400 by Albright), comes from a teacher complaining about not being paid.59 The city of origin is not listed in the letter; presumably the letter comes from another city to someone dwelling in Shechem who has neglected their debts. Likewise, the subject of the lessons is also absent. All that can be said of this is that it shows activity in the city, and that there may yet be texts to be found on the tel. Samarian Ostraca Another much smaller source of information comes from the Samaria ostraca, some of which pertain to Shechem, c. 800-750 BCE, pertaining to trade in wine and oil.60 The names of the territories given also appear in Joshua 17.2-6, called a family of Manasseh. At this time Samaria appears to have a relationship with Shechem as well as all the other towns in the surrounding area.61 Unfortunately, little more than that can be deduced from this information. The Biblical Text The word “Shechem” appears in the Biblical text sixty times. It is name of one of the main characters in the Dinah episode (Gen 33.19-34.26), a 57

58

59 60 61

Campbell, Shechem II: Regional Survey, 235; Gilboa, “The Southern Levant (Cisjordan) during the Iron Age I Period,” 641. W.F. Albright, “A Teacher to a Man of Shechem about 1400 B.C.,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 86 (April 1942): 28, https://doi.org/10.2307/ 1354997. Pritchard, ANET, 490. Campbell, Shechem II: Regional Survey, 109. Ivan T. Kaufman, “The Samaria Ostraca: An Early Witness to Hebrew Writing,” The Biblical Archaeologist 45, no. 4 (Autumn 1982): 230.

ISRAELITE CITIES OF SHECHEM AND JEZREEL

173

family of Manasseh (Joshua 17.2-6), one of the male descendants of Joseph (Josh 17.2), and a descendant of Shemida (1 Chron 7.19). There may be some historical information to be gleaned from these texts, but they do not directly pertain to the establishment of Samaria, and the conclusions may only serve as conjecture at this point. Most frequently, the name refers to the city in the hill country in the north. Its role in the mythology of the Northern Polity is significant. As part of the Judges cycle, it plays a central role in the story of Abimelech. Shechem’s leaders played a part in the murder of his 69 brothers (8.319.6). This political story serves to establish the North as politically illegitimate – Abimelech is a murderer and usurper of the throne – and specifically casts a negative light on Shechem as his sponsor. According to 1 Kings 12.25, it was built by Jeroboam after he rebelled against Rehoboam after the death of Solomon, thus dividing the ‘United Monarchy.’ The archaeology shows that this city was initially built well before this, more in line with the story of Abimelech. However, the Kings story may be a remnant of memory about its re-establishment after an occupational hiatus. Conclusions about Shechem The location of Shechem is potentially very lucrative, but likely also at continual risk of overthrow due the nature of its location. Indeed, its access to the Jezreel Valley and the trade routes gave it tremendous economic potential. However, the fact that it was not particularly well constructed speaks against its role as an individual entity with any significant political power, or as a major power in the region on its own. The location not only gives it access to the major highways for trade, but also gives everyone else access to the city, it could have been a jewel in the crown of any empire if it could be controlled and guarded well enough. As a capital city on such advantageous real estate, it would need not only a strong military presence, but also a strong show of political and economic power. This is not seen in the archaeology: buildings were not particularly well constructed, the architecture was not given great attention, and it was not a showpiece in the way Samaria was. The city looks far more utilitarian and less like a political capital. However, it could have easily and profitably worked as part of, and perhaps a gathering point for the coalition, Israel, led by the king at Samaria. An alliance with that coalition would have worked well for both sides: for the city of Shechem it would

174

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

provide a more solid military and political base to work with, though possibly forcing an economic sacrifice; for Samaria (and the rest of the alliance) the city would have been a boon for trade, and a convenient gathering location for staging in advance of going to battle, etc. THE CITY OF JEZREEL Jezreel is located on one of the tops of the foothills near Mount Gilboa on the southern edge of the valley, “100 meters above sea level.”62 “The construction aimed at creating a flat platform”63 shows some affinity to Samaria in the purpose of construction and the technology to flatten a hilltop. The valley connects the coastal cities, such as Tel Akko and Dor, to the inner country; the roads eventually lead all the way to Egypt and Mesopotamia via Shechem.64 Indeed the plain of Jezreel below the city linked the Phoenician cities on the coast making it another crucial spot for trade. Likewise, another route through the valley led to important centers including Samaria and Jerusalem.65 Unlike Samaria, whose water issue poses a bit of puzzle due to the lack of an obviously ample water supply, there is a spring at Jezreel at the foot of the hill that provided the city and the valley with sufficient water.66 The geographical placement in road systems and water supply make it another important area for exploration where Israel and Phoenician connections are concerned. The site of Jezreel was known but not identified as such in the early th 19 century, but eventually was identified by Schwars in 1850, and separately by Robinson in 1856 as the Biblical city.67 It was explored by several individuals through the 19th and early 20th centuries.68 The area of Jezreel, including the nearby spring, ‘Ein Jezreel, was excavated by 62

63 64

65 66 67

68

Norma Franklin, “Why Was Jezreel so Important to the Kingdom of Israel?,” Agade Mailing List, November 2013; Ussishkin, “Samaria, Jezreel and Megiddo: Royal Centres of Omri and Ahab,” 299. Finkelstein, The Forgotten Kingdom, 94. Franklin, “Why Was Jezreel so Important to the Kingdom of Israel?”; Artzy, “The Carmel Coast during the Second Part of the Late Bronze Age,” 51; Matthew J. Suriano, “Historical Geography of the Ancient Levant: C.8000 - 332 BCE,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant, ed. Margreet L. Steiner and Ann E. Killebrew (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2014), 17. Franklin, “Why Was Jezreel so Important to the Kingdom of Israel?” Franklin. David Ussishkin and John Woodhead, “Excavations at Tel Jezreel 1990–1991: Preliminary Reprot,” Tel Aviv 19, no. 1 (1992): 6. Ussishkin and Woodhead, 6.

ISRAELITE CITIES OF SHECHEM AND JEZREEL

175

Nehemiah Zori beginning in 1941 and his work continued for many years thereafter.69 In 1987 and 1988 salvage operations were conducted by Porat, Feder, and Agadi in the area when monumental buildings were revealed during a clearing operation for a kibbutz; the excavation was focused on the tel in the southeast and northeast sections.70 The tel was later excavated by the British School of Archaeology and the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University. Excavations were under the direction of Woodhead and Ussishkin and ran from 1990-1996.71 Subsequent explorations have been carried out around the tel, including a survey carried out under the direction of Norma Franklin and Jennie Ebeling.72 Finds from the Tel Tel Jezreel has evidence of settlement from the Early Bronze Age, the Late Bronze Age and in Iron Age IIA before its defensive enclosure was constructed, and “has been continuously settled till present times.”73 Unlike Samaria, the valley was densely settled in the LB with “city-states and subordinate towns and villages.”74 The city proper covered a maximum of 7 hectares.75 The rectangular enclosure was dated by Ussishkin as being from the ninth century BCE, bordered a steep slope of the hill facing the valley and was surrounded by a casemate wall with towers at the corners, supported by a ramp outside.76 The inside space was filled using dirt and material – pottery for example – from earlier periods including the Late Bronze and Early Iron periods.77 Areas filled with soil typically lacked any pottery.78 Pottery fills, which included pottery from both Bronze Age 69

70 71 72 73 74 75

76 77 78

Jennie Ebling, Norma Franklin, and Ian Cipin, “Jezreel Revealed in Laser Scans: A Preliminary Report of the 2012 Survey Season,” Near Eastern Archaeology 75, no. 4 (December 2012): 233, https://doi.org/10.5615/neareastarch.75.4.0232; Ussishkin and Woodhead, “Excavations at Tel Jezreel 1990–1991: Preliminary Report,” 6. Ebling, Franklin, and Cipin, “Jezreel Revealed in Laser Scans,” 233. Ussishkin, “Samaria, Jezreel and Megiddo: Royal Centres of Omri and Ahab,” 298. Ebling, Franklin, and Cipin, “Jezreel Revealed in Laser Scans.” Ussishkin, “Samaria, Jezreel and Megiddo: Royal Centres of Omri and Ahab,” 299. Finkelstein, The Forgotten Kingdom, 21. Hermann Michael Niemann, “Royal Samaria – Capital or Residence? Or: The Foundation of the City of Samaria by Sargon II,” in Ahab Agonistes, ed. Lester L. Grabbe, Sharon Keller, and Carol Gottlieb, Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 421 (London: T&T Clark, 2007), 190. Ussishkin, “Samaria, Jezreel and Megiddo: Royal Centres of Omri and Ahab,” 299f. Ussishkin, 302. Orna Zimhoni, “Clues from the Enclosure-Fills: Pre-Omride Settlement at Tel Jezreel,” Tel Aviv 24, no. 1 (1997): 83, https://doi.org/10.1179/tav.1997.1997.1.83.

176

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

periods and the Early Iron Age, were mostly from domestic ware.79 Some pottery remains were too paltry to create a good catalogue and were a jumble of sherds that both pre-dated and post-dated the enclosure.80 Ashlar construction was not commonly used in the defensive structure, but ashlar blocks were incorporated, especially at the corners (similar to what was seen at Dor) and at important load bearing points on the lower portions of the walls, in an entrance jamb on the western side, for example.81 There is evidence of destruction at the south-east tower which was destroyed by fire at some point, but dating is unclear and cannot be established archaeologically.82 Possible reasons for the destruction include the coup by Jehu (based on the Biblical text) or the defeat of Israel by the Aramaeans (based on the Biblical text and the archaeological remains such as the bed of Hazael found at Samaria). A rock-cut moat was also found, not common in Palestine during the Iron Age, that separated the compound on the remaining three sides of the walls (not bordering the steep slope of the promontory).83 Inside the walls no monumental architecture was found and domestic construction was fairly poor.84 This promontory’s impressive enclosure was well planned to look out over the valley but, based on the archaeology, was not in use for a long period of time.85 Although well planned, the construction was not particularly well built. Based on this, Ussishkin and Woodhead believe it served as a military base.86 This makes sense; its placement on the promontory but limited use of relatively expensive ashlar construction, as well as the lack of finds for domestic buildings, support the idea. The building appears to be focused on utility and strength. It was not a political center with symbolic significance containing a palace, as may be said about Samaria, but overlooks a valley that could easily serve as a launching point for military campaigns. Its central location would work especially well for a coalition working together as a military force, such as Israel is viewed here, probably led by the house of Omri, at least at various times. 79 80 81

82 83 84 85 86

Zimhoni, 83. Zimhoni, 84. Ussishkin, “Samaria, Jezreel and Megiddo: Royal Centres of Omri and Ahab,” 301; David Ussishkin and John Woodhead, “Excavations at Tel Jezreel 1994–1996: Third Preliminary Report,” Tel Aviv 24, no. 1 (1997): 20. Ussishkin, “Samaria, Jezreel and Megiddo: Royal Centres of Omri and Ahab,” 301f. Finkelstein, The Forgotten Kingdom, 95. Ussishkin, “Samaria, Jezreel and Megiddo: Royal Centres of Omri and Ahab,” 301. Ussishkin, 302. Ussishkin, 302.

ISRAELITE CITIES OF SHECHEM AND JEZREEL

177

The structure could have been built by Omri or his immediate successors and this makes sense, but there is not enough evidence to say so definitively. It seems wiser to keep an open mind. The Iron Age IIA remains along with textual evidence (already discussed in part above, and will be further discussed below) confirms its use by the coalition Israel, and therefore by the house of Omri. Among other finds in the area of Jezreel, including the tel and ‘Ein Jezreel, include 93 cisterns that are accounted for, though more may yet be found.87 Franklin’s team dated most of these to the early Iron Age (c. 1100 BCE).88 They may have been used for any number of reasons including water storage (though nothing has been shown definitively and an open mind needs to be maintained). The pottery found in Jezreel includes an international array of forms. There was also a Judean storage jar with a royal stamp found east of the tel among other Iron Age pottery.89 On the tel the pottery does not indicate a consistent ethnos. Types are varied and show ancestry to multiple groups, including Samaria. One bowl type that may be closely associated with Samaria is carinated red-slipped bowls. Zimhoni considered them analogous to Period II bowls: both had black cores with thick, dark red slip and may also be related to Samaria Period III.90 This form at Tel Jezreel was found in association with “two adjoining casemate rooms … probably on the floor, above the construction fill” in one room (room 725 in area D), but in the other room (room 643) the wares could have been part of the fill or below it.91 Other pottery types include “two predominant bowl types” (flat-based straight-walled, and flat-based rounded-walled) that are composed of “light yellowish” clay mixed with “very large grits, up to 3 mm.” and a “rough inner surface … caused by careless smoothing.”92 These bowls have thin orange slip that was carelessly applied, and the pottery was not burnished.93 This is different from anything found in Samaria. Another bowl form that used a dark brown clay also lacked any slip or burnishing 87 88 89

90

91 92 93

Ebling, Franklin, and Cipin, “Jezreel Revealed in Laser Scans,” 237. Ebling, Franklin, and Cipin, 237. Ussishkin and Woodhead, “Excavations at Tel Jezreel 1990–1991: Preliminary Report,” 10. Orna Zimhoni, “The Iron Age Pottery from Tel Jezreel – an Interim Report,” Tel Aviv 19, no. 1 (1992): 61; Crowfoot and Palestine Exploration Fund, The Objects from Samaria, 105. Zimhoni, “The Iron Age Pottery from Tel Jezreel – an Interim Report,” 57. Zimhoni, 58. Zimhoni, 58.

178

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

except in one instance.94 Carinated forms had a “brown to orange-red variation in slip hues, and very dense hand burnishing.”95 These very basic forms are similar to forms found in Period III, but the clay, slip, and burnishings are different. There were also sherds of Cypriot pottery.96 The pottery definitely points to multiple culture groups working at the cite, supporting the idea of Jezreel being an Israelite (that is, the Israelite coalition) site. Jezreel in the Biblical Text Jezreel does not appear in extra-Biblical sources concurrent to the period in question, the Iron Age.97 In her article “Why was Jezreel so Important to the Kingdom of Israel?” Norma Frankin points out the importance that the Bible puts on Jezreel. In Joshua, the author describes the technological superiority of the Canaanites over the people looking to settle their promised homeland. The Canaanites, including those in the Jezreel valley, have iron chariots (Joshua 17.16). Eventually, the tribe Issachar has Jezreel included in its territory (19.17). In Judges, after the altar of Baal was torn down, Midianites and Amalekites joined together in the valley of Jezreel to fight (6.31-34). These reflect the use of Jezreel and the valley as a military base where armies gather. In 1 Samuel, David marries a woman from Jezreel after abandoning Michal, Saul’s daughter (25.43). Later in the same book (29.11), Jezreel functions as a meeting place for the military again as the ‘Israelites’ camp at the spring at Jezreel before going to battle. As David and his forces set out to meet the Philistines, the Philistines set out for Jezreel. In 2 Samuel the commander of Saul’s army makes Ishbaal king over several regions, including Jezreel (2.8). If ‘Israelite’ is read as a coalition rather than a political entity, these passages actually make more sense. Although the Northern Polity is centered at Samaria, Jezreel is the crucial locale for the mythical downfall of the house of the Omri. In 1 Kings 18, after the slaying of the prophets of Baal, Ahab heads to Jezreel but Elijah beats him and meets the king at the entrance (v. 45-46). While in Jezreel Ahab tell Jezebel about the slaughter of the priests of Baal (19.1); the queen threatens Elijah and the prophet flees (v. 2-3). 94 95 96 97

Zimhoni, 58. Zimhoni, 58. Zimhoni, 61. Ussishkin and Woodhead, “Excavations at Tel Jezreel 1990–1991: Preliminary Report,” 5.

ISRAELITE CITIES OF SHECHEM AND JEZREEL

179

The fall of the dynasty centers on a vineyard belonging to Naboth, which was next to the palace of Ahab (1 Kings 21.1), though no palace has been found. Ahab attempts to buy the vineyard (v. 2), but Naboth does not agree to the deal because the vineyard is part of his family’s legacy (v. 3-4). This depresses the king (v. 5-6), and Jezebel, the ever-dutiful wife, springs into action in an effort to make Ahab happy again (v. 7). She hatches a plot to have Naboth killed (v. 9-10). Her plan succeeds and she presents the vineyard to Ahab, who immediately takes it as his own (v. 14-16). This incurs the wrath of the deity and a curse is handed down to Ahab that foretells of an ignoble death (v. 19) and the loss of the dynasty and his kingdom (v. 21). Jezebel too is cursed with a horrible death in Jezreel (23). Ahab’s resulting depression and show of remorse allows a stay of his curse, but his son will bear his curse instead (v. 29). At this time Israel (the Northern Polity and the coalition) were at war with Aram. Ahab dies in battle and is buried in Samaria – though dogs drink his blood that is washed off his chariot in Samaria (22.37-38). Jezreel, however, still has a part to play in the story of this dynasty. Joram, the son of Ahab, is at war with Aram, and is wounded. He convalesces in Jezreel, not Samaria, and it is there that Ahaziah of Judah goes to visit the wounded king (2 Kings 8. 29); this is paralleled in 2Chronicles 22.6. At this time, Jehu begins his plotted coup (2 Kings 9.6-10). Rather than attend the ongoing conflict with the Aramaeans and Jehu goes to Jezreel (v. 16) to carry out his plans to kill Joram (17-20). The showdown between the injured king Joram and king Ahaziah and Jehu takes place at Naboth’s vineyard in Jezreel (v. 21). Joram is killed by Jehu at that time and his body is tossed to the ground in the vineyard, and the oracle is fulfilled (v. 25-26). Jezebel, also in Jezreel at the time, meets Jehu. She has painted her face and looks out a window calling Jehu a murderer (v. 30). For his part, he has her thrown from the window; the horses trample her to death and the dogs eat most of her body in Jezreel (v. 33-35), again in fulfillment of the curse. Jehu finishes the job by killing the seventy sons of Ahab who are in Samaria. He then writes to the leaders of Samaria and the rulers of Jezreel – notice the leadership is different – telling them to send a champion to fight for them to see who should be on the throne (10.1-4). They decline and submit to the coup’s leader and capitulate to his rule (v. 5). Jehu then orders the sons of Ahab killed (again?), and their heads sent to Jezreel where Jehu has them stacked at the gate (v. 6-8). Jehu then disposes of anyone left in the house of Ahab in Jezreel (governors, friends, and priests) before going to Samaria (v. 11-12).

180

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

The city of Jezreel only appears a few more times. In Hosea it is a symbol of destruction, where a price for misdeeds must be paid. The text refers to the house of Jehu, and those of the house of Jehu will be punished “for the blood of Jezreel” and the deity states “I will break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel” (1.4-5). However, much like Samaria, which acts as both a symbol of defeat and later victory for Israel, in 2.2 Israel and Judah will gather and appoint a leader for the whole group, “for it will be a great day of Jezreel.” Likewise in 2.24 “the earth will answer the grain and the wine and the oil. And they will answer Jezreel.” The text is awkward, but the positive association with Jezreel is apparent. Conclusions about Jezreel The road to inland trading partners went through the Jezreel valley, so the Phoenician cities had much to gain from controlling, or least having a hand in the control of Jezreel (via the leadership in Samaria). While none of the Phoenician coastal cities are known as military powers, their control of Samaria and the rise of the house of Omri out of the Phoenician coast would give them military standing in the hill country, as well as a say in how the trade routes worked going east, inland to valuable markets. If Israel is considered a coalition (at least partly) led by a Phoenician, this would have been a great boon to the coastal traders, giving them more power inland and allowing greater trade under their own auspices rather than being at the mercy of others, such as Aramaeans, for Eastbound mercantilism. The building forms and some of the pottery at Jezreel can be associated with Samaria, but neither is entirely consistent with Samarian forms. The similarity of the red-slipped bowls to Periods I-III does give some idea of the dates to be associated with the building of the walls, therefore likely contemporaneous to the first layers of major construction at Samaria, including the upper and lower platforms. It is entirely possible that the builders of Samaria (Omri and Ahab, if not subsequent rulers in the city) also built Jezreel, not as a political center but as a military one wherein the coalition of Israel could meet, organize, and possibly launch campaigns, much like Shechem. This would account for the varied forms of pottery and the less-than-spectacular building. If this acted as a meeting point, and likely even a point of rest for traders, the pied nature of the city makes perfect sense. While it may be associated with Samaria, it was not uniquely occupied by the Northern Polity out of Samaria, though their presence there was significant.

ISRAELITE CITIES OF SHECHEM AND JEZREEL

181

Likewise, the fact that the city was fairly short-lived makes sense in light of the Aramaean victory over Samaria and Israel. At this point Jezreel was likely lost as a locus of power, perhaps furthering Phoenician visions west, toward the Mediterranean sea. Inland trade and politics were much more complicated than on the coast, where they held very distinct hegemony. Shechem and Jezreel are connected by the major highway that ties them together on the road from the sea to hill country, Mesopotamia, and Egypt.98 Indeed if Samaria was functioning as a capital of sorts, Schechem and Jezreel would have provided essential auxiliary real estate for access to trade routes and raw materials for commodities. Additionally, as a military force both would have been necessary since Samaria itself was not a good spot from which to launch any kind of military campaign. However, neither site looks like it was occupied exclusively by Samarian Phoenicians. FINAL THOUGHTS ABOUT SHECHEM AND JEZREEL Other example cities that have been considered part of an ethnic Israelite people – Jezreel, and Shechem – have been shown not to be uniquely Israelite in the traditional sense. Rather, they were more likely cities used by the Northern Polity, which had Samaria at its center and were also used by the coalition of Israel. Shechem is far older than the establishment of Samaria and the storied Divided Monarchy, with walls dating to the Middle Bronze age. This city is in a valley that was at the nexus of trade going east and west, with connections going north and south as well. This makes it incredibly important not just for trade, but as a launching pad for military campaigns, as a convenient meeting site for leaders, and a likely target for Phoenician control – or at least significant input. It has evidence of Samarian connections through pottery found on the site, in the form of rough daily ware types. The buildings, though, were less impressive than those in Dor or Samaria. Structures were rough, and monumental structures were limited. Its importance as a military base, or trade center used by the coalition of Israel stands out more than its potential use as a political center. The memory of its importance is revealed in the Biblical text, but because it appears to have been more of a trade and military center, the material culture left behind is of little help in determining details. 98

Finkelstein, The Forgotten Kingdom, 20.

182

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

Jezreel also had long been settled before the rise of the Northern Polity, going back to the Early Bronze Age. During later periods, however, it too shows signs of connections to Samaria, and the Phoenician Northern Polity. Ashlar construction was incorporated into its defensive structures at weak points in the buildings, similar to Dor. Much like Shechem, domestic structures were made poorly, and monumental architecture is minimal at Shechem and absent in Jezreel. It was built on a promontory that looked out over the valley (common for Phoenician controlled cities), which, like Shechem, was a major crossroads for trade. It was likely connected to Samaria, based on the construction techniques and pottery, but not exclusively so. Pottery finds showed a variety of groups present, through trade and/or established presence. Jezreel was likely used by the coalition Israel, and therefore by the house Omri and subsequent rulers of Samaria, but it was not necessarily under the exclusive control of Samaria. The Phoenician’s trade and colonizing efforts were not exclusively focused westward, to the sea. They attempted to move east as well, taking advantage of the trade routes that led to important trade markets, including Egypt and Assyria. However, the inland colony of Samaria could not withstand the political forces and conflicts that existed, and the Phoenician house of Omri created alliances with other Canaanite groups (including Judah) and established a military and political body that worked together with varying degrees of success. These allied forces were not necessarily culturally connected but were gathered together for common purposes. The leaders of this coalition, called Israel, were likely (though not necessarily exclusively) from the house Omri, and that famous house was centered in Phoenician Samaria.

CHAPTER 8

FINAL CONCLUSIONS The purpose here was to answer one of the many questions about the Northern Polity’s ethnic origins by focusing on the capital city, Samaria. A further objective was served through its method, prioritizing the archaeology above all texts, including that of the Bible, taking a decidedly minimalist approach in an effort to see if the results might be different from previous efforts. They were. The problems presented by the Biblical text, as far as the identity of the Northern Polity is concerned, cannot be overcome by using the Bible exclusively, or through prioritizing the Bible above all other the texts available. Rather, the conclusions created by the Bible need to be challenged and held up against other evidence if an understanding of history is the desired outcome, as it was here. The Northern Polity is not well known historically. IDENTITY OF THE NORTHERN POLITY The existence of a Davidic kingdom should not be a forgone fact, nor the existence of a kingdom composed of Judah and the northern territories, commonly called Israel or referred to as the United Kingdom. In fact, there is no credible evidence of this outside the Bible, and its existence should therefore be attributed entirely to the mythic imagination and efforts to create a united people in the wake of Assyrian domination; the fall of the Northern Polity in the 8th century BCE created a large number of refugees that required a new narrative to unite them. Mythopoesis (myth making) was engaged again during and after Babylonian hegemony in the 6th century BCE in a further effort to create cohesion among diverse peoples; this recurring act of mythopoesis was also an effort to give meaning to the historical atrocities that threatened to tear this group apart. This is not meant to minimize the importance of the narrative. The role of the narrative of the Davidic kingdom in history should not be underestimated, but it is not, itself, a history that can be corroborated at this

184

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

point. As with all historical endeavors, this may change in the future, and the work done here will have to be re-evaluated in light of new, credible data. Based on the available evidence, Samaria was the political center of a Northern Polity, but it was not the center of Israel; Israel was not a cohesive political or cultural unit. Rather, Israel was a coalition of multiple ethnic groups working together militarily, as well as likely economically and politically, at least up to 722 BCE and the fall of Samaria and the surrounding area to the Assyrians. The Northern Polity, established by the house of Omri, was an effort by Phoenicians to move eastward into Canaan to establish better control of trade routes, including roads that went through Jezreel and Shechem. The house of Omri was successful in establishing a power base in the area and was at the head of a coalition of ethnic groups, working together politically and militarily. The exact composition of this group likely changed through time. The geographical extent of the Northern Polity is not clear. The only clear marker is the city of Samaria as a central point. Unfortunately, much like its Phoenician predessesors, the hinterland has yet to be found and may not have existed. This would imply, as it does for Sidon, Tyre, Sarepta, etc., that they relied on trade for daily needs. Again, with continued work in the field, this question of geography may be clarified later. Several factors played into these conclusions. Ethnicity The definition of ethnicity and the mutable nature of identity is difficult to pin down. In an effort to narrow the scope of the project the cultural identity of Samaria, the capital of the Northern Polity was defined. The challenges of this were noted, including questions of who is defining whom? How is identity constructed in relation to other groups? Is the origin of identity coming from within or from outside? What is the purpose of constructing an identity? How knowledgeable or ignorant is the identifying party (an applicable question for both insider and outsider identity)? How do multiple identities overlap? And, how is identity impacted and re-created in the face of cultural trauma and threats to how a group self-identifies? Affiliation and cultural identity is by-and-large an unconscious process, creating more complications. Few people actually talk about it on a daily basis because of its largely unconscious nature and its generally

FINAL CONCLUSIONS

185

assumed status, which often evolves over long periods of time; it is only a topic written about when it is somehow in doubt. However, identity may change quickly in times of crisis when resources or groups perceive some threat; affiliations can be created quickly through fictional genealogies and other stories (which are generally presented as histories). These may interact with history, but function as mythology (as defined in chapter 1). Above all, it must be kept in mind that the process of naming and analyzing ethnicity in the ancient world is largely a modern construction; an attempt to impose order on an otherwise seemingly chaotic historical landscape. This is especially true in the Early Iron Age, when groups were (re)organizing after widespread shifts in the ancient political and economic landscapes having begun in the Late Bronze Age. Boundaries and definitions of identity must be created and followed by careful and (as much as is humanly possible) objective execution of that constructed order. For this project a fairly narrow period of time (Iron Age IIA and B) was chosen because identity is fluid through time, making a narrow focus necessary. Archaeology has been the primary driver of finding ethnicity, looking at material culture. Specific attention has been given to style, seen in forms like the pilgrim flask and the globular jugs. Symbols were also considered. The concentric circles used by the Phoenicians became their trademark pottery design, with vertical designs found all over the ancient Near East, and horizontal designs found in the Phoenician homeland, including at Samaria. This design, signifying the presence of Phoenicians, was an established norm in the Samarian pottery record, as recorded by Kenyon. Pottery has been highlighted because of its dual status as both a mundane, daily vehicle of group identity (ethnicity) and its ability to carry ethnic-specific designs that may be used to mark it as different from other groups. This is especially true for the Phoenicians who traded widely and likely depended on the pottery as a form of advertisement – not unlike the Nike swoosh that is constantly around us, transcending language as an identifiable brand. WHO WERE

THE

PHOENICIANS?

The Phoenicians did not call themselves Phoenicians. The name is a construct from the Greeks who recognized similarities between several geographical groups, and that name has been used through time to talk

186

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

about the cities hugging the coast of the Northern Levant. They do indeed have a strong cultural ethnicity even though they did not recognize themselves as a politically or economically unified whole. Despite this, there are several characteristics that in fact unite them on the level of ethnicity. Traditionally, they have been defined as inhabiting the coastal region of the Levant, specializing in sea faring and trading. They colonized extensively, mostly noted in the west. Textual documents that have provided clues about their identity included works from Egypt, Ebla, Ugarit, Assyria, Greece, and the Bible. The textual evidence agrees on the mercantilism of the Phoenician cities, and the prominence of sea-faring in that effort. Archaeologically, the cities were relatively small and located on (or included) promontory sites along the coast. Building techniques included terracing, pier-and-rubble architecture, and ashlar masonry to create sturdy hilltop buildings as well as harbor quays. Monumental architecture, such as temples, was given great care with thick, deeply set walls. Their religion was wide reaching and included deities that represented specific cities (e.g. the Lady of Byblos) along with a larger pantheon that included the likes of Baal and Asherah, among others. There is no solid evidence of a cult statue, as seen in other ancient Near Eastern civilizations. However, votive images were likely used, including: the sacred pole or tree of Asherah, a baetyl, or a massebah – all of which are non-anthropomorphic symbols of a deity’s presence. Increased religious importance was put on high places, including mountaintops. There is both archaeological and textual evidence to support the possibility of child sacrifice on the tophet – a special place outside the city and separate from the necropolis where immolated child and animal remains have been found in multiple Phoenician cities, particularly colony sites. Although there was evidence of belief in an afterlife – the curse on the sarcophagus of Ahiram – the details of belief must be extrapolated based on Ugaritic mythologies, which are distinctly related to but not necessarily identical to Phoenician mythology. The art of the Phoenicians was unique, partly due to its lack of uniformity. It was spread far and wide through trade and plundering. Ivories were a specialty, serving as good sources for income as a luxury item and as a diplomatic tool – their presence was seen and therefore felt by many other groups. Their art was composed by fusing together multiple styles, including Egyptian and Assyrian. It tends to be symmetrical and falls into several themes, including: winged sun-disc, sphinxes, proto-Aeolic capitals, and the woman at the window.

FINAL CONCLUSIONS

187

Phoenician pottery, as noted above, was also wide spread and marked their presence as traders in many other lands. Red-slip ware is the most common and older form. The designs evolved from simple red-slip to a monochromatic design and then into bi-chrome designs of concentric circles, vertical abroad and horizontal designs nearly exclusively at home. WHO WAS AT SAMARIA? The Northern Polity, centered at Samaria, was not unique and did not emerge out of a vacuum. The Northern Polity emerged out of the morass of the end of the Bronze Age and was part of the pied cultural landscape of the Levant, no more or less unique than any other group around them. In an effort to put Samaria and its founders into their proper context, and to identify the founding cultural identity of the capital of the Northern Polity, five cities were explored, looking at both archaeology and textual evidence. Dor was explored for its putative role in what is portrayed as the United Monarchy under David and Solomon. If the Biblical text were believed outright, the city would show evidence as both a proto-Phoenician city and later as a culturally Israelite city under both monarchs, David and Solomon, and even later under the control of the kingdom of Israel as is understood within the Bible. However, the city only shows evidence as being a solidly proto-Phoenician and Phoenician settlement. The city’s long and detailed archaeology has provided an excellent record of pottery that provides points of comparison for other cities. Samaria, as the putative center of the divided monarchy’s north, should have yielded a uniquely Israelite material culture. It was obviously wealthy, so the leaders would have been able to afford to pay for training and support of artisans to create a unique artistic identity and therefore a unique legacy in its architecture and pottery at the very least. This was not the case because there was no unique culture on that hill-top since the Samarians were culturally Phoenicians – their pottery was Phoenician, their architecture was Phoenician, and the ivories found in Samaria are Phoenician/ Northern Syrian. Although the ivories were uniquely found in what should be considered part of the Phoenician homeland (Phoenician ivories have not been found in any other Phoenican city), they were taken there as booty by the Aramaeans when they occupied the city. The textual evidence also leads to the Phoenicians and their pantheon. Samaria is Phoenician. Tirzah has an overt connection to Samaria in the Biblical text (1 Kings 16.24). If the text were accurately recording history, easy connections

188

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

between the two cities should be apparent. Unfortunately, there are no easy or obvious connections. Tirzah was a small, unassuming, underdeveloped town at best. Its life roughly mirrors Samaria, being very small and sparsely inhabited early in its life, then flourishing around the same time. While Samaria continued to flourish and go through its own cycles of good times and bad, Tirzah’s history was not well documented and little can be said about its pottery record. With this in mind, at best, Tirzah’s history and that of Samaria is not provable. More than likely, nothing connected the two in any substantial way. Shechem played an important role in the life of Israel – the coalition of the political and cultural groups that Samaria participated in. However, it was not necessarily under the exclusive control of Samaria. Its location on trade routes made it an important location, but also vulnerable. The architecture is not particularly well constructed, which further speaks to the utilitarian nature of the city. Jezreel’s role in the area is markedly similar to that of Shechem. It sits at the crossroads of major trade routes, no doubt making it of major concern for Phoenician traders. Again, however, this location also made it vulnerable. It too has some connections to Samaria in the material culture, but not consistently so. It may have been connected to Samaria, but it was not a political center. Rather, Jezreel could have functioned, like Shechem, as a point of contact with the other members of the Israel coalition. Based on the buildings at the site, it was utilitarian and used by multiple groups. None of the cities that should present a unique, traditionally assumed Israelite identity, does so. Rather, Dor and Samaria present distinctly Phoenician identities. Tirzah is no more than a small city that has yielded little in the way of a distinctive and identifiable material culture. Shechem and Jezreel reveal habitation that pre-dates establishment of Samaria as a capital city and they show the presence of Phoenicians, but not exclusively so. The cities bare signs of multiple groups being present; evidence of an Iron Age coalition called Israel. Phoenicians built and occupied Samaria, leaving behind their tell-tale markers: building on a promontory, uniquely Phoenician pottery, Phoenician architecture, and the use of a small administrative city for trade with little or no perceivable hinterland for farming. WHAT WAS AN “ISRAELITE”? Years of hard work have already been dedicated to answer this important question. However, the special nature of the Bible in the West (which

FINAL CONCLUSIONS

189

has tended to hold an overly prominent position in academic work and, to greater and lesser degrees) has hindered efforts to understand Samaria and its neighbors historically. Problems in text criticism and the transmission of texts are the first impediment to the historical endeavor. Figuring out what the original texts said is often nearly impossible as the earliest versions of the texts have been lost and must be recreated based on comparisons between differing versions. Even if an early version of a text is found or re-created, that text may not be a reliable history. The authors of the ancient works were not typically concerned so much with historical accuracy as they were with public relations or authority. This is nearly universially true of ancient texts, especially those concerned with politics. Additionally, ancient authors, including those of the Hebrew Bible, often referred to outside sources that did not in fact exist in an effort to push forward the legitimacy of their – often highly questionable – claims. (This is still often the case.) The mention of Israel in the Merneptah stele has been discussed at length, but the word translated as Israel is, at best, enigmatic. Likewise, the Tel Dan inscription is not a solid piece of evidence for the existence of a Davidic monarchy. They both stand alone in their respective historical contexts with no evidence to either corroborate theories about them or to elaborate on or explain the inscriptions. Even if Tel Dan provides evidence for David, this does not give any evidence for a United Kingdom between the North and the South. The Northern Polity’s rise in Canaan has been the subject of many hypotheses trying to explain where this (assumedly) unique phenomenon came from. Albright felt that they conquered the people in the area, based mostly on the Biblical text. However, the text itself is not consistent in the picture it creates for the events portrayed, and the archaeology often does not support it even as a possibility. Alt proposed a theory of infiltration. The people came out of Egypt (based on the Bible) and peacefully became part of the Canaanite milieu, but slowly changed the highlands into something unique, called Israel. Again, however, the archaeology does not show this. There is no evidence for a significantly different cultural group over the course the early Iron Age. Gottwald posed a third scheme of social revolution. When the Egyptians lost hegemony in the region of Canaan, the would-be Israelites took advantage of the situation and wrested political control from the indigenous people. The archaeology, again, does not support this. There is no uniquely Israelite presence in the area.

190

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

Both texts and archaeology are problematic on their own. As noted above, texts do not record information reliably for multiple reasons (translation, transmission, redaction, greater concerns about being authoritative versus accurate, serving the needs of establishing a community, etc.). Archaeology, on the other hand, cannot tell a complete story. It lacks information on motivations, its remains have been saved largely by chance, and finds are also made largely by chance. In the texts, Israel is not commonly found outside the Bible. Outside of the three instances discussed in detail above – the Merneptah stele, the Meshah stele, and a text from Shalmaneser III – the Northern Polity is referred to as the land of Omri, the house of Omri, the city of Samaria, the land of the house of Omri, and the land of Samaria far more often. However, scholarship has tended to insert the name Israel in these cases when they translate or talk about these texts, further reinforcing the assumption that the Samaria is the capital of a larger “kingdom” called Israel. These assumptions about what the authors meant – that all of these designations actually mean Israel – should not be continued. An Israelite is a person or political group working within a local alliance of groups who were generally led by (at least at times, but not necessarily universally) a member of the House of Omri out of the hill-top Phoenician city of Samaria. Other members of Israel, up to the Assyrian invasion of 722 BCE, might include Judah, Moabites, or any number of other groups that worked within this coalition. Israel, the coalition, likely used Shechem and Jezreel as a place to meet and launch military campaigns together. This coalition was not always stable and at least occasional conflict between members should be assumed as likely. The people who fled to Judah after the Assyrian invasion of the northern Levant (including and perhaps most dramatically the Northern Polity, centered at Samaria) were predominantly Israelites – they belonged to the coalition. As they began to create a common narrative for themselves as a single people, the name Israel was likely an easy choice. FINAL THOUGHTS If the history of the Levant is to be understood, it must be done without special regard for the Bible. This project has sought to further that effort with a decidedly minimalist approach. The result has yielded a very different answer to the common question about the origin of Samaria: it is Phoenician. The ground-breaking work done by Kathleen Kenyon has

FINAL CONCLUSIONS

191

also been adjusted by directly comparing the pottery of Samaria to that of the ethnically Phoenician homeland, of which Samaria should be considered a part. Additionally, in an effort to at least begin to answer the questions raised by this study, further research was done to add to the work on the evolution of the Biblical text. By looking at how communities react to trauma, this project has shown that important mythologies can, and do, evolve quickly in order to address pressures placed on cultural identity – new mythologies evolve to give groups a new story that unites them and provides them a common ‘history’ – for example, the kilt in the Scottish Highlands discussed above. All of this was done in an effort to separate mythology from history, which are often conflated. This is not to say, however, that one is more important than the other. QUESTIONS RAISED Why is the Distinction between Mythology and History so Difficult? There are important differences between history and mythology. This is true on several levels, reflected in their different definitions and functions (discussed in chapter 1). However, these narratives share psychological and emotional spaces within communities, and some of the common ground is worth noting and extremely important if due respect is to be paid to any communities under investigation. Both history and mythology are constructed based on the perspectives of the people at the time of construction. This means that the story, “what we often call the ‘legacy of the past’ may not be anything bequeathed by the past itself.”1 Neither mythology nor history can reflect a continuously accurate and meaningful story. There are always many stories that are constantly evolving and bringing new and different understandings with them. In the case of history, perspectives and biases change with time and themes emerge that can only be seen with the distance that time allows. Early accounts of ancient literature were biased towards the kings, but historically, “the inner logic and the technical procedures of the propagandistic messages were never exposed … considered harmless philological 1

Trouillot, Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History, 17.

192

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

problems.”2 This is no longer the case. Political biases in the literature are evidence in themselves of an ancient reality, and the texts often divulge the problems they were intended to cover up or confront.3 Because the biases of the ancient past are always in conversation with conscious and (mostly) unconscious biases of the present, history must be periodically re-evaluated. This becomes especially true in the case of regimes that purposely engage in mythopoesis, deliberately altering the narrative to fit into a new, evolving political context – re-writing “history” to better fit a desired narrative of the present and future. Additionally, history imposes order on what is (and was) varying levels of disorder: definitions are developed, categories are created, and organization is established through the linear act of writing based on a single linear timeline so that we may understand the past as a single narrative. All of this is, to greater and lesser degrees, artificial. Groups that may share common traits defined in the modern era did not see themselves as united – Sidonians did not always generally consider themselves all that similar to Tyrians, and neither referred to themselves as Phoenician. Likewise, the definition of a Phoenician to the Greeks (the purple dyers) is not really at the core of how modern scholarship defines this group; the definition has changed over time, though the Greek observation that some groups on the coast had common traits was accurate. Events and communities do not unfold in neat linear ways that fit into chapters that give organization to books that fit neatly on the library shelves with their organized call numbers. There are, in fact, a multiplicity of timelines, many ways to view history (culturally, politically, economically, through a feminist lens, a culinary lens, etc), and every different view creates a very different history that may be uniquely accurate.4 There is no such thing as a singular history, but there are a multitude of histories, some of which may be focused on one event, time, and/or place. They are complicated narratives that are subject to uncomfortable changes as new information comes to light. In the case of mythology, as the needs of communities change over time, the narrative adjusts to those needs; the new narrative gives the feeling of stability and allows ethnicity (cultural identity) to blossom and create a foundation for unity among groups of people. These narratives 2

3 4

Mario Liverani, “2084: Ancient Propaganda and Historical Criticism,” in The Study of the Ancient Near East in the 21st Century, ed. Jerrold S. Cooper and Glen M. Schwartz (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 285. Liverani, 286. Peter Burke, What Is Cultural History, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, MA: Polity, 2008), 1ff.

FINAL CONCLUSIONS

193

fill in the gaps left by known history, expanding on what happened and creating a story that inspires pride and/or sympathy. It is a distorted version of the past with an imposed order that is not just artificial to its origin, but partially or wholly fictional. Again, however, this does not mean that the narrative is not important or somehow lesser than histories investigated and produced. Indeed, in some respects mythologies are more important because they cement relationships and create communities. This is especially true in time of rupture and trauma, when relationships and cultural continuity may be torn apart: it is entirely probable that “individuals construct ordered narratives to find meaning in times of difficult or unexpected events … changes in individual or group situations that call into question a group’s identity – their primordial and/or circumstantial traits.”5 Mythology and history are the foundation stones of identity. Though they are rarely carved in the same manner, they are intertwined and frequently difficult to distinguish. This is the case far more often than not; a mythic past exists in every cultural group.6 It takes courage to separate mythology from history. What happens when the alleged “historical” foundations of identity crumble into a mythological heap? One thing that happens is that any divinely decreed specialness of one group over another goes away. History levels the playing field, taking away specialness and divine righteousness. Unfortunately, with this leveled playing field, identity also becomes unstable, likely leading to fear, anger, and reactionary behavior. Unfortunately, mythology and history are often mistakenly identified. History is rightly under constant revision, being adjusted as new facts and new perspectives arise, including new insights into our own biases that alter how history is viewed and understood. All of this can make the problem of establishing an appropriate and functional narrative for communities incredibly difficult, though absolutely critical for any group. Cultural Trauma and Re-Mythologizing This stripping away of mythology can happen in a number of ways. Historians may reveal an unacknowledged history. As more narratives about significant contributions by women come into the mainstream historical narrative, these contribute to questions regarding gender roles and 5 6

Bloch-Smith, “Israelite Ethnicity in Iron I,” 422. Hobsbawm and Ranger, The Invention of Tradition, 4.

194

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

assumption about what men and women are capable of: the answers today are very different than they were just a few decades ago. This may also be said of many other groups, including people of color. This, however, is a relatively slow process that can allow groups time to adjust – personally and mythologically. A more startling way that this can happen is through conquest and colonization, leading to psychological ruptures and trauma for whole communities. These ruptures are often healed through re-mythologizing the past. This was discussed briefly in chapter 2 with the fabricated national narrative of the Scottish highlands during the 18th century CE, with all of its symbolic trappings. This serves not just as an example of re-mything, but proves its function and potential generation in the face of trauma, not unlike that faced by the ancient people in Palastine who eventually formed a single group called Israel, whose mythic past was eventually recorded (edited, redacted, and re-created) in the Hebrew Bible over the course of centuries and in the face of multiple traumatic events. The Case of the Scots Mythologically, the highlanders of Scotland are examples of archetypal Scottish-ness. They wear kilts that are symbols of anti-English sentiment, their tartans defining their clan. Their story on the highlands reaches back into the mists of the time. This is the mythology, not the history. This is the story that binds them together across time and space. (One can almost hear the bagpipes playing in the background.) They were originally Irish.7 From the 5th to the mid-18th century, the western highlands were associated with Ireland. The mountains of Scotland cut the western highlands off from the lowlands, and, culturally, the two groups (east and west) were different.8 In the late 18th century, among the highland/western Scots there was a “re-writing of early Scottish history”9 Of course, you cannot simply re-write history, you can correct it based on new data, but re-writing is not a historical endeavor, it is a mythic one – 2 men (both named Macpherson) re-mythed Scottish high-land identity and claimed that Celtic Scotland was the primary home of Scottish culture and that Ireland was culturally dependent on them. They created traditions, and presented them as ancient and unique – new 7 8 9

Trevor-Proper, “The Invention of Tradition,” 15. Trevor-Proper, 15. Trevor-Proper, 16.

FINAL CONCLUSIONS

195

mythology is always presented as retrieval of the past.10 The new traditions were offered to the Lowland Picts as part of their own heritage.11 The story, in a nutshell, eventually went like this: the Western Scots came from Ireland during the Roman period, having crossed the sea to escape a Roman onslaught and they were the keepers of the true, ancient ways. This story had been circulating but was never quite fully accepted until the late 18th c. This was debunked by Thomas Innes even before this movement to create a new myth of Scotland was started.12 However, this narrative was presented and perpetuated by several individuals and widely adopted by the Western/Highland Scots. This story established them as a separate people with cultural superiority based in the purported antiquity of the story. It was presented as factual history, enshrined in folk songs, and accepted as the root of their identity. They created a myth that established a community for themselves, they emphasized themselves as a sympathetic group, later oppressed by the English. It’s worthy of noting here that the printing press had been around for a couple hundred years. The survival of accurate history, and the distribution and absorption of new stories by groups of people, was not, and is not, dependent on the availability of information. Indeed, the widespread image of the kilted Scotsman was disseminated throughout the 19th and 20th century in pop-culture, reinforcing the mythology. The internet can provide more than ample reinforcement of this narrative; the history is actually harder to discern. Kilts are one of the aspects of true Scottish-ness that was also reinvented as part of that identity. As early as 1858, there were academic writings that noted kilts as being “invented by an English tailor … as late as 1727.”13 It was so much a part of Scottish identity 20 years later that parliament named the garment in an act that forbade its use in effort to punish the Scots and their stubborn desire to be other, being neither English or Irish.14 The history behind the kilt is quite different. Plain plaid garments worn before 1727 were not appropriate to the work of cutting down trees for furnaces that were being used in the area for business – owned by an Englishman, Rawlinson. Rawlinson hired a tailor 10 11 12 13

14

Trevor-Proper, 16. Trevor-Proper, 16. Trevor-Proper, 16f. William Pinkerton, “The Highland Kilt and the Old Irish Dress,” Ulster Journal of Archaeology 6 (1858): 316. Trevor-Proper, “The Invention of Tradition,” 21.

196

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

who came up with the design, which Rawlinson wore and had his workers wear. The chief of the clan wore the new skirt/kilt, and the rest of the clan followed suit.15 The design was convenient and comfortable and so took off very quickly throughout the land, including in parts of the Lowlands where the Picts were (the true historical Scots).16 Their tartans were given to them by the English as well. Colored plaids were initially a sign of political and socio-economic difference: chiefs wore colors, and the rest of the clan wore simple brown plaids.17 At the end of the 17th century, there is documentation showing regions having different plaids, but not different colors. This is not to say that patterns distinguished clans; there was no continuity in their use. In 1745, the use of plaid was outlawed after a rebellion.18 By 1773 the plaids were almost entirely gone.19 Once the ban was lifted in the late 18th century, a few upper-middle class men began to wear it again, romanticizing its mythic past and forgetting the actual history (again). More interestingly, the English had created military regiments made of Highland Scots, including the Blackwatch, and used colored tartans (outlawed at the time) as a reward for outstanding service.20 Clans with members of those honored regiments began wearing the colored tartans as well. Ironically, even as the Scots fought to revoke the laws against wearing Scottish plaid, the kilt was still not the primary form of wearing it. Indeed, trousers are far more ancient in this region. However, in 1805, when the British War Office considered putting highland regiments in pants, one Colonel Cameron resisted, calling the kilt “the national dress of Scotland since time immemorial.”21 The trend snowballed from there with the development of the Celtic Society in Edinburgh in 1820 and a visit from King George IV in 1822.22 Eventually, even the lowland Scots from the east were generally convinced of the antiquity of highland culture and the tartan kilt as symbols of it. These stories/mythologies that were developed by this group were important psychological tools to help deal with their evolving identity and their historical otherness to the English, the Irish, and the lowland Picts in Scotland. Some Scots recognize this but the pseudo-history 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Trevor-Proper, Trevor-Proper, Trevor-Proper, Trevor-Proper, Trevor-Proper, Trevor-Proper, Trevor-Proper, Trevor-Proper,

22. 22. 23. 24. 23. 25. 28. 29.

FINAL CONCLUSIONS

197

and the archetypal symbols of Scottish-ness remain a mainstay of their cultural mythology, as well as our larger collective mythology about them. Where history created a recently formed, fractured group without great distinction, mythology created a cultural titan in a kilt with an ancient community deserving of sympathy and respect. (The story of the bagpipes is equally mythic.) How and Why did “Israel” come to be? If such a dramatic re-mythologizing can happen in a post-printing press world, the emergence of new mythic narratives are all that much more imaginable in the ancient world. ‘Israel’ as the word is commonly used today – to describe the people of the Northern Polity and Judah as unified group, and chosen by a specific deity – was created/evolved after the Assyrian invasion as a way to integrate refugees from the northern inland cities as they fled south into Judea. Israel was originally, as discussed in chapter 5, a coalition of multiple cultural groups. When those groups, likely led by the leaders of the land of Samaria, fled south, a new narrative had to evolve to create a unified, cohesive community that was united ‘historically,’ politically, culturally, and economically within a common narrative that reached back in time, giving gravitas and stronger foundations for the idea. This may very well explain the compilation and redaction of the Biblical scrolls during and after 722 BCE, including their further redactions through time thereafter, especially during the Babylonian Exile of 586 BCE and after. There is not nearly enough time here to fully explore how this could have happened and it is not the focus of this project. However, since Samaria has been shown not to be Israelite (a single, unique group within the Canaanite milieu, as the work above demonstrates) the question of how the Bible evolved has to be acknowledged, and a basic foundation for future work on this issue must be laid. Remembering the Group Forward Hobsbawn notes three types of mythologies (which he calls invented traditions, with a greater emphasis on ritual): a) those establishing or symbolizing social cohesion or the membership of groups, real or artificial communities, b) those establishing or legitimizing institutions, status or relations or authority, and c) those whose

198

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

main purpose was socialization, the inculcation of beliefs, value systems and conventions of behaviour.23

All of these types are present in the Biblical text, and will briefly be explored below. No doubt many of the stories in the Bible were ancient even when they were first written down after being inherited in the oral traditions. At the very least, the broad outlines of the Noah story, for example, likely circulated throughout many Canaanite groups. There are analogous stories found in the middle eastern library demonstrating their antiquity and ubiquity in the area. For example, the Akkadian story of Utnapishtim is that of a man who survives a flood brought on by deities who were angry at humanity.24 Ancient materials are commonly used to create new narratives that fulfill emerging needs of a community.25 Finkelstein correctly points out that: northern traditions were incorporated into the Judahite canon either because they supported the Judahite ideology or because of the political needs of Judah to absorb the significant Israelite population in the kingdom. In the latter case the original Israelite traditions were subjected to Judahite needs and ideology.26

However, in this case, what he calls Israelite would be Phoenician and/ or other cultural groups’ narratives. Likewise, it makes perfect sense that Judahite ideology would take prominence within the newly adjusted or created stories, as they were the host culture. This integration, even with the degradation of the northern narratives, serves to establish membership in the group (Hobsbawn’s type a). The narratives include characters and stories from the refugees, and incorporates them into the southern narratives, establishing a larger ownership of the larger narrative. The leaders of Judah and Israel (the coalition leader/s) certainly used stories already known to them, but they also changed them – consciously and unconsciously – to fit the needs of the time. A group moving through trauma, wherein their identity has been shaken, will look to their myths to re-create and solidify the identity of their community, rooting their changing identity in a deep “history” that reifies and legitimizes their current understanding of who they are: creating “memories” so that they could move forward as a united group with a common story of the past. 23 24 25 26

Hobsbawm and Ranger, The Invention of Tradition, 9. Pritchard, ANET, 93ff. Hobsbawm and Ranger, The Invention of Tradition, 6. Finkelstein, The Forgotten Kingdom, 3.

FINAL CONCLUSIONS

199

This resulted in re-mything the stories of the South and the North: changing the narratives that supported their separate identities as they created a single narrative that supported a new, united group identity. The narrative of the divided kingdoms would be an example of this; a “memory” of a time when the group was once “united” but fell apart, providing a backdrop for “re-unification,” even though there was no actual, historical political unity: there was never a United Kingdom. Unfortunately, “the genuine original voice of Israel is barely heard in the Hebrew Bible.”27 Since the northern populations were strangers within the Judahite community (perhaps known, but not actually a part of that ethnic group), “the problem is reduced to a question of escaping the stigma of disability by dissociating with the pariah community and faking another origin.”28 In other words, it is entirely likely that the strangers from the north, in their hopes to establish themselves among the southern population as part of the group, were willing to sacrifice some of their own mythic past in an effort to blend into their new homeland. At the same time, however, the trauma inflicted on the south by the conflict with Assyria and the influx of refugees from that conflict forced them to engage in re-mything which included some parts of the northern narratives – Phoenician and possibly others – though these were watered down, and some of the northern figures may have been symbolically sacrificed, like Saul and his family. This type of re-mything is an example of type b – legitimizing institutions and authority. The northern groups likely brought: blocks such as the Jacob cycle in Genesis, the exodus tradition, what is known as the “Book of Saviors” in Judges, positive traditions regarding King Saul in Samuel, the Elijah-Elisha prophetic stories in Kings, and the two northern prophets Hosea and Amos … could have reached Judah orally or in a written form … were probably brought to Judah by Israelite refugees after the fall of Israel in 720 B.C.E.29

These traditions may actually represent ideas and narratives from more than just the Samarian centered polity. Likewise, the presence of El in the Biblical text is also evidence of this re-mything in an effort to unite the northern groups, among whom the presence of El is well attested before the Assyrian invasion.30 El and YHWH were syncretized in the 27 28

29 30

Finkelstein, 3. Barth and Universitetet i Bergen, Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference, 31. Finkelstein, The Forgotten Kingdom, 3. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 140.

200

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

text (and possibly even before, as the coalition called Israel worked with Judah) and are never presented as being in any kind of polemic,31 though in their histories they began as two very distinct deities. Indeed, one could see their integration and the drive towards monotheism in the Biblical text as analogous to the movement of the different peoples toward a monocultural unit. All of this serves type c of Hobsbawn’s types: inculcation of the northerners into the cultural and political landscape of Judah. This was not a malicious endeavor: the new narratives were not lies. This is a normal process of rooting a group’s identity in the past, creating gravitas and establishing meaning through stories that root the individual and the community in a long line of bygone stories and putative histories. Again, history in the ancient world was not a discipline that would be recognizable to modern society. “History” in the ancient world, or what is better termed mythology, was the long and multi-faceted story of the past, the truth (not necessarily accuracy) of which was self-evident in the current manifestation of society. Whether or not something “really happened” was not a question. What matters in mythology is the internalized continuity with the past, even though that continuity is likely mostly a fiction – an invented tradition whose purpose is to create stability.32 The myth of Israel, in all of its faceted definitions, is integral not just to the history of Judaism but also to that of Christianity and thus to that of Europe and nations colonized by Europe, not the least of which is the U.S.A. However, myth and history must be held in equal regard, though for very different reasons. Mythology deserves the attention of scholars for its psychological and social importance: its ability to create one group out of disparate people with a sacred narrative, (often) ‘divinely ordained’ like the mythical Israel. Myths are emotionally and psychologically true. History must be upheld for its brutal honesty. While our myths elevate us, our histories humble us and force us to look at how we truly interact with each other, for better and worse. Our histories bring us down to earth and prove that we are in fact all one people, human, and entirely interconnected. It is, perhaps, the historical coalition of Israel that we should look to and learn from.

31 32

Smith, 141. Hobsbawm and Ranger, The Invention of Tradition, 2.

WORKS CITED Ackerman, Susan. “Asherah, the West Semitic Goddess of Spinning and Weaving?” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 67, no. 1 (2008): 1–30. Adams, Laurie Schneider. Art Across Time. Vol. 2. 2 vols. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 1999. Adkins, Lesley, and Roy A. Adkins. Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. Albright, W. F. “A Teacher to a Man of Shechem about 1400 B. C.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 86 (April 1942): 28–31. https:// doi.org/10.2307/1354997. Al-Salihi, Wathiq. “The Shrine of Nebo at Hatra.” Iraq 45, no. 1 (Spring 1983): 140–45. Alt, Albrecht. Essays on Old Testament History and Religion. 1st ed. in the U.S.A. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1967. Anderson, William P. “The Beginnings of Phoenician Pottery: Vessel Shape, Style, and Ceramic Technology in the Early Phases of the Phoenician Iron Age.” BASOR, no. 279 (1990): 35–54. https://doi.org/10.2307/1357207. —. “The Kilns and Workshops of Sarepta (Sarfand), Lebanon.” Berytus 35 (1987): 41–66. Artzy, Michal. “On Boats and Sea Peoples.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 266 (May 1, 1987): 75–84. https://doi.org/10.2307/1356932. —. “The Carmel Coast during the Second Part of the Late Bronze Age: A Center for Eastern Mediterranean Transshipping.” BASOR 343 (August 1, 2006): 45–64. https://doi.org/10.2307/25066964. Aubet, Maria Eugenia. The Phoenicians and the West: Politics, Colonies, and Trade. Second. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Barth, Fredrik, and Universitetet i Bergen, eds. Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference. Results of a Symposium Held at that Univ. of Bergen, 23rd to 26th Feb. 1967. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, 1998. Betlyon, John Wilson. “The Cult of ’Aserah/’Elat at Sidon.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 44, no. 1 (January 1985): 53–56. Bikai, Patricia M. “The Late Phoenician Pottery Complex and Chronology.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 229 (February 1978): 47–59. —. The Phoenician Pottery of Cyprus. Cyprus: A. G. Leventis Foundation, 1987. Bikai, Patricia M., Robert R. Stieglitz, and Richard J. Clifford. “Rich and Glorious Traders of the Levant.” Archaeology 43, no. 2 (March 1, 1990): 22–30. Biran, Avraham, and Joseph Naveh. “An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan.” Israel Exploration Journal 43, no. 2/3 (January 1, 1993): 81–98. Bloch-Smith, Elizabeth. “Israelite Ethnicity in Iron I: Archaeology Preserves What Is Remembered and What Is Forgotten in Israel’s History.” Journal of Biblical Literature 122, no. 3 (October 1, 2003): 401–25. https://doi.org/10.2307/3268384.

202

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

Bloch-Smith, Elizabeth, and Beth Alpert Nakhai. “A Landscape Comes to Life: The Iron Age I.” Near Eastern Archaeology 62, no. 2 (June 1, 1999): 62–127. https://doi.org/10.2307/3210703. Bondi, Sandro Filippos. “City Planning and Architecture.” In The Phoenicians, edited by Sabatino Moscati, 48. New York: Rizzoli, 1988. —. “The Course of History.” In The Phoenicians, 41–44. New York: Rizzoli, 1999. —. “The Origins in the East.” In The Phoenicians, 23–29. New York: Rizzoli, 1988. Borger, Riekele. Die Inschriften Asarhaddons Königs von Assyrien. Vol. 9. Archiv für Orientforschung. Osnabrück: Biblio-Verlag, 1967. Breasted, James Henry, ed. Ancient Records of Egypt. Translated by James Henry Breasted. Vol. 3. 4 vols. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1906. Burke, Peter. What Is Cultural History. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Polity, 2008. Campbell, Edward F. Shechem II: Portrait of a Hill Country Vale: The Shechem Regional Survey. Shechem II 2. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1991. —. Shechem III: The Stratigraphy and Architecture of Shechem/Tell Balatah. Vol. 1. 2 vols. American Schools of Oriental Research Archaeological Reports 06. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2002. Campbell, Edward F., and ebrary, Inc. Text the Stratigraphy and Architecture of Shechem/Tell Balatah. American Schools of Oriental Research Archaeological Reports, no. 06. Boston, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2002. http://ccl.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://site.ebrary.com/lib/ claremont/Doc?id=10022948. Christian, Mark A. “Phoenician Maritime Religion: Sailors, Goddess Worship, and the Grotta Regina.” Die Welt des Orients 43, no. 2 (2013): 179–205. —. “Phoenician Maritime Religion: Sailors, Goddess Worship, and the Grotta Regina.” Die Welt des Orients 43, no. 2 (2013): 179–205. Cintas, Pierre. Manuel d’archeologie punique I: Histoire et archéologie comparées. Vol. 1. 3 vols. Collection des manuels d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’art. Paris: A. et J. Picard, 1970. Clifford, Richard J. “Phoenician Religion.” BASOR 279 (1990): 55–64. https:// doi.org/10.2307/1357208. Crane, Gregory R., ed. “Perseus Digital Library.” Tufts University. Accessed July 22, 2016. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?q=sidon. Cross, Frank Moore. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997. Crowfoot, J.W., Kathleen M. Kenyon, Eleazar Lipa Sukenik, and Palestine Exploration Fund. The Buildings at Samaria. Samaria-Sebaste; Reports of the Work of the Joint Expedition in 1931-1933 and of the British Expedition in 1935, No. 1. London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1942. Crowfoot, J.W., and Palestine Exploration Fund. Early Ivories from Samaria. Samaria-Sebaste; Reports of the Work of the Joint Expedition in 1931-1933 and of the British Expedition in 1935, no. 2. London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1938. —. The Objects from Samaria. Samaria-Sebaste; Reports of the Work of the Joint Expedition in 1931-1933 and of the British Expedition in 1935, no. 3. London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1957.

WORKS CITED

203

Culican, William. “The Iconography of Phoenician Seals and Seal Impressions.” Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology (1968): 50–103. Dever, William G. “Ceramics, Ethnicity, and the Question of Israel’s Origins.” The Biblical Archaeologist 58, no. 4 (December 1, 1995): 200–13. https:// doi.org/10.2307/3210496. —. Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research. Samuel and Althea Stroum Lectures in Jewish Studies. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1990. —. “‘Will the Real Israel Please Stand up?’ Part II: Archaeology and the Religions of Ancient Israel.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 298 (May 1, 1995): 37–58. https://doi.org/10.2307/1357084. Doak, Brian R. Phoenician Aniconism in Its Mediterranean and Ancient Near Eastern Contexts. Archaeology and Biblical Studies 21. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2015. Donner, H., and W. Rollig, eds. Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co., 1966. Dorsey, David A. “Shechem and the Road Network of Central Samaria.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 268 (November 1, 1987): 57–70. https://doi.org/10.2307/1356994. Dothan, M. “A Sign of Tanit from Tel Akko.” Israel Exploration Journal 24, no. 1 (1974): 44–49. Doumet-Serhal, Claude. “Sidon–British Museum Excavations.” Archaeology and History in Lebanon 18 (Autumn 2003): 2–19. Driver, Godfrey Rolles. Semitic Writing from Pictograph to Alphabet. Rev. ed. The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy, 1944. London: Published for the British Academy by Oxford University Press, 1954. Dussaud, René. “Melqart.” Syria 25, no. 3/4 (1946): 205–30. Ebling, Jennie, Norma Franklin, and Ian Cipin. “Jezreel Revealed in Laser Scans: A Preliminary Report of the 2012 Survey Season.” Near Eastern Archaeology 75, no. 4 (December 2012): 232–39. https://doi.org/10.5615/ neareastarch.75.4.0232. Elat, M. “The Campaigns of Shalmaneser III against Aram and Israel.” Israel Exploration Journal 25, no. 1 (January 1, 1975): 25–35. Espinel, Adres Diego. “The Role of the Temple of Ba’alat Gebal as Intermediary between Egypt and Byblos during the Old Kingdom.” Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 30 (2002): 103–19. Feldman, Marian H. Communities of Style: Portable Luxury Arts, Identity, and Collective Memory in the Iron Age Levant. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2014. Finkelstein, Israel. “Digging for the Truth.” In The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel, edited by Brian B. Schmidt, 9–20. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007. —. “Ethnicity and Origin of the Iron I Settlers in the Highlands of Canaan: Can the Real Israel Stand Up?” BA 59, no. 4 (December 1, 1996): 198–212. https://doi.org/10.2307/3210562. —. “King Solomon’s Golden Age: History of Myth?” In The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel, edited by Brian B. Schmidt, 107–116. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007.

204

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

—. “Patriarchs, Exodus, Conquest: Fact or Fiction.” In The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel, edited by Brian B. Schmidt, 41–56. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007. —. “Tell El-Far’ah (Tirzah) and the Early Days of the Northern Kingdom.” Acadamia, 2012. http://www.academia.edu/4062301. —. The Forgotten Kingdom: The Archaeology and History of Northern Israel. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013. —. “When and How Did the Israelites Emerge?” In The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel, edited by Brian B. Schmidt, 73–84. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007. Fischer-Genz, Bettina. “Review: Das Eschmun-Heiligtum von Sidon by Rolf A. Stucky.” Gnomon 80, no. 7 (2008): 620–24. Fletcher, Richard. “The Cultural Biography of a Phoenician Mushroom-Lipped Jug.” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 25, no. 2 (May 2006): 173–94. Franklin, Norma. “Samaria: From the Bedrock to the Omride Palace.” Levant 36 (2004): 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1179/lev.2004.36.1.189. —. “Why Was Jezreel so Important to the Kingdom of Israel?” Agade Mailing List. November 2013. Freed, Jo Anne. “The Site of Carthage.” In Bringing Carthage Home: Excavations of Nathan Davis, 1856-1859, 2:50–68. University of British Columbia Studies in the Ancient World. Oxford, UK: Oxbow Books, 2011. http:// www.jstor.org.ccl.idm.oclc.org/stable/j.ctt1cfr854. Friede, Juan. “The Coat of Arms of Hernando Cortés.” The Quarterly Journal of the Library of Congress 26, no. 2 (April 1, 1969): 64–69. Fritz, Volkmar. The Emergence of Israel in the Twelfth and Eleventh Centuries B.C.E. Society of Biblical Literature. Biblical Encyclopedia, v. 2. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Gansell, Amy Rebecca, Jan-William van de Meent, Sakellarios Zairis, and Chris H. Wiggins. “Stylistic Clusters and the Syrian/South Syrian Tradition of First-Millennium BCE Levantine Ivory Carving: A Machine Learning Approach.” Journal of Archaeological Science 44 (2014): 194–205. Gibson, John C. L. Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions: Volume III Phoenician Inscriptions. Vol. III. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1982. Gilboa, Ayelet. “Sea Peoples and Phoenicians along the Southern Phoenician Coast: A Reconciliation: An Interpretation of Šikila (SKL) Material Culture.” BASOR, no. 337 (February 1, 2005): 47–78. —. “The Dynamics of Phoenician Bichrome Pottery: A View from Tel Dor.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 316 (November 1, 1999): 1–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/1357499. —. “The Southern Levant (Cisjordan) during the Iron Age I Period.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant: 8000-332 BCE, edited by Margreet L. Steiner and Ann E. Killebrew, 624–48. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2014. Gilboa, Ayelet, and Ilan Sharon. “Between the Carmel and the Sea: Tel Dor’s Iron Age Reconsidered.” Near Eastern Archaeology 71, no. 3 (September 1, 2008): 146–70.

WORKS CITED

205

Gottwald, Norman K. The Politics of Ancient Israel. First. Library of Ancient Israel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001. —. The Tribes of Yahweh: A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel, 12501050 B.C.E. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1979. —. “Two Models for the Origins of Ancient Israel: Social Reolution or Frontier Development.” In The Quest for the Kingdom of God: Studies in Honor of George E. Mendenhall, edited by H.B. Huffmon, F.A Spina, and A.R.W. Green, 5-20. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983. Grabbe, Lester. “The ‘Persian Documents’ in the Book of Ezra.” In Judah and Judeans in the Persian Period, edited by Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Gray, John. The Legacy of Canaan. Second. Vol. V. Vetus Testamentum. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1965. Grimal, Nicolas. A History of Ancient Egypt. Translated by Ian Shaw. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1988. Guzzo, M.G. Amadasi. “Les Sources Écrites.” In La Civilisation Phénicienne et Punique, 19–30. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Gzella, Holger. “The Linguistic Position of Old Byblian.” In Linguistic Studies in Phoenician in Memory of J. Brian Peckham, edited by Robert Holmstedt and Schade Aaron, 170–98. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013. Haggi, Arad. “Report on Underwater Excavation at the Phoenician Harbour, Atlit, Israel.” Nautical Archaeology 39, no. 2 (December 2009): 278–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-9270.2009.00254.x. Haggi, Arad, and Michal Artzy. “The Harbor of Atlit in Northern Canaanite/ Phoenician Context.” Near Eastern Archaeology 70, no. 2 (June 1, 2007): 75–84. Hasel, Michael G. “Israel in the Merneptah Stela.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 296 (November 1, 1994): 45–61. https://doi. org/10.2307/1357179. Herion, Gary, David Graf, and John David Pleins, eds. Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. Vol. 3. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Herrmann, Georgina. “Ivories of the North West Palace.” In Syrian and Phoenician Ivories of the Early First Millennium BCE: Chronology, Regional Styles and Iconographic Repertories, Patterns of Inter-Regional Distribution, edited by Serena Maria Cecchini, Stefania Mazzoni, and Elena Scigliuzzo, 9–26. Pisa: Edizioni ETS, 2009. —. “The Nimrud Ivories, 1: The Flame and Frond School.” Iraq 51 (January 1, 1989): 85–109. https://doi.org/10.2307/4200298. Hobsbawm, E.J., and T.O. Ranger, eds. The Invention of Tradition. Past and Present Publications. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Iacovou, Maria. “Cyprus During the Iron Age through the Persian Period: From the 11th Century BC to the Abolition of the City-Kingdoms (c. 300 BC).” In The Oxford Handbook of Archaeology of the Levant: 8000-332 BCE, edited by Ann E. Killebrew and Margreet L. Steiner, 660–76. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2014. Jackson, Kent. “The Language of the Mesha’ Inscription.” In Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab, edited by Andrew Dearman. Archaeology and Biblical Studies 2. 96–130. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1989.

206

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

Jidejian, Nina. Byblos Through the Ages. Chicago: Argonaut Inc., 1968. Josephus, Flavius. “The Antiquities of the Jews.” In The New Complete Works of Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1999. Jung, Carl G. Jung on Myth. Edited by Robert A Segal. Encountering Jung. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998. —. “The Psychology of the Child Archetype.” In Essays on a Science of Mythology, 79–84. 9th ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. Kapelrud, Arvid S. Baal in the Ras Shamra Texts. Copenhagen: G.E.C. Gad, 1952. Kaufman, Ivan T. “The Samaria Ostraca: An Early Witness to Hebrew Writing.” The Biblical Archaeologist 45, no. 4 (Autumn 1982): 229–39. Kee, Howard C., and Lawrence E. Toombs. “The Second Season of Excavation at Biblical Shechem.” The Biblical Archaeologist 20, no. 4 (December 1, 1957): 82–105. https://doi.org/10.2307/3209221. Kelle, Brad E. “What’s in a Name? Neo-Assyrian Designations for the Northern Kingdom and Their Implications for Israelite History and Biblical Interpretation.” Journal of Biblical Literature 121, no. 4 (December 1, 2002): 639– 66. https://doi.org/10.2307/3268575. Kenyon, Kathleen M. Archaeology in the Holy Land. New York: W.W. Norton and Company Inc., 1960. —. The Bible and Recent Archaeology. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1978. Kerenyi, C. “Prolegomena.” In Essays on a Science of Mythology, 1–24. 9th ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. Killebrew, Ann E. Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity: An Archaeological Study of Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines, and Early Israel, 1300-1100 B.C.E. Society of Biblical Literature Archaeology and Biblical Studies, no. 9. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Knapp, A. Bernard. “Bronze Age Mediterranean Island Cultures and the Ancient Near East.” The Biblical Archaeologist 55, no. 2 (June 1, 1992): 52–72. https://doi.org/10.2307/3210346. —. The History and Culture of Ancient Western Asia and Egypt. Chicago, IL: The Dorsey Press, 1988. Knoppers, Gary N. “Theories of the Redactions of Kings.” In The Books of Kings: Sources, Composition, Historiography, and Reception, edited by Andre Lemaire and Baruch Halpern. Vetus Testamentum 129. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2010. Kuhrt, Amélie. The Ancient Near East, c. 3000-330 BC. 2 vols. Routledge History of the Ancient World. London/New York: Routledge, 1995. Kuisel, Richard F. “Coca-Cola and the Cold War: The French Face Americanization, 1948-1953.” French Historical Studies 17, no. 1 (April 1, 1991): 96–116. https://doi.org/10.2307/286280. Lambert, W.G. “An Address of Marduk to the Demons.” Archiv für Orientforschung 17 (1954): 310–21. https://doi.org/132.174.255.86. Lemche, Niels Peter. Israel in Transition: From Late Bronze II to Iron IIa (c. 1250-850 B.C.E.). Vol. 2. 2 vols. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 491, 521. New York: T&T Clark, 2008. Lemche, Niels Peter. The Israelites in History and Tradition. Library of Ancient Israel. London/Louisville: SPCK/Westminster John KnoxPress, 1998.

WORKS CITED

207

Leonard, Albert. “Archaeological Sources for the History of Palestine: The Late Bronze Age.” The Biblical Archaeologist 52, no. 1 (March 1, 1989): 4–39. https://doi.org/10.2307/3210180. Levin, S. “Eshmun, Healing God of Sidon.” Adler Museum Bulletin 9, no. 1 (1983): 39–42. Lewis, Thomas, Fari Amini, and Richard Lannon. A General Theory of Love. Reprint edition. New York: Vintage, 2001. Liverani, Mario. “2084: Ancient Propaganda and Historical Criticism.” In The Study of the Ancient Near East in the 21st Century, edited by Jerrold S. Cooper and Glen M. Schwartz, 283–89. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996. —. Israel’s History and the History of Israel. Translated by Chiara Peri and Philip R. Davies. Oakville: Equinox, 2009. —. The Ancient Near East: History, Society, and Economy. Translated by Soraia Tabatabai. London: Routledge, 2014. Luckenbill, Daniel David. Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia. Edited by James H. Breasted. Vol. 2. 2 vols. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1926. Maier, III, Walter A. Aserah: Extrabiblical Evidence. Harvard Semitic Monographs 37. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1986. Marcus, Ralph, and I.J. Gelb. “The Phoenician Stele Inscription from Cilicia.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 8, no. 2 (1949): 116–20. Margalith, Othniel. “On the Origin and Antiquity of the Name ‘Israel.’” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 102, no. 2 (1990): 225. Markoe, Glenn. Phoenicians. Peoples of the Past. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000. Marriner, Nick, Christophe Morhange, and Claude Doumet-Serhal. “Geoarchaeology of Sidon’s Ancient Harbors, Phoenicia.” Journal of Archaeological Science 33 (2006): 1514–35. Matthiae, Paolo. Ebla: An Empire Rediscovered. Translated by Christopher Holme. New York: Doubleday, 1981. Mattingly, Gerald L. “Moabite Religion and the Mesha’ Inscription.” In Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab. Archaeology and Biblical Studies 2. 211–238. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1989. Mazar, Amihai. “On Archaeology, Biblical History, and Biblical Archaeology.” In The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel, edited by Brian B. Schmidt, 21–33. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007. Mazar, Amihai. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible. 1st ed. The Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday, 1990. Miller, Robert D., II. “Identifying Earliest Israel.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 333 (February 1, 2004): 55–68. https://doi.org/10.2307/ 1357794. Moran, William L., ed. The Amarna Letters. Translated by Moran, William L. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins, 1982. Moscati, Sabatino. The World of the Phoenicians. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1968. Moscati, Sabatino. “Who Were the Phoenicians?” In The Phoenicians, 17–19. New York: Rizzoli, 1988.

208

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

Moss, Richard. “French Eagles Captured at Waterloo Reunited at the National Museum of Scotland.” Culture 24, May 2015. www.culture24.org.uk/historyand-heritage/military-history/pre-20th-century-conflict/art526961-frencheagles-captured-at-waterloo-reunited-at-the-national-museum-of-scotland. Mynarova, Jana. “Egyptian State Correspondence in the New Kingdom: The Letters of the Leventine Client Kings in the Amarna Correspondence and the Contemporary Evidence.” In State Correspondence in the Ancient World, edited by Karen Radner, 10–22. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Negbi, Ora. “Early Phoenician Presence in the Mediterranean Islands: A Reappraisal.” American Journal of Archaeology 96, no. 4 (October 1, 1992): 599–615. https://doi.org/10.2307/505187. Nestor, Dermot. Cognitive Perspectives on Israelite Identity. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 519. New York/London: T&T Clark International, 2010. Niemann, Hermann Michael. “Royal Samaria–Capital or Residence? Or: The Foundation of the City of Samaria by Sargon II.” In Ahab Agonistes, edited by Lester L. Grabbe, Sharon Keller, and Carol Gottlieb, 184–207. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 421. London: T&T Clark, 2007. ebookcentral.proquest.com. Noort, Edward. Die Seevölker in Palästina. Palastina Antiqua 8. Kampen: Kok Pharos Publishing House, 1994. Noureddine, Ibrahim. “New Light on the Phoenician Harbor at Tyre.” Near Eastern Archaeology 73, no. 2/3 (September 2010): 176–81. https://doi. org/132.174.255.86. Oldenburg, Ulf. The Conflict Between El and Ba’al in Canaanite Religion. Dissertations Ad Historiam Relgionum Pertinentes. Leiden: Brill, 1969. Oppenheim, A. Leo. Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization. Rev. ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977. Parrot, André. Samaria, the Capital of the Kingdom of Israel. Studies in Biblical Archaeology 7. New York: Philosophical Library, 1958. Peckham, Brian, J. Phoenicia: Episodes and Anecdotes from the Ancient Mediterranean. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014. Pedley, John Griffiths. Greek Art and Archaeology. Third Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1993. Pettinato, Giovanni. Ebla: A New Look at History. Translated by Faith Richardson. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins, 1986. Pinkerton, William. “The Highland Kilt and the Old Irish Dress.” Ulster Journal of Archaeology 6 (1858): 316–27. Pritchard, James B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969. —. Recovering Sarepta, a Phoenician City: Excavations at Sarafand, Lebanon, 1969-1974, by the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978. Raban-Gerstel, Noa, Irit Zohar, Guy Bar-Oz, Ilan Sharon, and Ayelet Gilboa. “Early Iron Age Dor (Israel): A Faunal Perspective.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 349 (February 1, 2008): 25–59. Rad, Gerhard von. Gemesis: A Commentary. Translated by John H. Marks. Old Testament Library. Westminster: John Knox Press, 1972.

WORKS CITED

209

Reisner, George Andrew. Harvard Excavations at Samaria, 1908-1910. Harvard Semitic Series. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1924. Ribichini, Sergio. “Beliefs and Religious Life.” In The Phoenicians, edited by Sabatino Moscati, 120–52. New York: Rizzoli, 1988. Robertson, Noel. “The Ritual Background of the Dying God in Cyprus and SyroPalestine.” The Harvard Theological Review 75, no. 3 (July 1, 1982): 313– 59. https://doi.org/10.2307/1509756. Saghieh, Muntaha Said. Byblos in the Third Millennium B.C.: A Reconstruction of the Stratigraphy and a Study of the Cultural Connections. Wilts, England: Aris and Phillips Ltd., 1983. Schneider, Tammi J. An Introduction to Ancient Mesopotamian Religion. Grand Rapids: William Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2011. —. “Jezebel: A Phoenician Princess Gone Bad?” presented at the Society of Biblical Literature, Chicago, IL, November 2012. —. “Mesopotamia (Assyrians and Babylonians) and the Levant.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant, edited by Ann E. Killebrew and Margreet L. Steiner, 98–106. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2014. —. “Rethinking Jehu.” Biblica 77, no. 1 (1996): 100–07. —. “Through Assyria’s Eyes: Israel’s Relationship with Judah.” Expedition 44, no. 3 (Winter 2002): 9–15. Schwartz, Jeffery H., Robert Houghton, Robert Macchiarelli, and Luca Bondioli. “Skeletal Remains from Punic Carthage Do Not Support Systematic Sacrifice of Infants.” Plos One 5, no. 2 (2010). http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0009177. Shiloh, Y. “The Four-Room House Its Situation and Function in the Israelite City.” Israel Exploration Journal 20, no. 3/4 (January 1, 1970): 180–90. Shiloh, Yigal. “The Proto-Aeolic Capital and Israelite Ashlar Masonry.” Qedem 11 (1979): 1–95. https://doi.org/132.174.255.86. Smith, Mark S. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Spickard, Paul R., and W. Jeffrey Burroughs. “We Are a People.” In We Are a People: Narrative and Multiplicity in Constructing Ethnic Identity, edited by Paul R. Spickard and W. Jeffrey Burroughs, 1–24. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2000. Stager, Lawrence E. “Shemer’s Estate.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 277/278 (February 1, 1990): 93–107. https://doi.org/ 10.2307/1357375. Stern, Ephraim. Dor – Ruler of the Seas: Twelve Years of Excavations at the Israelite-Phoenician Harbor Town on the Carmel Coast. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994. —. “Hazor, Dor and Megiddo in the Time of Ahab and under Assyrian Rule.” Israel Exploration Journal 40, no. 1 (January 1, 1990): 12–30. —. “New Evidence from Dor for the First Appearance of the Phoenicians along the Northern Coast of Israel.” BASOR 279 (1990): 27–34. https://doi.org/ 10.2307/1357206. —, ed. The Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavation in the Holy Land. Vol. 4. 5 vols. Israel: Simon and Schuster, 1993.

210

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

Stern, Ephraim, J. Berg, and Ilan Sharon. “Tel Dor, 1988-1989: Preliminary Report.” Israel Exploration Journal 41, no. 1/3 (January 1, 1991): 46–61. Stern, Ephraim, Ayelet Gilboa, and Ilan Sharon. “Tel Dor, 1987 Preliminary Report.” Israel Exploration Journal 39, no. 1/2 (January 1, 1989): 32–42. Stern, Ephraim, and Ilan Sharon. “Tel Dor, 1992: Preliminary Report.” Israel Exploration Journal 43, no. 2/3 (January 1, 1993): 126–50. Stott, Katherine M. Why Did They Write This Way? Reflections on References to Written Documents in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Literature. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 492. New York/London: T&T Clark, 2008. Stucky, Rolf A. Das Eschmun-Heiligtum von Sidon: Architektur und Inschriften. Antike Kunst 19. Basel: Vereinigung der Freunde antiker Kunst, 2005. Sugerman, Michael. Webs of Commerce: The Archaeology of Ordinary Things in the Late Bronze Age Israel and Palestine. Unpublished Dissertation, 2000. Suriano, Matthew J. “Historical Geography of the Ancient Levant: C.8000 332 BCE.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant, edited by Margreet L. Steiner and Ann E. Killebrew, 9–23. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2014. Sweeney, Marvin A. I & II Kings: A Commentary. The Old Testament Library. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007. Tadmor, Hayim. The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III King of Assyria: Critical Edition, with Introductions, Translations and Commentary. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1994. Tappy, Ron E. The Archaeology of Israelite Samaria. Vol. 1. Harvard Semitic Studies, no. 44, 50. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1992. —. The Archaeology of Israelite Samaria: The Eighth Century BCE. Vol. 2. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2001. Torrey, C. C. “The Chronicler as Editor and as Independent Narrator (Continued).” The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 25, no. 3 (April 1, 1909): 188–217. Trevor-Proper, Hugh. “The Highland Tradition of Scotland.” In The Invention of Tradition, edited by Eric Hobsbawn and Terence Ranger, 15–42. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Trouillot, Michel-Rolph. Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History. Boston: Beacon Press, 1995. Tufnell, O., and W.A. Ward. “Relations between Byblos, Egypt and Mesopotamia at the End of the Third Millennium B.C.: A Study of the Montet Jar.” Institut francais du Proche-Orient Fasc. 3/4 (1966): 165–241. Turner, William W. “The Sidon Inscription, with a Translation and Notes.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 5 (January 1, 1855): 243–59. https://doi. org/10.2307/592227. Ussishkin, David. “Samaria, Jezreel and Megiddo: Royal Centres of Omri and Ahab.” In Ahab Agonistes, edited by Lester L. Grabbe, 293–309. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 421. London: T&T Clark International, 2007. Ussishkin, David, and John Woodhead. “Excavations at Tel Jezreel 1990–1991: Preliminary Report.” Tel Aviv 19, no. 1 (1992): 3–56.

WORKS CITED

211

—. “Excavations at Tel Jezreel 1994–1996: Third Preliminary Report.” Tel Aviv 24, no. 1 (1997): 6–72. Van Dijk, Jacobus. “The Amarna Period and the Later New Kingdom.” In The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, edited by Ian Shaw, 272–313. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Van Seters, John. In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983. Van Soldt, W.H. “Ugarit: A Second Millennium Kingdom on the Mediterranean Coast.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, John Baines, Gary Beckman, and Karen S. Rubinson, Vol. 1 and 2. 1255– 1266. New York: Hendrickson, 1995. Vaux, Roland de. “La Troisième Campagne de Fouilles à Tell El-Fâr’ah (Palestine).” Comptes rendus des séances de l’académie des Inscriptions et BellesLettres 95, no. 1 (1951): 7–10. —. “Les Fouilles de Tell El-Far’ah (Jordanie), Campagnes de 1959-1960.” Comptes rendus des séances de l’académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 105, no. 2 (1961): 288–98. https://doi.org/10.3406/crai.1961.11337. Wiessner, Polly. “Style or Isochrestic Variation? A Reply to Sackett.” American Antiquity 50, no. 1 (January 1, 1985): 160–66. https://doi.org/10.2307/280643. Winter, Irene J. “Establishing Group Boundaries: Toward Methodological Refinement in the Determination of Sets as a Prior Condition to the Analysis of Cultural Contact and/or Innovation in the First Millennium BCE Ivory Carving.” In Crafts and Images in Contact: Studies on Eastern Mediterranean Art of the First Millennium BCE, edited by Claudia E. Suter and Christoph Uehlinger, 23–42. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 210. Fribourg: Academic Press, 2005. —. On Art in the Ancient Near East. Volume I: Of the First Millennium B.C.E. Vol. 34.1. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East. Boston: Brill, 2010. Wittkower, Rudolf. “Eagle and Serpent. A Study in the Migration of Symbols.” Journal of the Warburg Institute 2, no. 4 (April 1, 1939): 293–325. https:// doi.org/10.2307/750041. Wright, G. Ernest. Shechem, the Biography of a Biblical City. 1st ed. The Norton Lectures of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary 1963. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965. —. “The First Campaign at Tell BalâTah (Shechem).” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 144 (December 1, 1956): 9–20. https://doi. org/10.2307/1355859. Wright, G.R.H. Shechem III: The Stratigraphy and Architecture of Shechem/Tell Balatah. 1st ed. Vol. 2. 2 vols. American Schools of Oriental Research Archaeological Reports 06. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2002. Wyatt, N. Religious Texts from Ugarit. Second. Biblical Seminar 53. New York: Continuum, 2002. Xella, Paolo. “D’Ugarit a la Phénicie: Sur les traces de Rashap, Horon, Eshmun.” Die Welt des Orients 19 (1988): 45–64. Yamada, Shigeo. The Construction of the Assyrian Empire: A Historical Study of the Inscriptions of Shalmanesar III Relating to His Campaigns in the

212

THE REAL ISRAEL DISEMBARKED

West. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East, v. 3. Boston: Brill, 2000. Yasur-Landau, Assaf. The Philistines and Aegean Migration at the End of the Late Bronze Age. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Yon, Marguerite. Thy City of Ugarit at Tell Ras Shamra. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Zernecke, Anna Elise. “The Lady of the Titles: The Lady of Byblos and the Search for Her “True Name.” Die Welt des Orients 43, no. 2 (2013): 226–42. Zimhoni, Orna. “Clues from the Enclosure-Fills: Pre-Omride Settlement at Tel Jezreel.” Tel Aviv 24, no. 1 (1997): 83–109. https://doi.org/10.1179/tav.1997. 1997.1.83. —. “The Iron Age Pottery from Tel Jezreel–an Interim Report.” Tel Aviv 19, no. 1 (1992): 57–70. Zousain, Georges S., ed. “Byblos-Lebanon Project: Identification & Implementation.” UNESCO, August 1999. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/ 001493/149352eo.pdf.

PRINTED ON PERMANENT PAPER

• IMPRIME

SUR PAPIER PERMANENT

N.V. PEETERS S.A., WAROTSTRAAT

• GEDRUKT

OP DUURZAAM PAPIER

50, B-3020 HERENT

- ISO 9706