The Biblical Archaeologist - Vol.60, N.3

85 Pages·1997·27.01 MB·English

by  American Schools of Oriental Research

Bib icalA1rchaeolot
Perspectiveso n the Ancient Worldf rom Mesopotamiat o the Mediterranean Vol.60 No.3 September1 997
IRON EMERGING NATIONS
PALESTINE:
II
BiblicAal rchaeoloist
Perspectiveos n the AncientW orldf romM esopotamitao the Mediterranean Volume6 0 Number3
A Publicationo f the AmericanS choolso f OrientaRl esearch September1 997
Archaeological Sources for the History of Palestine
114 THEI RONA GEI I PERIODE: MERGINGN ATIONS
Larry G. Herr
What were the salient features of the best known archaeological period in the
history of Palestine? The three hundred and fifty years of Iron Age II open
with the onset of the new millennium as marked by changes in pottery assem-
blages, architecture, and settlement pattern. The advent of the Persian empire
in about 540 BCE-rather than the more traditional marker provided by the
Babylonian conquest-brings the period to a close. Herr's presentation of the
archaeology of these pivotal centuries encompasses settlement pattern, sub-
sistence system, urban plans, architecture, technology, trade, writing, religion,
art, burials, and water systems. It also includes a general treatment of the con-
servative aspects of everyday life that characterize the period's entire duration.
How do history and archaeology intersect in these centuries which abound
in literary remains? Produced by both small city states and vast empires, ostraca,
clay tablets, stelae, monumental wall reliefs, and a significant portion of the bib-
lical literature offer a tremendous resource and equally high risk. This tension is
intrinsic to biblical archaeology, as it is to the broader issue of the relationship
between political-historical events and archaeologically observable change in
the material culture. Balanced attention to the whole spectrum of data does per-
mit the division of the Iron II era into periods. Each of the three sub-divisions
of Iron II merits its own historical and social overview sketched from biblical
as well as inscriptional and ethno-archaeological evidence from Egypt, Syro-
Palestine, and Mesopotamia. The archaeological data then take center stage for
each of the polities of the southern Levant: Israel, Judah, Philistia, Phoenicia,
Aram, Ammon, Moab, and Edom. Each of these "national" sections includes a
list of sites exhibiting the material culture of that people group.
The portrait of the material culture of Palestine shows how self-awareness of
these small nations grew gradually across the Iron II period so that, by
period's end, material culture marks out territories and identifies the nationali-
ties of the peoples of ancient Palestine.
115 Biblical Archaeology 132 Iron IIB Ninth to Late Eighth
116 History of Iron II Syntheses Centuries
117 Periodization 151 Iron IIC Late Eighth to Mid-
118 Goals and Organization Sixth Centuries
119 Archaeology of Everyday Life 176 Conclusions and
120 Iron IIA Tenth Century Generalizations
184 Arti-Facts
A Rejoinder to "Was the Siloam Tunnel Built by Hezekiah?"
International Conference in Near Eastern Archaeology
Art from the Ancient City of Kerma on View at the National Museum of African
Art
Spirit Houses
Smart Museum of Art to Host Special Exhibition of Sumerian Temple Trea-
sures from the Oriental Institute Museum
Reviews of First CivilizationsA: ncientM esopotamiaa nd Egypt;D aily Lifeo f the Egypt-
ian Gods;M esopotamianC ivilization:T heM aterialF oundationsa nd L'habitapt riv?
en Palestine au BronzeM oyen et au BronzeR dcent[ Private Dwellings in Middle
and Late BronzeA ge Palestine]
From the Editor BiblicalArchaeologist
As director of the Madaba Plains Project'se xcavation of Tall al-cUmayri,L arryH err, the Perspectives on the Ancient Worldf rom
author of this issue's installment of BA'ss eries on the Archaeological Sources for the His- Mesopotamiat o the Mediterranean
tory of Palestine,i nsists that every gupha of earthg o through the sift. Thus, every tiny potsherd, Editor David C. Hopkins
every snail shell, every piece of flint, and every bone fragment ends up in the collection bag Art Director Bucky Edgett, LuckyP roductions
Book Review Editor Michel Fortin
or pottery pail. And every seal ends up under Herr's epigraphicallyt rainede ye, for he knows Arti-FactsE ditors Brucea nd Carolyn Routledge
that careful sifting has enlarged cUmayri's contribution to the known corpus of seals EditorialA ssistants
beyond all expectations. Mary PetrinaB oyd, Ellen Rowse Spero
Professor Herr's presentation of the archaeology of Iron II Palestine manifests the same Editorial Committee
JefferyA . Blakely Kenneth G. Hoglund
thoroughness and meticulous attention to detail. He both coherently presents the salient Elizabeth Bloch-Smith Douglas A. Knight
featureso f the most profusely known archaeologicalp eriod in Palestine and capturesi ts dom- J. P. Dessel MaryJ oan Leith
inant theme, the emergence of small nations in the midst of a tumultuous era. Herr's article ErnestS . Frerichs Gloria London
provides an up-to-date overview of the archaeology of the Iron II period and an orientation RRoicnhaalrdd SS .. H Heensds el JGoedria Mlda Lg.n Mesast tingly
to the inevitable debate regarding the interplay between literary and material cultural data. Louise Hitchcock Gaetano Palumbo
The presentation includes a discussion of the archaeology of everyday life, an extraordinar- Paul Zimansky
ily helpful listing of excavateds ites and theirI ron IIr emains,a s well as an essentialb ibliography. Subscriptions Annual subscriptionr ates are $35
Herr innovates by treatinga ll of the emerging nations of the IronA ge-from Israelt o Edom-- sfopre ciniadli avnidnuuaalls r aanted o $f4 $52 f8o fro irn ssttuitduetinotns,s t.Th ohseer oei vse ar
with the same level of interest.T his treatmentl eads to extending the end of the IronA ge from 65, physically challenged,o r unemployed. Biblical
the more customary date coinciding with Judean political history-the Babylonian destruc- Archaeologisist also availablea s part of the benefits
tion of Jerusalem-until the mid-sixth century when the centuries-longc ontinuity of IronA ge of some ASORm embershipc ategories.F or details,
material culture manifests its ebb tide. No doubt Herr's perspective has been shaped by cCoanntaadctiA anSa OnRda ott h61er7 i-n3t5e3r-n6a5t7i0oP.n oasla tdadger efossre s is an
two decades of examining the products of the sift in the Ammonite cultural arena. additional $5. Payments should be sent to ASOR
Sorting out the artifacts at the sift demands at least an adjustment of focal length, if not Membership/SubscriberS ervices,P O. Box 15399,
a perspectivals hift. But most diggers are able fairly rapidly to filtero ut the "noise"a nd resolve Atlanta,G A 30333-0399P hone 404-727-2345E. -
mail: [email protected]. ISA/Mastercard
the "signal,"f ind the sherds and ignore the stones. Unquestionably,s ome folks have an extra- orders can be phoned in.
ordinary knack for this, and it is they who regularly turn to their supervisors with seals and Back issues Backi ssues can be obtained by calling
beads in hand. But all humans (including archaeologicalv olunteers!)h ave an especially acute SP CustomerS ervicesa t 800-437-6692o r writing
ability at visual discrimination. Our eyes are quickly educated and can learn to pick up the SP CustomerS ervices,P O. Box 6996,A lpharetta,
GA 30239-6996.
barest hints of signals from, for example, a too nearly symmetrical clump of clay that turns
out to be a diminutive spindle whorl. "...[T]he human brain is an incrediblefi lter for extract- Postmaster Send address changes to Biblical
ing informationf rom confusion" (P.T haddeus quoted by S. Hall, Mappingt heN extM illennium ASerrcvhiaceeos,lP og.Ois.AtB , SoOx 1R5M 39e9m,A btelarnshtaip,G /SAu 3b0sc3r3i3b-e0r3 99.
[Random House: NY, 1992:15]). Periodicalsc lass postage paid at Atlanta,G A and
The cover photos--created by RichardC leave-witness a radical reshaping of the sort of additional offices.
visual information we are pressed to process. On the front cover, three-dimensionalh igh res- Copyright ? 1997b y the AmericanS chools
olution satellite data offers a familiar scene from an unfamiliar angle. The image stretches of OrientalR esearch.
from snow-topped final reaches of the Lebanon Mountain chain to the northernmost tip of Correspondence All editorial correspondence
the Gulf of Aqaba/Elat. The landscape of "emerging nations" presents itself as a varie- should be addressed to BiblicaAl rchaeologis4t,5 00
MassachusettsA venue NW, Washington,D C
gated, heavily dissected chaos of plateaus and valleys, plains and mountain heights. On the 20016-5690( ph: 202-885-8699f;a x:2 02-885-8605e; -
rear cover, the image becomes more map-like. On the layer-tinti mage, height-related colors mail [email protected])C. orrespondence
replace the natural hues. The simplifying color scheme provides for more dramatic separa- regardings ubmissions for Arti-Factsc an be sent to
tion of topographicv ariation.T he massive greenh and of the Jezreelv alley,t he slivers of passes PDreopfa.B rt.m Reonutto lef dAgnet;hS rcohpooollo ogf yA;3r 2ts5 a Unndi Svceiresnitcye s,
through the Carmel spur, the block of the Samarian and Judean highlands, and the sharp Museum;3 3rd and SpruceS treets;P hiladelphia,
canyons of the wadis slicing the Transjordanianp lateau: all these features present themselves PA 19104-6398
with unmistakable clarity. The tinted terrain enables us observers more readily to separate Book Reviews All books for review should be sent
the useful information from the background noise. to: ProfessorM ichel Fortin,D epartement
d'histoire,U niversiteL aval,S te-Foy,Q uebec,
The maps that accompany Herr's article have been especially crafted to achieve some- CanadaG IK 7P4. Books entering Canadas hould
what the opposite effect:l ess dramatic separation of their national particularities.T his visual be marked:E ducationalM aterialf or Review; No
presentation resists the solid-line boundaries that etch conventional maps of the territory. CommercialV alue-GSTE xempt.
While recognizing the reality of cultural areas on the Iron II Palestinian landscape, the Advertising Correspondences hould be addressed
maps' tinting suggests fuzziness or imprecision at the perimeters of these zones. Whethert he tAot Llaenitgah,GA nAd 3e0r3s3o3n-,0 S3c9h9o( plahr:s4 P 0r4e-s7s2,P 7.-O23.B 2o7fx;a 1x5:43 0949-,
product of the fluidity of "nationalities,"t he movement of borders in a competitive world, or 727-2348).A ds for the sale of antiquitiesw ill not
just plain archaeological uncertainty,a mbiguity is what is mapped. Defining a cultural area be accepted.
is simply not as straightforwarda s finding a bone bead or bovine tooth in the sift. It requires, BiblicaAl rchaeologis(tI SSN0 006-0895)i s published
nonetheless, its own mode of visual acuity. quarterly( March,J une,S eptember,D ecember)b y
ScholarsP ress, 819 Houston Mill Road NE,
Atlanta,G A 30329,f or the AmericanS chools of
OrientalR esearch( ASOR);6 56 BeaconS treet;
Boston, MA 02215-2010.P hone:6 17-353-6570.
AttentionS ubscribers: Printedb y Cadmus JournalS ervices,B altimore,
MD.
Beginning with the first issue of Volume 61 (1998) BiblicalA rchaeologistw ill become 1i~
Near EasternA rchaeology(I SSN 1094-2076).T he journal will maintain the same schedule and
a
format.
Archaeological Sources for the History of Palestine: The Iron Age II Period: Emerging Nations
Author(s): Larry G. Herr
Source: The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 60, No. 3 (Sep., 1997), pp. 114-183
Published by: The American Schools of Oriental Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3210608
Accessed: 02/04/2010 13:34
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asor.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The Biblical Archaeologist.
http://www.jstor.org
c'
The highly and severely
variable
dissected topography of the
emerging
nations of IronI . FromA ramt o Edom,
this fragmented landscape witnessed
the emergence of no less than eight
self-identifying people groups Image ?
Rohr
Productions' courtesyo f
Ltd,
13rll~(lln~lY)~ ~r
By Larry G. Herr (1838, 1852), who rode about the country on a horse, bril-
liantlye quatingm odem villagea nd siten ames with linguistically
TT HECE NTURITEHS ATM AKEU PT HEI RONI I PERIOCDO MPRISE similar names in the Bible and other ancient literary sources.
perhaps the best known archaeological period in A little later Heinrich Schliemann would do the same, using
the history of Palestine. The interest of Western the Iliad to help find Troy.B ut while they worked more-or-
society in the Bible and its lands has brought pilgrims, less responsibly, treasure hunters carried off looted works of
treasureh unters, and their adventurous descendants, archae- art and history from Egypt, Mesopotamia, Turkey,G reece,
ologists, to the Holy Land to see if the secrets buried beneath China, and Yucatan. It was colonial rape at its worst. The
the ground can enrich and, for some, prove the truths in Holy nadir of archaeology in the Holy Land was the expedition of
Writ (Silberman 1980). M. B. Parker who tunneled under Jerusalem in a ludicrous
Although the Bible ascribes much of its action to the cen- attempt to find Solomon's rumored treasure( Silberman1 980).
turies before or during the early stages of the Iron II Fortunately, using the Bible to help guide one's research
period, most of the writing took place just before, during, does not necessarily lead to treasure hunting. Yet permitting
and after the Babylonian conquest, that is, the seventh-fifth one's present understanding of the biblical text to dictate
centuries. There is, therefore, a wealth of literary informa- how archaeologists understand what they dig up, and
tion at our fingertips for the Iron II period, especially the later how they dig it, is intellectual looting (Dever has been the
parts. When one adds the large corpus of alphabetic inscrip- most vocal critic of this abusive form of archaeology; see, for
tions from the southern Levant, the Assyrian and Babylonian instance, 1982). Recent archaeology of the Iron II period
cuneiform texts, and Egyptian hieroglyphic documents relat- has had to undo so much bad archaeology by earlier exca-
ing to Palestine, the cornucopia of literary and historical vators, who came to their sites with positive certainties of
sources becomes obvious (Pritchard 1969). biblical truths, that many sites have had to be reappraised
Do we even need archaeology? What can it possibly radically (for instance, Pratico1 993).B ut even when we know
tell us that all those literary sources do not? It's worth recall- this sad truth, it remains difficult to interpret archaeological
ing that every inscription supplementing the Bible was found remains completely independent of literary sources.
by an archaeological endeavor of some sort, be it a late-night Must we then disavow use of the Bible to help us under-
looting of an ancient tomb or a majore xcavation project.B oth stand archaeological finds? Dever's critique of "biblical
writers of inscriptionsa nd the biblicala uthorsm erely assumed archaeology" has been misunderstood as advocating just
many aspects of culture that their literary legacy does not that (e.g., Shanks 1981). But he was simply verbalizing what
address. Only archaeology can hope to resurrect ancient every good archaeologist knows: just as objective biblical
lifestyles--especially those of the common person. scholarship attempts to work without imposing religious or
theological preconceptions on the text, so archaeology must
BiblicalA rchaeology be practiced free of any historicalo r religious preconceptions,
Evers ince Queen Helena,t he mothero f the Romane mperor including those we have of the Bible. Only then can
Constantine, began digging for the TrueC ross in a Jerusalem archaeology be an accuratet ool for biblical study. Otherwise,
pit during the early fourth century CE,h uman curiosity our understanding of both the Bible and archaeology is
and religious piety have combined to probe the dirt of the warped by our preconceptions.
Holy Land to find out if we can learn more than mere liter- But neither should we go so far in separating Bible and
ary evidence tells us. The practice of exploring and digging archaeology that we dismiss the biblical evidence for the pre-
up Palestine with Bible in hand was thus nothing new when exilic period altogether( Dever [1995]d escribess ome historians
modern biblicists and linguists began to do it in the nine- who have virtually done just that, especially Lemche, Thomp-
teenth century,s ome with more success and care than others. son, Davies, and Ahlstr6m 1993a).D espite its limitations, the
One of the more successful explorers was Edward Robinson Bible still remains our best extra-archaeological artifact. It
BiblicaAl rchaeologis6t0 :3( 1997) 115
often helps us give names to things we
find, from statues of gods to agricul- Periodizations of the Iron Age II
tural items.1 Without the Bible, our
understanding of Iron II archaeology Wright( 1961) Rast (1992)
would be monochromatic;a nd without Iron IIA: 900-800 IronI IA: 926-814
archaeology our understanding of the IronI IB: 800-587 IronI IB: 814-721
world of the Bible would be just as lack- IronI IC: 721-586
luster. After working with them Aharoni (1978)
independently, we should try to relate IronI IA: 1000-925 NEAEHL(1 993)
IronI IB: 925-721 IronI IA: 1000-900
the two, but in so doing, we must be
IronI IC: 721-586 IronI IB: 90(0-700
careful not to confuse the one for the
IronI IC: 700-586
other.W e must also remember that, like
Mazar (1990)
an archaeological site, the Bible has its IronI IA: 1000-925 Babylon: 586-539
own stratigraphyo f oral traditions,w rit- IronI IB: 925-720 Herr (1997)
ten sources,e diting processes,a nd scribal IronI IC: 720-586 IronI IA: 10thc .
transmissionw hich we need to take into
IronI IB: 9th-late 8th c.
consideration when we use it. It is, Barkay( 1992) IronI IC: late8 th-mid-6thc.
indeed, as an artifacto f the ancientw orld IronI IA: 10th-9thc .
that the Bible makes its most important IronI IB: 8th c.
contribution to archaeological under- IronI lA: 7th-early 6th c.
standing. In this article I will attempt IronI IIB: 6th c.
to discuss the Iron II period by incor-
porating insights from both sources,b ut
with a primary emphasis on the archae- Archaeologistsh ave offered manyp eriodizationso f IronI Io ver the years.W hileA lbrightd id not
ological finds. subdividet he period,h iss tudent,G . E.W right,d ated IronI IAf rom9 00 to 800 BCaEn d IronI IBfr om
800 to 587 BCE( 1961:117-23)R. ast( 1992)u sed politicael ventst o subdividet he period:f rom Pharaoh
History of Iron II Syntheses Shishak'si nvasioni n 926 to the end of the OmrideD ynastyi n 814 is IronI IA;I ronI IBc ontinues
The first synthesis was Albright's to Samaria'fsa ll in 721;a nd IronI ICla stsu ntilJ erusalem'fsa ll in 586. IronI IAa nd Bt hus center pri-
TheA rchaeologyo f Palestinea nd the Bible marilyo n the northernk ingdom,w hile IronI ICe mphasizesJ udah.A haroni's(1 978:xixa) nd Mazar's
in 1932. It was adapted to his monu- (1990:30)s ystemsa re similarlyh istoricali, n which IronI IAb egins with the United Monarchya nd
mental 1940 volume Fromt he StoneA ge lastsu ntilS hishakI; ronI IBla stsu ntilS amaria'fsa ll;a nd IronI ICe nds with Jerusalem'fsa ll. Barkay's
to Christianityw hich, although it is his- (1992)i st he most comprehensivef,o cusingI ronI Io n the periodso f the UnitedM onarchya nd the
tory and not archaeology, used northernk ingdom of Israel( IronI IAa nd IronI IB)a nd adding IronI IIAa nd B for the time after
archaeological finds to construct his Samaria'ds estructiona nd the Neo-Babylonianp eriod.B ecauseo f itsc omprehensivenesasn d wide-
grand historicalp anorama.H e updated spread usabilityt,h e most influentialp eriodizationw ill most likelyb e that of the NEAEH(LS tern
his construction and addressed specific 1993:1529).I n it, the Babyloniane ra is a separate period.
archaeological questions in 1949 (The
Archaeologyo f Palestine;r evised 1960 and reissued in 1971) in University of Tel Aviv) and was seriously dated, A. Mazar
a volume that would become the paradigm for archaeolog- from The Hebrew University in Jerusalemp roduced his syn-
ical synthesis for many years. It was the first substantive thesis in 1990. The 1990s have seen a spate of them with
attempt to look at archaeological results period by period. the appearance of W. Rast's small book (1992) and the impor-
As such, it became the basis upon which a whole generation tant article of G. Barkay (for Iron II)i n a largerv olume edited
of international Palestinian archaeologists in the 1950s and by A. Ben-TorT. he two most recent articles appeared in a sin-
1960s would build. Albright's student, G. Earnest Wright, gle book on the archaeology of society in antiquity (Dever
structured Albright's basic outline by ascribing specific sites 1994b and Holladay 1994). While not truly a synthesis of the
to archaeological periods systematically in a major article period, the social study of Stager on the family in 1985 car-
published in 1961. But after that there was a dearth of syn- ried the same force.V irtuallya ll of these studies have centered
thetics tudies for over twenty years as Palestiniana rchaeologists on the archaeology of Israel, recognizing that other national
were inundated with so much new information that no groups played a part in the southern Levant, but treating
one could command the whole field as Albright and Wright them as peripheral elements which contribute to our under-
had done. standing of Israel, but not as individual entities in their own
In 1982 the first Israeli synthesis in English appeared right or as independent factors in the archaeological history
by Y.A haroni (the Hebrew version had appeared in 1978). It of Palestine. This synthesis attempts to correct that imbal-
was intended to interpreti n an Israeli fashion the many new ance.
discoveries since 1961. Perhaps because Aharoni's book rep- Many other studies could be considered here, but they
resented only one side of the Israeli approach (that of the are limited to certaina spects of the period (e.g., Kenyon 1971)
116 BiblicaAl rchaeologis6t0 :3( 1997)
or were inspired and controlled by the results from a sin- whole and less on political and biblical history.
gle site. This article must express its synthesis in terms of Archaeologicalp eriodization is an organizationo f change
archaeologicalc onsensus. Unfortunately,a consensus is never in the material culture of a region and should not be
easy to arrive at, and there are always those who differ from related to specific years or momentary historical events.
the mainstream (Finkelstein 1996). These studies are valu- We should tie our periodization to changes in the material
able because they call any glib syntheses into question, but culture which we can ascertain archaeologically. These are
in this presentation, space constraints limit the amount of often inspired by political and historical change, but there
specific discussion they receive. tends to be a cultural lag between historical events and the
culturalc hange they spark.P ottersd id not immediately begin
Periodization making new forms, for instance, the moment Samaria was
The Iron II period was formerly limited to the time of the destroyed. They changed their potting techniques and habits
divided monarchy in Israel's history (Wright 1961:117-23), slowly over time as new economic or technological forces
dating from the late tenth century to the early sixth cen- took effect. For this reason I prefer subdivisions that are
tury BCEa, nd many archaeologists still retain those dates not related to historical events, but to wide-spread changes
(Rast 1992:45). However, there is a rising consensus that in materialc ulture which appear as the relativelyr apid devel-
we should now begin Iron II at ca. 1000 BCEI. t is the time opment of new assemblages. This is what others have called
around which the Iron II assemblage of pottery, with its bur- a "punctuated equilibrium" (Eldridge and Gould 1972, cited
nishing techniques that lasted throughout the period, replaced by Holladay 1994:371)i n which long periods of time pass by
the styles of Iron I. It also appears to be the approximate with relatively little change in material culture and then
beginning of the territorialm onarchies (or centralized chief- are "punctuated" with relatively sudden bursts of change.
doms) of the region.W e will accede to these new developments This is not to deny that steady change can take place as well.
and begin our survey with the arrival of the first millennium. I will therefore begin Iron II with the onset of the new
The end of Iron II is also debated. Earlier archaeologists millennium, noting that it approximates the rise of the socio-
uniformly stopped the period with the fall of Jerusalem in political emergence of "monarchy"( or "chiefdom"a ccording
586 BCEa fter which they posited a dark age before the Per- to LaBiancaa nd Younker 1994) throughout Palestine. Along
sian period. However, recent excavations have uncovered with it came changes in the material culture, including
solid evidence that much of Palestine including Judah was pottery assemblages, architecture,a nd settlement pattern, to
inhabited after that date during the "Neo-Babylonian"p eriod. list just a few. I will end it with the beginning of the Per-
Moreover, because non-Israelite peoples also inhabited the sian empire in about 540 BCEw, hich radically altered the way
ancient world of Palestine, such as Ammonites, Moabites, peoples thought of themselves and the world around
Edomites, and others, we can no longer practice the intel- them, although it is something of an archaeologically arbi-
lectual imperialism of supposing that the history of trary division. I make no division with the arrival of the
biblical Israel should dictate periodization for the entire Babylonians. Several of the Transjordanian national
region. We should therefore extend the Iron II period to the groups were not destroyed by the Babyloniansa nd, although
beginning of the Persian period in the last half of the sixth demographic changes took place throughout Palestine and
century BCE. new aspects of material culture began to enter the picture,
Archaeologists have subdivided Iron II in various ways, such as Greek pottery, there is not enough difference in the
causing considerable confusion. Ever since Albright, who material culture during the 50 years of Babylonian control
did not subdivide the period (1971:112),s cholars have added to merit an archaeological subdivision for that short period
more and more subdivisions. These divisons are often made of time. The few changes that began during this time are
using political events such as Pharaoh Shishak's invasion, much more significant in the Persian Period.
the fall of Samaria, and the destruction of Jerusalem. We can group the corpora of finds into three basic cul-
Unfortunately, much of periodization must be idealis- tural assemblages. (1) Iron IIA. The tenth century includes
tic and artificial.A lthough several of the systems outlined in transitional Iron I/Iron II artifacts,i ncluding types of objects
the chart to the left end a subdivision around 721 with the and pottery typical of Iron I as well as new ones presaging
fall of Samaria, this makes sense only for the northern part features characteristico f Iron II. There is a tendency for inter-
of Cisjordan.O ne of the most significanta rchaeologicalb reaks regional similarity;t hat is, for instance,f inds from Transjordan
is the massive Assyrian invasion of 701 which destroyed are very similar to those from Cisjordan. It was a time of a
Lachisha nd many of the other southern cities of Judah (except few large urban centers (especiallyi n Israel)a nd many smaller
Jerusalem). This probably explains the loose designation of towns and villages;w ealth was distributedu nevenly.A lthough
700 by NEAEHLw hich intends to include both the Assyrian Pharaoh Shishak's invasion of about 925 BCEis a handy
invasions of 721 (Samaria) and 701 (Judah). Another weak- historical date to end Iron IIA, changes in material culture
ness of all of these systems is that they center too heavily on cannot be limited to a single date; I therefore round off the
the history of Israela s recordedi n the Bible.I f we are to under- date to the end of the tenth century. (2) Iron IIB. The ninth
stand the Iron II period as objectively as possible, we must and eighth centuries made up a new corpus of material
account for the cultural history of the southern Levant as a culturei n which the trend toward regionala ssemblagesb egan.
BiblicaAl rchaeologis6t0 :3( 1997) 117
Near the end of this period, Assyria destroyed Aram one section. For instance, food production could be part of
(Damascus) and Israel, cementing its control of virtually subsistence or trade. If it is discussed in one section, it will
everything north of Jerusalem.( 3) Iron IIC.T he trend toward generally not appear in the other; only in remarkable situa-
nationalism in Iron IIB culminated in the seventh to mid- tions will it be mentioned in both.
sixth centuries with assemblages that strikingly correspond Obviously, many aspects of Iron II culture and landscape
to regional or national polities. Most of the period included were shared by the various "national" groups; these will
a pax assyriacaw hen the Levant prospered under the stabil- be discussed with the first national group for each period (or
ity of the Assyrian empire, whether its subjects liked it or the one in which the best remains are found), and not nec-
not. Where deposits occur from the mid-sixth century (the essarily in the others. There is no attempt to discuss types of
Babylonian period), the material culture of each region is objects, such as textile implements or metal vessels, in sep-
mostly similar to that of the early sixth century. Indeed, for arate groups. Instead, objects with important contributions
some cultures, such as that of the Ammonite region of Tran- to a synthesis understanding are discussed under the rele-
sjordan, there is virtually no change whatsoever. vant general heading.
My subdivision of Iron II is thus based more on archae- Each "national" section includes a list of sites that seem
ological assemblages than others which tend to be historically to exhibitt he materialc ulture of that people group. Site names
or biblically based: follow the spellings found in NEAEHLf or ease of reference
Iron IIA tenth century to the more detailed discussions and bibliographies there,
Iron IIB ninth to late eighth centuries even though some of the spellings are idiosyncratic (I include
Iron IIC late eighth to mid-sixth centuries more common names in parentheses when the spellings are
significantly different). To avoid proliferation of parenthet-
Goalsa nd Organization ical referencesi n the text and an incredibly long bibliography,
In the following sections we will discuss each of the three we document material only for sites and features not
periods of Iron IIh istorically and archaeologically,u sing both found in NEAEHL.
literary and archaeological sources. There will first be an his- By dividing the discussion into "national"g roups I have
torical and social overview which is primarily based upon entered an area of great debate in recent literature. I do not
biblical evidence, but is also helped by inscriptional and wish to understand "national" (or "people-group") affinity
ethno-archaeological evidence from Egypt, Syro-Palestine, by preconceived ideas of ethnicity or political control, but by
and Mesopotamia. It is not intended to be anything more the geographical distribution of distinctive aspects of assem-
than the most general look at the period so that the archae- blages of material culture. Artifacts and objects represent the
ological results may be put in an historical context. If it is activity patterns of the people that used them; they therefore
argued that this is backwards, and we should start with reflect that culture. If there is an isolatable assemblage of arti-
archaeology to get at history (a view with which I am inclined facts, it is a logical next step to call it a distinctive culture
to agree),I would respond that the resulting discussion would (Dever 1994b:420). Because assemblages of material cul-
be sterile and uninteresting. Moreover, archaeology cannot ture change over space as well as time, the growth or abatement
construct a history, but only a history of material culture. A of a people (or "national") group can be suggested by how
synthesis for people interested in biblical archaeology, these assemblages wax or wane in space. If there was a sig-
such as the readers of this journal, must include elements nificant change of material culture or site history between
from the literary sources. two subsequent strata,i ts national or people orientation may
The historicalc ontext is followed by a look at how archae- have changed. For instance, the Iron IIA cities of Qasile IX-
ological finds expand the historical overview in each of the VIII and Gerisa are markedly changed from the Philistine
polities or national entities of the southern Levant: Israel, settlements immediately preceding them, suggesting the
Judah,P hilistia,P hoenicia,A ram, Ammon, Moab, and Edom. YarkonR iver area changed hands, probably to Israel. At the
The discussion of Phoenicia and Aram is limited to their con- same time, however, the material culture of Ashdod to the
tacts with the southern Levant and does not examine the south was virtually unchanged, indicating a general occu-
archaeology of their central territoriest o the north. The orga- pational continuum. Part of the border between Israel and
nization of the discussion for each national group includes Philistia thus seems to have been somewhere between the
finds related to geographical extent (boundaries), settlement Yarkon and Ashdod. Mere political control of a region as
patterns (relationships of sites including demography), sub- stated in the literary sources, but without observable mate-
sistence patterns (food production), urban plans (site rial culture connections in the archaeological record, is not a
organization), architecture,t echnology (including metal and strong enough reason to attribute a site to any national or
pottery), trade, writing (scripts and inscriptions; languages people group.
are discussed in Iron IIC, except for Israel where it is Iron When I ascribe a site to a national group, it does not mean
IIB),r eligion, art,b urials, and water systems. These items are that I believe the site was politically controlled by the lead-
omitted when there is little or no information available or ers of that nation, although this is indeed usually the case;
when they repeat information given in discussions of earlier nor does it mean that the "ethnic" group usually associ-
periods. Some groups of finds can be discussed in more than ated with the nationality is the majorityo f inhabitants.E thnic
118 BiblicaAl rchaeologis6t0 :3( 1997)
aspects of archaeology-predominantly "masculine"-such
i:idi:iii~- as monumental architecture,s ettlement patterns,u rban plans,
i~isiiii'?iiii?:iiI~i:iii ~ ii-i_ -:-: i -i_ -: i~i; royal succession, and military conquests. Moreover, because
these ubiquitous artifacts were usually used in everyday
activities associated with the lives and work of women, we
have neglected a very large and important element in archae-
ological synthesis. Interestingly, the objects that reflect these
activities are the most frequent material culture finds made
on almost every archaeological project, especially if one
includes the pottery (Wood 1990). The logical place to dis-
cuss these features is in the section called "architecture"w hen
::,.:: we deal with domestic house forms, but, perhaps because
women's work was so duplicated throughout the whole
i : ii:-:iiiii i~ region, the descriptions would be so repetitive that it makes
Spindlew horls are a ubiquitousi tem in the IronA ge artifactual sense to discuss aspects of daily life briefly as categories here.
assemblage. Liket hese unearthed at cUmayrim, ost were fashioned They apply to every national group and time period included
from potsherds.S tone was also used for whorls whose varyings izes in this paper.
permittedt he spinning of different sizes and types of threads. Photo Cultural features associated with food preparation,e spe-
courtesyo f the author. cially artifacts made of stone, tended to change little over
long periods of time. Millstones for grinding grain consisted
affiliation could be very fluid (for that reason I try to avoid of a large, flat or gently curving lower millstone (or saddle
the term) and political control could be strong or weak. At quern) over which a loaf-shaped upper millstone could be
the risk of overemphasizing the point (because some read- pushed back and forth grinding the grain to flour. Both stones
ers, in spite of how much I decry it, will still want to see were usually made of basalt, a hard dense rock whose rough
"ethnicity" or politics behind my attributions), the deciding crystals helped the grinding process. The basalt often had to
factor in placing a site with a particular nationality is the be imported from Galilee, southern and eastern Transjordan,
material culture of the site and/or the region it is in, and possibly the Negev. Because very few or no basalt chips
including the material culture of surrounding and neigh- are found on excavations outside basalt regions, the artifacts
boring sites. Several of these attributions will be debated by would seem to have been produced in the region of origin.
my colleagues, but this debate will prove instructive. I do They could have been supplied by itinerant producer/mer-
not wish to insist that my attributions of sites to national chants or have been part of caravan shipments. Other
groups will remain correct, but the future of Iron II archae- types of mortars (many were limestone) and pestles (stone
ology will perforce lead in this direction. My attempt to do or wood) could be used for other types of food. Flint
so must be seen as simply a beginning to this process. blades supplemented metal knives in butchering animals,
There will be those who will challenge my attempt to chopping vegetables, harvesting grain, and many other activ-
describe "national" material cultures. I will be the first to ities from curing leather to sewing. Eating utensils (forks,
insist that, especially for Iron IIA but less so for Iron IIB-C, knives, and spoons) are almost never found, and people prob-
national awareness was in its infancy. But I think we must ably relied on theirh ands and fingers most of the time, perhaps
trace the development of that awareness back to the using flat bread to scoop up stews or thick soups. Pottery
emerging central governments of Iron IIA, if not even to the cooking pots tended to have round bottoms because they
end of Iron I from which the national groups and monar- could sit in the coals of a fire with stability and because they
chies/chiefdoms of Iron II arose. would distribute the heat evenly, keeping them from
Disclaimer (yet again): For some border sites, insufficient cracking. For the same reason potters added calcite inclu-
aspects of material culture were found to make a national sions which would allow the pottery to expand in the heat
designation clear, and it is very likely that several sites have of the fire until technology became available during Iron II
been misattributed.S haded areas on the accompanying maps that allowed potters to use other tempering materials (Glo-
illustrate this uncertainty. These lists are not intended to ria London, personal communication, September, 1996).
reflect the precise borders of national groups, but are teita- Hearths tended to be small indicating that fires were prob-
tive attempts to suggest a modest level of probability. ably small. Flatb read could be produced in just a few minutes
over a straw fire, so that women did not need to work long
Archaeologyo f EverydayL ife hours gathering wood for fuel.
There are many aspects of material culture that occur Textile finds, such as spindle whorls, loom weights,
so frequently through both space and time with very little and other weaving objects like shuttle cocks and needles
change that it is easy to skip over them in a survey such as show that, for the most part, women used simple objects to
this (which emphasizes change). Many synthetic discussions produce clothing and tent material. By far the majority of
of archaeology and biblical studies ignore them, favoring spindle whorls were made of reused potsherds, rounded and
BiblicaAl rchaeologis6t0 :3( 1997) 119