For the first time since the Merneptah Inscription, it is in the reign of Omri that we finally begin to find extra-biblical data (apart from archaeology) with which to compare the picture given by the biblical text. Some are arguing that this is where the story of Israel begins - that Omri founded the first state in Palestine. In any case, the ninth and eighth centuries are dominated by the kingdom of Israel or northern kingdom.
One of the most significant areas of debate for this period is that of chronology. Because of the arguments of the LC hypothesis, some events conventionally dated to the tenth century would be in the ninth instead, if this scenario should turn out to be correct (see §1.2.3.4 for a discussion). For example, as noted earlier (§3.1.1), Finkelstein dates Hazor X to the time of Omri, or the ninth century.
The lower Galilee and the Jezreel Valley contained sites that were key to Israel in this period. Jezreel was the second main urban site in the region of Samaria, alongside the city of Samaria. There is evidence that, like Samaria, Jezreel was already settled in the tenth century BCE, before Omride rule (Zimhoni 1997; Ussishkin and Woodhead 1997: 68). The excavations there have suggested a new correlation with other contemporary sites at Megiddo and Taanach. Although it is not certain, the city gate seems to be of a six-chambered variety (Ussishkin and Woodhead 1997: 69; Ussishkin 2000: 248-50). This phase of Jezreel seems to be contemporary with Megiddo VA-IVB, with both destroyed at the same time; however, Ussishkin (2007) argues that Megiddo VA-IVB was constructed earlier, though not long before, and was taken by Shoshenq I (though only occupied by him, not destroyed). Based on the biblical narrative the main settlement Jezreel is usually ascribed to the Omrides (1 Kgs 18.45; 21.1), but it did not last long, perhaps being destroyed in Jehu’s revolt (ca. 842 BCE), but more likely by Hazael in the late ninth century (Ussishkin 2007; Na’aman 1997b: 125-7). (For N. Franklin’s views on Megiddo, Jezreel and Samaria, see below.)
Samaria is a critical site because its founding is directly associated with a historical event known from the Bible (1 Kgs 16.23-28). R. Tappy (1992, 2001) found, however, that the interpretation and dating methods used by K. Kenyon were flawed (§1.2.3.5). D. Ussishkin (2007) points out that Omri’s Palace and Inner Wall (Wall 161) belong to Kenyon’s Pottery Period I, and Casemate Wall, Ostraca Building and the building in the centre to Pottery Period II (though Franklin dates the Inner Wall to Period II). Structures in Pottery Period I continued in use in Pottery Period II. Since Ussishkin thinks the ‘floors’ are layers of natural soil, not laid floors, he argues that the structures of Periods I and II are all contemporary and built according to a single scheme and orientation. The dating of the acropolis is based primarily on the biblical evidence, with its construction assumed to be during the reigns of Omri and Ahab. That it was a sort of capital of the Omride kings is shown by the monumental architecture, as well as numerous Hebrew ostraca of an administrative nature and also Phoenician ivory carvings.
Building on Tappy’s insights, N. Franklin (2004; 2005; 2006; forthcoming a) has come up with a radically new interpretation of the remains from Samaria. The use of Samaria as a chronological anchor is based on the biblical narrative. Building Period 0 is the earliest, including primarily rock-cut cisterns and associated wine and oil preparation areas. Two rock-cut tombs have been identified as tombs of Omride kings below the Building Period I palace. In Franklin’s view Building Period I covered all of the Omride dynasty and part of Jehu’s. Building Period II consisted of a new regime during which time the summit of Samaria became a strictly administrative centre. A correlation between Megiddo VA-IVB and Samaria Building Period I is indicated by mason marks in situ at Megiddo and Samaria. Megiddo Palace 1723 and Samaria I Palace use a 0.45m Egyptian cubit. Both Megiddo VA-IVB and Samaria I, on the one hand, and Megiddo IVA and Samaria Building Period II, on the other, have architectural similarities. The ground plans of Megiddo IVA and Samaria II are laid out using the Assyrian cubit of 0.495 m. These considerations all show that Megiddo IVA and Samaria II building methods were very different from the previous strata. Thus Samaria Building Period II is not a sequential addition to Building Period I. Only Samaria I is dated to the ninth century.
Finally, we come to the end of the northern kingdom. According to 2 Kgs 17.5-6,23-24, the Assyrians besieged Samaria for three years before taking it and deporting all the inhabitants of the kingdom to Mesopotamia, replacing them with peoples from Mesopotamia. From an archaeological point of view there are some problems with this scenario. There is no burn layer or other evidence of destruction for Samaria, raising questions about the 2 Kgs 17.5-6 statement that Samaria was besieged for three years. As for the displacement of peoples, A. Zertal (1989; 1990: 12-14) has analysed the finds of a wedge-shaped decorated bowl from a confined area in the old territory of Manasseh. He argues that this pottery feature shows the settlement area of those Mesopotamians brought into Samaria in the late eighth century. This region, with Tell el-Far‘ah (north) at its centre but with Samaria on its edge, is only a small part of the province of Samaria. If Zertal’s analysis is accepted, the entire former kingdom of Samaria was not involved nor was the entire population deported. Zertal (1990: 82-3) estimates that the imported population was no more than a few thousand, and deportation affected not more than 10 per cent of the Israelite population, the vast majority of which continued to live in Samaria. How all this might relate to the text is discussed below (§4.2.4).
Almost all the regions of Ephraim were intensively settled (Finkelstein 1988-89: 151-4). Compared with Iron I, the population had shifted west, with some of the large sites in the east abandoned: Shiloh, ‘Ai and Khirbit Raddana. Part of the reason seems to be the economic importance of horticulture, for which the slopes and foothills were better suited. Sufficient grain was grown in some regions, apparently, to allow the western regions to concentrate on the important wine and oil production. In the southern central range of the Ephraimite hills some sites were abandoned and a fall in the population generally in this region is probably to be explained by border conflicts and tensions between the kingdom of Israel and the kingdom of Judah. The population seems to have reached its peak in the mid-eighth century.
The Shephelah only began to be populated in Iron IIA. In Iron IIB we witness an impressive growth of settlement numbers in the whole area of Judah. This included strata IV-III of Lachish and the parallel strata in other sites. Y. Dagan (2004: 2680-1) concluded that in the Shephelah in Iron IIA and IIB the sites developed slowly as the process of Judaean settlement began, with 731 sites in Iron IIB. The prosperity of the period reached its zenith in the eighth century. The Shephelah (with about 2500 settled dunams) and Benjamin overshadowed the Judaean highlands. This ends, of course, with the massive destruction by Sennacherib in all areas south and west of Jerusalem. Lachish III is an important chronological indicator since it seems to have been destroyed by Sennacherib in 701 BCE.
As for the Judaean hills, some of the differences in interpretation were discussed above (§3.1.1). A. Ofer (2001; 1994) had argued that from the mid-eleventh to the eighth century the population nearly doubled in each century. In the ninth century this included 66 settlements covering 50 hectares; in the eighth, 88 settlements covering 90 hectares, which would mean a population of about 22,000-23,000. Any discussion of Jerusalem has to take account of the debate over the state of the city in the tenth and ninth centuries and the question of the united monarchy, which is discussed in the previous chapter (§3.1.1). Regardless of the answers, all agree that the archaeology of Jerusalem in the eighth century shows a significant city and the capital of a fully fledged state. Excavations on the Ophel show the earliest buildings there date only from the ninth century. E. Mazar had argued that the fortified complex of this area south of the Temple Mount had been constructed as early as the ninth century, but they more likely date between the eighth and the early sixth centuries BCE (Killebrew 2003: 336). E. A. Knauf (2000) argues that the centre of the Davidic city has not been found because it would have been the area north of the Ophel, the area of the Temple Mount. Although it is not possible to test this hypothesis now, that section of the hill was a militarily strategic area and would have had to have been incorporated into any settlement on the southeastern hill. The argument that the MB wall was used as a city wall in LB, Iron I, and Iron IIA and IIB has no support; Jerusalem lacked a fortification wall until the mideighth century (Killebrew 2003: 334). Erom the late eighth century there is plenty of evidence for Jerusalem as a major urban centre.
One of the main controversies over a number of decades has to do with the size of Jerusalem in the last part of the Judahite monarchy (Geva 2003). Researchers have been divided with regard to when the fortified area expanded out of the southeastern ridge to include the southwestern hill. The ‘minimalist’ view was prevalent in the mid-twentieth century, while the ‘maximalists’ disagreed among themselves as to when expansion took place. Minimalists pointed to lack of archaeological finds on the southwestern hill, because the excavations of Kenyon and Tushingham on the eastern slope of the southwestern hill found nothing from the end of the monarchy. However, N. Avigad conducted excavations in the Jewish Quarter in 1969-82 (Avigad and Geva 2000). A significant find was a massive wall that Avigad identified with the ‘Broad Wall’ of Neh. 3.8. This settlement on the southwestern hill began in the mid-eighth century BCE. It was natural to associate the
Broad Wall and other building activity with the reign of Hezekiah. This wall went out of use not long after it was built, and a new wall was constructed north of it in the seventh century (§5.1.1). New suburbs seem to have been established: misneh (2 Kgs 22.14; Zeph. 1.10: a new residential quarter on the southwestern hill) and the maktes (Zeph. 1.11: apparently the name of the central valley). Jerusalem experienced unprecedented growth, reaching 60 hectares (the southwestern hill 45). Geva gives a conservative estimate of the population in the eighth century as 6,000-7,000 (in contrast to Broshi’s 20,000 [2001]). The indications are that the southwestern hill was sparsely settled, but there was also an expansion to the north. The earliest tombs to the west of the city in Ketef Hinnom and of Mamilla are also dated to the eighth century (Reich and Shukron 2003: 211).
Recent excavations near the Gihon Spring have yielded some results that have been dated to the eighth century BCE (Reich, Shukron and Lernau forthcoming). A house was built in an abandoned pool, with the floor level created by fill presumably taken from the immediately surrounding area. The pottery from this fill was different from other late Iron pottery found in the area in a decade of digging: this pottery was more like Lachish IV or at least the early eighth century BCE and possibly the late ninth (a final verdict awaits completion of the sifting process). Four scaraboid seals, four scarabs and fragments of approximately 150 clay bullae bearing impressions were found (probably the remains from documents that had been unsealed). All are anepigraphic, but motifs include pseudo-hieroglyphs, proto-ionic capitals, winged suns, winged griffins, and an almost complete Phoenician ship. Overall, the collection points to the Phoenician realm. The large number of bullae and the seals, plus a 15-holed plaque (apparently a scribal device with a time-keeping function), point to a nearby administrative centre in the late ninth century. It might be that this shows the introduction of record-keeping and bureaucracy into Judah directly or indirectly through the services of the Omride kingdom (with its Phoenician connections).
In the Beersheba valley, it is now accepted that Arad XI and Beersheba V (with the first Iron Age fortifications in Judah) must be in the ninth century (Herzog 2001; 2002: 58-72). Herzog associates strata XI-VI with the Iron II period. Much controversy has centred around the temple on the site. The building of the temple’s intial stage was associated with stratum X, which now needs to be dated to the eighth century; the second phase, with stratum IX (the stela and incense altars were used with this phase); the temple no longer existed in stratum VIII. Thus, the temple was built in the eighth century and dismantled about 715 BCE, having lasted no more than about 40 years (see further at §5.1.1). Much of strata VII and VI were removed by Hellenistic and Roman builders.
Considerable changes took place in the Beersheba valley and region during the ninth and eighth centuries (Herzog 2002: 94-9). The climate worsened at the beginning of the ninth century, which made cultivation much more difficult in this marginal region. This seems to have coincided with the establishment of a regional administrative-military centre in place of the agricultural settlements, taking in Arad XI, Beersheba V, Tel Masos I and Tel Malhata. The population of the area nevertheless appears to have remained much the same, no more than about 1,000. A major cultural shift took place between the ninth and eighth centuries, with a completely different pottery assemblage for Arad X-XIII and Beersheba III-II. The massive fortifications of Beersheba IV and Arad XI were razed to the ground, followed by a much weaker replacement build (Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2004: 230). If the initial destruction was caused by enemy action, the replacement defences would have attempted to be at least as strong as those that had stood there before. Hence, a natural disaster such as an earthquake seems to be the cause. In the eighth century Tel Tra VII was resettled, and fortresses were built at Kadesh Barnea and Tell el-Kheleifeh. The settled area was twice that of the ninth century. There is also evidence for Beersheba as a ‘gateway community’ (supply station) for the trade route(s) from Arabia at this time (Singer-Avitz
1999).
The archaeology does confirm some textual hints at outside influences (Phoenicia, Syria, Neo-Hittite) on the northern kingdom (Barkay 1992: 306, 335-8). Most basic was Cypro-Phoenician pottery (Barkay 1992: 338). The ivories found in Samaria and elsewhere tend to be seen as showing Phoenician influence (Barkay 1992: 320-3). Many of the monumental and administrative buildings in the north appeared to be influenced by bit-hilani architecture known earlier from Syria (Reich 1992: 202-6; Barkay 1992: 310). Ashlar masonry (including the paving of square areas) and protoAeolic capitals are also often thought to be Phoenician imports (Stern 1992: 302-5).
The number of Hebrew inscriptions for this period is surprisingly small. This fact is one of the supports used by those who argue that writing only began to be used extensively in the latter part of the monarchy (§3.2.5). What we have are mostly ostraca (Renz 1995:1, 40-144). The main texts - those with legible text of any length - are the Kuntillet ‘Ajrud inscriptions (Gogel 1998: #6.1.14) and the Samarian ostraca (Gogel 1998: #6.1.21; TSSI 1; Lemaire 1977). The former are mainly of religious interest and are discussed below in that context (§4.2.5). The Samarian ostraca are usually dated to the early eighth century and explained as administrative documents relating to wine and oil brought into the city from outside (Kaufman 1992). H. M. Niemann (2007) has recently explained them differently: they document attempts by Jehoash and Jeroboam II to integrate the traditional tribal links into their personal power network. It was the practice to have elite members of the clans reside as ‘honoured guests’ in Samaria for shorter or longer periods of time, stabilizing political links between the Samarian king (warlord) and the surrounding clans. Wine and oil were sent from their local constituents to the clan members residing in Samaria, and the ostraca are to be explained as receipts for these goods. The ostraca are an important source of data on names of people in ancient Israel.
World History
