Conquest or Settlement? The Early Iron Age in Palestine

Conquest or Settlement? The Early Iron Age in PalestineAuthor(s): Volkmar FritzSource: The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 50, No. 2 (Jun., 1987), pp. 84-100Published by: The American Schools of Oriental ResearchStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3210090 .

Accessed: 29/06/2014 20:47

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The Biblical Archaeologist.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 98.210.94.20 on Sun, 29 Jun 2014 20:47:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asor

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3210090?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Conquert or Settleme~4ne~ lt ? The Early Iron Age in Palestine

By Volkmar Fritz

ost scholars agree that the Israelites first appeared in Palestine around 1200 B.C.E., in

the period at the end of the Late Bronze Age and beginning of the Iron Age. There is much disagreement, however, about how they came into possession of the land. In general, three explanations have been advanced, with each at the center of a contemporary "school." The first, whose spokesmen have included William E Albright, G. Ernest Wright, John Bright, and Paul Lapp, is that migrant Israelite tribes acquired the land by conquest. The second, developed by such scholars as Albrecht Alt, Martin Noth, and Manfred Weippert, is that nomadic Israelites, in search of new pastures, infiltrated the land, gradually becoming a sedentary people. And the third, initial- ly advanced by George Mendenhall and subsequently promoted by Norman Gottwald and Cornelis de Geus, is that a social reorganization took place among the people of the Canaanite city-states, including an important group that had escaped from bondage in Egypt, and this caused a decisive transformation of the settlement structures.

None of these competing and largely incompatible explanations -

An aerial view of the site of Ai (et-Tell), which has only a modest Iron I settlement on the acropolis of a larger Late Bronze III town. Houses in the periphery seem to have constituted a ring of defense. The periphery houses were built in the three-room style, while the interior houses were of the pillar- house style. Inset: Pillar-type houses at Ai (et-Tell) of the Iron I period with hewn stone roof-support pillars on the right and stacked stone pillars on the left. A small storage silo is cut into the bedrock floor in the right corner. Photographs used courtesy of Joseph Callaway.

which may be termed, respectively, the invasion hypothesis, the infiltration hypothesis, and the revolution hypothesis - has gained a consensus, probably because each has important weaknesses. The invasion hypothesis, with its naive adoption of the tradi- tional interpretation of the book of Joshua, does not take into account the critical analysis of biblical books since the Enlightenment. The infiltration hypothesis fails to explain the fall of the Canaanite city-states, especially since the collapse of the Late Bronze Age culture presents no precondition for the settlement process. And the revolution hypothesis is forced into a laborious explanation of the conditions conducive to revolt and reorganization, without being able to give sufficient reasons for this development. In addition, none has thus far satisfactorily taken note of recent archaeological findings.

r I --•

jr

1 2

3 i

3. ... - r--- 7 r-'

I I

5 "6**

5 " 6

The development of the early Israelite house out of the broad-room house according to examples from Khirbet el-Meshash and Tel Isdar. A simple broad-room house (1) may be expanded by adding rooms on the long side while the entrance and position of the courtyard remain constant (2). The house is enlarged by the addition of rooms on the long side with the relocation of the entrance on the narrow side of the house (3, 4) and its orien- tation lengthwise. The conversion of 3 and 4 into the so-called "three-room" (5) and "four- room" house (6) is carried out by the addition of a room on the narrow side.

84 Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987



A reconstruction and plan of houses from the early Iron Age settlement of Khirbet el- Meshash. The houses are in both the broad-room arrangement, with entrances on the long side of the house, and of the "four-room" style, with entrances on the short side of the house.

In the early Israelite period, a definite architectural type, the four-room house, was widely dispersed throughout the country and is considered characteristic of this period. This type of house remained in use down to the end of the First Temple period (about 1000-586 B.C.E.). This photograph shows well-constructed four-room type houses of strata I and II in area A of the Iron I site of Tel Masos. Photograph is used courtesy of Volkmar Fritz and Aharon Kempinski.

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987 85



Imported artifacts help in

dating Bronze

Age destruction.

In this paper I shall first evaluate what recent archaeological findings can tell us about the transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age in Palestine. This evaluation, which will be done without reference to written material, except for those inscriptions found at the site of excavation, will be done by focusing on three key issues: the end of the Late Bronze Age cities, the layout of early Iron Age settlements, and the material culture of the early Iron Age. Following this I shall then briefly discuss how this fits with other kinds of evidence - specifically, written (biblical and nonbiblical

texts) and social science evidence. In a sense, then, we will be choosing which of the competing hypotheses deserves a consensus, but I want to emphasize that my primary concern is not on the theory. Only with an independent and theory-free scrutiny of all the evidence - the archaeological results, biblical and nonbiblical texts, and the ethnic and social com- position of the population-can we hope to gain satisfactory insight into how the Israelites came into possession of the land of Canaan.

The End of the Late Bronze Age Cities It is extremely difficult to determine the exact date of the destruction of the various cities at the close of the Bronze Age. Clearly datable finds, such as those marked with a cartouche of an Egyptian pharaoh, give a terminus post quem (that is, an earliest possible date) but they cannot provide an exact date; a margin of at least two to three decades must always be taken into consideration. Imported Mycenaean ware can also

The Mycenaeans

The Late Bronze Age citadel of Mycenae overlooking the plains of the Argolid. The citadel incorporated a "palace" complex at its highest point (right) which could be defended alone, and an upper town within the fortifications on the lower side of the citadel (left). In addition, the remains of a lower town outside the fortification walls have recently been discovered. Photograph is used courtesy of Steven Sidebotham.

he Mycenaean civilization developed on mainland Greece in the Late Bronze Age (the sixteenth through thirteenth centuries B.C.E.). Although

derived from the name of the citadel of Mycenae, the term Mycenaean refers to the homogeneous mainland civilization that covered several regions, each dominated by a single administrative center. The centers were often located in cyclopean, "palatial" citadels, typically overlooking coastal plains and therefore within easy access of the sea. Among the best known of these citadels are the acropolises of Athens, Mycenae, Tiryns, and Pylos.

Apparently aggressive by nature, the Mycenaeans soon absorbed their Minoan neighbors, whose culture dominated the island of Crete. The trade of the Minoan merchants, who had monopolized the south Aegean markets, passed into the hands of the Mycenaeans. Along with their competitors in Cyprus and Ugarit on the Levantine coast, the Mycenaeans plied the seas of the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean, trading textiles, olive oil, luxury goods, and precious metals, as well as copper and tin for the production of bronze. The significance of Mycenaean trade is indicated by the abundance of wares found as far away as south Italy, Sicily, Egypt, and the Levant. Mycenaean merchants also exported perfumes in attractive vessels called stirrup-jars, found in great quantities in the East. These vessels have proved an invaluable aid in relating and dating stratigraphic levels of the Levant.

Although written in signs that represent different syllables rather than in the Phoenician alphabet, the Mycenaean language, known to us from the Linear B tablets, is linguistically nothing more than an early form of Greek. The script, however, is related to Minoan Linear A, a non-Indo-European, possibly Semitic, tongue. The Mycenaean Linear B tablets discovered thus far tell us little of the history of the Late Bronze Age in Greece. Instead they are, for the most part, inventories and receipts for goods brought into the palaces to be redistributed into the countryside. To date, nothing like the Ugaritic or Eblaite libraries has been found.

Anthropologically, the Mycenaeans were quite distinct from their Minoan neighbors as well as from their classical Greek successors. Evidence from the shaft graves at Mycenae reveals that several of the Mycenaeans stood a towering six or more feet tall. This is in contrast to the short-statured Minoans, whose skeletons indicate that they stood a mere five to five-and-a- half feet tall at most.

It has been suggested that the Philistines are somehow related to the Mycenaeans, that possibly they were refugees from the collapse of Aegean civilization who formed the multinational horde known collectively as the Sea Peoples. It was these groups who threatened Egypt at least twice and afterward settled in lower Palestine. Certainly some of the customs of these




Examples of Mycenaean III ware from tomb 387 at Tel Dan. The krater (center) typifies the Mycenaean style of decoration with its horizontal bands and frieze on the upper belly of the vessel. The pilgrim's flask (foreground lower right) and assorted pyxides are also characteristic Mycenaean forms. Photograph is used courtesy of the Israel Museum.

Philistines remind one of Aegean customs. For instance, the story of David and Goliath and battle by "championship" (see 1 Samuel 17) reminds one of the Homerian battle scene between Achilles and Hector (Hindson 1971). The placing of a gold disk over the mouth of the deceased is an Aegean custom that was practiced by the Philistines as well. Philistine pottery closely resembles Late Mycenaean in shape and decoration. Indeed, as depicted in the reliefs of Medinet Habu, the Philistine physiognomy is non-Semitic. If not actually Mycenaean Greek, then certainly they had significant contact with Aegean civilization.

The Mycenaean civilization came to an end sometime around 1180 B.C.E., at which time Greece and the Near East lapsed into a Dark Age. There have been many explanations for this collapse, from climatic change to invasion. Greece was not the only land that suffered severe disturbances. The entire eastern Mediterranean, including the Hittite empire in Anatolia, the Canaan- ite city-states, and the Egyptian empire, were all threatened by invaders, yet Egypt alone survived, if only barely. It was this realignment of power in the Near East that may have given a young Israelite nation the opportunity to mature.

For further information, see J. Chadwick, The Mycenaean World (London: Cambridge University Press, 1976.); Emily T. Vermeule, Greece in the Bronze Age (Chicago: Phaidon, 1974); William H. Stiebing, "The End of the Mycenaean Age," Biblical Archeologist (pages 7-21, volume 43, number 1, 1981); Edward E. Hindson, The Philistines in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1971); Nancy K. Sandars, The Sea Peoples (London: Thames and Hudson, 1978).

John S. Jorgensen

A cartouche of Merneptah (1224-1204 or 1213-1203 B.c.E.) on a sword from Ugarit. Merneptah, the last of the strong pharaohs of the Nineteenth Dynasty, expelled the Libyans from the western Delta region that, during the reigns of earlier pharaohs, had been allowed to fall into foreign hands. This sword gives the terminus post quem (the earliest possible date) of material from the stratum in which it was found. Photograph is used courtesy of Claude Schaeffer.

be consulted, which in turn can be given a date by referring to Egyptian chronology; yet, here again, one must give or take a few decades. Because the Egyptian chronology of the New Kingdom has been adjusted as a result of research done by Eric Hornung (1964), the dates used until recently can only be accepted subject to critical examination. The following is based on the reigns of the pharaohs of the Nineteenth and Twentieth Dynasties as shown in the accompanying sidebar. The few destruction layers of Canaanite cities with datable finds can then be clas- sified accordingly. Hazor. In Hazor, the destruction of the last Late Bronze Age city, stratum XIII, was fixed at 1230 B.C.E. by Yigael Yadin (1972) on the basis of




Egypt Palestine Aegean Nineteenth Dynasty Ramesses I 1306-1304 or 1295-1293 B.C.E. Late Sethos (Seti) I 1304-1290 or 1293-1279 B.C.E. Bronze Ramesses II 1290-1224 or 1279-1213 B.C.E. Age Merneptah 1224-1204 or 1213-1203 B.C.E. IIB Sethos (Seti) II 1204-1194 or 1203-1196 B.C.E. Mycenaean Siptah 1194-1188 or 1196-1190 B.C.E. IIIB Tewosret 1188-1186 or 1190-1188 B.C.E. 7tventieth Dynasty Sethnakhte 1186-1184 B.C.E. Ramesses III 1184-1153 B.C.E. Ramesses IV 1153-1146 B.C.E. Ramesses V 1146-1142 B.C.E. Early Mycenaean Ramesses VI 1142-1135 B.C.E. Iron IIIC Ramesses VII 1135-1129 B.C.E. Age Ramesses VIII 1129-1127 B.C.E. Ramesses IX 1127-1109 B.C.E. Ramesses X 1109-1099 B.C.E. Ramesses XI 1099-1070 B.C.E.

Note: It is not yet possible to choose between two sets of alternative dates for the Nineteenth dynasty, and the dates used until now for the Twentieth Dynasty will undoubtedly have to be lowered. The famous battle led by Ramesses III against the Sea Peoples, in the eighth year of his reign, which is depicted in reliefs at Medinet Habu, must therefore be dated back to 1177 B.C.E.

A vase carrying the cartouche of Queen Tewosret from Tell Deir cAlla proves the town's existence around 1190 B.C.E. Based on a drawing from H. J. Franken's article "Exca- vations at Deir cAlla in Jordan," Vetus Testa- mentum 11 (1961).

imported Mycenaean ware belonging to the Mycenaean IIIB period. This date had been taken over from A. Furumark (1941), who equated the end of the reign of Ramesses II in 1234 B.C.E. with the end of the Mycenaean IIIB wares. This equation, however, is inaccurate. In Ugarit in the last Late Bronze Age layer a sword was found that carried the cartouche of Merneptah, whose reign lasted until 1204 or 1203 B.C.E.; Mycenaean IIIB ware has been found in abundance in this layer. The use of Mycenaean IIIB ware is therefore proven until about 1200. V. R. dA. Desborough (1964) had already fixed the date of transition from Mycenaean IIIB to Mycenaean IIIC at around 1200 using finds from the Aegean to substantiate this date. P. Astrim (1972) suggested an even lower date of around 1190 B.C.E., and this has been accepted by most scholars. The discovery at Tell Deir cAlla of a vase

with a cartouche of Queen Tewosret together with pottery typical of the end of the Late Bronze Age confirms that pottery of this type was still in use at that time. Consequently, Hazor stratum XIII must have been destroyed at the end of the thirteenth or the beginning of the twelfth century. Ashdod. The same date may be assumed for the end of the Late Bronze Age cities elsewhere, where Myce- naean IIIB pottery has been found. These wares are still present in stratum XIV in Ashdod. In stratum XIII, pottery belonging to Mycenaean IIIC:1 is already present; the transition from stratum XIV to stratum XIII in Ashdod can therefore be fixed at around 1200 B.C.E. or slightly later. A more exact classification of stratum XIII as Canaanite or Philistine is not yet possible. Megiddo. In Megiddo, stratum VIIA represents the last unmistakable Ca- naanite city. In its layout it resem-

bles stratum VIIB, which, according to the presence of imported Myce- naean IIIB ware, was destroyed around 1200. In addition to objects marked with the cartouche of Ramesses III, fragments of Philistine ceramic were also found in stratum VIIA. Further- more, a bronze pedestal carrying the name of Ramesses VI was found hid- den under a wall of stratum VIIB, but it probably belongs to stratum VIIA. The Canaanite city can therefore hardly have been destroyed before 1135 B.C.E. The following stratum, VIB, differs considerably from the preceding one. The large long-room temple was not rebuilt; instead houses were erected on the site. The settlement was not fortified, and consequently there was no city-gate. Nevertheless, one cannot simply assume that this site was an Israelite settlement, as Yohanan Aharoni (1971) has done. The four-room house with its many variations, so typical




City-wall

M IO

Plan and reconstruction of Canaanite courtyard houses in Megiddo. Drawings from the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago.

cOURT

0 0

0 5 lOm

for the new Israelite settlements, is missing from strata VI and V in Megiddo, although the use of pillars is evident. Even a palace of Late Bronze Age character was found in stratum VIA. Strata VIB and VIA can be regarded as "descendants" of the Canaanite city, because the transition to the Israelite settlement did not take place before stratum VB at the end of the eleventh century. It is not until strata VA and IVB that one can definitely identify an Israelite presence, dating back to the first half of the tenth century. Megiddo was therefore most probably inhabited by descendants of the Canaanites, at least until the beginning of the monarchy in Israel - although the exact date of the takeover by the Israelites must remain vaguely fixed at around 1000 B.C.E.

Aphek. In Aphek the acropolis of stratum X13 was destroyed before the end of Mycenaean IIIB wares,

W Hazor

I Shechem

O O

-?a o

o o

Shechem

Megiddo

0 . . . 0 20~ rz- TLI II I- I I 1_ I I I T H - ST - 04 O-5

Long-room temples in Palestine from the Late Bronze Age. Temple 1 from Hazor stratum XIII is in a simple long-room plan with a raised bema (platform) at the rear where the statue of the deity must have stood. Temple 2 from Shechem, with its central long room, front porch, and rear "storeroom," shows elaboration of the simple long-room plan. Temple 3 from Shechem with its hypostyle long room has a tower to each side of the front entryway Temple 4 from Megiddo follows closely the pattern of temple 3 from Shechem, though without the hypostyle hall. There is evidence for a stairway ascending one of the two towers.

since these still appear in stratum X12. A foundation-stone bearing the name of Ramesses II most probably belongs to stratum X13, although it was not found in situ. The destruction of this layer therefore probably took place around 1220 B.C.E. Further settlement following Canaanite tradition carried on through strata X12 to X10 into the second half of the twelfth century; the scarab of Ramesses IV gives a terminus post quem, his reign lasting from 1153 to 1146 B.C.E. Gezer. The Canaanite city in Gezer stratum XIV was probably destroyed under Merneptah around 1210. This assertion is not only substantiated by the Merneptah stele, on which the conquest of Gezer is expressly mentioned, but also by the fact that the name of this pharaoh appears on two cartouches on an ivory chain found at the site. With respect to strata XIII to IX, and until stratum VII, which marks the takeover of the town by Solomon around 950 (see 1 Kings 9:15-17), William G. Dever (1976) regards strata XII-XI as Philis- tine, although the proportion of Philistine pottery is relatively small and the majority of the vessels represent a continuation of the Late Bronze Age tradition. Until the final publi- cation of the finds, a decision can only be made with reservations. Gezer, however, appears still to have been inhabited by Canaanites in the twelfth and eleventh centuries B.C.E.

The fact that Ramesses III, Ram- esses IV, Ramesses VIII, and Ramesses IX of the Twentieth Dynasty are mentioned in excavated inscriptions from Gezer is very conspicuous. Al- though a direct placement of these inscriptions in the various strata is not possible, since they originate from R. A. S. Macalister's excavations (1912), they do prove certain ties with Egypt during the whole of the twelfth century. That Gezer did not become an Israelite city before the middle of the tenth century is indisputable. Lachish. In Lachish a cartouche of




•].' '

.'-.

, :

. ? '" --':-X-" ""

-.':..

""-':'7.'' I' ? •

V'- 0

CRETE

•

.''"?ft.. :'.-

.?:: .... ..

::"... Me iteran an ea [• :::, t

Ramesses III provides proof of the existence of stratum VI into the middle of the twelfth century. The site remained uninhabited until the city's construction in stratum V during the tenth century. Tell esh- Sharicah presents a similar history; in the last Canaanite city of stratum IX, in addition to a cartouche of Ramesses II, inscriptions were found on vessels giving the latest date as the "Year 20 + x," evidence which also points to Ramesses III. Stratum IX therefore did not end until the middle of the twelfth century. Re- settlement occurred at the end of the eleventh century in stratum VII; stratum VIII, which lies between these strata, is represented by pits of various sizes. Such data lead to the supposition that nomads were occasionally present. Beth-shean and Tell el-Farcah. Two sites, Beth-shean and Tell el-Farcah (South), may not be considered in this connection, although various monuments carrying the names of the pharaohs of the Eighteenth and

Cartouche of Ramesses III from Lachish provides proof of the existence of stratum VI into the middle of the TWelfth Dynasty. Ramesses is considered the last of the fight- ing pharaohs. His repulsing of the Sea Peoples and campaigns into both Libya and Palestine restored Egyptian hegemony in those regions. Among the captives brought back from his march through Palestine and Syria was the chief of the Philistines. "The foreign lands and countries are stripped and brought into Egypt as slaves... the countries which came from the Islands in the midst of the Sea advanced on Egypt. .. the net was made ready for them to ensnare them" (From The Victory Hymn of Ramesses III at Medinet Habu). After his reign, Palestine slipped once again out of Egyptian control. Cartouche is approximately 15 centimeters long. Drawing from Ussishkin (1983).

The Late Bronze

destruction of

various cities isn't

attributable to

one event.

Nineteenth Dynasties have been found there. Because of the lack of stratigraphical control, no exact sequences and dates of the various levels can be determined. All that has been established for both cities is that they survived the transition from the Late Bronze Age to the early Iron Age; the city on Tell el-Farcah was even fortified by a wall and a city-gate. An Egyptian garrison was stationed in Beth-shean from the reign of Tuthmosis III (1490-1436 or 1479-1425) onwards. The presence of Egyptian troops may be assumed at least until and during the reign of Ramesses III, as seen in the inscrip- tion of Ramesses-Weser-Chepesch. The existence of Beth-shean as a Canaanite city is apparent until the end of the eleventh century. Conclusions. The few locations with datable finds present a complex picture of the end of the Late Bronze Age. The decline of the Canaanite cities was not a sudden occurrence but a process stretching over a long period of time that lasted at least the 50 years from 1200 to 1150 B.C.E. This decline appears to have paral- leled the gradual decline of Egyptian hegemony, established during the Eighteenth Dynasty, under the reign of the Ramessides after Ramesses III. The destruction of urban centers as they had existed since the Middle Bronze Age IIA in Canaan, therefore, cannot be traced back to a single historical event; the destruction must be regarded as the result of various conquests, the instigators of which cannot usually be determined.

The only case in which one can be reasonably sure of the conqueror




is Gezer, where, with all probability, stratum XIV was destroyed by the Egyptian pharaoh. In all other cases, the aggressors cannot be identified. Yet at least several acts of destruction may be attributed to punitive expeditions of the Egyptians and to raids carried out by the Sea Peoples, who are constantly mentioned in Egyptian sources from the time of Merneptah onward. Significantly, in connection with the final victory of Ramesses III over the Sea Peoples in the eighth year of his reign (1177), there is no evidence of a wave of destruction directed against the Canaanite cities by these groups. The settlement of the Philistines on the coastal plain and their engage- ment in the history of the country appears not to have begun before the second quarter of the twelfth century B.C.E.

It is, of course, possible that the war raids of the individual towns against each other contributed to a mutual destruction. The "Habiru," a group known as a general threat especially from the Amarna letters (as the diplomatic archive discovered at El-Amarna on the middle Nile is commonly designated), may have contributed to the disappearance of the city-states. Whatever the cause, the decline of the cities was an ex- tended process, which led to a certain hiatus around 1200. A further break in occupation appears to have occurred after the reign of Ramesses III in the second half of the twelfth century, when Egyptian rule rapidly declined. But it is impossible to trace back this marked change to a single historical event.

Settlement history after the destruction of the Canaanite cities is even more complex. According to present knowledge, four different cases can be determined: sites, such as Lachish, where settlement was interrupted until the foundation of a new city in the early part of the Israelite monarchy during the tenth century; sites, such as Hazor, where settlement was interrupted except

Sea f Gaile




A scarab of Seti I (Nineteenth Dynasty) from Tel Masos. Seti I's reign was marked by successful campaigns and the recovery of the Asian empire, bringing all of southern Palestine and much of northern Palestine including the Jezreel Plain under Egyptian control. The scarab depicts the pharaoh in the "smiting" pose ready to strike an Asiatic captive. The "smiting" pose was a common, propagandistic way of depicting the pharaoh, especially at times of military action. Photograph is used courtesy of Volkmar Fritz and Aharon Kempinski.

for occasional settling of a modest nature by groups like the Israelite tribes; sites, such as Megiddo, Aphek, and Gezer, where settlement was continuous (the inhabitants of such settlements cannot be definitely identified through the material culture, and, because the possibility of a certain continuity in the population cannot be disregarded, the inhabitants could have been the sur- viving Canaanites); and sites, such as Ashdod, where settlement was continuous, including the Philistine takeover of the city later in the twelfth century.

It appears certain that Canaanite culture survived in some areas after the destruction of the cities. Although the power and organizational structures, as such, of the city-states were broken, a certain continuity of Ca- naanite tradition is displayed in the rebuilding of several cities.

Early Iron Age Settlement The establishment of new settlements in the early Iron Age took

A tablet of the goddess Astarte and daughter in a temple in the Egyptian style from the Iron I period, around 1100 B.C.E. Photograph is used courtesy of Pictorial Archive.

place mainly in areas removed from the sites of the Canaanite cities in Galilee, in the central mountains and in the Negeb. Aharoni (1970) was able to prove the settlement of Galilee outside the old urban centers in the early Iron Age. The same facts

The early Iron

Age witnessed

new settlement

patterns.

also can be obtained from surveys in the area of the central hill country. The Negeb was entirely uninhabited during the Late Bronze Age. The establishment of new settlements in the plains, however, cannot be ruled out completely; occasionally a deserted city also was reinhabited. All those settlements that have been examined to date are relatively small and measure about 2 acres. An excep-

A bronze statuette of a seated god or ruler from the Late Bronze Age, around 1400 B.C.E. The style of dress and the position of the seated figure show Egyptian influence. Photograph is used courtesy of Pictorial Archive.

tion is the settlement on Khirbet el- Meshash, which covered 6 to 8 acres. Hazor. The early Iron Age strata XII and XI at Hazor do not represent a continuation of the Canaanite city. Yadin (1970) called stratum XII seminomadic; only modest remains in the form of walls, ovens, and storage pits are found there. The remains of a building were discovered in stratum XI; the building was constructed with a row of stone pillars typical for this period, but its complete plan could not be reconstructed. A cultic interpretation of it is highly ques- tionable in spite of the hoard of bronze objects discovered there, which included a figurine of a stand- ing god. The settlements in both strata lasted for a short period of time during the twelfth and eleventh centuries. Tell Qiri. It is not possible to ascertain whether Tell Qiri, between Megiddo and Jokneam on the border of the Jezreel plain, was inhabited during the Late Bronze Age, since remains of this era may have been cleared




when the early Iron Age settlement was established. This is, in any case, a new city that was founded in the twelfth century. The town was never fortified, although it lasted into the second half of the eighth century; further stratigraphical and architectural details are lacking. Ai. In Ai a modest early Iron Age settlement is situated where the acropolis of the Early Bronze Age once stood. The houses that have been exposed on the periphery appear to have constituted a ring of defense. They are built according to the type of the three-room house but their construction is extremely ir- regular. Inside the village the living quarters were much more uniform and carefully built with monolithic stone pillars. These houses were constructed according to the model of the pillar house, in which rooms were built only on both long sides of the courtyard; the room at the short side, so typical for the four-room house, is missing. Joseph Callaway (1970) distinguishes between two settlement layers in the time from 1200 to 1050 B.C.E. Khirbet Raddana. The village at Khirbet Raddana was established in the mountains on previously unset- tled land, approximately 6 kilometers east of Ai. The carefully built dwellings with monolithic stone pillars were constructed as three-room houses. The city was founded around 1200 and was abandoned already by the middle of the eleventh century; two phases have been distinguished, with a break appearing around the year 1125. Aharoni's (1971) assumption that the city dates back to the thirteenth century, which is based on three characters in proto-Canaanite writing found on a handle, is unfound- ed as far as the pottery is concerned. The early Iron Age houses exposed during the excavations in Bethel also had pillars, but a complete ground- plan could not be established because of the restricted excavation area. Shiloh and the Settlement Near Bet Gala. A further early Iron Age settle-

The Raddana bowl is unique to the Iron I period. The remains of nine handles are preserved evenly spaced around the bowl- a total of twenty is possible- and two zoomorphic spouts (bulls'heads). Photograph and drawing are used courtesy of Joseph Callaway.

ment in the central hill country was excavated at Shiloh (Khirbet Seilun), the destruction of which is believed to have occurred around 1050; the foundation may go back into the twelfth century. Another early Iron Age settlement is found approximately 2 kilometers north of Bet Gala. It, however, comprised only a few buildings that lay within a vast circular wall. This wall was built to keep in the animals rather than to protect the inhabitants. Amihai Mazar (1981) defined the place as a "fortified herdsmen's village," although

the definition "group of farmsteads" would be more appropriate. The pottery shows that the settlement existed during the transition from the Late Bronze Age to the early Iron Age (around 1200 B.C.E.) and that the farmsteads were deserted after a brief term of occupation. Jericho. At Tell es-Sultan, ancient Jericho, the early Iron Age settlement was not recognized during the German excavations. Helga and Manfred Weippert first identified the settlement on the basis of the published pottery (H. Weippert and M.




Weippert 1976). Resettlement of the tell, which had been deserted since the fourteenth century, could possibly have begun already in the twelfth century; it certainly took place during the eleventh century. This settlement existed for only a short period of time. In Iron Age II the tell remained uninhabited until the eighth century B.C.E. Izbet Sarta. The settlement in Izbet Sarta, approximately 2 kilometers east of Aphek, has a total of three settlement layers. The oldest, stratum III, consists of a row of moderately small houses and dates to the twelfth century. Numerous silos, with inner walls made of stone, were constructed in the vicinity of the houses. An exceptionally large four-room house, measuring 17 by 11 meters, was found in the center of the settlement in stratum II. After the settlement had been abandoned in the middle of the eleventh century, it was inhabited once again in stratum I until the end of the eleventh or beginning of the tenth century. Tell Qasileh. Tell Qasileh, on the other hand, is indisputably a Philis- tine settlement. Three early Iron Age layers have been discovered: Stratum XII dates to the second half of the twelfth century, and strata XI and X date to the eleventh century. With the exception of the temple, the architecture exhibits no continuity. The temple developed from a small square building to a rectan- gular construction with two rooms. The houses in stratum X show the use of pillars and the style of the three- and four-room house as well as the pillar house. The settlement was fortified and can be identified as Philistine from the pottery.

Tell es-Sebac. At Tell es-Sebac in the

Negeb, three early Iron Age layers can be distinguished that date to the period from 1200 to 1000 B.C.E. Stratum IX consists of pits on the northern slope of the natural hill under the tell. These pits were covered in some way as protection against sun and rain. The building of solid houses

An isometric reconstruction of the cultic area of Tell Qasile. This temple appears to be a restoration of an earlier stratum XI temple reusing three of the four stone walls. The east wall was replaced by a new anteroom. Into the floor were set two cylindrically cut pillar-bases. The wide court of the earlier strata was divided into walled northeast and northwest sections. In the northwest courtyard was a small room adjoining the north wall of the temple, southwest of which a shrine of an earlier stratum was still in use. Drawing courtesy of Amihai Mazar.

begins in stratum VIII, where the four-room house with its standard elements can be distinguished. Ze'ev Herzog (1984) reconstructed stratum VII as a circle of four-room houses that was accessible through a type of gateway. The space in the middle of the circle remained clear. Because this reconstruction is based on the poor remains of only five houses, it is extremely hypothetical, even though the placement of the houses in Ai was also recognized as circular. Additional houses stood outside the circle of defense. In any case, it must

not simply be assumed that all early Iron Age villages were not fortified. Tel Isdar. A certain order can be seen in the settlement on Tel Isdar, approximately 18 kilometers east of Beer-sheba, which dates to the eleventh century. Here, the detached broad-room houses stood in a circle without presenting a closed ring of defense. Khirbet el-Meshash. The largest settlement from this period discovered to date is on Khirbet el-Meshash in the Negeb. Five settlement phases beginning with the twelfth century




The stratum XII temple at the site of Tel Qasile dating to the Iron IA period. The brick walls shown here belong to stratum XII, which lies under the stone walls of strata XI and X. The pillar bases belong to stratum X. The temple consisted of a single room with plastered benches along the walls and a beaten lime floor. A raised platform of plastered brick that originally may have contained steps is located at the west end of the room (right rear). The back area may have served as a storeroom as in the later temples of strata XI and X. In the courtyard east (left) of the temple were found burn layers, suggesting that organic material had been gathered together and burned. The ashes contained sherds, animal bones, a scarab, and an ivory knife handle. Photograph used courtesy of Amihai Mazar.

Above: An Egyptian private home from Tell el-Amarna consisting of three "strips" one behind the other-entryway, living quarters, and sleeping quarters. This type of house appears in Palestine in the early Iron Age in villages under Egyptian domination and has also been found at Tell el-Farcah (South) and Beth-shean. No evidence has been found to justify the assumption of the presence of any Egyptian official at these sites, however, though this type of house does suggest Egyptian influence. Below: An Amarna-type house at Khirbet el-Meshash with its almost square layout and arrangement of rooms in three "strips."

can be distinguished in this village. Only ditches, ovens, and a few wall remains were found in stratum IIIB; this points to sporadic settling of seminomadic peoples. The construction of solid houses begins in stratum IIIA, where the three-room house is already in use.

In stratum II, where two phases can be distinguished, the settlement presents an unusually informative picture. The four-room house with variations is dominant, but the em- ployment of other constructions, which shows a certain distinction in social and ethnic respects, is also apparent; however, it is not possible to draw exact conclusions about the inhabitants from the architecture. In addition to the broad-room house with stone pillars and the Canaanite courtyard house, an Egyptian dwelling has also been identified. The dwelling is of the same type found at Tell el-Amarna and at the twelfth- century-Palestine sites of Tell el-

Farcah (South) and Beth-shean. In addition to tillage, there is evidence of metalwork within the finds. Two so-called flowerpots do not prove Egyptian presence in the settlement. The same can be said for the scarab dating from the Nineteenth Dynasty found on the surface of the site.

Philistine pottery, "bichrome style" jugs, and fragments of bowls of so-called Midianite ware point to the wide-ranging connections of Khirbet el-Meshash, reaching as far as the Phoenician coastal cities and into northwest Arabia. Indications of fortification are not found, although a certain amount of protection was gained from the circular arrangement of the houses on the periphery of the settlement. Two buildings, according to their size and the thick- ness of the walls, apparently served a defensive purpose. Stratum I is badly preserved because of severe erosion, but the occasional four-room house and a small fortress have been iden-

tified. The settlement was abandoned for unknown reasons.

It is not possible to ascertain the dates of the beginning and end of the settlement. Stratum IIIB may date back as far as the beginning of the twelfth century, and stratum I may




have persisted until the beginning of the tenth century. It is equally impossible to say when the transition from stratum IIIa to stratum II took place, but it may have been as early as the end of the twelfth century. Conclusions. The early Iron Age settlements provide no uniform overall picture of settlement history in the country. The settlements vary great- ly in size, ranging from those with only a few houses (Bet Gala, Tel Isdar) to a large village with 1,000 to 1,500 inhabitants (Khirbet el-Meshash). Not all of them existed during the entire epoch. Several were abandoned after a brief period of settlement (Hazor strata XII and XI, Bet Gala, Tel Isdar). Most were founded at the beginning of the twelfth century (Ai, Khirbet Raddana, Izbet Sarta, Tell es- Sebac, Khirbet el-Meshash). They were abandoned in the middle or towards the end of the eleventh century, but several survived until the end of the Iron Age IIB (Tell Qiri). Only in very few cases were the villages transformed into walled cities in the early part of the monarchy (Tell es-Sebac). Hence, it cannot be said that settlement history was continuous from the early Iron Age to Iron Age II. Most settlements were not fortified, but in some cases the circular layout of the houses af- forded a certain measure of protection. The ethnic identification of inhabitants is not possible at the sites, except for Tell Qasileh, where Philis- tine pottery was found.

The architecture of the settlements, however, shows great confor- mity in method and style. The pre- dominant broad-room, three-room and four-room houses cannot be traced back to their origins, although they are undoubtedly an entirely new type of house that can hardly be regarded as having developed from the Canaanite courtyard houses of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages. The newly founded settlements at these sites clearly differ from those that were built on top of the Canaan- ite cities. The majority of the latter

1?-- .P- -a IOI I-. &,-"%.- Painted bowl of unknown provenience in the Philistine style with spiral decorations from the Iron I period. It dates to around 1100 B. C.E. Photograph is used courtesy of Pictorial Archive.

were likewise unfortified, but the dwellings demonstrate a continuation of Canaanite building tradition.

The majority of the early Iron Age settlements thus differ in ap- pearance from the Canaanite cities and their descendants in the early Iron Age The establishment of villages outside the former city-states therefore cannot have been carried out by the former inhabitants of those cities (as the revolution hypothesis would have it). The structure of these settlements seems rather to indicate a group of people who were not related to the Canaan- ites and who must be identified on the basis of their material culture.

The Material Culture of the Early Iron Age No comprehensive examination of the various remains that takes local characteristics and regional differ- ences into consideration has yet been carried out. The classification of individual types of artifacts is therefore unavoidably restricted to basic observations. With regards to

pottery remains, the krater with more than four handles indicates the emergence of a new style; the goblets made in the south were designed with a concave profile and a stepped base. The cooking pots were given handles; the overlapping rims were often very strongly emphasized; the

In the early Iron

Age, the material

culture mixes old

and new.

opening was made smaller by form- ing a rim that bent inwards. The biconical jug slowly disappeared and was replaced by the one-handled cooking jug. The pithos possessing the so-called collared rim-ware with elongated body, thickened rim, and two handles can also be traced back to types of the Late Bronze Age. A




new technique of polishing the sur- faces of the vessels before firing becomes apparent in the eleventh century.

With regards to metallic remains, Ora Negbi (1974) has shown-on the basis of finds in Megiddo stratum VI, objects from tomb 1010 at Tell es- Sacidiyeh, and objects in tomb 90 in Beth-shean-that metal-crafting fol- lowed Canaanite tradition in the early Iron Age. Because Canaanite occupation can be assumed in all three sites, the continuity in metal work is not surprising. Isolated finds from newly founded villages Ilso prove this continuity. In Megiddo stratum VI, Hazor stratum XI, Ai stratum III, and Khirbet el-Meshash stratum III, specimens of the so- called lugged axe were found. This form was common throughout the Near East during the Late Bronze Age and was maintained well into the eleventh century. Daggers and knives also show a continuation of common shapes and techniques. The preservation of Late Bronze Age traditions is also seen in the use of clothing pins. It was not until the end of the early Iron Age that the pin was replaced by the fibula, which originated from the Aegean.

As has been proven by the ostracon from Izbet Sarta, the proto- Canaanite alphabet was in use in the early Iron Age settlements, even though further text finds are ex-

tremely rare. The old Hebrew alphabet may have developed without Phoenician mediation directly from proto-Canaanite. The material culture of the early Iron Age therefore represents a further development of Late Bronze Age culture in all areas except architecture.

The Problem of the Occupation of the Land The objects of the early Iron Age indicate complete dependence on the culture of the Late Bronze Age. Because the early Iron Age settlement cannot be regarded as an off- shoot of the former Canaanite cities,

Archaeological evidence does not

support conquest or revolution.

this continuity is best explained by intensive, prolonged contact with the Canaanite culture. This contact must have already occurred in the Late Bronze Age before the begin- nings of sedentary life, because cultural development during the early Iron Age in the newly founded villages parallels that in the settle-

An ostracon from Izbet Sarta in the proto- Canaanite alphabet. The old Hebrew alphabet may have developed out of this without the mediation of the Phoenician alphabet. The proto-Canaanite alphabet, which consists of twenty-two characters, became the "popular" script and took writing out of the monopolized realm of the priestly or scribal class and put it into daily use as evidenced by the presence of ostraca rather than just official documents. Development of the Canaanite alphabet occurred somewhere between 1500 and 1200 B.C.E. Drawing from Kochavi (1977).

ments that succeeded former city- states. The results of archaeological research indicate that early Iron Age culture was highly dependent upon Late Bronze Age culture and they preclude conquest of the country by new immigrants. Only in the construction of dwellings do the new settlements show a certain degree of independence, an observation that strengthens the assumption that the architecture developed independent- ly, especially since the broad-room and four-room house apparently were not adapted from other cultures. These types of houses may have developed from tent constructions, although what type of tent was used in the second millennium is not known.

Given these considerations, it is not possible to believe that the population in the early Iron Age settlements derived from certain groups from the cities. Their inhabitants, the Canaanites, definitely continued to live in the country after the destruction of their cities between 1200 and 1150, as the continuation of settlement history in Megiddo, Gezer, Beth-shean, and other places demonstrates. Various cities in the coastal plain were taken over by Philistines after 1177, and thus the question of whether these settlements were established voluntarily or under pressure from the Egyptians remains a puzzle.




The only people known who could have founded the settlements outside the former Canaanite city- states and who differ from the Ca- naanites and the Philistines are the Israelite tribes. They did not take over the cities but settled on "empty" territory. Their origins cannot be reconstructed on the basis of the material culture; anthropological research may someday solve this puzzle. The cultural dependence of the Israelite tribes on the Canaan- ites can be explained only by the supposition that close relations existed between them before the twelfth century. This type of symbiosis is characteristic of the so- called culture-land nomads, who inhabited the plains surrounding the cultivated lands and who stayed there for lengthy periods in their search for pastures, at the same time developing close contacts with the towns. This form of nomadism differs radically from that of the bedouin in the desert and entails a partly sedentary life, out of which there develops an economic, and probably a political, symbiosis and adoption of cultural goods.

The culture-land nomads are known from all ages, especially in Mesopotamia, and the Mari texts provide plenty of documentary evidence of their existence in the second millennium. (In the Amarna letters there is also mention of the Sutu-nomads in the vicinity of the towns.) This type of nomadism, called "enclosed nomadism" by Michael B. Rowton (1974), is difficult to reconstruct for the later Israelite tribes. The most probable suggestion put forward by Rowton is that the individual tribes alternated between nomadism and sedentary life (so- called integrated tribes); however, they might have been seminomadic people with a fixed routine of sedentary and nomadic periods according to season. The exact situation is impossible to reconstruct.

With the gradual decline of the Canaanite city-states after the year

1200 and their complete collapse after 1150, the basis for the prevail- ing symbiosis no longer remained; a gradual occupation of settlement areas and the abandonment of a nomadic lifestyle probably resulted from this development after 1200. The final abandonment of nomadic life occurred on the periphery of former Canaanite settlements, as the Canaanite survivors and the new population groups of the Philistines, who filled the gap left by the Egyp- tians and assumed power from 1150 onwards, laid further claims to the former territories of the city-states. The Israelite tribes were therefore

tion of the land by the Israelite tribes probably occurred in a way similar to the so-called infiltration hypothesis -which must, however, be modi- fied. The various groups that settled in the country from the twelfth century onwards cannot merely be regarded as former nomads. Periods of a partially sedentary life must have interspersed their nomadic existence; otherwise the wide-ranging adoption of Canaanite culture during the last phase of the Late Bronze Age cannot be explained. Therefore, I would like to call the new theory the symbiosis hypothesis.

Details may not be obtained from

Decorated bottle with red wash (left) and stirrup-jug in Philistine style (right) dating to the Iron I period around 1100 B.C.E. Philistine ware is an eclectic style of Mycenaean and local Canaanite patterns. Photograph is used courtesy of Pictorial Archive.

left with only the occupation of the borderlands, but here and there, where the Late Bronze Age cities had been entirely abandoned, new settlements were established on the ruins. The occupation of territories by the Israelite tribes can be regarded as the end of nomadic life and a change to permanent settlement.

The Historical Course of Events Our examination of the archaeological material has shown that the occupa-

biblical sources. The book of Joshua is of no historical value as far as the process of settlement is concerned. The stories in Joshua 1-11 are etio- logical sagas, composed during the time of the monarchy and intended to prove the conquest of the entire land by all of the tribes under the leadership of Joshua. The lists in Joshua 12-24 originate from the same period and are meant to support the fiction that the various tribes shared the land.




The symbiosis hypothesis of the occupation of the land presented here, however, can be supported by three texts whose historical accuracy withstands critical examination: the Merneptah stele, the Song of Deborah in Judges 5, and the so-called list of unconquered cities in Judges 1. The Merneptah stele. The Merneptah stele, which dates from the last decade of the thirteenth century B.C.E.,

carries the oldest known written mention of Israel and provides indisputable definition of Israel as a people. The mention occurs between the naming of Kncn ("Canaan") and Hr, the former describing the area governed by Gaza and the latter the northern part of Palestine. Further- more, there is mention of three cities -Ashkelon, Gezer, and Yenocam- and their overthrow. A campaign against these cities by Merneptah has been disputed, but even if such a campaign did not take place, the stele is important because it is an independent witness and was not adapted from existing texts. The victory song proves the presence of a group of people known as Israel in Canaan at the end of the Late Bronze Age. No mention is made, however, of their exact whereabouts or their way of life. The Song of Deborah. The Song of Deborah in Judges 5 tells of a victory of the Naphtali and Zebulun tribes over the Canaanites, in the southern part of the Jezreel plain. This victory was apparently regarded as out of the ordinary. The remaining tribes were invited to the victory celebration, and all those who appeared are named; those who did not attend are expressly rebuked. Ten tribes are named in all: Ephraim, Benjamin, Machir, Zebulun, Issachar, Reuben, Gilead, Dan, Asher, and Naphtali. Surprisingly, neither Judah nor any other southern tribe is mentioned. The text shows that the existence of Cannanite cities is assumed and that the Israelite tribes had already adopted a sedentary way of life. The exact date of the battle must remain

open; it may have taken place about 1100 B.C.E.

The communal celebration of a victory of two tribes over an undefined alliance of Canaanite cities shows the solidarity of all the tribes, although it demonstrates no alliance in the form of a tribal union. More- over, the capacity of the tribes to act presupposes an appropriate social hierarchy and military organization. Even though the causes are unknown, the battle proves that relations of the tribes with the Canaanite city- states were not exactly peaceful. The fact that the Canaanites were still superior in military respects is im-

The Merneptah stele and Judges 1

and 5 support the

symbiosis hypothesis.

pressively recorded by the mention of chariots. The battle was probably fought for political superiority and not to gain additional land or to destroy settlements. The Song of Deborah bears witness not only to the coexistence of Canaanites and Israelites but also to the type of military conflict in the form of an open battle. A certain balance apparently existed between the two, and any at- tempt to change this to the advan- tage of one people was answered with military force. Judges 1. The so-called list of unconquered cities in Judges 1:27 and following probably originally dates to Solomon. This is indicated by the stereotyped statement that the inhabitants of each city mentioned were forced into compulsory labor by the Israelites; this practice of forced labor is not only expressly mentioned in Solomon's time (1 Kings 9:21-23) but also is totally unthinkable before

his time. This list therefore correctly presupposes the conditions existing in the pre-state period. The rather late date of the list does not rob it of all value, and the explanation has a realistic basis in the circumstances. Apart from the cities named, the existence of Megiddo, Beth-shean, and Gezer during the Early Iron Age is also proven. Everything points to the fact that Canaanites continued to inhabit these places.

The transition to Israelite cities probably occurred during the reign of Solomon, and his development of Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer is especially emphasized in 1 Kings 9:15. The list in Judges 1 therefore presupposes the existence of many Canaan- ite cities in the early Iron Age, even though several had lost their power and were no longer fortified. In docu- menting his provinces, Solomon took the territories of these cities into consideration (1 Kings 4:14).

The events in the pre-state period were determined by the coexistence of various peoples in the country, and the Philistines obviously filled the gap by taking power in the second half of the twelfth century, following the collapse of Egyptian hegemony under the last Ramessides. The establishment of the monarchy by Saul and the related unification of the tribes must be regarded as a response to the threat of Philistine power. The entire country did not come under Israelite rule until after the wars of David. The text therefore reflects the course of events from the time of the occupation of the land. The coexistence of the "original" inhabitants and the Israelite tribes, however, can only be explained by the fact that the country was not conquered but occupied by a process of settlement that took place over a longer period of time.

Bibliography Aharoni, Y.

1970 New Aspects of the Israelite Occupa- tion in the North. Pp. 254-65 in Near Eastern Archaeology in the




7whentieth Century. Essays in Honor of Nelson Glueck, edited by James A. Sanders. New York: Doubleday.

1971 Khirbet Raddana and Its Inscriptions. Israel Exploration Journal 21: 130-35.

Alt, A. 1953a Die Landnahme der Israeliten in

Palastina. Pp. 89-125 in Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel, volume 1. Munchen: C. B. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.

1953b Erwigungen uber die Landnahme der Israeliten in Palistina. Pp. 126-27 in Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel, volume 1. Miinchen: C. B. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.

Astr6m, P. 1972 The Late Cypriote Bronze Age. Ar-

chitecture and Pottery. Series: The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, volume IV, part 1C. Stockholm: The Swedish Cyprus Expedition.

Ben-Tor, A. 1979 Tell Qiri. A Look at Village Life. Bib-

lical Archeologist 42: 105-13. Biran, A., and Negbi, O.

1966 The Stratigraphical Sequence at Tell Sippor. Israel Exploration Journal 16: 160-73.

Buhl, M.L., and Holm-Nielsen, S. 1969 Shiloh. Copenhagen: The National

Museum of Denmark. Callaway, J. A.

1970 The 1968-1969 cAi (et-Tell) Excava- tions. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 198: 7-31.

Callaway, J. A., and Cooley, R. E. 1971 A Salvage Excavation at Raddana in

Bireh. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 201: 9-19.

Cross, F. M. 1980 Newly Found Inscriptions in Old

Canaanite and Early Phoenician Scripts. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 238: 1-20.

Desborough, V. R. dA. 1964 The Last Myceneans and Their Suc-

cessors. An Archaeological Survey c. 1200-c. 1100 B.C. Oxford: Claren- don Press.

Dever, W G. 1970 Gezer. In Encyclopedia of Archae-

ological Excavations in the Holy Land, Volume II. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Massada Press.

Dothan, T. 1982 The Philistines and Their Material

Culture. Jerusalem: Israel Explora- tion Society.

Fritz, V. 1981 The Israelite "Conquest" in Light of

Recent Excavations at Khirbet el-

Meshash. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 241: 61-73.

Fritz, V., and Kempinski, A. 1983 Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen auf

der Hirbet el-Msa~ (Tel Masos) I-III. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

Furumark, A. 1941 Chronology of the Mycenaean Pot-

tery. Analysis and Classification. Stockholm: Royal Academy of Let- ters, History, and Antiquities.

de Geus, C. H. L. 1976 The Tribes of Israel. Assen/Amster-

dam: Van Gorcum. Gottwald, N. K.

1979 The Tribes of Yahweh. A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel 1250-1050 B.C.E. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.

Helck, W. 1968 Die Bedrohung Palastinas durch

einwandernde Gruppen am Ende der 18. und am Anfang der 19. Dynastie. Vetus Testamentum 18: 472-80.

Herzog, Z. 1984 Beer-Sheba II. The Early Iron Age

Settlements. Tel Aviv: The Institute of Archaeology and Ramot Publish- ing Co.

Hornung, E. 1964 Untersuchungen zur Chronologie

und Geschichte des Neuen Reiches. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

James, F 1966 The Iron Age at Beth Shan. Philadel-

phia: The University Museum, Uni- versity of Pennsylvania.

Kitchen, K. A. 1973 The Third Intermediate Period in

Egypt (1100-650 B.C.). Warminster: Aris & Phillips, Ltd.

Klengel, H. 1972 Zwischen Zelt und Palast. Wien:

Verlag Anton Schroll and Co. Kochavi, M.

1969 Excavations at Tel Esdar. cAtiqot 5: 14-48.

1977 An Ostracon of the Period of the Judges from'Izbet Sartah. Tel Aviv 4: 1-13.

Lapp, P. W. 1967 The Conquest of Palestine in the

Light of Archaeology. Concordia Theological Monthly 38: 283-300.

Matthews, V. H. 1978 Pastoral Nomadism in the Mari King-

dom (1830-1760 B.C.) Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research.

Mazar, A. 1980 Excavations at Tell Qasile I. Qedem

12. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

1981 Giloh: An Early Israelite Settlement Site Near Jerusalem. Israel Explora-

tion Journal 31: 1-36. Mendenhall, G. E.

1962 The Hebrew Conquest of Palestine. The Biblical Archaeologist 25: 66-87.

1973 The Tenth Generation. The Origins of the Biblical Tradition. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Negbi, O. 1974 The Continuity of the Canaanite

Bronzework of the Late Bronze Age into the Early Iron Age. Tel Aviv 1: 159-172.

Oren, E. 1982 Ziklag-A Biblical City on the Edge

of the Negev. Biblical Archeologist 45: 155-66.

Rowton, M. B. 1965 The Topological Factor in the Hapiru

Problem. Pp. 375-87 in Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on his Seventy-fifth Birthday. Chicago: The University of Chicago.

1973 Urban Autonomy in a Nomadic Environment. Journal of Near East- ern Studies 32: 201-15.

1974 Enclosed Nomadism. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 17: 1-30.

1976 Dimorphic Structure and Topology. Oriens Antiquus 15: 17-30.

1977 Dimorphic Structure and the Para- social Element. Journal of Near East- ern Studies 36: 181-98.

Shiloh, Y. 1970 The Four-room House - Its Situation

and Function in the Israelite City. Israel Exploration Journal 20: 180-90.

1973 The Four-room House -The Israelite- type House. Eretz Israel: 277-85.

(Hebrew) 1978 Elements in the Development of

Town Planning in the Israelite City. Israel Exploration Journal 28: 36-51.

Ussishkin, D. 1983 Excavations at Tel Lachish 1978-1983:

Second Preliminary Report. Tel Aviv 10: 91-195.

Weinstein, J. M. 1981 The Egyptian Empire in Palestine: A

Reassessment. Bulletin of the Amer- ican Schools of Oriental Research 241: 1-28.

Weippert, H., and Weippert, M. 1976 Jericho in der Eisenzeit. Zeitschrift

des Deutschen Palastina-Vereins 92: 105-148.

Weippert, M. 1971 The Settlement of the Israelite

Tribes in Palestine: A Critical Survey of Recent Debate. London: SCM Press.

Yadin, Y 1972 Hazor. The Head of All Those King-

doms. Joshua 11:10. London: Oxford University Press.




Documents

Conquest or Settlement? The Early Iron Age in Palestine