Who Destroyed Canaanite Hazor?

028

Joshua turned back at that time and took Hazor, and struck its king with the sword, for Hazor was formerly the head of all those kingdoms. And they struck all the people who were in it with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them … Then he burnt Hazor with fire.

Joshua 11:10–11

Fact or fiction? History or theology? It is commonly recognized that interest in the Biblical account of the Israelite settlement in Canaan was, to a large extent, responsible for the rise of “Biblical archaeology.” It is no wonder, then, that one of the first sites to be investigated archaeologically was Jericho (in 1868 and 1907–1909). The main aim of the excavation was to uncover the walls of the city that “came tumbling down,” which, in due course, were indeed “found.” These controversial walls were later dated to the Middle Bronze Age (c. 1550 B.C.E.), centuries before the Israelites entered the land.

This “discovery” finds a nice parallel in another excavation motivated by a desire to prove a story. Homer’s account of the Trojan War and the settlement of the Greeks in Asia Minor brought German amateur archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann to Troy in 1871, where he discovered “the treasures of Priam.” In fact these treasures belonged to a city more than a millennium earlier than Homer’s Troy.

In the early days of archaeology in the 028 Land of Israel, excavations at other sites connected with the Biblical account of Joshua’s conquests soon followed the excavation of Jericho—among them Tell el-Hesi (in 1890, then identified with Lachish), ‘Ai (in 1933), Bethel (in 1934) and others.

However, of all the sites mentioned in the Book of Joshua as having been conquered by the Israelites, none is as important, with a destruction as significant, as Hazor, a large Canaanite site north of the Sea of Galilee. The culmination of the conquest and the final blow to the Canaanites was the Israelite victory over the coalition of Canaanite kings led by Jabin, king of Hazor (Joshua 11:1–4), which was followed by the slaying of Jabin and the burning of his city. As a result of this victory, “Joshua took all this land … the mountains of Israel and its lowlands from Mt. Halak and the ascent to Seir, even as far as Baal Gad in the Valley of Lebanon below Mt. Hermon” (Joshua 11:16–17).

Hazor was first investigated by British archaeologist John Garstang in 1928. Large-scale excavations were undertaken by Israel’s then-leading archaeologist Yigael Yadin in 1955–1958 and 1968. It is certainly no accident that Yadin appointed Yohanan Aharoni as a key member of the excavation team, since he and Aharoni held opposing views regarding the process of the Israelite conquest and settlement. Yadin was an ardent supporter of the so-called Albright school (named for its founder, the great American Biblical scholar William Foxwell Albright), which tallies more or less with the conquest account reflected in the Book of Joshua. Aharoni was a keen supporter of the Alt school (later known as the Alt-Noth school after German scholar Albrecht Alt and his student Martin Noth), which saw the process basically as the one reflected in the Book of Judges: a slow, peaceful infiltration first, followed by a second stage in which the Israelites expanded into more fruitful plains and valleys that were still occupied by the Canaanite cities.

At the outset of the excavation, the two protagonists, Yadin and Aharoni, agreed that Hazor should be a testing ground, both historically and archaeologically, for the opposing theories. When the excavations were concluded, the stratigraphic picture was straightforward: The last Canaanite city (Stratum XIII) was violently destroyed and, after a short occupational hiatus, a new settlement (Stratum XII), confined to Hazor’s acropolis, was discovered. This new settlement was poor in nature and was most probably of a seminomadic character. The many pits, which are a common feature of this new settlement, were clearly dug into the destruction layer of the last Canaanite city. The pottery found in these pits, as well as the pottery associated with the flimsy architectural remnants of this new settlement, was identical to the ceramic repertoire of the tiny Iron Age settlements Aharoni had found in his archaeological survey in the Upper Galilee.¹ Aharoni had attributed these settlements to the early, peaceful phase of the Israelite settlement, which, as a follower of the Alt school, he saw as belonging to a period preceding the downfall of Hazor. Yet the results of Yadin’s excavations (just like those of the renewed excavations under my direction) clearly showed that this new (Israelite) settlement, poor in nature, followed the fall of Canaanite Hazor.

Bear in mind, however, that the sequence of Stratum XIII (the last Canaanite occupation level) followed by Stratum XII (the first Israelite settlement) can be observed only on Hazor’s acropolis, since the earliest Israelite occupation of Hazor was confined to that part of the site. Moreover, even on the acropolis, this sequence could be tested only on a very limited scale: Yadin’s excavations barely reached remnants of Stratum XIII on the acropolis, as they underlie the thick accumulation of six Iron Age strata (X–V). These Iron Age strata, spanning some 200 years, were dated by Yadin to the period between King Solomon (c. 970–930 B.C.E.), who rebuilt Hazor after the last Canaanite city was destroyed, and Pekah, king of Israel, during whose 029 reign Hazor was finally destroyed by the Assyrians (in 732 B.C.E.). The remains of the Iron Age strata include fortifications, a citadel, storage facilities, dwellings and a water system, all of which were the focus of Yadin’s excavations on Hazor’s acropolis (in Areas A, B, G and L).

Yadin’s investigation of the last Canaanite city at Hazor (Stratum XIII on the acropolis) revealed a temple (most of which underlies the tenth-century six-chamber city gate) and a corner of a huge building Yadin termed “the palace.” In addition, a test trench (“Trench 500”) exposed what Yadin identified as a Middle Bronze Age city wall. All three major finds (the temple, the “palace” and the “city wall”) are located in the center of the acropolis (Area A). A stretch of fortifications some 100 feet long, which Yadin dated to the Middle Bronze Age, was exposed on the eastern flank of the acropolis (Area G).

Neither Yadin nor Aharoni considered their conclusions final; both expressed hope that future excavations would help to clarify the picture. “With all the problems still outstanding,” Yadin wrote, “we can sum up with the encouraging note that the excavations [carried out in the 1950s and also in 1968] have cleared away many apparent obstacles created by earlier wrong data and have opened new avenues to a fresh examination of these vital and important problems from archaeological, historical and biblical aspects.”²

The excavation of Hazor was resumed in 1990 under my direction, recently joined by fellow Hebrew University archaeologist Sharon Zuckerman as codirector.^a

With the conclusion of the 23rd season of the renewed excavations in August 2012, it is perhaps time to consider new data we have uncovered and re-address the question formulated in the title of this article: Who was responsible for the massive destruction of Canaanite Hazor?

The renewed excavations drastically changed the analysis that had been based on Yadin’s limited exposure of remnants from the last Canaanite city (Stratum XIII) on Hazor’s acropolis. In the middle of the acropolis, a large building, which we named the “Ceremonial Palace,” was exposed. Its walls, made of mudbricks placed on stone foundations, are 6–10 feet thick and are preserved to a height of approximately 6.5 feet. A large 030 pebble-paved courtyard, measuring close to 10,700 square feet, extends to the east of the building. The rich assemblage of finds—including two unique bronze statues, one of a deity, the other of a king; a basalt statue of a deity, the largest ever found in the country; a decorated jewelry box; an assortment of weapons; a faience ceremonial rhyton (drinking cup) in the shape of a lion’s head—recovered on the palace floors attests to the importance of this palace and the violent fire that destroyed it sometime in the 13th century B.C.E. The fire that consumed the palace was extremely intense: It melted clay vessels and vitrified the mudbricks, indicating that the 031 temperature of the fire was around 1,300 degrees Celsius (2,372 degrees Fahrenheit), twice the temperature of a regular fire. The combination of three factors explains this extraordinary phenomenon: a very large amount of wood used to construct the roof and the floor of the building; close to 1,000 gallons of olive oil stored in several huge pithoi (storage jars) found in two of the building’s rooms; and the strong winds prevailing in the region, especially in the afternoon. Such an unusual fire is certainly something to be remembered for generations and could explain the reference to Hazor as the only site set on fire by the Israelites (Joshua 11:13).

We also discovered a fragment of what was probably an Egyptian offering table associated with a cultic installation on the northern slope of Hazor (in Area M). It was covered by the rubble of a mudbrick wall that fell during the destruction of the last Canaanite city. Unfortunately only a small part of the original inscription carved on the object remains, but even the few preserved hieroglyphic signs are enough to tell us that the object was most probably dedicated by the high priest Rahotep, who served under Pharaoh Ramesses II, and should probably be dated “to as late as the third decade of Ramesses II’s reign [c. 1250 B.C.E.],” to quote the scholar who studied it.³ Since there would be no point for anyone to set up an offering table in a city that is already in ruins, it follows that Hazor was still a thriving city during the first half of the 13th century B.C.E., worthy of a visit by such a distinguished Egyptian. The date of the city’s destruction must therefore be no earlier than the middle of the 13th century B.C.E.

Having settled the issue of the date of Canaanite Hazor’s final destruction as accurately as possible at the present time, let us turn to the identity of its destroyers.

Hazor was not destroyed by an accidental fire, an earthquake or any other natural catastrophe. The destruction was clearly the result of human activity, as indicated by the large number of statues of deities and rulers that were intentionally disfigured by cutting off their heads and hands.⁴

Since we have no record mentioning the destruction other than the Book of Joshua, the only way to go about answering the question of who destroyed Hazor is to consider all those peoples who were around at the time, examining whether any of them can be regarded as a possible candidate for the city’s destroyer.

The Babylonians were too far away and too weak at the time, so we can eliminate them 032 immediately. Egyptians returning from the Battle of Kadesh are often considered a prime candidate.⁵ This well-documented battle on the banks of the Orontes River in southern Syria was an indecisive struggle between the army of Pharaoh Ramesses II (Ramesses the Great) and the Hittite forces led by Muwatallis. The two sides ultimately agreed to a truce, leaving Kadesh under Hittite control, but Ramesses boastfully considered it a great Egyptian victory, setting up numerous (exaggerated) celebratory reliefs. In fact, the battle was a costly draw.

Could Ramesses II have destroyed Hazor? Not only is the destruction of Hazor completely absent from the many inscriptions of Ramesses II but the Egyptian troops would not have gone anywhere near Hazor on their march back from Kadesh to Egypt. Egyptologist Kenneth A. Kitchen has convincingly shown that the Egyptian army returned home along the Lebanese coast, via Sidon, Tyre and Acco before bypassing Mt. Carmel, 033 traveling on to the Jezreel Valley, and from there along the southern part of the Via Maris (the “Way of the Sea”), all the way back to Egypt.⁶ The Egyptians can therefore be dismissed from the list of candidates responsible for Hazor’s destruction.

Next on the list of possibles are the Sea Peoples, seafaring warriors from the Aegean that included the Philistines.⁷ Hazor is situated too far inland, however, to be a site of interest to the Sea Peoples, whose activity was restricted mainly to coastal areas. Furthermore, among the millions of potsherds uncovered at Hazor during the many years of excavation in various areas of the site, not one sherd typical of the Sea Peoples has ever been found.

We can also reject the other Canaanite city-states as having been responsible for Hazor’s destruction, for not one of them could challenge Hazor, “the head of all those kingdoms.” Even if Hazor was in decline at the time of the city’s destruction, so were all other neighboring Canaanite cities.

Finally, another candidate has recently been added to the list of possible agents responsible for the violent end of Canaanite Hazor. This new suggestion is that it was not an outsider but an enemy from within the city.⁸ Based on her observation that the only structures violently destroyed at Hazor were those of a public nature—temples and palaces—while private dwellings show no sign of having been destroyed, my codirector Sharon Zuckerman has concluded that Hazor’s destruction resulted from an uprising of the local population against the ruling classes. In her words, the fall of Hazor came “as a result of social, political, cultural and ideological circumstances … stressing the role of internal socio-economic and ideological factors rather than external agents.”⁹ This theory seems to be a revival of George E. Mendenhall’s approach, according to which the entire process of the settlement of the Israelites in Canaan was actually the result of an egalitarian revolution within the Canaanite society.¹⁰

As for Hazor, the following arguments refute this theory:

(1) The archaeological data from Hazor does not unequivocally support Zuckerman. Her basic observation is based almost entirely on a single (!) dwelling uncovered in her excavation of Area A-210, located in the Lower City of Hazor.¹¹ As a matter of fact, the number of private dwellings thus far uncovered from the last Canaanite city at Hazor is extremely small. These include a few remnants in Areas C and F in the Lower City, but they suffered severely from erosion and repeated modern agricultural plowing due to their proximity to the surface of the site. It is impossible to conclude whether they ended in fire or not.¹² Basing 034 the entire scenario of Hazor’s destruction on a single dwelling exposed by Zuckerman in Area A-210 seems a bit far-fetched.

(2) Furthermore, the main targets for destruction of any city—whether by locals or by an external agent—are always the symbols of religion, power and government. Private houses are usually left intact; if destroyed, these are isolated cases. For instance, nobody doubts that Israelite Hazor was conquered by an external agent (the Assyrians in 035 732 B.C.E.), yet evidence for a violent destruction of the last phase of the city is only sporadically found. A good example is the situation in Yadin’s Area B, where the citadel (Stratum V) was indeed destroyed by fire, but only one of the six private dwellings in the immediate vicinity was destroyed by fire. The others were left untouched.¹³ The same phenomenon was also observed in the renewed excavations by our expedition.¹⁴

(3) If the city was destroyed by its local inhabitants, how does one explain the fact that Hazor was deserted and remained uninhabited for a period of approximately 200 years after its destruction? The local population still had houses (which stood undestroyed), land and families to support. If they won the battle, why leave town?¹⁵

(4) Clashes within the city, sometimes resulting in the overthrow of the local ruler, are well known in antiquity. But these clashes were always confined to the upper classes, either within a royal family or among the military elite. The very idea that the masses could have instigated a revolt against the ruling class of Hazor is an anachronism. No similar revolt is known anywhere in the ancient Near East; such an act would have been considered almost sacrilege by the people. The king was regarded by his subjects as ruling by the grace of God. Any questioning—let alone considering his overthrow—was unthinkable.

If we can eliminate the Egyptians, the Sea Peoples, rival Canaanite city-states and even the local population of the city as being responsible for the fall of Hazor, who then are we left with?

The differences between the Alt and Albright schools with regard to the process of the early Israelites’ settlement in Canaan (outlined above) were discussed with much passion at the time but are of 036 little consequence for the issue at hand. Both sides eventually agreed that Hazor was indeed destroyed by the early Israelites.¹⁶ Even Martin Noth, the greatest exponent of Alt’s school of thought, admits to a link between the capture of Hazor and Joshua 11:10.¹⁷ Both sides thus agree on the “who”—the early Israelites—but still differ with regard to the “how”—the nature of the process by which the early Israelites took possession of, and eventually settled in, the Land of Canaan.

An array of publications by various scholars over the years, trying to determine who was responsible for the downfall of Hazor, indicates a tendency to attribute the site’s destruction to anyone except the ones specifically mentioned in the Bible as having done so.¹⁸

As clearly shown by the famous Merneptah Stele,^b19 dated to the last decade of the 13th century B.C.E., the Israelites were present in Canaan at this time. They must have arrived some time before their encounter with Merneptah, the Egyptian pharaoh. Some prefer to call this group “proto-Israelites,” but there is no reason for this. If the term “Israel” was good enough for Pharaoh Merneptah to designate this particular group of people, it should be good enough for us. Indeed, those Israelites were still largely a seminomadic society, and their national identity was not exactly the same as that of Israel in the ninth century B.C.E. A lot of changes occurred during the three centuries separating their presence in the region in the 13th century B.C.E. from the foundation of the Kingdom of Israel. Certain groups from among the local population must have been absorbed into Israel, while others left. The same is true for other national groups: The Americans of today are certainly different from those two centuries ago, and even more so the Israelis of today are very different from those who were in the country just 65 years ago when the State of Israel was founded. Such changes do not justify considering the Israelites of Merneptah and the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Israel as two different peoples.

Biblical historiography, in particular the books of Joshua–Kings, cannot be considered a completely accurate account of the events described in them, because they are motivated by a theological and—to some extent—a political agenda. They do contain a considerable number of true historical nuclei, however, and the account of the downfall of the last Canaanite city of Hazor is very probably one of them. 058 Left with the early Israelites as the only viable agent responsible for the destruction of Hazor, one may wonder how it was possible for such a ragtag group of people to bring down a mighty city like Hazor. We need only look at analogous instances of ancient states, and even empires, being overwhelmed by “uncivilized” tribes—for example, the destruction of the Roman Empire by Germanic tribes and the Arab conquest of Byzantine Palestine.^c20

As for Canaan, after some 300 years under oppressive Egyptian rule, it was drained of most of its resources. Egyptian documents tell us about constant military raids, during which the pharaoh’s army lived off the land; what was not consumed or taken as tax was burned. Huge numbers of sheep, cattle and slaves were taken to Egypt as well. The various Canaanite cities were divided and poor. Most of them were not fortified, and even Canaanite Hazor’s fortifications probably went partially out of use.²¹ The constant disputes among the Canaanite city-states are clearly reflected in the 14th-century Amarna letters,^d which also inform us of the meager number of warriors kept by the Canaanite rulers: Requests for military 059 assistance from neighbors often mention no more than 10 to 50 men. The decline in the 13th–12th centuries B.C.E. of all the major powers that had previously ruled the region has been documented and discussed thoroughly.²²

Seizing the opportunity—while the cat was away, the mice filled the power vacuum and settled all over the region at the end of the Late Bronze Age (c. 1200 B.C.E.): the Greeks in western Asia Minor, the Sea Peoples in the eastern Mediterranean, the Arameans in Syria, the Arabs in the Arabian peninsula—and the Israelites in Canaan.

Canaan of the 13th–12th centuries B.C.E. was “ripe for the taking,” and the early Israelites were in the right place at the right time. None of the other potential destroyers of Hazor can be held responsible. The early Israelites were in the region at the time, and they are the only ones who have a record of doing the deed. They should therefore be credited with having brought down Canaanite Hazor.

Joshua turned back at that time and took Hazor, and struck its king with the sword, for Hazor was formerly the head of all those kingdoms. And they struck all the people who were in it with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them … Then he burnt Hazor with fire. Joshua 11:10–11 Fact or fiction? History or theology? It is commonly recognized that interest in the Biblical account of the Israelite settlement in Canaan was, to a large extent, responsible for the rise of “Biblical archaeology.” It is no wonder, then, that one of the first sites […]