Does Amihai Mazar Agree with Finkelstein’s “Low Chronology”?

060

In an interview in our November/December 2002 issue (“A ‘Centrist’ at the Center of Controversy,” BAR 28:06), Israel Finkelstein, head of Tel Aviv University’s Institute of Archaeology and co-director of the excavation at Megiddo, argued for his highly controversial “low chronology.” According to Finkelstein, the dating of early Israelite archaeological materials, especially pottery, should be lowered by a century from their traditional and widely accepted chronology. The result is that the archaeological strata, including monumental architecture, attributed to King Solomon and the United Monarchy in the tenth century B.C.E. is now dated to the ninth century B.C.E., and the poor materials from the 11th century B.C.E. (the period of the Judges, in Biblical terms) become the only evidence for the United Monarchy of the tenth century B.C.E.

The interviewer asked Finkelstein why so many leading archaeologists, including Hebrew University archaeologist Amihai Mazar, rejected his position. The following exchange ensued:

Interviewer: At one point I remember your saying that Ami Mazar was halfway to your position. Do you still maintain that?

Finkelstein: Well, you have to ask him. I think so… The way I understand his position is, first of all, he understands that there’s a real problem with the conventional chronology. Secondly, I think he would admit that some of my arguments are strong and should be addressed.

So we asked Ami Mazar to speak for himself. His response follows.—Ed.

The core of the debate about the “low chronology” championed by Israel Finkelstein relates to the dating and duration of well-defined pottery assemblages excavated in northern Israel and in Judah, characterized by red-slip burnished ware. These assemblages belong to a sub-period defined as the Iron Age IIA.

Finkelstein, other specialists and I agree on two important points:

(1) The latest date of use of these Iron IIA pottery assemblages¹ can be determined by the destruction level of the royal enclosure of Omri and Ahab at the northern site of Jezreel, where such pottery was found. Based on the Biblical sources, it is assumed that Jezreel fell c. 840–830 B.C.E. in Jehu’s revolt (see 2 Kings 9) or in one of the wars against the Arameans led by Hazael (see 2 Kings 8–13), just after the end of the Omride Dynasty. This ended the Iron IIA period.

(2) When was the earliest date of these pottery assemblages? It must be before 925 B.C.E. because it is found in Arad Stratum XII, which was destroyed by Pharaoh Shishak (see 1 Kings 14:25; he is called Sheshonq I in Egyptian records) in about 925 B.C.E. We can be sure about this because this stratum represents the earliest Iron Age occupation at Arad and because Arad is mentioned in Shishak’s list of places he conquered, which fortunately has survived in part. Arad Stratum XII therefore provides a solid basis for dating a Solomonic pottery assemblage, that is, in the mid-tenth century B.C.E.

These two points of agreement, however, create, in my view, an inner contradiction in Finkelstein’s approach that simply cannot be reconciled. Finkelstein claims that all Iron IIA assemblages in Israel should be dated to the ninth century B.C.E. Yet the pottery assemblage of Arad Stratum XII, in Judah, is also Iron IIA, and Finkelstein still admits it is to be dated to the tenth century B.C.E.

Arad Stratum XII serves as the key for dating other southern sites. Thus, in a recent study of Arad pottery by Lilly Singer-Avitz, she dates to the tenth century (the Solomonic era) not only Stratum XII at Arad, but also Beersheba Stratum VII, the Negev Highland sites, and Lachish Stratum V, thereby concurring with the traditional “high chronology” that has been used for many years.² According to this traditional chronology, we can attribute to the tenth century B.C.E. many other archaeological contexts in Judah and the Coastal Plain, 061such as at Jerusalem, Gezer, Beth-Shemesh, Tel Batash, Ashdod and other sites.³ It must be acknowledged, however, that the Iron IIA period continued (based on the same characteristic pottery assemblages) deep into the ninth century B.C.E. Thus, it is not always easy for archaeologists to decide if a certain occupation level should be dated to the tenth or ninth centuries B.C.E.

In the north, Jezreel itself provides a good case against Finkelstein’s assumption that Iron IIA should be limited to the ninth century. The same Iron IIA pottery found in the ninth century royal citadel was also found in the construction fills, indicating that such pottery was probably in use in a local settlement that preceded the construction of the citadel (and was probably dismantled when the royal citadel was constructed). Such a settlement probably existed here during the tenth and early ninth centuries B.C.E.

At other northern sites, such as Hazor and Tel Rehov, similar pottery appears in three or four different strata, hinting at the longevity of this assemblage.

In most other pottery assemblages in the archaeology of the ancient Near East, we find it impossible to restrict the duration to a 70- or 80-year time span. It makes far more sense, as with other pottery assemblages, that the Iron IIA northern and southern assemblages had a duration of more than a hundred years. These assemblages probably began at some point in the tenth century (the time of the United Monarchy) and continued in use until some time in the second half of the ninth century B.C.E. (after the end of the Omride Dynasty) without much change.

New carbon-14 tests on short-life samples (seeds and olive pits) from three Iron IIA strata at Tel Rehov, soon to be published, also corroborate my view.

Thus, in my opinion, a modified traditional chronology, rather than the suggested “low chronology,” should be used. This conclusion has clear implications for assessing the United Monarchy in archaeological terms.

Jerusalem of the tenth century B.C.E. is described by Finkelstein as a small and unimportant village. However, the “Stepped Stone Structure” in Area G in the City of David is a huge retaining wall that must have supported one of the largest buildings (perhaps the largest) of the 12th-10th centuries B.C.E. in the entire land of Israel. The pottery evidence indicates that it was founded during the Iron Age I (12th-11th centuries B.C.E.) and went out of use at some time after the tenth century. This fits the Biblical description of “The Citadel of Zion” (Metsudat Zion) as a Jebusite citadel captured by David and used as his stronghold (2 Samuel 5:7). In addition, Iron IIA pottery was found in almost every excavation area in the City of David. Jerusalem may not have been an enormous city during that time, but it definitely was much more than merely a small village, as Finkelstein contends.

Outside of Jerusalem, monumental structures at Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer can, in my opinion, be dated to the tenth century B.C.E. Thus Yigael Yadin was probably correct in suggesting that these should be associated with Solomon’s building projects mentioned in 1 Kings 9:15.⁴

Such structures, as well as the recent finds at Hazor, Tel Rehov and Beth-Shemesh and the settlement wave in the northern Negev and Negev Highlands provide data for evaluating the United Monarchy. The extent of settlement and urbanization in this period hardly points to the extensive, well-developed state or empire that a reader of the Bible might imagine. Yet the archaeological picture does support an evaluation of the United Monarchy as an early state with features of central administration, monumental architecture and international trade (mainly with the Phoenician cities and Cyprus). Some of the stories in the Bible relating to David and Solomon must be late literary inventions, since archaeology negates them: Examples are the wars against Edom and the assumed relations with Sheba (southern Arabia). Yet other stories and administrative lists were probably based on written documents kept in the Jerusalem temple and/or palace archives.

In short, the traditional chronology enables us to draw a balanced picture of the United Monarchy. Although some of the Biblical narrative is an exaggeration, the picture is not as minimal as Finkelstein would have us believe.

In an interview in our November/December 2002 issue (“A ‘Centrist’ at the Center of Controversy,” BAR 28:06), Israel Finkelstein, head of Tel Aviv University’s Institute of Archaeology and co-director of the excavation at Megiddo, argued for his highly controversial “low chronology.” According to Finkelstein, the dating of early Israelite archaeological materials, especially pottery, should be lowered by a century from their traditional and widely accepted chronology. The result is that the archaeological strata, including monumental architecture, attributed to King Solomon and the United Monarchy in the tenth century B.C.E. is now dated to the ninth century B.C.E., and the […]