Solomon's Navy in the Context of Maritime Trade Relations in Iron Age South Levant
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Eva Katarina Glazer, Danijel Štruklec - Solomon’s navy in... (161-168) Histria Antiqua, 21/2012 Eva Katarina GLAZER, Danijel ŠTRUKLEC SOLOMON’S NAVY IN THE CONTEXT OF MARITIME TRADE RELATIONS IN IRON AGE SOUTH LEVANT UDK 903:339.165.4>(262.2)”638” dr. sc. Eva Katarina Glazer Original scientific paper Hrvatski studiji, Odjel za povijest Received: 14.06.2012. Sveučilište u Zagrebu, Approved: 23.08.2012. Borongajska cesta 83 D, 10 000 Zagreb, Hrvatska [email protected] Danijel Štruklec, M. Hist. Hrvatski studiji Sveučilište u Zagrebu, Borongajska cesta 83 D, 10 000 Zagreb, Hrvatska [email protected] evant can be seen as an important link between the two great centers of social and historical events of the Near East, Mesopotamia and Egypt. In Early Iron Age, this area was marked by many social changes, such as the weakening of LEgypts supremacy in the Levant area and the emergence of new ethnic groups like the Philistines and Israelites. The problem of Israel’s monarchy and Solomon, David’s successor is an important topic in the scientific world for a long time now. What does the Old Testament tell and what is the archaeological evidence? How strong was the monarchy of Solomon and what was its relation to neighboring nations? With the help of archaeological and literary sources this paper attempts to present as faithfully as possible the social relations between Israel and some of the people in the southern Levant. Solomon’s navy is the key to understanding these relationships, in both political and economic aspects. The importance of maritime trade, maritime routes and harbors suggest a great social activity, and according to the Old Testament the foundation of Solomon’s wealth. Among other things, this paper wants to present a possible conflict between the material evidence and written sources, and problematizes the relationship of archaeological evidence and the Old Testament. Key Words: Solomon, Navy, Ezion Geber, Israel’s monarchy, Phoenicians, Iron Age Introduction The begining of the Iron Age, cca 1200 B. C. E. of king Solomon as a historical figure, the fact of his ex- marked important social and political changes in the istence is still unclear. Levant. Unification of Israel tribes and the establish- The main and almost only source of information on ment of the Monarchy is a controversial subject that the great naval and merchant navy in Solomons period even today hasn’t reached consensus among the schol- is the Old Testament. It is important to investigate Solo- ars. Due to the lack of material sources, the main source mon’s navy because it would increase our knowledge of for studying the history of Israel during the Iron Age different aspects of Israel’s relations with other states in period is the Old Testament. Nevertheless, we need the Levant region. Technology of manufacturing and a lot more than biblical texts to understand the com- possession of a naval force was probably the most impor- plexity of the formation of the Israel monarchy, even tant technological achievement that enabled the military though the title of this article implicates the existence and cultural expansion of civilisations during this period. 161 Eva Katarina Glazer, Danijel Štruklec - Solomon’s navy in... (161-168) Histria Antiqua, 21/2012 Fig.1 Map of the region The problem of material sources that appears in cated in the northern and coastal regions and that new this case leads to difficulties in interpreting the written settlement pattern favored a sedentary rural lifestyle sources and although the main research of this paper is and formation of new political structures.3 Archaeo- focused on written sources, the main arguments for the logical evidence that might relate to proto-Israel tribes verification or denial of the generally accepted views and the procces of establishment of the Monarchy are are the results of analysis of archaeological resources. inconclusive, however the conditions for the formation The main goal of this article is to try to describe the of new political and social structures were extremely circumstances of the period more accurately which favourable. should help clarify the possibility of the existence of Reconstruction of the formative period of the Israel Solomon’s navy. monarchy at the begining of the Iron Age is problematic and there are many theories concerning these events4. If we try to compare Palestine region during Late Historical and social context of the Bronze Age (1400.-1200. B. C. E.) with the Early Iron period prior to king Solomon Age period (1200.-1000. B. C. E.)5 we are confronted 1 We can place these egyptian rulers in the with several problems, the largest one being the lack of context of king Solomons reign: Siamun Iron Age brought many changes in the area that (978.-959. B.C.E.), Psusennes II. (959.- written sources, but also a lack of proper interpretation 945. B.C.E.), Sheshonk I. (945.-924. B. stretches from Anatolia, Syria and Palestine all the way C. E.). More on the subject in: GRIMAL of archaeological materials. Unfortunately, despite the 1992, 311-334; KUHRT 1995, 385-386; to Egypt. The transition from Late Bronze Age to Early long term nature of the excavations much data is still LLOYD 2010, 120-140. Iron Age witnessed the collapse of the great Hittite 2 KUHRT 1995, 386. unavailable to researchers because of the slow rate of 3 Cf. DIETRICH 2007, 118. state in the north and the decline of Egypt which lost its analysis and publication. Also, we should emphasize 4 The most well known theory is „sociologi- predominance over southern Levant.1 Great Canaanite that many results of the analysis of archaeological ma- cal“, which describes the beginning of Israel 2 history and the formation of the monarchy city states of Ugarit and Emar also suffered collapse. terials display a continuity in material culture during as a result of the events that occured after the exodus from egyptian slavery. Although (Fig. 1.) The disruption of diplomatic ties from 1150. to this transitional period which undermines the theory this theory is for the most part undisputed 900. B.C.E. enabled the wider Syria and Palestine region of newcomers to the region (the coming of the Israeli there are still some problematic aspects. 5 GREGOR 2004, 6. to slowly develop without any foreign intervention. Ar- tribes from Egypt), but it doesn’t diminish the possibil- 6 LIVERANI 2007, 32. eas that were more favourable for habitation were lo- ity of the formation of a monarchy.6 162 Eva Katarina Glazer, Danijel Štruklec - Solomon’s navy in... (161-168) Histria Antiqua, 21/2012 Fig.2 Map of Solomon’s kingdom Traditional historical views consider the increasing Solomon’s reign threats of other organized communities such as Phil- istines that forced fragmented tribes to unite, and that King Solomon is believed to have ruled over a vast was probably a contributing factor for choosing a lead- kingdom with significant political and religious im- er, their first king Saul.7 However, Saul couldn’t organ- portance. Biblical tradition speaks of a kingdom that ize a proper statelike structure and couldn’t repel the extended from Euphrates to Egypt (1 Kin 5). An im- Philistine threat. The process of unification of all the perial project such as the one mentioned in the Old Testament has probably never been achieved. In fact, tribes into a common state is ascribed to the next king, with Solomon’s name we find no mention of a military David.8 He managed to conquer the city of Jerusalem 9 victory, on the contrary we find that he had lost parts and turn it into his capital. The borders of his king- of the kingdom such as Edom (1 Kin 11: 21-22). In that dom stretched from Damascus kingdom in the north 10 case, it wasn’t likely that Solomon ruled over such a vast all the way to Aqaba bay in the south. There is no data territory. (Fig. 2.) at our disposal that could help us in reconstructing a According to traditional chronology13 Solomon precise picture of David’s reign and the extent of his 7 REBIĆ 1992, 64. is credited with building the city gate of Megiddo 8 REBIĆ 1992, 64. kingdom. Even though there are some disagreements (Megiddo V-A and IV-B) and Hazor (Hazor X).14 This 9 Now the king and his men went to Jeru- concerning David’s succesor, it is mostly considered salem against the Jebusites, the inhabitants chronology accepts Solomon’s twelve districts and con- of the land, and they said to David: „ You that he turned over the kingdom to his eldest son and siders the construction of the stables and palaces to be shall not come in here, but the blind and successor Solomon thus creating his own dynasty. This lame will turn you away“; Thinking: „Da- correct. Low chronology places the contruction at a vid cannot enter here“ Nevertheless David is confirmed by an aramaean royal stela form Tel Dan later period which means that we cannot ascribe these captured the stronghold of Zion, that is the dated around 840. B. C. E.11 The inscription mentions 15 city of David; 2 Sam 5: 6-8. monumental works to Solomon. From all this we can 10 REBIĆ 1992, 65. House of David) which is the first (and the conclude that at best, the borders of Solomon’s king- 11 HALPERN 1994, 63-80.; LIVERANI) “תיב דוד„ only) archaeological recognition of David.12 Both ar- 2007, 96. dom stretched from Aqaba bay (assuming that Edom 12 HALPERN 1994, 63-80. chaeologists and epigraphists agree that the inscription was later lost) to Galilea in the north.