From Sha'ar Hagolan to Shaaraim Essays in Honor of Prof. Yosef
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
From Sha‘ar Hagolan to Shaaraim Essays in Honor of Prof. Yosef Garfijinkel Editors Saar Ganor, Igor Kreimerman, Katharina Streit, Madeleine Mumcuoglu Israel Exploration Society Jerusalem 2016 From Sha‘ar Hagolan to Shaaraim Essays in Honor of Prof. Yosef Garfijinkel משער הגולן לשעריים מחקרים לכבוד פרופ' יוסף גרפינקל ISBN 978-965-221-111-8 COPY EDITOR (ENGLISH) Susan Gorodetsky cover design Oz Ganor ENGLISH COVER photo Khirbet Qeiyafa at the end of the 2012 Season (Sky View) HEBREW COVER photo Sha’ar Hagolan (Yosef Garfijinkel) Typesetting Raphaël Freeman, Renana Typesetting Printed at Printiv, Jerusalem, Israel © All rights reserved to Israel Exploration Society, 2016 Contents Acknowledgments v Preface xi List of English Publications of Prof. Yosef Garfijinkel xiii Abbreviations xxiv English Section The Story of the Ceramic Industry in the Southern Levant 1 Judith Ben-Michael The Yarmukian Site at Tel Mitzpe Zevulun North (Naḥal Zippori 3), Lower Galilee, Israel 19 Omry Barzilai, Edwin C. M. van den Brink, Jacob Vardi, Roy Liran The Miniature Chalices from Sha‘ar Hagolan: A New Interpretation 41 Michael Freikman Pavements, Pits and Burials: The Case of Pit 183 at the Early Pottery Neolithic Site of Beisamoun, Northern Israel 47 Danny Rosenberg Yarmukian-Type Architecture without Yarmukian-Type Pottery at the Site of Khirbet ‘Asafna (East) in the Jezreel Valley, Israel: A Dilemma? 63 Edwin C. M. van den Brink, Dan Kirzner, Michal Birkenfeld, Alla Yaroshevich, Nimrod Marom A Newly Uncovered Cowrie-Eye Female Clay Figurine Fragment from Bet Ḥilqiya, Northern Negev, Israel 93 Edwin C. M. van den Brink, Yitzhak Marmelstein, Roy Liran ‘Yarmukian’ Figurines of the Neolithic Period at Lod 101 Eli Yannai Early Wadi Rabah and Chalcolithic Occupations at Tel Dover: Environmental and Chronlogical Insights 109 Hamoudi Khalaily, Ianir Milevski, Liora Kolska Horwitz, Ofer Marder vii viii Contents The ‘Ein el-Jarba Holemouth Jar: A Local Vessel with Parallels in the Near East and Southeast Europe 155 Ianir Milevski, Zinovi Matskevich, Anat Cohen-Weinberger, Nimrod Getzov Protohistoric Infant Jar Burials of the Southern Levant in Context: Tracing Cultural Influences in the Late Sixth and Fifth Millennia BCE 171 Katharina Streit A Fourth-Millennium BCE Seal from Hazor 187 Amnon Ben-Tor The Archaeology of Destruction: Methodological Desiderata 205 Michael G. Hasel Siege Warfare, Conflict and Destruction: How are They Related? 229 Igor Kreimerman Pottery Production in the Iron Age Shephelah: An Evaluation According to Recent Petrographic Research 247 David Ben-Shlomo Four Egyptian Seals from Khirbet Qeiyafa 265 Martin G. Klingbeil Four Notes on Tel Lachish Level V 283 Hoo-Goo Kang Solomon’s Golden Shields in the Context of the First Millennium BCE 295 Madeleine Mumcuoglu Sealed with a Dance: An Iron Age IIA Seal from Tel Abel Beth Maacah 307 Nava Panitz-Cohen and Robert A. Mullins Reassessing the Character of the Judahite Kingdom: Archaeological Evidence for Non-Centralized, Kinship-Based Components 323 Aren M. Maeir and Itzhaq Shai The Samarian Syncretic Yahwism and the Religious Center of Kuntillet ᶜAjrud 341 Gwanghyun Choi Contents ix Revisiting Vaughn and Dobler’s Provenance Study of Hebrew Seals and Seal Impressions 371 Mitka R. Golub The Assyrian Empire and Judah: Royal Assyrian Archives and Other Historical Documents 383 Peter Zilberg Ekron: The Ceramic Assemblage of an Iron Age IIC Philistine Type Site 407 Seymour Gitin The Meaning of the Boat Scene on the Phoenician-Cypriote Scapula from Tel Dor 435 Silvia Schroer Hebrew section Religious Practices and Cult Objects at Tel Reḥov during the 10th–9th Centuries BCE *1 Amihai Mazar The Iron Age IIa Judahite Weight System at Khirbet Qeiyafa *33 Haggai Cohen Klonymus Tel Ḥalif as a Case Study: Targeted Excavations in a Cave as a Means of Assessing Stratigraphy at the Tell *61 Amir Ganor, Gidon Goldenberg, Guy Fitoussi Fortresses, Forts and Towers in the Jerusalem Region during the Iron Age IIb–c Period *81 Saar Ganor A Late Iron Age II Administrative Building Excavated in the City of David *103 Doron Ben-Ami and Haggai Misgav The Lachish Inscriptions from Yohanan Aharoni's Excavations Reread *111 Anat Mendel-Geberovich, Eran Arie, Michael Maggen The Archaeology of Destruction: Methodological Desiderata Michael G. Hasel Southern Adventist University Abstract The destruction horizon of an archaeological site is one of the essential features of tell formation in Near Eastern archaeology, but too often the methodology for assigning destructions to past events has not been well developed. This essay introduces an integrative paradigm incorporating archaeological and his- torical correlates of destruction that have been the efffects of formation processes. These include the focus, extent, means, and content of destruction, by developing specifijic questions within these categories. The destruction horizon of an archaeological site is one of the essential features of tell formation in Near Eastern archaeology. The discovery of an ash layer and collapsed walls elicits a sense of curiosity if not excitement. Images of military invasions and internecine warfare immediately come to mind. That is the most popular inference is perhaps due to its predominance in historical records.1 One remembers the efffects of the campaigns of Tiglath-pileser III in 733/32 BC on the northern kingdom of Israel (Tadmor 1994) and the campaign of Sennacherib against Judah so vividly commemorated in his palace at Nineveh (Ussishkin 1982). Archaeological excavations at Ashkelon, Ekron, and Qasile produced massive destructions that have been attributed to the campaigns of Nebuchad- nezzar in 604 and 603 BCE (Stager 1996a; 1996b; Gitin 1998). Indeed, destruction horizons when found have frequently become chronological anchors upon which the whole complexity of archaeological inference rests. But how does one infer a historical cause for the efffects of destruction at a given site? In other words, how does one determine who or what caused the destruction/ discontinuity of a given city? To answer these questions, the destruction must be pinpointed chronolog- ically. Near Eastern archaeologists usually follow the most obvious procedure, which involves meticulous stratigraphic analysis followed by pottery readings in the fijield to ascertain an approximate date. More recently, radiocarbon dating has 205 206 Michael G. Hasel been increasingly applied, especially to periods such as the 10th century. Once the “when” is established, the most expedient route is to peruse the primary historical literature for a recorded military campaign to the region. Then a direct correlation is made that, with a publication or two by the archaeologist, may well become accepted archaeological dogma for future decades. One may take the recent example of the campaign of Shishak dated to 925 BCE.2 The 10th- century horizon in Syria-Palestine has come under closer scru- tiny in the past decade. Not to minimize arguments from radiocarbon dates, stratigraphy, and ceramic sequencing, one of the main issues in the current debate over the 10th century is the interpretation of historical sources and their relationship with the archaeological record. In the past, scholars felt secure with the general historicity of the biblical narratives describing the 10th century.3 But over the past twenty years revisionist biblical scholars from the continent and Britain are challenging these conclusions,4 as are some archaeologists. An increasing number echo the sentiments of Israel Finkelstein, who states “For- get about the biblical description for a moment: then the whole tenth century is open” (Finkelstein 1998: 185). The fact of the matter is that neither he nor others forget the biblical description or other sources – only certain sections of them as a matter of convenience. As Mazar (1997), Ben-Tor (2000: 12, 14), Ben-Tor and Ben-Ami (1998) and Dever (1995; 1999) have consistently shown, Finkelstein simply reassigns destructions by substituting the names of earlier kings and described biblical events with later ones from the same source. Thus, the destruction at Gezer traditionally assigned to the Egyptian king of 1 Kings 9:16 (Siamun?)5 is redated by Finkelstein to Shishak and the destruction of Shishak is left open to someone in the 9th century (Finkelstein 1996: 183; 2002). Likewise, the stratigraphy of Hazor has been redated from the 10th century to the 9th, with the claim that Yadin “was left with two destruction layers (of Strata IX and VII) for which he could not fijind a proper destroyer” and that he “also left us a destroyer without a possible destruction” (Finkelstein 1999: 59). Finkelstein (2000: 242) suggests that the destruction of Stratum IX should be attributed to Hazael, for “Hazael is real and historical because we know about him from a combination of sources.” The implication is that Solomon is unreal and unhistorical because we have only one source: the Hebrew Bible. But in his response, Ben-Tor clarifijies that Yadin had already assigned the destruction of Stratum VII to the Aramean invasion of Hazael (Ben-Tor 2000: 11). These examples demonstrate the crux interpretum involved in the interpretation of destructions and discontinuities in present archaeological contexts. Even with sophisticated, modern theoretical approaches and methodologies, the proce- dures used in Near Eastern archaeology leave the impression that there are no The Archaeology of Destruction 207 clear archaeological correlates for assigning specifijic destructions to historical events