From Sha'ar Hagolan to Shaaraim Essays in Honor of Prof. Yosef

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

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 historical 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-pileserIII 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 and that any destruction can be assigned to various preferred invading armies or other causes at the subjective discretion of the archaeologist based on the subjective interpretation of the historical sources. However, in most cases archaeologists do not take the time to establish existing historical correlates before inferring these connections. For this reason, Dever has suggested the need for establishing “a full-scale theoretical and practical paradigm for dealing with archaeological destructions” (1992: 32*), a challenge which I undertook during both my masters studies (in regard to archaeoseismicity in the archaeological record, Hasel 1992) and doctoral studies (in regard to Egyptian military activity, Hasel 1998a; 1998b). The frequency of the phenomenon of destruction and the implications of these “anchors” for the reconstruction of the history of the ancient Near East makes such an endeavor prudent if not imperative, and it is this issue that I wish to develop briefly in this essay. An Integrative Paradigm Every excavator must recognize the inherent limitations of archaeological contexts. It is well known that events of the past included behaviors that left material remains and those that did not. In the case of military destruction one would not expect much success in establishing archaeological destruction correlates for a number of past behaviors. Sl. Vencl observes that these would include (1) open-terrain battle, since such activity leaves little stratigraphic evidence and no remains in signifĳicant spatial concentrations; (2) the practice of taking prisoners and captives during a conflict; (3) the destruction of subsistence sources including orchards and fĳields; (4) military movements such as troop transfers, commanding offfĳicers, and other strategic information. Vencl (1984: 123–125) states, “For this reason, it is advisable to complement the usual procedure of archaeology . . . The vanished past will be more comprehensible if all components of the cultures in question are treated with a measure of attention in proportion to their signifĳicance.” It is precisely because Near Eastern archaeology, and the archaeology of destruction in particular, is so closely related to historical activity preserved in records (which also often come from archaeological contexts) that a comprehensive research design will include all ancient sources that are deemed relevant. After all, “the remains of a destruction are identifĳied by an event dated by the written record, so that the destruction complex thus dated can be taken to serve as an absolute dating-line for pottery and other fĳinds related to it” (Forsberg 1995: 13). For this reason historical archaeology6 or, as Dever (1999: 90) has recently opined, “an archaeohistoriographical methodology” must address 208 Michael G. Hasel the issue of textual and iconographic sources for an integrative approach – an intentional dialogue between the disciplines (such integrative approaches have been proposed by Renfrew 1980; Yofffee 1982; Trigger 1984; Levy and Holl 1995; Zettler 1996; see most recently Levy 2010). A major factor in formulating such a research design is to develop relevant questions that will contribute information to the issue(s) under investigation (Read and LeBlanc 1978). Historical sources must be carefully evaluated. First, one of the key issues is the nature of the text or iconography used for historical associations. Where does the toponym appear in textual documents? Is it in a toponym list or in an account giving further details of activities? Narrative accounts provide more details of the type of activity employed, whereas a toponym list may simply imply an itinerary (Helck 1971; Redford 1982), or may even be copied from earlier reigns.7 Does it appear in more than one location or genre of documents? The appearance of a toponym in both a list and a narrative account would add credibility that the toponym may have been more than a resupplying stop along the way to the primary targets for the campaign. The repetition of a name in several places may indicate a stronger memory of the event or the wish of the scribes to emphasize a certain location or city. There are other instances in which only one source provides the primary data and this cannot be discounted simply because of the lack of corroborating evidence. What is the reliability of these documents? The issue of historiography is a complex one that cannot be fully discussed in this paper. I would only point out in this context that the historian must be careful not to place modern historiographical expectations on ancient records that did not approach history with the presuppositions of the modern or postmodern agenda. The portrayal of any military event, ancient or modern, is often couched in ideology, legitimation, and power. This setting within ideology must not preclude historicity, for every form of writing is set in some framework that must be evaluated and understood. Rather, the object of the investigation is to discover the Egyptian, Aramean, Assyrian, Babylonian, Judahite and Israelite perceptions of events and then to compare them with archaeological contexts (see Younger 1990). Once the historiography of the text or iconography has been considered, there are further questions of identifĳication to be addressed. First, is it possible to identify the toponym? Important aspects cannot be overlooked. How is the word written and how does it compare with ancient and more modern sources that mention the same name? Is the toponym mentioned with other sites or regions that would further contribute to placing it in a specifĳic location? Was there more than one toponym that had the same name? Are there iconographic details that may aid in the identifĳication? From its location, what strategic role The Archaeology of Destruction 209 could this toponym have played in the geopolitical dynamics of a region and how might this have been important for an invading force? All of these factors are signifĳicant when attempting to establish relationships between textual and iconographic sources and archaeological contexts. Their purpose is to incorporate and evaluate both previous and present conclusions of interpreters and attempt to determine the validity of those conclusions in an integrated manner that includes all of the sources and evidence currently available. Once this is accomplished and a reasonable association is deemed possible, further questions must be posed to determine the correlates of destruction present at the site.

Archaeological and Historical Correlates of Destruction The archaeological interpretation of destruction is ultimately a question of inference,8 which, according to Michael Schifffer (1988: 477), is “the process of assessing and synthesizing diverse lines of evidence to produce well-founded statements about the past.” The lines of evidence for the archaeologist are based on “material culture dynamics” widely understood as “correlates.” The issue of correlates is vital, for they often “remain implicit and poorly founded” even after numerous methodological attempts to provide clearer defĳinition (Schifffer 1988: 471). It is the hypothesis of this study that specifĳic material features – correlates – provide evidence that may be used to infer the natural causes or human behaviors of action from their efffects in modern archaeological contexts. The following categories of questions on the focus, extent, means, and content of destruction are essential in establishing such correlates.

Focus of Destruction Archaeological Correlates The focus of destruction is determined by the regional efffect. Is the focus aimed at one walled city or settlement, against the people that occupy them, or both? Is the focus broader, encompassing an entire region? The answer to these questions requires a regional perspective of the surrounding hinterland of a specifĳic site and even a wider evaluation of contemporary strata at other sites. If the destruction encountered is on a much broader scale, one may search for evidence of natural disasters such as earthquakes, storms, etc., and expect archaeological correlates that would fĳit these kinds of disasters. One might also posit a military campaign aimed at an entire region. If the site has the only destruction horizon in the vicinity, then site-specifĳic causes should be researched. The key to the question of focus is to determine the geographical extent of the destructive 210 Michael G. Hasel activity on a regional scale. Once a chronological context has been established based on archaeological factors, an independent analysis of historical sources must be conducted before inferences can be drawn.

Historical Correlates Do texts and iconography portray destructive activity taking place against walled cities and settlements, against the people that occupy them, or both? May such a distinction be made, and if so is there a priority in the focus of military activity? Sometimes it is possible. For example, during the campaign of Ramses II against the Hittite forces at Kadesh,9 the battle was apparently fought out in the open plain. Long before reaching the city itself, the battle was already decided, and it is clear from both the Egyptian and Hittite texts and iconography that the city itself was never reached.10 To claim that there is evidence for an Egyptian destruction horizon relating to this battle at the city of Kadesh would not coin- cide with the historical correlates of destruction (on Kadesh, see Hasel 2011).11

Extent of Destruction Archaeological Correlates The extent of the destruction addresses questions concerning a particular site and how it is afffected by a destruction. Since this category of inquiry is inher- ently limited to those areas excavated, the full extent of a given destruction can rarely be established, but attempts can certainly be based on excavated areas. Pertinent questions include: Are gates and defensive systems destroyed in part or completely? Are cultic areas included in the destruction or are they the main focus of destruction? Are domestic structures afffected? Are only parts of the city destroyed or is the discontinuity complete? The answers to these questions may lead to various conclusions. Destructive activity directed solely against cultic architecture and installations may indicate a certain reason for attack. One is immediately reminded of the reforms under Hezekiah and Josiah as an impetus for such action (Vaughn 1999; Nakhai 2001). As to the fĳirst question pertaining to gates and defensive structures, damage to this part of the city may imply that the city was taken by force and that the inhabitants did not surrender. It may also indicate a prolonged siege against the city. Evidence for the destruction only of the city gate may mean that an army forced access to the city but did not completely destroy it.

Historical Correlates The tactics of siege warfare and military activity are described by numerous cultures of the ancient Near East in both texts and iconography. A careful The Archaeology of Destruction 211 analysis of the records of each entity and for particular campaigns is warranted. Did the specifĳic polity claim to have destroyed a city completely or only to have “captured” or “taken” the city in question? Was there a prolonged siege requiring a forced entrance of the city or did the inhabitants surrender of their own free will? In Egyptian iconography of the XIXth and XXth Dynasties cities are besieged and siege tactics are openly used, as in the well-known relief of Merenptah’s attack against Ashkelon (Wreszinski 1935: Taf. 58; Hasel 1998a: 50, Fig. 6). Naturally, these depictions show the battle action as it is taking place. During the reign of Ramses II w.e catch a glimpse of the efffects before and after the battle (Wreszinski 1935: Taf. 54a, 55a; Hasel 1998a: 33, Fig 1; 49, Fig. 5). In the upper depiction of a fortifĳied city we see the battle in progress. The defendants are still within the city walls. The king is shown larger than life attacking the city. The lower city, however, is shown empty. It has already been plundered, its wealth taken as spoils and its people as captives. What is signifĳicant is that the gate is askew, indicating its defeat and also perhaps the main focus of destruction, while the walls remain standing and the rest of the city from this external angle seems intact. Indeed, Egyptian records of the XIXth and XXth Dynasties never indicate a complete destruction of the city. Texts from the reigns of Seti I, Ramses II, Merenptah, and Ramses III most frequently state that the city was “plundered” or “carried away” (Hasel 1998a: 40–52). The Egyptians are consistent in their texts and reliefs in showing that the enemy cities remain intact, perhaps because of the economic interest Egypt had in their Asiatic frontier. The Assyrians, on the other hand, had altogether diffferent tactics. Frequently, once the siege was over, the city was captured, and the spoils were taken away the city would be burned and/or razed to the ground (Hasel 2005: 52–76). According to the annals of Tiglath-pileser III, the Assyrian forces fĳirst took the gods of the city, the spoils, possessions and property, before burning, razing and destroying their cities. The repeated formula reads, “I razed, destroyed, (and) burned the cities” (Text: Budge and King 1902; Borger 1974–77; Trans.: Grayson 1976: 3–20). The fĳirst episode of military activity under Asher-Dan II also indicates a pattern of plundering and carrying offf spoils, followed by the burning of cities (Text: Weidner 1923; 1968–69: 75–77; Trans.: Grayson 1976: 74–78). Ashurnasirpal makes similar claims of burning cities (Text: Budge and King 1902: 254–387; Trans.: Grayson 1976: 117–147). On Shalmaneser III’s Marble Slab, he states, “Cities without number I destroyed, I devastated, I burned with fĳire” (Text: Michel 1954: 38–39; Trans.: Wiseman 1958: 46–50). This is repeated in both the Aššur Annal Fragment (Text: Michel 1949; Trans.: Borger 1984: 365–366; Younger 1990: 106–107) and the Kurba’il Statue (Text: Line 16; Kinnier Wilson 1962). Sennacherib maintains in his second campaign, “And their small cities without number I destroyed, I devastated, I turned into ruins. The houses of 212 Michael G. Hasel the steppe, the tents, in which they dwell I burned with fĳire; and turned them into ashes” (Text: Borger 1979: 68fff.; Trans.: Luckenbill 1926–27: 27; Younger 1990: 111–112). The same formula is repeated in the Bavian Rock inscription describing the destruction of Babylon (Cogan 2000: 305). The siege practices outlined in the texts are brought to life in the detailed reliefs designed by Assyrian artists. These pictorial representations mirror the textual description in many respects while also adding signifĳicant details not described. In one scene, Assyrian soldiers are shown systematically dismantling a city after its defeat. Flames are already consuming it as it is burned to the ground. This total destruction is not a universal Assyrian tactic and individual campaigns must be carefully studied. In some cases when the enemy surrenders the texts clearly indicate that the city is spared. Nevertheless, it may be said that the Assyrians in general practiced a totality of destruction in their military policies against cities, whereas other polities of the Near East did not claim such extremist activity. This brings us to a third category of questions pertaining to the means of destruction. Means of Destruction Archaeological Correlates The means of destruction are assessed archaeologically by examining the phys- ical correlates present in archaeological contexts. Here a distinction must be made between what is often referred to as the “archaeological record” and the current “archaeological context.”12 It is recognized that the archaeological record is not static but has changed and is changing, so that what the archaeologist is excavating in the present may not be how the material was left in its original deposition. An introductory study clarifying these past and present formation processes was advanced by Michael Schifffer in several articles and a well-known volume which outlined the cultural and natural processes that afffect the original archaeological record both during and after the original deposition of material culture (Schifffer 1983; 1987; cf. Nash and Petraglia 1987; Staski 2000). A. Architectural Considerations There are several efffects that various formation processes can have on man-made structures. These need not be caused by humans. Ecological soil and settlement efffects are perhaps the most obvious reasons for structural instability. After all, the most abundant constituent of a site is dirt (Renfrew 1976: 4). The study of sedimentology (see introductory materials in Hassan 1978; Stein and Farrand 1985) is only now beginning to be considered in Near Eastern archaeology (Rosen 1986). Causes of structural subsidence may include any number of natural pro- The Archaeology of Destruction 213 cesses such as freeze-thaw cycles, erosion of abandoned buildings, wood decay, and other processes (Schifffer 1987: 200–230). These natural causes could be due to abandonment and neglect of a given structure without adequate upkeep or lack of proper planning before building (e.g., Ziadeh-Seely 1999; Cameron and Tomka 1993; Stevenson 1982; Friesem et al. 2014a; 2014b). Other natural formation processes such as earthquakes and storms may provide diffferent correlates of destruction.

Wall Conditions. Leaning walls may indicate gradual subsidence or violent, sudden activity. Are all walls leaning in a single direction? At Beth Shan pillars fallen in a single direction were interpreted as evidence for major earthquake activity in which a sudden, lateral movement of the ground causes pillars or walls to fall or tilt in the same direction (Arubas, Foerster and Tsafrir 2008: 1639).13 The haphazard collapse of walls may be due to other causes including abandonment and human destruction due to warfare or razing and rebuilding. Cracked stone in massive walls may also be an indication of major seismic activity, especially if the wall rests on bedrock. The outer wall at Gezer displays a 10-degree leaning of the wall, in addition to massive cracks in the stone offfset-insets along the inner wall. These features were interpreted as evidence for an earthquake in ca. 760 BCE (Dever 1992: 30*–32*; 1993: 46–47, Fig. 16; Younker 1991).

Ceiling Conditions. The ceilings of buildings often collapse in sudden destruction, sealing materials that were on shelves or on the floor. One could expect to fĳind whole ceramic forms crushed under collapsed ceilings if they were not removed before destruction. The suddenness of destruction and the inability of the inhabitants to react may be inferred. This is the case at Lachish Level III where, in a series of houses north of the palace courtyard, massive roof collapse trapped the material culture underneath, including LMLK storage jars, sling stones, loom weights, and fĳinds in other categories. On the other hand, if rooms are found empty, it may be that a longer process of abandonment resulted in the collapse and demise of a given structure. The possibility that goods were taken as spoils by an invading army must also not be ruled out. Here the relationship between the destruction of structures and material culture is signifĳicant.

B. Material Culture Considerations The presence or absence of material culture at the scene of destruction may itself be signifĳicant. If the causative factor is warfare followed by abandonment, one would expect much of the destruction materials to remain rather than be cleaned up. The destruction of the Late Bronze Age city of Ekron left over a meter and a half of destruction debris, including a storage jar containing the 214 Michael G. Hasel charcoal remains of hundreds of fĳigs in almost pristine condition and jar bases fĳilled with lentils (Dothan 1998: 151; cf. 150, Fig. 2). In fact, the fĳinal destruction of Ekron in the 7th century BCE left thousands of storage jars following the destruction of the city (Gitin 1998: 173; cf. 176, Fig. 9). Likewise, the destruction of Iron Age Khirbet Qeiyafa left hundreds of early 10th-century vessels on the floors of buildings (Garfĳinkel, Ganor and Hasel 2014). At other sites experiencing intensive military conflict, weapons, armor, and other material culture could have been left behind. Ussishkin convincingly demonstrated that the hundreds of sling stones, arrowheads, pieces of plate mail, and the mass burial of 1500 people found at Lachish during the British excavations, coupled with the remains of a siege ramp, seemed to correlate with the reliefs and annals of Sennacherib and the biblical accounts describing his attack against the city during the 8th century (Ussishkin 1980; 1982; 1984; 2004). This is being confĳirmed in the Fourth Expedition to Lachish, in which we are discovering piles of sling stones, arrowheads, and other weapons in the destruction debris of Level III. C. Burning/Conflagration Perhaps the most common archaeological destruction correlate is conflagration. But it is important to remember two important facts when dealing with a burned destruction horizon. First, a city may be partially or completely destroyed without being burned. Second, a burned layer over parts or all of an archaeological site does not necessarily indicate military activity, but may indicate any number of causes completely unrelated to warfare. It is important to address the extent and focus of conflagration. It could be that a fĳire was caused by accident. Carol Meyers (1978) has even suggested the use of fĳire to exterminate certain types of diseases. If military activity is being considered and other correlates seem to indicate such an inference, it is imperative to assess the historical correlates present in texts and iconography before relationships are assumed. Content of Destruction The content of destruction refers to the destruction of the life-support system of the enemy. Are the defensive structures destroyed, or tents, water, and the fĳields, orchards, and crops of the enemy confĳiscated or destroyed as well? The main emphasis here includes the orchards and fĳields of the enemy. This can only be addressed from a historical perspective, since little or no evidence of a destroyed fĳield would remain archaeologically. The Egyptians, Hittites, Assyri- ans, and others were known to destroy grain and orchards. In the campaign of Thutmose III against the cities of Tunip and Artada, the text states, “Now his The Archaeology of Destruction 215 majesty destroyed the town of Ardata with its grain (it). All its fruit trees were cut down” (Fifth Campaign; Pritchard 1969: 239). The text afffĳirms the same action at the town of Kadesh (Sixth Campaign; Pritchard 1969: 239). In the Ten Year Annals of Muršilli II, the Hittite king commands his infantry to advance against the city of Nuhašše: “Go and destroy their grain and besiege their city” (Beal 2000: 89). The Assyrians repeatedly refer in their annals and reliefs to the destruction of orchards and grain. In this relief we see the system- atic cutting down of orchards. The city of Dilbat is not mentioned in Sennach- erib’s annals, but its vivid depiction in Room III of Sennacherib’s Southwest Palace is the most graphic example of the destruction of fruit trees (Russell 1991: 153; cf. 154, Fig. 78; cf. Barnett, Bleibtreu and Turner 1998: Pl. 49). In this scene there is clear evidence that the city has been defeated. A line of soldiers in the lowest register are carrying offf the spoils. Assyrians are shown in the towers of the city. Behind the city and in the upper register the Assyrians, working in pairs, are shown cutting down the date palms. The Assyrian records are consistent in depicting this destruction of fruit trees either after the city has been defeated or when defeat seems impossible (Bleibtreu 1989; Cole 1997; Hasel 2005). Steven Cole (1997: 92) suggests the following reasons for this action: (1) as a punishment for rebelling against Assyria; (2) the feeding of the Assyrian armies; or (3) as a reprisal for an unconquered city. Continuity and Discontinuity This leads to a fĳinal consideration, the efffect of destruction on the inhabitants and the continuity of life at a given site. A number of questions are important in this regard. First, is the site abandoned or reoccupied? Is there a noticeable gap between the destruction of a site and its subsequent occupation? Often a long abandonment indicates a very signifĳicant event that has major reper- cussions on the population of the site (i.e., loss of life or modes of subsistence, depopulation by captivity, etc.). At other times an immediate rebuilding may indicate minor adverse efffects. Second, what is the scale of subsequent occupation? Is all of the site reoccupied or only parts of it? Are all the buildings that have been destroyed rebuilt (cultic, administrative, or domestic structures)? This may indicate that life continued together with previous religious, political, and economic stability. If small-scale reoccupation occurs, it may be inferred that the disruption was signifĳicant. Third, what was the degree of cultural continuity/discontinuity present in the reoccupation? Were buildings reconstructed in their original lines with little change? Or were there major changes in the spatial plans and organization of 216 Michael G. Hasel the site? Are there distinctive elements in the material culture that can be dis- tinguished from previous strata, or is the material culture continuous with few changes? These are basic questions that should be addressed in regard to the archaeological data and might aid in inferring both causes for the destruction and identifĳication of the subsequent cultures that occupy the site. Conclusion Together these categories of questions for developing archaeological and historical correlates of destruction aim at providing a model for assessing and identifying natural and cultural processes causing destructive activity. The investigation of these sources should produce signifĳicant results that provide paradigms for assessing geopolitical, accidental, and natural events for which specifĳic causative factors may be inferred. These agents of causation may include cultural formation processes such as warfare, accident, abandonment, rebuilding, etc., or natural formation processes including earthquakes and storms. Given the frequency of the phenomenon of destruction in the archaeological record, especially at multi-period sites in the southern Levant, and its crucial role in chronological and historical inferences, it is imperative that archaeologists and historians become more intentional in seeking to understand, assess, and evaluate the archaeology of destruction. Given the fact that numerous destruction horizons have become chronological anchors for correlating material culture with the rise and fall of cultures, it is crucial that we trace the causes and efffects of destructive behavior in archaeological contexts in comparison with all contemporaneous historical sources, both textual and iconographic. For if we are to assume the responsibility of reconstructing the past our concerted effforts must intentionally synthesize all lines of evidence for an integrative and constructive approach based on the most sophisticated archaeological and historical resources available today. Acknowledgments This essay is dedicated to my esteemed colleague Yossi Garfĳinkel. We began our journey together as doctoral students in the 1990s at Tel Miqne-Ekron, where we led out together in the excavations of Field IV Lower, and it has been a distinct privilege to continue our directing relationship at Khirbet Qeiyafa and Lachish. This volume is a testimony to a man whose contributions have been exemplary and vast. May our lives continue to intermingle with the ruin and destruction of the past for many years to come. The Archaeology of Destruction 217

Notes 5. Military activity is certainly not the only cause for destruction or discontinuity in the archaeological record. Numerous causative agents exist and may be defĳined as: (1) deliberate acts (warfare, alterations in construction, and razing or burning areas for disease control); (2) natural disasters (fĳires, earthquakes, floods, tidal waves, and volcanoes); (3) accidents (collapse due to poor construction or fĳire); and (4) gradual, long-term degradation (abandonment, robbing, erosion, exposure). Most of these causes have received little attention and all would require comprehensive paradigms based on data from a wide range of sites to establish clear correlates for each type of destruction. 6. The campaign of Shishak has been analyzed from a number of perspectives. For the textual and historical perspectives, see Herrmann 1964; Mazar 1964; Kitchen 1973: 288–293; 2001; 2003; Ahlström 1993; Wilson 2005. 7. For example Noth 1960: 204–216; Bright 1981: 183–228; Herrmann 1981: 131–186; Donner 1984: 185–227; Fritz 1994: 148–165. 8. This was anticipated from the earlier critical works of Soggin (1984: 41–85) and Liv- erani (1980: 9–31). In recent years the challenge to the biblical view of the United Monarchy was led by continental and British scholars with works that include: Davies 1992; Thompson 1992; Lemche 1993; Gelinas 1995; essays in Grabbe 1997; Pfoh 2009. For critiques of these positions, see Dever 1995; 1999; Knoppers 1997; Garfĳinkel 2011. 9. For the traditional date of the destruction of the Phase II gate correlated with Shishak (Shoshenq I), see Dever, Lance and Wright 1970: 6; Dever et al. 1971: 117; Dever 1986; 1993: 35; Holladay 1990: 30–33; Younker 1991. 10. The placement of Near Eastern archaeology within the category of “historical archaeology” is strictly from the viewpoint that from the Bronze and Iron Ages written lan- guage was an integral part of the cultural milieu of the region. Those texts pertinent to the discussion must be admitted as evidence evaluated alongside archaeological data as outlined in studies dealing with this discipline. For the legitimacy of such inquiry within anthropological research, see Deagan 1982; Kepecs 1997; Levy 2010. 11. On the unreliability of toponym lists, especially during the reign of Ramses II, see Spalinger 1979; Noth 1941:41–48; for Amenhotep II, Horn 1953: 202; Aḥituv 1984; and the general cautionary notes of Kitchen (2009). 12. “Inference” has received wide discussion in the literature of anthropological approaches to archaeology, especially since the “coming of age” during the heyday of processual archaeology in the 1960s and 1970s. Several important studies include: Salmon 1966; Watson 1976; Sullivan 1978; Kelley and Hanen 1988. 13. For general studies on the “Battle of Kadesh,” see Faulkner 1958; Gardiner 1960; Goedicke 1985; for recent translations, see Lichtheim 1976; Kitchen 2000. 14. The outcome of the battle is a matter of intense debate. There are those who doubt the historical veracity of the texts altogether (Otto 1953: 177; Helck 1971: 197). Some take the position that Ramses II changed an ambush and possibly an overwhelming defeat into a respectable draw (Wilson 1951: 246; Hayes 1959: 339; Desroches-Noble- court 1976: xxiv; Hornung 1978: 104; Kitchen 1982: 62), while others see these accounts as political propaganda to cover up Egypt’s defeat by the Hittite king Muwatalliš (Helck 1968: 185; Beckerath 1971: 43; Simpson and Hallo 1971: 279; Mayer and May- 218 Michael G. Hasel

er-Opifĳicius 1994). However, as I have argued elsewhere, the unity and remarkable detail of the account testifĳies to an actual campaign in Syria (Hasel 1998a: 155; cf. Gardiner 1960: 52; Goedicke 1985: 78; see most recently Hasel 2011). 15. This has been recognized by the excavators who have not sought in their preliminary reports to establish a correlation of destruction with the Egyptians during the 13th century BCE (Parr 1983; 1991). 16. L. E. Patrik (1985: 28) has correctly articulated that the “archaeological record” is “an insufffĳiciently defĳined, catchall concept, that postulates a unifĳied and practically inexhaustible reservoir of archaeological evidence.” 17. On the archaeological assessment of seismic activity, see recently Stiros and Jones 1996; Jones and Siros 2000; Buck 2006; Sintubin 2011; and for specifĳic case studies: in Italy, Frölich and Jacobelli 1995; in Greece, Jusseret 2014; in Israel, Karcz and Kafri 1978; 1981; Dever 1992; Hasel 1992; Austin, Franz and Frost 2000; in Jordan: el-Isa 1985; Russell 1980; Thomas, Niemi and Parker 2007.

References Aḥituv, S. 1984 Canaanite Toponyms in Ancient Egyptian Documents, Leiden and Jerusa- lem Ahlström, G. W. 1993 Pharaoh Shoshenq’s Campaign to Palestine, in Lemaire, A. and Otzen, B. (eds.), History and Traditions of Early Israel: Studies Presented to Eduard Nielsen, May 8th 1993 (VT Supplements 50), Leiden: 1–16 Arubas, B., Foerster, G. and Tsafrir, Y. 2008 Beth-Shean: The Hellenistic to Early Islamic Periods at the Foot of the Mound, The Hebrew University Excavations, in E. Stern (ed.), New Ency- clopedia for Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land: Supplementary Volume, Jerusalem: 1636–1641 Austin, S. A., Franz, G. W. and Frost, E. G. 2000 Amos’ Earthquake: An Extraordinary Middle East Seismic Event, Inter- national Geology Review 42/7: 657–671 Barnett, R. D., Bleibtreu, E. and Turner, G. 1998 Sculptures from the Southwest Palace of Sennacherib at Nineveh, 2 vols., London Beal, R. H. 2000 The Ten Year Annals of Great King Muršili II of Hatti, in Hallo and Younger 2000: 82–90 Beckerath, J. von 1971 Abriss der Geschichte des Alten Ägypten, Munich The Archaeology of Destruction 219

Ben-Tor, A. 2000 Hazor and the Chronology of Northern Israel: A Reply to Israel Finkelstein, BASOR 317: 9–15 Ben-Tor, A. and Ben-Ami, D. 1998 Hazor and the Archaeology of the Tenth Century B.C.E., IEJ 48/1–2: 1–37 Bleibtreu, E. 1989 Zerstörung der Umwelt durch Bäumefällen und Dezimierung des Löwen- bestandes un Mesopotamien, in Scholz, B. (ed.), Der orientalische Mensch und seine Beziehungen zur Umwelt. Beiträge zum 2. Grazer Morgenlän- dischen Symposion (2–5. März 1989) (Grazer Morgenländische Studien 2), Graz: 219–233 Borger, R. 1974–77 Textkritisches zur Prisma-Inschrift Tiglatpileser’s I, Archiv für Orient- forschung 25: 161–165 1979 Babylonische-assyrische Lesestücke (Analecta Orientalis 54), Rome 1984 Historische Texte in Akkadischer Sprache aus Babylonien and Assyrien, in Kaiser, O. (ed.), Rechts- und Wirtschaftsurkunden Historisch-chronolo- gische Texte (Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments 1), Gütersloh: 354–410 Bright, J. 1981 A History of Israel, 3rd ed., Philadelphia, PA Buck, V. 2006 Archaeoseismology in the Atalanti Region, Central Mainland, Greece: Theories, Methods and Practice (BAR International Series 1552), Oxford Budge, E. A. W. and King, L. W. 1902 Annals of the Kings of Assyria, London Cameron, C.M and Tomka, S. A. 1993 (eds.), Abandonment of Settlements and Regions: Ethnoarchaeological and Archaeological Approaches, Cambridge Cogan, M. 2000 Sennacherib: The Capture and Destruction of Babylon, in Hallo and Younger 2000: 305 Cole, S. W. 1997 The Destruction of Orchards in Assyrian Warfare, in Parpola, S. and Whiting, R. M. (eds.), Assyria 1995: Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Helsinki, September 7–11, 1995, Helsinki: 29–40 220 Michael G. Hasel

Davies, P. R. 1992 In Search of ‘Ancient Israel’, Shefffĳield Deagan, K. 1982 Avenues of Inquiry in Historical Archaeology, Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 5: 151–177 Desroches-Noblecourt, C. 1976 Ramsès le Grand, Paris Dever, W. G. 1986 Late Bronze Age and Solomonic Defenses: New Evidence, BASOR 262: 9–34 1992 A Case-Study in Biblical Archaeology: The Earthquake of ca. 760 BCE, EI 23: 27*–35* 1993 Further Evidence on the Date of the Outer Wall at Gezer, BASOR 289: 33–54 1995 “Will the Real Israel Please Stand Up?” Archaeology and Israelite Histo- riography: Part I, BASOR 297: 61–80 1999 Histories and Nonhistories of Ancient Israel, BASOR 316: 89–105 Dever, W. G., Lance, H. D. and Wright, G. E. 1970 Gezer I. Preliminary Report of the 1966–70 Seasons, Jerusalem Dever, W. G., Lance, H. D., Bullard, R. G. Cole, D. P., Furshpan, A. M., Holladay, J. S. Jr., Seger, J. D. and Wright, R. B. 1971 Further Excavations at Gezer, 1967–1971, BA 34: 94–132 Donner, H. 1984 Geschichte des Volkes Israel und seiner Nachbarn im Grundzügen, I, Göt- tingen Dothan, T. 1998 Initial Philistine Settlement: From Migration to Coexistence, in Gitin, Mazar and Stern 1998: 148–161 Faulkner, R. O. 1958 The Battle of Kadesh, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Insti- tuts, Kairo 16: 93–111 Finkelstein, I. 1996 The Archaeology of the United Monarchy: An Alternative View, Levant 28: 177–187 1998 Discussion, in Gitin, Mazar and Stern 1998: 185 1999 Hazor and the North in the Iron Age: A Low Chronology Perspective, BASOR 314: 55–70 The Archaeology of Destruction 221

2000 Hazor XII–XI with an Addendum on Ben-Tor’s Dating of Hazor X–VII, TA 27/2: 231–247 2002 The Campaign of Shoshenq I to Palestine, ZDPV 118: 109–135 Forsberg, S. 1995 Near Eastern Destruction Datings as Sources for Greek and Near Eastern Iron Age Chronology: Archaeological and Historical Studies, The Cases of Samaria (722 B.C.) and Tursus (696 B.C.), Uppsala Friesem, D. E., Karkanas, P., Tsartsidou, G. and Shahack-Gross, R. 2014a Sedimentary Processes Involved in Mud Brick Degradation in Temperate Environments: A Micromorphological Approach in an Ethnoarchaeolog- ical Context in Northern Greece, JAS 41: 556–567 Friesem, D. E., Tsartsidou, G., Karkanas, P. and Shahack-Gross, R. 2014b Where are the Roofs? A Geo-ethnoarchaeological Study of Mud Brick Structures and Their Collapse Processes, Focusing on the Identifĳication of Roofs, Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 6: 73–92 Fritz, V. 1994 An Introduction to Biblical Archaeology (JSOT Supplement Series 172), Shefffĳield Frölich, T. and Jacobelli, L. 1995 (eds.), Archäologie und Seismologie: La regione Vesuviana dal 62 al 79 d.c. Problemi Archeologici e sismologici, Munich Gardiner, A. H. 1960 The Kadesh Inscriptions of Ramesses II, Oxford Garfĳinkel, Y. 2011 The Birth and Death of Biblical Minimalism, BAR 37/3: 46–53, 78 Garfĳinkel, Y., Ganor, S. and Hasel, M. G. 2014 Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 2, Excavation Report 2009–2013: Stratigraphy and Architecture (Areas B, C, D, E), ed. M. G. Klingbeil, Jerusalem Gelinas, M. M. 1995 United Monarchy – Divided Monarchy: Fact or Fiction? in Holloway, S. W. and Handy, L. K. (eds.), The Pitcher is Broken: Memorial Essays for Gösta Ahlström, Shefffĳield: 227–237 Gitin, S. 1998 Philistia in Transition: The Tenth Century BCE and Beyond, in Gitin, Mazar and Stern 1998: 162–183 Gitin, S., Mazar, A. and Stern E. 1998 (eds.), Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE in Honor of Trude Dothan, Jerusalem 222 Michael G. Hasel

Goedicke, H. 1985 (ed.), Perspectives on the Battle of Kadesh, Baltimore Grabbe, L. L. 1997 (ed.), Can a ‘History of Israel’ Be Written? (JSOT Supplement Series 245), Shefffĳield Grayson, A. K. 1976 Assyrian Royal Inscriptions, Vol. 2, Wiesbaden Hasel, M. G. 1992 New Early Eighth-Century B.C. Earthquake Evidence at Tel Gezer: Archaeo- logical, Geological, and Literary Indications and Correlations (unpublished MA thesis, Andrews University), Berrien Springs, MI 1998a Domination and Resistance: Egyptian Military Activity in the Southern Levant, 1300–1185 BC, Leiden 1998b A Textual and Iconographic Note on prt and mnt in Egyptian Military Accounts, Göttinger Miszellen 167: 61–71 2005 Military Practice and Polemic: Israel’s Laws of Warfare in Near Eastern Perspective, Berrien Springs, MI 2011 The Battle of Kadesh: Identifying New Kingdom Polities, Places, and Peoples in Canaan and Syria, in Bar, S., Kahn, D. and Shirley, J. J. (eds.), Egypt, Canaan and Israel: History, Imperialism, Ideology and Literature. Proceedings of a Conference at the University of Haifa, 3–7 May 2009 (Cul- ture and History of the Ancient Near East 52), Leiden: 65–86 Hallo, W. W. and Younger, K. L. 2000 (eds.), The Context of Scripture. Vol. II: Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World, Leiden Hassan, F. A. 1978 Sediments in Archaeology: Methods and Implications for Palaeoenviron- mental and Cultural Analysis, Journal of Field Archaeology 5/2: 197–213 Hayes, W. C. 1959 The Scepter of Egypt, Part 2. The Hyksos Period and the New Kingdom (1675–1080 B.C.), New York, NY Helck, W. 1968 Geschichte dea Alten Ägypten (Handbuch der Orientalistik 1), Leiden 1971 Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr., 2nd ed., Wiesbaden Herrmann, S. 1964 Operation Pharao Schoschenks I, im östlichen Ephraim, ZDPV 80: 55–79 1981 A History of Israel in Old Testament Times, Philadelphia, PA The Archaeology of Destruction 223

Holladay, J. S. 1990 Red Slip, Burnish, and the Solomonic Gateway at Gezer, BASOR 277–278: 23–70 Horn, S. H. 1953 Jericho in the Topographical List of Ramses II, JNES 12: 201–203 Hornung, E. 1978 Grundzüge der ägyptischen Geschichte, 2nd ed., Darmstadt el-Isa, Z. H. 1985 Earthquake Studies of Some Archaeological Sites in Jordan, in Hadidi, A. (ed.), Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan II, London: 229–235 Jones, R. E. and Stiros, S. C. 2000 The Advent of Archaeoseismology in the Mediterranean, in McGuire, W. J., Grifffĳiths, D. R., Hancock, P. L. and Stewart, I. S. (eds.),The Archae- ology of Geological Catastrophes (Geological Society of London Special Publications 171), London: 25–32 Jusseret, S. 2014 Contextualizing the Birth of Mediterranean Archaeoseismology, Antiq- uity 88: 964–974 Karcz, I. and Kafri, U. 1978 Evaluation of Supposed Archaeoseismic Damage in Israel, JAS 5: 237–253 1981 Studies in Archaeoseismicity of Israel: Hisham’s Palace, Jericho, Journal of Earth Sciences 30: 12–23 Kelley, J. H. and Hanen, M. P. 1988 Archaeology and the Methodology of Science, Albuquerque, NM Kepecs, S. 1997 Introduction to New Approaches in Combining Archaeological and His- torical Record, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 4: 193–198 Kinnier Wilson, J. V. 1962 The Kurba’il Statue of Shalmaneser III, Iraq 24/2: 90–115 Kitchen, K. A. 1973 The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 B.C.), Warminster 1982 Pharaoh Triumphant: The Life and Times of Ramesses II, Warminster 2000 The Battle of Qadesh – The Poem, or Literary Record, in Hallo and Younger 2000: 32–38 2001 The Shoshenqs of Egypt and Palestine, JSOT 25: 3–12 2003 Egyptian Interventions in the Levant in Iron Age II, in Dever, W. G. and Gitin, S. (eds.), Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors from the Late Bronze Age through 224 Michael G. Hasel

Roman Palaestina. Proceedings of the Centennial Symposium, W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research and American Schools of Oriental Research, Jerusalem, May 29–May 31, 2000, Winona Lake, IN: 113–132 2009 Egyptian New-Kingdom Topographical Lists: An Historical Resource with ‘Literary’ Histories, in Brand, P. (ed.), Causing His Name to Live: Studies in Egyptian Epigraphy and History in Memory of William J. Murnane (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 37), Leiden: 129–135 Knoppers, G. N. 1997 The Vanishing Solomon: The Disappearance of the United Monarchy from Recent Histories of Israel, JBL 116/1: 19–44 Lemche, N.-P. 1993 The Old Testament – A Hellenistic Book? Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 7: 163–193 Levy, T. E. 2010 (ed.), Historical Biblical Archaeology and the Future: The New Pragmatism, London Levy, T. E. and Holl, A. F. C. 1995 Social Change and the Archaeology of the Holy Land, in Levy, T. E. (ed.), The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, Leicester: 2–8 Lichtheim, M. 1976 Ancient Egyptian Literature, Vol. 2: The New Kingdom, Berkeley, CA Liverani, M. 1980 Le ‘origini’ d’Israele progetto irrealizzible di ricerca etnogenetica, Rivisti Biblica 28: 9–31 Luckenbill, D. D. 1926–27 Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylon, 2 vols, Chicago, IL Mayer, E. and Mayer-Opifĳicius, R. 1994 Die Schlacht bei Qadeš. Der Versuch einer neuen Rekonstruktion, Ugarit– Forschungen 26: 321–368 Mazar, A. 1997 Iron Age Chronology: A Reply to I. Finkelstein, Levant 29: 157–167 Mazar, B. 1964 The Campaign of Pharaoh Shishak to Palestine, in Volume du Congrès International pour l’Etude de l’Ancien Testament, Strasbourg 1956 (Sup- plement to Vetus Testamentum 4), Leiden: 57–66 Meyers, C. 1978 The Roots of Restriction: Women in Early Israel, BA 41/3: 91–103 The Archaeology of Destruction 225

Michel, E. 1949 Die Aššur-Texte Salmanassars III. (858–824), 18–25. Text (Tfl. 12–13): 3. Fortsetzung, Welt des Orients 1/3: 255–271 1954 Die Aššur-Texte Salmanassars III. (858–824), 32. Text (Tfl. 2–4): 6. Fort- setzung, Welt des Orients 2/1: 38–39 Nakhai, B. A. 2001 Archaeology and the Religions of Canaan and Israel (ASOR Books 7), Bos- ton, MA Nash, D. T. and Petraglia, M. D. 1987 (eds.), Natural Formation Processes and the Archaeological Record (BAR International Series 352), Oxford Noth, M. 1941 Die Wege der Pharaonenheere in Palästina und Syrien, ZDPV 64: 39–74 1960 The History of Israel, 2nd ed., London Otto, E. 1953 Ägypten. Der Weg des Pharaonreiches, 4th ed., Stuttgart Parr, P. J. 1983 The Tell Nebi Mend Project, Les Annales Archéologique Arabes Syriennes 33/2: 99–117 1991 The Tell Nebi Mend Project, Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum 4: 78–85 Patrik, L. E. 1985 Is there an Archaeological Record? in Schifffer, M. B. (ed.),Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 8, New York, NY: 27–62 Pfoh, E. 2009 The Emergence of Israel in Ancient Palestine: Historical and Anthropologic al Perspectives, London Pritchard, J. B. 1969 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, Princeton, NJ Read, D. W. and LeBlanc, S. A. 1978 Descriptive Statements, Covering Laws, and Theories in Archaeology, Current Anthropology 19/2: 307–335 Redford, D. B. 1982 A Bronze Age Itinerary in Transjordan (nos. 89–101 of Thutmose III’s List of Asiatic Toponyms), Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 12: 55–74 226 Michael G. Hasel

Renfrew, C. 1976 Archaeology and the Earth Sciences, in Davidson, D. A. and Shackley, M. L. (eds.), Geoarchaeology: Earth Science and the Past, London: 1–5 1980 The Great Tradition versus the Great Divide: Archaeology as Anthropol- ogy?, American Journal of Archaeology 84: 287–298 Rosen, A. M. 1986 Cities of Clay: The Geoarchaeology of Tells, Chicago, IL Russell, J. M. 1991 Sennacherib’s Palace Without Rival at Nineveh, Chicago, IL Russell, K. W. 1980 The Earthquake of May 19, A.D. 363, BASOR 238: 47–64 Salmon, W. C. 1966 The Foundations of Scientifĳic Inference, Pittsburgh, PA Schifffer, M. B. 1983 Toward the Identifĳication of Formation Processes,American Antiquity 48/4: 675–706 1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record, Albuquerque, NM 1988 The Structure of Archaeological Theory, American Antiquity 53/3: 461–485 Simpson, W. K. and Hallo, W. W. 1971 The Ancient Near East: A History, New York, NY Sintubin, M. 2011 Archaeoseismology: Past, Present and Future, Quaternary International 242: 4–10 Soggin, J. A. 1984 A History of Israel: From the Beginnings to the Bar Kochba Revolt, AD 135, London Spalinger, A. J. 1979 Traces of the Early Career of Ramses II, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 38/4: 271–286 Stager, L. E. 1996a Ashkelon and the Archaeology of Destruction: Kislev 604 BCE, EI 25: 61*–74* 1996b The Fury of Babylon: Ashkelon and the Archaeology of Destruction, BAR 22/1: 56–69, 76–77 Staski, E. 2000 Archaeological Sites, Formation Processes, in Ellis, L. (ed.), Archaeological Method and Theory: An Encyclopedia, New York, NY: 39–44 The Archaeology of Destruction 227

Stein, J. K. and Farrand, W. R. 1985 (eds.), Archaeological Sediments in Context, Orono, ME Stevenson, M. G. 1982 Toward an Understanding of Site Abandonment Behavior: Evidence from Historic Mining Camps in the Southwest Yukon, Journal of Anthropolog- ical Archaeology 1/3: 237–265 Stiros, S. and Jones, R. 1996 (eds.), Archaeoseismicity, Oxford Sullivan, A. P. 1978 Inference and Evidence in Archaeology: A Discussion of the Conceptual Problems, in Schifffer, M. B. (ed.),Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory I, New York, NY: 183–222 Tadmor, H. 1994 The Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III, King of Assyria, Jerusalem Thomas, R., Niemi, T. M. and Parker, S. T. 2007 Structural Damage from Earthquakes in the Second–Ninth Centuries at the Archaeological Site of Aila in Aqaba, Jordan, BASOR 346: 59–77 Thompson, T. L. 1992 Early History of the Israelite People: From the Written and Archaeological Sources, Leiden Trigger, B. 1984 Archaeology at the Crossroads: What’s New? Annual Review of Anthro- pology 13: 275–300 Ussishkin, D. 1980 The ‘Lachish Reliefs’ and the City of Lachish, IEJ 30/3–4: 174–195 1982 The Conquest of Lachish by Sennacherib, Tel Aviv 1984 Defensive Judean Counter-Ramp Found at Lachish in 1983 Season, BAR 10/2: 66–73 2004 The Renewed Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994) (Tel Aviv University Intitute of Archaeology Monograph Series 22), Tel Aviv Vaughn, A. G. 1999 Theology, History, and Archaeology in the Chronicler’s Account of Hezekiah, Atlanta, GA Vencl, Sl. 1984 War and Warfare in Archaeology, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 3/2: 116–132 228 Michael G. Hasel

Watson, R. A. 1976 Inference in Archaeology, American Antiquity 41: 58–66 Weidner, E. F. 1923 Die Annalen Königs Aššurdân II. von Assyrien, Archiv für Orientforschung 3: 151–161 1968–69 Bruckstücke assyrischer Königsinschriften, Archiv für Orientforschung 22: 75–77 Wilson, J. A. 1951 The Culture of Ancient Egypt, Chicago, IL Wilson, K. A. 2005 The Campaign of Pharaoh Shoshenq I into Palestine (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2, Reihe 9), Tübingen Wiseman, D. J. 1958 Historical Records of Assyria and Babylonia, in Thomas, D. W. (ed.), Doc- uments from Old Testament Times, Edinburgh: 46–83 Wreszinski, W. 1935 Atlas zur altägyptischen Kutlurgeschichte, 2, Leipzig Yofffee, N. 1982 Social History and Historical Method in the Late Old Babylonian Period, JAOS 102/2: 347–353 Younger, K. L. Jr. 1990 Ancient Conquest Accounts: A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical History Writing (JSOT Supplement Series 98), Shefffĳield Younker, R. W. 1991 A Preliminary Report of the 1990 Season at Tel Gezer: Excavations of the ‘Outer Wall’ and ‘Solomonic’ Gateway, Andrews University Seminary Studies 29: 19–60 Zettler, R. L. 1996 Written Documents as Excavated Artifacts and the Holistic Interpre- tation of the Mesopotamian Archaeological Record, in Cooper, J. S. and Schwartz, G. M. (eds.), The Study of the Ancient Near East in the Twenty-First Century: The William Foxwell Albright Centennial Conference, Winona Lake, IN: 81–101 Ziadeh-Seely, G. 1999 Abandonment and Site Formation Processes: An Ethnographic and Archaeological Study, in Kapitan, T. (ed.), Archaeology, History and Culture in Palestine and the Near East: Essays in Memory of A. E. Glock, Atlanta, GA: 127–150