hazor, jokneam and megiddo in the tenth century b.c.e
TRANSCRIPT
HAZOR, JOKNEAM AND MEGIDDO IN THETENTH CENTURY B.C.E.
Anabel Zarzeki-Peleg1
Introduction
Finkelstein has recently published two articles in which he draws into questionthe accepted foundations of the relative chronology of the Iron Age (Finkelstein1995; 1996). The two articles are, in fact, a continuation and development of thesame line of thinking which argues for the Low Chronology, some 70 years laterthan the chronology accepted in the research of recent years.
These claims have far-reaching implications for the understanding of thedevelopment of prominent sites in Israel and the history of the period.Presented here is an analysis of the ceramic correlation between three sites innorthern Israel: Jokneam, Megiddo and Hazor. This research is partly basedon unpublished material from Jokneam and Megiddo (from the Yadinexpedition), of which the author is participating in their processing andpreparation for final publication.
In his latest article, Finkelstein concentrates mainly on the occupational strataattributed to the end of Iron I, beginning of Iron IT, dated until now to the 11th-9thcenturies B.C.E. (Finkelstein 1996:180 ff.). Rightly, he states that it is difficult tobridge the 450-year gap between the two anchors of absolute chronology of the IronAge: the reign of Ramses III and the Assyrian campaign against the Kingdom ofIsrael and Judah (ibid.: 179-180).
Concerning northern Israel, Finkelstein claims that "the identification of thestrata of the United Monarchy in the northern part of the country depends first andforemost on two sites: Megiddo and Jezreel" (Finkelstein 1996:182). In his opinionMegiddo does not provide any reliable chronological anchor between Stratum VIlA(ca. 1135 B.C.E.) and the Assyrian city of the late 8th and early 7th century B.C.E.(Stratum III), and the single key to dating the Megiddo strata is the Philistinepottery. Finkelstein believes that the Philistine pottery from Megiddo does notoriginate in Stratum VIA, but in VIE, and that "the Philistine pottery" from StratumVIA comprises mainly degenerated forms, similar to, and even later than Stratum Xat Tell Qasileh (ibid.). Megiddo VIE he dates to the 11th-10th century B.C.E., andStratum VIA to the mid-10th century.B.C.E., the destruction of which he attributes
This article is a revised version of the appendix from my MA thesis, carried out under thesupervision of Prof. A. Ben-Tor, Hebrew University, Jerusalem. I wish to thank Prof. Ben-Tor for the time he invested in reading my work and his comments, and also for allowingme to publish here the material from the excavations at Jokneam. The material wastranslated from the Hebrew by S. Sadeh.
258
Zarzeki-Peleg: Hazor, Jokneam and Megiddo in the 10th Century B.C.E.
to the campaign of Shishak (ibid.:182-l83). Stratum VB Finkelstein dates to ca.900 B.C.E., Stratum VA-IVB to the 9th century B.C.E., and Stratum IVA to thelate 9th century and the first half of the 8th century B.C.E. In Finkelstein's opinionthis division is more compatible with the "dense" stratigraphy at Hazor and Samaria(ibid.: 183).2
As opposed to the changes suggested by Finkelstein in the chronology ofMegiddo, he suggests no adjustments in the chronology as put forth by theexcavators of Hazor (Finkelstein 1996:183), even though it was established mainlyon the basis of comparison with Megiddo (see Aharoni and Amiran 1958).Finkelstein does not discuss Hazar, as he claims the material from Hazor is verydifferent to that of the Jezreel Valley sites and it is therefore difficult to reach clearconclusions concerning the chronological relationship between the Hazor strata andthose of Megiddo and Jezreel (Finkelstein 1996:183).
However, Hazar has great significance in the discussion of the chronologyof the United Monarchy due to its historical importance and political status, aswell as its many strata (including sub-strata) and the ceramic assemblagesfound in the excavations (see Yadin, et at. 1958; 1960; 1961; 1989; Ben-Torand Rubiato 1996:10). Therefore, despite regional differences, it is necessaryto re-analyse the/ chronological relationship between the ceramic repertoirefrom Hazor and those from the Jezreel Valley. The importance of Jokneamlies in the rich stratigraphical sequence accompanied by ceramic assemblages(see Table 1; Ben-Tor, et at. 1987:5-8; Ben-Tor 1992:807-809), unlike thesituation at Jezreel. Although the date of the fortress at Jezreel is based onlogical and apparently well established deductions, it should be taken intoconsideration that the remains revealed are only segmentary (some uncoveredfollowing bulldozing activities), that the building is mainly reconstructedbased on robbed foundation trenches, and that some of the ceramicassemblages originate in fills or levels where the relationship to the casematewall is unclear (Ussishkin and Woodhead 1992:19-20, 23, etc.; note thecaution of Zimhoni 1992:57,61-62,66).
The correlation between Jokneam and Megiddo during the period underdiscussion is first presented below; the two sites are very similar both in materialculture as well as settlement process. Following, the pottery of Hazor Xb-IXa ofArea A of the Yadin expeditiOliwill be compared with that of Jokneam (which
Megiddo Stratum VIA is usually dated to the period between the second half of the IIthcentury and the end of the 11th centurylbeginning of the 10th century B.C.E., and MegiddoVA-IVB to the 10th century B.C.E. (see Yadin 1961; 1972:150 ff; for adjustment of thestratigraphy and chronology in the area of the gate see Yadin 1970:51; Ussishkin 1980:6-7,17; 1990:73-74; Whitman 1990:15, 19; and others). Aharoni dated Stratum VIA up to themid-II th century, Stratum V A to the reign of David, and Stratum IVB - including the stables,six-entry gate and Wall 325 to the reign of Solomon (Aharoni 1972:307-308; 1974).
259
Tel Aviv 24 (1997)
has already undergone preliminary quantitative analysis with reference to thestratigraphy sequence), to arrive at chronological conclusions.3
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF THE STRATA UNDER DISCUSSIONFROM JOKNEAM*
StratumXXIXIIA-BXIIIXIVXVXVIXVII
XVIIIA-B
XIX
PeriodPersianIron IIIIron III-IIIron IIIron IIIron IIIron II-IIron I
Iron IOccupation GapLBII
RemarksUnfortified settlementPoor settlement built over earlier ruinsCity with double wallPitsCity with casemate wallUnfortified settlementPoor settlement'Oil Maker's House', settlement destroyed byconflagrationUnfortified settlement
Unfortified settlement; destruction
* From Ben-Tor 1992:811.
JOKNEAM-MEGIDDO
The excavations at Jokneam took place during the years 1977-1988 as part of theJokneam Regional Project directed by Ben-Tor (1992, and further bibliography there).A number ofIron Age levels were uncovered (Strata XVIII-Xl), dating to the 12th-7thcenturies B.C.E. (see Fig. 1 and Table 1). Four stratigraphical anchors stand out in thesequence at Iron Age Jokneam: two destruction levels, Strata XIX and xvn, the earlierof which is attributed to the end of the Late Bronze Age - beginning of the Iron Age,the later one is dated to the end of the 11th century B.c.E. Strata XIV and XII,presenting well planned city layouts including fortification systems, water supplysystems, domestic quarters and a network of roads and open spaces, comprise the tworemaining stratigraphical anchors. Stratum XIV has a casemate wall, and Stratum XII a'corridor' wall (double wall). These remains are attributed to the 10th and 9th-8thcenturies B.C.E. respectively.
In most of the areas excavated in depth, the distinctive signs of the twodestructions which comprise the earlier stratigraphical anchors were 'recognized:
Included here is material from Jokneam which is in the final stages of processing and thereforemay require small adjustments in the future. The general typology of Iron Age pottery fromJokneam and preliminary counting was carried out by the author together with Shlomit Cohen,
260
Zarzeki-Peleg: Hazor, Jokneam and Megiddo in the 10th Century B.C.E.
,o
~6N
Sm.
If1/Ii
IIIl
/ \I \
\I \
/ \/ \
/ \/ I
IRON milD AGE ~
IRON l[ AGE IIlmiIIIRON ][ AGE flTIJIlli]IRON I AG E /""':":1LATE BRONZE AGE ~3
Fig. I. Plan of the major Iron Age strata at Jokneam.
261
Tel Aviv 24 (1997)
large piles of mudbrick collapse showing signs of conflagration. Between the twodestruction layers two strata were revealed (Strata XVIII and XVII), containing sub-strata in some places. The earlier remains were built on a fill which hadaccumulated over the ruins of the Late Bronze Age city (Stratum XIX).
As stated, Jokneam Stratum XVII came to an end in a violent destruction andfierce conflagration. On the floors was an abundance of pottery buried beneath acollapse of burnt bricks and stones. The similarity between the ceramic repertoiresof Jokneam Stratum XVII and those of Megiddo Stratum VIA is noteworthy. A fewexamples, some of which are presented in the figures of typological comparisonbetween the two sites (Figs. 2-5), are mentioned here:- rounded bowls with simple, or bent walls (Figs. 2:1; 3:1), carinated bowls withthe carination far from the rim (Figs. 2:2; 3:2), or degenerated carination.- kraters with short shoulders, no neck or handles, which comprise the dominanttype at both sites (Figs. 2:3-4; 3:3-4), kraters with high straight necks and two loophandles (apparently originating in the northern coastal plain - Phoenicia; Jokneam-Ben-Tor 1992: Ph. 603 right; Megiddo - Guy 1938: PI. 69:5).- cooking-pots with thin triangular rim (Figs. 2:6; 3:6) and cooking-jugs withfolded rims (Figs. 2:5; 3:5).- the common storage jar type has an egg-shaped body with a high neck and'ridgenear the rim (Figs. 2:9; 3:9), or a thickened rim with a square or rounded section(Figs. 2:7; 3:7). In addition, another type of storage jar has a conical body and acap-shape base (Figs. 2:8; 3:8).- small storage jars with a spout and low carination, some of them decorated(Loud 1948: PI. 77:12).- various jugs (Figs. 4:1-3; 5:1-3) including 'dipper-jugs' (Figs. 4:3; 5:3), jugsfrom the Bichrome family: 'pilgrim flask jugs' (Figs. 4:2; 5:2) and strainer jugs.- stirrup jars (Figs. 4:4; 5:4), cups and saucers (Figs. 4:5; 5:5).- chalices of various types (Figs.4:7; 5:7), includingexamples with fenestrated stands.- smalllentoid flasks (Figs. 4:6; 5:6) and flasks with spoon-shaped rim (Figs. 4:8;5:8) and others.
Both sites (Jokneam XVIII-XVII, Megiddo VIE-VIA) present a picture of acrowded flourishing settlement which developed over a long period and ended inconflagration at a similar time. The outer margins of the settlements did not survivefor the most part, but it seems that a belt of buildings surrounding the settlementsmay be reconstructed. In some cases new buildings were built with no connection tothe buildings of the earlier level (Jokneam Stratum XVIII, Megiddo VIE). In othercases, new buildings were a direct continuation of earlier structures (renewedbuildings or raised walls, change of location of door, raising of floors, etc.). In suchcases we have divided the stratigraphical sequence at Jokneam into a number ofstages, where the division between the two strata is mostly arbitrary.
262
Zarzeki-Peleg: Hazor, Jokneam and Megiddo in the 10th Century B.C.E.
Ceramic analysis indicates that the material culture, as expressed by the ceramicrepertoires of Jokneam Stratum XVII and Megiddo Stratum VIA, was acontinuation of the Late Bronze Age Canaanite tradition which still existed at theend of Iron 1. Interrelations may be discerned mainly with the northern coastal plain- the area of Phoenicia, as opposed to the southern coastal plain - the area ofPhilistia, or the central hills where evidence of any relations is scarce.Jokneam Stratum XVI contains meager remains with no connected walls, mainlyfloor segments, a tabun, and an installation. From the excavation it appears that tillssettlement was poor, small in area, and short-lived.
To Stratum XV domestic buildings and remains of an agricultural installation areattributed. Until recently, we had assumed that the settlement was unfortified,although it now seems there is a possibility that the casemate wall of Stratum XIVexisted in Stratum XV. From the remains uncovered it appears that the domesticbuildings of Stratum XIV are not a continuation of those of Stratum XV, althoughthey were constructed directly upon the earlier remains.
Jokneam Stratum XIV was a planned city, surrounded by a casemate wall whichis related to, among other things, the water supply system which was accessiblefrom inside the city (the water system has not yet been completely excavated).
It is difficult to distinguish between the ceramic repertoires of Jokneam StrataXV imd XIV, although sometimes quantitative differences are discernible. Anumber of characteristics of these repertoires were noted:- burnished red-slip (sometimes dark red) on bowls, kraters, jugs, etc. (thisdecoration was not in use in Stratum XVIII-XVII; very few examples were foundin Stratum XVI).- examples of the Cypro-Phoenicianfamily (Black-on-Red)first appear (Figs. 6:8; 7:8).- rounded bowls with bent walls (Figs. 6:2; 7:2), shaped rims with rounded orcarinated walls, straight sides with a low carination (Figs. 6:1; 7:1, these latter arean innovation), and others (including Figs. 6:3; 7:3).- kraters with no handles, folded rims with oval section, no neck or short neck(Figs. 6:4; 7:4; the short-necked krater is a new sub-type representing a further stagein the development ofthe krater).- massive cooking-pots with triangular-sectioned rims or slightly concave rims(Figs. 6:5; 7:5), sometimes with an incised letter or other mark (Figs. 6:6; 7:6).- cooking-jugs with globular bodies, high wide straight necks, and usually with anindentation in the inner wall (Figs. 6:7; 7:7).- storage jars with swollen bodies, including 'hippo jars' (Figs. 6:9; 7:9), and others(Figs. 6:10-12; 7:10-12).
The above characteristics are also typical of the ceramic repertoires of MegiddoVB and VA-IVB, although the pottery from VB is less known.
263
2
Tel Aviv 24 (1997)
3
4
6
7
\, .. _\
"" \
'\\
o 10crn.--------Fig, 2, Pottery from Jokneam XVII (for comparison with Megiddo VIA see Fig, 3),
264
Zarzeki-Peleg: Hazar, Jokneam and Megiddo in the 10th Century H.C.E.
3
'\(-132
5
4
6
.'{ ~.-
7
~m. 9
Fig. 3. Pottery from Megiddo VIA, Yadin's Expedition (for comparison with Jokneam XVIIsee Fig. 2).
265
Tel Aviv 24 (1997)
-
:-:
&
4
-
3
5 6
7
I',:::-:~........ /' - --"",
'·'0' \'. :0"II I' •I , I
I' I I
, \ I,
8
10cm.
Fig. 4. Pottery from Jokneam XVII (for comparison with Megiddo VIA see Fig. 5).
266
Zarzeki-Peleg: Hazor, Jokneam and Megiddo in the 10th Century B.C.E .
•
2
•
4
3
5
6
7 10cm. 8
Fig. 5. Pottery from Megiddo VIA, Yadin's Expedition (for comparison with Jokneam XVIIsee Fig. 4).
267
Tel Aviv 24 (1997)
4
r'--' ...- IX::. ~-J.== - '-'-- -'.-':":' -- -- =
/6
5
r /\/l
10cm.
•
7
3
2
8
/ ...~-'.:, t,
•••• o-
j i\.........
.'
(C.:....
11 o tOem.----Fig. 6. Pottery from Jokneam XIV (for comparison with Megiddo V A-IVB see Fig. 7).
268
Zarzeki-Peleg: Hazar, Jokneam and Megiddo in the 10th Century B.C.E.
t
10cm.
•
5
6
8
( )4
2
C --)3
7
o 10cm.--Fig. 7. Pottery from Megiddo VA-IVB, Yadin's Expedition in Palace 6000 (for comparison
with Jokneam XIV see Fig. 6).
269
Tel Aviv 24 (1997)
Bath sites present a cantinuaus stratigraphical sequence (sametimes subdividedinto. stages - Jakneam XV, XIV and Megidda VB, VA-NB) af settlements whichflaurished until their sudden destructian. At bath sites, at least tawards the end afthe sequence, the canstructian af manumental structures can be discerned, albeit afdifferent character. At Jakneam, a massive casemate wall was canstructed (after alang periad - fram the end af the Middle Bronze Age - that the site wasunfartified), and a water supply system. At Megidda, an the ather hand, thesettlement was surraunded by a belt af peripheral buildings, and mast af the royalcanstructian was administrative-palaces and gavernment buildings.
It must be nated that at Jakneam twa thin strata were uncavered cantaining paararchitectural remains, ane priar to.the sequence described abave (Stratum XVI), thesecand subsequent to. it (Stratum XIII) and characterized by many pits. Theirstratigraphicallacatian is also.expressed in the ceramic repertaires. Althaugh manytypes typical to. the repertaires af Jakneam Strata XV and XIV appear, significantdifferences enable us to. define them as transitianal repertaires (far example theappearance af new types, different quantitative relatianships between types ardecarative techniques, etc.).
HAZOR-JOKNEAM
Far the camparisan af the ceramic repertaires af Hazar and Jakneam, the patterywhich ariginated fram buildings where it is pas sible to. fallaw the faur-stagesequence was chasen from Hazar: Xb-IXa (d-a respectively; Yadin, et at. 1961:PIs. CLXXI-CLXXVI; CLXXVIII-CLXXIX; 1989:31 ff.). These buildings areclased units bardered by the public building to. the narth af the cantempararypillared building fram Stratum VIII (Yadin, et at. 1960:6 ff.).4 On the ather hand,apen spaces, streets ar clased units which were in use aver a relatively lang periadaf time with no. clear architectural changes, e.g. the gate, were nat used in thiscamparisan.
This study will attempt to.trace ceramic families, types and sub-types camman to.the repertaires from Hazar Stratum X-IX and Jakneam, in arder to. establish acansistent chronalagical horizan between the twa regians represented here: theJezreel Valley and the Huleh Valley. This camparisan has implicatians beyandthese limited regians, and is af significance to.the entire regian af narthern Israel.
Same 20 ceramic families, types and sub-types were distinguished amang thepattery from the twa sites, including bawls, kraters, storage jars, jugs and juglets(see Figs. 8-13; Tables 2-5). Caoking-pats are nat included due to. the abviaus
4 For a new stratigraphical and ceramic analysis of the pillared building and the publicbuilding to the north of it (Strata VIII-VII) see R. Bonfil, In: Ben-Tor, et ai. 1997: 125 ff.).
270
Zarzeki-Peleg: Hazar, Jokneam and Megiddo in the 10th Century B.C.E.
differences between the two sites (the regional character of cooking-pots is a well-known phenomenon, see Sharon, Yellin and Perlman 1987:232-233).
Bowls (Figs. 8-9)
1) Simple rounded bowl: Hazar Xb. At Jokneam this type is common mainly inStrata XVIII-XVII, a few examples continue to appear until Stratum XIV.2) Bent rounded bowl: Hazor Xa, IXb, IXa. At Jokneam this type appears inStratum XVIII, is most common in Strata XVII and XVI, and less common in StrataXV-XIV (and perhaps Stratum XIII).3) Large simple bowl: bowl with wider than average diameter, rounded or bent walls.3.1) Flat rim, its outer side is a continuation of the wall of the bowl, while the inner rim
is usually emphasized and projects inwards. Hazar Xb. At Jokneam the bowl appears inStratum XVI without slip or burnish, and becomes common in Stratum XIV (slip andburnish first appear in Stratum XV). It continues until Stratum XI in low quantities.3.2). Flat rim inclines obliquely inwards. Hazor Xb. At Jokneam this type is less
common and appears in Strata XV-XIII.4) Rounded bowl with inverted rim: Hazar IXb (red-slipped). At Jokneam this bowlappears from Stratum XVII until Stratum XIII in low quantities, most unslipped.5) Hemispherical bowl: delicate, uniform thin-walled bowl, often red-slipped. Thebowl also appears in the thin Samaria ware (perhaps this is its origin). Hazar IXa.At Jokneam this type appears in Strata XIII and XII only, in Stratum XIII it is acommon type.6) Bowl with shaped rim:6.1) delicate bowl. Hazar Xa (red-slipped*), IXb (unslipped*).6.2) thick (regular) bowl. Hazar Xd (unslipped*), IXb (red-slipped), IXa (red-slipped). At Jokneam this family appears in many variations: carinated or roundedwalls; red-slipped or unslipped, sometimes decorated with a red band on the rim;with different nature, sizes and rim shapes. These variations sometimes havechronological significance. In general it can be established that the bowl appears insmall quantities in Stratum XV, is more common in Strata XIV and XIII, and evenmore frequent in Strata XII and XI. Among the bowls from Strata XII-XI, thosewith a red band on the rim and the large bowls which do not appear in Strata Xb-IXa at Hazar, are very common.
There is a sub-type which precedes the appearance of this family: at first it appearsinfrequently in Strata XVII and XVI, becomes more frequent in Strata XIV-XIII, anddoes not continue into Strata XII. The tip of the rim is convex and slopes inward, theouter side of the rim extends outward and in most cases is pointed.5
5 See bowls marked with '*'.
271
Tel Aviv 24 (1997)
TABLE 2. THE APPEARANCE OF CERAMIC TYPES COMMON TOHAZOR AND JOKNEAM, ACCORDING TO STRATA
HAZOR TYPE JOKNEAM
IXa IXb(a), (b) XI XII XIU XIV XV
Key:
272
•••noAppears frequently (at Hazar, at least two vessels),
Appears less frequently (at Hazar, only one vessel),
Stratigraphic correlation bewteen the two sites based on common ceramictypology (for discussion and references see p, 28 I and Table 3).
Zarzeki-Peleg: Hazar, Jokneam and Megiddo in the 10th Century B.C.£.
TABLE 3. HAZOR X-IX POTTERY INCLUDED IN THE COMPARISONOF THE CERAMIC TYPES COMMON TO JOKNEAM
Hazar Xb Hazar Xa Hazar IXb Hazar IXa Re{erences*
Bowl 1 209d, PI. CLXXI:2-4
203d,21OdBowl 2 213c 213b (?), 213a Pis. CLXXIV: I ;
210b CLXXV:5-6;
CLXXVIII: 10
Bowl 3:1 217d PI. CLXXI:lO
Bow13:2 202d PI. CLXXI:14
Bowl 4 200b PI. CLXXV:7
BowlS 208a, 210a PI. CLXXVill:23, 25
Bow16:1 200d 204c 200b Pis. CLXXI:6;
CLXXIV:7;
CLXXV:I
Bowl 6:2 218b, 208a PI. CLXXV: 3,15-
2IOb,213b 16; CLXXVIII:32
Bow17 200d PI. CLXXI:5
Bow18 200d PI. CLXXI:I
Bow19 217b PI. CLXXV:2
Bowl10 213c PI. CLXXIV:9
Krater 11 208b PI. CLXXV:4
Krater 12: 1 203d, 213d PI. CLXXI:18, 28
Krater 12:2 213a PI. CLXXIX:2
Storage Jar 13 221c (?) 219b, 204b 204a Pis. CLXXIV:17(?);
CLXXVI:lO, 12;
CLXXIX:14,
15(?)-16
Storage Jar 14: 1 221d,217d 204b (?) Pis. CLXXII: 11- 12,
14; CLXXV:I3 (?)
Storage Jar 14:2 210a PI. CLXXIX: 13
Jug 15 213b PI. CLXXVI:6
Jug 16 209d 211b Pis. CLXXII:4;
CLXXVI:5
Juglet 17 203d 221c Pis. CLXXII: I;
CLXXIV:15
* Yadin, et al. 1961.
273
Hazor
Tel Aviv 24 (1997)
Jol<neam
1
2
3
4 -
~
CZl7F=[;J
==J~_:-~:::-::::::=-:"'-y_ -c---.~ -~=:c--=.,
_.- -. -.- - - ~- - __ '__ ~-.- _"0 _
--------
2
5
\.6
1
'\~=.~- ..-=-...~=-~.~.;=:~_:.Z···:::-2 - c----
lOem.-=-o~~Fig. 8. Typological comparison of bowls from Hazar X-IX and Jokneam (1-6).
274
Zarzeki-Peleg: Hazor, Jokneam and Megiddo in the 10th Century B.C.E.
7) Bowl with soft carination/degenerated carination: Hazor Xb. This type IS
characteristic of Jokneam in the Iron I - Stratum XVII, and continues in smallquantities until Stratum XIV.8) Bowl with straight sides and low carination: this carination is more noticeable onthe inner wall of the bowl, and sometimes the wall above it is slightly thickened.Hazor Xb. At Jokneam the bowl is burnished, and sometimes slipped. It is dominantat Jokneam in Strata XV-XIV. A few examples appear in Stratum XIII.9) Bowl/small krater: Deep closed bowl, with emphasized carination. The top of therim is flattened and the edges protrude outwards and inwards. It is unslipped andunburnished. Hazor IXa. At Jokneam it is known mainly in Stratum XVII, andcontinues until Stratum XIV.10) Bowl of the Cypro-Phoenician family (Black-an-Red): Hazor Xa. This bowltype is common at Jokneam in Strata XV-XIV (mainly Stratum XIV), andcontinues in small amounts in Stratum XII.
10
Hazor Jol(neam
7 \([7 c= I -18 'C:IJ ~
~ [ I 79 ~ It I ),-
I
10cm.I
Fig. 9. Typological comparison of bowls from Hazar X-IX and Jokneam (7-10).
275
Tel Aviv 24 (1997)
Kraters (Fig. 10)
11) Krater with no handles, folded rim, short shoulder, short neck: Hazor IXb. Thiskrater belongs to the type dominant in the ceramic repertoires of Jokneamthroughout Iron I-II. Its short neck, as mentioned above, represents an additionalstage in the development of the krater (before this it has no neck, or only a veryshort neck). The first signs of this sub-type appear at Jokneam Stratum XVI, itbecomes common in Strata XV-XIII, and a few examples appear in Stratum XII.·12) Krater with ledge-rim and two or four handles: This family includes a numberof types among them:12.1) Krater with delicate rim protruding outwards slightly, sometimes slightly
convex, the transition from neck to shoulder is gradual, and tends inwards slightly.Hazar Xd. The krater with the delicate rim appears at Jokneam mainly in StrataXVIII-XVII, although it continues in very small amounts into Strata XIV-XIII, andperhaps XII (in the later examples there is a tendency to raise the upper wall).12.2) Krater with wide rim (includes a number of sub-types): Hazor IXa. At
Jokneam there is a clear chronological division between the two types of rims: asopposed to the delicate krater which appears relatively earlier, most of the wide-rimmed kraters appear at Jokneam in Strata XII-XI (isolated examples of the typewith a triangular-section rim appear in Strata XV-XIII).
Hazor
11 \VI J(("
12
Jokneam
1
10cm.
Fig. 10. Typological comparison of kraters from Hazar X-IX and Jokneam (11-12).
276
Zarzeki-Peleg: Hazar, Jokneam and Megiddo in the 10th Century H.C.E.
Storage jars (Fig. 11)
13) 'Hippo jars': Hazor Xa (identification is not absolute), IXb, IXa (identificationis not absolute). At Jokneam this jar is divided into sub-types according to rimshape, the examples here belong to the dominant sub-type: high-necked with aprotruding ridge (rounded or pointed), thickened rim, sometimes with a triangularsection, concaVe or ledge-like. The 'hippo jar', as described above, appears atJokneam in Strata XV-XIII.
When dealing with drawings of rim sherds it is difficult to determine whetherthey belong to this group of storage jars, or to the storage jars with egg-shapedbodies that have a similar rim (this type is dominant at Jokneam in Strata XVIII-XVII, and continued in small amounts in Strata XV-XIV.). In such cases, the wareis the determining factor in their assignation to type. This analysis has chronologicalimportance as the egg-shaped storage jars are earlier than the 'hippo jars'.14) Storage jar with swollen body and simple rim: This familyincludesa numberof types:14.1) The walls of the storage jar are almost parallel to each other, sometimes
slightly concave, widening towards the base. The neck is short. Hazor Xb, IXb(identification is not absolute).14.2) Small storage jar with body widening towards base and high neck. Hazor
IXa. At Jokneam very few examples were found which indicated the shape of thevessel (the same rim shape appears on a number of storage jars). Examples in whichit was possible to reconstruct a shape similar to those from Hazor appear in StratumXV, and mainly in Stratum XIV, but it should be noted that the sample is small.
Jugs (Figs. 12-13)
15) Bichrome jugs: Hazor IXb. The jugs have a relatively wide neck, with no base(the wheel marks on the vessel are not shown in the publication, see below). AtJokneam a number of jugs from the Bichrome family were found:15.1) Pilgrim flask jug: The neck is high and its base narrow, the body wide or
swollen. The body was made in the flask-manufacturing technique by joining thetwo hemispherical parts so that the joint formed a straight area (On this techniqueand the development of the family, see Bikai 1978:37-38; Anderson 1990:41 ff.).The jug has one loop handle, usually double. A number of such jugs have beenfound, all in Stratum XVII.15.2) Jug with globular body: Horizontal wheel marks are discernible on the body.
The jug has two types of bases: a) round base, continuation of the body (upper partof vessel unknown). As it was made in the jug-manufacturing technique, the straightarea at the joint of the two hemispherical parts seen in the pilgrim flask does notappear here. At Jokneam one such jug was found in Stratum XVI; b) ring base, the
277
13
Hazor
Tel Aviv 24 (1997)
1
Jokneam
14
2
Fig. II. Typological comparison of storage jars from Hazor X-IX and Jokneam (13-14).
278
Zarzeki-Peleg: Hazor, Jokneam and Megiddo in the 10th Century B.C.E.
Hazor Jokneam
1
1520
Fig. 12. Typological comparison of Bichrome jugs from Hazar X-IX and Jokneam (15).
279
Tel Aviv 24 (1997)
neck is wide and the body relatively small compared to the pilgrim flask jug. Thetriangular rim is everted. The design is comprised of concentric circles. This typeappears at Jokneam in Stratum XIV.16) 'Akhziv jug': Hazor Xb, IXb. The base of the neck 9f the jug fromStratum IXb is relatively wide compared to that of Stratum Xb,a featuresignificant in the chronological development of these jugs (see Birmingham1963:26-27; called "Pear-shaped Jugs - Red Slip I-II"). At Jokneam a fewbody sherds of these jugs were found concentrated in Stratum XII.
Juglets (Fig. 13)
17) Juglet of the Cypro-Phoenician family: Hazor Xb-Xa. At Jokneam a number ofsuchjuglets were found in Strata XV-XIII.
Discussion
Comparisons between repertoires at different sites can be influenced by anumber of factors, among them chronological, functionality, regional,social/economic, and cultural/ethnic factors. According to the remains uncoveredin the relevant strata of the two sites, it is evidentthat both were urban settlementswith a strong economic base. In the comparison presented here - the analysis ofthe appearance of certain types in the ceramic repertoires of Hazor Xb-IXa ascompared to their appearance in the stratigraphical sequence of Jokneam - theappearance of any single type was not examined, rather a repertoire of varioustypes which were found at both sites (a quantitative comparison of the ceramicrepertoires of the two sites was unable to be conducted). In this way the resultsare influenced first of all by the chronological factor and, to a lesser extent byother factors, for example the regional factor or simple .chance, as will beshown below.
The first conclusion which arises from this comparison is that there was asimilar chronological development of the common ceramic typology at both sites,and that, contra Finkelstein, such a comparison can be conducted (Finkelstein1996: 183). The only exception to this conclusion is the 'Akhziv jug' whichappears later at Jokneam than at Hazor (Jokneam Stratum XII). It should be notedthat such jugs appear only in small numbers at Jokneam.
A large part of the types which appear at Hazor in Stratum Xb, and to a certainextent in Stratum Xa, appear relatively early in the stratigraphical sequence atJokneam, some first appearing in Strata XVIII or XVII. Furthermore, there are anumber of examples at Hazor Xb which do not appear at Jokneam before Stratum
280
Zarzeki-Peleg: Hazor, Jokneam and Megiddo in the 10th Century B.C.E.
XV: Bowls 3:1-2; 8; Storage jar 14:1; Jug 16 (appears in Jokneam Stratum Xll,see above); and Juglet 17 (see Table 2).
Comparison of the types common at both sites which appear only at Hazor inStratum lXa reveals a 'chronological development similar to what appears in theearly stages, even though here the sample is small ('Samaria bowls' were notconsidered in this analysis. As at Jokneam, their number was small, and it isnecessary to await completion of the analysis of the material for more accuratedata). Types which appear at Jokneam in Stratum Xlll (and continue into StrataXII and Xl) first appear at Hazar in Stratum lXa: Bowl 5 and Krater 12 - thick-rimmed type, common at Jokneam in Strata XII-Xl (although it appears ininfrequently in Strata XV-Xlll).
Hazor
...-:=-.••.Af;---- \!,..f' \ I
~'
Jokneam
16
17
{I,,',',,~
~,
IOem.!
Fig. B ..Typological comparison of jugs (cont.) and juglets from Hazor X-IX and Jo~neam(16-17).
281
Tel Aviv 24 (1997)
Among the common types are two ceramic families which deserve furtherdiscussion:
Bichrome jugs
The jug with the rounded base is significant in the development of the Bichromejug (Fig. 12: Jokneam 15.2a). It is made in the jug-manufacturing technique - acharacteristic of this type of jug in the following stage, but it has a rounded basewhich is typical of the early pilgrim flask jug (its body is less swollen, althoughwithout wheel marks it is sometimes difficult to distinguish it in the drawings fromthe earlier type). It seems that the round-based jug is significant not only in itsshape, but also chronologically: pilgrim flask jugs appear at Jokneam in StratumXVII, whereas round-based jugs appear in Stratum XVI. The jug with the ring-base,later than both the previous types, appears in Stratum XIV. Other jugs with roundedbases were uncovered at Tell Abu Hawam: Jug 249 and perhaps 250, both found in56 North (Stratum V, attributed by Balensi to Phase "tv"; Balensi 1980:260, 357;PI. 17:249,250). It is possible that one was also found at Tell Qasileh X (albeit froman open space). Although the base is missing, the body bears horizontal wheelmarks and a design of concentric circles. The vessel appears in the same stratum astwo pilgrim flask jugs (Mazar 1985:67-68; Fig. 45:15)! The number of round-basedjugs is too small to establish whether they appear a little later than the firstappearance of the pilgrim flask (to elaborate on this possibility, Jokneam XVII wassupposedly destroyed prior to the appearance of the round-based jug, and TellQasileh after), or whether the two types are contemporaneous and the divisiondiscerned at Jokneam was coincidental (in this case the difference between them issimply the result of different workshops). For this purpose it is necessary toexamine a larger sample of round-based jugs originating from a well establishedstratigraphical context.
From the proportion of Bichrome jugs from Hazor (Stratum IXb), it seems that itwas made in the jug-manufacturing technique.
The Cypro-Phoenician pottery (Black-on-Red)
This pottery family is later than the Bichrome/pilgrim flask jug pottery, and doesnot appear prior to the beginning of Iron II! It first appears at Jokneam in StratumXV and at Hazor in Stratum Xb. It is possible that it is accidentally absent from therepertoire of Stratum XVI, which is poor in ceramic finds, but this is not so ofStratum XVII. In this stratum a rich and variegated ceramic repertoire wasuncovered, including pottery from the northern Coastal Plain (Bichrome pottery,cap-shape based storage jars, etc.), and it is clear that the Black-on-Red pottery had
282
Zarzeki-Peleg: Hazor, Jokneam and Megiddo in the 10th Century B.C.E.
not yet appeared. Support for this conclusion is found in the ceramic repertoiresfrom Megiddo and Tell Keisan. Bichrome pilgrim flask jugs and cap-shape basedstorage jars appear at Megiddo Stratum VIA and Tell Keisan Stratum9a-b, and theCypro-Phoenician pottery is missing. This family appears at these two sites in laterlevels: Megiddo (VB?) VA-IVB, and Tell Keisan 8 (Lamon and Shipton 1939: Pis.5:123; 8:176; 29:107; Loud 1948: PI. 90:1-3; Briend and Humbert 1980: PI. 56:1-2).
Conclusions
From the above discussion it is clear that there is a correlation between Hazor x-IX and Jokneam (Stratum XVI?) XV-XIV (perhaps beginning of XIII? see Table4). The two strata on either end of the Jokneam sequence, Strata XVI and XIII, aremeager in architectural and ceramic remains, therefore we have refrained from anydefinite conclusion as to whether they belong to the group of strata under discussionhere.
TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF THE COMPARISON OF CERAMICTYPES COMMON TO JOKNEAM AND HAZOR
JOKNEAM I XIII XIV XV (?XVI)
HAZOR IXa IXb Xa Xb
This research has established beyond any doubt that Hazor Stratum Xb cannot bedated prior to Jokneam Stratum XVI. Furthermore, from the above analysis, it isclear that the ceramic repertoire from Jokneam Stratum XVII is strikingly similar tothat of Megiddo Stratum VIA. From this it is evident that Jokneam Stratum XVIIand Megiddo Stratum VIA are earlier than Hazor Xb (see Table 5 for a summary ofthe strata at Megiddo, Jokneam and Hazor).
This conclusion is particularly significant in light of Finkelstein's attempts toattribute Megiddo Stratum VIA to the mid-10th century B.C.E.6 If we acceptFinkelstein's Low Chronology, which makes Megiddo VIA the city destroyed byShishak, we must date Hazar Xb much later, to the end of the 10th or beginning ofthe 9th century B.C.E. This is unacceptable as it creates an even more densestratigraphy for Iron Age Hazor, considering further that in the renewed excavations
We do, however, agree that today the axiom established by Yadin that the Solomonic gatesand casemate walls at Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer are typologically and chronologicallycomparable, no longer holds, although this has no bearing on the topic of this article.
283
Tel Aviv 24 (1997)
an even larger number of strata/stages were discerned than in the excavations of the1950s! In my opinion, Finkelstein's Low Chronology reconstruction is moredifficult and puzzling to agree with than the poverty in the number of strata instratigraphic sequence at Megiddo which is the currently accepted theory.
TABLE 5. COMPARISON OF STRATA AT MEGIDDO,JOKNEAM AND HAZOR
LB
Megiddo Jokneam?i
HazorXIII
VIlA XIX................................................................IRON I VIE XVIII
XII-XIVIA XVII...............................................................................................
? XVI ?IRON II VB Xb
XV Xa
VA-IVB XIV IXb........................ -.......................................IXa
? XIIIVIII
·············f·?·············VII
IRON III i XIIb VIb-aIVA
XIIa Vb-a
Addendum
III XI IV
In the third preliminary report of the excavations at Jezreel (Ussishkin andWoodhead 1997; Zirnhoni 1997) additional data were published which haverelevance to the present topic, therefore a few points concerning the ceramicrepertoire of Jezreel and its relationship to the ceramic repertoires from Hazor,Jokneam and Megiddo are presented here.
Zirnhoni found that "a clear resemblance is observed between the pottery fromStratum VA-IVB at Megiddo and that found on floors of the destroyed enclosure atJezreel. The comparability of these assemblages forms the starting point for a
284
Zarzeki-Peleg: Hazor, Jokneam and Megiddo in the 10th Century B.C.E.
chronological reconsideration of the pottery found stratigraphically prior to theselevels at both sites" (Zimhoni 1997:91). She also noted that there is "a strongsimilarity between ceramic assemblages spanning two distinct levels at both Jezreel[the pre-enclosure buildings and the enclosure building] and Megiddo [Stratum VBand VA-IVB] ... It is clear, however, that the ceramic contents of the fourdepositional phases discussed fall within the same cultural horizon" (ibid.:92).Zimhoni assumed that the enclosure building at Jezreel and Stratum VA-IVBMegiddo coexisted for a certain period of time (idem).
Zimhoni's statement that there is a clear resemblance between the pottery fromStratum VB at Megiddo (Area B beneath Palace 1723) and that found on the floorson Stratum VA-IVB (Zimhoni 1997:91; see above p. 263) is in my opinion correct.The pottery found on the floors of the enclosure building at Jezreel can be assigned,in general, to the Iron Age II (or Middle Iron Age, according to Zimhoni'sterminology). This general dating, falling within the 10th - 9th centuries B.C.E.,corresponds to Strata VB and VA-IVB at Megiddo, to Strata XVI-XIII at Jo}91eam,and to Strata Xb-VIII at Hazor (Zimhoni also accepted this dating; 1992:69). Shecompared the pottery from Jezreel to Megiddo Strata VA-IVB and IVA and HazorStrata X-VIII.
Nevertheless, there are several vessels originating on the floors of the enclosurebuilding which can aid in establishing a more accurate dating:
1. Straight-walled bowls with flat base (Zimhoni 1992:58; Figs. 1:1-2; 2:1-2;Zimhoni 1997; Fig. 8:1). A number of these bowls was found on the level of thedestroyed enclosure. They were absent from· the small pottery sample publishedfrom the pre-enclosure fills. Most of the bowls have a thin orange slip smearedunevenly on the inside and a band of slip often appears on the upper part of theouter surface. The two predominant bowl types from the Jezreel repertoire werecharacterized by this surface treatment.
Bowls with straight walls appear at Jokneam at the beginning of the Iron Age,as well as at the end of the Iron II and III. The earlier bowls have a round rim,slightly thickened and sometimes projecting inwards, a continuation of theCanaanite tradition of the Late Bronze Age. They appear infrequently at thebeginning of the Iron Age (Strata XVIII-XVII). Bowl rims from the end of IronII and III are differentiated from the earlier examples: most are decorated with ared band, the rim is straight or rolled outwards. The straight rim bowl isapparently earlier, found mainly in Stratum XII with a few examples appearing inStratum XIII, while the rolled-out rim appears in Stratum XII and continues intoStratum XI.
Bowls with similar profiles, most decorated with a red band on the rim, werefound at Hazor in Strata VII, VI and V. The excavators noted that "the straight-sidedbowl [that appears at Hazor Stratum VIII] is a prototype of the characteristic dishes
285
Tel Aviv 24 (1997)
of Strata VII-V, but is still somewhat rounded in form, the rim and base are betterfinished, and there are traces of decoration not only on the rim but also on thebottom" (Yadin, et al. 1960:11; PI. LIII:32 - this example has a ring base). To thislast example we may add two early straight-walled bowls with flat base from HazorStratum Xb (Room 203d) and Stratum IXa (Room 21Oa; Yadin, et al. 1961: PIs.CLXXI:9; CLXXVIII:13). These bowls (one red-slipped and burnished, and theother plain ware) have different proportions from the later type that appears fromStratum VII onwards.
2. Grooved-base bowl (Zimhoni 1992:61,67; Figs. 1:18; 8:5; Zimhoni 1997: Fig.5:3). This is a deep bowl with carinated sides. It is a sub-type of the family whichincludes the hemispherical bowl (round sides) - Type 5 above. As stated,hemispherical bowls were found at Jokneam in Strata XIII-XII. Rounded andcarinated bowls, some made of "fine Samaria ware," appear at Hazor from StratumIXa (Yadin, et al. 1961: PI. CLXXVIII:22, 24), as well as in Stratum VIII (Yadin, etat. 1960: PI. LV:6-11), including the Pillared Building (Locus 95a; ibid.: PI.LV: 10).
At Jezreel, the base of this bowl type was" ... designed in an unusual fashion:after removing the bowl from the wheel, the base was scraped with a sharpinstrument, and then deeply grooved" (Zimhoni 1992:61). This interestingtechnique was found on various bowls at Hazor (though less deeply scraped), inStrata VIII-VI (see for example Yadin, et at. 1960: PI. LIII: I, 5, 7, 30-31; in Locus95a, the Pillared Building, PI. LV:22, etc.).
3. Storage jar - (Zimhoni 1997:100; Fig. 11:5). This storage jar is well knownfrom the coastal region, not just from the South. At Keisan, for example, it appearsin Iron Age II-III in Strata 7 and 6 (Briend and Humbert 1980:187; PIs. 48:4-5, 7;50:1-5; it should be noted that almost no storage jars are know from Stratum 8 atTel Keisan). This storage jar developed from the jar type with conical bodycommon in Strata 9a-b, and continued to appear in Strata 7, 6 and 5(?) (ibid.: 207;PIs. 47:8; 48:6, 9; 54:1, 4; 59-60). The earlier storage jar type also appears atMegiddo in Stratum VIA and at Jokneam in Stratum XVII, see above p. 262; Figs.2:38; 3:8).
In summary, the ceramic repertoire from the enclosure building at Jezreelcontains a number of vessel types (sometimes with local variations) that appear atJokneam beginning in Stratum XIII, and at Hazar in Strata IXa and/or VIII. AtMegiddo, they are later than Strata VA-IVB and they were also found in StratumIVA. On the other hand, it should be noted that the same vessel types did notappear among the pottery recovered from the fills which supported the floors ofthe enclosure building or in the pre-enclosure buildings (though the publishedsample is too small to draw firm conclusions). The enclosure building at Jezreel
286
Zarzeki-Peleg: Hazor, Jokneam and Megiddo in the 10th Century B.C.E.
may then be dated to the later part of the sequence termed Iron II, i.e. the 9thcentury B.C.E.
REFERENCES
Aharoni, Y. 1972. The Stratification of Israelite Megiddo. JNES 31:302-311.Aharoni, Y. 1974. The Building Activities of David and Solomon. /EJ 24: 13-16.Aharoni, Y. and Amiran R. 1958. A New Scheme for the Sub-Division of the Iron
Age in Palestine. IEJ 8:171-184.Anderson, W. 1990. The Beginnings of Phoenician Pottery: Vessel Shape, Style,
and and Ceramic Technology in the Early Phases of the Phoenician IronAge. BASOR 279:35-54.
Balensi, J. 1980. Les Fouilles de R. W. Hamilton a Tell Abu Hawam. 1932-1933,Niveaux N et V. Strasbourg.
Ben-Tor. A. 1992.Jokneam. In: Stem, E. ed. New Ene. Arch. £Xc. Jerusalem: 805-811.Ben-Tor, A. and Rubiato, M. 1996. The Renewed Excavations at Tel Hazor During
1990-1995. Qadmoniot 111:2-18. (Hebrew).Ben-Tor, et al. '1983. The Third and Fourth Seasons of Excavations at Tel
Yoqneam, 1979-81. /EJ 33:30-54.Ben-Tor, et al. 1987. Regional Project at Jokneam and Environs. Qadmoniot 77-
78:2-17. (Hebrew).Ben-Tor, et al. 1997. Hazor V. Jerusalem.Bikai, P. 1978. The Pottery of Tyre. Warminster.Birmingham, J. 1963. The Chronology of Some Early and Middle Iron Age Cypriot
Sites. AJA 67:15-42.Briend, J. and.Humbert, J. 1980. Tell Keisan. Paris.Finkelstein, I. 1995. The Date of the Settlement of the Philistines in Canaan. Tel
Aviv 22:213-239.Finkelstein, I. 1996. The Archaeology of the United Monarchy: An Alternative
View. Levant 28:177-187.Guy, P. 1938. Megiddo Tombs. Chicago.Lamon, R. and Shipton, G. 1939. Megiddo 1. Chicago.Loud, G. 1948. Megiddo II. Chicago.Mazar, A. 1985. Excavations at Tell Qasile, Part Two. (Qedem 20). Jerusalem.Sharon, I., Yellin, J. and Perlman, I. 1987. Marked Cooking Pots. In: Ben-Tor, A.
and Portugali, Y. eds. Tell Qiri, a Village in the Jezreel Valley. (Qedem 24).Jerusalem.
Ussishkin, D. 1980. Was the "Solomonic" City Gate at Megiddo Builr by KingSolomon? BASOR 239:1-18.
287
Tel Aviv 24 (1997)
Ussishkin, D. 1990. Notes on Megiddo, Gezer, Ashdod, and Tel Batash in the Tenthto the Ninth Centuries B.C. BASOR 277-278:71-91.
Ussishkin, D. and Woodhead, J. 1992. Excavations at Tel Jezreel 1990-1991:Preliminary Report. Tel Aviv 19:3-56.
Ussishkin, D., and Woodhead, J. 1997. Excavations at Tel JezreeI1994-1996:ThirdPreliminary Report. Tel Aviv 24:6-72.
Whitman, 1990. The Myth of Solomon. BASOR 277/8~2-22.Yadin, Y. 1961. Hazor, Gezer and Megiddo in the Days of Solomon. In: Malamat,
A. ed. First Temple Period. Jerusalem: 66-109. (Hebrew).Yadin, Y. 1970. Megiddo of the Israelite Kings. Qadmoniot 10:38-56. (Hebrew).Yadin, Y. 1972. Hazar: The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy (1970).
London.Yadin, Y. et a1.1958. Hazar I. Jerusalem.Yadin, Y. et at. 1960. Hazar II. Jerusalem.Yadin, Y. et al. 1961. Hazar III-N (Plates). Jerusalem.Yadin, Y. et al. 1989. Hazar III-N (Text). Jerusalem.Zimhoni, O. 1992. The Iron Age Pottery from Tel Jezreel- An Interim Report. Tel
Aviv 19:57-90.Zimhoni, o. 1997. Clues from the Enclosure-Fills: Pre-Omride Settlement at Tel
Jezreel. Tel Aviv 24:83-109.
288