Abnormal Interests

Duane,

Being an archaeologist I will bite on this so to speak.

Don't hold your breath for Jim - he doesn't get into the field too much anymore.

I think what you see in Hazor X, Megiddo VA/IVB, and Gezer VIII are implications of a United Monarchy. Likewise, the pottery for Gezer this year was quite rich. We will be publishing this year later. I cannot let the "cat out of the bag" so to speak but inscriptionally we will have something to help clarify all of these three stratum and their relationship to the debate.

Regarding stratum XII and Shishak I think it is clear epigraphically (e.g. Yadin, Aharoni, and later A. Mazar) that this is the best date for this material.

I would be willing to have my mind changed on the Arad material if you could convince me. You are more of an epigraphist than I.

Jim is good at Zwingli and getting under my skin but not archaeology.

Duane you are a gadfly / pot stirring trouble maker... ;-)

I concede the archaeology to those who have made it their living- i.e., Finkelstein and Silberman. Zwingli wasn't too awful concerned about Hazor or Arad. But he was a darned good exegete and theologian!

Ah - but the highlight of my life is hearing the good news, in one sentence, that I am good at Zwingli AND irritating Joe! Life IS good!

;-)

Joe,

Thanks for the comment. As I understand it, and my understanding is very limited, the issue isn't the synchronism between Iron Age assemblages at sites like Hazor X, Megiddo VA/IVB, Gezer VIII and others but between these sites and sites like Jezreel, where, at least on the some interpretations, that a Terminus post quem for certain Iron Age pottery horizons is set by the fall of the Omiride kingdom. I know that there have been attempts to overcome this problem. I'm just not convinced that any of them are completely successful. Nor am I convinced that the concern, if real, necessitates totally overturning the more conventional chronologies as represented by Mazar for example. Of course, this is not the only thing in support of Finkelstein's position but it may be among the hardest to overcome.

I don't think the Arad question is an epigraphic problem as much as a simple problem of uncertainty as to which stratum to associate with the Shishak inscription. I think developing a high probability solution to the general problem makes this one go away.

For the record, I tend to find Mazar's recent discussions of Iron Age chronology the least tortured in terms of all the evidence, but it is not without problems. I find Finkelstein's low chronology less successful, particularly when seen in the light of synchronisms between Cyprus and Philistia. I also worry that Finkelstein has not done a very complete job in integrating all the evidence from some site such as Taanack into his scheme. But I don't think some of his concerns can be so easily dismissed. However, remainder I am an amateur.

On the issue of the "United Kingdom:" you are correct that the more conventional chronology is supportive of there having been a United Kingdom. But setting the Hebrew Bible aside for a moment, other explanations seem equally probable. For example, diffusion of material culture need not indicate a common political organization or even a common religion. We know that there was not common political organization, at least at the local level, during the Late Bronze Age but there was significant common material culture. Growing epigraphic evidence (and even Biblical evidence) is indicative of there not being a unified religion before the fall of the Northern Kingdom. If there were not a common religion, why would one assume that there was a common political organization? If we put the Hebrew Bible back into the mix, I think the probability favors there having been a United Kingdom but not by a very great margin. I'm just not so sure we can know much about it.

Jim,

Yes indeed, life is good! I do feel you left a few names off your list of people who make a living in archaeology. Perhaps it was just an oversight. :-)

Duane

Duane,

Thanks for this follow up. Concerning the pottery in places such as Jezreel and others, I believe that there really is no quick and easy answer. But I do believe that the preponderance of the evidence points to and upholds the traditional chronologies. You are indeed correct, there are some difficulities in any of the solutions but the traditional one squares more with the evidence IMHO.

By the way Jim, Duane already knows this - but Silberman is a newspaper man not an archaeologist. Stick to Zwingli.

Silberman has more first hand experience in field archaeology than Joe can hope to acquire. So his attempt to denigrate will have to fall by the wayside.

Gentlemen, neither Jim's remark about Joe nor Joe's with regard Silberman, have anything to do with the facts of the matter under consideration, whatever they may be.