Bibliography ............................................................................................................... 302






x


List of Tables

Table. 3.1.1. Comparison of Modern Hebrew Script and Ahiram Script. ........................ 29
Table. 3.1.2. Byblian King List......................................................................................... 29
Table. 4.1.1. Stratigraphy at Tyre. .................................................................................... 72
Table. 4.1.4. Stratigraphy at Sarepta. ................................................................................ 80
Table. 4.1.7. Stratigraphy at Tell Kazel. ........................................................................... 90
Table. 4.1.8. Stratigraphy at Tell Keisan. ......................................................................... 94
Table. 4.1.9. Stratigraphy at Tel Dor. ............................................................................... 98
Table. 4.1.10. Stratigraphy at Horvat Rosh Zayit ........................................................... 105
Table. 4.1.12. Stratigraphy at Tell Abu Hawam. ............................................................ 115
Table. 4.2.3.2. Iron I-IIA Stamp Seals. ........................................................................... 134
Table. 4.2.4. Purple Dye Installations. ............................................................................ 139
Table. 5.1. Parallels to Tel Dan Stratum IVA Ceramic Types. ...................................... 179
Table. 5.2. Petrography of Pithoi and Store Jars. ........................................................... 183
Table. 5.3. Petrography of Bichrome Ceramics. ............................................................ 185
Table. 5.4. Petrography of Phoenician Bichrome Ceramics. .......................................... 186
Table. 5.5. Petrography of Red-Slipped Ware. ............................................................... 188
Table. 6.3.3. Sites Associated with the Tribe of Asher................................................... 203
Table. 6.4.3. The Judges Cycle. ...................................................................................... 213
Table. 7.1.1. Comparison of Modern Hebrew Script and Ahiram Script ....................... 262





































xi


List of Figures


Fig. 4.1. Pier-rubble wall at Beirut. 282
Fig. 4.2. Standard Phoenician bichrome vessel. 282
Fig. 4.3. Red-on-Black ceramics from Horvat Rosh Zayit. 283
Fig. 4.4. Red-Slipped burnished bowl. 283
Fig. 4.5. Wavy-Band Pithos from Tel Dan. 284
Fig. 4.6. Amulets from Sarepta. 285
Fig. 4.7. Cartouche of Taworset on an alabaster jar found at Sidon. 285
Fig. 4.8. Scarab with Thutmose III cartouche from a cremation burial at Tyre. 286
Fig. 4.9. Scarab with Thutmose III cartouche from Jerusalem. 286
Fig. 4.10. Purple dye industry at Tel Dor. 287
Fig. 4.11. Harvested murex shells from Beirut. 287
Fig. 4.12. Bellow pot from Iron I level at Tel Dor. 288
Fig. 4.13. Cremation burial kit at Tyre Al-Bass. 288
Fig. 4.14. Bichrome cremation urn from Tyre Al-Bass. 289
Fig. 5.1. Area T Stratum IVA, after Biran 1996. 290
Fig. 5.2. Area and Section Plan of Area T South, The Oil Press Installation. 291
Fig. 5.3. Area M plan, after Biran 1996 292
Fig. 5.4. Plan of Area B-East Strata III and IV, c.1968. 293
Fig. 5.5. Plan of Stratum IVB, after Ilan 1999. 293
Fig. 5.6. Plan of Stratum III, c. 1975. 294
Fig. 5.7. Stratum IVA in Area B, East and West. 294
Fig. 5.8. Wall 123 in Stratum IVA and its Position Beneath Stratum III 295
Fig. 5.9. Painted Sherds from Area M 296
Fig. 5.10. Bichrome Krater from Area M, Scale 1:2.5. 297
Fig. 5.11. Bichrome and Monochrome Painted Ware. 298
Fig. 5.12. Phoenician-Style Painted Ware. 299
Fig. 5.13. Red-Slipped Ware. 300
Fig. 6.1. Samarian and Tyrian masson marks compared with known writing systems 301





















xii


List of Plates


Pl. 1. Pithoi 270
Pl. 2. Amphoriskos and Decanter 271
Pl. 3. Black-on Red Ware 272
Pl. 4. Cooking Pots Part A 273
Pl. 5. Cooking Pots Part B 274
Pl. 6. Store Jars 275
Pl. 7. Kraters 276
Pl. 8. Bichrome Flasks and Jugs 277
Pl. 9. Red-Slipped Ware-Thick Walled 278
Pl. 10. Bichrome Jug 279




















































1


Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1. Questions and Goals

Who were the Phoenicians? Traditionally, the Phoenicians are defined as the

inhabitants of Phoenicia, a region along the Levantine coast between Mt. Carmel and

Arvad, roughly the area of modern Lebanon. These people were primarily known as the

great merchants of the Mediterranean, skilled in seafaring and renowned for the purple

dye they extracted from murex shells. The words Phoenician and Phoenicia come from

the Greek root phoinix, first attested in the 8th century writings of Homer.1

Yet, this simple, concise definition belies the complexities encountered when

trying to define this ancient culture using non-classical sources. According to numerous

ancient Near Eastern sources, Phoenicians were most commonly referred to as

Canaanites. Egyptian Kyn`nw, Nuzi Kina——u, Hittite Kina——i, and Hebrew Kna`ani are

all variations of the term Canaanite, and all refer to the inhabitants of the Lebanese

coast.2 The Phoenicians even referred to themselves as Canaanites, as recorded in the

writings of Eusebius.3 Unfortunately, the term Canaanite also refers more broadly to the

inhabitants of the southern Levant during the Late Bronze Age.4 Anne Killebrew, in her

recent treatment of Canaanite ethnicity during the 13th-12th centuries B.C.E., points out


1 Homer: Iliad VI 290, 291; XXIII 743; Odyssey IV 83,84,618; XIII 272, 285; XIV 288,291; XV 118, 415,
417, 419, 425, 473.
2 B. Maisler, "Canaan and the Canaanites," BASOR 102 (1946): 46-50.
3 Eusebius preserves the work of Philo of Byblos, who translated ancient Phoenician historical sources into
Greek. Philo claims to cite a source dating to the period of the Trojan War, but the veracity of this claim is
doubtful. See Albert I. Baumgarten, The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos: A Commentary (Leiden:
E.J. Brill, 1981), 232-33
4 Anson F. Rainey, "Who is a Canaanite? A Review of the Textual Evidence," BASOR 304 (1996): 12-13.



2


that the term Canaanite reflects a multiethnic geopolitical entity spread over the southern

Levant, who shared many cultural features during the second millennium. 5

In the transition from the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age, major geopolitical

changes in the southern Levant greatly affected the cultural and political landscape.

These changes began a process through which several centralized states emerged, each

with distinct ethnic, identities. Among these states were the Ammonites, Arameans,

Israelites, Moabites, and Philistines. The continuity of Late Bronze Age Canaanite

material culture at Tyre and Sarepta has prompted the view that the Phoenicians were the

ethnic and cultural successor of the Canaanites.6 While there is some truth to this

statement, the term Phoenician presumes a unified people occupying a distinct

geographic territory along the Lebanese coast in the Iron I-IIA periods. However, the

concept that Phoenicians ever formed a self-perceived ethnic identity is questionable.7

Some point to the westward expansion and colonization of the Mediterranean in the

eighth century as the greatest moment of shared commonality among the Phoenician

cities.8 While this later proposal does not use the term ethnicity or make claims about the

psychological perceptions of the inhabitants along the Phoenician coast, it does identify a

geopolitical activity that may have prompted a Greek perception of group identity among


5 Ann E. Killebrew, Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity: An Archaeological Study of Egyptians, Canaanites,
Philistines and Early Israel 1300-1100 B.C.E. (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 10-16.
6 Seymor Gitin, "The Philistines: Neighbors of the Canannites, Phoenicians, and Israelites," in American
Schools of Oriental Research Centennial Celebration (eds. Douglas R. Clark and Victor H. Mathews;
Washington DC: American Schools of Oriental Research 2000), 5; Wolfgang Röllig, "On the Origin of the
Phoenicians," Ber 31 (1983): 92-93.
7 Glenn Markoe, Phoenicians (Berkeley University of California Press, 2000), 10-11.
8 Maria Eugina Aubet, The Phoenicians and the West: Politics, Colonies and Trade (trans. Mary Turton;
second ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 5-12, 45-4; Markoe, Phoenicians, 11, 4;
Sabatino Moscati, "Who Were the Phoenicians?," in The Phoenicians: Under the Scientific Direction of
Sabatino Moscati (ed. Sabatino Moscati; New York: I.B. Taurus & Co Ltd, 2001), 19.



3


the cities of the Lebanese coast.9 Additionally, there is a great deal of textual and

archeological data presently available regarding culture and geopolitics along the

Lebanese coast in the Iron I-IIA periods, which may improve our understanding of group

identity in the region.

Thus, the present study examines Phoenician group identity and geopolitics in the

Iron I-IIA periods through ancient textual, archaeological and biblical data. One goal is to

critically examine the terms and archeological data related to the inhabitants of Phoenicia

in the Iron I-IIA period. In order to contextualize these characteristics, it is also necessary

to examine the data concerning the geopolitics of the region. In addition to archaeological

material from coastal sites, unpublished Iron I-IIA material from Tel Dan will be

presented in an attempt to clarify the ethnic and political ties between Israel and the

Lebanese coast. Finally, the present study will critically examine the biblical data related

to Phoenician identity and geopolitics in the Iron I-IIA period.

1.2. Limitations

Except for the material from Tel Dan, the present study is limited in its scope to

published archeological material from Iron I-IIA contexts. New and ongoing excavations

in Lebanon and Israel provide the promise of new data related to the focus of this study,

but these data have yet to be published in detail. Furthermore, long delays in the

publication of some Israeli sites, like Akko, impede a detailed analysis of valuable data.

In the case of Tel Dan, the present study offers a rare opportunity to remedy a gap in the

publication of Iron I-IIA materials.


9 Homer uses the term Sidonian interchangeably with the term Phoenician, possibly reflecting the
dominance of Sidon among the Phoenician cities. See Hans Jacob Katzenstein, The History of Tyre: From
the Beginning of the Second Millennium B.C.E. until the Fall of the Babylonian Empire in 538 B.C.E. (2nd
ed.; Jerusalem: Goldberg's Press, 1997), 62-63.



4


1.3. Previous Studies

Phoenician Identity and History

In 1946, Benjamin Maisler (Mazar) wrote a seminal article that examined the Late

Bronze Age textual evidence related to Phoenician identity. This brief article focused

only on the earliest attestations of the term Canaanite and its connections with the purple

dye industry.10 In 1970, James Muhly provided a more detailed examination of the

various terms associated with the Phoenician identity; however, new proposals and

archeological discoveries warrant a reevaluation of Muhly’s conclusions.11

In 1980, Wolfgang Röllig wrote a 14-page article surveying the topographical,

archaeological, linguistic, paleographic, and religious data related to Phoenician origins.

At the conclusion of his brief survey, Röllig concluded that the Phoenician coastal region

was likely resettled by displaced Canaanites following raids by the Sea People. These

resettled Canaanites then used their technical skills to create a new Phoenician identity. 12

Though brief, Röllig’s overall approach to the evidence regarding Phoenician origins and

identity, served as a major impetus to the present study.

In 1997, Hans Katzenstein published a second edition of his masterful study of the

history of Tyre. This important work primarily focused on the literary evidence related to

the complete history of Tyre.13 Unlike the present study, Katzenstein’s book synthesizes

the classical, ancient Near Eastern, and biblical texts in his historical reconstructions of

the Iron I-IIA period. Thus, his study suffers from an overly generalized approach to the


10 Maisler, "BASOR," 7-12.
11 James D. Muhly, "Homer and the Phoenicians," Ber 19 (1970): 19-64.
12 Röllig, "On the Origin of the Phoenicians," 79-93.
13 Katzenstein, The History of Tyre, 1-373..



5


use of texts in history writing. Furthermore, Katzenstein’s work does not engage in a

detailed discussion of archeological evidence.

In 2001, Maria Eugene Aubet published a book on Phoenician westward

expansion.14 While her study focuses primarily on the archaeological evidence related to

Phoenicians in the west, her first chapter is dedicated to a discussion of Phoenician

origins and identity. In this chapter, she presents a brief survey of the Greek traditions

regarding the origins of the Phoenicians and etymologies for the term Phoinix. She also

provides a summary of the Hebrew, Egyptian, and Akkadian evidence for the term

Canaanite. She concludes the chapter with an excellent summary of the geographic

territory of the Phoenicians from the 10th century onward. Aubet’s survey of the origins,

identity, and geographic territory of the Phoenicians is well-balanced for a discussion of

Phoenician identity and geographic territory beginning in the 10th century, but lacks a

detailed analysis of earlier periods.

Archaeology

Reports from the excavations at Tyre and Sarepta in the 1970s provide the main source of

archaeological data for Phoenician material culture in the Iron I-IIA periods.15 In addition

to these studies, recent excavation reports from a number of Israeli and Syrian sites

provide further information regarding Phoenician material culture, including Horvat Rosh


14 Aubet, The Phoenicians and the West, 1-432.
15 Patricia Maynor Bikai, The Pottery of Tyre (Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1978); James Bennett
Pritchard, Recovering Sarepta, a Phoenician City: Excavations at Sarafand, Lebanon, 1969-1974, by the
University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1978);
William P. Anderson, Sarepta I: The Late Bronze and Iron Age Strata of Area II, Y (Beirut: Université
Libanaise, 1988).



6


Zayit, Achzib, Tel Dor, and Tel Kazel.16 These recent publications have prompted new

studies of Phoenician material culture in the early Iron Age.17

Among the newer studies, there are several devoted to ceramic typology. Ayelet

Gilboa has produced a number of articles which define the relationship between Cypriot

and Phoenican style ceramics.18 Patricia Bikai and Nicola Scrieber have also explored

Phoenicia’s interaction with Cyprus through ceramic analysis.19 These studies provide the

most recent research regarding Phoenician-style ceramics and form an important

foundation for my examination of Iron I-IIA Phoenician-style ceramic forms at Tel Dan.

In 2005, Carolina Aznar completed another important ceramic study focused on

market exchanges in the southern Levant during the Iron IIA period. 20 As a result of her

petrographic study, Aznar was able to clearly identify Phoenician ceramic types used in


16 Zvi Gal and Yardenna Alexandre, Horbat Rosh Zayit. An Iron Age Storage Fort and Village (Jerusalem:
Israel Antiquities Authority), 2000; Michal Dayagi-Mendels, The Ahkziv Cemetaries: The Ben-Dor
Excavations, 1941-1944 (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2002); Eilat Mazar, "Phoenician Family
Tombs at Achziv: A Chronological Typology (1000-400 BCE)," Fenicios y Territorio (2000); Eilat Mazar,
The Phoenician Family Tomb N.1 at the Northern Cemetery of Achziv (10th-6th Centuries BCE)
(Barcelona: Laboratorio De Arquelogia De La Universidad Pompeu Fabra De Barcelona, 2004); Ephraim
Stern, Dor, Ruler of the Seas: Nineteen Years of Excavations at the Israelite-Phoenician Harbor Town on
the Carmel Coast (rev. and exp. ed.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000); Emmanuelle Capet and
Eric Gubel, "Tell Kazel- Six Centuries of Iron Age Occupation (c. 1200-612 B.C.)," in Essays on Syria in
the Iron Age (ed. Guy Bunnens; Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement; Louvain: Peeters, 2000); Leila
Badre and Eric Gubel, "Tell Kazel Syria: Excavations of the AUB Museum 1993-1998, Third Preliminary
Report," Ber 44 (1999).
17 Ayelet Gilboa and Ilan Sharon, "Between the Carmel and the Sea: Tel Dor's Iron Age Reconsidered,"
NEA 71, no. 3 (2009).
18 Ayelet Gilboa, "The Dynamics of Phoenician Bichrome Pottery: A View from Tel Dor," BASOR 316
(1999): 1-2; Ayelet Gilboa, "Sea Peoples and Phoenicians along the Southern Phoenician Coast - A
Reconciliation: An Interpretation of Sikila (SKL) Material Culture," BASOR 337 (2005): 47-7; Ayelet
Gilboa and Ilan Sharon, "An Archaeological Contribution to the Early Iron Age Chronological Debate:
Alternative Chronologies for Phoenicia and their Effects on the Levant, Cyprus, and Greece," BASOR 332
(2003): 7-80.
19 Patricia Maynor Bikai, The Phoenician Pottery of Cyprus (Nicosia: Published by the A.G. Leventis
Foundation with the assistance of the J. Paul Getty Trust, 1987; Nicola Schreiber, The Cypro-Phoenician
Pottery of the Iron Age (Leiden: Brill, 2003).
20Carolina Aznar, "Exchange Networks in the Southern Levant during the Iron Age II: A Study of Pottery
Origin and Distribution" (P.D. diss., Harvard University, 2005).



7


market exchanges with neighboring states. The results of her study play an important

role in my analysis of ceramics from Tel Dan.

Finally, resumed excavations at Tyre and Sidon have shed new light on unique

mortuary practices and geopolitical interactions during the Iron I-IIA periods.21 These

new discoveries are a major benefit to the present study.

Hebrew Bible

In 1992, Françoise Briquel-Chatonnet published a book which explored the relations

between the Phoenician coast and the kingdoms of Judah and Israel. This monograph was

primarily a philological study, with some general use of archaeology. The Hebrew Bible

provided the foundation for much of the author’s political and historical reconstructions.

Unfortunately, this study was limited to the monarchic period of Israelite history, and the

12th-11th centuries were left untreated.22 The major limitation of this study was a lack of

methodology with respect to the use of the Hebrew Bible in history writing.

In 1991, Edward Lipiński published the proceedings of a conference held at the

University of Lueven, devoted exclusively to papers on Phoenicia and the Hebrew Bible.

The articles from this conference covered a broad range of topics, including the tribe of

Asher, king Solomon’s mines, and the worship of Phoenician deities in Judah and

Israel.23 The proceedings from this conference provide a welcome concentration of


21 Maria Eugenia Aubet, "The Phoenician Cemetery of Tyre," NEA 73, no. 2-3 (2010), 145-55; Claude
Doumet-Serhal, "Preliminary Report on the Iron Age at Sidon: British Museum Excavations 2003-2004,"
Archaeology and History in Lebanon 23 (2006), 2-29.
22 Françoise Briquel-Chatonnet, Les relations entre les cités de la côte phénicienne et les royaumes d'Israël
et de Juda (Leuven Department Oriëntalistiek; Peeters, 1992).
23 Edward Lipiński, ed., Phoenicia and the Bible: Proceedings of the Conference held at the University of
Leuven on the 15th and 16th of March 1990 (Leuven: Departement Orientalistiek: Peeters, 1991); Andre
Lemaire, "Asher Et Tyr," in Phoenicia and the Bible: Proceedings of the Conference held at the University
of Leuven on the 15th and 16th of March 1990 (ed. Edward Lipinski; Leuven: Departement Orientalistiek:
Peeters, 1991), 135-52; Edward Lipiński, "The Territory of Tyre and the Tribe of Asher," in Phoenicia and




8


research on the Hebrew Bible and Phoenician history, rather than the sporadic articles

dispersed throughout various journals. However, new archeological discoveries made

over the past decade warrant a reexamination of some of the conclusions proposed at this

conference.24

It is clear from this review that, while several studies have touched on the issue of

Phoenician identity and cultural genesis in the Iron I-IIA periods, there remains no

comprehensive work devoted to an in-depth examination of the subject. Thus, I intend to

make a major contribution in this area of research through a multidisciplinary

investigation of Phoenician ethnicity and geopolitics in the Iron I-IIA period.

1.4. Methodology

One of the terms commonly used in studies of both modern and ancient people groups is

ethnicity. The term ethnicity is originally derived from the Greek ethnos and was used by

Greeks to identify large groups of animals and humans.25 19th century German

archaeological studies on ethnicity were tied to nationalistic and racist interpretations of

history.26 Over the past century the definition of ethnicity has evolved in academics, and

no longer corresponds to the 19th century ideas. Since the 1970’s, definitions of ethnicity

have increasingly moved away from inherent structural perspectives and have focused


the Bible: Proceedings of the Conference held at the University of Leuven on the 15th and 16th of March
1990 (ed. Edward Lipiński;Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta; Leuven: Departement Orientalistiek: Peeters,
1991), 153-6; E. Knauf, "King Solomon's Copper Supply," in Phoenicia and the Bible: Proceedings of the
Conference held at the University of Leuven on the 15th and 16th of March 1990 (ed. Edward Lipinski;
Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta; Leuven: Departement Orientalistiek: Peeters, 1991), 167-8; Hans Jacob
Katzenstein, "Phoenician Deities Worshipped in Israel and Judah During the Time of the First Temple," in
Phoenicia and the Bible: Proceedings of the Conference held at the University of Leuven on the 15th and
16th of March 1990
(ed. Edward Lipiński; Leuven: Departement Orientalistiek: Peeters, 1991), 187-92.
24 See bibliography.
25 M. Chapman, M. McDonald, and E. Tonkin, "Introduction," in History and Ethnicity (eds. M. Chapman,
et al.; London: Routledge, 1989), 12.
26 Sian Jones, The Archaeology of Ethnicity (London: Routledge, 1997), 2



9


instead on the processes that lead to ethnic identity.27 Thus, a recent definition of

ethnicity is as follows

“All those social and psychological phenomena associated with a culturally constructed
group identity. The concept of ethnicity focuses on the ways in which social and cultural
processes intersect with one another in the identification of, and interaction between
ethnic groups. ”28


One of the obstacles presented by the above definition for both the historian of

antiquity and archaeologist is the psychological component. The nature of artifacts and

limited textual data often exclude our ability to access the psychological perceptions of

past peoples.29 Without access to data related to the psychology of ancient peoples, it

seems questionable for scholars and archeologists to use the term ethnicity when

discussing people groups in the ancient world. This seems especially true in those cases

where there is a lack of ancient textual sources.30 One option available to archaeologists

and ancient historians is to redefine the term ethnicity more generally as Killebrew has

done in a recent study of ethnicity by which she means generally group identity.31 The

question is whether such a broad definition obfuscates the past half century of scholarship

that has led to more technical definitions of ethnicity. Why not simply limit onself to an

examination of group identity? Since there is little hope of effectively accessing data

related to the psychological perceptions of the inhabitants of the Phoenician coast, the

27 In many ways the evolution of perspectives on ethnicity are directly tied to the evolution of approaches to
archaeological interpretation. For an examination of the various approaches see Ian Hodder and Scott
Hutson, Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology (3rd ed.; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2003).
28 Jones, The Archaeology of Ethnicity, xiii.
29 In addition to an individual’s psychological perspective, social behavior and interactions plays a key role
in defining ethnic boundaries. Unfortunately, these behaviors and interactions are not always reflected by
physical borders or material culture. Fredrick Barth, Ethnic Groups and Boundaries (Oslo:
Universitetsforlaget, 1969), 15-16.
30 Stephen Shennan, "Introduction: Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity," in Archaeological
Approaches to Cultural Identity (ed. Stephen Shennan; London: Unwin Hyman, 1989), 14.
31 Ann E. Killebrew, Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity: An Archaeological Study of Egyptians, Canaanites,
Philistines and Early Israel 1300-1100 B.C.E. (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 8.



10


present study will examine factors related to the more general concept of group identity

rather than ethnicity.

The term identity in the study of archaeology can be used with reference to,

ethnicity, class, or sex. 32 In the present study, the goal is to identify characteristic

features related to the culture and geopolitical interactions of the inhabitants along the

Phoenician coast in the Iron I-IIa periods.33 While archeological data plays a significant

role in the present investigation of Phoenician group identity and geopolitics in the Iron I-

IIA period, ancient Near Eastern and biblical texts also provide bodies of data that must

be critically examined. In order to synthesize and assess this data effectively, however,

each type of data requires a different set of methodological parameters.

Archaeology

Pots alone do not define ancient people groups, and thus it is essential to explore

the full range of data related to ethnicity and geopolitics. In a recent debate between

Israel Finkelstein and William Dever on the ethnicity of the inhabitants of the Iron I

highlands, Finkelstein presented a list of cultural characteristics which relate to the ethnic

aspects of group identity: language, script, ritual behavior, physical features, dietary

choices, architecture, clothing style, mortuary practices, and style of artifacts.34

Obviously, the archeological record cannot reflect all of these, but several are

represented: script, ritual behavior, architecture, mortuary practices, and style of artifacts.

When examined against historical texts, geographic units, political and economic factors,

32 See Timothy Insoll, ed., The Archaeology of Identities: A Reader (London: Routledge, 2007).
33 See Sian Jones, "Discourses of Identity in the Interpretation of the Past," in The Archaeology of Identities
(ed. Timothy Insoll; London Routledge, 2007), 44-58. Centers of power play an important role in defining
the geopolitical boundaries in a region, and provide another factor that affects group identity. See Colin
Renfrew, Approaches to Social Archaeology (Edinburgh: dinburgh University Press, 1984), 30-53.
34 Finkelstein, "Ethnicity and Origin of the Iron I Settlers in the Highlands of Canaan: Can the Real Israel
Stand Up?", 203.



11


these characteristics, along with the use of technology, can be useful in reconstructing

social boundaries of ancient peoples.35

Ancient Near Eastern Texts

Texts play an important role in the multidisciplinary approach taken by the present study.

However, unlike previous studies dealing with Phoenician history and identity, which

weave the classical, biblical, and ancient Near Eastern data together like a historical

tapestry, the present study seeks a stronger methodological approach to the textual

evidence. Since my study focuses on the Iron I-IIA period, only texts from that time

period will be examined. The present study will explore issues of dating and genre in

order to contextualize the function of the data presented in each text.

The question of provenance of some primary textual sources raises important

methodological considerations for the present study, especially given the lack of

controlled archaeological excavations in modern day Lebanon.36 Numerous forgery

scandals have plagued scholars of Levantine archaeology since the middle of the

nineteenth century.37 Therefore, it is necessary to discuss not only the process of


35 The term technology has been used in archaeological studies to refer generally to style or methods of
artifact production. In this paper technology is used in a more narrow sense to describe technical industries.
For a discussion of the more general concept of technology, along with other factors that must be
considered when reconstructing social boundaries, see Miriam Stark, "Technical Choices and Social
Boundaries in Material Culture Patterning: An Introduction," in The Archaeology of Social Boundaries (ed.
Miriam Stark; Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1998), 1-11. Attempts to define ethnic
boundaries based on stylistic patterning must take into consideration the nature of the interactions that take
place between people groups. Negative reciprocity often leads to more obvious boundaries in material
culture, while positive reciprocity can blur those boundaries. Killebrew, Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity, 17;
Hodder and Hutson, Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology, 2-3.
36 Stamp seals and inscribed arrowheads are commonly cited, but are of limited value due to their lack of
provenance and ease of replication. For a comprehensive catalogue of Phoenician arrowheads, including
publication and information regarding provenance, see Robert Deutsch, Gabriel Barkay, and Michael
Heltzer, West Semitic Epigraphic News of the 1st Millennium BCE (Tel Aviv, Israel: Archaeological Center
Publications, 1999), 13-21.
37 In recent years, the forgeries of Oded Golan have received both scholarly and popular attention. Charles
Clermont-Ganneau, "The Shapiro Collection," PEFQS 6 (1874): 114-118. The trend is not new, as




12


discovery surrounding each document, but also the scholarly perceptions regarding the

authenticity of those texts not recovered through archeological excavations.

Hebrew Bible

The use of the Hebrew Bible as a historical source has been the subject of great debate in

recent decades, particularly in the fields of biblical study and archaeology.38 Despite an

increasing skepticism in these fields, the majority of studies on Phoenician history readily

reference the Hebrew Bible as a historical source, often uncritically. The lack of critical

examination of the biblical witness has led to conclusions uninformed by the

complexities surrounding the biblical texts. Recently, William Dever defined a

methodology which focuses on the relationship between text and material remains. His

methodological approach emphasizes points of convergence and divergence between the

biblical text and the archeological data.39 Much of Chapter 6 examines the convergences

among the archeological data, ancient Near Eastern textual data, and the Hebrew Bible.

From these points of convergence, it is possible to discuss the biblical evidence regarding

ethnicity and geopolitics in the Iron I-IIA period. For a full discussion of Dever’s

methodology and its implementation in this study, see Section 6.0.


commonly referenced inscriptions also lack provenance. One need only consider the Shapiro scandals in
the previous century to be reminded that the forging trade has long plagued scholars. Niel A. Silberman,
Digging for God and Country: Exploration, Archaeology and the Secret Struggle for the Holy Land 1799-
1917 (New York: Knopf, 1982), 100-12; Nili S. Fox, In the Service of the King: Officialdom in Ancient
Israel and Judah (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 2000), 25-32.
38 See a recent review of this debate in Iain W. Provan, V. Philips Long, and Tremper Longman, A Biblical
History of Israel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), 3-104.
39 William G. Dever, What Did the Biblical Writers Know, and When Did They Know It?: What
Archaeology Can Tell Us About the Reality of Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 2001), 84-95.



13


1.5. Organization

Chapter 1 serves as an introduction to this study of Phoenician ethnicity and geopolitics

in the Iron I-IIA period.

Chapter 2 evaluates the ancient terms associated with the inhabitants of Phoenicia

and the geographic territory of the Phoenicians.

Chapter 3 examines the ancient Near Eastern textual data regarding the

Phoenician coast. The Wenamun text is a Third Intermediate period Egyptian document

which provides information on geopolitical changes in the Levant that affected trade

relations among Egypt, Byblos, Sidon, Dor, and Cyprus. The Annals of Tiglath-Pileser I

provide data regarding tribute and entertainment offered by Arwad, Byblos, and Sidon to

the king of Assyria.

Chapter 4 examines the archeological data from the Phoenician sites of Tyre,

Rachidieh, Sidon, Sarepta, Kamid el-Loz, Byblos, Tell Kazel, Tell Keisan, Tel Dor,

Horvat Rosh Zayit, Achzib, Tell Abu Hawam, and Shiqmona. Key features of

Phoenician material culture from these sites are discussed, including ashlar masonry,

ceramic types, art objects, purple dye manufacture, and metallurgy.

Chapter 5 examines previously unpublished Iron I-IIA Phoenician-style ceramics

from Tel Dan. This chapter surveys the stratigraphy and ceramic typology of vessels

associated with the Phoenician coast. The petrography of 40 samples is then discussed

with regard to Phoenician interactions with Tel Dan in the Iron I-IIA periods.

Chapter 6 examines the biblical data by providing a critical translation, a textual

commentary, and a comparison of the biblical text with archeological data. The main goal

will be to identify points of convergence between the biblical and archeological data.



14


Chapter 7 provides a review and synthesis of the textual, archaeological, and

biblical data related to Phoenician ethnicity and geopolitics in the Iron I-IIA period. In

addition, a summary of the contributions made by the present study and proposals for

future research will be addressed.







































15


Chapter II: Terms of Identity


2.1. Introduction

We ask again: Who were the Phoenicians? Traditionally, the Phoenicians are defined as

the inhabitants of Phoenicia, a region along the Levantine coast between Mt. Carmel and

Arvad, roughly the area of modern Lebanon. These people were primarily known as the

great merchants of the Mediterranean, skilled in seafaring and renowned for the purple

dye they extracted from murex shells. The words Phoenician and Phoenicia come from

the Greek root phoinix, and first appear in the 8th century writings of Homer.40

Unfortunately, this simple definition belies the uncertainty and debate that surrounds our

understanding of their identity, origins, and geographic territory at the beginning of the

Iron Age. There are in fact three primary terms historically used to refer to the inhabitants

of the Lebanese coast, including the Semitic root kn`n, the Greek word phoinix, and the

general term Sidonian. The present chapter seeks to clarify the meaning and origin of

these terms, in order to assess their relevance to the Iron Age inhabitants of the Lebanese

coast.

2.2. Kn‘n

Outside of classical texts, numerous ancient Near Eastern sources refer to the

inhabitants of Lebanon as Canaanites.41 Egyptian Kyn`nw, Akkadian Kinaḫḫu, and

Hebrew Kna`ani are all variations of the term Canaanite, and refer to the inhabitants of


40 Homer: Iliad VI 290, 291; XXIII 743; Odyssey IV 83,84,618; XIII 272,285; XIV 288,291; XV 118, 415,
417, 419, 425, 473.
41 Ah. Badawi, "Die neue historische Stele Amenophis' II," Annales du Service des antiquités de l’Égypte
43 (1943): 1-23 HSS 13 34:2; 431:8,48; HSS 14 197: 2; 520:42 HSS 15 220:2; 222:7; 233:7; JEN 314:5.



16


the Lebanese coast.42 The relationship between the root kn‘n and Greek term phoinix is

found in the writings of Eusebius, who preserved portions of the History of Philo of

Byblos. According to Philo of Byblos, the inventor of three scripts was named Eisirios,

the brother of Chna who changed his name to Phoinix.43 It is obvious that this is an

ancient tradition explaining the connection between the roots kn’n and Φοινιξ.44 This late

evidence, however, does not provide any real information regarding the meaning of the

root kn’n or its semantic relationship to the term Φοινιξ. Furthermore, there is no possible

way to verify that either of these terms served as an eponym.

The earliest attestation to a region called Canaan occurs in an 18th century

Akkadian letter found at Mari.45 The term awîlKi-na ah-nu(m)meš is used to describe a

group of brigands at Ra-ḫi-ṣi-imki-ma which is located south of Qatna in the Beqa

Valley.46 On a 15th century statue of Idrimi, king of Alalakh the term ki-in-a-nim is used

to describe a region near Ammiya, which is north of Byblos.47 Four other documents

were found at Alalakh mentioning Canaan.48 In Egypt, the term Kn‘nw appears on a mid

15th century stele of Amenophis II.49 Among the 14th century Amarna texts, there are


42 B. Maisler, "Canaan and the Canaanites," BASOR 102 (1946): 46-50.
43 Philo’s History is allegedly based on the writings of Sanchuniathon who wrote in the period of the
Trojan War. Though Sanchuniathon’s history agrees with much of the material found in Ugaritic and
Hittite sources, most scholars feel that Sanchuniathon must date to a later period. See Albert I. Baumgarten,
The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos: A Commentary (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1981), 19, 42-61.
44 Ibid., 232-33.
45 Georges Dossin, "Une mention de Cananéens dans une lettre de Mari," Syria 50 (1973): 277-82.
46 Ibid., 278; Nadav Naaman, "The Canaanite and Their Land," in Canaan in the Second Millenium B.C.E.
(Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 111.
47 William Foxwell Albright, "Some Important Recent Discoveries: Alphabetic Origins and the Idrimi
Statue," BASOR 118 (1950): 14-2; Beno Landsberger, "Assyrische Königsliste und Dunkles "Zeitalter","
Jounal of Cueiform Studies VIII, no. 2 (1954): 54. For the geographic location of Ammiya, see Anson F.
Rainey and R. Steven Notley, The Sacred Bridge: Carta's Atlas of the Biblical World (Jerusalem: Carta,
2006), 79.
48 AT 48,154,181,188.
49 Maisler, "BASOR," 9.



17


numerous occurrences of the term matKinaḫḫi.50 At Ugarit, the term occurs primarily as

Kn‘ny.51

2.2.1. Geographic Bounds of Canaan

Based on the number of primary Late Bronze Age references to Canaan, it is clear that

the territory is roughly equivalent to the Egyptian province in Asia.52 This broad

geographic range extended from Mt. Hor in the North to Gaza or Kadesh in the South.53

A recent study by Killebrew found that a diverse population inhabited Canaan, with

varying elements of material culture. This diversity was unified under the imperial

control of Egypt, which brought stability to the varied city-states in Canaan. The

withdrawl of Egyptian administrative and military presence in the 12th century

destabilized the region, resulting in the dissection of Canaan into Judah, Israel, Philistia,

and Aram.54 The evidence of cultural continuity, seen in Late Bronze Age Canaanite

material remains and later Iron Age Phoenician remains, has prompted the view that

Phoenicians were the ethnic and cultural successors of the Canaanites.55 The question

remains however, what are the geographic boundaries of the newly formed “Phoenicia?”

2.2.2 Geographic Bounds of Canaan

Due to the complex history of the region from the Iron I-IIC period, Phoenicia’s

territory expanded and contracted, resulting in various claims about the boundaries of


50 EA 8:15; 9:19; 17:25; 30:1; 36:15; 109:46; 131:61; 137:76; 148:46; 151:50; 161:41; 222a:8.
51 In Ug 5 5:10 the bita ku-na-ḫi is mentioned as a proper name.
52 Naaman, "The Canaanite and Their Land," 120.
53 Rainey and Notley, The Sacred Bridge, 34-3; Anson F. Rainey, "Who is a Canaanite? A Review of the
Textual Evidence," BASOR 304 (1996): 1-15.
54 Ann E. Killebrew, Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity: An Archaeological Study of Egyptians, Canaanites,
Philistines and Early Israel 1300-1100 B.C.E. (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 93-148.
55 Seymor Gitin, "The Philistines: Neighbors of the Canannites, Phoenicians, and Israelites," in American
Schools of Oriental Research Centennial Celebration (eds. Douglas R. Clark and Victor H. Mathews;
Washington DC: American Schools of Oriental Research 2000), 57.



18


Canaan. A recent study places the limits of Phoenicia during the Persian period at

Myriandos in the north and Ashkelon in the south. These limits are a great expansion of

the 8th century boundaries of Phoenicia, defined in classic sources as Arwad in the north

to Mount Carmel in the South.56 However, for the period between the 12th- 9th centuries

B.C.E., evidence of Phoenician presence has been found further south at the sites of Dan,

Dor, `Akko, Achzib, Tell Keisan, Tell Abu Hawam, Balensi, Shikmona, Tel Mevorakh,

Tel Michal, and other sites within the boundaries of modern Israel.57 The shrinking of

Canaanite territory from a 500 km strip in the Middle Bronze Age to a barely 200km long

region in the Iron IIb period did not occur over night.58 However, in the Iron I-IIA period,

Tel Dor may be considered a southern limit of the newly reduced Canaanite region.59

2.2.2 Etymology

Early theories proposed a Hurrian origin for the term Canaan, based on the Nuzi and

Amarna occurrences of the term as kinaḫni or kinaḫḫi, and the adjective kinaḫḫu.60 The

suffix ni was deemed to be of Hurrian origin, which was preserved in Hebrew,

Phoenician, Ugaritic and Egyptian.61 Ultimately, William Foxwell Albright abandoned


56 These limits are largely based on the witness of classic Greek and Latin sources along with the biblical
witness. Among the classical sources that cite Arwad in connection with Phoenicia are Herodotus VII, 98;
Diodore of Sicile XVI, 41; Strabo XVI, 753-754; etc. For a full treatment of classic sources referring to
Arados, see Jean-Paul Rey-Coquias, Arados et sa Péréé aux Époques Grecque, Romaine et Byzantine
(Paris: Libraire Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1974), 1-51. For the 8th century boundaries see, Josette Elayi,
"Studies in Phoenician Geography during the Persian Period," JNES 41, no. 2 (1982): 86-97.
57 Ephraim Stern, "New Evidence from Dor for the First Appearance of the Phoenicians along the
Northern Coast of Israel," BASOR 279 (1990): 27.
58 Cf. Maria Eugina Aubet, The Phoenicians and the West: Politics, Colonies and Trade (trans. Mary Turton;
second ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 14.
59 The textual, archaeological, and biblical evidence to support this statement will be examined in the
following chapters.
60 Michael C. Astour, "The Origin of the Terms "Canaan," "Phoenician," and "Purple"," JNES 24, no. 4
(1965): 346.
61 Julius Lewy, "Influences Hurrites sur Israël," RES (1938): 2; William Foxwell Albright, "The Role of
Cannanites in the History of Civilization," in Studies in the History of Culture (Wisconson: Menasha, 1942),
355-56.



19


the hypothesis that kinaḫḫi was related to the root *ikna, meaning blue/purple. He

recognized that the then earliest 15th century spellings found at Alalakh, Ugarit, and

Egypt did not conform to Hurrian phonetics.62 Instead, the clear use of kinaḫḫu in Nuzi

texts to refer to the color purple led Albright to suggest that kn‘ may be an unattested root

meaning murex from which purple dye was extracted. Albright proposed the geographic

territory was named after this important mollusk from which they produced their highly

valued dye.63 However, he provided no textual evidence to support this final proposal.64

Thus taking into account the 18th century Mari term kinaḫnu, there is no clear

phonological reason to dismiss the possibility of a Hurrian origin for the term.

An alternative theory by Benjamin Mazar proposed the root kn‘n meant

merchant.65 Mazar’s arguments were based on the contents of an Egyptian stele found at

Memphis, belonging to the reign of Amenophis II.66 On the stele is a list of captives,

including the maryana and Kyn‘nw. Mazar argues that this part of the list deals

exclusively with noble titles and that the term Kyn‘nw refers to a class of merchants, as

maryana refers to chariot warriors. Based on the biblical usage of Kena‘ni as merchants,

Mazar proposes the Egyptian Kyn‘nw should also be translated “merchants.”67 However,

it is an assumption that the 15th century Egyptian usage mirrors later biblical Hebrew. I


62 William Foxwell Albright, "The Role of Cannanites in the History of Civilization," in The Bible and the
Ancient Near East (2d ed.; Wisconson: Menasha, 1961), 356; Astour, "The Origin of the Terms "Canaan,"
"Phoenician," and "Purple"," 347.
63 Modern attempts to reproduce purple dye have led researchers to estimate its value at 10-20 grams of
gold per gram of dye. James Bennett Pritchard, Recovering Sarepta, a Phoenician City: Excavations at Sarafand,
Lebanon, 1969-1974, by the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press, 1978), 126.
64The only North West Semitic term known for a murex is the Talmudic Hebrew term ḥillazōn. Robert R.
Stieglitz, "The Minoan Origin of Tyrian Purple," BA 57, no. 1 (1994): 52; James D. Muhly, "Homer and the
Phoenicians," Ber 19 (1970): 29.
65 Albright, "The Role of Cannanites in the History of Civilization," 356, n. 50
66 Badawi, Annales du Service des antiquités de l’Égypte XLII (1943): 1-23.
67 Maisler, "BASOR," 9-10.



20


would agree with Mazar’s observation that Kyn‘nw in this list seems to denote a title, but

the context provides no information regarding the title. Kyn‘nw may simply refer to

individuals with political authority within the Asian province of Egypt.68 Indirect

evidence for the elevated status of merchants in the Levant appears in the numerous

documents found at Ugarit, which provide valuable insight into the elevated political and

economic status of merchants in the Late Bronze Age.69 The socio-economic role of the

merchants at Ugarit may have been similar to those in Cannan.70 Based on this evidence,

some would argue that political authority in Canaan was centered in its mercantile

activity.71 These arguments, however, do not demonstrate directly that the Egyptian

reference is to merchants.

While Mazar’s proposal is meaningful in both Egyptian and biblical contexts, it

has been rejected primarily on linguistic grounds. Specifically, there is no Semitic

connection between the root kn‘n and the meaning merchant. An early proposal made by

W. Gesenius suggested kn‘n meant lowland.72 However, Sabatino Moscati and Michael

Astour argued that the root kn‘ does not have an intransitive meaning, and rejected

Gesenius’s translation. Astour demonstrated that in biblical Hebrew the root only occurs

in the niphal (to be subdued or lower oneself) and hiphil (to subdue). In Aramaic, the root


68 Nadav Naaman, "Four Notes on the Size of Late Bronze Age Canaan," BASOR 313 (1999): 31-32.
69 Caroll Bell, The Evolution of Long Distance Trading Relationships Across the LBA/Iron Age Transition on the
Northern Levantine Coast: Crisis Continuity and Change (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2006), 62-65.
70 Christopher Montfort Monroe, Scales of Fate: Trade, Tradition, and Transformation in the Eastern
Mediterranean ca. 1350-1175 BCE (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2009), 151-89.
71 Cf. arguments by Lawrence Stager regarding the use of ports to expand geo-political power in the
Middle Bronze Age as a model for Phoenician expansion. Lawrence Stager, "Port Power in the Early and
Middle Bronze Age: The Organization of Maritime and Hinterland Production," in Studies in the
Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands in Memory of Douglas L. Esse (ed. Samuel R. Wolff; Atlanta: ASOR
Books, 2001), 634-35.
72 Wilhelm Gesenius, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testamnet including the Biblical Chaldee (trans.
Edward Robinson; 13th ed.; Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1897), 347; Astour, "The Origin of
the Terms "Canaan," "Phoenician," and "Purple",” 348.



21


also occurs in the qal (to bend down). In Arabic, the root is used to refer to the bowing of

the stars toward earth. Astour proposed, therefore, that the root referred to the action of

the sun, similar to the Latin usage. Occident in Latin refers to the “land of Sunset,” which

is expressed in West Semitic as kn‘n and in Akkadian as Amurru.73 James Muhly rejects

Astour’s claim that MAR-TU= amurru = Land of Sunset.74 Another weakness in

Astour’s proposal is his treatment of the fourth radical n.

Beno Landsberger suggested that Canaan may be related to Akkadian uqni,

“lapis.”75 However, it is unclear why, as early as the 18th century B.C.E., a large territory

in the Levant would be defined by a color or stone. Though there is evidence of purple

dye production on Crete in this early period,76 and the term for Lapis is likely of

Anatolian origin,77 we lack the evidence required to tie these two factors directly to the

region of Canaan in the Middle Bronze Age. In the Late Bronze Age, the term argmn

was used in Hittite and Ugaritic texts for murex dyed fabric, which further complicates

the issue.78 While it is tempting to tie the Canaanites to the color purple, the current

evidence is merely suggestive, not conclusive. Yet despite weakness in the evidence, I am


73 Astour, "The Origin of the Terms "Canaan," "Phoenician," and "Purple"," 347-48.
74 Muhly, "Homer and the Phoenicians," 29.
75 Beno Landsberger, "Über Farben im Sumerische-Akkadischen," Journal of Cunneiform Studies 21 (1967):
166.
76 Stieglitz, "BA," 49-53.
77André Caquot, Jesus-luis Cunchillos, and Jean-Michel De Tarragon, Textes ougaritiques: Tome II: Textes
religieux et rituels, correspondance ( Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1989), 411-13; Albrecht Goetze,
"Contributions to Hittite Lexicography," JCS 1 (1947): 310. I would like to thank Benjamin Noonan for
sharing his current research on the etymology of lapis.
78 Itmar Singer, "Purple Dyers in Lazpa," in Anatolian Interfaces: Hittites, Greeks and Their Neighbors:
Proceedings of an International conference on Cross-cultural Interaction, September 17-19, 2004 Emory University,
Atlanta GA. (eds. Billie Jean Collins, et al.; Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2009).



22


not inclined to join Muhly or Moscati in their position that there is no meaningful

etymology to be sought for this geographic term.79

2.3. Phoinix

The term Φοινιξ has a complex semantic range which include the color red-purple or the

ethnic term Phoenician. Greek lexicographers determined that the color was the original

meaning, derived from the term Φοινος, “blood colored.”80 Herodotus records a tradition

that this term was thought to refer to the red cliffs of the Persian Gulf, where the

Phoenicians originated.81 Due to a lack of evidence, this ancient tradition has been

rejected by most modern scholars.82 Since the Phoenicians were renowned for their trade

in purple dye, well into the Roman period it has been proposed that the term Phoenician

means “purple people.”83

Tablets found at Knososs and Pylos written in Linear B preserve the term po-ni-

ki-ya, which is used to describe the crimson color of a chariot, suggesting that the term

phoinix occurred in Greek as early as the 15th century.84 Alternatively, it has been argued

that the term Phoinos is derived from the Indo-European root *g”honjos and has nothing

to do with po-ni-ki-ya.85 Building on this argument, Michael Astour believes that po-ni-

ki-ya is a loanword of possible Semitic origin.86 Astour suggests that po-ni-ki-ya is


79 Sabatino Moscati, "Sulla storia del nome Canaan," Studia Biblica et Orientalia III (1959): 268-69.
80 Muhly, "Homer and the Phoenicians," 24-25.
81 Hdt. VII. 89; I. 1.
82 René Dussand, "Les Phéniciens au Négeb et en Arabie," Revue de L,Histoire des Religions 28 (1933): 5-49.
83 E. A. Speiser, "The Name Phoinikes," Language 12 (1936): 125.
84 Muhly, "Homer and the Phoenicians," 31-34.
85 M. Ventris and J. Chadwick, Documents in Mycenaean Greek: Three Hundred Selected Tablets from Knossos,
Pylos, and Mycenae, with Commentary and Vocabulary by Michael Ventris and John Chadwick. With a foreword by
Alan J. B. Wace (Cambridge: University Press, 1953), 344, 405.
86 Astour, "The Origin of the Terms "Canaan," "Phoenician," and "Purple"," 348.



23


related to the term puwwā, found in Hebrew and Arabic, referring to dyer’s madder.87

The term is found in Ugaritic texts in a context related to dyeing, and may be related to

the later Hebrew and Arabic terms for red-purple.88 Astour proposed that the origin of the

Greek term phoinix comes from the gentilic form of Hebrew puwwā, pûnî, found in a

census list in Numbers 26:23.89 Astour’s proposal is based on the occurrence of puwwā

(purple)90 in parallel with tôlā‘ (crimson) in Genesis 46:13.91 Muhly objected to this

proposal based on an a priori assumption that an early biblical tribal genealogy has no

connection with Phoenician history. Other similar, obscure references to Phoenician craft

skills possessed by Danites in Exodus 35:34-35 indicate that there are historical and

literary complexities within the biblical witness that caution against Muhly’s

assumptions, especially when dealing with the northern tribes of Israel. Unfortunately,

there is not enough textual evidence to determine whether the term should be considered

Semitic, Anatolian, or other in origin.92 What is clear, however, is that at Ugarit purple

dyed fabrics made from murex were called argmn and not pwt.93 So, if the Mycenaean

term po-ni-ki-ya is related to pwt, it cannot be connected with the purple dye industry.

Muhly, in an effort to strengthen arguments for the Greek origin of the term

phoinix, cites archeological evidence of Mycenaean purple dye production as early as the

14th century at Aghios Kosmas.94 He argues that phoinix is an original Greek color word


87 The plant Rubia tinctorum is commonly found in Syria and is the most common method for imitating
expensive purple dye.
88 Harry A. Hoffner Jr., "A Term for the Early Canaanite Dyeing Industry," JAOS 87, no. 3 (1967): 300-03.
89 Astour, "The Origin of the Terms "Canaan," "Phoenician," and "Purple"," 349.
90 Hoffner, "A Term for the Early Canaanite Dyeing Industry," 301-303; Astour, "The Origin of the Terms
"Canaan," "Phoenician," and "Purple"," 348; HALOT 3: 916.
91 Ibid., 348; HALOT 4: 1701-1702.
92 Hoffner, "A Term For the Early Canaanite Dyeing Industry," 303.
93 Singer, "Purple Dyers in Lazpa,"
94 Muhly, "Homer and the Phoenicians," 31-32.



24


that was used to translate the Semitic term kinaḫḫu. However, a more recent study by

Robert Stieglitz shows several problems with Muhly’s proposal. First, Mycenaean texts

from Knososs refer to purple dyed textiles as po-pu-re-ia, “purple” or wa-na-ka-te-ro po-

pu-re-[ ], “royal purple.”95 The use of the term po-pu-re-ia versus po-ni-ki-ia raises the

question as to whether phoinix etymologically relates to purple dye production.

Furthermore, archaeological evidence suggests that the purple dye industry may have

originated in Minoan Crete as early as the mid 18th century. After the fall of Minoan

culture, Mycenaean Greeks, Trojans, Anatolians, Cypriotes, and Canaanites all developed

purple dye industries of their own from the 15th-13th centuries.96 If, as Stieglitz claims,

the Mycenaean Greeks acquired the terminology of purple dye from the Minoans, one

would expect the Greek translation of the Semitic term kinaḫḫu to be porphyr.

Ultimately, there is no clear connection between the Mycenaean term porphyr and

the dye industry of Minoan Crete. Neither is there a clear connection between the

Mycenaean term po-ni-ki-ya and the purple dye industry. Thus, based on the available

Late Bronze Age texts, there is no etymological reason to relate the term phoenix to the

purple dye industry

2.4 Sidonians

Since kn‘n is primarily a Late Bronze Age term and Φοινιξ is a classical term found in

Iron IIB-C texts, we have yet to encounter terminology found in an early Iron Age

setting. One solution to this problem, taken directly from biblical and Homeric traditions,

has been to discuss Iron Age Phoenicia in terms of the major city-states. Both Homer and

the Hebrew Bible favor the gentilic term Sidonian when referring to an individual from

95 Stieglitz, "BA," 52.
96 Ibid.



25


the geographic region of Phoenicia.97 Katzenstein argues that the use of the term

Sidonian may reflect an 8th century context in which Tyrian and Sidonian powers were

unified under the rule of Ethbaal.98 Thus, Ethbaal was known as “king of the Sidonians”

because he not only ruled Tyre but also Sidon. There is, however, a late tradition by the

classic author Justin that describes a 12th century attack of Sidon by the king of the

Ashkelonians, which resulted in the founding of Tyre by displaced Sidonians.99 Though it

is impossible to confirm this late tradition, it is clear from excavations that Tyre’s

founding was much earlier than the 12th century.100 The Wenamun story states that Sidon

in the 11th century possessed a fleet of ships two and a half times greater than those of

Byblos.101 Additionally, recent archaeological excavations at Sidon confirm occupation

of the site in the Iron I-IIA periods.102 It remains possible, therefore, that both the

Homeric and biblical texts may preserve a tradition of Sidon’s cultural prominence prior

to the political realities of Ethbaal’s rule. Furthermore, we know from the 11th century

annals of Tiglath-Pileser that Arwad, Byblos and Sidon were the main coastal cities that

collaborated to prevent Assyrian conquest in the region.103 Therefore, the archaeological

and primary textual evidence suggests that Sidon was a prominent Phoenician city in the


97 Joshua 13:4-6; Judges 10: 12; I Kings 5:6. See Hans Jacob Katzenstein, The History of Tyre: From the
Beginning of the Second Millennium B.C.E. until the Fall of the Babylonian Empire in 538 B.C.E. (2nd ed.; Jerusalem:
Goldberg's Press, 1997), 62-63.
98 Katzenstein, The History of Tyre, 129-35.
99 Justinus Epitome XVIII, 3-5.
100 The earliest mention of Tyre is in Egyptian Execration texts dating to the nineteenth century B.C.E.
See Katzenstein, The History of Tyre, 19.
101 Pushkin Papyrus 120 1,59-2,2.
102 Claude Doumet-Serhal, "Preliminary Report on the Iron Age at Sidon: British Museum Excavations
2003-2004," Archaeology and History in Lebanon 23 (2006): 2-29.
103 A.0.87.3 16-25



26


11-10th centuries B.C.E. Therefore, it is unnecessary to restrict the biblical and Homeric

usage of the term Sidonian to the 9th and 8th centuries.104

2.5 ṮṮṮṮ-K-R, A Departure

Unlike the terms Canaanite or Phoenician, which refer to the inhabitants of a broad

geographic region, the term Sidonian is largely a geopolitical term and more narrowly

defines the inhabitants who lived within the geopolitical sphere of Sidon. While Sidon

may have enjoyed a prominent position among the Levantine coastal cities in the Iron I

period, it is clear from the Wenamun text and the Annals of Tiglath-Pileser I, that Byblos

and Arwad maintained some degree of distinction from Sidon. While it may seem

tempting to coin a new term such as “Neo-Canaanite,” to refer generally to the

inhabitants along the Lebanese coast, such an approach obfuscates the dynamic political

and cultural changes that take place during the Iron I-IIA periods. Rather than create an

artificial term, it is important to recognize the presence of diverse political boundaries

that characterized the identities in this region.

In recent years, the Egyptian term Ṯ-K-R has been associated with Phoenician

material presence in northern Israel in the Iron I period. The Ṯ-K-R known from the

inscriptions of Ramses III were part of the confederation of Sea Peoples who attacked

Egypt in the early part of the 12th century. Based on the Wenamun text, they have long


104 The reality is that our best primary textual evidence for Sidon as a seat of Phoenician authority comes
from the Persian period. From the Eshmunazor sarcophagus, we know that the king of Persia gave Sidon
control of the southern Levant, including the lands of Dagan in the plains of Sharon. In fact, the Persian
period is when Phoenicia’s borders extended the furthest, from Ashkelon in the south to Myriandos in
the North. See further, Elayi, "Studies in Phoenician Geography during the Persian Period," 83-110.
However, the primary textual evidence from the 11th century, which can not be ignored, suggests that
Sidon was greater than Tyre prior to the 10th century. See, Robert R. Stieglitz, "The Geopolitics of the
Phoenician Littoral in the Early Iron Age," BASOR, no. 279 (1990): 9-12.



27


been considered the foreign occupiers of Dor in the 11th century.105 Ayelet Gilboa has

challenged these assumptions with her studies of ceramics from Tel Dor.106 In her

analysis she demonstrates that “Ṯ-K-R” ceramics are actually the natural predecessors to

Phoenician bichrome ware, and that the overall ceramic evidence from Tel Dor shows a

great deal of continuity with Canaanite forms.107 In the following chapter, the relationship

between the term Ṯ-K-R and the Lebanese coast in the later half of the Iron I period will

be explored in detail.






















105 Ephraim Stern, Dor, Ruler of the Seas: Nineteen Years of Excavations at the Israelite-Phoenician Harbor Town on
the Carmel Coast (rev. and exp. ed.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000), 85-100; Ephraim Stern,
"Phoenicians, Sikils, and Israelites In the Light of Recent Excavations at Tel Dor," in Phoenicia and the Bible
(ed. Edward Lipinski; Leuven: Peeters, 1991), 85-94.
106 Ayelet Gilboa and Ilan Sharon, "Between the Carmel and the Sea: Tel Dor's Iron Age Reconsidered,"
NEA 71, no. 3 (2009), 159-60; Ayelet Gilboa, "The Dynamics of Phoenician Bichrome Pottery: A View from
Tel Dor," BASOR 316 (1999) 1-22; Ayelet Gilboa, "Sea Peoples and Phoenicians along the Southern
Phoenician Coast - A Reconciliation: An Interpretation of Sikila (SKL) Material Culture," BASOR 337 (2005),
47-78; Ayelet Gilboa, "Archaeology and Ethnicity at Iron Age Dor: Sea Peoples, Phoenicians, and
Israelites," (2010 International Meeting. The Ancient Near East in the 12th-10th Centuries BCE: Culture
and History, Haifa, 2010).
107 Gilboa, "The Dynamics of Phoenician Bichrome Pottery: A View from Tel Dor," 12-19.



28


Chapter III: Primary Texts

3.0 Introduction

There are several ancient Near Eastern texts which date to the Iron I-IIA period and

provide information relevant to Phoenician ethnicity and geopolitics. The texts which will

be examined below include several Byblian inscriptions, excerpts from the Egyptian

Wenamun text, and excerpts from the Annals of Tiglath-Pileser I. In order to critically

evaluate the data from these ancient sources, the present study will review the history of

each document’s discovery, define the genre and function of each document type, and

examine in detail the contribution of each text to the issue of Phoenician ethnicity and

geopolitics in the Iron I-IIA periods.

3.1. The Byblian Inscriptions

Over the past century, several inscriptions dating to the late Iron I-IIA periods have been

recovered through excavations at Byblos.108 Inscriptions KAI 1, 2, 4, and 7 are mortuary

inscriptions. Inscriptions KAI 5 and 6, are offerings to the Lady of Byblos, written on

statues of Sheshonq I and Osorkon I.109 Inscription KAI 3 records the name Azarbaal and

is some type of legal document written on a bronze spatula. All of these inscriptions are

very brief, but provide valuable data related to ethnicity and politics at Byblos during the

Iron IIA period.110


108 KAI 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7. For a summary of the initial publications by the excavators, see William Foxwell
Albright, "The Phoenician Inscriptions of the Tenth Century B.C. from Byblos," JAOS 67, no. 3 (1947),
153-54.
109 KAI 5, 6.
110 More recently Benjamin Sass has dated these inscriptions to the mid-9th-8th centuries. Benjamin Sass,
The Alphabet at the Turn of the Millenium: The West Semitic Alphabet ca. 1150-850 B.C.E. (Tel Aviv:
Yass Publications in Archaeology, 2005), 49. In general the Shoshenq I statue provides the strongest
evidence for dating the inscriptions. For a detailed rebuttal of Sass’s position see Christopher A. Rollston,




29


The Byblian inscriptions provide physical evidence of the script used at Byblos

over a 100 year period. From these seven inscriptions it is possible to identify minor

changes in style.111 Below is an example of the earliest script type.

Table. 3.1.1. The Scripts of the Ahiram Inscription and Modern Hebrew.

א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י כ ל מ נ ס ע פ צ ק ר ש ת

א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י כ ל מ נ ס ע פ צ ק ר ש ת



In addition, these inscriptions preserve a small corpus of Byblian names. As seen

below in Fig. 3.1.1, Baal is a common theophoric element in Byblian names. These

inscriptions also inform us of the succession of Byblian rulers, and aid in establishing a

relative chronology.

Table. 3.1.2. Byblian King List.
112



Ahiram Ca. 1000 B.C.E.
Ittobaal Ca. 980 B.C.E.
Yehimilk Ca. 960 B.C.E.
Abibaal Ca. 940 B.C.E.
Elibaal Ca. 920 B.C.E.
Shipitbaal Ca. 900 B.C.E.



Finally, the inscribed offerings of Abibaal and Elibaal on statues of Sheshonq I, and

Osorkon I point to strong and highly valued political ties with Egypt near the end of the

10th century B.C.E.




"The Dating of the Early Royal Byblian Phoenician Inscriptions: A Response to Benjamin Sass " Maarav
15, no. 1 (2008): 57-79.
111 Ibid., 68-78.
112Ibid., 60.



30


3.2. The Wenamun Papyrus: History and Date

The Story of Wenamun is an Egyptian text describing the perilous journey of a temple

official, named Wenamun, to Byblos, in order to procure cedar wood for the bark of

Amun. This Third Intermediate period text113 provides a rare description of the Northern

Levant during the 11th-10th centuries. The text is extremely valuable to this study as it

provides details about several well-known Phoenician ports, as well as the port of Dor,

which is south of the classical boundaries of Phoenician territory. The Story of Wenamun

offers insight into the identity of the Ṯ-k-r (Tjeker),114 and describes the complicated

trade dynamics during this period of Egyptian weakness.

In 1890, the Wenamun papyrus was discovered at El-Hiba in Egypt. The text was

written on papyrus in the Hieratic script. Discovered by fellahin, the document was

broken into pieces in an effort to multiply their profit through its sale on the market.

Russian Egyptologist Vladimir Golenishchev purchased most of the fragments, but was

unable to secure a complete document. Henrich Brugsch generously added another

fragment to Golenishchev’s collection. Currently, the text is at the Pushkin Museum and

is catalogued as Pushkin Papyrus 120.115 Though it is clear that the Wenamun text was

not recovered during excavation, there have been no raised concerns regarding its

authenticity.


113 Technically, the Third Intermediate period does not begin until the death of Ramses XI in 1070. As will
be discussed in detail below, this text probably describes events at the very end of Ramses XI’s life.
114 As will be demonstrated below, onomastic evidence preserved in the story of Wenamun provides clues
regarding the linguistic and cultural heritage of the ruler at Dor.
115 M. A. Korostovtsev, Travel of Wen-Amun to Byblos; The Hieratic Egyptian papyrus No. 120 at the A. S.
Pushkin state museum of fine arts (1960): 118-134. Cited 16 March 2009. Online: http://papyri.ru-
egypt.com/show.php?t=4&txt=8 In print, see Ricardo A. Caminos, A Tale Of Woe: From A Hieratic
Papyrus in the A. S. Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow (Oxford: University Press, 1977)



31


The Wenamun narrative begins in “year five,” but no Pharaoh is named, leaving

one to speculate as to who is in control of Egypt. There are, however, clues within the

text that point to a date. Herihor is mentioned as the high priest of Amun. Historically,

Herihor served as high priest of Amun and vizier of the Thebaid and Nubia during the

rule of Rameses XI.116 He was appointed to this prestigious position during the

nineteenth year of Ramses XI. It was during Herihor’s rule of Upper Egypt that a new

calendar system was introduced, known as the wḥmśwt years, or “Renaissance era.”117

Therefore, it is safe to assume year five in the Wenamun text most likely refers to year

five of the “Renaissance era.” The Wenamun papyrus also mentions Nesoubanebdjed, the

Egyptian name for the Pharaoh known in the Greek tradition as Smendes.118 Prior to the

death of Ramses XI, Smendes ruled Lower Egypt, presumably in a position similar to

Herihor in the south.119 Eventually, Smendes became the founder of the 21st Dynasty, but

in the Wenamun text there is no indication that he has been named Pharaoh.120 Thus, the

setting of the Wenamun narrative is during a unique period of Egyptian weakness when

Ramses XI delegated away his authority and Egypt functionally was ruled by Herihor and

Smendes.121


116 Kenneth A. Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100-650 B.C.) (Warminster: Aris &
Phillips LTD, 1986), 541.
117 Arno Egberts, "Wenamun," The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt vol 3:495.
118 Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100-650 B.C.), 255.
119 Ibid., 250.
120 A. Scheepers, "Anthroponyms et Toponymes du Rècit D'Ounamon," in Phoenicia and the Bible (ed.
Edward Lipinski; Studia Phoenicia; Leuven: Peeters, 1991), 23-24.
121 Herihor served as high priest of Amun in the south and eventually became vizier. Smendes, who may
have been a son of Herihor, likely held a similar priestly position in Lower Egypt. Thus, Egypt was divided
into Upper and Lower Egypt, both districts being ruled by a high priest rather than a Pharaoh. See Egberts,
"Wenamun," 541; Ogden Goelet, "Herihor," The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt vol 2:93. For the
breakdown in Rameside rule see Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100-650 B.C.), 248-54.



32


Adding to the complexity of identifying the setting of the narrative are the various

proposals regarding the date of the actual text. Since the Wenamun papyrus was not

discovered in situ, it is impossible to determine its date securely on archaeological

grounds. At El-Hibeh, numerous mud bricks stamped with the names Menkheperre

(1035-986 B.C.E.) and Pinudjem (1070-1032) attest to the importance of this site during

the 21st Dynasty.122 Limited access to the site has prevented excavators from securely

dating the earliest levels of El-Hibeh. Preliminarily, probes at the site suggest that a

substantial settlement existed prior to the 21st Dynasty.123 However, it is in the later 22nd

Dynasty, under the reign of Sheshonq I, that the site reached its zenith. In this later

period, Sheshonq I built a temple dedicated to “Amun Great of Roarings.”124 Sheshonq’s

choice of El-Hibeh as the temple site may have been a calculated effort to incorporate

into his territory the northern limits of Upper Egypt. Previously, this territory had been

ruled by the High Priests of Amun at Thebes, possibly as early as Herihor’s rule.125

Therefore, based on this limited body of archaeological evidence, it is only possible to

narrow the text’s date to sometime in the 11th century or early 10th century.

Since the Wenamun text cannot be dated based on archaeological context,

numerous scholars have attempted to date the text using paleographic, linguistic, and


122 Pinudjem was the successor of Herihor ruling as the High Priest of Amun and military commander. His
rule appears to extend from Sehel island in the south to El-Hibeh in the North. Eventually with the death of
Ramses XI and a positive relationship with Smendes, Pinudjem aquired the full status of a Pharaoh.
Menkhepere succeeded Pinudjem, though he never really made any serious claim to kingship except to
stamp his title ‘King of Upper and Lower Egypt’ on mud bricks at El Hibeh. See, Kitchen, The Third
Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100-650 B.C.), 257-62.
123 Robert J. Wenke, Archaeological Investigations at El-Hibeh 1980: Preliminary Report (Malibu:
Undena, 1984), 7, 11.
124 Wenke, Archaeological Investigations at El-Hibeh 1980: Preliminary Report 247-55.
13 Kenneth Kitchen based on the discovery of the Wenamun text at this site proposes that El-Hibeh may
have been established as a northern limit during the high priesthood of Piankh or Herihor. However,
Kitchen’s proposal imprudently relies on an unprovenanced text to date an archaeological site. Kitchen,
The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100-650 B.C.), 248 note 32



33


literary evidence. Many consider the present text to be a copy of an original work and

place the date of composition in the late 20th or early 21st Dynasty.126 There is, however,

no consensus regarding the attribution of the text to a specific dynasty. This has prompted

Wolfgang Helck to propose the early 22nd Dynasty as the date of composition. The basis

of Helck’s argument is the idea that the text is political propaganda and a work of fiction,

rather than a literary reworking of an administrative report.127 Benjamin Sass uses

Blumentahl’s literary forms to define the story of Wenamun as entertainment: tales with

the content of a lament.128 To bolster his argument that Wenamun is a late tale, Sass cites

Stern’s archaeological research at Dor, which demonstrate the site was an urbanized

Phoenician center from Iron I into Iron II. Sass claims the lack of Israelite control of the

site in the 10th century does not stand in the way of dating Wenamun to Sheshonq.129

However, Gilboa has recently stated that there is evidence that the site fell under Israelite

control in the Iron IIA period.130

Recent studies of the Wenamun text challenge the strength of Sass’s position that

the Wenaamun papyrus is a literary production during the rule of Sheshonq. In his recent

book, Bernd Schipper performs a thorough investigation of the Wenamun Story,


126 Gerald Moers, Fingierte Welten in der ägyptischen Literatur des 2 Jahrtausends v. Chr.:
Grenzüberschreitung, Reisemotiv und Fiktionalität (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 263; Alan H. Gardiner, Ancient
Egyptian Onomastica (reprint ed.; vol. 1 of 3: Oxford University, 1968b), 28; Egberts, "Wenamun," 495;
C.H. Eyre, "Is Egyptian Historical Literature "Historical" or "Literary"? ," in Ancient Egyptian Literature:
History and Forms (ed. Antonio Loprieno; New York: Brill, 1996), 432; Jan Assman, Kulturelle und
Literarische Texte (ed. Antonio Loprieno; New York: Brill, 1996), 78.
127 Hans Wolfgang Helck, "Wenamun," Lexicon Der Agyptologie 1216.
128 Elke Blumenthal, "Proigemena zu einer kassifizierung der ägzptischen literatur," in Proceedings of the
7th International Congress of Egyptologists, Cambridge, 3-9 September 1995 (ed. C. Erye; Leuven: OLA,
1998), 181; Benjamin Sass, "Wenamun and his Levant-1075 BC or 925 BC?", Ä&L 12 (2002a): 251.
129 E. Stern is the first to attribute material remains found at Dor to the Tjeker, whose participation with the
‘Sea Peoples’ has traditionally been considered foreign to Levantine material. The Tjeker mentioned in the
Wenamun text and the material culture attributed to them will be discussed in detail below. Ibid., 252.
130 Ayelet Gilboa, "Archaeology and Ethnicity at Iron Age Dor: Sea Peoples, Phoenicians, and Israelites."
(2010 International Meeting. The Ancient Near East in the 12th-10th Centuries BCE: Culture and History,
Haifa, 2010).



34


providing a critical edition of the text, an examination of the Egyptian and Levantine

historical context of the Twentieth—Twenty-second dynasties, and a literary examination

of the narrative. Schipper questions Sass’s conclusion on the basis of the weakness of

Sass’s archaeological evidence.131 Based on his careful review of the information

available, Schipper takes a more conservative stance, asserting that the historical context

for Wenamun more likely belongs to the early Third Intermediate period, or some time

between the 11th and 10th centuries B.C.E.132

Christopher Rollston has recently responded to Sass’s position on the 22nd-

Dynasty dating of the Wenamun text.133 Rollston points out that, while Sass’s

archaeological arguments do not “rule out” a date ca. 925, they hardly “prove” the text

dates to that period. It is important to recognize that both Sass and Rollston are not taking

into account the latest archeological findings at Tel Dor. The current excavators of Tel

Dor, also addresses the connections between the Wenamun text and current

archaeological discoveries. They assert that the text’s portrayal of Dor as a primary

stopping point for Egyptian maritime activity appears to correspond with the

archaeological record. Egyptian jar fragments of the 21st Dynasty appear in almost every

Iron I locus at Dor, demonstrating an unparalleled level of Egyptian commercial activity


131 Bernd U. Schipper, Die Erzählung des Wenamun (Fribourg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Göttingen,
2006), 34-35.
132Schipper argues, based on a lion scarab from Beersheba, that the veneration of Amun as god-king was
reestablished in the Levant during the 11th century. However, it is not until Sheshonq I that this concept is
consolidated. Thus, the religious themes of Wenamun are relevant in both the 11th and 10th centuries. Hans
Goedicke, The Report of Wenamun (ed. Hans Goedicke; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975),
Apendix A.
133 Christopher A. Rollston, "The Dating of the Early Royal Byblian Phoenician Inscriptions: A Response
to Benjamin Sass," Maarav 15, no. 1 (2008).



35


among Levantine sites.134 Therefore, the current excavators of Dor believe the most

likely context of the Wenamun text is the 21st Dynasty, based on the convergence of

material evidence with the portrayal of Dor in the Wenamun text. This, of course, is not a

conclusive argument regarding the date of the existing Wenamun papyrus, but it does

demonstrate that the details within the document seem to accurately portray a 21st

Dynasty setting rather than a 22nd dynasty setting.

In light of this conclusion, portions of the text will be closely examined in an

effort to better define the Lebanese coast in the 11-10th centuries B.C.E.

3.3. Analysis of the term ṮṮṮṮ-k-r

Wenamun I, 8-9
n Abd 1 Smw jw=j (Hr) spr r _-r-w wa dmj.t n §-k-r.135
In one month I reached Dor, a harbor of Tjeker


In this text, the port city Dor, is associated with a people group known as the

ÃÙ‘, commonly transliterated Tjeker.136 The term Tjeker is only attested in the

Egyptian sources of Wenamun, the monumental inscriptions of Medinet Habu, and the

Onomasticon of Amenomope.137 Since the Medinet Habu inscription lists the Ṯ-k-r as

part of the coalition of foreigners known as “Sea People,” who attacked Egypt during the

rule of Ramses III, it has commonly been assumed a priori that the Ṯ-k-r were a non-


134 Ayelet Gilboa and Ilan Sharon, "Between the Carmel and the Sea: Tel Dor's Iron Age Reconsidered,"
NEA 71, no. 3 (2009): 159.
135 All Transliterations of the Wenamun text (P. Moscow 120) are taken from Schipper, Die Erzählung des
Wenamun, 43-79.
136 Thanks to a long occupational history spanning from the Middle Bronze Age to the Crusader period, as
well as over thirty years of archaeological exploration, much is known about this ancient port city. See the
Tel Dor website: http://dor.huji.ac.il/expedition.htmlEphraim Stern, Dor, Ruler of the Seas: Nineteen Years
of Excavations at the Israelite-Phoenician Harbor Town on the Carmel Coast (rev. and exp. ed.; Jerusalem:
Israel Exploration Society, 2000).
137 Goedicke, The Report of Wenamun, 175-81.



36


Semitic group of foreigners, forced into migration, that eventually settled in the Sharon

plain.138 The main question is “Where did they come from?”





Phonetics and Geographic Origins



One of the first problems encountered by the term Tjeker is the range of phonetic values

that are possible with the sign for Ṯ, k, and r. K can represent phonetic[k] or [g], and r can

represent both [r] and [l].139 By contrast, Ṯ has several proposed phonetic renderings,

including [tj], [s], [z].140 These variables have resulted in several theories. Fritz

Schachermeyer proposed that Ṯ-k-r referred to Teucros, a hero of the Trojan War who

founded the city of Salamis on Cyprus and became an eponymous ancestor of immigrants

from Cyprus to the Sharon coast.141 As noted by Trevor Bryce, this theory is purely

speculative.142 William Foxwell Albright proposed an alternate reading of S-k-l, in which

he suggested it referred to the Siculi, the founders of Sicily.143 Albright’s proposal that

this particular group of Sea People hailed from Sicily has become a majority view

regarding Ṯ-k-r origins.144 Anson Rainey provides additional evidence for the


138 Ephraim Stern, "Phoenicians, Sikils, and Israelites In the Light of Recent Excavations at Tel Dor," in
Phoenicia and the Bible (ed. Edward Lipinski; Leuven: Peeters, 1991), 85-94; Itamar Singer, "The Origin
of the Sea Peoples and Their Settlement on the Coast of Canaan," in Society and Economy in the Eastern
Mediterranean (eds. Michael Heltzer and Edward Lipiński; Leuven: Uitgeverij Peters, 1988), 245-46;
Ayelet Gilboa, "Sea Peoples and Phoenicians along the Southern Phoenician Coast - A Reconciliation: An
Interpretation of Sikila (SKL) Material Culture," BASOR 337 (2005): 67-68. Goedicke, The Report of
Wenamun, 28.
139 James E. Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period
(Princeton: Princeton University, 1994), 411, 30.
140 Singer, "The Origin of the Sea Peoples and Their Settlement on the Coast of Canaan," 245.
141 Fritz Schachermeyr, Die Levante im Zeitalter der Wanderungen vom 13. bis zum 11. Jahrhundert v. Chr
(Wien: Verlag der O ̈sterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1982), 113-22.
142 Trevor Bryce, The Kingdom of the Hittites (New ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 338.
143 William Foxwell Albright, "A Revision of Early Hebrew Chronology," The Journal of the Palestine
Oriental Society 1, no. 1 (1920): 57-58.
144 William Foxwell Albright, The Vocalization of the Egyptian Syllabic Orthography (New Haven:
American Oriental Society, 1934), 65; Anson F. Rainey, "Toponymic Problems," Tel Aviv 9, no. 2 (1982):




37


transliteration S-k-l based on an Akkadian letter found at Ugarit (RS.34.129). This letter

requests the return of a certain Lunadušu who had been captured by the LÚ.MEŠ

KUR.URU. Ši-ka-la-iu-ú, who dwelt on the ships. Based on Assyrianisms found

throughout the text, Rainey concludes that the sign Ši = Si17 and Ši-ka-la-iu-ú should be

normalized as Sik(k)alayū.145 James Hoch’s excellent work with Semitic phonemes in

Egyptian texts confirms [s] should be the preferred reading for Egyptian Ṯ when dealing

with Semitic terms.146 As a final note on this issue, Itamar Singer argues that RS.34.129

bridges the gap between the Siculi in Italy and the Sikil at Dor.147 However, his theory

assumes that the Sikil were foreign to the geographic region of Dor prior to the battles

with Ramses III, which will be challenged by the evidence below.

In his work, The Report of Wenamun, Hans Goedicke challenges the assumption

that the Ṯ-k-r were a foreign non-Semitic people and suggests instead that Ṯ-k-r should

be read as the Semitic root ZKR, meaning “manly.” Furthermore, he proposes that the use

of land determinatives in the name Ṯ-k-r demonstrates that they were the natural


134; E. Edel, "Die Sikeloi in den ägyptischen Seevolkertexten und in Keilschrifturkunden," Biblische
Notizen 23 (1984): 7; Singer, "The Origin of the Sea Peoples and Their Settlement on the Coast of Canaan,
" 245-46; contra Donald B. Redford, "The Tjeker," in Cyprus, the Sea Peoples and the Eastern
Mediterranean: Regional Perspectives of Continuity and Change (ed. Timothy P. Harrison; Scripta
Mediterranea; Toronto: Canadian Institute for Mediterranean Studies, 2008), 9-13.
145 It is important to note that the Egyptian phoneme [Ṯ] does not exist in Akkadian nor in Northwest
Semitic. Rainey’s observation only addresses the Egyptian usage of Ṯ to represent Semitic s in
orthography, and cannot be used in a critical discussion of phonetics. Rainey, "Toponymic Problems," 134.
For RS 34.129, see Manfried Dietrich and Oswald Loretz, "Das 'SeefahrendeVolk' Šikila' (RS 34.129)," UF
10 (1978): 53-56.
146 Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period, 402-05.
Redford recently confirmed the Egyptian use of Ṯ for Semitc s, but also demonstrated that Egyptian Ṯ
when used to render Hittite, Hurrian, or Luwian words represented the affricative double sound t + s.
Ultimately, Redford sees no reason to seek a Semitic origin for the Ṯ-k-r and prefers Anatolia as the place
of origin. Redford, "The Tjeker," 9-11.
147 Singer, "The Origin of the Sea Peoples and Their Settlement on the Coast of Canaan," 245-46.
Stern, "Phoenicians, Sikils, and Israelites in the Light of Recent Excavations at Tel Dor," 85-94



38


inhabitants of the geographic region which would later be called Phoenicia.148 Though

Goedicke’s proposed reading, zeker, has been rejected,149 his arguments regarding the

origin of the Ṯ-k-r have recently been taken up by the excavators at Dor and are worth

rviewing here.150

Goedicke draws attention to the occurrence of Ṯ-k-r twice within the Wenamun

text (1,9; 2,63) with land determinatives rather than people determinatives (5<‚ and

5<õ).151 Outside of Wenamun, Ṯ-k-r occurs five times: twice with land determinatives

5< (Medinet Habu I 43,19; VIII 600b ), once with land and people determinatives

5!õ< (Medinet Habu I 46,18), and twice with people determinatives 5!õ, 5!O

(Medinet Habu I 28, 51; Medinet Habu II 107,7). Thus, Ṯ-k-r is a homologue

functioning as a geographic term and a gentilic noun.

Medinet Habu I 43,18-25 provides a clue that the Ṯ-k-r may not have been

Aegeans who migrated to the Sharon plain circa 1200 B.C.E. Goedicke draws attention to

the use of the land determinative in this passage as well as to another clue that the Ṯ-k-r

belong to the Semitic world. Expressed in the following lines of praise for the supremacy

of Pharaoh over his enemies, the awe of Pharaoh is compared to the awe of Seth/Baal.

Theologically, Pharaoh’s battle is not merely with the Ṯ-k-r, but also against the god of

his enemies. In this case, Seth/Baal is associated with the enemy Ṯ-k-r.152


148 Goedicke, The Report of Wenamun 182.
149 There is little evidence that Egyptian Ṯ was used to represent Semitic [z]. Rainey, "Toponymic
Problems," 135; Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate
Period, 436.
150 Gilboa and Sharon, "Between the Carmel and the Sea," 159-60.
151 An additional mention of Ṯ-k-r appears in the Wenamun text (2,71) where the land determinative is
used again, but Goedicke does not treat this occurrence as it is in a poorly copied section. Goedicke, The
Report of Wenamun
152 Goedicke, The Report of Wenamun, 175-76.



39


In addition to Goedicke’s observations, another metaphor in Medinet Habu I 43,

18-25, may be related to the Baal myth. In the statement “greater is your sword than a

mountain of metal,” the divine weapon of Pharaoh is juxtaposed to a mountain of metal.

The question is, “In what way is Baal associated with a mountain of metal?” Is this

simply a reference to a heap of swords from vanquished foes, or is it a reference to a

mountain associated with Baal? The most obvious association between Baal and a

mountain is Mount Ṣaphon, or Jebel el-Aqra‘, his dwelling place.153 In KTU 1.3 iii 29-31,

gb‘ tliyt (hill of victory) is one of the epithets given for Mt. Ṣaphon, highlighting the

importance of this geographic location in regard to the victories of Baal. In KTU 1.4 i,

23-35; v, 35-41, the palace is built completely of silver and gold mined from the

mountains and fashioned by Kothar-wa-Hasis, the god of metal-craft from Crete. The

victory of Baal over Yamm is possible through the use of divine weapons fashioned by

Kothar-wa-Hasis (KTU 1.2 iv, 11-27). Although we lack any direct attestation to Mt.

Ṣaphon as a ‘mountain of metal,’ the mountain’s association with silver/gold and the

epithet, “hill of victory,” suggests that Pharaoh’s claim is intended to pit his victorious

sword against the mountain from which Baal derives his victories. Further support for

Mt. Ṣaphon as a mythic mountain of metal can be found in the fragmentary lines of the

annals of Sargon II (I 230-231,233):

Ba’al Ṣapuna, the great mountain, bronze [together created]… of those
mountains, I mixed heaps of their earth, to furnaces…
I heaped up in my city Dur-Šarruken. Within Assyria the price of silver they set
equal to bronze in the 11th year of my reign.154



153 Jebel el Aqra‘ is located over 40 kilometers north of Ugarit near the coast. See further, Patrick N. Hunt,
ed., Mount Saphon in Myth and Fact (Lueven: Peeters, 1991), 108. 176
154 Arthur Gotfreid Lie, The Inscriptions of Sargon II King of Assyria ( Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul
Geunthner, 1929), 38; Stephanie Dalley, "Neo-Assyrian Textual Evidence for Bronzeworking Centers," in
Bronzeworking Centers of Western Asia, c. 1000-539 B.C. (ed. John Curtis: Taylor & Francis, 1988), 101.



40


Although the text is fragmentary, it seems clear that in the 8th century B.C.E., Mt. Ṣaphon

was a wealthy source of precious metal that yielded bronze and possibly silver, which

contributed greatly to the wealth of Assyria.155

The point is that in Medinet Habu I 43, 18-25, the Ṯ-k-r are connected to the deity

Baal and likely his divine abode, Mt. Saphon. The Ṯ-k-r’s connection with both Baal and

an element of his mythology strengthens Goedicke’s argument that the Ṯ-k-r should be

considered Levantine in origin156

The position that the Ṯ-k-r were native to the Lebanese region has been

strengthened by recent archaeological evidence from Dor. Unlike the material remains

found further south in the region of Philistia, there is no evidence of an abrupt change in

material culture at Dor from the Late Bronze Age to early Iron IIA. Rather, one can

match at Dor the developments that occur at sites to the north, such as Tell Keisan,

Sarepta, and Tyre. These developments show the slow transition from Late Bronze Age

“Canaanite” to Iron Age “Phoenician” culture.157 As such, the Dor archaeological

material aids in defining the possible territory of the Šikalayū mentioned in RS 34.129.

In this regard, Gilboa and Sharon point out that despite the mention of the Šikalayū

“living on boats,” the term Šikalayū is preceded by both land and city determinatives, and

thus these people were not migratory pirates, but rather associated with a concrete

geographic location a decade prior to their battle with Ramses III.158 While RS 34.129,


155Ibid., 101. Goedicke, The Report of Wenamun, 28.
156Ibid., 28.
157Gilboa and Sharon, "Between the Carmel and the Sea," 160.
47 Note that this position directly challenges Singer’s viewpoint regarding the Siculi who took up residence
in the Sharon plain following the conflict with Ramses III. See Gilboa and Sharon, "Between the Carmel
and the Sea,"159-60; Singer, "The Origin of the Sea Peoples and Their Settlement on the Coast of Canaan
," 245-46.



41


does not provide any indication about the geographic location of the Šikalayū, the view

that they come from the Aegean is now questioned. Further archaeological evidence from

Dor will be examined below in Section 4.1.9.

An additional text mentioning the Ṯ-k-r which uses the land determinative is the

Onomasticon of Amenomope. In the Golenischeff copy of the Amenomope Onomasticon

IV, 6 are listed three geographic terms: Š-r-d-n, Ṯ-k-r, and P-r-š-t.159 It has been

conventionally maintained that these three terms describe the three geographic regions,

ordered north to south, along the Levantine coast settled by these “Sea Peoples.”

Goedicke disagrees with the idea that the Ṯ -k-r were foreign immigrants to the region,

but agrees that the text is useful for describing a north to south sequence of the regions.

However, Gilboa points out that the Levantine cities listed prior to these three regions

lack any strict geographic ordering.160 Therefore, it would seem the Onomasticon simply

confirms a region known as Ṯ -k-r existed in the Levant at the end of the Rameside

period, but can provide no reliable information regarding its specific location.

However, the Onomasticon of Amenope does provide a unique spelling of Ṯ-k-r.

In this instance, the r of Ṯ-k-r is written with the lion glyph (Û) rather than with the

mouth glyph (‘). As noted earlier, this spelling also occurs in Wenamun 2,71.

Scheepers suggests that in the Wenamun text Ṯ-k-r should be read as Ṯ-k-rw, where w


159 Alan H. Gardiner, Ancient Egyptian Onomastica (repr. ed.; vol. 3 of: Oxford University, 1968a), Plate
X.
49 Goedicke, prior to Gilboa, notes that the Amenope Onomasticon does not convey any details about the Ṯ-
k-r. He, however, does not directly challenge the notion that the list is in geographic order. See, Goedicke,
The Report of Wenamun, 181. Gilboa points out that Ashkelon, Ashdod, and Gaza precede Sherden, Sikil,
and Philistine, and thus the list is not strictly organized from north to south. Gilboa, "Sea Peoples and
Phoenicians along the Southern Phoenician Coast - A Reconciliation: An Interpretation of Sikila (SKL)
Material Culture," 47.



42


marks the plural of ethnicity.161 Note, the term Š-r-d-n uses the people determinative,

indicating it is an ethnic term; by contrast, Ṯ-k-r and P-r-š-t end with the foreign land

determinative.162 The use of the land determinative rather than people determinative

creates a problem for Scheepers proposal, namely that w marks plurality of an ethnonym.

Furthermore, in Hoch’s treatment of Egyptian group writing during the New Kingdom

period, he states that the lion glyph (Û) shifted from rw/lw to li/ri and le/re.163 In

several Northwest Semitic languages, the preferred vowel for the gentilic construction is

i.164 Since the region known as Ṯ -k-r includes Dor, which is in the middle of the

Canaanite language region, it is likely that the gentilic form of Ṯ-k-r would have ended in

i. This is likely an instance where the scribe unwittingly used a foreign gentilic instead of

the proper geographic term. This proposal situates Ṯ -k-r within the linguistic geography

of Hebrew, Phoenician, and Ugaritic.

Based on (RS.34.129) the term Ṯ-k-r should be transliterated S-k-l when referring

to a region, or S-k-li when referring to people from that territory. Unfortunately, a clear

definition of the term S-k-l has yet to be found.165 An interesting proposal made by

Charles Krahmalkov is that the Punic root š-q-l refers to an individual who is a Sicel, or a


161 Scheepers, "Anthroponyms et Toponymes du Rècit D'Ounamon," 69-70.
162 Gardiner, Ancient Egyptian Onomastica, 194-99.
163 Donald B. Redford in his discussion of the issue claims the recumbent lion glyph should be read r
instead of l, and cites Hoch page 509 for his argument. However, Hoch also states that the recumbent lion
glyph, during the period of Sheshonq I, was used for the phoneme l. Furthermore, in the Medinet Habu
inscription Ṯ-k-r is never spelled with the recumbent lion, but rather the mouth glyph. The Story of
Wenamun and the Onomasticon of Amenope are both Third Intermediate period sources and it is therefore
possible to read the recumbent lion glyph as li/le. See Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New
Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period, 502; Redford, "The Tjeker," 9.
164 Daniel Sivan, A Grammar of the Ugaritic Language (eds. H. Altenmüler, et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 74;
Charles R. Krahmalkov, A Phoenician-Punic Grammar (eds. H. Altenmüler, et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2001),
149; Wilhelm Gesenius and E. Kautzsch, Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (trans. A. E. Cowley; Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1910), 240.
165 In the various proposed readings of Ṯ--k-r no one has suggested that the k may be a Semitic g, but this is
a possible transliteration.



43


person from Sicily.166 His evidence comes from jar fragments found in a tomb at

Carthage bearing the name of a man, דבעלעב followed by the word 167.שקל However, if

is to be taken as a gentilic construction, one would expect a final yod for Phoenicianשקל

or aleph for Punic as in the present case.168 It seems more reasonable that here refers שקל

to a weight or value within the vessel. Although Krahmalkov’s case may be lacking with

regard to the Punic evidence, his argument raises the question: are the S-k-l of Wenamun

to be connected to the root š-q-l, (weigh or balance,) and by extension (buy, sell, and

trade)? Based on Hoch’s analysis, Egyptian k can represent Semitic [q] but Egyptian

group sign à Ṯ only represents Semitic [s] and never [š].169 So, the root š-q-l is

untenable, and S-k-l is to be preferred.

The idea that the S-k-li should be equated with Seculi is further challenged based

on a unique occurrence of S-k-li on Pylon 7 at Karnak, which contains a list of Asiatic

cities conquered by Thutmose III.170 Gardiner draws attention to the presence of the term

Ṯ -k-li in both the Amenope Onomasticon and the Karnak list, but concludes that they are

homonyms. He bases his rationale on the Karnak list, which contains the names of cities

in northern Syria dated roughly four hundred years before the foreign invasion of the ‘Sea

people.’171 Presuppositions about the origins of the ‘Sea People’ have kept scholars from

accepting that Thutmose III’s geographic list places the S-k-l near the Syro-Lebanese


166 Charles Krahmalkov, Phoenician-Punic Dictionary (vol. XV of; Leuven: Peeters, 2000), 480.
167 A. L. Delattre, "Les Tombeaux Puniques de Carthage," Revue Archéologique 17, no. 1 (1891): 58-60.
168 Krahmalkov, A Phoenician-Punic Grammar, 148.
169 Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period, 410-11,
512.
170 Urk IV 788, 136. Note the lack of determinatives in the list of place names including Ṯ-k-r.
171 Gardiner, Ancient Egyptian Onomastica, 200.



44


region four centuries prior to the wars with Ramses III.172 While many of the names in

the Pylon 7 list have yet to be identified, the following five locations are useful in

providing a general geographic context for Sikal: Tnp (127),173 Ḏrb (130), Ny (132), Ṯ-k-

rw (136), and I-n-m (138).174 Tnp (Tunip) has generally been identified as a location

between Kadeš and Aleppo.175 Tell ʽAsharneh is the most likely location of Tunip.176 Ḏrb

has been associated with modern Zirbe, located 20 kilometers south-west of Aleppo.

However, the ancient city Zulabi might be preferred since it is listed in Ugaritic sources

and is to be located 30 kilometers east of Arwad, near Tunip.177 Ny (Niya) is typically

associated with a region on the east side of the Orontes, north of Tunip.178 Qalʽat el

Mudiq, near the Roman city of Apamea, is the likely location of Niya.179 No specific

geographic location has been suggested for Ṯ-k-rw (Sikal), but it has been generally

placed near Niya, somewhere in the lower Orontes region.180 I-n-m has been associated


172 It is surprising that, as recently as 2005, Ayelet Gilboa dismissed the possible connection between the
Karnak evidence and the S-k-l at Dor. Her reason was largely based on Scheeper’s perception of
the“Foreignness” of the S-k-l. Scheepers’s view that the S-k-l were foreigners appears to be based on the
old theories of Gardiner and Helck, who sought Aegean origins for all “Sea Peoples.” See Gilboa, "Sea
Peoples and Phoenicians along the Southern Phoenician Coast - A Reconciliation: An Interpretation of
Sikila (SKL) Material Culture," 67. Scheepers, "Anthroponyms et Toponymes du Rècit D'Ounamon," 72.
173 There are two numbering systems for the Thutmose III list. I have chosen to follow the Urk numbers
rather than those of W. Mueller. For a discussion of the different numbering systems see J. Simons,
Handbook for the Study of Egyptian Topographical Lists Relating to Western Asia (Leiden: Brill, 1937),
27-44.
174 Anton Jirku, "Die Ägyptischen Listen Palästinensischer und Szyrischer Ortsnamen," KLIO Beitrege yur
Alten Geschichte 38 (1937): 18-19.
175 Anson Rainey more recently identifies Tunip as a city on the Orontes south between Ugarit and Arwad.
See, Anson F. Rainey and R. Steven Notley, The Sacred Bridge: Carta's Atlas of the Biblical World
(Jerusalem: Carta, 2006), 62.
176 Yuval Goren, Israel Finkelstein, and Nadav Naaman, Inscribed in Clay: Provenance Study of the
Amarna Tablets and Other Ancient Near Eastern Texts (Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in
Archaeology, 2004), 121.
177 For the location of Zulabi, see Ibid.,100.
178 Ibid., 62; Donald B. Redford, The Wars in Syria and Palestine of Thutmose III (eds. B. Halpern, et al.;
Leiden: Brill, 2003), Map. 1.
179 Goren, Finkelstein, and Naaman, Inscribed in Clay, 93.
180 Henri Gauthier, "Dictionnaire des noms géographiques contenus dans les textes hiéroglyphiques," 70.



45


with Inimme, a territory of Sidon mentioned in an Esarhaddon text (Prism S III, 10).181 In

the editio princeps of the prism S, Vincent Scheil demonstrates that in a list of Seti I, a

similarly named city is listed prior to Akko. Likewise, a city, Inu’amu, is listed next to

Tyre in an inscription from Deir el Bahri.182 Thus, I-n-m can be generally placed

somewhere in Lebanon, between Akko and Sidon. Although the precise location of Sikal

is unknown, it is likely somewhere between the Orontes and I-n-m. Thus, the earliest

attestation of a location known as S-k-l in Syro-Lebanon comes from the 15th century

inscription found on Pylon 7.

In a recent article, Donald Redford noted that several place names in the Pylon 7

list include variants of the term S-k-r (S-k-l): S-g-r (161), i-S-k-r (197), D-S-k-r (271).183

Since this term occurs multiple times, Redford suggests that Ṯ-k-r is a noun describing

some type of geographic feature rather than a proper place name. He suggests S-k-r

comes from the Akkadian root sgr/skr, meaning to block or dam up.184 Redford therefore

concludes that the term Skr, “dam” as it appears in the Pylon 7 list, cannot possibly have

anything to do with the Skr of the Sea People. However, Redford fails to point out that

the term S-k-r is primarily a geographic term, even in the list of Sea People. Secondly, the

reading of “dam” and its occurrence as an element in multiple place names does not

nullify the fact that the term serves as a proper name for one specific location, S-k-l (132).

Another piece of evidence that S-k-l is a specific location near Sidon is found in Prism S

III, 9, where the city Šik-ku-u, Sikkû, is mentioned in close proximity to Inimme in the


181 Vincent Scheil, Le Prisme S D'Assaraddon: Roi D'Assyrie 681-668 (Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honoré
Champion, 1914), 14.
182 Ibid., 34.
183 Redford, "The Tjeker," 10.
184 Ibid.



46


territory belonging to Sidon.185 The final û in Sikkû typically indicates a weak letter or a

guttural, which accounts for a missing l/r. 186 Finally, Redford’s preference for the Indo-

European origins of the S-k-l is not completely supported by the continuity of coastal

material culture found at Tel Dor.187 There is some evidence of Syrian style material in

the form of drinking vessels, and a very large mud brick building, but this evidence must

be considered alongside the coastal material.188 The prominence of the S-k-l in the

Wenamun text and the cooperation of Byblos with them suggests there was a degree of

geopolitical cooperation between the S-k-l and the city-states along the Lebanese coast.

The combination of shared material culture and geopolitical cooperation suggests closer

cultural and geographic ties between the two groups.

3.4. Onomastic Analysis

Wenamun 1,9-1,10
jw B-d-r pAj=f wr (Hr) dj.t jnj n=j aqw 50 jrp msḫ mAs.t n kA.


B-d-r it’s ruler189 arranged that someone bring me 50 loaves of bread, 1 container
of wine (and) 1 haunch of beef.


Wenamun (1,14-1,17)
jA jr pA HD n(y)-sw Jmn-Ra nsw.t nTr.w pA nb n nA tA.wj n(y)-sw N(y)-sw-bA-nb-Dd.t n(y) –
sw ¡rj- ¡r pAj=j nb nA ktḫ aAy.w n km.t ntk sw n(y) –st W-r-t n(y) –st M-k-m-r n(y) –st §-
k-r- b-a-l pA wr n K-p-n-y


Indeed as concerns the silver; it belongs to Amun-Re, king of gods, the lord of
the two lands, it belongs to Smendes, it belongs to Herihor my lord, (and) to other
great ones of Egypt. To you it belongs, it belongs to W-r-t, it belongs to M-k-m-r,
it belongs to Ṯ-k-r-baal the ruler of Byblos.


185 Vincent Scheil, Le Prisme S D'Assaraddon: Roi D'Assyrie 681-668 (Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honoré
Champion, 1914), 14.
186 Though much has been made over the most appropriate reading of the final letter r/l, it is a common
phenomenon in Semitic languages for r/l/n to be confused over time and between languages. It would not
be surprising, therefore, for an Akkadian root ending in final r to shift to l over time.
187 Gilboa, "Sea Peoples and Phoenicians along the Southern Phoenician Coast - A Reconciliation: An
Interpretation of Sikila (SKL) Material Culture," 47-78.
188 Gilboa and Sharon, "Between the Carmel and the Sea," 154-56.
189 Wr literally means ‘great one’.



47



3.4.1. B-d-r

In the lines translated above, we have a list of foreign rulers that Wenamun was to visit in

his quest for cedar. This onomastic evidence can be used to determine the language, and

possibly the culture, to which these individuals belong. In this case, the first ruler B-d-r is

earlier called the ruler of Dor (Wenamun 1,8-9), which is a S-k-l port. While in port,

Wenamun reports a theft of 30 dbn of silver, a portion of which was to be distributed to

B-d-r himself along with three other named rulers. Numerous proposals have been made

with regard to these names in an attempt to contextualize the origins of the S-k-l, as well

as the three other rulers. The following examination proposes that most of these names

are Northwest Semitic.

To date, several readings have been proposed for B-d-r. Hans Goedicke

proposed that BA-dj-r should be read as PA-(n)-dj-r meaning “that one of Dor.” However

when one looks at the heiroglyphs the name begins with the stork glyph w which clearly

represents bi and not pA.190 A. Scheepers proposed that BA-dj-r meant “son of Dor,”

where the first element BA represents the Semitic term ben “son” with assimilation of the

final n.191 Lipiński suggests the name means bidal/badal, a Semitic term for “viceroy,”

attested in Eblaite and Ugaritic texts.192 Lipiński is correct to seek a Semitic reading

given the Phoenician material excavated in 11th century levels at Dor. However, there is

no evidence for the term bidal/badal in Northwest Semitic. Furthermore, Lipiński’s

assumption that the S-k-l are foreigners precludes his investigation of Semitic onomastic


190 Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period, 507.
191 Schipper, Die Erzählung des Wenamun, 172-73.
192 Edward Lipinski, "Šu-bala-aka and badalum," in Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft von Ebla (eds. H.
Waetzoldt and H. Hauptmann; Heidelberg, 1988), 257-60.



48


options.193 Goedicke proposed the biblical name ְּבָדן, a fourth generation son in the line

of Manasseh (1 Chron 7:17). Surprisingly, Goedicke considers this name to be non-

Semitic, a viewpoint Scheepers refutes, noting the Hebrew root bdl meaning “isolated”

and the Aramaic root bdr meaning “disperse” as possible Semitic roots for the name.194

Furthermore, Noth has proposed the name may mean “offspring of El.” The first element

bd is attested in Phoenician onomastics195 which he translates as “branch,” and the second

element r represents the theophoric element ʼēl.196 However, bd in light of Hebrew and

Ugaritic usage should be translated as “in ones charge/ in the service of.”197 Based on

previous arguments outlined in this paper regarding the geographic location of the S-k-l,

there is little reason to seek a reading beyond a West Semitic context. Thus Bd-ʼl, first

proposed by Noth, but with a new meaning “in the power of El,” is to be preferred over

the other suggestions. Furthermore, Bd-ʼl is an attested name in Ugaritic and later in

Phoenician.198

3.4.2. W-r-t

The next foreign ruler to whom Wenamun was to bring some of the silver was Wrt. W. F.

Albright suggested the name is derived from Pisidian warda which is an appellation for

Zeus. He argued the “Sea Peoples” originated in southwestern Anatolia, and that this

name attests to a ruler who probably resided in one of the cities of the Philistine


193 Lipinski, "Šu-bala-aka and badalum," 260.
194Goedicke, The Report of Wenamun
195Martin Noth, Die Israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der Gemeinsemitischen Namengebung.
(Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1928), 13. Examples of such names are bd ʼšmn, bdbʽl, bdʽštrt, etc. See, Frank L.
Benz, Personal Names in the Phoenician and Punic inscriptions (Rome Biblical Institute, 1972), 283-86.
196 Noth, Die Israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der Gemeinsemitischen Namengebung., 13; M.
Burchardt, Die Altkanaanäische Fremdworte und Eigennamen im Ägyptischen (vol. 2 of; Leipzig, 1910),
II, 17.
197 Krahmalkov, Phoenician-Punic Dictionary, 97-98., I, §159.
198 Benz, Personal Names, 283-86.



49


Pentopolis.199 However, Scheepers observes that if Wrt lived in the south, one would

expect Wenamun to have visited him before reaching Dor.200 At the recommendation of

Lipiński, Scheepers notes that the term Wrt could be Hurrian and cites the Ugaritic text

CAT 4.369: 18, as well as Nuzi economic documents which refer to Wi-ir-ru-ut-ta, Wa-

ra-at-te-ia/wa-ra-te/Wa-ra-te-ei.201 Regarding this textual evidence from Nuzi, Wi-ir-ru-

ut-ta occurs only once as the name of a cook.202 With regard to the names Wa-ra-at-te-

ia/Wa-ra-te/Wa-ra-te-e, they are well-attested and should be translated as “servant of Tea

(Teshup).”203 The connection between this Nuzi name and the name mentioned in the

Wenamun text is enticing, but one must consider whether a Hurro-Akkadian name fits an

Iron I Levantine context.

Another proposal by Hans Goedicke is that Wrt is related to the name Wrktr, ruler

of Sidon, which occurs in line 1.2,2 of the Wenamun Papyrus. According to Goedicke,

the final r of Wrktr, which stands for the theophoric element ʼl, has been omitted in a

shorter form of the name, Wrt. The omission of k may be seen as unintentional. Goedicke

thus proposes ʼluktēl as the appropriate reading, but provides no meaning for this

proposed name.204 M. Green also sees a connection between Wrt and Wrktr and argues


199 William Foxwell Albright, "The Eastern Mediterranean about 1060 B.C.," in Studies Presented to D.M.
Robinson I (ed. G. Mylonas; Saint-Louis, 1951), 223-31.
200 Scheepers, "Anthroponyms et Toponymes du Rècit D'Ounamon," 43; Goedicke, The Report of
Wenamun, 32-33.
201 Elena Cassin and Jean-Jacques Glassner, Anthroponymie et Anthropologie de Nuzi (vol. I of; Malibu:
Undena, 1977), 167.
202 HSS XVI 454:10 See, Michael C. Astour, "Les Frontières et Districts du Royaume D'Ugarit: Éléments
de topographie historique régionale " UF &" (1981): 6,12.
203 Wa-ra-at-te-ia (HSS XVI 85:9; 337:3) Wa-ra-te (HSS XIII 253:7; 255:11; 388:3) Wa-ra-te-e (HSS XIII
249:6; HSS XVI 249:1). See further, Ignance J. Gelb, Pierre M. Purves, and Allan A. MacRae, Nuzi
Personal Names (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1943), 265.
204Goedicke, The Report of Wenamun, 32-33. J. Simons, Handbook for the Study of Egyptian Topographica
lLists Relating to Western Asia (Leiden: Brill, 1937)



50


Wrkt is a geographic location mentioned in the Toponym list of Pharaoh Shoshenq I.205

He believes the person’s name may be a homonym of a geographic locale, especially as

the two occurrences are accompanied by a person determinative. For a definition of this

term he suggests Akkadian (w)arkatu ‘rear side, rear area’ and Aramaic ’l ‘these’

resulting in the generic term ‘these backwoods.’206 Green’s proposed reading is at best an

awkward and inappropriate use of Aramaic, and his proposed reading of the toponym

from the Shoshenq list is problematic.207

Within the Ugaritic corpus, one document contains the name wrt mtny (KTU

4.368:17-19). Frauke Gröndal translates the geographic term mtny as Mittani which

seems to support Scheepers’ argument for a Hurrian connection.208 However, Michael

Astour, in his examination of the frontiers and districts of the kingdom of Ugarit, reads

mtny as a gentilic and places mtn to the southwest of Ugarit.209 Unfortunately, Astour is

unsure exactly where mtn is to be located within the Piedmont. It is interesting to note in

this regard that in modern Lebanon, the Matn Mountains are located just east of modern

Beirut. However, the term matn “back” comes from standard Arabic, and may have no

relevance to the earlier Ugaritic root.210


205 The toponym is written yX‘Ùëëk. See M. Green, "<<m-k-m-r>> und <<w-r-k-t-r>> in der
Wenamun-Geschichte," Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 113 (1986): 115-19.
206 Green, "<<m-k-m-r>> und <<w-r-k-t-r>> in der Wenamu-Geschichte," 119.
207 In cartouche number 76 of the Shoshenq I Toponym List, the k is reconstructed in a break. Thus, the
cartouche should be transcribed as follows yX‘[Ù] ëëk. In addition to a questionable k, the face of the
bird is damaged. Instead of the eagle glyph, Anson Rainey reads an owl glyph, and does not reconstruct the
k ( personal communication May 29, 2009). Therefore he suggests transliterating the name Aw-m-l-ya-ta.
See Anson F. Rainey and R. Steven Notley, The Sacred Bridge: Carta's Atlas of the Biblical World
(Jerusalem: Carta, 2006), 187-88.
208 F. Gröndahl, Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit (Rom, 1967), 314.
209 Daniel Sivan and Ziporah Cochavai-Rainey, West Semitic Vocabulary in Egyptian Script of the 14th to
the 10th Centuries BCE (ed. Shmuel Ahituv; Ben-Gurion: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, 1992), 51-
52.
210 Elie Wardini, Lebanese Place-Names: Mount Lebanon and North Lebanon (Leuven: Peeters, 2002),
410,640.



51


Another point to consider regarding the name Wrt is that the first sign group in

the name, yX (wA), is used in the spelling of Semitic terms during this period to

represent the vowels ô/û. Typically, this feature is preserved when WA is in the medial

position of known verbs.211 The question is can WA in an initial position represents an

ô/û, which would result in a reading of the name as ôrt or ûrt? Based on Hoch’s treatment

of Semitic terms in Egyptian he considers the few initial wA terms found in Semitic

contexts to be non-Semitic.212 Further, he provides only one example of a Semitic term

with initial ʼ followed by an o/u vowel ëv¾v‘ôëëG: ( ʼu-ba-ra-ya.)213 Since there is no

strong evidence regarding the Egyptian spelling of Semitic terms with initial ʼu we should

at least consider the Ugaritic evidence. Within the Ugaritic corpus, the name urt is

attested in CAT 4.617:44, and syllabically as ú-ri-te.214 A similar name with a final n

(urtn) is found in six other texts from Ugarit.215 Two similar names are also attested in

the Nuzi corpus, ur-ti-ia and ur-te-e.216 Ultimately this argument is similar to Lipiński

and Scheeper’s proposal above but, with a greater degree of uncertainty regarding

Egyptian spelling conventions for words with initial ʼu. Thus, the onomastic evidence

from Ugarit suggests the name wrt in the Wenamun text is some variant of a Hurrian

name.

3.4.3. M-k-m-r

The third ruler mentioned by Wenamun is M-k-m-r. Green proposed that the name M-k-

m-r refers to the mountain Makmal located east of modern Tripoli, and that the ruler of


211 Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period, 406.
212 Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period, 421.
213 Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period, 51.
214 DULAT, 110.
215 Ibid., 110.
216 Cassin and Glassner, Anthroponymie et Anthropologie de Nuzi, 161.



52


this region may have shared the same name. One could argue that Green’s proposal in

this instance is bolstered by the fact that m-k-m-r is written with only the foreign land

determinative 5<. However, the following name, Ṯ-k-r-b-a-r, which is a perfectly good

Phoenician name, also lacks a person determinitive. If both of Green’s proposals are

correct, then Wenamun would have been bearing gifts for the two port cities of Dor and

Byblos, and for the two inland mountain regions where cedar was harvested. In this way,

Wenamun would be providing gifts not just to the ports which provide transportation, but

also to those towns where the laborers cut the cedar.

Regarding the meaning of the name M-k-m-r, Albright suggested it contains two

elements found in Cilician onomastics, Carian mu(n)k and Lycian,217 mura which would

place the name’s origin in southwestern Anatolia.218Goedicke preferred a Phoenician

origin for the individual and identified him as the ruler at Tyre. He based his conclusion

on the belief that Wenamun was listing the port rulers between Dor and Byblos in

geographical order. Thus, Wrt rules Sidon and M-k-m-r rules Tyre.219 However,

Goedicke does not provide a meaning for the name.

Another proposal by Lipiński associates M-k-m-r with the deity Mekal, who is

depicted on an Egyptian stele dating to the late 14-13th centuries and found at Beth

Shean, as well as on Phoenician and Aramaic inscriptions.220 The name Mekal has been

read as a version of the Hebrew name Mi-ka-ʼēl, “who is like El.” In the Wenamun text

the name occurs with a longer spelling of the name, Mi-kamo-El meaning “who is like


217 Johannes Sundwall, Die Einheimischen Namen der Lykier nebst einem Verzeichnisse kleinasiatischer
Namenstämme (Leipzig: Dieterich´sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1913), 152,55,56.
218 Albright, "The Eastern Mediterranean about 1060 B.C.," 228-29.
219 Goedicke, The Report of Wenamun, 33-34.
220 Scheepers, "Anthroponyms et Toponymes du Rècit D'Ounamon," 45; Benz, Personal Names, 343.



53


El.”221 This same god seems to be referenced in a Phoenician inscription from Cyprus

(CIS 89-91,93-94) along with the diety Rešep.222 Scheepers notes that the final r in m-k-

m-r is spelled with the lion glyph (Û) rather than the mouth glyph (‘). He argues the

scribe intended an r sound, not an l sound, based on other names ending with the mouth

glyph.223 For this reason, Scheepers prefers another proposal by Lipiński, who argues

Mer224is a theophoric element found in Amorite names. However, Scheepers’ preference

for this reading contradicts his later argument regarding the unique spelling of Ṯkr found

in line 2,71 where the lion glyph is used for the final r. For Ṯkr, he emphasizes the

biliteral function of the lion glyph (rw) where w is the plural of ethnicity, but concludes

Ṯkr should be read Skl.225 As discussed earlier, Hoch confirms the possible range of the

lion glyph as ri/re, li/le, demonstrating there is no reason to prefer Lipiński’s Mer.226

Further, Scheepers’ ‘plural of ethnicity’ is no longer relevant if the final vowel is i/e. The

preferred reading should be reconstructed as an expanded form of the attested Semitic

name M(y)k’l “who is like El= Mi-kamo-eli “who is like my El?”227

3.4.4 . ṮṮṮṮ-k-r-b-a-r

The final name in the list is Ṯkr-b-a-r, the ruler of Byblos. Although the use of Egyptian

Ṯ for z is unique in that Ṯ usually represents Semitic S, it has been argued that the earlier


221 Rainey, "Toponymic Problems," 134-36.
222 See mkl Benz, Personal Names, 343.
223 Ibid., 46.
224 The god Mer is glossed with Adad in the god list An= Anum and should therefore be considered some
type of weather god. See, Hans Wilhelm Haussig, Wörterbuch Der Mythologie I. Götter und Mythen im
Vorderen Orient (Stuttgart: Ernst Klent Verlag, 1965), 135-37.
225 Ibid, 70 note 383.
226 Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period, 502.
227 HALOT, 576.



54


form of the verb was *skr and the s shifts to z in later time periods, resulting in zkr.228

There is little dispute that the name is composed of the Semitic root zkr and the

theophoric element ba`al.229 There is, however, some debate over the meaning of the root

zkr. The majority view is that the name is similar to the biblical name Zeḵaryā, where zkr

is the verbal root “remember.” Thus “Baal remembered” would be the name of the king

of Byblos. 230 An alternative reading proposed by Goedicke suggests the noun zāḵār

meaning “man,” thus the name of the ruler of Byblos was “man of Baal.” As noted

earlier, Goedicke’s proposed reading of “manly” for the meaning of the ethnonym of the

inhabitants of Dor (Ṯkr) has been highly criticized.231 In his discussion of the name,

Schipper has no doubt that it derives from the root zkr ‘remember,’ but sees no

etymological connection between Zkr-b-a-r and the region/people known as Ṯkr. He also

notes that this name is Phoenician and attested in 5-4th century texts,232 and evidenced on

a metal bowl from the 10-11th centuries.233 Schipper argues that the similarity of the

spelling of Ṯkr and Ṯkr-b-a-r plays into a theological motif found within the text. The Ṯkr

are a hostile group no longer under the control of Amun. Likewise, the ruler of Byblos,

whose name can be read ‘the Ṯkr of Ba’al’, has been reluctant to supply cedar for Amun.

Baal, the god of the foreign Ṯkr territory, is at odds with the will of Amun. Thus, for

theological reasons Ṯkr and Ṯkr-bal appear to contain the same word, when in fact there


228 Rainey, "Toponymic Problems," 133-34; S. Harris, A Grammar Of the Phoenician Language (New
Haven: American Oriental Series, 1936), 99; R.S. Tomback, A Comparative Semitic Lexicon of the
Phoenician and Punic Languages (Missoula: Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series, 1978), 228-
29.
229 Noth, Die Israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der Gemeinsemitischen Namengebung., 134; Benz,
Personal Names, 210-11; Rainey, "Toponymic Problems,"
230 Benz, Personal Names, 305.
231 See page 3-4.
232 KAI 22,1; Schipper, Die Erzählung des Wenamun, 177.
233 Schipper, Die Erzählung des Wenamun, 275-181.



55


is no etymological connection between the two.234 I could not agree more with this

reading of the text, especially given the fact that Ṯkr-bal lacks the person determinative,

appearing solely with the glyphs for foreign land 5<.

In conclusion, we can safely say that Badil, Mikamo’el, and Zakar-Baal are good

Northwest Semitic names similar to ones in Phoenician inscriptions.235 Wrt (Wld) is less

certain. Although Warad seems to be an appealing Semitic reading of this name, one has

to grapple with the possibility of a Levantine ruler with an East Semitic name. Ugaritic

evidence of wrt or urt brings us closer to placing the name in a Levantine context, but

offers no real information regarding the name’s meaning or ethnic affiliation. A reading

of wld would be peculiar in Northwest Semitic due to the preservation of an initial w, but

the root is common in Semitic, occurring even in Phoenician.236 Neither wld nor yld,

however, is attested in Phoenician onomastics. As to the geographic location of these

rulers, one cannot assume they only governed port cities.

3.4.5. W-r-k-t-r

Wenamun (1,57-2,2)
jw=j (Hr) Dd n=f (j)n bn br n km.t xr nA ntj (Hr) Xnj Xr N(y) –sw-bA-nb Dd.t (j)n wn m-dj=f
js.t xArw jw=f (Hr) Dd n=j (j)n mn 20 n mnS dj n tAj=j mr jw=w n xbr jrm N(y)-sw-bA-n-
nb-Dd.t jr pAj ©-d-d-n pA ky j:sS=k r=f (j) n mn ktj 50 n br jm jw=w n xbr jrm W-r-k-t-r
jw j:jr.w jtH r pAy=f pr jw=j(Hr) gr n tAj wnw.t aA.t


“Is it not an Egyptian ship and Egyptian crew who sail under Smendes? Has he
(perhaps) a Syrian crew? He said to me: Are there not 20 ships here in my harbor,
they are in charter with Smendes? As for this, Sidon is another which you passed by.


234 It is true that Hoch argues the Semitic [z] is always written with Egyptian D, but in this case, the
Phoenician name may have been altered to create an eponymous connection between the ruler of Byblos
and the Ṯkr. See Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate
Period, 408 Rainey, "Toponymic Problems," 134-36.
235 Benz, Personal Names, 283-86, 305, 43.
236 With regard to the Aramaic evidence Steven A. Kaufman posits that *wald split into two lexical forms
yald and wlad. The same split may have also occurred in Ugaritic ( personal communication December 3
2009.)



56


Are there not another 50 ships there? They are in charter with Wrktr. They haul for
his house. Then I said nothing for a long time.”


This passage provides yet another foreign name found in connection with the port

city of Sidon. As mentioned earlier, Goedicke argued that the names Wrt and Wrktr are

both variants for the name of the ruler of Sidon.237 Scheepers accepts Goedicke’s

proposal that Wrktr is the prince of Sidon.238 However, Schipper raises an important

problem with Goedicke’s translation, namely that Sidon would not have a ḫbr with itself.

The term ḫbr was recognized by Max Muller to be a Semitic term referring to contractual

work on ships.239 Benjamin Mazar cites 2 Chr 20:35-36 as evidence that the term ḫbr was

used to describe business relationships between Tyre, Israel, and Judah in the 10th-9th

centuries.240 In Zakar-Baal’s response it is clear that domestic navies sailed under the

banner of Egypt. Zakar-Baal’s statement that a fleet of 20 ships from his harbor at Byblos

and another 50 ships from Sidon were in ḫbr with Egypt leaves Wenamun speechless.

Which raises the question, how does Wrktr relate to Egypt?

An early proposal made by Albright was that the name Wrktr is a ‘Sea People’

name, probably belonging to a prince in Philistia. According to Albright, the linguistic

provenance of the name is southwestern Anatolia and it should be read as Warkadara.241

Mazar furthers Albright’s hypothesis by arguing that Warkatara was a powerful prince of

Ashkelon.242 It is not clear, however, how a xbr with Philistia would have any relevance

to Zakar-Baal’s case. Helck prefers a Semitic reading of the name, proposing the reading

237 Goedicke, The Report of Wenamun, 32-33.
238 Scheepers, "Anthroponyms et Toponymes du Rècit D'Ounamon," 49-50.
239 Max Müller, "Neues semitisches Sprachgut aus dem Papzrus Golénischeff," Orientalistische
Literaturzeitung. 3 (1900): 207.
240 Benjamin Mazar, "The Philistines, Israel, and Tyre," in The Early Biblical Period (eds. Shmuel Ahituv
and Baruch A. Levine; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1986), 66-68.
241 Albright, "The Eastern Mediterranean about 1060 B.C.," 223-31.
242 Mazar, "The Philistines, Israel, and Tyre," 66-67.



57


Warkat-El “Behind El.”243 Scheepers, however, criticizes both Helck’s with Green’s

proposals on the grounds that neither author provides any Semitic onomastic evidence for

their proposals.244 Helck further speculates that Warkat-El was a powerful Syrian who

traded with Egypt.245

Taking a cue from Schipper, let us reconsider the context in which Zakar-Baal

mentions the name Wrktr. In l,57-58, Wenamun challenges the use of Syrian crews for

the transportation of the lumber by raising the question, “Is it not an Egyptian ship and

Egyptian crew who sail under Smendes?” In a scathing response, Zakar-Baal responds by

saying:

“Are there not 20 ships here in my harbor which are in charter with Smendes?
As for this, Sidon is another which you passed by.
Are there not another 50 ships there? They are in charter with Wrktr, they haul for
his house. Then I said nothing for a long time.”

Wenamun’s claim that Egyptian crews typically transported cargo for Smendes,

but that a Syrian crew would be acceptable, is directly challenged by Zakar-Baal. In

order for the argument to carry any force, Zakar-Baal’s mention of Sidon and its 50 ships

must relate in some way to an official contract with Egypt. Wenamun is not concerned

about the business relations of Byblos and Sidon with other countries, which have no

bearing on his mission. Therefore, Wrktr must be a reference to some ruler or official in

Egypt. I would argue that the Egyptian text records a name spoken by a Semitic speaker


243 Hans Wolfgang Helck, Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jaurtausend v. Chr. (2
ed.; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1971), 356.
244 Scheepers, "Anthroponyms et Toponymes du Rècit D'Ounamon," 51.
245 Helck, Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jaurtausend v. Chr., 356. Thomas
Schneider, refutes Helck’s proposal offering instead evidence from a 1st century North Arabian seal. This
far-fetched proposal is fraught with geographic and chronological issues. Cf. Thomas Schneider, Asiatische
Personennamen in ägyptischen Quellen des Neuen Reiches (Freiburg, Schweiz; Göttingen:
Universitätsverlag ; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), 82.




58


which should be understood as an epithet or a title for an Egyptian ruler.246 The first

element of the title should be understood as the Egyptian title wr “magnate/ruler.” The

second element can be read as the Semitic term gdl “big/great.” In his examination of

juridical terminology for international relations in Egyptian texts, David Lorton notes the

term wr is used by Egyptians for foreign kings regardless of their vassal or parity

status.247 Unlike the term wr, HqA was used to denote the status of “independent ruler.”248

The humble title wr would not have been used by an Egyptian speaker to refer to

Pharaoh.249 The Egyptian usage of wr for the great kings of Hatti and Babylon does not

correspond to the Akkadian terms found in the Amarna text. In the Amarna

correspondence, the term šarru rabû was used by the king of Byblos to address Pharaoh.

In a treaty between Ramses II and Hattusilis the term šarru rabû is rendered in Egyptian

as wr `A in reference to a foreign king.250 Zakar-Baal, being a good Semite and familiar

with the eloquence of parallelism, needed a second term for Smendes and used this

hybrid term, which is related to the earlier Akkadian term šarru rabû.251

The portmanteau title Wr-gdl, however, seems to have meant nothing to the

Egyptian author. The foreign quality of this term is expressed by the incorrect spelling of


246 As briefly noted earlier, at the end of Ramses’ XI rule, Egypt was divided into two parts. Herihor ruled
the south, while Smendes seems to have been in control in the North. However, at the exact time of the
Wenamun Tale setting, it appears that Smendes is yet to be Pharaoh and rules the north under some other
title. See Scheepers, "Anthroponyms et Toponymes du Rècit D'Ounamon," 24-28.
247 David Lorton, The Juridical Terminology of International Relations in Egyptian Texts Through Dyn.
XVIII (ed. Hans Goedicke; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1974), 62-63.
248 In line 2,10 of the Wenamun text the title HqA appears in proper usage.
249 Schneider, Asiatische Personennamen in ägyptischen Quellen des Neuen Reiches, 79-84. For Amarna
Evidence see EA 68, 74, 76, 78, 79, 83, 88, 89.
250Lorton, Juridicial Terminology, 62-63. For the treaty between Ramses and Hattusilis see Gardiner, JEA 6
1920,185.
251 Pinhas Artzy mentions that melek gadol is the Hebrew translation of šarrru rabu as demonstrated by the
translation of the term used by rāb šaqê when addressing the people of Jerusalem. See, Pinhas Artzi, "Some
Unrecognized Syrian Amarna Letters (EA 260, 317, 318)," JNES 27, no. 3 (1968): 165, n.18.



59


the term wr which is typically spelled using the bird glyph ~ rather than the rope glyph

y. In fact, a survey of the studies done on Semitic personal names and foreign words

with initial w- show all but three names and one word are spelled using the rope.252 This

trend may account for the choice of the rope glyph over the bird glyph. As for the

consonants k-t, it is well known from the spelling of Meggido mkti in a Tutmosis III

inscription that Semitic [g] can be rendered in Egyptian with k, and the semitic [d] can be

rendered with Egyptian ti.

Finally, one grammatical feature discussed at length by Goedicke is the proper

understanding of pAy=f in line 2,2. Goedicke rejects the reading of pAy=f as a

demonstrative referring to Wrktr, and proposes instead that it refers to Smendes.

However, it is ambiguous to which individual pAy=f refers. Goedicke bases his reading

strictly on meaning, recognizing that the meaningful subject of Zakar-Baal’s statement is

the maritime power of Smendes.253 However, if Wr-gdl is an epithet for Smendes, “the

great ruler,” then pAy=f can refer both directly to the epithet and indirectly to the earlier

mention of Smendes, thus solving the perceived ambiguity. Furthermore, the structure of

lines 1,58b -2, 2 is similar to conventions found in Ugaritic narrative poetry and archaic

Hebrew poetry. One could argue that Zakar-Baal’s rebuke is structured loosely as a

tricola. There are two parallel statements regarding the number of ships from different

ports in contract with two individuals. Though these two lines are not worded in perfect

poetic parallelism, they do share a high degree of parallel words. The two parallel strains

are then expanded upon by a third element which ties the two parallel lines together.


252 Burchardt, Die Altkanaanäische Fremdworte und Eigennamen im Ägyptischen, 17; H. Jacob
Katzenstein, The History of Tyre (Jerusalem: The Schocken Institute For Jewish Research, 1973), 65, 82.
253 Goedicke, The Report of Wenamun, 72.



60


(Byblos) has 20 ships in charter with Smendes
Sidon, the place you passed, has 50 ships in charter with Wr-gdl
They haul for his house

When organized in this fashion, in light of known Northwest Semitic poetic style,254 it

seems obvious that the referent of the pronoun ’They’ should be understood as both fleets

of ships and that the pronoun ‘his’ refers to a single individual mentioned twice by

parallel terms.

Although it is entirely possible that Wr-gdl refers to a foreigner, as suggested by

the determinative 5!, I suggest that this title was not understood by the Egyptian

scribe.255 The portmanteau title Wr-gdl may have caused as much confusion for Egyptian

scribes as it has for modern scholars. However, the context of Zakar-Baal’s argument

seems to exclude theories of Wrktl as an individual not directly related to the Egyptian

trade authority. The structure of Zakar-Baal’s argument in light of Northwest Semitic

literary conventions preserved at Ugarit and in the Hebrew Bible, points to Wrktl and

Smendes as parallel names.

3.5. Wenamun and the History of the Lebanese Coast.

Thus far we have discussed the port cities of Dor, Sidon and Byblos. Another port city,

Tyre, is also mentioned in the Wenamun text. Unfortunately, the lines in which this port


254 Poetic works unearthed from Ugarit provide the greatest resource for the study of Northwest Semitic
poetry from the Late Bronze Age. Tricola with patterns similar to Zakar-Baal’s statement can be found in
KTU 1.17: VI: 26-28 and KTU 1.16: I: 47-49; see Stanislav Segert, “Parallelism in Ugaritic Poetry,” JAOS,
no. 1 (1983): 302. Cf. Marjo C.A. Korpel and Johannes C. de Moore, "Fundamentals of Ugaritic and
Hebrew Poetry," UF 18 (1986), 173-212. Furthermore, the Ugaritic texts attest to the use of parallel
couplets in stock greeting formulas in letters. These greetings show a close relationship with a more poetic
blessing found in KTU 1.6: IV: 22-24; Baruch Margalit, A Matter of Life and Death: A study of the Baal-
Mot Epic (CTA 4-5-6) (AOAT, 206; Kevelaer: Butzon & Brecker; Neukirchen- Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1980), 174; cited in Wilfred G.E Watson, Traditional Techniques in Classical Hebrew Verse (eds.
David J.A Clines and Philip R. Davies; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 56-57
255 Since the current text is likely a copy of an original composition it is impossible to know whether the
misunderstanding happened at the moment of composition or later during the copying process.



61


appears are damaged. Depending on how one translates the verb prj-m, Wenamun either

“escaped” Tyre or “departed” from Tyre.256 In the fragmented lines following his

interaction with Tyre, Wenamun ends up confiscating 30 deben of silver from a ship, but

it is unclear to whom the silver belongs. However, it does seem likely that he acted

against the Skli in this incident since charges are brought against Wenamun in lines (2,63-

64) by the Skli.

In the negotiations for timber, Wenamun is greatly criticized by Zakar-Baal for

having arrived penniless, without official documents, and lacking any supplies to carry

out his mission (lines 1,51-57). The money stolen from Wenamun, 30 deben of silver

and 5 deben of gold, was a minimal sum.257 The question is, why was this sum so small?

One possible scenario regarding the small amount of funds in Wenamun’s

possession is that although Egypt was in a state of political weakness, it still felt it had a

right to the tribute exacted in an earlier period of strength.258 Alternatively, it could be

that this was a traditional way of engaging in economic exchange. Mario Liverani draws

attention to a commercial exchange between Egypt and Alashiya in Amarna letter EA 35.

In this letter, Alashiya sends a sample of the goods requested by Egypt with a request for

a large sum of silver in order to send the remainder. This exchange between Egypt and

Alashiya is similar to the Wenamun text, where Zakar-Baal sends seven cedar logs with a


256 Schipper, Die Erzählung des Wenamun, 179.
257 Based on Schippers analysis, the deben’s traditional weight of 91 grams may have been reduced to 13.1
grams by the New Kingdom period. Thus the weight of the silver here was somewhere between 2,821
grams and 406.1 grams. The weight of the gold was between 455 grams and 65.5 grams. Even at the
original standard this sum of metal divided among four people hardly compares with sum of 1,000 deben
tallied by Zakar-Baal. See Schipper, Die Erzählung des Wenamun, 173.
258 Maria Eugina Aubet, The Phoenicians and the West: Politics, Colonies and Trade (trans. Mary Turton;
second ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 113.



62


request for payment (2,35-42).259 Unlike in EA 35 it is clear Egypt’s initial request is sent

with a sample gift of gold and silver which will be multiplied if there is a successful trade

agreement.260 This suggests that to one degree or another, the four individuals Badil,

Mikamo’el, Wrt and Zakar-Baal, were supposed to be party to the negotiations. It may

also be the case, however, that the silver and gold were intended for Wenamun to use as

bribes or “gifts” to aid in reaching his destination, where the real negotiations would

happen.

It is in the final assembly scene at Byblos (2,71-74) that one begins to see the

complexity of trade relations in the region during the Iron I period. Zakar-Baal, like

Badil, is forced to act as judge when the S-k-li show up and make charges against

Wenamun. Zakar-Baal has just finished a trade deal with Wenamun, exchanging

harvested wood for gold, silver and other goods sent by Smendes. Now, he is forced to

address the criminal charges leveled against his trade partner. The S-k-li offer to transport

the wood for Zakar-Baal as long as he is willing to hand over Wenamun, but Zakar-Baal

is unwilling to harm a messenger of Amun. The S-k-li’s request to deliver the goods to

Egypt was no doubt an attempt to use Wenamun’s crime as a means of interjecting

themselves into a trade deal with Egypt. They had been excluded from this deal when

Wenamun failed to deliver his initial gift. Perhaps the S-k-li’s request that Wenamun be

beaten is not because of theft, but because of a perceived plot to exclude the S-k-li from

their part in this deal. Zakar-Baal has his own interests to protect, and handing over

Wenamun to the S-k-li jeopardizes his reward, which is the erection of a stele honoring


259 Mario Liverani, International Relations in the Ancient Near East, 1600-1100 BC (New York: Palgrave,
2001), 172-73.
260 It should not be assumed a priori that Egypt’s initial request from Alashiya was unaccompanied by a
small gift.



63


him for providing timber for the bark of Amun ( 2, 54b-62a). Rather, Zakar-Baal offers

the S-k-li an opportunity for justice by recommending that they settle the matter on the

open sea.

It is inadvisable to draw too firm a conclusion from this narrative since its

portrayal of events and actors is clearly motivated by the theological veneration of Amun.

It can be said that in the perception of the Egyptian author, the ruler of Byblos had a

degree of reverence for the god Amun, while the S-k-li are portrayed as hostile to Amun

and Wenamun’s mission. Nevertheless, Wenamun’s willingness to stop first at Dor, as

well as the archaeological evidence of a significant Egyptian commercial presence at

Dor, suggests that the S-k-li were engaged in mercantile activity with Egypt. The

theological component of Wenamun’s mission may have been of little interest to the S-k-

li. In other words, they had no places of worship that held any significance to the

Egyptians, as Byblos clearly had in centuries past.261 The tension between hostility and

cooperation attests to a fragile relationship between Egypt and the S-k-li. The S-k-li, who

had participated in the wars against Ramses III several generations earlier, level charges

of some unmentioned crime against Wenamun at Byblos. The preference of Wenamun to

reach Byblos over the Levantine ports of Tyre and Sidon recalls an Amarna

correspondence with Byblos, which highlights Byblos’ loyalty to Egypt during a period

of political instability.262 The long heritage of trade between Byblos and Egypt begins in

the third millennium, and no doubt explains the commercial and religious ties Byblos


261 Maurice Dunand, Byblos Son Histoire, ses Ruines, Ses Légendes (Beirut: Musée National De Beyrouth,
1963), 21-22.
262 Moran, The Amarna Letters, 140-70.



64


maintained with Egypt throughout the centuries.263 However, even Byblos is exercising a

measure of independence in the Wenamun text, as demonstrated by the tough

negotiations over the purchase of wood and the reference to an envoy, Ḫ`-m-wAs, who

was held prisoner for the remainder of his life at Byblos.

3.6. Conclusions from the Wenamun Text

The Wenamun text depicts the travails of a temple official in securing lumber for the

great bark of Amun. His quest takes him straight to a Ṯkr port. Based on the above

analysis, I believe the term Ṯkr is primarily a geographic term and as a Semitic term

should be transliterated as Skl, based on Ugaritic evidence. The people identified with the

S-k-l region were part of the confederation of “Sea People” who attacked Egypt only

decades earlier. The geographic region called S-k-l lies in Syria near the Lebanese coast,

and is first documented in the 14th century BCE. While three of the four foreign rulers

mentioned in the Wenamun text possess names directly connected to Phoenician

onomastic evidence,264 I propose Wrktr should be read Wr-gdl, an Egypto-Semitic title

used as an epithet for Smendes. In past studies, the S-k-l have been labeled pirates who

prey upon ships sailing the coast, thereby causing trouble for Byblos, Egypt, and

Phoenicia in general. I argue that the S-k-li are indigenous to the Syro-Lebanese region

and are part of the complex geopolitical matrix along the Lebanese coast. These

burgeoning states sought to increase their autonomy and control of trade through

maritime dominance. Wenamun’s struggle to secure a deal with Byblos demonstrates that

Egyptian envoys were in a position of weakness in their negotiations with rulers along the


263 Nina Jidejian, Byblos Through the Ages (Beirut: Dar El-Machreq, 1968), 15-56; Saghieh Muntaha,
Byblos in the Third Millennium B.C.: A Reconstruction of the Stratigraphy and a Study of Cultural
Connections (Wilts: Aris & Phillips LTD, 1983), 104-06, 30-32.
264 Badil, Mikamo’el, and Zakar-Baal Benz, Personal Names, 43, 283-86, 305, 43.



65


Levantine coast in this period. Although Byblos and Sidon had a ḫbr (contract) with

Egypt, the Levantine rulers were not above exploiting Egypt’s political weakness.

Byblos’s past loyalties to Egypt did eventually lead to a business deal, but no refuge from

the S-k-l.

3.7. The Annals of Tiglath-Pileser I

Another important source of primary texts related to the Phoenician coast in the 11th

century is the Annals of Tiglath-Pileser I. Among the tens of thousands of cuneiform

tablets excavated from the cities of Nineveh and Aššur in the later half of the 19th century

C.E. there are several tablets that form the corpus Tiglath-Pileser I’s annals.265 At Aššur a

clay prism of Tiglath-Pilesar I was discovered which was used in the early decipherment

of cuneiform writing.266 Kirk A. Grayson in The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia:

Assyrian Periods recently published in three volumes a critical analysis and translation

of all royal Assyrian texts. Unlike the Wenamun text, most of the royal cuneiform texts

came from controlled excavations. Additionally, many texts have been preserved in

multiple copies allowing for a more accurate reconstruction of original documents in their

entirety.267 Unlike Wenamun however, there seems to be far less information to be

gleaned about the Levantine coast during the 11th century B.C.E.

3.7.1. Summary of the Annals

Beginning in the forth regnal year of Tiglath-Pileser I, a concerted effort was initiated to

subdue the Aḫlamu Arameans. The Assyrian monarch crossed the Euphrates twenty-eight


265 David Stronach and Kim Codella, "Nineveh," The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology In The Near
East 145; Roland W. Lamprichs, "Aššur," The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East 225.
266 Lamprichs, "Aššur," 225.
267 Kirk A. Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC: I (1114-859 BC) (ed. Kirk A.
Grayson; vol. 1; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991), 5-7.



66


times in his campaigns westward during the course of his rule (A.0.87.4 line 34).

Eventually he reached Mt. Lebanon and the great sea, exacting tribute from the lands of

Byblos, Sidon, and Arvad (A.0.87.3 lines 16-25). At Arvad, Tiglath-Pileser I was

treated to a great maritime adventure. The Assyrian king was taken by boat from Arvad

to a nearby coastal city, Ṣamuru. While at sea he was given the opportunity to hunt and

kill a large air breathing marine animal, probably a whale or dolphin (A.0.87.3 Lines 21-

25). Among the items received by Tiglath-Pileser as tribute were a crocodile and a large

female monkey (A.0.87.4 Line 27) which he took back to Aššur along with the cedar he

took from Lebanon (A.0.87.3). He later installed these cedar beams in the temples of Anu

and Aššur. He also had a replica made in basalt of the great marine animal he killed to

flank his royal entrance (A.0.87.4 lines 59-71). This is a full summary of the interaction

that Tiglath-Pileser I had with the northern Levantine coast around the same time that

Wenamun traveled to Byblos.268

3.7.2 Analysis of the text

From the cuneiform texts we learn that the Assyrians refer to the coastal region of Sidon,

Byblos and Arvad generally as Amurru, meaning “West.” This region was a rich source

of cedar valued for the construction of temples. As noted in the Wenamun text, Egypt

also prized this wood for use in the construction of solar barks. Although Tiglath-Pileser I

claims to have conquered all the lands of Amurru, it appears these coastal cities avoided

conflict by giving tribute to the Assyrian King. Among the precious commodities

supplied by these coastal regions were exotic animals. Similar gifts of exotic animals are


268 Wenamun’s journey is set in the 23rd year of Ramses XI rule which is ca. 1075 B.C.E. Tiglath-Pileser’s
journey to the west happened some time between 1109-1076 B.C.E. See, Kitchen, The Third Intermediate
Period in Egypt (1100-650 B.C.), 465-69; Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC: I
(1114-859 BC), 5.



67


found in the Egyptian records of Hatshepsut’s expedition to Punt.269 Had there been a real

conflict with the Assyrians it seems unlikely that Tiglath-Pileser I would have been

treated to an exotic whale hunt at Arvad. The close connection between Ṣamuru and

Arvad in the Assyrian Annals is maintained until the time of Strabo, who mentions this

port as the southern limit of Arwad’s territory.270

Further evidence that Tiglath-Pileser I may have never reached Byblos or Sidon

is found in text A.0.87.4 line 26. It states that he received tribute from the city (URU) of

Arvad, and the lands (KUR) of Byblos and Sidon. The more general usage of the

determinative KUR (land) for Byblos and Sidon suggests that he never reached the cities

of Byblos and Sidon. Perhaps these neighboring cities sent a delegation with tribute to the

king while he was at Arvad in an organized effort to avoid conflict and to send the

Assyrians back home fat and happy. Based on the Wenamun Text, Byblos and Sidon

were in a position of wealth with significant port cities and therefore could avoid military

conflict.

One question raised by these texts is to what extent Arvad should be considered

“other” than Byblos and Sidon. It would appear from the Assyrian point of view that

Arvad, Byblos and Sidon all constitute a similar region that was “conquered.” However,

the portrayal of these cities as possessing a commonality may extend no further than a

willingness on their part to form a temporary coalition to resist martial conflict with the

Assyrians. One such famous coalition was formed two centuries later between Aram,

Israel, Arvad, and Byblos in an attempt to defeat the powerful campaigns of Shalmaneser


269 The question is whether the monkeys were native to Byblos or had they been imported from Egypt. For
Punt evidence see Breasted II, § 265.
270 Strabo Book XVI, 2, 12



68


III.271 The very temporary nature of Israel’s cooperation with Aram against the Assyrians

is indicated by the biblical tradition that Ahab king of Israel was killed while in battle

against Aram.272 While Assyrian lists of military coalitions provide insight into

geopolitical alliances during a specific battle, they do not reliably inform us about the

more general geopolitical relations in regions that are not in immediate conflict with

Assyria. Rather, archaeological remains provide the most likely source of evidence for

Arwad’s cultural connection with the southern Phoenician states. Unfortunately, the

small island of Arwad has been continuously occupied and most of the material prior to

the Roman period has been lost. However, the coastal site of Tell Kazel (Ṣamuru)

demonstrates a new orientation toward trade with the Lebanese coast and Cyprus around

1150 B.C.E., well before Tiglath-Pileser’s arrival around 1100 B.C.E. 273 The

archaeological evidence from excavations at Tell Kazel will be discussed further in the

following chapter.

3.8. Summary

From the textual sources that are available, there are several points of data which relate

directly to the issue of ethnicity. The Byblian inscriptions provide evidence of the script

and language used at Byblos in the Iron IIA period. Onomastic evidence from both the

Byblian inscriptions and Wenamun text confirm that Baal was an important theophoric

element in names at Byblos. Other Iron I-IIA names include Bad-El, and Mi-kamo-eli,

which are both attested in later Phoenician inscriptions.

271 A.0.102.2 lines 89b-102, there is some debate over the reading Byblos: Kirk A. Grayson, Assyrian
Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC: II (858-745 BC) (ed. Kirk A. Grayson; vol. 2 of; Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 1996), 23.
272 I Kings 20-22.
273 Emmanuelle Capet and Eric Gubel, "Tell Kazel- Six Centuries of Iron Age Occupation (c. 1200-612
B.C.)," in Essays on Syria in the Iron Age (ed. Guy Bunnens; Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement;
Louvain: Peeters, 2000), 432.



69


In terms of geopolitics, Arwad, Sidon, and Byblos are the three main cities

which define a common coastal region in the Assyrian texts. In the Wenamun text

Byblos and Sidon also share some degree of commonality through their trade agreements

with Egypt. By contrast, Dor is treated as different from Byblos and Sidon. While the

otherness of Dor and its S-k-l ruler has been much emphasized in the past, onomastic,

archaeological, and textual evidence points to strong similarities between Dor and other

Lebanese city-states. Thus, in the Iron I period the major city-states along the Levantine

coast were both distinct politically and unified by alliances and common trade interests.

Despite Byblos’ continued trade relations with Egypt in the Iron I period, the Wenamun

text clearly shows a weakening of relations with Egypt and a lack of respect for the

interim ruler Smendes. However, during the rule of Shoshenq I it is evident that Byblos

regained its respect for the ruler of Egypt.








70


Chapter IV: Material Culture

4.0. Introduction

In an article on the ethnicity of the Iron I settlers in the highlands of Canaan, Israel

Finkelstein lists the following cultural characteristics which relate to ethnicity; language,

script, ritual behavior, physical features, dietary choices, architectural forms, clothing

style, mortuary practice, and style of artifacts.274 Previously in Chapter 3, the language

and script of the Phoenician coast was presented, along with onomastic evidence. While

not all of the cultural characteristics listed by Finkelstein have been preserved in the

archeological record, there is data regarding ritual behavior, architectural forms, mortuary

practice, and style of artifacts. In addition to these, I would add that technology can be

characteristic of ethnic identity. In the case of the Iron Age Phoenicians, their unique

abilty to produce purple dye served as identifying characteristic of the inhabitants along

the Phoenician coast.

In order to better understand the development of Phoenician material culture, the

present chapter will examine the material remains that have been excavated along the

Lebanese coast as well as sites beyond Lebanon, including Tel Dor in the south and Tel

Kazel in the north. In the presentation that follows the regions of Tyre, Byblos, Sidon,

and Sarepta are considered the more centralized sites of coastal Lebanon and the center of

Phoenician cultural and political identity. Therefore, the following study will begin with

an overview of sites which preserve material from the 12th to 8th centuries B.C.E. located

in this central region. The study will then expand to the more northern site of Tel Kazel,


274 Israel Finkelstein, "Ethnicity and Origin of the Iron I Settlers in the Highlands of Canaan: Can the Real
Israel Stand Up?," BA 59, no. 4 (1996): 203.



71


which appears to have been a site of early Phoenician expansion. Finally, sites along the

coast between Dor and Tyre will be surveyed.

In addition to surveying the data from Iron I-II archaeological sites, the present

study will critically assess cultural characteristics, such as architectural style,

technologies, style of artifacts, and mortuary practices unique to these sites. It is hoped

that this chapter will define characteristic elements related to the ethnic and geopolitical

sphere of the Phoenician coast in the Iron I-IIA period.

4.1. Phoenician Sites:

4.1.1. Tyre

The site of ancient Tyre, once an island off the coast of Lebanon, was made into a

peninsula during the siege of Alexander the Great in 332 B.C.E.275 The first excavation of

the site was by Ernst Renan in 1860, as part of a commission by Napoleon III to survey

the historical sites of Phoenicia.276 Renan probed down through eight meters of material,

exposing the most important levels of ancient Tyre. However, Renan, who was primarily

interested in finding the temple of Melqart, only succeeded in exposing later Byzantine or

Roman material. A lack of knowledge regarding Phoenician construction and an

underestimation of how deep the Phoenician material was prevented Renan from working

the deep Phoenician levels of the site. In 1921, Macridy Bey, on behalf of the Imperial

Museum of Constantinople, excavated seven Iron Age tombs. The finds were sent to

Istanbul. In the years that followed, several excavations uncovered Hellenistic and


275 Arrian Anabasis II: 15-25. Katzenstein, The History of Tyre , 9-10.
276 Ernest Renan, Mission de Phénicie (Paris: Imprimerie Impériale, 1864), 1-2.



72


Roman remains, and surveys were made of the South harbor of Tyre.277 After the

interruptions of World War II, excavations resumed under Emir Maurice Chehab, the

director of the Lebanese Department of Antiquities. The majority of material recovered

by Chehab belonged to the Hellenistic or Byzantine periods. A number of tombs were

excavated by Roger Saidah, dating to the 6th-4th centuries, and were published in 1967.278

For the purposes of the present study, the excavations conducted by Patricia Bikai are the

most valuable. In 1973-74, Bikai led a year-long excavation that began in the Roman

levels twelve meters above sea level and reached bedrock.279 From the material

excavated, Bikai published a study of the ceramic sequence from the Early Bronze Age to

the beginning of the eighth century B.C.E..280 In addition to the pottery, Bikai’s study

provides some plates with section drawings, area plans, and photos of other small

finds.281 The following chart shows the stratigraphy at Tyre as defined by Bikai:282

Table. 4.1.1. Stratigraphy at Tyre.

Stratum Stratum

I ca. 700 XII 1000?-925?

II-III 740-700 XIII 1070/1050-?1000

IV-V ?760-740 XIV 1200-1070/1050

VI-VII 800-760 XV 1375/1360-1200

VIII-IX 850-800 XVI 1425/1415-1375/1360


277 A. Poidebard, "Reconnaissance dans l'ancien port de Tyr," Syria 18 (1937): 355-56; A. Poidebard, Un
grand port disparu: Tyr (Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1939); Denyse Le Lasseur, "Mission
archéologique à Tyr (premier article)," Syria 3 (1922): 1-26; Denyse Le Lasseur, "Mission archéologique à
Tyr (deuxiéme article)," Syria 3 (1922): 116-33.
278 Roger Saidah, "Chronique," BMB 20 (1967), 159-61.
279 Patricia Maynor Bikai, The Pottery of Tyre (Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1978), 1.
280 Ibid., 68.
281 Ibid., Pl. I-XCV.
282 Ibid., 68.



73


X 850 XVII 1600-1425/1415

XI 925?-850 XVIII 1600-1425/1415


Strata XIV-VIII and the materials they contain are a primary source of central Lebanese

material culture from the Iron I-IIA periods.

Stratum XIV preserves evidence of small stone-lined pits and blackened earth,

likely from domestic cooking activities. Nearly all walls in this stratum show signs of

having been robbed. 1,886 red faience beads were recovered from this area in Stratum

XIV. The beads are attributed to the continued production of faience in this area, which

began in Stratum XVI.283

In Stratum XIII much of the previous building plan was maintained, with

evidence of some new construction or rebuilding of walls. In this stratum, a layer of large

pottery fragments nearly fifty centimeters thick was encountered. None of the pottery

appeared to be kiln wasters. Also discovered in this stratum was a large bin lined with

small stones and filled with pottery.

In Stratum XII new buildings were constructed over the large bin of Stratum XIII.

One noticeable change is the beginning of terracing, with the western area lower than the

eastern by 1.5 meters. This architectural feature greatly affected the building activity in

later levels. The buildings in this stratum continue to be used through Stratum XI.

In Stratum X, two large fills are present, which were added to the area after the

apparent destruction of one of the walls. The fills were used to level the entire area. The

largest group of pottery for the entire excavation was recovered from one of these fills.


283 Ibid., 8.



74


Most of the pottery was small, worn, and badly damaged. The second fill was full of

large pieces of pottery.

Stratum IX shows a major reconfiguration of the passageway between building

walls. The older wall, W36, was robbed and a new wall was built further to the west,

which widened the passage from 1 m. to 2 m. in width. A pier and rubble wall appears in

this level, a building technique commonly associated with Phoenician building

practice.284

In Stratum VIII three fills were excavated, all composed of the same material.

These three fills completely covered the walls of the earlier period and new buildings

were erected upon the fills. New walls made with distinctively larger stones characterize

the buildings of this stratum. It is interesting to note, however, that ashlar masonry does

not appear until Stratum V, which was dated by Bikai to ca. 760 B.C.E.

This basic summary of the early Iron Age material published by Bikai

demonstrates how little is known about ancient Tyre in the early Iron Age. For decades,

Bikai’s study served as the only window into the archaeology of ancient Tyre. In 1990,

the picture slowly began to change with the recognition by local and western

archeologists that material illegally obtained may belong to a Phoenician tophet.

Permission was given to conduct an archeological survey in 1991 and Tyre-Al Bass was

identified as the primary location of the looting activity. Cinerary urns, offering jars,

votive gifts, and inscribed standing stones were found in abundance in the area. The full

account of the brief rescue mission was promptly published in the journal Berytus, with


284 R. W. Hamilton, "Tell Abu Hawam: Interim Report," Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in
Palestine 3 (1933): 78; Bikai, The Pottery of Tyre, 11, 16.



75


tantalizing images of what might be evidence of a Phoenican tophet in the heartland of

Phoenicia.285

In 1997, construction of an agriculture products factory in the area of Tyre-Al

Bass was stopped after Phoenician urns were unearthed. A rescue excavation was

initiated by the Direction Générale des Antiquités du Liban, which resulted in the

discovery of an Iron Age cemetery filled with cremation burials.286 In 1999, a geo-

morphological survey of the Necropolis was mades. In all, fifty-six cremation burials

dating from the 9th to 7th centuries B.C.E. were recovered in this excavation. From these

finds, a standard burial kit became evident, which consisted of one or two large cinerary

urns covered by a plate. At the base of the urn were typically two jugs, a mushroom lip

jug (perhaps for honey) and a trefoil mouth jug (perhaps for wine), and a fine ceramic

bowl. In the urn, personal items such as scarabs or amulets were common. In a couple of

cases, stone stele with inscriptions or carved symbols accompanied the burial.287

In 2002, the Tyre-Al Bass project was initiated by Maria Eugene aubet and was

projected to reach completion in 2005. Based on Maria Eugene Aubet’s University webp

the excavations continued through 2009.288 A total of 320 burial urns have been

recovered from Tyre Al-Bass.289 The ongoing publication of the material being

excavated from this site will no doubt greatly expand our understanding of Phoenician


285 Helga Seeden, "A Tophet in Tyre?," Ber 39 (1991): 39-82; Janice Conheeney and Alan Pipe, "Note on
Some Cremated Bone From Tyrian Cinerary Urns: AUB Rescue Action Tyre 1991," Ber 39 (1991): 83-87;
William A. Ward, "The Scarabs, Scaraboid and Amulet Plaque From Tyrian Cinerary Urns," Ber 39
(1991): 89-99; Helen Sader, "Phoenician Stelae from Tyre," Ber 39 (1991): 101-26.
286 Maria Eugina Aubet, "The Tyre Necropolis," in Decade: A Decade of Archaeology and History in
Lebanon (ed. Claude Doumet-Serhal; Beirut: Lebanese British Friends of the National Museum, 2004), 18.
287 Aubet, "The Tyre Necropolis," 20.
288 http://www.upf.edu/larq/congressos_seminaris_excavacions/excavacions.html
289 Maria Eugenia Aubet, "The Phoenician Cemetery of Tyre," NEA 73, no. 2-3 (2010): 145.



76


burial practices from the end of the 10th through 7th centuries B.C.E.290 Burial customs

often relate to group identity, and the material from Tyre attests to a unique mortuary

practice along the Phoenician coast beginning in the 9th century B.C.E.

4.1.2. Rachidieh

Rachidieh is the modern archaeological site frequently associated with Palaetyrus, or

Uzu, the mainland Phoenician site closely associated with Tyre. The ancient sister site of

Tyre, Uzu, is first mentioned in the Amarna letters.291 The Assyrians make reference to

the site, calling it Ushu.292 The same city was later referred to as Palaetyrus in the

classical work Dionysiaca of Nonnos.293 However, the association of Rachidieh with

Ushu is a matter of debate among scholars, with no clear solution.294

In 1903, urns containing calcinated bones and cremated ashes were found by

Macridy Bey, curator of the Imperial Museum in Constantinople. More urns were

recovered by Maurice Chehab in 1942. In total, over one hundred vessels were recovered,

but they were never properly published.295 In 1974, a rescue excavation was undertaken

at Tell el-Rachidieh after the chance discovery of five Iron Age tombs. Following the

excavation by Hafez Chehab and Ibrahim Kawkabani, the material from tombs IV and V


290 Helen Dixon at the University of Michigan is currently writing her dissertation on Phoenician burial
practice. Her research includes time spent on the excavation in Lebanon.
291 EA 146, 147, 148, 149, 151, 154, 155.
292 Prism of Sennacherib ii 37- iii 49. Daniel David Luckenbill, The Annals of Sennacherib (Chicago:
University of Chicago, 1924).
293 Nonnos Dionysiaca, 40; Claude Doumet-Serhal, "The Location and Ancient Names of Mainland Tyre
and the Role of Rachidieh in Context," in Decade: A Decade of Archaeology and History in the Lebanon
(ed. Claude Doumet-Serhal; Beirut: The Lebanese British Friends of the National Museum 2004a), 62.
294 Doumet-Serhal, "The Location and Ancient Names of Mainland Tyre...," 60-69.
295 Claude Doumet-Serhal, "Jars from the first Millennium BC at Tell Rachidieh: Phoenician Cinerary Urns
and Grave Goods," in Decade: A Decade of Archaeology and History in the Lebanon (ed. Claude Doumet-
Serhal; Beirut: The Lebanese British Friends of the National Museum, 2004b), 72.



77


was published by Claude Doumet-Serhal.296 The other three tombs were not published

until a preliminary report on the ceramics appeared in 2004.297 Doumet-Serhal concludes

that Tomb IV dates somewhere to the middle of the eighth century and Tomb I likely

dates to the end of the eighth century. Doumet-Serhal notes that cremation, which is the

primary form of treating the deceased at Rachidieh, is first evidenced in Syria-Palestine

during the 11th century B.C.E. at Carchemish, Hama, Tell Halaf, Hazor, and Cyprus.298

Cypriot bichrome, Phoenician Bichrome, and Black-on-Red ware all appear in the Tell

Rachidieh assemblage and point to strong connections between Cyprus and the

Phoenician coast.299

4.1.3. Sidon

The site of ancient Sidon was among the locations that Ernst Renan surveyed and

excavated in 1860 at the commission of Napoleon III. Based on the clandestine discovery

of the Eshmunazor sarcophagus in 1855, Renan focused his excavation on the area of the

ancient necropolis. Since Renan was overseeing work at both Byblos and Tyre, he

appointed Joseph Charles Gaillardot, a French Physician stationed in Sidon, to supervise

the work. Unfortunately, treasure seekers had beaten the archeologist to the site and very

little was left to excavate.300 In the years that followed, several chance finds of marble

and clay anthropoid sarcophagi were reported to the French consular agent in Sidon,

Alphonse Durighello. These burials were dated by the excavators to the 4th century


296 Claude Doumet-Serhal, "Les tombes IV et V de Rachidieh," Annales d'Historie et d'Archeologie de
l'Universite Saint Joseph Vol.1 pg 89-148 (Beirut: Université Saint Joseph, 1982).
297 Doumet-Serhal, "Jars from the first Millennium BC at Tell Rachidieh...," 70-87.
298 Ibid., 72.
299 Ibid., 74-79.
300 Renan, Mission de Phénicie, 361-400.



78


B.C.E.301 In 1887, a necropolis at Ayaa was discovered, and another at Ain el-Helwe in

1901. The Ain el-Helwe discovery resulted in a Turkish excavation by Theodore C.

Macridy of a temple of Eshmun built by Bodashtart around the 4th century B.C.E.302

Finally, between 1914-1920, George Contenau excavated Magharat Abloun, the site of

Renan’s earlier excavations. Contenau had little success in the burial areas and focused

primarily on a 13th century medieval castle. Contenau’s excavations were published in the

journal Syria.303 Unfortunately, all of these early excavations paid little attention to

stratigraphy, and were governed by the quest for large valuable items.

In 1924, Maurice Dunand began excavations at Bostan esh-Sheikh, where he

discovered a large Roman Mosaic near the temple of Eshmun. Following Dunand’s work

at Bostan esh-Sheikh, P. E. Guiges explored Middle Bronze Age tombs in Leb`a, Kafar-

Jara, and Qrayé in the foothills near Sidon.304 Dunand returned to Sidon and excavated

between 1963 and 1969. In 1970, the onset of Lebanese civil war brought a quick end to

excavations. Unlike the multiple publications of the excavations at Byblos, little was

published of Dunand’s work at Sidon.305


301 Ibid., 480-483.
302 Theodore C. Macridy, Le Temple d'Echmoun à Sidon (Paris: Librairie Victor Lecoffre, 1904).
303 Georges Contenau, "Mission Archéologique à Sidon (1920)," Syria I (1920): 1-147; Georges Contenau,
"Deuxième Mission Archéologique à Sidon (1920)," Syria IV (1923): 261-81; Georges Contenau,
"Deuxième Mission Archéologique à Sidon (1920). Deuxième article," Syria V (1924): 9-23; Georges
Contenau, "Deuxième Mission Archéologique à Sidon (1920). Troisième article," Syria V (1924): 123-34.
304 P. E. Guigues, "Lebe`a, Kafar-Garra, Qrayé; necropoles de la region sidonienne," BMB I (1937): 35-76;
P. E. Guigues, "Lebe`a, Kafar-Garra, Qrayé; necropoles de la region sidonienne: « deuxième article »,"
BMB II (1938): 27-72.
305 For the preliminary publication of Dunand’s excavations at Sidon, see Maurice Dunand, "Rapport
Preliminaire sur les fouilles de Sidon en 1963-1964," BMB XIX (1966): 103-05; Marice Dunand, "La
statuaire de la favissa du temple d'Echmoun à Sidon," in Archäologie und altes Testament (Festschrift Für
Kurt Galling) (ed. J.C.B. Mohr; Tübingen, 1970), 27-44; Maurice Dunand, "Rapport Preliminaire sur les
fouilles de Sidon en 1964-1965," BMB XX (1967): 101-07; Maurice Dunand, "Rapport Preliminaire sur les
fouilles de Sidon en 1967-1968," BMB XXII (1969): 61-67.



79


Despite the discovery of valuable inscriptions and remnants of a temple to

Eshmun, the overall state of archeological investigation at Sidon was rather poor. So in

1998, the British Museum secured permission to begin a more extensive archeological

excavation of Sidon. The new excavations at Sidon have been in progress from 1998 to

the present. The progress of these digs and their findings has been regularly published in

various articles.306 Material from the third millennium BCE to the Roman period attests

to the long and continuous occupation of the site. However, to date, the early Iron Age

levels at Sidon remain quite fragmentary. In 2006, an article was published on the

fragmentary ceramic evidence of the early Iron Age levels uncovered in 2003-2004 at

Sidon.307 In general, the ceramic evidence for the early Iron Age points to similarities

with the assemblages found at Tyre and Sarepta between the 10th and 8th centuries

B.C.E.308 Another very important find is an Alabaster vase with the cartouche of

Twosret. Since Twosret only ruled Egypt two years the vessel can be dated to ca.1190

B.C.E. This vase demonstrates continued political ties with Egypt during the early 12th

century B.C.E.309 Unfortunately, the corpus of material published to date is not sufficient

for establishing an evolution of pottery forms. Further, the lack of stratified architectural

remains greatly limits our knowledge of early Iron Age Sidon.

4.1.4. Sarepta

In 1969, the University of Pennsylvania museum of Archaeology and Anthropology

began excavations at the Lebanese village of Sarafand, which continued until 1974.

306 A complete bibliography of the Sidon British Museum Excavations is available at
http://www.sidonexcavation.org/bibliography/bibliography.html.
307 Claude Doumet-Serhal, "Preliminary Report on the Iron Age at Sidon: British Museum Excavations
2003-2004," Archaeology and History in Lebanon 23 (2006): 2-29.
308 Doumet-Serhal, "Preliminary Report on the Iron Age at Sidon...," 25-35.
309 Marcel Marée, "A Jar From Sidon With the Name of Pharaoh-Queen Taworset," Archaeology and
History in Lebanon 24 (2006): 121-28.



80


Unlike most of the other Phoenician port cities, this site had not been previously

excavated in the earlier part of the century. Despite the lack of attention the site has

received in modern times, Sarepta is well-attested in Egyptian, Assyrian, Hebrew, and

Greek sources.310 As with Tyre, Sidon, and Byblos, significant Roman remains were

uncovered in the harbor area in the first year of excavation, with no signs of Phoenician

material.311 In order to focus on Iron Age material, the excavation was moved to the

highest point of the tell. The first sounding, X, uncovered an industrial area where

murexes were harvested for their dye, olives were pressed for oil, and pottery was

manufactured. The second sounding, Y, was primarily a residential area and provided a

clear sequence of eleven strata.312 The following chart outlines the dates assigned to the

strata of the Early Iron Age in the two different soundings at Sarepta:313

Table. 4.1.4. Stratigraphy at Sarepta.

Sounding X Sounding Y Approximate Dates

Stratum V Stratum F 1275-1150

Stratum VI Stratum E 1150-1025

Stratum VII Stratum D2 1025-950

Stratum VII Stratum D1 950-800




310C.f. Papyrus Anastasi I, Sennacherib Prism col. ii, lines 41-45, I Kings 17:9-10, and Pseudo-Scylax,
Periplus,§ 104. For a comprehensive treatment of the ancient sources, see James B. Pritchard, "Sarepta in
History and Tradition," in Understanding the Sacred Text: Essays in Honor of Morton S. Enslin on the
Hebrew Bible and Christian Beginnings (ed. John Reumann; Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1972), 102-04.
311 James B. Pritchard, Recovering Sarepta, a Phoenician City: Excavations at Sarafand, Lebanon, 1969-
1974, by the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University
Press, 1978), 49.
312 Ibid., 74-77.
313 This chart is a slightly modified version of the one found in A. Issam Khalifeh, Sarepta II: The Late
Bronze and Iron Age Periods of Area II, X (Beirut: Publications de l'Université Libanaise, 1988), 160.



81


Though Stratum F belongs to the time period commonly referred to as Iron IA,

the material shows a clear continuity with the previous Late Bronze Age stratum. Thus,

for the site of Sarepta, William Anderson defines Stratum F as a late continuation of the

Late Bronze Age II or early Late Bronze Age III.314 Bilobate kilns and large quantities of

pottery were recovered from both soundings X and Y. Most of the objects found appear

to be the product of craftsmen working in this area.315

Stratum E shows the first signs of a private dwelling in sounding Y, evidenced by

two circular ovens used for baking bread. Pottery production is also evident in this

stratum in the continued use of the kiln built in Stratum F. The pottery produced in this

period continues forms belonging to the Late Bronze Age tradition.316

Stratum D represents a significant change in architecture and ceramic forms. In

sounding Y, this area was completely redesigned, resulting in two complexes of houses

separated by a narrow street. Stratum D can be subdivided into two distinct phases, the

earlier D2 and the later D1. Ashlar blocks appear in the new construction of Stratum D2

walls. Notable changes in ceramic forms include a change from the fragile rounded

storage jar to the sturdier torpedo-shaped storage jar.317 Red-Slipped fine ware bowls and

ridged-neck or trefoil mouth jugs become prevalent in this level. There is also a notable

increase in the concentration of bichrome vessels.318 The ceramic and architectural

material found in both phases of Stratum D at Sarepta are directly comparable to the


314 William P. Anderson, Sarepta I: The Late Bronze and Iron Age Strata of Area II, Y (Beirut: Publications
de l’Université Libanaise, 1988), 390.
315 Pritchard, Recovering Sarepta..., 79-82.
316 Anderson, Sarepta I..., 390-94.
317 Pritchard, Recovering Sarepta..., 82-83.
318 Anderson, Sarepta I..., 396-97.



82


Strata XIII-VIII finds at Tyre.319 Despite the radical change in material in Stratum D,

there is no evidence of destruction or abandonment of the site between Strata E and D,

indicating continuous occupation of the site.

Stratum C is characterized by rebuilding efforts that resulted in both architectural

change and continuity. The expansion of dwelling space appears to have been the primary

motivation for the architectural changes. Along with the gradual development of forms

and surface finishing, the continuity of ceramic tradition is evident.320 By Stratum C, all

burnished vessels are strictly wheel-burnished.321 A major increase in storage vessels

appears in Stratum C, perhaps related to the architectural modifications made in this

level. One of the more unique features present in Stratum C is the combination of

burnished red slip with standard Phoenician bichrome decoration.322

Numerous, small finds made in sounding Y at Sarepta provide additional insight

into domestic elements of Phoenician material culture. The items found include jewelry,

ceramic mask fragments, amulets, seals, spindle whorls, and cosmetic jars. The

discoveries made in sounding X, meanwhile, point to extensive industrial activity.

Twenty-two kilns found distributed over five strata attest to a significant ceramic industry

at the city of Sarepta. Pritchard estimates the total number of kilns at close to five times

the number excavated. The kilns were made with the firing chamber dug into the ground.

The overall shape consisted of an oval chamber divided into two kidney-shaped lobes.

The stone walls of the kiln were then layered with clay, which became hard in the firing


319 Ibid., 405.
320 Ibid., 407-408.
321 Ibid., 404.
322 Ibid., 410. This pattern of decoration is also attested on a decanter from Tel Dan. See Section 5.3.9.



83


process.323 In addition to the kilns, tanks for levigating clay were also uncovered. The

four walls of the tanks were covered with cement, while the floor was left unplastered,

allowing the water for washing to slowly drain away.

In addition to the ceramic industry, the production of purple dye is evidenced at

this site by the discovery of a refuse pit filled with crushed murex shells. Over ten

standard rubber excavation baskets were filled with the excavated shells. Unfortunately,

the workshop in which these shells were processed was never found, but is likely located

further south of the excavation area. James Pritchard suggests that two distinctive jars

with drains at the bottom may have been used as part of the manufacturing process.324

Finally, there is trace evidence of a metal-working industry in sounding X. The

rim of a crucible, displaced bits of slag, and part of a jewelry mold provide fragmentary

evidence that some degree of metal-working was practiced in the vicinity of this

industrial complex.325

In summary, the published excavations at Sarepta offer the most comprehensive

set of data available for the study of the material culture of central Phoenicia in the early

Iron Age period. Unlike most sites excavated in Israel, the change in material culture

between the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age happens in the 11th century rather than the

twelfth.

4.1.5. Kamid el-Loz

The site of Kamid el-Loz is strategically located at the southern end of the Beqaʽ Valley,

at the cross-roads between the Phoenician coast and the north-south road that connects


323 Similar vessels found at Dor are discussed below. Pritchard, Recovering Sarepta..., 111-15.
324 Ibid., 126-27.
325 Pritchard, Recovering Sarepta..., 127-29.



84


the Jordan Valley with the Beqaʽ. Based on cuneiform tablets found at the site, the tell has

been identified as the ancient city Kumidi, mentioned in New Kingdom sources.326 The

first set of excavations occurred from 1963 to 1981, and was conducted by Arnulf

Kuschke and Rolf Hachmann. Finds date from the Neolithic Age up to the Roman period.

The early Iron Age remains consist primarily of domestic dwellings, which

suggest that the site may have been little more than a village in the Iron I period.327 The

early Iron Age material is published in a report on the stratigraphy of the site, which also

contains plans of the meager architectural features. No discussion of ceramics appears in

the volume on stratigraphy.328 Given the poor state of architectural features from the early

Iron Age and the lack of published ceramics and other small finds from the same period,

little can be said about the site in the early Iron Age. By contrast, there is a wealth of

evidence dating to the Late Bronze Age, including a temple, a palace, and a workshop.

The workshop shows signs of metallurgy and frit production.329

In 1997, excavations were resumed by Marlies Heinz of the Albert-Ludwigs-

Universität in Freiburg. Preliminary reports of each season have been published on the

university’s website, covering up to the 2008 excavation season.330 From these

preliminary reports, it is possible to see some of the ceramic types associated with Iron I

levels.331 In area II-e-6 and II-e-7, the east slope of the tell, Iron I buildings have been

excavated. The building in area II-e-6 shows four periods of use. The house consisted of


326 Rolf Hachmann, "V. Kamid el-Loz Kumidi," Ber 37 (1989): 89-94. Cf. Thutmose’ III geographic lists
from the Great Temple of Amun at Karnak, Meggido-list: 8; Northern List: 8 in J. Simons, Handbook for
the Study of Egyptian Topographical Lists Relating to Western Asia (Leiden: Brill, 1937), 28-38, 111, 217.
327 Rolf Hachmann, "II. The Excavations," Ber 37 (1989): 36.
328 Rudolf Echt, Kamid El-Loz: 5. Die Stratigraphie (Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GMBH, 1984).
329 Ibid., 56, 97-99.
330 http://www.vorderasien.uni-freiburg.de/english/index.html
331 http://www.vorderasien.uni-freiburg.de/english/documents/Plate_30.pdf



85


four rooms or courtyards, each retangular in shape.332 Finds in this building are limited

mostly to cooking pots and tannours.333 The house was destroyed by fire and remained

unoccupied until the Persian period.334

In area II-e-7, a two-room house with a courtyard was excavated. The pottery

discovered here suggests that the house belongs to the Late Bronze Age. Tannour ovens

and bits of metal were also found within the building. Unfortunately, later Roman

construction damaged part of this structure that may belong to the Late Bronze/Iron I

transition. Thus far, there has been no significant finds dating to the Iron II period. In

contrast to other Phoenician sites, Kamid el-Loz was destroyed at the end of the 13th

century, and never reestablished as a major city. The Late Bronze Age site of Kumidi was

destroyed and reoccupied for a brief time in the Iron I period, and then apparently

abandoned until the Persian period.

4.1.6. Byblos

The site of ancient Byblos (Gubla) is located at the modern town of Jebeil, twenty-five

miles north of Beirut. The ancient city was an ideal location due to its close proximity to

the timber-rich mountains of Lebanon and a suitable harbor for ships. In 1860, Ernest

Renan surveyed the site as a part of his commission by Napoleon III.335 Renan quickly

discovered that the local population living on the ancient ruins of Byblos was damaging

the site by robbing stone work, digging wells, and, looting ancient artifacts.336 Renan’s

excavations consisted primarily of small soundings made in gardens and between houses


332 http://www.vorderasien.uni-freiburg.de/english/kamid_2005.html, section 1.1.
333 http://www.vorderasien.uni-freiburg.de/english/kamid_2005.html, section 1.1.4.1
334 http://www.vorderasien.uni-freiburg.de/english/kamid_2007.html, section 1.1
335 Renan, Mission de Phénicie, 1.
336 Ibid., 155.



86


and surface finds, which included numerous inscriptions. Furthermore, his discovery of

recycled building materials in the architecture of a Crusader castle pointed to a complex

history of occupation at Byblos.

Half a century later, Pierre Montet embarked on a second campaign of

excavations at Byblos, which lasted for four years. In his first year of excavation, he

uncovered the foundation of a temple with cartouches from the Egyptian Old Kingdom

and materials datable to the Middle Kingdom.337 However, the presence of modern

houses upon the site prevented him from recognizing that multiple phases of a single

building lay beneath the surface. Instead, the varying types of material found between

houses were seen as evidence of multiple constructions.

In 1922, a landslide exposed the remains of a royal tomb in the cliffs above the

sea. In the tomb, a sarcophagus with the remains of a king, dating to ca. 1800 B.C.E. was

discovered, along with rich funerary remains. Over the course of two more excavation

seasons, a total of nine other royal tombs were excavated. The most famous tomb is that

of Ahiram, whose sarcophagus preserves an early alphabetic inscription. Indeed, the

various alphabetic inscriptions found throughout the many excavations are invaluable to

scholars of early Phoenician History.338 Proposals for the date of the Ahiram sarcophagus

are based primarily on script type and artistic style. Although no complete vessel types

were found in this tomb, there were a number of sherds painted in standard Phoenician


337 Pierre Montet, Byblos et L'Egypte, Quatre campagnes de fouilles à Gebeil 1921, 1922, 1923, and 1924:
Texte
(Paris: Libraire Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1928), 68-74.
338 Wolfgang Röllig, "On the Origin of the Phoenicians," Ber 31 (1983): 84-92.



87


style.339 The closest parallels to these fragments come from the cinerary urns retrieved in

late 10th-8th century contexts at Tyre and Ahkziv.340 Based on our current state of

knowledge regarding Phoenician bichrome cinerary urns, the Ahiram inscription dates no

earlier than the 10th century.

The third set of excavations at Byblos was conducted by Maurice Dunand, who

directed multiple campaigns between 1926 and 1965.341 Though Dunand initially faced

the same challenges as his predecessors, he was able to expand his excavation activity

greatly after the government purchased all twenty-nine homes located within the

excavation area. Dunand was then able to excavate the full limits of the Baalat-Gebal

temple and define its various phases of construction up to the Roman period.342 Despite

the benefit of excavating without the obstacle of modern construction, the Iron Age

stratigraphy at Byblos had already been destroyed in antiquity. In all of the areas

excavated at Byblos, there were no stratified levels belonging to the early Iron Age. Only

the Tomb of Ahiram provides a sealed locus for early Iron Age material.343Iron IIA

material is evident by a Black-on-Red jug found out of context on the surface.344 A

couple of early Iron Age vessels were also recovered in level II: a globular jug with red

bands around the neck345and a white globular jug with faded black lines.346 Two


339 Montet, Byblos et L'Egypte...Texte, 218-19; Pierre Montet, Byblos et L'Egypte, Quatre campagnes de
fouilles à Gebeil 1921, 1922, 1923, and 1924: Atlas (Paris: Libraire Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1929), Pl.
CXLIII.
340 Seeden, "A Tophet in Tyre?," 53-56.
341 The preliminary reports found in the BMB volumes cover the excavations up to 1965: Maurice Dunand,
Fouilles de Byblos I (Paris Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1939); Fouilles de Byblos II (Paris
Librairie d'Amerique et d'Orient Adrien Maisonneuve, 1954); BMB IX, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII,
XIX, XX; Idem., Fouilles de Byblos II (Paris Librairie d'Amerique et d'Orient Adrien Maisonneuve, 1954),
Vol. I-II.
342 Dunand, Fouilles de Byblos I, 66-79.
343 Nina Jidejian, Byblos Through the Ages (Beirut: Dar El-Machreq, 1968), 57-59.
344 Dunand, Fouilles de Byblos II, 98-99.
345 Ibid., 134,140.



88


bichrome vessels, numbers 8246 and 8743, were identified by Dunand as being

Mycenaean. Each of these vessels can be found in the later repertoires of Iron Age strata

and are considered examples of Phoenician or Cypriot bichrome ware.347 Number 8743 is

especially interesting, since it closely parallels cinerary urns found in Iron IIA-B

cremation burials at Tyre and Ahkziv.348 These large and sometimes complete urns are

evidence of early Iron Age activity at the site of Byblos. However, their research value is

greatly limited by the lack of stratigraphic context. A synthesis of all the Iron Age

material published from the excavations of Byblos is sorely lacking, but beyond the focus

of the present study.349

In sum, the material found at Byblos relating to the early development of central

Lebanese material culture in the Iron Age is frustratingly limited. These limitations are

further compounded by the lack of a systematic presentation of the early Iron Age forms

in the excavation reports.

4.1.7. Tell Kazel

In the early sixties, excavations were conducted at the site of Tell Kazel by Maurice

Dunand, the excavator of Byblos.350 These preliminary excavations demonstrated that

Tell Kazel was a large settlement in the Late Bronze Age that slowly diminished into a


346 Ibid., 141, 157.
347 Number 8246 is a complete vessel that has fragmentary parallels at Tell Keisan Level 4 and Tyre
Stratum X; see Jaques Briend and Jean-Baptiste Humbert, Tell Keisan (1971-1976): Une Cité phenicienne
en Galilee (Fribourg, 1980), PL. 28:2; Bikai, The Pottery of Tyre, Pl.XXIIA:15.
348 Seeden, "A Tophet in Tyre?," Fig. III.73:2; Michal Dayagi-Mendels, The Ahkziv Cemetaries: The Ben-
Dor Excavations, 1941-1944 (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2002), Fig. 5.4:2
349 Based on the published area plans from the second volume of Fouilles de Byblos, it is clear that nearly
3,680 square meters were excavated during the campaigns of Dunand, before World War II. The continued
excavations between 1948 and 1965 no doubt exposed an even larger area. Despite this large scale
exposure at Byblos no strata were discerned for the early Iron Age.
350 Maurice Dunand, A. Bounni, and N. Saliby, "Fouilles de Tell Kazel. Rapport preliminaire," Annales
Archéologiques Syriennes 14 (1964), 1-14.



89


small military fort by the Roman period. Later surveys in the Akkar plain showed that

many sites near Kazel were abandoned at the end of the Late Bronze Age, but Kazel

remained an important fortified city. The wealth of international material preserved in the

Late Bronze Age strata has led the excavators to associate Tel Kazel with the ancient city

Ṣumur, first mentioned in the campaigns of Thutmose III.351 Based on the importance of

this site, permission was acquired in 1985 to begin excavations. The field work has

continued on an annual basis up to the present under the directorship of Leila Badre.

The material found by Badre and her team has been published in preliminary

reports and several journal articles.352 Unfortunately, the preliminary nature of the reports

means that there remains no comprehensive stratigraphy for the four areas of excavation.

Rather, each area has developed it’s own stratigraphic sequence, which complicates the

discussion of the finds. The following chart details the varying stratigraphic sequences by

area for the periods relevant to the present study:353








351 Françoise Briquel-Chatonnet, "Tableau Chronologique des Attestations de Ṣumur," Syria 71 (1994):
353-56.
352 Leila Badre, "Tell Kazel, Syria. AUB Museum Excavations, 1985-1987. Preliminary Reports," Ber 38
(1990): 9-124; Leila Badre, et al., "Tell Kazel (Syrie): Rapport préliminaire sur les 4e-8e Campagnes de
fouilles (1988-1992)," Syria 71 (1994): 259-359; Leila Badre and Eric Gubel, "Tell Kazel Syria:
Excavations of the AUB Museum 1993-1998. Third Preliminary Report," Ber 44 (1999): 123-203; Eric
Gubel, "Tell Kazel - Six Centuries of Iron Age Occupation (c. 1200-612 B.C.)," in Essays on Syria in the
Iron Age (ed. Guy Bunnens; Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 7; Louvain: Peeters, 2000), 425-57;
Emmanuelle Capet, Corrected Reprint of Tel Kazel (Syria) Preliminary Report (1993-2001) (Beirut: The
American University of Beirut, 2003), 63-128.
353 Badre, "Tell Kazel, Syria...," 9-124; Badre and Gubel, "Tell Kazel Syria...," 123-203; Badre, et al., "Tell
Kazel (Syrie)...," 259-359.



90


Table. 4.1.7. Stratigraphy at Tell Kazel.

Late Bronze II Iron IA Iron IB Iron IIA

Area I Level 16 Level 14 Levels 13-8

Area II Level 6 Level 5 Level 4 (late)

Area III Level 4? Level 3

Area IV Level 5 Level 4 Level 3 Level 2-1



Unlike the site of Sarepta, at Tell Kazel there is evidence of a break between the

Late Bronze Age architectural structures and the remains associated with the Iron Age. In

Area II, a large Bronze Age residence shows signs of having been partially destroyed by

fire. The space was rearranged with a mix of old and new walls. Evidence of water

damage suggests that the roof of the rebuilt complex leaked. The plaster and shell floors

of the Late Bronze Age are replaced by compacted earthen floors. Eventually, the new

construction built over the Late Bronze Age remains was destroyed by a violent fire,

resulting in 50 cm of burnt debris.354 The building techniques demonstrate a decline in

quality from one period to the next. In the Iron I period, walls without cut foundations

first appear, and the fine-crafted and large mudbricks of the Late Bronze Age are

replaced with smaller and coarser bricks.355

As with Sarepta, the pottery at Tel Kazel demonstrates an uninterrupted

continuation of Late Bronze Age local forms into the Iron IA period. However, the lack

of imported forms in the beginning of the Iron Age suggests an interruption in maritime

exchanges. Despite the evidence of several conflagrations, the continuity of the ceramic


354 Gubel, "Tell Kazel...," 436.
355 Ibid., 437.



91


tradition suggests that the local population overcame these disturbances and persisted to

inhabit the site. Yet, the degradation of architecture, lack of imported luxury goods, and

multiple destructions attest to the instability of the period.356

In area I, architectural remains likely from the Iron I period are quite limited, but

include a pebble floor and a floor made out of stone slabs. The slab floor is associated by

the excavators with a period prior to the arrival of Tiglath-Pileser I.357 A small amount of

Iron I forms were recovered, which include an amphoriskos, fragments of bichrome jugs,

a trefoil dipper juglet, and bowls with hand-burnished slip or red wash.358

One of the major finds in Area I is the “jar-building,” which appears to have been

in use from the early first millennium until the Assyrian conquest of Ṣumur in 738

BCE.359 In the earliest level of this building, twenty sack-shaped amphorae with crisp,

brittle ware were found, one of which had bichrome decoration. The excavator compares

the bichrome example with others found at Sukas, Hama, Hazor, Cyprus, Carthage, and

Sarepta; this broad distribution is attributed by badre to Phoenician expansion in the 9th-

8th centuries.360 However, it might be safer to say that these vessels indicate Phoenician

mercantile activity at the site during this period. Other Phoenician ceramic forms found

here include Red-Slipped jugs and juglets, and numerous fragments of Black-on-Red

ware.361


356 Ibid., 438-41.
357 Gubel, "Tell Kazel...," 443.
358 Badre and Gubel, "Tell Kazel Syria...," 132-34.
359 Ibid., 443.
360 Badre and Gubel, "Tell Kazel Syria...," 129.
361 Gubel, "Tell Kazel...," 445-46.



92


In area IV, the remains of a Late Bronze Age temple were uncovered.362 Level 6

is the earliest stratum and belongs to the LB II period. The material suggests that this

wealthy city enjoyed close relations with Egypt and Palestine. The later phase of level 6

shows an increase in Hittite influence.363 In Level 5, two phases of construction are

present. However, the near-absence of pottery and other small finds suggests that the first

phase was completely emptied before the second phase was built. The better-defined

monumental features of the first phase point to Hittite building activity. The temple of the

first phase was completely cleared and then reoccupied in the second phase for a short

period before being destroyed by fire.364

Level 4 belongs to the Iron I period, and points to an economic recession at the

site.365 The walls in this period lack foundations and are made of small rubble stones.

Finds include globular pilgrim flasks and jugs painted with red and black concentric

circles.366 Level 3, also contains late Iron I material, but shows signs of renewed

construction activity. The new construction maintains the same orientation as Level 5, but

the proportions are expanded to create a larger cella. A basalt tripod bowl and other small

finds demonstrate that the material culture of Levels 4 and 3 is closely associated with the

Syro-Palestinian coastal region.367 There is little evidence of foreign imports in these two

levels of Area IV of foreign imports in these two.

In addition to pottery and architecture, figurines, amulets, seals, ivory and metal

objects provide insight into the material culture of the site. Most of the small finds appear


362 Badre and Gubel, "Tell Kazel Syria...," 136-98.
363 Ibid., 197.
364 Ibid.
365 Ibid.
366 Ibid., 185-92.
367 Ibid., 198.



93


in Late Bronze Age or Iron II levels. Several fragments of the “Breast Astarte” figurines

made in terracotta were found in 9th-8th century contexts, some with red and black

paint.368 Another group of figurines found in large quantities is the seated-goddess type,

which prefigures later Phoenico-Rhodian terracottas.369 In addition to the terracottas,

several Egyptian amulets were found, including a fragment of a crown of Nefertem, a cat

figurine, the lower part of a Third Intermediate Period ring made in Egyptian blue, a

scarab depicting Min, and a scarab depicting Ptah. These amulets demonstrate one area of

influence the 22nd Dynasty of Egypt had on the Phoenician coast.370

4.1.8. Tell Keisan

Tell Keisan located south of the Lebanese mountains in the Akko plain is generally

considered a Phoenician site. In 1935, A. Rowe excavated a small probe in order to

explore the stratigraphy and ceramics of the site. Later in 1970, Rolland de Vaux

conducted a surface exploration in preparation for an excavation conducted by Jacques

Briend and Jean-Baptiste Humbert.371 This excavation of the site was conducted over the

course of five years (1971-1976).372 The ancient identity of the site has been associated

with Qishiyon, Akshaph, or Misheal.373 The excavators preferred Akshaph which has

recently been confirmed by the petrography of a cuneiform tablet found at Amarna.374

Briend and Humbert unearthed remains from the Iron I to the Byzantine periods. Though


368 Gubel, "Tell Kazel...," 446-48.
369 Ibid., 448-49.
370 Ibid., 454-55.
371 Briend and Humbert, Tell Keisan, 13-14.
372 Ibid., 14.
373 Qishiyon is mentioned in the geographic list I of Thutmose III number 37. Akshaph is first mentioned in
the execration texts number E 11, and later in list I of Thutmose III number 40. Akshaph also appears in the
Amarna letters EA 366; 367, and Papyrus Anastasi I. Misheal appears in list I of Thutmose III number 39.
374 Ibid., 9; Yuval Goren, Israel Finkelstein, and Nadav Naaman, Inscribed in Clay: Provenance Study of
the Amarna Tablets and Other Ancient Near Eastern Texts (Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications
in Archaeology, 2004), 231-32.



94


the initial sounding made by A. Rowe confirmed that deeper levels contain material from

the Middle and Late Bronze Age, these levels have yet to be excavated.375 The following

is a table of the levels relevant to the present study.

Table. 4.1.8. Stratigraphy at Tell Keisan.

Period: Iron I A Iron IB Iron IIa Iron IIB

Level: 12b-a (1230-

1200)

9c (1075-1050) 8c 6 (850)

11 (1200-1100) 9b (1050~1000) 8b (980-900)

10b (1100-1075) 9a (1000~ 980) 8a

10a (1100-1075) 7 (900-850)



Four separate levels are associated with the Iron IA period. The modest

construction of Level 12a covers the destruction of the earlier Bronze Age site. The

overall architectural continuity is interrupted by a large mudbrick collapse, which lead

excavators to subdivide Level 12 into 12a and 12b. It is believed that Levels 12a-b were

occupied through most of the Iron IA period.376 Level 11 represents a short period of

significant architectural activity. Large, well cut stone slabs were used as a pavement for

some type of structure. These slabs were restricted to the north of the excavation area,

seperated by a wall which was ruined by robbing activity.377 The walls of Level 11 are

nearly a meter thick and constructed with large stones.378 Based on the current evidence,

it is uncertain whether Level 11 was destroyed or abandoned, but it is clear that it was


375 Ibid.
376 Jean-Baptiste Humbert, "Recent Travaux à Tell Keisan (1979-1980)," Revue Biblique 88, no. 3 (1981):
388.
377 Briend and Humbert, Tell Keisan, 206.
378 Humbert, "Recent Travaux a Tell Keisan (1979-1980)," 385-92.



95


briefly occupied at the end of the 12th century BCE.379 Jean-Baptiste Humbert attributes

the end of Stratum 11 to an interruption caused by population movements in the region

and culture conflicts among the Israelites, Arameans and Philistines.380

The architectural remains of Levels 10B-A are poorer than the previous levels.

These modest remains show the structures were all made in mudbrick or adobe.381

However, large amounts of pottery found in these two levels indicate the site was active

in this period. The prevalence of several forms, including pyxides, bilbil jugs, large flasks

and juglets, shows a combination of Mycenaean and Cypriot influence. Based on

petrographic analysis, all of these vessels were of local manufacture, and can thus be

defined as Levanto-Mycenaean in form. Philistine sherds number among the pottery

forms reported for Level 10, but a lack of published plates makes these identifications

difficult to confirm.382 One vessel of particular interest is a large clay vat used in the

manufacture of purple dye. The vessel form is parallel only to large pithoi found in

Cyprus.383 This large vessel demonstrates a blending of foreign ceramic influence with a

dye industry that has traditionally been associated with the Phoenicians.384 It is

interesting to note that this large pithos has some similarity in form with the Iron IIA

Snake-band pithoi found at Dan.


379 Humbert, "Tell Keisan," 864.
380 Ibid.
381 Humbert, "Recent Travaux a Tell Keisan (1979-1980)," 388.
382 However, a published fragment from Level 9c provides a later example of what is considered Philistine.
Caution should be taken with regard to the proposed presence of Philistine material, given the limited data
available in publication. For statements about Philistine material at Tell Keisan, see Briend and Humbert,
Tell Keisan, 222; Humbert, "Tell Keisan," 864.
383 Ibid., 864-65.
384 For new perspectives regarding the Aegean origin of the purple dye industry, see David S Reese, "Shells
From Sarepta (Lebanon) and East Mediterranean Purple-Dye Production," Mediterranean Archaeology and
Archaeometry 10, no. 1 (2010): 126.



96


The Iron IB period at Tell Keisan is represented by three levels: 9c, 9b, and 9a. In

Level 9c, there is evidence of renewed construction of massive, well-planned buildings.

The walls are built in a manner similar to those found in Stratum IV of Tell Abu

Hawam.385 These walls are built with large stones stacked on top of one another to form

vertical piers, with unbonded small stones filled in between.386 It is likely that the stones

used for construction were robbed from the Middle Bronze Age rampart.387 The city

thrived for a century, in which time it underwent three periods of development without

any sign of disruption. The sequence of urban development is primarily evident in the

residential areas of the site. In Level 9c, most of the homes consisted of two rooms. In

Level 9b, the homes received a new interior wall to subdivide the space into three rooms.

By Level 9a, the open courtyard is roofed over, providing four rooms. The evolution of

the house plan suggests an increase in population density at Tell Keisan over the course

of the 11th century.388 As seen in the ceramic evidence, continued contact with Cyprus

suggests that Keisan’s interests were focused on sea trade, likely in conjunction with the

port of Akko. It appears that economic ties forged with Cyprus at the end of the 12th

century resulted in a century of economic prosperity and growth. It is during this period

that Tell Keisan reached its zenith.

The great prosperity of Tell Keisan was brought to an abrupt end sometime in the

10th century BCE. No strong archeological evidence has been unearthed to suggest who

was responsible for the destruction of the site. Levels 8c-a belong to the reoccupation of


385 R. W. Hamilton, "Excavations at Tell Abu Hawam," The Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in
Palestine 4 (1935), 10.
386 This construction technique is known as Peer-and-Rubble construction.
387 Humbert, "Recent Travaux à Tell Keisan (1979-1980)," 386.
388 Ibid., 392-97.



97


the site, shortly after the destruction of Level 9a. The meager rebuilding efforts evident in

this level show a demonstrable break with the affluence of the earlier period.389 From a

material culture standpoint, the excavators do not see a radical shift in population

between Levels 9 and 8. The ceramic evidence shows a continuum of ceramic tradition,

uninterrupted up to Level 6. Primarily domestic forms of pottery are evident in Levels 7-

6, with some examples of Black-on-Red ware, red burnished bowls, and some bichrome

sherds.390 It appears that the inhabitants of Tell Keisan continued within the confines of

the Iron I settlement, but the site never regained its former glory. Though the population

appears to have maintained its cultural ties with the coast, the wealth from maritime

connections was never restored.

4.1.9. Tel Dor

Tel Dor is located on the coast of modern Israel, at the southern edge of the Carmel

mountain range. The site has three small coves which were used as havens for anchorage,

a valuable feature along the flat coastline of the eastern Mediterranean.391 The first

excavation of the site was conducted by John Garstang in 1923-1924. His extensive work

at the site was not well-documented and thus has been of little value to current

excavators.392 In 1950, J. Leibowitz resumed excavations at Dor. The finds consisted

primarily of Roman and Byzantine remains. In addition, extensive underwater

excavations were conducted by Kurt Raveh, Ehud Galil, and Shelly Wachsman, who

were based at a nearby kibbutz. Between 1980-1992, excavations were conducted by


389 Briend and Humbert, Tell Keisan, 195.
390 Ibid., 181-189.
391 Ephraim Stern, Dor, Ruler of the Seas: Nineteen Years of Excavations at the Israelite-Phoenician
Harbor Town on the Carmel Coast (rev. and exp. ed.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000).
392 Ibid., 81.



98


Ephraim Stern of the Hebrew University Institute of Archaeology. The earliest levels

reached by the Stern excavations were small areas of the Iron I period.393 A renewal of

excavations at Dor began in 2003, led by Ilan Sharon of the Hebrew University and

Ayelet Gilboa of the University of Haifa. The excavation, still in progress, utilizes the

newest technologies and multidisciplinary approaches. The site is known to be relevant to

inter-regional and intercultural exchanges between the southern Phoenician littoral,

Israel, Cyprus, and the Mediterranean seaboard.394 Preliminary reports of each excavation

year up to 2009 are currently available online.395

Because of the preliminary state of publication for the periods relevant to the

present study, the stratigraphy has yet to be standardized among excavation areas. The

following chart shows the various strata by area for the Iron I-IIA periods at Tel Dor.

Table. 4.1.9. Stratigraphy at Tel Dor.

Period Area B Area C Area D Area G

Trans LB/IrI Str. Str. Str. Str.

Iron IA Str. 13



Str. 8

Str. 1/8 Str. 14-12 Str. 10

Iron IB Str. 1/8 Str. 9-10 Str. 9

Trans IrI/II Str. 8 Str. 6b-8

Iron IIA Str. 1/7 Str. 8 Str.




393 Ibid., 85.
394 For a full description of the goals and methodology of the new excavations at Tel Dor, see
http://dor.huji.ac.il/expedition.html.
395 http://dor.huji.ac.il/publications.html.



99


Only the most general statement that Strata 13-8 cover the Iron I through Iron IIA

periods has been published to date.396 However, Dr. Ilan Sharon and Elizabeth Bloch-

Smith are nearing publication of the Area B material.397 In Area B, a thick destruction

level was found sealed beneath a plaster floor, upon which were found ceramics dating to

the second half of the 11th century BCE. Only a small section was excavated at this depth.

The most significant find was a wall-base 3 m high and 2 m thick made of large stones.

On top of this wall were the remains of mudbricks. The wall was dated to the 12th century

BCE by ceramics found at the base of the wall.398 Ephraim Stern considered this massive

construction the work of the Sikil.399 Other remains linked to Sikil manufacture were

identified by Avner Raban, while excavating the harbor. He concluded that the initial

phase of construction resembled other harbors excavated at Mallia in Crete and Kition in

Cyprus. Changing sea levels resulted in the abandonment of these landings in the mid-

11th century.400 Other small finds including an incised bovine scapula, a painted lion head

rhyton, and bichrome ware attributed to the Philistines led Stern to conclude that Level

XII at Tel Dor should be associated with the Aegean Sikil.401 Stern attributes a later mid-

11th century destruction to the Phoenicians.402 These early conclusions, based on very

limited archeological evidence, have been challenged in the past decade by ceramic and

archeological studies at Tel Dor.


396 http://dor.huji.ac.il/areaB.html#B1.
397 Ilan Sharon, Elizabeth Bloch-Smith, The Tel Dor Area B Iron Age Fortifications (Forthcoming).
398 Stern, Dor, Ruler of the Seas..., 92-93.
399 Ibid., 94-96.
400 Ibid., 97-98.
401 Ibid., 94-98.
402 Ibid., 99



100


In a series of articles, Ayelet Gilboa explores the development of Phoenician

bichrome pottery and its relationship with Cyprus and the Sikil.403 She concludes that

ceramic evidence suggests the development of Phoenician bichrome ware is a natural

progression of the Iron I coastal ceramic tradition influenced by economic and cultural

exchanges with Cyprus.404 Gilboa finds no evidence of a marked change of ethnic

identity that would signal a significant population change. Thus, the new excavations of

Tel Dor not only expand the body of early Iron Age material, but also bring a new

critique of past theories derived from the previous decades’ research.

Very little material has been found at Tel Dor belonging to the Late Bronze Age.

Based on limited ceramic and metal slag evidence, the settlement was small in the Late

Bronze Age and likely occupied only the northern part of the tell.405 The earliest Iron Age

material was recovered in Area G, where a Canaanite-style courtyard house was found.

The courtyard house is typified by a central courtyard bordered on at least three sides by

rooms. The earliest phase, G/10, shows evidence of bronze recycling, which appears to

be a continuation of a Late Bronze Age industry. The in situ objects compliment the

haphazard finds from the previous Late Bronze Age level G/11. Among the instruments

used for recycling is a bellows pot406 that looks similar to two vessels found at Sarepta.407


403 Ayelet Gilboa, "The Dynamics of Phoenician Bichrome Pottery: A View from Tel Dor," BASOR 316
(1999): 1-22; Ayelet Gilboa and Ilan Sharon, "An Archaeological Contribution to the Early Iron Age
Chronological Debate: Alternative Chronologies for Phoenicia and their Effects on the Levant, Cyprus, and
Greece," BASOR 332 (2003): 7-80; Ayelet Gilboa, "Sea Peoples and Phoenicians along the Southern
Phoenician Coast - A Reconciliation: An Interpretation of Sikila (SKL) Material Culture," BASOR 337
(2005): 47-78.
404 Gilboa, "The Dynamics of Phoenician Bichrome Pottery...," 12-19.
405 Ayelet Gilboa and Ilan Sharon, "Between the Carmel and the Sea: Tel Dor's Iron Age Reconsidered,"
NEA 71, no. 3 (2009): 150.
406 Ibid., 154.
407 The excavators of Sarepta suggest that these vessels may have been used in the production of purple
dye, but the evidence from Dor would suggest that they were actually used as bellow pots. Pritchard,
Recovering Sarepta..., 127.



101


After a short period, perhaps a decade, the house changed function, as evidenced by the

presence of wheat phytoliths in Level G/9. Food storage became the primary function,

with Wavy-band pithoi, collared-rimmed jars, and other Iron Age store jars found in this

level. Other similar houses were excavated in areas D2 and D5. Several items used for

personal adornment appear to have fallen from a second story of these buildings. Among

the small finds were numerous glass objects, including beads, a core-formed vessel, and

an “ear plug.”408

The ceramics from these levels were domestically produced, with little evidence

of import from Cyprus. Decorative elements appear primarily on commercial vessels,

including jars. The practice of painting enclosed bichrome bands on small commercial

vessels begins to appear in the Iron IA period, and seems to have been influenced by

contemporary Cypriot style.409 Strainer-spouted jugs associated with feasting activity are

painted with overlapping diagonal strokes, which find their closest parallel in Syro-

Cilician style.410 Wavy-band pithoi and simple skyphoi attest to the local production of

Cypriot-influenced forms. A few of the pithoi were imported from Cyprus, but the main

source of foreign import comes from Egypt, as evidenced by the dozens of Egyptian-style

store jars and Nile fish bones.411

The Iron IA levels at Tel Dor were brought to an end by a site-wide destruction

sometime in the mid- to late 11th century BCE. Many of the domestic structures were

rebuilt with the same plan and function. Ceramics continued to develop in the local

tradition with influence from Cyprus. In this period, standard Phoenician bichrome style


408 Gilboa and Sharon, "Between the Carmel and the Sea," 156.
409 Ibid., 155.
410 Ibid., 155-56.
411 Ibid., 156.



102


emerged as a distinct artistic form. Also commerce with Egypt continued uninterrupted.

Petrography shows that the majority of bichrome vessels were locally made, with the rest

coming from Lebanon. However, significant Cypriot imports in the Iron IB levels attest

to economic exchanges between Dor and Cyprus. These imports include Cypro-

Geometric I table wares, bimetallic knives, and a bull-shaped pendant.412

Despite the continuity of material culture and domestic architecture following the

great Iron IA destruction, significant architectural changes appear in the Iron IB levels. A

new city wall, built of brick, expanded the limits of the previous levels, and a massive

building project took place in Level D2/10.413 A building at least 40 meters long was

constructed on top of a massive boulder socle 5 meters tall. One corner of this

monumental building appears to have been constructed of ashlars. This building is

connected in the south to the “Sea wall,” and in the west to the “Bastion Wall.” Amidst

these three structures is a large mudbrick building, apparently used as a storage facility.

Between the monumental building and the mudbrick building is a drain covered by thick

ashlar slabs, emptying into the lagoon. The excavators note that this is one of the largest

architectural complexes known from the Iron I period in all of the Mediterranean.414

Though these remains may be attributed to the Sikil, the continuity of material culture

raises concerns with this proposal. A room in area D2 contained a foreign assemblage

including an incised bone, a stone bowl, a horn core, a juglet, a bottle, and seven water-

polished stones. Though this has been nicknamed the Sikil shrine on site, the excavators


412 Ibid., 159; Stern, Dor, Ruler of the Seas..., Figs. 248, 58.
413 Ibid.
414 Gilboa and Sharon, "Between the Carmel and the Sea," 157-58.



103


have refrained from a hasty judgment its origin.415 If, as was argued in chapter 3, the Sikil

come from the Orontes river region or the Akkar plain, their material culture would have

only nuanced distinctions from other North Levantine coastal sites. A detailed

examination of the material from Tel Kazel and Tel Dor will have to wait for final

excavation reports.

In the Iron I/II transition period, the courtyard house of Area G continued to be

used. During this period, a structural collapse buried a middle-aged woman.416 In Area B,

there is little evidence of significant change. In area D5, a very large courtyard building

first appears, demonstrating continuity with Late Bronze Age building practices. In area

D2, the large mudbrick storage area was demolished and neatly sealed. A rubble stone

structure was then built over the former mudbrick structure. In this stone structure a

significant silver hoard was recovered. The excavators are reluctant to attribute the

demolition of the mudbrick structure to some catastrophic event, since the building is

nicely sealed over.417 However, the presence of a woman beneath the stone collapse in

Area G, the destruction of the mudbrick structure, and some minor disturbances detected

in the Area B material point to a site-wide event.

Since evidence for a site-wide disruption remains inconclusive, the ceramic

repertoire is the primary means used to identify the Iron I/II transition. The defining types

for this period at Tel Dor include Phoenician Red-Slipped fine wares and Black-on-Red

ware. The ceramic assemblages from Megiddo VIA and Tel Qasile X parallel the Iron I/II


415 Tel Dor 2009 Preliminary Report. http://dor.huji.ac.il/Season2009report2.html
416 Gilboa and Sharon, "Between the Carmel and the Sea," 162.
417 Ibid., 162.



104


transition at Tel Dor, while Megiddo IVB-VA and Hazor X parallel Iron IIa at Tel Dor.418

In the Iron I/II transition, the presence of Phoenician bichrome style continues to increase

over earlier periods, and is employed as a mode of decoration on non-commercial vessels

including chalices, bowls and jars. Although Red-Slipped vessels are present, they are

rare in this period.419 The Cypriot assemblage, reaches its zenith during the Iron I/II

transition, and is parallel to finds from Tyre. Iron Age levels at Dor also preserve Mid-

Proto-Geometric sherds from Euboea, which is evidence of renewed contact with the

Aegean. A chemical analysis of silver found in area D2 also points to contact with

Anatolia, Sardinia, and the Aegean during this period. In contrast, contact with Egypt

decreased during this period.420

In the early Iron IIA period, the ceramic assemblage at Tel Dor finds closer

parallels with the Israelite sites of Megiddo, Yoqneam, Hazor, Dan, and Tel es-Saidiyeh,

rather than the coast. Also there are few parallels between assemblages in the Akko plain

and tel Dor in this period.421 Architectural changes also appear late in the Iron IIA period

or at the beginning of Iron IIB period. In Area B phase 7, a new city wall was built with

adjacent rubble structures and a four-chambered gate. Massive walls located north of

Area B suggest this was an inner gate. In Area D2, there are scant remains of a large

ashlar building likely built in the Iron IIA period. Thus, in the Iron IIA period most of the

evidence points to Israelite control of the site.422


418 Ibid., 161-62.
419 Ibid., 163.
420 Ibid., 163.
421 Ibid., 163.
422 Ibid., 163.



105


4.1.10. Horvat Rosh Zayit

From 1974-1983, an archeological survey of the Galilee was made in an effort to define

the ancient boundary between the tribes of Asher and Zebulun, and to identify the valley

of Yiftaḥ̕el and Kabul. Since no Iron Age remains have been found at the modern Arab

village of Kabul, Horvat Rosh Zayit, a registered site 1.5 kilometers north, became a

focal point of the search for ancient Kabul. The site’s location in antiquity just 15

kilometers from Akko on a ridge on the lower slopes of the mountains of lower Galilee

provided a clear view of the entire ‘Akko Plain’.423 Excavation of the site was carried out

between 1983/84 and 1989/90 by the Institute of Archaeology of the University of Haifa.

In 1988, the project was sponsored by Avraham Biran, director of the Nelson Glueck

School of Biblical Archaeology of the Hebrew Union College. The last three years of

excavation, 1990-1992, were funded by the Israel Antiquities Authority.424

Although several strata have been identified, the main occupation belongs to fort

complex of the 10th-9th centuries. Thus, Horvat Rosh Zayit lacks the complexities

associated with the excavation of a multi-period tell. There are four phases of occupation

in three strata at Horvat Rosh Zayit.425

Table. 4.1.10. Stratigraphy at Horvat Rosh Zayit

Strat. III Pre-fort village c. 1000-960

Strat. IIb First phase of the fort c. 960-920

Strat. IIa Second phase of the fort c. 920-880

Strat. I Small occupation of ruined fort c. 880-860


423 Zvi Gal and Yardenna Alexandre, Horbat Rosh Zayit. An Iron Age Storage Fort and Village (Jerusalem:
Israel Antiquities Authority, 2000), 3.
424 Ibid., 1.
425 Ibid., 6.



106




Stratum III was exposed in a very small area beneath the central hall of the fort.

The first phase of Stratum III consisted of a rock-hewn bell-shaped cistern and a domestic

unit built of three poorly-constructed stone walls on bedrock. Finds of the first phase

include a basalt mortar, ‘doughnut’-shaped stoppers, and many astragali.426 Ceramics

include fragments of a standard Phoenician bichrome jug and pilgrim flask, a cooking jug

similar to those found at Tel Dor, and cooking pots resembling those found at Hazor, Tel

Dan, and Yokneam.427 In the second phase of Stratum III, there were two walls, a tabun,

and a plastered horseshoe installation used for cooking food. The walls of the second

phase are of better quality than the first phase. Based on ceramic finds on a stamped earth

floor outside the walls of the fort, it appears that the Stratum III village extended beyond

the limits of the later Stratum II fortress.428

In Stratum IIb, a nearly square fort (15.5 by 16 meters) was constructed partially

on bedrock and partially over Stratum III. The fort was surrounded by massive

fortification walls with an outer dimension of 22 by 24 meters. The outer defensive wall

was built as a sloping glacis of uncut field stones laid against the ashlar cut stones of the

fort. The glacis wall is 2.6 meters wide at the base and narrows to 1 meter at the top. The

outer wall is preserved to a height of nearly 2 meters, comprised of eleven courses of

stone. No doorways were excavated, and though it is possible that an entrance remains

unexcavated on the south-east side, the excavator suggests that the wall was traversed by

ladder. A few similar style forts have been excavated—Tel Malḥata in the Beer Sheva


426 Ibid., 9.
427 Ibid., 30-32.
428 Ibid., 10.



107


valley, Rujm abu Mughaiyir in the Jordan Valley, and ʽEn Ḥaṣeva.429 Evidence of two

towers was unearthed at the northern and southern ends of the glacis wall. The north

tower contained a large quantity of Cypro-Phoenician vessels, along with an exceptional

kernos. Zvi Gal believes this tower may have served a cultic function based on the

presence of the kernos.430 In the Iron I period, kernoi appear at sites in the Philistine area,

such as Tel Qasile, Beth Shemesh and Gezer, along with a few other significant sites like

Megiddo and Beth Shean. Based on the prevalence of these types of vessels in Cyprus, it

has been suggested that they originate from there.431 Likewise, some have argued that

Cyprus is also the origin of Black-on-Red ware.432

The Stratum IIb fort, built partially on bedrock, is preserved to a height of 3

meters. Evidence suggests that the building was originally two stories high and had walls

5 meters high. The main entrance into the building was on the upper level, likely reached

by ladder. The primary evidence for the first phase of the building comes from the

courtyard and rooms 56, 59 and 60. No evidence of a stone stair was excavated, leading

the excavators to conclude the lower level of the building was also reached by ladder.433

The plan of the fort is similar to the courtyard house designs found at Tel Dor and Tell

Keisan, with the obvious exception of the heavy fortification. The walls were constructed

mainly of rubble, ashlars laid in header and stretcher fashion formed the entrances. The

combination of ashlar and rubble masonry is Phoenician in origin.434 A conflagration

damaged the fortification system, ground floor cellars, and upper story rooms. Finds from

429 Ibid., 12-14.
430 Ibid., 14.
431 Ibid., 81-82.
432 Nicola Schreiber, The Cypro-Phoenician Pottery of the Iron Age (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 307-12; Gal and
Alexandre, Horbat Rosh Zayit, 69-70.
433 Ibid., 14-16.
434 Ibid., 20.



108


the first phase are minimal since the whole fort was cleared and repaired for another

period of use.435

The primary architectural changes in Stratum IIa appear in the massive 2-meter-

thick wall unearthed on the western side of the fort. It is uncertain whether the new wall

encircled the fort, but it was clearly constructed upon the ruined glacis of the previous

period. This outer wall is preserved to a height of 3 meters.436 New towers were built

following the plan of the previous towers. A rock-cut cistern is located at the join of the

defensive wall and the walls of the fort. It is possible that this cistern was originally cut in

Stratum III. This cistern in the northwest corner of the fort appears to have dictated the

location of the upper story entrance in that corner.437

The finds from Stratum IIa include an intact, elaborately-carved basalt bowl,

fragments from a second bowl, and a stone chalice. The ornate style may have been

derived from the bronze tripod styles found in Cyprus from the 13-11th centuries BCE.438

A large number of iron tools, including two plowshares, twenty-seven sickles, six axe

heads, five chisels, a saw, a cow-goad, and several utility knives were also uncovered.

Five heavy bronze rings found at the site were likely used for leading oxen. Iron

arrowheads, swords, and spearheads likely belong to the final battle that brought the fort

to an end. In total, 30 kilograms of iron were recovered from the site. Tests of the

composition of a couple implements show traces of chrome, magnesium, nitrogen, and

copper. Unfortunately, the origin of the metal tools has not been ascertained.


435 Ibid., 16.
436 Ibid., 16.
437 Ibid., 17.
438 Ibid., 123-125.



109


Nevertheless, the large number of iron tools used for agricultural purposes points to a

sophisticated agricultural operation associated with the fort.439

Another valuable corpus of small finds is the nine weights recovered from the

fort. Five are made of limestone, two of bronze, one of dorite, and one of green stone.

Three of the limestone weights clearly meet the Egyptian standard of a deben: 90-95

grams; one is a double deben. One limestone weight weighs 22.67 grams and has

tentatively been identified as a double shekel, or perhaps a Phoenician triple shekel.

Given the poor condition of the two bronze weights and the one small weight, there is

much uncertainty regarding their unit of measure.440 The textual evidence of Phoenician

shipping contracts with Egypt and the thirty-one deben of silver carried by Wenamun for

his transactions with Byblos and other Levantine rulers, offer reason to believe that the

deben may have been a common standard weight in this period. The dome shape and

carination of four of the limestone weights finds its closest parallels with Egyptian

types.441

The functional nature of these small finds and the lack of luxury items seems to

suggest that this fort served as an agricultural administration center. This is further

supported by the nearly five hundred vessels found in the ground level storage rooms,

which would have had an estimated capacity of 14,000 liters. Room 40, which is believed

to have been a silo, would have more than doubled that capacity. At least forty-one intact

store jars were recovered from two basement rooms alone. These represent three different

styles including ‘hippo jars,’ a short-necked jar, and a high-necked jar. A single pithos


439 Ibid., 127-129.
440 Raz Kletter, "4.6 Weights," in Horbat Rosh Zayit: An Iron Age Storage Fort and Village (eds. Zvi Gal
and Yardenna Alexandre; Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2000), 129-33.
441Ibid. 129



110


with a large base and flat-cut rim was found among the storage containers.442 In addition

to the large number of store jars, nearly two hundred and fifty bowls were recovered in

the two phases of the fort; most are plain with no slip, especially in the Iron IIA

stratum.443 One particularly important find is a thick Red-Slipped carinated bowl, which

has numerous parallels at Israelite sites but is absent at Lebanese and coastal sites.444

As for the fine ceramic wares discovered at Horvat Rosh Zayit, petrographic

analysis shows several bichrome jugs came from the Phoenician coast.445 There is also

evidence of a few Red-Slipped jugs, including an imitation Black-on-Red jug.446 The

majority of fine ceramics is represented by sixty-eight Black-on-Red vessels recovered

from the fort. Forty-three of these vessels were bowls, and the rest were jugs and juglets.

No place of manufacture could be established through petrographic analysis. The vessels

comprise a large and unique cache of luxury goods at an otherwise utilitarian site. It is

not fully understood why such a large corpus of these vessels should be found at this

site.447

Stratum I, the final occupation of the site, appears to have been a domestic

occupation of the destroyed fort. Squatters divided the central hall into four rooms with

flimsy cross walls. The cooking pots and basalt grinding stones found in this stratum

appear to have been rescued and reused after the destruction of the fort. These and other


442 Ibid., 21-22.
443 Ibid., 34.
444 Ibid., 36.
445 Ibid., 57-58.
446 Ibid., 60-61.
447 Ibid., 68-78.



111


items found abandoned in situ suggest this occupation was brief and that the inhabitants

fled the site leaving their possessions behind.448

4.1.11. Achzib

The biblical site of Achzib is located 14 kilometers north of Akko. The first excavations

at the site took place between 1941 and 1944 under the direction of Immanuel Ben-Dor.

Unfortunately, the war in 1947 completely disrupted the investigations launched at the

site. It was not until 2002 that Michal Dayagi-Mendels was able to publish the material

that had been stored at the Rockefeller Museum. Missing plans, imperfect records, and a

great lapse in time limited the report to a presentation of the pottery and small materials

found within the tombs.449

The tombs are located in two cemeteries, Er-Ras and Ez-Zib. Most of the tombs

were shaft tombs, carved out of kurkar rock. The report identifies four different styles of

tombs. Type 1 is a shaft tomb with a single chamber and a rock-cut roof. Type 2 is a

single chamber with a roof of stone slabs. Type 3 is a trough tomb that may have had a

stone slab roof, but we cannot know for certain since the single example of this type is

poorly preserved. Type 4 is a masonry tomb built entirely above ground.450 The Er-Ras

cemetery contains mainly Type 1 tombs, which are similar to Persian period tombs found

at Atlit. Type 2 tombs found at Ez-Zib have close parallels with 8th-7th century BCE

tombs found in Jerusalem.451

The ceramics found in these tombs have close parallels with material recovered

from Tyre, Sarepta, T. Abu Hawam, and other sites considered Phoenician in character.


448 Ibid.
449 Dayagi-Mendels, The Ahkziv Cemeteries..., 1-2.
450 Ibid., 3-4.
451 Ibid., 4



112


The earliest vessels, from the 10th-9th centuries BCE, were found in tomb Z X.452 Finds

that date to the 9th-8th centuries include two sealed crematory urns, two jugs, and a

bowl.453 These items have been identified as a standard Phoenician-style burial kit, based

on 9th-7th century burial finds at other Phoenician sites.454

In 1963-1964, excavations were carried out on the main tell by Moshe W.

Prausnitz in partnership with Sabatino Moscati. In a 40-meter-long trench, the excavators

were able to identify Middle Bronze Age fortifications that were destroyed. By the

beginning of the Iron Age, the city expanded beyond the bounds of these fortifications.

Regrettably, the early Iron Age material has not yet been published.455

In addition to the excavations by Ben-Dor, further excavations were made at three

cemeteries around Achzib: the southern cemetery, the eastern cemetery, and the northern

cemetery. From 1988-1990, the Jerome L. Joss excavation, directed by Eilat Mazar,

focused on the southern cemetery where sixteen shaft tombs were excavated. These

tombs, dated to the 8th and 7th centuries B.C.E., contain numerous finds, including

ceramics, jewelry, ivory, scarabs, figurines and weapons. In the northwestern part of the

site, excavators uncovered a chamber tomb that appears to have been used from the 10th

to 7th centuries BCE. A hole bored through the slabs covering the burial chamber is

similar to an earlier Late Bronze Age tomb at Ugarit. A cist tomb was also uncovered,

dating to the 11th century. Another cist chamber tomb with a dozen secondary burials was

excavated and dated to the 10th-9th centuries BCE. The tombs found in the southern

452 Ibid., 20-23.
453 Max W. Prausnitz, "Die Nekropolen von Akhziv," in Phönizier im Westen: Die Beiträge des
Internationalen Symposiums über Die Phönizische Expansion im westlichen Mittelmeerraum in Köln vom
24. bis 27. April 1979 (ed. H.G. Niemeyer; Mainz: von Zäbern, 1982), 36-35.
454 Aubet, "The Tyre Necropolis," 20.
455 Max W. Prausnitz, "Achzib," The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land,
vol. 1: 32.



113


cemetery, dated from the 11th to 7th centuries B.C.E., demonstrate architectural

continuity.456

The northern cemetery was excavated for eight years by both Moshe Prausnitz

and Eilat Mazar.457 The earliest finds in this area include a platform and a well-plastered

pool, perhaps related to the production of purple dye. This installation went out of use in

the 10th century when an ashlar built tomb was constructed in its place. Child inhumation

burials were found outside the tomb, deposited in the pool.458 In the 9th century, a circular

crematorium was built, cutting into the plastered pool. Although no direct evidence for

cremation was apparent in the structure, numerous cremation burials were found in the

area surrounding it. As with the evidence from Tyre, the urns were filled with adult

remains and covered with a Samaria-type bowl. Typically, a dipper jug, a trefoil rim jug,

and mushroom-lipped jug were placed beside the urn, and a stele was mounted above it.

Most of these stele have no markings, but a few have a basic circle, a pair of lines, or

both, which represent Baal and Tanit. This style of burial was practiced until the 6th

century.459

In addition to the cremation burials, a circular ashlar burial chamber was

uncovered. Its initial construction is dated to the 10th century and it continued to be used

until the 6th century. Parallels to this type of burial structure appear at Ugarit from the


456 Eilat Mazar, "Achzib," The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, vol. 1:
35-36.
457 Eilat Mazar, The Phoenician Family Tomb N.1 At the Northern Cemetery of Achziv (10th-6th Centuries
BCE) (Barcelona: Laboratorio De Arquelogia De La Universidad Pompeu Fabra De Barcelona, 2004).
458 Eilat Mazar, "Achzib," The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, vol.5:
1562.
459 Mazar, "Achzib," 1562.



114


Middle Bronze Age until the 13th century.460 The most common pottery found in the

earliest 10th century level of this structure is the small pilgrim flask. This vessel is

entirely absent in the later burials within the structure. As with the urn burials outside the

tomb, trefoil and mushroom-lipped jugs are prevalent here. Other finds within the tomb

include high quality jewelry, scarabs, clay figurines, weapons, and a clay mask.461

4.1.12. Tell Abu Hawam

Tell Abu Hawam is situated within the limits of modern Haifa. Due to silting and tectonic

shifts, this ancient harbor now lies 1.5 kilometers from the sea shore. The site held

control over the estuary of the Kishon and the main road between Shiqmona and the

Jordan valley. Excavation of the site began as a series of rescue excavations by P. L. O.

Guy and G. M. Fitzgerald in 1922, L. A. Mayer and N. Makhouly in 1929, D. C.

Baramky and A. Valinsky in 1930, R. W. Hamilton and L. Sorial in 1932-1933, E. Anati

and M. Prausnitz in 1952, and Anati and Y. Olami in 1963.462 The publications produced

by Hamilton formed the initial interpretation of the stratigraphy at Abu Hawam.463 In

1985-1986, stratigraphic verifications were made at Tell Abu Hawam under the direction

of J. Balensi, M. D. Herrera, and Michal Artzy. This resulted in a chronological

adjustment of Hamilton’s stratigraphic levels and provided a clarification of the

subdivisions within the strata.464 Finally from 2001-2002, salvage excavations were

carried out by Artzy and Y. Yankelevitch, and U. Ad. This final excavation concluded


460 For a detailed discussion of the archaeological evidence for this tomb tradition, see Mazar, The
Phoenician Family Tomb N.1..., 15-16.
461 Ibid., 1562-63.
462 Jacqueline Balensi, Maria D. Herrera, and Michal Artzy, "Abu Hawam, Tell," The New Encyclopedia of
Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land,1:8.
463 Hamilton, "Tell Abu Hawam: Interim Report," 74-80; Hamilton, "Excavations at Tell Abu Hawam," 1-
80.
464 Maria D. Herrera and Francisco Gomez, Tell Abu Hawam (Haifa, Israel): El Horizonte Fenico Del
Stratum III Britanico (Salamanca: Universidad Pontificaia De Salamanca, 2004), 165-78.



115


that during the Late Bronze Age period, there was no lower city in the northern area of

the tell, and that the Iron Age site was likely smaller than the Late Bronze Age site. The

most extensive synthesis of the various publications is found in the collaborative article

by Artzy , Balensi, and Herrera.465 The following is a chart of the various strata and

proposed dating based on the article by Artzy, Balensi, and Herrera.

Table. 4.1.12. Stratigraphy at Tell Abu Hawam.

Stratum IIIB Renewed planning Iron IIA-B 10th-late 8th c.

BCE

Stratum IIIA Fortified city Iron IIA 10th c. BCE

Stratum IVB Public Buildings Iron I/IIA 11th-10th c. BCE

Stratum IVA Three-room houses Iron IB 11th c. BCE

Stratum VC New Settlement LB IIB/Iron I 13th-12th c. BCE



The Late Bronze Age remains at Tell Abu Hawam include a cyclopean wall built

around two public buildings, temple 50 and a citadel. A large number of Mycenaean III

and Late Cypriot vessels were recovered from this level. A later study by J. M. Weinstein

identified the Argolid as the primary source for the manufacture and distribution of

Mycenaean-style wares exported to Cyprus and the Levant. Abu Hawam served as a

regional port for the import of such goods from Mycenae.466 Among the finds were some

Hyksos-style scarabs, which were deemed out of place. These finds, made by Hamilton,

were later defined as Stratum VB. The stratum following the destruction of these

architectural elements was designated Stratum VC, and defined as a short period of


465 Balensi, Herrera, and Artzy, "Abu Hawam, Tell," 7-14.
466 James M. Weinstein, "Was Tell Abu-Hawam a 19th-Century Egyptian Naval Base," BASOR 238 (1980):
43-46.



116


reoccupation of the site. In the new excavations and analysis of Hamilton’s material,

Balensi, et al. found that the settlement had extended over the stone rampart and had been

burned. Pottery associated with this level includes Mycenean IIIB, Late Cypriot IIB,

Canaanite jars, and Phoenician bichrome. In addition, pepper and salt wheel-made ware,

Late Minoan IIIB imports, and some gray-burnished wheel-made ware in the Trojan

VIH/VIIA style attest to an influx of a variety of peoples from Cyprus and Syria

following the destruction of the primary Late Bronze Age IIB site. The presence of

domestic structures on the upper mound indicates a change in the urban plan in Stratum

VC.467

Beginning in Stratum IV, three-room houses appear with rubble walls nearly a

meter thick, and the occasional use of monolithic pillars. The pillars were likely reused

from the cyclopean ramparts. The modest building methods employed to repair damage

caused by rising sea levels has been attributed to new settlers at the site. The

preponderance of domestic dwellings similar to examples found in the north as far as

Hittite territory further supports the theory that settlers from Syria or the northern coastal

regions moved onto the site during the Iron IB period. However, the continued use of an

earlier temple (30) suggests a degree of cultural continuity. As the settlement grew, the

temple was replaced by a public building (32) in Stratum IVA. Finds associated with

Phoenician material culture include storage galleries built with pier and rubble walls and

large quantities of bichrome vessels. Other finds in this phase include Philistine sherds

and Late Cypriot IIIB wares.468


467 Balensi, Herrera, and Artzy, "Abu Hawam, Tell," 13-14.
468 Ibid., 10-11.



117


Although strong fortifications appear in Stratum III there is generally a great deal

of continuity in the architecture of Strata IVA- IIIA. Black-on-Red ware appears for the

first time in Stratum IIIA. Ovens and iron tools suggest a combination of domestic and

agricultural activities. The ovens in the houses were riveted with potsherds and

sometimes rested on a ring of stones.469 In Stratum IIIB, several new complexes were

built, which incorporated a few ashlar blocks. In this period, Red-Burnished fine ware

appears, but there are no examples of the thicker type found at Israelite sites.470 Tell Abu

Hawam exhibits a combination of Israelite and Phoenician ceramic features in Stratum

IIIB. Phoenician types include bichrome ware and Red-Slipped burnished bowls, while

cooking pots and pyxides similar to those found at Keisan and Dan suggest commonality

with Israelite sites.471

4.1.13. Shiqmona

Tel Shiqmona lies 1.3 miles south of the Carmel Cape and is currently within the city

limits of Haifa. The tell was occupied from the Late Bronze Age to the Byzantine period.

In 1963, systematic excavation of the site began, directed by Joseph Elgavish, on behalf

of the Haifa Municipal Museum of Ancient Art. In total, seventeen excavation seasons

were conducted, which ended in 1979.472 While, the majority of the Iron Age material has

yet to be published, some information has been provided by preliminary publications.473


469 Hamilton, "Excavations at Tell Abu Hawam," 6.
470 Balensi, Herrera, and Artzy, "Abu Hawam, Tell," 9-10.
471 Hamilton, "Excavations at Tell Abu Hawam," 6-7.
472 Joseph Elgavish, "Tel Shiqmona," The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy
Land, 4:1373.
473 Elgavish, "Tel Shiqmona," 4:1373-78; Joseph Elgavish, Shiqmona on the Shore of the Carmel (Hebrew)
(Tel-Aviv: Hakkibutz Hameuchad Publishing House, 1994), 47-57; Joseph Elgavish, "Shiqmona, 1975,"
IEJ 25 (1975): 257-58



118


Three occupational strata belong to the Iron I period. In the two earliest strata, the

buildings conform to a simple plan and are not well-built. In the earliest level, storage

jars were found in situ, some with their shoulders or rims destroyed. A globular jug and

bronze implement were also recovered. This first phase is dated to the end of the 13th

century by the excavators.474

The second phase of the Iron I levels consists of four buildings. The outer walls

have two parallel rows of stones, while the inner walls consist of a single row of stones.

In one room, a large number of tools and storage containers with the stoppers still in them

was uncovered. The room also contained jugs, bowls, and Black-on-Red ware.475 Other

finds include an ivory pomegranate, olive pits, a basalt tripod mortar, and four clay

ovens. The finds from this second level have been dated to the first half of the 11th

century.476

The final phase of the Iron I levels dates to the latter half of the 11th century. A

small section with a floor was found in this level, upon which were pottery loom weights

and an Astarte plaque figurine. The plaque figurine is comparable to a find from Tell Abu

Hawam Stratum IV.477

Within the Iron II levels at Tel Shiqmona, there are five distinct strata. Three

levels were occupied prior to the end of the 9th century. The earliest level, Town A, was

destroyed in the 10th century. Town A is comprised of a casemate wall and four houses

with two streets. One of the buildings in this level clearly belongs to the courtyard design.

474 Elgavish, "Shiqmona, 1975," 258.
475 Ibid., 257-258. A store jar with a two line inscription written in red ink is also assigned to this level, but
later publications identify the inscription as a receipt of taxes paid to the king of Tyre just before the
conquest of Alexander the Great. See Joseph Elgavish, An Archaeological Trip into the Past of the City
Through Excavations at Shikmona (Haifa: The City Museum of Ancient Art, 1968), 8.
476 Ibid., 258.
477 Ibid., 257.



119


Cooking pots with engraved letters were found within the casemate wall, along with a

store jar bearing the painted inscription, lmlk’l. A large proportion of the ceramics in this

level were Black-on-Red ware.478

The next level, Town B, consisted of a large residential building destroyed in the

latter half of the 9th century. The building had a long central courtyard flanked by rows of

pillars and two rectangular store rooms. Finds from the rooms include a cache of

arrowheads and spearheads, a mushroom-lipped jug, and several sack-shaped store jars.

The center of the courtyard contained an oil press. Outside of the building, a flight of

stairs led to an upper story. The architecture of Town B was well preserved; the walls of

the building reaching the ceiling of the first floor.479

Town C had no fortifications and appears to have been destroyed in the mid-8th

century. Three oil presses were recovered from this level. They consisted of a stone

mortar, a stone drum, and a stone channel leading to a sunken storage jar. Numerous

terracotta figurines were recovered from this level, including a seated goddess, numerous

horsemen, and girls holding instruments or offerings.480

Among the more significant finds at Tel Shiqmona were numerous ceramic sherds

with 6’6’-dibromo indigo dye, also known as Phoenician purple.481 The sherds come

from a 9th century context. In addition to the presence of dyed sherds, harvested shells

were found outside the tell, indicating that purple dye was locally produced at some point


478 Ibid., 257.
479 Ibid.
480 Ibid.
481 Nira Karmon and Ehud Spanier, "Remains of a Purple Dye Industry Found at Tel Shiqmona," IEJ 38,
no. 184-186 (1988)



120


in the occupation of the site. Unfortunately, there were no markers for dating the period

of the shell harvesting.482

4.1.14. Summary

This survey of fourteen sites along the Levantine coast from Tel Dor to Tel Kazel in the

Iron I-IIA periods, provides a detailed look at the currently available data regarding

Phoenician territory and material culture. The finds from Tyre and Sarepta preserve

valuable information regarding the Phoenician heartland in the early Iron Age. Tell Kazel

provides insight into the northern reaches of Phoenician territory, from the turbulent Late

Bronze Age III to the Iron IIA period. Many of the sites in the south including Dor, Tell

Abu Hawam, and Tell Keisan also show signs of destruction at the end of the Late

Bronze Age, with notable changes in architecture or ceramics in the following period. In

order to further define both elements of change and aspects of Phoenician material

culture, the following section will examine key features commonly used to define

material culture. Specialized activities such as ashlar masonry, ceramics, art forms,

metallurgy, purple dye, and cremation burials will be examined below.

4.2. Key Features of Phoenician Material Culture:

4.2.1. Ashlar Masonry

In 1973, much attention was drawn to a portion of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem which

was supposedly built of Phoenician stone masonry.483 The attribution made by

Laperrousaz rested largely on the Ashlar bamah found at Tel Dan and theories that it was


482 Ibid., 185.
483 E.M. Laperrousaz, "Aprés le «Temple de Salomon» La bamah de Tel-Dan: L'Utilisation de Pierres à
Bossage Phénicien dans la Palestine Préexilique," Syria 59 (1982): 223-37.



121


built by Phoenician craftsman during the reign of Ahab.484 The question, however, is to

what extent ashlar masonry can be attributed strictly to Phoenician craftsmanship.

Numerous examples of ashlar masonry have been recovered in the Late Bronze Age

remains found at Ugarit, Kition, Enkomi, Maa, and other eastern Mediterranean sites485

Unlike the earlier examples of ashlar masonry found in Mycenae, Anatolia, and Egypt,

these Cypro-Levantine examples expanded ashlar use beyond cultic or burial structures.

At Tel Dor, a Bronze Age bay was excavated that was used from the 17th to the 12th

centuries BCE. In the 13th century, a new landing was built using ashlar blocks. In

addition to the landing, a plaza made of ashlars was found with pottery dating to the 12th-

11th centuries.486 A close parallel to the ashlar harbor at Dor is the Late Bronze Age

harbor at Kition.487 During the last two centuries of the second millennium, there is

evidence that the sea level rose at least a meter, leaving many of the Late Bronze Age

harbors unusable.488 However, use of ashlar blocks in harbor constructions reemerges in

the 9th-8th centuries at Arwad, Tyre, and Sidon, and in the 7th-6th century harbors at

Tabbat, Al-Hammam, and Atlit.489

What then can be said concerning the use of ashlar masonry in the Iron I period?

As demonstrated in the archaeological survey above, several coastal sites show the use of


484 Ibid., 224-225
485 Louise A. Hitchcock, "And Above Were Costly Stones, Hewn According to Measurement...:"
Documentation of Pre-Classical Ashlar Masonry in the East Mediterranean," in Metron: Measuring the
Aegean Bronze Age: Proceedings of the 9th Aegean Conference, New Haven, Yale University 18-21 April
2002 (ed. Karen Polinger Foster; Liege: University of Liege, Service d'histoire de l'art et d'archeologie de la
Grece antique, 2003), 257-65.
486 Avner Raban, "The Constructive Maritime Role of the Sea Peoples in the Levant," in Society and
Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (eds. Michael Heltzer and Edward Lipinski; Leuven: Uitgeverij
Peters, 1988), 276-79.
487 Ibid., 281.
488 Avner Raban, "Phoenician Harbours in the Levant," Michmanim 11 (1997): 12.
489 Honor Frost, "The Offshore Island Harbour at Sidon and Other Phoenician sites in the Light of New
Dating Evidence," The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration 2, no. 1
(1973): 85-91.



122


ashlar masonry combined with other types of construction. Within the Phoenician

heartland, ashlar masonry was used to make city walls at Sarepta in the last quarter of the

11th century to the early 10th century.490

Further north, at Tell Kazel, large ashlar stones were combined with natural

stones to build an impressive Late Bronze Age residence.491 In the final occupation of

this Late Bronze Age residence, rooms were partitioned with single course walls made of

ashlar stones and rubble. Unlike Sarepta, Tell Kazel appears to have been more harshly

affected by the geopolitical transitions that took place in the last century of the Late

Bronze Age. The excavators note that in a Hittite treaty with Shaushga-muwa, the last

king of the Amurru dynasty (ca. 1250-1230 BCE), Amurru was not allowed to trade with

the Assyrians or Ahhiyawa.492 The near absence of Cypriot and Mycenaean imports in

the Late Bronze/Iron I transition levels at Kazel are interpreted as evidence of this Hittite

mandate, which was a major factor in the decline of the site.

In the south, ashlar masonry appears at Tel Dor in a large public building and an

ashlar covered drain. Both structures were found in Stratum 10 dating to the mid-11th

century.493 At Tell Abu Hawam, ashlar blocks appear in late 10th-9th century structures. A

small number of ashlar blocks were found in combination with poorer construction

materials.494 A similar construction technique is evident in the 10th century fort at Horvat

Rosh Zayit. In Stratum IIb, ashlars were used as door frames. The rest of the walls of the


490 Pritchard, Recovering Sarepta..., 82.
491 Gubel, "Tell Kazel...," 437.
492 Though the exact location of Ahhiyawa is unknown, Leila Badre correlates this term to the general
Aegean world. For the Hittite treaty see Ahhiyawa Text 2 in Gary Beckman, Trevor Bryce, and Eric H.
Cline, The Ahhiyawa Texts (ed. Theodore J. Lewis; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 50-68.
493 Gilboa and Sharon, "Between the Carmel and the Sea,"
494 Balensi, Herrera, and Artzy, "Abu Hawam, Tell," 6.



123


fort were made of rubble stones.495 The combination of large ashlar blocks with smaller

rubble stones is called pier-and-rubble construction, and appears in the 11th century at

Tell Abu Hawam, the 11th century at Tell Keisan, the 9th century at Tyre, and the 8th

century at Beirut (Fig. 4.1). In the 10th century B.C.E. an ashlar chamber tomb is evident

at Tell Achzib, and is similar to a Late Bronze Age example known from Ugarit.496

Despite the superior strength and aesthetic value of ashlar masonry, the blocks are

costly to produce. For some areas along the coast, ashlar blocks continued in use into the

Iron I period despite the regional economic transitions that were taking place; the pier-

rubble technique likely was a compromise between economic and quality concerns.497 Tel

Dor, like Sarepta, appears to have avoided a prolonged period of economic depression,

based on the more extensive evidence of ashlar blocks. According to the architectural

remains of 11th century Tel Dor, ashlars continued to be used as elements of construction.

These elements are perhaps the result of the recycling of blocks produced in the wealthier

Late Bronze Age. By contrast, Tell Abu Hawam, Horvat Rosh Zayit, and Ahkziv do not

show evidence of Ashlar masonry until the 10th century, and only in limited applications.

By the 9th to 8th centuries, there is evidence of newly built harbors with impressive ashlar

constructions. These harbors are a physical attestation to the wealth of these Phoenician

maritime centers. The appearance of ashlar masonry in early Iron Age coastal contexts is

likely due to a preference for this Late Bronze Age architectural style, rather than being a

new innovation. The gradual increase in ashlar masonry through the late Iron I to the

495 Gal and Alexandre, Horbat Rosh Zayit, 16.
496 Mazar, The Phoenician Family Tomb N.1..., 15.
497 At Tel Kazel and Tell Keisan, the Late Bronze Age tradition of building with mudbricks continued into
Iron Age levels, but at a reduced quality. At Tell Keisan, mudbrick was replaced by pier-rubble
construction in the more affluent 11th century. At Tel Dor, a massive mudbrick storage building was built in
the 11th century. This impressive structure does not conform to the architectural trend of 11th century sites
presented in this study.



124


incredible abundance seen in the late 9th century should be seen as a result of several

factors, including economic wealth, access to metal tools, and the proliferation of this

luxury architecture by Phoenician craftsman.

4.2.2 Ceramics

Ceramics are the most ubiquitous evidence found in any archeological excavation.

Therefore, most archeological publications focus heavily on the ceramic evidence. The

following section provides an overview of those pottery forms which are associated with

Phoenician manufacture. Distribution, as well as the form and function of various

ceramic types, provide insight into Phoenician economic and cultural activity.

4.2.2.1. Phoenician Bichrome Ware.

Perhaps the most prominent Phoenician pottery type is Phoenician bichrome ware. The

characteristics of this style are thin black lines enclosing a wide red band. Also common

are cross hatched lozenges, and stars or ribbons on handles or shoulders (Fig 4.2).498 The

ongoing research and publication of pottery assemblages at Tel Dor, by archaeologist

Ayelet Gilboa, has expanded our understanding of standard Phoenician bichrome ware.

Gilboa cites the earliest appearance of Phoenician bichrome ware at Tel Dor in the Iron

IB stratum (1050-980 B.C.E.).499 Other examples of this early bichrome stage have been

found at Phoenician sites including Tyre Stratum XIII/1, Sarepta Stratum II/Y, Joya,

Qraye, and Tell Keisan 9a-b.500 Outside of Phoenician territory, this early form of

Phoenician bichrome occurs in small quantities at sites in the Jezreel valley, Beth Shean


498 Gilboa, "The Dynamics of Phoenician Bichrome Pottery: A View from Tel Dor," 5.
499 Ibid., 2.
500 Bikai, The Pottery of Tyre, pl. 33:22; Anderson, Sarepta I..., pl. 31:10; Susannah Vibert Chapman, "A
Catalogue of Iron Age Pottery from the Cemeteries of Khirbet Silm, Joya, Qraye, and Qasmeieh of South
Lebanon: With a Note on the Iron Age Pottery of the American University Museum, Beirut," Ber 21
(1972): fig. 3:191, 13: 272.



125


valley, Galilee, Dan, and rarely in Philistia.501 In the early stage of development, only

flasks, jugs, and strainer-spouted jugs were painted in the bichrome style. Gilboa argues

that this style was adopted from Cyprus for use on commercial vessels.502 In the Iron IIA

period, the bichrome style expands to include many other types of vessels: chalices,

bowls, jars, and eventually burial urns; this demonstrates a shift from strictly commercial

forms to a cultural affiliation with this style.503 A clear example of ethnic Phoenician

presence at sites south of the Lebanese mountain range is evident in the burial remains

recovered at Ahkziv. Numerous cremation urns painted in bichrome style attest to the

uniquely Phoenician-type burial practices found at this site.504 The largest assemblage of

similar type appears at Tyre Al-Bass. Other smaller sites in the immediate vicinity of

Tyre also show similar style bichrome vessels used in cremation burial practices.505

4.2.2.2 Black-on-Red Ware.

Another important ceramic style attributed to Phoenician manufacture is the Cypro-

Phoenician style, or, the more descriptive designation, Black-on-Red (BoR.)506 Most

forms in this style are delicate and decorated with geometric designs. Early forms of this

style can be found in Iron IIA contexts at Hazor, Megiddo, Horvat Rosh Zayit, Tell

Keisan, Tel Mevorakh, Tel Michal, Tel Qiri, Tell Abu Hawam, and Tell el-Far’ah.507 The

two main forms associated with this style are juglets/jugs, likely used to carry fine


501 See Section 5.4.4. and Gilboa, "The Dynamics of Phoenician Bichrome Pottery: A View from Tel Dor,"
5.
502 Ibid., 5-12.
503 Ibid., 12-16.
504 Eilat Mazar, "Achziv Cemeteries: Buried Treasure From Israel's Neighbor," BAR 36, no. 5 (2010): 42-
47.
505 Aubet, "Between the Carmel and the Sea," 145.
506 Schreiber, The Cypro-Phoenician Pottery of the Iron Age, xix.
507 Ibid., 47.



126


oils/perfumes, and large bowls (Fig. 4.3).508 The evidence of this pottery style at tombs in

Cyprus points to commercial exchanges between Cyprus and Phoenicia. While there is

some debate about the origin of this style, the recent trend is to view these objects as

Cypriot.509

In an attempt to determine whether Phoenicians distributed this pottery type,

Nicola Schreiber surveyed sites with both Phoenician bichrome and BoR ware. She

concludes that Cyprus was responsible for disseminating BoR, based on the limited

distribution of bichrome ware beyond Phoenician sites and the minimal appearance of

BoR in Phoenician territory.510 Since BoR vessels are made of finely-levigated clay, there

is no conclusive petrographic or elemental evidence to establish the origin of these

vessels.511 However, Schreiber’s conclusion does not take into account the difference in

distribution between bowls and jugs. As noted by Zvi Gal, Gerstad considered BoR

bowls to be entirely Cypriot, based on their form, which has no early parallels in the

Levantine ceramic tradition. Unlike BoR jugs and juglets, BoR bowls appear in large

concentrations along the Carmel coast, the Akko plain, Lebanon, and a large assemblage

at Tell Kazel.512 These bowls provide specific evidence of the continuation of 11th

century economic exchanges between Cyprus and the northern Levantine coast in the 10th

century B.C.E.


508 Ibid., 67.
509 Maria Iacouvou, "Review: Phoenicia and Cyprus in the First Millennium B.C.: Two Distinct Cultures in
Search of Their Distinct Archaeologies," BASOR 336 (2004): 61-66; Gilboa and Sharon, "Between the
Carmel and the Sea," 161; Gal and Alexandre, Horbat Rosh Zayit, 69-70.
510 Schreiber, The Cypro-Phoenician Pottery of the Iron Age, 48-51.
511 Ibid., 234-239.
512 Ibid., 34.



127


4.2.2.3. Red-Slipped Ware.

Another ware associated with Phoenician manufacture is Red-Slipped Ware (RSW) thin-

walled bowls. These vessels formerly labeled ‘Samaria Ware Bowls,’ were first

discovered at excavations in Samaria.513 Patricia Bikai was one of the first to suggest that

these vessels were of Phoenician manufacture, based on hundreds of sherds found at

Tyre.514 In the following decades other studies have attributed these bowls along with

thicker forms to Phoenician manufacture as well (Fig. 4.4).515 A recent petrographic

study by Caroline Aznar confirmed that these vessels, excepting those at Hazor, were

manufactured on the Lebanese coast rather than inland.516 The bowls made in the RSW

style have extremely thin walls 2-3mm in thickness with beautifully burnished red slip.

These luxury vessels appear to be a ceramic version of Phoenician metal bowls.517 The

distribution of this ware beyond the northern coastal region to Israelite territory provides

evidence of developing market exchanges between these two regions. In the 9th century

B.C.E., the ware appears in Phoenician territory and Israelite centers of power, including

Samaria, and Tel el-Fa’rah. In the mid-8th century, these types of vessels were more

broadly distributed and appear throughout Israelite and Philistine territories.518 In the

present study, the presence of RSW thin-walled bowls in 9th century contexts at Tel Dan

raises questions regarding Phoenician presence at this Israelite site.


513 J.W. Crowfoot, G.M. Crowfoot, and K. M. Kenyon, The Objects From Samaria (London: Palestine
Exploration Fund, 1957), 155-59.
514 Bikai, The Pottery of Tyre, 26.
515 Amihai Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000-586 B.C.E. (New York: Doubleday, 1990),
508; Gabriel Barkay, "The Iron Age II-III " in The Archaeology of Ancient Israel (ed. Amnon Ben-Tor;
New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992), 326.
516 Carolina Aznar, "Exchange Networks in the Southern Levant during the Iron Age II: A Study of Pottery
Origin and Distribution" (Ph. D. Dissertation, Harvard, 2005),170-76.
517 Anderson, Sarepta I..., 163-64.
518 Aznar, "Exchange Networks...," 241-42.



128


4.2.2.4. Store Jars:

Store jars are another vessel form that can be attributed to Phoenician manufacture. In

Caroline Aznar’s petrographic analysis of Iron II store jars, she identifies a conical

storage jar, Type 1b, as a 10th century Phoenician form found primarily in the north at

Tell Abu Hawam, Tell Keisan, ʽAfula, Meggido, and in abundance at Tyre. This form’s

limited distribution seems to indicate that long distance food exchange was not a primary

focus of Phoenician trade in this period.519 By contrast the, ‘cylindrical jar family’ Type

9 has a diversity of forms that all come from Phoenicia. This form of vessel was widely

distributed in the 10th century through the 7th centuries B.C.E. 800 of these type of jars

were found in a shipwreck off the coast of Ashkelon, and point to wine as the primary

food stuff exchanged in these vessels.520 While the ubiquitous presence of this form is

useful in discussions of Phoenician mercantile exchanges it is not useful for defining

regions under Phoenician political control.

Bell, in her examination of economic exchanges along the Levintine coast,

identifies an assemblage of Canaanite store jars found on Cyprus at Palaepaphos-Skales

in Iron IA levels, which may have come from Tyre or Sarepta.521 These store jars were

likely used to transport wine, oil, or other agricultural products.

4.2.2.5. Summary of Ceramic Evidence.

In summary, the archeological data from sites along the Lebanese littoral provide

evidence of continuity in ceramic tradition, especially at Sarepta. In the case of Tel Dor,

much of the ceramic evidence points to a continuation of Late Bronze Age local practice


519 Ibid., 44-48.
520 Robert D. Ballard, et al., "Iron Age Shipwrecks in Deep Water off Ashkelon, Israel," American Journal
of Archaeology 106, no. 2 (2002): 151-68.
521 Bell, "The Influence of Economic Factors ...," 201-03.



129


in the Iron IA period. The few imports from The Iron IA period at Tel Dor include Syro-

Cilician drinking vessels and some Cypriot style pithoi (Fig. 4.5). At Tell Keisan,

Sarepta, Tyre, and Tell Abu Hawam, there is a mixture of Mycenaean and Cypriot

ceramics, which are designated Levanto-Mycenaean ware. Following the decline of the

Late Bronze age empires, coastal cities in the Levant preserved many Late Bronze Age

traditions well into the Iron I period. By the Iron IB period, many sites regained

economic strength through increased ties with Cyprus. In the eleventh century, Cypro-

Geometric ware is found in abundance at Tyre, Keisan, Tell Abu Hawam, Shiqmona, Tel

Dor, and to a lesser extent Sarepta.522 By the 10th century under the continued influence

of Cyprus, Phoenician ceramic forms emerge. Although Phoenician Bichrome is present

in earlier levels, it is not until the end of the 10th century that it appears on cremation urns

used in burial practices. From the late 10th through 7th centuries large numbers of

bichrome cremation urns appear at Phoenician sites in the immediate vicinity of Tyre,

including Tyre Al-Bass, Rachidiyeh, Qrayeh, Qasmieh, Khirbet Silm, Joya, Qana, and the

more remote territory of Ahkziv.523 Also present at sites with large concentrations of

Phoenician material culture are Black-on-Red bowls. These bowls demonstrate continued

exchanges in the 10th century between Cyprus, and the Phoenician sites of Tyre, Sarepta,

and Horvat Rosh Zayit.524 The presence of Black-on-Red bowls is also evident at Tell

Kazel in the 9th century B.C.E.525


522 Bikai, The Pottery of Tyre, 57; Humbert, "Recent Travaux a Tell Keisan (1979-1980)," 392-97; Balensi,
Herrera, and Artzy, "Abu Hawam, Tell," 11; Gilboa and Sharon, "Between the Carmel and the Sea," 158-
59; Elgavish, "Tel Shiqmona," 1374.
523 Aubet, "Between the Carmel and the Sea," 145.
524 Bikai, The Pottery of Tyre, 57; Anderson, Sarepta I..., 278; Gal and Alexandre, Horbat Rosh Zayit, 68-
47.
525 Badre, "Tell Kazel, Syria...," 112-13.



130


In conclusion, the ceramic evidence suggests that the transformation from the

Late Bronze Age Canaanite culture to the Iron Age Phoenician culture was largely

influenced by exchanges that took place between Cyprus and maritime ports along the

northern Levantine coast. The primary vessels that have been distinguished as belonging

to a Cypriot tradition are painted wares and some large pithoi. Pithoi appear to be one of

the vessels used in market exchanges in the early Iron Age, as demonstrated by studies on

collared rim vessels found further inland.526 The use and development of painted wares

along the Phoenician coast in the Iron I-IIA period, point not only to economic

exchanges, but also a trend to adopt and adapt Cypriot style into the indigenous ceramic

tradition of the Lebanese coast.

4.2.3. Art

The material remains of various art objects associated with Phoenician production

provides yet another important element in defining Phoenician material culture. Carved

ivories, jewelry, masks, figurines, stamp seals, and amulets are among the varied items

that have been studied. The majority of studies in this field focus on objects attributed to

Phoenician manufacture, which were found outside of the Phoenician heartland: carved

ivories, bronze bowls, jewelry, scarabs and amulets, terracotta figures and masks, statues,

stelae, and glass.527 Much of this material has been recovered from excavations made

throughout the western Mediterranean at sites colonized by the Phoenicians in the Iron

IIA-B periods.


526 J. Yellin and J. Gunneweg, "Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis and the Origin of Iron Age I
Collared-Rim Jars and Pithoi from Tel Dan," AASOR 49 (1989): 133-41; D. Wengrow, "Egyptian
Taskmasters and Heavy Burdens: Highland Exploration and the Collared-Rim Pithos of the Bronze/Iron
Age Levant," Oxford Journal of Archaeology 15, no. 3 (1996): 307-26.
527 For a nice pictorial survey of many of these types of vessels, see Sabatino Moscati, ed., The Phoenicians
(New York: Abbeville Press, 1988), 284-491.



131


In an attempt to address the emergence of Phoenician artistic style, Glenn Markoe

examined various types of evidence from the Late Bronze Age. He notes that ivory work

from Kamid el-Loz and Ras Shamra show, a high degree of New Kingdom Egyptian

influence.528 Based on LB II evidence from Meggido, Lachish, and the Ahiram

Sarcophogus, he suggests that Egyptian style became less influential in the Iron I period

and was replaced by Syrian and Aegean influence.529 In the Iron I-IIA periods, Markoe

focuses almost exclusively on terracotta masks found at Kition, Enkomi, Tyre, Sarepta,

Ahkziv, and Khaldeh. From these examples he concludes that Cypriot masks furnished

the prototypes for later Phoenician masks.530 Beyond the terracotta masks and the Ahiram

sarcophagus, Markoe provides no other Iron I examples of Phoenician craftsmanship.

Although Markoe’s conclusions rely on a very limited body of artistic evidence, the

trends he identifies reflect what is known about the geopolitical changes that occur in the

Levant during the Iron I period, namely, an increase in Syrian or Aegean influence, first

noticeable in the earliest part of the Iron Age.531 Secondly, Cyprus plays an important

role in the economic and cultural changes that occurred at coastal sites during the 11th-

10th centuries B.C.E..

4.2.3.1. Ivory and Bone Objects:

Carved ivories have been a dominant focus in discussions of Phoenician artistic style due

to the large number of examples found in the Levant. Unfortunately, most of the finds

come from sites outside of Phoenician territory, such as Alalakh, Lachish, Meggido, and

Ugarit in the Late Bronze Age, and Arslan Tash, Khorsabad, Nimrud, Samaria and


528 Glenn Markoe, "The Emergence of Phoenician Art," BASOR 279 (1990): 18.
529 Ibid., 23.
530 Ibid., 14-16.
531 See especially Sections 4.1.7. and 4.1.9.



132


Zinjirli in the Iron II period. Many of these works preserve a combination of stylistic

elements that point to the Phoenician use of Egyptian, Mycenaean, and Hittite, artistic

style. In some cases, the items are part of a hoard collected by the Assyrians as either

tribute or booty. It is from these dispersed materials that many attempts have been made

to reconstruct the syntax of Phoenician artistic style.532 The problem with such

reconstructions lies in the assumptions made about their origin of manufacture. Without

archeological examples of Phoenician workshops and their products, there is no primary

evidence to validate these proposals.

There are, however, some fragmentary remains of ivory and bone work from early

Iron Age northern coastal sites that can inform us about developments in Phoenician

artistic style in the early Iron Age. At Tyre in Stratum XIV, dated to the Iron IA period, a

small ivory ornament in the shape of a three-dimensional lotus was recovered. Nearly

identical ornaments were found at Megiddo belonging to the mid 14th through 12th

centuries.533 In the following periods at Tyre, ivory whorls and inlay fragments are

attested. At Sarepta, most of the carved ivory belongs to level III (the 14th-13th centuries)

with no significant pieces from the early Iron Age levels.534 One of the most notable Late

Bronze Age fragments is a plaque of a woman’s head wearing a heavy wig, which closely


532 Irene J. Winter, "Carved Ivory Furniture Panels from Nimrud: A Coherent Subgroup of the North Syrian
Style," Metropolitan Museum Journal 11 (1976): 1-22; Shelby Brown, "Perspectives on Phoenician Art,"
BA 55, no. 1 (1992): 6-24; Irene J. Winter, "Phoenician and North Syrian Ivory Carving in Historical
Context: Questions of Style and Distribution," Iraq 38, no. 1 (1976); Richard David Barnett, Ancient
Ivories in the Middle East (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, 1982)
533 Bikai, The Pottery of Tyre, Pl. XXXVIII.
534 James B. Pritchard, Sarepta IV: Objects from Area II, X (Beirut: Publications de l'Université Libanaise,
1988), 110-15.



133


resembles an ivory from Nimrud dated to the 8th century.535 These two pieces

demonstrate a degree of continuity in artistic style and motif over four centuries.

Other coastal sites south of the central Phoenician region provide evidence of

bone and ivory objects, which date to the Iron I period. At Tell Keisan, several small

ivory fragments were recovered from 11th century strata. An ivory handle decorated with

incised chevrons and cross-hatches is the only decorated item.536 The artistic style of this

handle mirrors the patterns found in contemporary bichrome decoration, which is a result

of Cypriot artistic influence. At Horvat Rosh Zayit, several bone rods were uncovered in

various rooms of the fort. Among the finds are a rod with a pomegranate head and several

handles, one of which is decorated with concentric circles. At Ahkziv, numerous bone

and ivory inlays as well as and staff heads were found in the 10th-9th century phase of a

tomb complex. Most of these objects are devoid of decoration, save a pomegranate or

poppy-shaped object.537 Though little information can be obtained regarding artistic style

from the Ahkziv evidence, it is noteworthy that the highest concentration of ivory goods

appears in the earliest levels of the tomb.538 The high concentration in the 10-9th centuries

of ivory grave goods are devoid of ornamentation and artistry, which is typically

associated with Phoenician production. These examples demonstrate how limited the data

is regarding carved ivories in the Iron I period.

4.2.3.2. Small Art Objects: Amulets, Scarabs, and Seals:

One very important body of artistic evidence not covered by Markoe’s study consists of

various small art objects, including amulets, scarabs, and seals (Fig. 4.6). In 1993, Eric


535 Moscati, ed., The Phoenicians, 408,10.
536 Briend and Humbert, Tell Keisan, Pl. 101.
537 Mazar, The Phoenician Family Tomb N.1..., 132.
538 Ibid., 131.



134


Gubel published a paper on the iconography of Phoenician seals which identified

elements of Phoenician artistic style.539 Although Gubel’s study is invaluable, many of its

proposals were based on unprovenanced seals. Fortunately, the publication of seals found

in secure contexts at sites closely associated with Phoenician culture, such as Achzib,

Tell Abu Hawam, Tel Dor, Tell Keisan, Horvat Rosh Zayit, Tyre and Sarepta, provides a

body of evidence against which Gubel’s study can be evaluated.540 The following table

lists the number of Iron I-IIA seals found in excavations at coastal sites.

Table. 4.2.3.2. Iron I-IIA Stamp Seals.

Site Seals Publication

Tyre 4 Bikai 1978, Pl. LXXV

Tyre Al-Bass c. 60 Aubet 2010, p. 149 (Forthcoming)

Sarepta 3 Pritchard 1988, pp. 73-74 (undated)

Akko 147 Keel 1997, pp. 20-77

Achzib 90 Keel 1997, pp. 4-15

Tell Abu Hawam 10 Keel 1997, p.

Horvat Rosh Zayit 1 Gal 1994

Mevorakh 1 Stern 2000, p. 30.

Dor 6 Gilboa 2004, pp. 32-59; Stern 2000, pp. 95,


539 Eric Gubel, "The Iconography of Inscribed Phoenician Glyptic," in Studies in the Iconography of
Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals (eds. Benjamin Sass and Christoph Uehlinger; Fribourg: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht Göttingen, 1993), 101-29.
540 Othmar Keel, Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel von den Anfängen bis zur
Perserzeit, Katalog Band I: Von Tell Abu Farağ bis ‘Atlit (Freiburg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Göttingen,
1997), 4-15, 20-77; Ayelet Gilboa, Ilan Sharon, and Jeffery Zorn, "Dor and Iron Age Chronology: Scarabs,
Ceramic Sequence and 14C," Tel Aviv 31, no. 1 (2004); Zvi Gal, "A Phoenician Bronze Seal from Hurbat
Rosh Zayit," JNES 53, no. 1 (1994); Pritchard, Sarepta IV..., 73-80; Othmar Keel, "La Glyptique," in Tell
Keisan (1971-1976): Une cité phénicienne en Galilée (eds. Jaques Briend and Jean-Baptiste Humbert;
Orbis Biblicus Et Orientalis, Series Archaeologica; Frieburg; Göttigen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht;
Göttingen University Press, 1980), 257-95.



135


116.



Although a detailed analysis of the 322 seals listed above is well beyond the scope

of the present study, some initial observations of the corpus will be offered. First, many

of these seals are decorated in an Egyptian artistic style and some are of Egyptian origin.

The majority of seals in the Iron I period in the Levant are either scarabs or scaraboid and

are frequently found in burial contexts. At Tyre numerous scarabs were found inside

cremation burials suggesting that they may have functioned as some type of protective

amulet for the dead.541 Given the number of scarabs dated to the Late or even Middle

Bronze Age found in Iron Age contexts, it is likely that scarabs were commonly passed

down as heirloom items. Though many stamp seals are of Egyptian manufacture, some

are clear imitations.542 Another group of commonly-found scarabs belong to the post-

Ramesside mass-produced variety.543 Seals belonging to the Iron IB often feature

schematic representations of Baal-Seth, sometimes accompanied by Reshef.544 These

schematic depictions are less formally Egyptian and have increased Syrian stylistic

elements.545

Following the post-Ramesside seals, scarabs with the cartouche of Thutmose III

appear in early 9th-century contexts at Ahkziv and Tyre (Fig. 4.8).546 Several of these


541 Ingrid Gamer-Wallert, "IX The Scarabs," in Phoenician Cemetary of Tyre-Al Bass (ed. Maria Eugenia
Aubet; Beirut: Ministère de la Culture Direction Général des Antiquités, 2004), 397.
542 Mazar, The Phoenician Family Tomb N.1..., 178-208.
543 Gilboa, Sharon, and Zorn, "Dor and Iron Age Chronology," 34.
544 For a discussion of glyptic depictions of Baal and Reshef, see Izak Cornelius, The Iconography of the
Canaanite Gods, Reshef and Baʻal: Late Bronze and Iron Age I Periods (c 1500- 1000 BCE) (Fribourg;
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht; Göttingen University Press, 1994), 88-124, 67-229.
545 Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel
(Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1998), 114-16.
546 Mazar, The Phoenician Family Tomb N...., 113-26.



136


belong to the cryptographic group, in which the hieroglyphs can be read as either a code

for the deity Amun or the throne name of Thutmose III.547 Since Shoshenq I used the

throne name of Thutmose III during his rule, the prevalence of these scarabs in the

Levant may have served as propaganda.548 Even a bulla from one of these types of seals

has been recovered in an Iron IIa context in Jerusalem (Fig. 4.9).549 As seen earlier in the

Wenamun text, the emphasis on Amun as “Lord over all lands” was an important

theological concept in the Third Intermediate Period in Egypt, especially during the 22nd

Dynasty. The cryptographic Amun seals therefore may be seen as evidence of

strengthened Egyptian ties with Phoenician sites. These new relationships are also

evident in the Byblian royal inscriptions written upon statues of the Egyptian pharaohs

Shishak and Osorkon.550

Other aspects of emerging Phoenician style include an increase in Syrian motifs.

These motifs include the war horse of the goddess Anat, as well as the mistress of lions,

the mistress of mother animals, astral and lunar imagery, and bulls in conflict with

lions.551 Thus, the major cultural traditions of Egypt and Syria seem to exert the greatest

influence on the glyptic tradition of the Phoenicians in the early Iron Age. Seals are rare

in Iron I-IIA levels at sites in Cyprus, and are poorer in quality than the Late Bronze Age


547 Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel, 111.
548 Stefan Münger, "Egyptian Stamp-Seal Amulets and Their Implications for the Chronology of the Early
Iron Age " Tel Aviv 30, no. 1 (2003): 73-74.
549 Othmar Keel, "Paraphernalia of Jerusalem Sanctuariesand Their Relation to Deities Worshipped Therein
during the Iron Age IIA-C," in Temple Building and temple Cult: Architecture and Cultic Paraphernalia of
Temples in the Levant (2.-1. Mill B.C.E.) (ed. Jens Kamlah; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012), 318-19; fig.
8.
550 Christopher A. Rollston, "The Dating of the Early Royal Byblian Phoenician Inscriptions: A Response
to Benjamin Sass " Maarav 15, no. 1 (2008): 58-59.
551 Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel, 141-47.



137


examples.552 The Iron I finds include a corpus of blue frit conoids (cone shaped seals),

half of which were recovered from a necropolis at Amathus. Similar seals are also known

from Tyre and Sarepta.553 Although the blue frit conoids appear to be made locally in

Cyprus, they maybe evidence of Phoenician influence in the region.554

The connection between Phoenicia and these conoids is based both on the

Egyptianizing motifs employed, as well as the use of blue frit. It has been suggested that

the main impetus for the production of blue frit objects in the Iron IIA period comes from

the Syro-Phoenician region.555 The best evidence for the manufacture of blue frit comes

from Tell el-Amarna, where blue frit cakes and a glass workshop were discovered.556

Other studies demonstrate that in the Late Bronze Age, Egypt exported blue glass ingots

which were then used by craftsmen in Mycenae to produce glass art objects.557 Direct

evidence for Syro-Phoenician production of blue frit is evident at Kamid el-Loz in the

Bronze Age, but lacking in the early Iron Age. However, there is evidence of the

manufacture of red faience beads in the Iron I levels at Tyre.558 Furthermore, by the 8th

century BCE, seals, amulets, and beads in blue frit are not commonly found in Egypt. It is

therefore possible that a Late Bronze Age industry common in Egypt was maintained and

subsumed by Phoenicians in the Iron Age.559


552 Andre T. Reyes, The Stamp-Seals of Ancient Cyprus (Oxford: Oxford University School of Archaeology
Institute of Archaeology, 2001), 21.
553 Ibid., 22.
554 Ibid., 25-27.
555 P. R. S. Moorey, Materials and Manufacture in Ancient Mesopotamia: The Evidence of Archaeology
and Art (Oxford: B.A.R, 1985), 191-93.
556 G.D. Hatton, A.J. Shortland, and M.S. Tite, "The Production of Blue and Green Frits from Second
Millenium BC Egypt and Mesopotamia," Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008): 1591-92.
557 C.M. Jackson and P.T. Nicholson, "The Provenance of Some Glass Ingots from the Uluburun
Shipwreck," Journal of Archaeological Science 37, no. 2 (2010): 295-301.
558 Faience and frit are both related glass products. Bikai, The Pottery of Tyre, 8.
559 In the Amarna period Kumidi was an Egyptian administrative center for the region between Qadesh and
Hazor. See William L. Moran, The Amarna Letters (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1992), xxvi-xxvii.



138


Another material that is commonly associated with Phoenician-produced seals is

green jasper.560 A number of cylinder seals dating to the Middle Bronze Age and made of

green jasper have been attributed to the manufacture of a single workshop in Byblos.561

The continued Phoenician use of green jasper for seals is evident in the numerous

examples recovered both at Levantine and Punic sites throughout the Iron Age.562

This brief survey of small art objects available from Iron I-IIA contexts touches

on the various factors contributing to development of Phoenician artistic style. The use of

Egyptian scarabs as protective amulets placed in cremation burials attests to the strong

influence made by Egypt on Phoenician culture. However, economic changes in the Iron

I period resulted in an increase in Syrian influence in the glyptic tradition. For unknown

reasons, Cyprus did not play much of a role in this facet of Phoenician material culture.

4.2.4. Purple Dye

As mentioned in Section 2.3., the production of purple dye and its association with the

Phoenicians has been a focal point for defining Phoenician culture. In addition to the

linguistic and textual evidence enumerated earlier, Pliny the Elder preserves in detail the

industry of Tyrian purple in his work Natural History.563 The detail of this classic source

has no doubt played a significant role in defining the Phoenicians as the masters of the

purple industry. However, as discussed previously, the purple dye industry in fact may

have originated in Minoan Crete in the Middle Bronze Age. In the Late Bronze Age this


560 Mazar, The Phoenician Family Tomb N.1..., 192-93.
561 Dominique Collon, "The Green Jasper Cylinder Seal Workshop," in Insight Through Images-Studies in
Honor of Edith Porada (ed. M. Kelly-Buccellati; Malibu: Bibliotheca Mesopotamica, 1986), 57-70.
562 Moscati, ed., The Phoenicians, 394; Dominique Collon, Near Eastern Seals (Berkley: Uiversity of
California Press, 1990), 36-37.
563 Naturalis Historia: IX; XXXI; XXXIV. For a detailed treatment of this text, see Joseph Doumet,
"Purple Dye," in Decade: A Decade of Archaeology and History in Lebanon (ed. Claude Doumet-Serhal;
Beirut: Lebanese British Friends of the National Museum, 2004)



139


technology is broadly attested among the Mycenaeans, Trojans, Cypriots, and

Canaanites.564

Given the broad distribution of the purple dye production technique in the Late

Bronze Age, it hardly seems justified to label the purple dye industry a Canaanite or

Phoenician technology. A recent article by David Reese presents in full the murex shell

evidence collected during the 1969-74 excavations at Sarepta. In this article, he also

makes a valuable reassessment and comprehensive survey of the murex shell evidence in

the eastern Mediterranean.565 In his extensive survey, evidence of purple dye

manufacture appears primarily at coastal sites associated with Phoenician material culture

in the Iron I-IIA periods. Hala Sultan Teke, on Cyprus, is the only site outside of

Phoenicia with evidence of purple manufacture in the 12th century BCE. The following

chart summarizes the evidence presented by Reese:566

Table. 4.2.4. Purple Dye Installations.

Site Period Strata

Sarepta LBIII-Iron I Strata E-G1, Period V

Tyre Iron I Strata XV-XIV

Akko LBIIB Strata / (Area A/B)

Abu Hawam LBII-III Unspecified

Keisan Iron IB Level 10

Shiqmona Iron IIA Unspecified

Hala Sultan Tekke LC IIIA (Iron IA) Unspecified


564 Robert R. Stieglitz, "The Minoan Origin of Tyrian Purple," BA 57, no. 1 (1994): 52-53.
565 David S Reese, "Shells From Sarepta (Lebanon) and East Mediterranean Purple-Dye Production,"
Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 10, no. 1 (2010): 119.
566 Ibid., 118-26.



140




As evident in the chart, several sites manufactured purple dye near the end of the

Late Bronze Age and Iron I periods. In addition to those sites listed by Reese one can add

the Iron I instillation at Tyre and the Iron IIB instillation at Beirut (Figs. 4.10-11). As

was the case with ashlar masonry, the manufacture of purple dye is not an innovation but

rather a preservation and continuation of a Late Bronze Age luxury industry. However,

unlike masonry, the purple dye industry was of such value that it became for classical

historians the defining factor of Phoenician culture.

4.2.5. Metallurgy

The study of bronze objects and their mode of production is another facet of Phoenician

culture preserved in the archeological record. Bronze statues, metal bowls, weapons, and

inscribed arrowheads are among the types of metal artifacts that have already been

examined by some scholars.567 Similar to art objects, most of the evidence for metallurgy

has been preserved in either Late Bronze Age or Iron IIA levels. Many of these objects

are found outside of the Phoenician heartland, or are unprovenanced. Although there is a

lack of bronze objects from the Iron I period, evidence for the production and recycling

of bronze from sites currently under investigation, as well as from other areas of the

eastern Mediterranean, provides another avenue of investigation. With the collapse of the

Late Bronze Age empires, the wealth of bronze objects decreases in the Iron I

archeological record throughout the Levant. At the same time, regional use of Iron

567 Glenn Markoe, Phoenician Bronze and Silver Bowls from Cyprus and the Mediterranean (Berkeley
University of California Press, 1985); Enrico Aquaro, "Bronzes," in The Phoenicians (ed. Sabatino
Moscati; New York: Abbeville, 1988), 422-35; Sabatino Moscati, "Metal Bowls," in The Phoenicians (ed.
Sabatino Moscati; New York: Abbeville, 1988), 436-47; F. Charles Fensham, "Shamgar Ben Anath," JNES
20, no. 3 (1961), 197-98; P. C. Craigie, "A Reconsideration of Shamgar Ben Anath (Judg 3:31 and 5:6),"
JBL 91, no. 2 (1972), 239-40; Michael Heltzer, "Comments on the Rise of Secondary States in the Iron Age
Levant," JESHO 46, no. 4 (2003): 525-28.



141


appears in stages throughout the eastern Mediterranean. The evidence of metallurgic

activities evident at Iron I northern coastal sites provides another unique aspect of

material culture in the region.

In her dissertation research and subsequent publications, Carol Bell has focused

on various elements of economic exchange that influenced society in the Late Bronze

Age/ Iron Age transition.568 One such element was trade in copper and tin, the materials

required to make bronze. In her examination, she divides the Levant into four zones.

Zone L1 centers on Ugarit and extends inland to Emar and Carchemish, both of which

had close commercial and administrative relations with Ugarit. Zone L2 is defined as the

Iron Age Phoenician territory from the mouth of Nahr el-Kebar to just south of Tyre. She

includes Tel Dan in Zone L2 on the assumption that there would have been close

connections with Sarepta via the Litani River valley.569 Zone L3 is defined as the Carmel

coast, the Akko plain, and the Jezreel valley. Zone L4 focuses on Philistine territory.

Based on archeological remains and textual evidence, Bell makes a convincing argument

for the preeminent role of Ugarit in the Late Bronze Age trade of copper and tin.570 This

preeminent role was brought to a decisive end at the conclusion of the Bronze Age. Zones

L3 and L4 also show signs of destruction at the end of the Late Bronze Age. The


568 Carol Bell, "The Influence of Economic Factors on Settlement Continuity Across the LBA/Iron Age
Transition on the Northern Levantine Littoral" (Ph. D. Dissertation, University College London, 2005);
Caroll Bell, The Evolution of Long Distance Trading Relationships Across the LBA/Iron Age Transition on
the Northern Levantine Coast: Crisis Continuity and Change (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2006); Caroll Bell,
"Continuity and Change: The Divergent Destinies of the Late Bronze Age Ports in Syria and Lebanon
Across the LBA/Iron Age Transition," in Forces of Transformation: The End of the Bronze Age in the
Mediterranean (eds. Christopher Bauchhuber and R. Gareth Roberts; Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2009)
569 Zvi Gal questions the inclusion of Tel Dan in the sphere of Phoenician territory on the basis of the site’s
geographic isolation from the coast (personal communication June 21, 2010 ).
570 Bell, "The Influence of Economic Factors...", 129-41; Bell, "Continuity and Change...," 33-34.



142


Phoenician Zone L2 is the only area that avoids the destruction associated with the end of

the Late Bronze Age.571

4.2.5.1. Sarepta

At Sarepta, evidence of metallurgy was found in Sounding Y, Stratum G. metallic objects

were found along with a cement platform with a drain leading to a sump. Similar

installations for metallurgy are known at Cyprus, Enkomi, and Ras Ibn Hani.572 The

cement platform was likely used to crush ore and wash away unwanted material.573 Other

evidence at Sarepta cited by Bell lacks clearly defined contexts.574 However, a ceramic

bellows pot found in a level dated to the late 13th century parallels one found in an Iron

IA context at Tel Dor.575 Thus, at Sarepta, the only conclusive evidence for metallurgic

activity belongs to the final phase of the Late Bronze Age.

4.2.5.2. Kamid el-Loz

Kamid el-Loz, located in the Biqaʽ Valley, shows evidence of a thriving Late Bronze

Age metal workshop. This site shows a wealth of Bronze objects similar to the finds

further north in the Beqa Valley at Ugarit and Alalakh.576 Metallic copper, bronze slag,

and molds attest to the local production of bronze items.577 A large number of bronze

weapons were recovered at the site, including scale armor, knives, daggers, arrowheads


571 Ibid., 34
572 J. Lagarce, "La Cachette de fondeur aux épées (Enkomi 1967) et l'atelier voisin," in Alasia: Première
Série, publié à l'occassion de la XXe Campagne de Fouilles à Enkomi-Alasia (1969) sous la Direction de
Claude F.-A. Schaeffer (ed. C. Schaeffer; Paris: Mission archéologique d'Alasia, 1971), 381-99; A. Bouni,
E. Lagarce, and J. Lagarce, Ras Ibn Hani, I: Le Palais Nord du Bronze Récent (Beirut: Institute Français d'
Archélogie u Proche) Orient, 1998), 44,46. Cf. Bell, "The Influence of Economic Factors...," 142.
573 Pritchard, Recovering Sarepta..., 79.
574 The examples cited by Carol Bell were found in bulks or were never assigned to any stratigraphic level.
Bell, "The Influence of Economic Factors...," 142. Cf. Pritchard, Recovering Sarepta..., 127-28.
575 Pritchard, Recovering Sarepta..., 123,25, 27; Gilboa and Sharon, "Between the Carmel and the Sea,"
154.
576 Bell, "The Influence of Economic...," 143.
577 B. Frisch, G. Mansfield, and W-R Thiele, Kamid El-Loz: 6. Die Werkstätten der Spätbronzezeitlichen
Paläste (Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GMBH, 1985), 157.



143


and Egyptian khopesh swords. Domestic bronze utensils were also recovered. Unlike

Sarepta or Tyre, the grand Late Bronze Age site of Kamid el-Loz was reduced to a

village in the Iron I period. Evidence for metallurgic activity has not been uncovered in

any of the extant Iron I levels. Kamid el-Loz represents the heritage and grandeur of the

Late Bronze Age, but never becomes an important Phoenician site.

4.2.5.3. Tel Dan

In her examination of metallurgic activities in Zone L2 (Phoenician territory), Carol Bell

includes the site of Tel Dan.578 Bell associates Tel Dan with Kamid el-Loz based on its

proximity 45 kilometers south on a main trade route. In addition, both sites share a

similar assemblage of Mycenaean pottery.579 Just as metallurgic activities at Kamid el

Loz came to an end at the conclusion of the Bronze Age, evidence of metallurgic

workshops appears in Iron I contexts at Tel Dan. Based on an examination of the

composition of scrap metal from Tel Dan Area B, it appears that bronze implements

varied widely in tin content. Combined with a lack of evidence for raw copper or tin, it

appears that the workshop was restricted to recycling activities.580 The associated tools

and furnace structures are similar to those found throughout Canaan.581

As noted by David Ilan, the metallurgic installation found in Area II at Kition

most resembles the installation at Dan.582 The Kition assemblage dates to the end of the


578 Bell, "The Influence of Economic Factors...," 143.
579 Ibid., 104
580 S. Shalev, "Metal Production and Society at Tel Dan," in Biblical Archaeology Today 1990, Pre-
Congress Symposium: Supplement (eds. Avriham Biran and J. Aviram; Jerusalem, 1993), 64.
581 Zeror, Masos, Mor, Beth Shemesh, Qasile, Tell Abu Hawam Jemmeh, en-Nasbe, Ai, Raddanah
Meggido, Bet Shean, Yina’m, Deir `allah, Tel Harashim, Hazor, Dor. See S. Shalev, "Metal Production and
Society at Tel Dan," in Biblical Archaeology Today 1990, PreCongress Symposium: Supplement (eds.
Avriham Biran and J. Aviram; Jerusalem, 1993), 63-64.
582 David Ilan, "Northeastern Israel in the Iron Age I: Cultural, Socioeconomic and Political Perspectives"
(Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Tel Aviv, 1999), 124-25.



144


13th century, while the Dan installation belongs to the 11th century. Here we are seeing

evidence of Cypriot influence on a northern site that is not directly situated on the coast.

However, the presence of Phoenician Bichrome sherds in the area of the workshop

further connects this workshop with other northern coastal sites. Furthermore, the Late

Bronze Age furnaces found at Kamid el-Loz are parallel to those found at Dan.583

Adjacent to the metal workshop in the sanctuary at Kamid el-Loz, several clay model

shrines were recovered.584 One of these shrines is quite similar to the one found at Dan in

Area B.585 Given the parallel evidence between these two sites, it may have been the case

that the decline of Kamid el-Loz in the Iron I period resulted in the movement of

craftsmen to Tel Dan to set up a metal-working shop.

4.2.5.4. Tel Dor

At Tel Dor, a clear connection with the metal workshop at Late Bronze Age Sarepta is

seen in the style of bellow pot used (Fig. 4.12). At Dor, the evidence for metallurgic

activity appears only in the early part of the Iron I period. The courtyard house in which

the metal working activities were conducted was quickly converted for food storage.586

Furthermore, the pits used for furnaces are not constructed in the same manner as those

found at Tel Dan and Kamid el-Loz.587

4.2.5.5. Tell Keisan

At Tell Keisan, no evidence of metallurgy was found. However, a small hoard of silver

and bronze pieces wrapped in linen suggests that these precious metals were used in raw


583 Ibid., Fig. 3.40, 41, 42, 43, 44; Frisch, Mansfield, and Thiele, Kamid El-Loz: 6, Pl. 40:1-2.
584 Rolf Hachmann, Kaamid El-Loz 1971-74 (Bonn: Rudolf Halbert Verlag GMBH, 1982), 31-32.
585 Biran, Biblical Dan, 152-53; Hachmann, Kaamid El-Loz 1971-74, Pl.3.
586 Gilboa and Sharon, "Between the Carmel and the Sea," 154-55.
587 Ibid., 153.



145


form for economic exchange. From these raw chunks, a workshop such as the one at Dan

or Dor could produce a new item.

4.2.5.6. Metallurgy: Summary

In many areas of material culture it has been demonstrated that the northern coastal sites

maintained Late Bronze Age traditions well into the Iron I period. The same is not true

for bronze metallurgy. The best evidence for bronze metallurgy comes from sites that are

considered peripheral to the center of Phoenician power in the Iron Age. The main

evidence for metallurgy at central Phoenician sites dates to the Late Bronze Age. The

lack of continuity in bronze workshops at central Phoenician sites may be related to an

early adoption of iron technology. Preliminary evidence for Iron usage in Late Bronze

Age Lebanon is evident in the iron scraps found in the metal workshop at Kamid el-Loz

and Tel Dan. It is uncertain to what degree this shop worked with iron and whether it was

capable of producing the raw metal.588 What is clear, however, is that by the 10th century,

sites like Horvat Rosh Zayit, Tell Abu Hawam, and Shiqmona were using iron tools.589

Evidence from Cyprus and the Aegean suggests that these locations were among the first

to adopt the use of iron for functional tools, in the 11th century.590 The strong connections

that were maintained between Cyprus and the northern Levantine coastal cities may have

also led to an early adoption of iron in this region.591 It should be noted that unlike bronze

metallurgy, few iron-working installations have been recovered from early Iron Age sites


588 Bell, "The Influence of Economic Factors...," 127.
589 The date assigned to the evidence at Shiqmona is the 11th century, but the absence of a complete
excavation report precludes a critical evaluation.
590 Anthony M. Snodgrass, "Iron and Early Metallurgy in the Mediterranean," in The Coming of the Age of
Iron (eds. Theodore A. Wertime and James D. Muhly; New Haven: Yale University 1980), 340-55; Jane C.
Waldbaum, From Bronze to Iron: The Transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age in the Eastern
Mediterranean (Göteborg: Paul Aströms Förlag, 1978), 38-58.
591 The evidence from Horvat Rosh Zayit is especially valuable in demonstrating how prevalent iron was at
a Phoenician site at the end of the Iron I period.



146


throughout the Near East. Thus we are left with a gap in our understanding of the

regional development of iron industries and their relationship to the production and

distribution of bronze in the Iron I period.592

4.2.6. Cremation Burials

Three major sites associated with Phoenician culture preserve evidence of Iron IIA

cremation burials: Tyre Al-Bass, Rachidieh, and Achzib. The burials date between the

Iron IIA-IIB periods. At Tyre Al Bass the burials followed a prescribed order and

included a specific set of ceramic vessels referred to as the burial kit. A large urn, often

decorated in bichrome, was used to hold the ashes and bones of the deceased (Fig. 4.14).

At the base of the urn there were typically two jugs, a mushroom-lipped jug (perhaps for

honey) and a trefoil jug (perhaps for wine), and a fine ceramic bowl (Fig. 4.13). In the

urn, personal items such as scarabs or amulets were common. In a couple of cases, stone

stelae with inscriptions or carved symbols accompanied the burial.593 These standing

stones often were decorated with the symbols of Baal, or Tanit. This unique manner of

treating the dead does not appear at Phoenician sites until the Iron IIA period. In the Iron

I period the practice is attested at Carchemish, Hama, Tell Halaf, Hazor, and Cyprus.594

In Cyprus, the appearance of cremation burials has been linked to an increase in imports


592 The earliest iron workshop known in the Levant was recently discovered in an Iron IIA level at Beth
Shemesh. Finds from this workshop are parallel to those found at Tell Hammeh in Jordan. Harald
Alexander Veldhuijzen, "Red Hot: The Smithy at Beth-Shemesh," NEA 72, no. 3 (2009): 129-31; Harald
Alexander Veldhuijzen and T. Rehren, "Slags and the City: Early Iron Production at Tell Hammeh, Jordan,
and Beth Shemesh, Israel," in Studies in Archaeometallurgy (eds. S. La Niece, et al.; London: Archetype;
British Museum, 2007), 189-201.
593 Aubet, "The Tyre Necropolis," 20.
594 Doumet-Serhal, "Jars from the first Millennium BC at Tell Rachidieh: Phoenician Cinerary Urns and
Grave Goods," 74.



147


from the Phoenician coast and the Near East in general.595 Thus, the sudden appearance

of cremation burials along the Phoenician coast in the Iron IIA-IIB periods may be

related to cultural and economic exchanges that took place between Cyprus and the

Phoenician coast during the Iron I period. The extensive evidence of this burial practice

at Tyre, Rachidieh, and Achzib demonstrates a great deal of uniformity and thus provides

an important marker for Phoenician identity in the Iron IIA-IIB periods.596

4.3. Summary

Based on the currently published archeological evidence, the present study has examined

characteristics which often relate to group identity; these include, ritual behavior,

architectural forms, mortuary practice, style of artifacts, and technology. Key

technologies preserved along the Lebanese coast and as far south as Tel Dor include

purple dye making and Ashlar masonry. Unique ceramic styles produced along the coast

in the Iron I-IIA period include Phoenician bichrome, cylindrical store Jars, and Red-

Slipped ware. While Black-on-Red bowls probably were manufactured in Cyprus, their

distribution in the Levant is heavily concentrated along the Phoenician coast. In the Iron

IIA period, cremation burials appear as a prominent mortuary practice at Tyre, Rachidieh,

and Achzib, which may have been adopted through cultural exchanges with Cyprus.

Egyptian style scarabs and amulets in burial contexts point to the importance of Egyptian

deities in Phoenician burial ritual. Egyptain statues also served as offerings in the main

temple at Byblos in the Iron IIA period. While not all of these characteristics are evident

at any one site, most sites surveyed preserve evidence of two or more characteristics. At


595 Vyron Antoniadis, “Early Iron Age Cemeteries at Knossos: Appreciation of Oriental Imports and their
Knossian Society,” (Ph.D. Dissertation, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, 2012), 199-201.
596Maria Eugenia Aubet, ed., Phoenician Cemetary of Tyre-Al Bass Excavations 1997-1999 (Beirut:
Ministère De La Culture Direction Générale Des Antiquités, 2004), 466.



148


Tel Dor, which was controlled by the S-k-l, characteristics more commonly found further

north along the Lebanese coast include ceramics, purple dye, scarabs, and ashlar

masonry.

The above archeological data also provides insight into the geopolitics along the

Lebanese coast in the Iron I-IIA periods. Unlike so many other sites at the end of the Late

Bronze Age, Sidon and Sarepta show no evidence of destruction. At Sidon political ties

with Egypt were maintained, even in the 12th century. Tell Kazel, Tell Keisan, Tell Abu

Hawam, and Tel Dor all experienced violent destruction in the transition from the Late

Bronze to Iron I periods. At each of these sites the material culture that followed these

disasters closely parallels the material from Tyre and Sarepta. Continued trade with

Egypt is evident based on store jars, and Nile perch bones. The strong influence of

Cyprus in the Iron I period is evident in the changes that occur in the Phoenician ceramic

tradition, especially in the development of standard Phoenician Bichrome ware. Black-

on-Red Ware and Cypriot-style pithoi provide some evidence of imports from Cyprus.

Products exported from the Phoenician coast probably included products made with

purple dye and ashlar masonry.597

Syrian influence is also apparent in the material culture of the Iron I period at Tel

Dor Cypro-Celician drinking vessels and a massive mudbrick structure point to Syrian

influence. More broadly, the artistic syntax of the Iron IIA and later periods shows an

increase in Syrian influence on culture; this was likely a result of population movements

out of the former Hittite territories, and interactions with Assyria.


597 The production of purple dye at Hala Sultan Tekke and the use of a Cypriot-style pithos in the
production of purple dye at Tell Keisan, provide some evidence of Cypriot purple dye production in the
Iron I period.



149


The high degree of stylistic diversity in the material culture found along the

Phoenician coast, points to a high level of positive reciprocity between the Phoenician

coast, Cyprus, Egypt, and Syria. The diversity of the material often obscures the lines

between what is indigenous and what is foreign. However, this diversity also contributes

to the overall group identity of sites along the Phoenician coast.






















150


Chapter V: Tel Dan

5.0. Introduction

Tel Dan is located less than 30 miles from Tyre, and has produced more than 30 years

worth of excavated material including Phoenician style ceramics from the Iron I-IIA

periods. Tel Dan plays an especially significant role in the present dissertation due to the

presence of Phoenician material culture at the site and Dan’s role as a major center of

Israelite cult. Phoenician bichrome ware, Red on Black ware, and Phoenician faience are

among the materials found at Tel Dan which relate to a Phoenician presence at this site.

The purpose of this chapter is to identify and analyze previously unpublished

Phoenician style ceramic material found in Iron I-IIA levels at Tel Dan. In order to

establish whether the Phoenician style ceramics are domestic or imported, forty-one

samples underwent petrographic analysis to determine their origin of manufacture. The

results of the petrographic analysis was then be used to make proposals regarding ethnic

and geopolitical ties with the Phoenician coast in the Iron I-IIA period.

5.1. History and Location

The excavations at Tel Dan were conducted by Avraham Biran between the years 1966–

1999 and have continued under David Ilan since 2005. The tel is located in the

northeastern corner of the Hulah valley at the foot of Mount Hermon. Located at one of

the three main sources of the Jordan river, Tel Dan was continuously occupied from the

Early Bronze Age to the third century C.E. The identification of the site as the ancient

city Dan has been confirmed by a Greek and Aramaic inscription dated to the late 3rd



151


century B.C.E.598 According to the biblical source (Judges 18:29) the city was formerly

known as Laish. The name Laish is known from several primary sources, including the

Egyptian execration texts, and the Thutmose III topographic list.599 Tel Dan is large,

occupying an area of 200 dunams or 50 acres,600and is well situated for agricultural

production.601

The site's location on a main trade route connecting the Lebanese coast to

Damascus suggests that exchange would have been of major importance.602 In the Iron I

period, evidence of economic exchanges between the coast and Tel Dan has been

demonstrated through neutron activation analysis of “Phoenician” pithoi (Wavy-band

pithoi).603 In addition to the presence of Wavy-band pithoi at Tel Dan, there are several

other ceramic types considered to be coastal in origin found in Iron I-IIA contexts.

Among these are sack-shaped store jars, Phoenician style bichrome, and Red-Slipped thin

and thick ware.


598 Avraham Biran, "Tel Dan: Five Years Later," BA 43, no. 3 (1980): 179.
599 For the topographic list of Thutmose III see pylon 6 and 7 entry 115, and the short list found in the
Temple of Amun entry 26 at Karnak. Kurt Sethe, Urkunden der 18 Dynastie (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs,
1907), 781-86; W.M. Müller, Egyptological Researches (Washington: Carnegie Institute of Washington,
1910), 4; J. Simons, Handbook for the Study of Egyptian Topographical Lists Relating to Western Asia
(Leiden: Brill, 1937), 28-39. For the execration texts see # 59. Gerald L. Posner, Princes et Pays d'Asie et
de Nubie. Textes hiératiques sur des figurines d'envoutment du moyen empire [edited by G. Posner], suivis
Remarques paléographiques sur les textes similaires de Berlin, Par B. van de Walle. [with plates.]
(Bruxelles, 1940) Hans Wolfgang Helck, Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2.
Jaurtausend v. Chr. (2 ed.; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1971), 50-61, Another citation has been ascribed to a
Mari correspondence, see ARM X:139. A. Malamat, "Syro-Palestinian Destinations in a Mari Tin
Inventory," IEJ 21, no. 1 (1971): 34-35. However, the Mari site has now been identified with another
location in northern Syria see Michael C. Astour, "The Location of Ḫaṣura of the Mari Texts," Maarav 7
(1991).
600 Avraham Biran, Biblical Dan (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society: Hebrew Union College-Jewish
Institute of Religion, 1994), 23.
601 Ilan, "Northeastern Israel in the Iron Age I: Cultural, Socioeconomic and Political Perspectives", 179.
602 David A Dorsey, The Roads and Highways of Ancient Israel (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1991), 52-56.
603J. Yellin and J. Gunneweg, "Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis and the Origin of Iron Age I
Collard-Rim Jars and Pithoi from Tel Dan," AASOR 49 (1989; A Cohen-Weinberger and Yuval Goren,
"Petrographic Analysis of Iron I Pithoi from Sasa," `Atiqot 28 (1996).




152


5.2. Stratigraphy

The "Phoenician" material culture from Tel Dan is found in a sequence of Iron Age strata

which show a great deal of cultural change from level to level. It is therefore important

to present a stratigraphic synopsis so as to establish a chronological and cultural

framework. Samples examined in the present study were collected from three major

areas at Tel Dan, T, M, and B, and from three stratigraphic levels, Strata V, IVB, and

IVA. The material from these strata belong to the Iron I-IIA periods.

5.2.1. Area T

Area T has been designated the sacred precinct based on the architectural remains of an

Iron Age monumental altar, commonly referred to as a bamah. Roman, Hellenistic, Iron,

and Late Bronze Age levels were reached in excavations in this area. Although

preliminary information was published for the various stratigraphic phases discerned in

each year of excavation, 604 no comprehensive stratigraphic sequence has been published

for the excavation area. Due to a high water table, the squares in the southern part of area

T did not reach Stratum V, which has been dated to c. 1150-1050 BCE. Stratum V

terminates in over half a meter of destruction debris, which serves as a primary

stratigraphic anchor for Tel Dan.605 Above Stratum V lie the architectural remains of an

olive press building and associated store rooms surrounding an open area (Fig. 5.1).

Large amounts of Red-Slipped fine ware, thick and thin, standard Phoenician bichrome,

and large “Phoenician” pithoi were recovered within these architectural remains. The


604 Avraham Biran, Dan I: A Chronicle of the Excavations, the Pottery Neolithic, the Early Bronze Age and
the Middle Bronze Age Tombs (Jerusalem: Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology, Hebrew Union
College-Jewish Institute of Religion, 1996), 42.
605 Avraham Biran, "The Collard-Rim Jars and the Settlement of the Tribe of Dan," AASOR 49 (1989): 71-
73.



153


presence of Red-Slipped wheel-burnished bowls suggests that this level dates at the

earliest to the Iron IIA period.606

The building associated with oil production is located in squares C13-15, D12-15,

and E14-15 (Fig. 5.2.)607 A preliminary investigation of the stratigraphy suggests that

there were two main periods associated with this building.608 The initial period is

associated with a plaster floor (L2407, L2412, L2498, L2407, L2397, L2505, and

L2416). Numerous examples of Red-Slipped ware and bichrome were found in this

period along with a number of small figurines which can be linked to similar amulet

figurines found at Sarepta.609 Furthermore, nearly half of a Snake-band pithos was

recovered from L2505 (Pl. 1:1.) The second period of this building is demonstrated by

the presence of a second plaster floor (Loci, 2382, 2414, 2498, and 2366) upon which

were found several “perforated” stones or press weights, a clay tub in L2361, and a

plaster basin L2317.610 To the north of the basalt weights is Wall 7919. Beyond this wall

at the same level, a Snake-band pithos and an Egyptian figurine holding a lotus or staff

were recovered from L2385. Below L2385 is evidence of a collapsed wall, likely 7711.

The second period floor sealed a rich assemblage of material and a collapsed wall, which


606 Amnon Ben-Tor, Anabel Zarzecki-Peleg, and Shlomit Cohen-Anidjar, Yoqne`am II The Iron Age and
the Persian Period: Final Report of the Archaeological Excavations (1977-1988) (Jerusalem: The Hebrew
University of Jerusalem, and the Israel Exploration Society, 2005), 251-52; Doron Ben-Ami and Amnon
Ben-Tor, "The Pottery of Strata X-IX," in Hazor VI: the 1990-2009 Excavations (eds. Amnon Ben-Tor, et
al.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2012), 430.
607 Contrary to Biran’s belief that this instillation was related to a water drawing ceremony (cf. I Samuel
7:6), Stager argues that the instillation was used as an oil press. Lawrence E. Stager and Samuel R. Wolfe,
"Production and Commerce in Temple Courtyards: An Olive Press in The Sacred Precinct at Tel Dan,"
BASOR 243 (1981). Cf. William G. Dever, "Material Remains and the Cult in Ancient Israel: An Essay in
Archaeological Systematics," The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth– Essays in Honor of David Noel
Freedmam in Celebration of his Sixtieth Birthday (1983): 584.
608 I am grateful for the section drawings and plans prepared by Gila Cook, which were invaluable for
generating a broader understanding of the oil press complex.
609 James B. Pritchard, Sarepta IV: Objects from Area II, X (Beirut: Publications de l'Université Libanaise,
1988), 268-72.
610 Biran, Dan I, 42.



154


points to some event that caused damage to the first period of the building.611 Following

this event, the building was repaired and given a new floor, sealing the first period of

material below.

North of the oil press building are a number of store rooms associated with

Stratum IV. Above a cobble pavement are three loci; L2575, L2321, and L2311, which

contained a wealth of RSW including a bichrome painted jug, and a bichrome incense

stand. Biran associated L2311 with Stratum IV,612 yet a nearly complete cooking pot

from L2311 along with other rim fragments suggest that this locus actually belongs to

Stratum III. In the locus immediately below L2575, L2578 red mud brick debris was

found overlying the ashlar masonry of wall 7607. The beginning of the ashlar wall was

dated by Biran to the Iron IIB period.613 Thus, L2575 which is above the foundation of an

Iron IIB wall should be placed in Stratum III.614 Since loci 2311, 2321 and 2575 all

belong to the same phase, the rich bichrome material, including a painted incense stand,

should be associated with the new ashlar architecture of Stratum III. Furthermore, since

this material appears just beneath a thick travertine floor from the Hellenistic period, it is

remarkable that L2311 was ever associated with Stratum IV.615 Stratum III material

belongs to the 8th century, therefore these finds lie beyond the purview of the present

study.


611 David Ilan noted the possibility that Stratum IVB was brought to an end by an earthquake. Likewise,
evidence of earthquake damage at Tel Kinrot has preliminarily been suggested for the Iron IB/IIA
transition. Ilan, "Northeastern Israel in the Iron Age I: Cultural, Socioeconomic and Political Perspectives",
25; Stefan Münger, "Kinneret Regional Project – The 2008 Field Season" (American Schools of Oriental
Research Annual Meeting, Boston, 2008), Fig. 9.
612 Biran, Dan I, 42.
613 Ibid., Fig. 1.36.
614 In the plan illustrations this wall is designated 7713 and continues into the Hellenistic period
615 Ibid., 40, Fig. 1.36-1.38.



155


To the north of the courtyard are three store rooms which contained a rich

assemblage of store jars, large Snake-band pithoi, red burnished ware, and fragments of

bichrome. Based on an unpublished Tel Dan stratigraphic report and Harris matrices

prepared by the area supervisor, Ross Voss, we can now associate the following loci with

a single phase (L2094 L2093, L2423, L2246, L2248, L2480, L2479, L2577, L2159,

L2157.) Overlying the phase of 2094 we have three loci; L2200, L2235, and L2155

which contain fragments of Red-Slipped fine ware, a Red-Slipped bichrome jug, other

fragments of bichrome ware, and two Snake-band pithoi. This phase is referred to by

Voss as the second “snake” pithoi phase of the storeroom complex.616 Architecturally, the

store room was extended 6.5 meters to the west during this second phase. A preliminary

analysis of the ceramic material suggests that both phases of these storerooms belong to

Stratum IVA. For the purposes of this dissertation the two phases will be referred to as

phase L2093b which includes the earlier loci, and L2093a which includes the later loci.

To the east of L2093, are three loci; L2091, L2794, and L2795, preserving some

of the richest bichrome remains in all of area T. Loci L2091, L2794, and L2795 are

associated with floor L2793, and are located immediately above a thick destruction level

associated with Stratum V.617 Two large cooking pot fragments, and a tall store jar rim

are directly comparable to forms found at Hazor Stratum X-IX, which is contemporary

with Tel Dan Stratum IVA.618 However, as demonstrated by Zarzecki-Peleg et. al. this

type of cooking vessel is very common and was used over a long period of time,

616 I would like to thank David Ilan and Ross Voss for sharing the following unpublished report with me,
and discussing the archaeological context of Area T. Ross Voss, "T: Early Iron Age Stratigraphy"
(unpublished, Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem), 14.
617 Biran, Dan I, 45-46.
618 Yigal Yadin et al., Hazor III-IV: An Account of the Seasons of Excavations, 1957-1958 (Jerusalem:
Magnes Press at The Hebrew University, 1961), CCIX 1, 13; Ben-Ami and Ben-Tor, "The Pottery of Strata
X-IX," Fig 5.5.1,4; Fig 5.6.1.



156


appearing in higher concentrations in the Iron I and tapering off in the mid-Iron IIA.619

Thus, these loci may belong to either Stratum IVB or IVA.

5.2.2. Area M

Area M is located in the center of Tel Dan, to the south of area T. Numerous bichrome

sherds, many in standard Phoenician style, were recovered from over a dozen loci in area

M. Also, several large pithoi fragments similar to the Snake-band pithoi found in Stratum

IVA of area T were recovered. However, both thin and thick RSW ware are absent in

area M. One bichrome store jar fragment was recovered but is typologically earlier than

those found in Area T Stratum IVA. In order to discuss the significance of the bichrome

material recovered in this part of Tel Dan, it is necessary to first define the stratigraphic

context of the various loci.

Based on preliminary reports, Stratum V is clearly identified in area M as a one

meter thick destruction layer combined with a pottery assemblage including broken

collared rim jars and cooking pots typical of other mid-11th century assemblages.620 In

Plan 5 of Tel Dan I there is no architecture that is associated with Stratum IV, but

Stratum III is defined by walls and a packed earth and pebble floor (Fig. 5.3).621 Above

Stratum III are the remains of a flagstone pavement covering a large area which possibly

functioned as a piazza.622

A more refined examination of area M appears in Ilan's dissertation where he

defines the architecture and assemblage associated with a large building whose initial

construction is evident in Stratum V. This building continued to be used through three


619 Ben-Tor, Zarzecki-Peleg, and Cohen-Anidjar, Yoqne`am II 272-74.
620 Biran, Dan I, 30.
621 Ibid., 31.
622 David Ilan, personal communication, June 2008.



157


distinct phases, the last of which belongs to Stratum IVB.623 Several fragments from

different vessels with monochrome and bichrome decoration were recovered from L8060,

L8181, L486. These sherds belong to the first phase of the Stratum V building located in

square E-F 12-14. Among the painted fragments in this stratum is that of a monochrome

spouted jug L8060 (Fig. 5.9:1). Of special interest in this phase is a small bichrome

fragment with a possible enclosed band design typical of later Phoenician bichrome.624

The second phase of the early Iron Age building in area M is defined by the

raising of the floor level in all rooms except for a space designated the courtyard L8187.

This phase also has been attributed to Stratum V.625 No standard Phoenician bichrome

was recovered in this phase, but fragments with bichrome paint were found in L8175 and

L8059, including a painted pyxis. In the third phase, which is attributed to Stratum IVB,

one bichrome sherd, possibly of standard Phoenician type, was recovered from L8184

(Fig. 5.9:2). A bichrome store jar rim found in L8024 may also belong to Stratum IVB

(Fig. 5.9:3).

Stratum IVA is poorly preserved in Area M. Material associated with Stratum

IVA appears in a small number of loci. In L8016 two Wavy-band Pithoi were discovered

immediately below Stratum II floors. To this level one can add L8169 and L8226 in

which massive store jar rims suggest more examples of the large Snake-band pithoi found

in Stratum IVA of area T. Two other loci L8184, and 8092 are fills below the pebble

surface associated with Stratum III. These two loci have been associated with Stratum


623 Ilan, "Northeastern Israel in the Iron Age I: Cultural, Socioeconomic and Political Perspectives", 58.
624 Gilboa, "The Dynamics of Phoenician Bichrome Pottery: A View from Tel Dor," 1-5.
625 Ilan, "Northeastern Israel in the Iron Age I: Cultural, Socioeconomic and Political Perspectives", 56.



158


IVB material, 626 but Stratum IVA is more likely. In L8226 half the rim of a standard

bichrome krater along with other painted fragments were recovered (Fig. 5.10).

Stratum III is identified by walls and a surface of packed earth with pebbles. Loci

with painted ware associated with this stratum include L8080, and 8182. Locus 8080

preserves an impressive bichrome body sherd with enclosed band design and a palm

design. A similar example can be found at Tel Dor.627 Since this study is focused on

material from the end of the ninth century and earlier, sherds clearly belonging to a

Stratum III context will not be included in the petrographic study.

5.2.3. Area B

Area B is located within the Bronze Age ramparts on the south side of the tel. The area of

excavation is divided between two areas; area B-east which was opened in 1966, and

Area B-west, opened in 1974. The two areas are separated by row D, which is currently

being excavated and yet to be published. The Iron I period Strata (VI-IVB) have been

described by Ilan in his dissertation.628 Among the significant architectural features of the

Iron I period are the single course walls, mostly basalt, which were used from the Late

Bronze Age through the end of Iron I.629 The main feature of Stratum VI is the presence

of numerous pits dug into the ground, likely for grain storage, penetrating into Late

Bronze Age levels.630 Despite the lack of significant architecture in this level, the remains

of numerous circular furnaces used for melting metal were found in B-west. Blowpipe,


626 Ilan, "Northeastern Israel in the Iron Age I: Cultural, Socioeconomic and Political Perspectives", Fig.
3.75.
627 Gilboa and Sharon, "Between the Carmel and the Sea," 169.
628 Ilan, "Northeastern Israel in the Iron Age I: Cultural, Socioeconomic and Political Perspectives", 28-53.
629 Ibid., 29-30, Plan 2-4.
630 David Ilan, "The Socioeconomic Implications of Grain Storage in Early Iron Age Canaan: The Case of
Tel Dan," in Bene Israel: Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and the Levant during the Bronze and Iron
Ages in Honor of Israel Finkelstein (eds. Alexnder Fantalkin and Assaf Yasur-Landau; Leiden: Brill,
2008), 91.



159


nozzle and bellow pot fragments all point to the use of this space for metallurgy.631 In

Area B-east there is evidence of architectural remains but the plan and function of these

buildings is unclear.632

In Stratum V, architecture becomes more complex. Multiple phases of

construction are made evident by the blocking-up of doorways, and the installation of

new pavements over older floors.633 As a continuation of the earlier phase, nearly every

room shows evidence of metallurgy. Also prevalent in the rooms of this phase are

collared-rim pithoi placed in the corner of a structure. The exact lines between residential

and industrial activity within these buildings is not entirely clear. The last phase of

Stratum V was brought to an end by a large scale destruction that trapped large amounts

of in situ material on the floor. The lack of human casualties suggests that the inhabitants

were able to flee prior to the event that destroyed this area.634

In Stratum IVB there is evidence for the continued use of earlier wall structures

augmented by new walls to subdivide larger rooms into smaller rooms. The first

appearance of walls made of double foundation courses is evidence of a new construction

technique. In general, the remains of Stratum IVB are better preserved in B-west. In situ

pithoi are less common in this stratum; all complete examples belong to the Wavy-band

Pithos style. The area south of the street in B-west retains the core structure of the earlier

stratum, but likely became an open columned structure. The circular furnaces of the

earlier stratum are replaced by small square cells which probably functioned as furnaces.

Ash, charcoal, blowpipe nozzles, and crucibles all attest to the continued practice of


631 Ilan, "Northeastern Israel in the Iron Age I: Cultural, Socioeconomic and Political Perspectives", 34-36.
632 Ibid., 35.
633 Ibid., 38-39.
634 Ibid., 40-51.



160


metallurgy in this area.635 The lack of ovens in this stratum as compared to Stratum V and

the concentration of metallurgical installations suggest activity specialization.636 The end

of Stratum IVB may have been brought about by an earthquake, as evidenced by semi-

articulated, collapsed walls.

Stratum IVA maintains much of the same orientation and in some instances used

the older architecture. In this stratum the use of two-row stone walls made of smaller

stones supersedes the larger, basalt, single-course walls of prior strata. In general Strata

IVB-A are poorly preserved. This may be due to the construction of a massive

architectural structure in Stratum III,637 or Stratum II.638 Since there are no published

plans of Stratum IVA, and no detailed publications defining the relevant loci, the present

study will offer a preliminary assessment of loci that overlie Stratum IVB remains and

can be tied to architectural features described by Ilan for Stratum IVA.

For both area B-east and B-west, there are plans defining architectural strata. In

area B-east, a plan drawn in 1968 which describes Stratum IV (Fig. 5.4) presents the

same structures and loci immediately above Stratum IVB in Ilan’s plan 4.639 It was not

until later publication of material excavated at Tel Dan that Stratum IV was subdivided

into two levels of material.640 The plan of B-east made before the later division of

Stratum IV does not reflect the more recent interpretations of the stratigraphic sequence.


635 Ibid., 51-53.
636 Ibid., 51-55.
637 Ibid., 56.
638 Biran, Biblical Dan, 21, 23.
639 Ilan, "Northeastern Israel in the Iron Age I: Cultural, Socioeconomic and Political Perspectives", plan 4.
640 Biran, Biblical Dan, 11.



161


More specifically, the 1968 plan of area B-east Stratum IV depicts the architecture and

loci of Stratum IVA 641

In area B-west the architectural features ascribed to Stratum IVB in Ilan’s

dissertation are the same as those ascribed to Stratum IV by plans drawn in 1975 (Fig

5.5). The next stratum of architectural material above Ilan’s Stratum IVB is defined as

Stratum III in plans drawn in the mid 70’s (Fig. 5.6). However, five loci L561, L571,

L612, L663, L674, are found in both Ilan’s Stratum IVB plans and the Stratum III plans

from the 70’s. This raises the question, does the plan of Stratum III actually represent

Stratum IVA? As demonstrated in the following section on ceramic typology, the

presence of a number of forms including painted jugs, cooking pots and kraters suggest

that Stratum III in area B-west does not parallel the other 8th century material at Dan and

elsewhere. The typical cooking pots in this stratum of B-west include CP3c1 and CP2c1.

In L645, fragments of a bichrome krater closely parallel those found at Tell Keisan

Stratum X, Megiddo Strata VIIB-VIIA, Hazor Stratum Xb, Izbeth Sarṭah Stratum III, and

possibly Jokneam Stratum XII.642 Based on this preliminary assessment, key finds from

Stratum III in area B-West have been reassigned to Stratum IVA. The presence of

material from earlier periods and the fragmentary nature of the architectural remains (Fig.

5.7) is likely a result of the massive building project that took place in a later period in

this area.643


641 See Fig. 5.7.
642 Jaques Briend and Jean-Baptiste Humbert, Tell Keisan (1971-1976): une cite phenicienne en Galilee
(Fribourg, 1980), 195-99 Gordon Loud, Megiddo II. seasons of 1935-1939 (Chicago: Oriental Institute of
Chicago, 1948), Pl. 69:1; Yadin et al., Hazor III-IV, Pl. CLXXI:2; Israel Finkelstein, `Izbet Sartah- An
Early Iron Age Site Near Rosh Ha`ayin, Israel (Oxford: Oxford, 1986), Fig. 13; Ben-Tor, Zarzecki-Peleg,
and Cohen-Anidjar, Yoqne`am II Fig. II.14.2.
643 Ilan, "Northeastern Israel in the Iron Age I: Cultural, Socioeconomic and Political Perspectives", 53.



162


5.3. Ceramic Typology

Given the lack of final publication of Iron Age material at Tel Dan, and a recent proposal

that Stratum IV should be dated to the Iron IIB,644 it is necessary to present characteristic

features of the Stratum IVA assemblage to establish a relative context for the Phoenician

material. Though a comprehensive statistical analysis of Stratum IV ceramic material lies

well beyond the confines of the present study, what is offered here is a basic comparison

of the better preserved forms attributed to Stratum IVA with other northern inland and

coastal assemblages.

5.3.1. Wavy-band Pithoi (PWB)

At Tel Dan in Strata V-IVA there are several examples of Wavy-band pithoi (Pl. 1:2).

Ilan describes these vessels as Phoenician pithoi, citing examples from Tyre, Ugarit and

Hazor.645 Gilboa provides further examples of the type at Tell Keisan, Akko, Dor,

Ashdod, H. Avot, Har Adir, H. Jelil, Tel Sasa, and Ayelet Ha-Shahar.646 Gilboa suggests

that these vessels typically go out of use in the mid-eleventh century with some later

exceptions. In contrast, Tel Dan Stratum IVB (Iron IB) marks the main period of their

usage, which continues into Stratum IVA.647 It appears, therefore, that Tel Dan represents

a location were this coastal/Cypriot form persists into a later period. At Tel Dor a similar

phenomenon is attested in the appearance of Wavy-band pithoi during the Iron IA and

continued use into Iron IB. However, at Dor this type is not in use in the later Iron IIA


644 See, Eran Arie, "Reconsidering the Iron Age II Strata at Tel Dan: Archaeological and Historical
Implications," Tel Aviv 35, no. 1 (2008): 6-64. Unfortunately Eran Arie was never given access to the
unpublished Iron Age material at Tel Dan, and therefore his article on the Iron II strata at Tel Dan is based
on incomplete data found in publication.
645 Ilan, "Northeastern Israel in the Iron Age I: Cultural, Socioeconomic and Political Perspectives", 80-81.
646 Ayelet Gilboa, "The Significance of Iron Age "Wavy Band" Pithoi Along the Syro-Palestinian Littoral,
With reference to the Tel Dor Pithoi.," in Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands in
Memory of Douglas L. Esse (ed. Samuel R. Wolff; Atlanta: ASOR Books, 2001), 163.
647 Ilan, "Northeastern Israel in the Iron Age I: Cultural, Socioeconomic and Political Perspectives", 85.



163


assemblage.648 The question is whether the Stratum IVA examples at Tel Dan represent a

local industry that continued to produce these vessels, or not? Based on petrography there

is clear evidence that one of the Stratum IVA examples was originally manufactured in

the region of Tyre and Sidon.649

5.3.2. Snake-Band Pithoi (PSB)

According to Biran, in area T a total of three large pithoi similar to PWB, decorated with

snakes, (Pl. 1:1) were discovered in Stratum IV. 650 Yet to be published, large fragments

from a fourth rim belong to L2248. A number of additional rim fragments have been

found in various loci, including two or more from our 2012 season. The ware, size, and

heaviness of their construction are noticeably different from the Wavy-band pithoi, over

all much more massive. Their shape, though similar to the earlier PWB, is much larger

and more distended. The flat bottom is wider than what is seen in the earlier PWB forms

at Tel Dan (Pl. 1).

There are no exact parallels to this type of vessel and many of the forms cited by

Eran Arie 651are difficult to access since most of the examples are not drawn to scale.652

The example from Zincirli looks to be the closest parallel cited by Arie, but Zincirli alone

does not provide any details about pre 8th century ceramics in the region.653 One similar


648 Ayelet Gilboa, "Southern Phoenicia During Iron Age I-IIA in the Light of the Tel Dor Excavations: The
Evidence of Pottery" (Hebrew University, 2001), 392-93.
649 See Section 5.4.1.
650 Biran, Dan I, 43.
651 Arie, "Reconsidering the Iron Age II Strata at Tel Dan: Archaeological and Historical Implications," 23.
652 Gunnar Lehmann, Untersuchungen zur späten Eisenzeit in Syrien und Libanon, Stratigraphie und
Keramikformen zwishen ca. 720 bis 300 v.Chr. (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1996), Pl. 67:369; A.S. Jamieson,
"Identifying Room Use and Vessel Function. A Case Study of Iron Age Pottery from Building C2 at Tell
Ahmar, North Syria.," in Essays on Syria in the Iron Age (ed. Guy Bunnens;Ancient Near Eastern Studies
Suppliment; Louvain, 2000), Fig. 9.
653 Lehmann, Untersuchungen zur späten Eisenzeit in Syrien und Libanon: Stratigraphie und
Keramikformen zwishen ca. 720 bis 300 v.Chr. , 272-74.



164


pithos from an earlier period was found at Tell Keisan level 9c. This vessel has a massive

swollen shape with a flat base. Unfortunately, no neck or rim was preserved in the Keisan

example.654 Another example found in a Late Bronze/Iron context is from the North

Syrian site of Tell Kazel. The excavators consider this form of vessel to be common to

the Late Bronze age.655 However, the Kazel example lacks the distinctive flat base of the

Tel Dan example. In terms of possible Syrian connections, the early Assyrian pithoi

found at Tell Sabi Abyad also have a swollen shape and flat base but a more open

mouth.656 The shape of the Tell Kazel and Tel Dan examples fit stylistically between the

early Assyrian form and the later Assyrian forms cited by Arie. Complicating the matter

is the fact that at Tel Ahmar one of the examples cited by Arie is composed of foreign

material from Phoenicia and Cyprus.657 Since these vessel types are not well understood

and examples appear at the coastal sites of Tell Kazel and possibly Tell Keisan in Iron I

contexts, I included two samples for petrographic analysis.

5.3.3. Amphoriskos

An amphoriskos painted with black and red decoration, unburnished, with a ring base,

was recovered from L2093 (Pl. 2:1). There are no exact parallels to this vessel, but the

closest example in overall shape, painting, and material type is found at Horvat Rosh

Zayit dating to the Iron IIA Stratum IIa.658 However, this example lacks the ring base.


654 Briend and Humbert, Tell Keisan, Pl. 69:1.
655 Emmanuelle Capet, Corrected Reprint of Tel Kazel (Syria) Preliminary Report (1993-2001 (Beirut: The
American University of Beirut, 2003), Fig.26:a, 90.
656 “Assyrian Pottery,” n.p. [cited 7 August 2010]. Online: http://www.sabi-abyad.nl/tellsabiabyad/
projecten/ index/0/16/?sub=24&language=en
657 Jamieson, "Identifying Room Use and Vessel Function. A Case Study of Iron Age Pottery from
Building C2 at Tell Ahmar, North Syria.," Fig. 9.
658 Zvi Gal and Yardenna Alexandre, Horbat Rosh Zayit. An Iron Age Storage Fort and Village (Jerusalem:
Israel Antiquities Authority, 2000), 52.



165


Another painted example with a different base was found at Hazor dated to the LBI.659

From Tell Keisan there are several incomplete vessels that share similar characteristics,

including a ring base, painted decoration, high neck and handles.660 The examples from

Keisan were found in level 9a-b which has been dated to Iron I. From Yoqne'am we have

a similar amphoriskos dating to the end of Iron IIA (Stratum XIV) except that it has a

spout, and is burnished.661

5.3.4. Black-on Red Rounded Juglet

Unlike the numerous bichrome or RSW fine vessels found in Phase 2093, examples of

Black-on-Red ware are rare in Area T. Finds include a small body sherd from Stratum III

L2321 (Pl. 3:2), a rounded juglet from one of the Stratum IVA storerooms associated

with L2094 (Pl.3:4), and a fragment in the same store room area L2232 (Pl. 3:3). As

demonstrated in Shreiber’s study, this type of vessel had broad distribution during the 9th

century with some possible early examples from the end of the 10th ventury.662

Comparable examples can be seen at Hazor X-IX, H. Rosh Zayit IIa, and Jokneam XV-

XIII.663 It is interesting to note that Tell Keisan, like Tel Dan, has very few examples of

Black-on-Red ware; there are, however, a couple examples from Level 8b.664 Schrieber

suggests in general that sites with large amounts of Phoenician bichrome do not have a

correspondingly high proportion of Black-on Red ware.665 Due to the absence of


659 Yadin et al., Hazor III-IV, Plate CCXI:6
660 Briend and Humbert, Tell Keisan, Plate 61:11,14
661 Ben-Tor, Zarzecki-Peleg, and Cohen-Anidjar, Yoqne`am II, Fig. II.38, 2.
662 Nicola Schreiber, The Cypro-Phoenician Pottery of the Iron Age (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 28-31.
663 Yadin et al., Hazor III-IV, pl.CLXXII:1, CLXXVII:14 Ben-Tor, Zarzecki-Peleg, and Cohen-Anidjar,
Yoqne`am II 334-35; Gal and Alexandre, Horbat Rosh Zayit, 74-75
664 Briend and Humbert, Tell Keisan (1971-1976): une cite phenicienne en Galilee, Pl. 56:1,2. Ayelet
Gilboa notes that the Keisan examples belong to Stratum 8a. Gilboa, "Southern Phoenicia During Iron Age
I-IIA in the Light of the Tel Dor Excavations: The Evidence of Pottery", 254.
665 Schreiber, The Cypro-Phoenician Pottery of the Iron Age, 48-51.



166


significant petrographic and neutron activation data, uncertainty remains regarding the

role of Phoenicia or Cyprus in the manufacture and distribution of Black-on-Red ware.666

5.3.5. Cooking Pots

In square C-18, half of a large cooking pot was found in L2060, directly below L2423.

This pot has a long ridge with an inverted or vertical rim and a concave exterior ridge and

would thus belong to Ilan’s type CP3c1-CP2c1 (Pl. 4:1-4).667 Ilan notes that the long

ridge first appears in Stratum IVB and continues into IVA. Additionally, this cooking pot

shows strong carination. Numerous other fragments of this type of cooking pot appear in

L2093 in Area T, and earlier phases. Among the cooking pots found in both area B-west

(Stratum III) and B-east (Stratum IV), CP3c1-CP2c1 appear to be the dominant forms.

This form is comparable to vessels found in Stratum IX at Hazor, Keisan 8, Jokneam

Stratum XIV, and Rosh Zayit IIa.668

Another cooking pot commonly found in phase 2093 has a slightly inverted or

vertical rim and a short triangular ridge. The base of the triangle is typically horizontal,

but some forms are less horizontal, forming a wedge. These forms can be identified as

CP3a5, or CP2a5 (Pl. 5:1-3). Parallel forms can be seen at Hazor Stratum XA-IXb,

Jokneam Stratum XIV, Keisan level 8, and Rosh Zayit IIa.669

In general, the cooking pot styles encountered in Stratum IV are parallel to those

found at Jokneam in Stratum XV-XIV, for which a statistical distribution of forms has


666 Ibid., 221-45. Contra Maria Iacouvou, "Review: Phoenicia and Cyprus in the First Millennium B.C.:
Two Distinct Cultures in Search of Their Distinct Archaeologies," BASOR, no. 336 (2004): 61-66.
667 Ilan, "Northeastern Israel in the Iron Age I: Cultural, Socioeconomic and Political Perspectives", 74-75.
668 Yadin et al., Hazor III-IV, Pl. CCXII:2; Briend and Humbert, Tell Keisan, PL. 55:2; Gal and Alexandre,
Horbat Rosh Zayit, Fig. III.83; Ben-Tor, Zarzecki-Peleg, and Cohen-Anidjar, Yoqne`am II Fig.II.21:3.
669 Gal and Alexandre, Horbat Rosh Zayit, Fig. IV.12:1; Yadin et al., Hazor III-IV, pl.CLXXIV: 1; Ben-
Tor, Zarzecki-Peleg, and Cohen-Anidjar, Yoqne`am II Fig. II.20: 4-; Briend and Humbert, Tell Keisan,
Pl.55: 8, Pl.52: 13.



167


been calculated. 670 The conclusions drawn by the Jokneam report demonstrate that the

cooking pot material belonging to phases L2093b-a at Tel Dan was most prevalent in the

Iron IIA/IIB strata at Jokneam.671

As a final note, the cooking pot forms found in Stratum III can be distinguished

from Stratum IVA forms by their short triangular groove shaped rim (Pl. 5:4). This is a

continued development from the short triangular rim found in IVA. At times the IVA and

III rims can be quite similar, but the loss of sharp carination in the Stratum III forms

provides some distinction.672

5.3.6. Store Jars

A unique form of store jar appears in phase L2093 and should be categorized as a sack-

shaped jar SJ2 (Pl. 6:1-2,4). This form has an elongated carinated shoulder with a

medium-tall neck. The body swells below the shoulders coming to a rounded point.

Similar sack-shaped jars, although with different rims or necks, are seen at Rosh Zayit

Stratum IIa, Keisan Stratum 7, Dor phase 8c (Iron I/II), and Jokneam Stratum XIV.673

There are two rim types associated with SJ2, one is a pointed triangular rim (Pl. 6:1-2),

and the second is a round rim with a convex ridge immediately below the rim (Pl. 6:4).

Both types were found in L2093 and the associated loci in the same room. In B-east two

complete vessels of this type were found in L119. In earlier plans this locus was placed

in Stratum III, but it’s association with wall 123 suggests that it belongs to Stratum IVA


670 Ben-Tor, Zarzecki-Peleg, and Cohen-Anidjar, Yoqne`am II, 272-75.
671 Ibid., 275-76.
672 Ibid., 277-79.
673 Gal and Alexandre, Horbat Rosh Zayit, Fig.III.87:8-; Briend and Humbert, Tell Keisan, Pl.50: 7-; Ben-
Tor, Zarzecki-Peleg, and Cohen-Anidjar, Yoqne`am II Fig.II.30: 6-; Gilboa, "Southern Phoenicia During
Iron Age I-IIA in the Light of the Tel Dor Excavations: The Evidence of Pottery", Pl.62:1-2. Especially
Yoqne’am II Fig. I.62: 8.



168


(Fig. 5.8). These vessels provide one of the strongest parallels to Stratum IVA material

found in area T.

The SJ2 type jar looks similar to ‘hippo’ jars found in abundance at Rosh Zayit

and other locations along the eastern side of the Jezreel valley.674 Because ‘hippo’ jars

appear in levels presumably destroyed by Shishak, they have recived a lot of attention for

their use as a marker of the end of the 10th century.675 Aznar has argued based on

unpublished drawings from Beth Shean, and examples from Tel Zeror and Tell es-

Sa`idiyeh, that there are two “hippo” like jars: an early form and a later form. The later

form can be dated from the 9th-mid 8th century.676 Among the features of the later form

are strongly carinated shoulders. Based on petrographic analysis, Aznar discovered that

both late and early forms could be made of local material or, more commonly, shale-rich

clay.677 Formations of shale-rich clay appear on the eastern slopes of the Galilee hills, the

Hermon mountains, the Lebanon mountains and the Anti-Lebanon mountains.678 A

bichrome jug found at Horvat Rosh Zayit was also made of the same shale-rich clay,

adding to the evidence that ‘hippo’ jars may have been produced in Lebanon.679 Despite

the seeming similarities between the SJ2 form found at Tel Dan and the hippo jar, Gal

considers them to be totally separate types of vessels.680 It is relevant to note that Tell


674 Gal and Alexandre, Horbat Rosh Zayit, 44-47.
675 Ibid., 47-48.
676 Carolina Aznar, "Exchange Networks in the Southern Levant during the Iron Age II: A Study of Pottery
Origin and Distribution" (Harvard, 2005), 53.
677 Ibid, 153-156.
678 A. Sneh and R. Weinberger, Mettula, Geological Map of Israel, Sheet 2-II, 1:50,000 (Jerusalem: Israel
Geological Survey, 2003; Sneh and Weinberger, Mettula, Geological Map of Israel, Sheet 2-II, 1:50,000;
Sneh and Weinberger, Mettula, Geological Map of Israel, Sheet 2-II, 1:50,000; L. Dubertret, Carte
géologique du Liban, Syrie et bordure des pays voisins (Paris, 1962; Dubertret, Carte géologique du Liban,
Syrie et bordure des pays voisins
679 Gal and Alexandre, Horbat Rosh Zayit, 58.
680 I would like to thank Dr. Zvika Gal for providing me with his personal insight into the material
examined in this study.



169


Kazel in Syria preserves the closest parallel to the SJ2 type jars found in Stratum IVA at

Tel Dan; this connects these vessel types to the Lebanese coast. The vessels at Tell Kazel

were recovered from a storeroom and are dated to the 9th-8th centuries. The excavators

consider these store jars to be a new subtype of commercial vessel associated with

Phoenician expansion in the Akkar plain region.681 Evidence of Phoenician bichrome

decoration on one of these sack-shaped vessels strongly suggests that this type of store jar

may be a useful indicator of Phoenician economic exchange. Thus, the SJ2 type of store

jar has been included in the corpus of material for petrographic analysis.

5.3.7. Store Jar 2b

In addition to the several sack-shaped type store jars found in Stratum IVA, there is a

smaller version which is two-thirds the size of the others (Pl. 6:3). Aznar included this

vessel in her analysis of small sack-shaped vessels.682 She comments that the rims of

these smaller forms are easily mistaken for those of larger vessels, which can readily be

seen in the examples of SJ2 and SJ2b forms found at Tel Dan. Comparable examples can

be seen in Jokneam Stratum XIV, Keisan Stratum 7, and Rosh Zayit Stratum IIb.683

Aznar’s petrographic analysis concluded that in general most of the vessels were made

locally and that only the vessels from the Phoenician site Tel Abu Hawam were made of

material from the Phoenician coast.684


681 Emmanuelle Capet and Eric Gubel, "Tell Kazel- Six Centuries of Iron Age Occupation (c. 1200-612
B.C.)," in Essays on Syria in the Iron Age (ed. Guy Bunnens;Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement;
Louvain: Peeters, 2000), 445-47.
682 Ibid., 72-73.
683 Ben-Tor, Zarzecki-Peleg, and Cohen-Anidjar, Yoqne`am II Fig. II.30:6; Briend and Humbert, Tell
Keisan, Pl.50; Gal and Alexandre, Horbat Rosh Zayit, Fig.III.74: 21, Fig.III.87:8.
684 Ibid., 191.



170


5.3.8. Bichrome

Numerous fragments of Phoenician bichrome type vessels appear in Stratum IVA at Tel

Dan. Unfortunately, only one vessel is completely restorable and only two vessels are

preserved to the extent where vessel type can be determined. The majority of evidence

comes from body fragments where the hallmark enclosed band decoration indicates the

sherds belong to the Phoenician bichrome industry.685 Among the partially preserved

vessels is a jug with horizontal decoration and a globe shaped body (Pl.10). Beyond a

partial handle there is no rim and no base to provide further typological information.

Comparable forms with horizontal decoration appear at Tel Dor in Iron IIA-IIB levels,

Sarepta Stratum C2 (850-800 B.C.E), Tyre Stratum X-2, and Hazor Stratum XB.
686 A

comparable globular shape can be seen at Jokneam Stratum XIV, but its decoration is

vertical.687

5.3.9. Decanter

The only complete bichrome vessel in Stratum IV of area T comes from L2235 (Pl. 2:2).

This decanter has a red wheel-burnished slip with enclosed black and red paint. The exact

form of this vessel lies somewhere between the development of Jug 8A.e and Jug 8A.g as

defined by Bikai.688 Both styles have red wheel burnished slip, but only type 8A.e

appears with black and red bands.689 Our vessel lacks the extreme mushroom lip seen in


685 Gilboa, "The Dynamics of Phoenician Bichrome Pottery: A View from Tel Dor," 5-6.
686 Gilboa, "The Dynamics of Phoenician Bichrome Pottery: A View from Tel Dor," Fig.11: 2; William P.
Anderson, Sarepta I: The Late Bronze and Iron Age Strata of Area II, Y (Beirut: Université Libanaise,
1988), Pl. 36; Patricia Maynor Bikai, The Pottery of Tyre (Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1978), Pl.XXV;
Yadin et al., Hazor III-IV, Pl.CLXXII: 3.
687 Anabel Zarzeki-Peleg, "Hazor, Jokneam, and Megiddo in the 10th Century B.C.E.," Tel Aviv 24, no. 2
(1997): Fig.I.41: 9.
688 Bikai, The Pottery of Tyre, 37-39.
689 Ibid. Pl.XVIII:10; Pl.V:19-23. Style wise the decanter from Tel Dan does not possess the flaring
mushroom lip.



171


the later 8A.g vessels belonging to Stratum III at Tyre. Also, RSW with similar vessel

shape appear at Achzib in phase 3 (end 9-7th centuries).690 Further examples of Red-

Slipped decanters can be found at Tell es Sa’idiyeh VII (9-8th century), Khaldeh tomb 1,

and Qraye.691 Though red wheel burnished decanters are attested in 9th century contexts,

they persist well into later periods as attested by examples from Hazor Stratum VIII, VII,

Va, and Megiddo Stratum IV.692

5.3.10. Flasks and Jugs

Several bichrome flasks were recovered in the early Iron Age strata of Area B (Pl.8:1-3).

Only one example attributed to Stratum V has the enclosed band decoration (Pl.8:1).

Examples of standard bichrome painted flasks appear at Tell Qiri VII, Dor Phase 8-6b,

Abu Hawam Stratum IV, and Jokneam XVII.693

At Tel Dan several different types of bichrome jugs were found in area B,

including a spouted jug (Pl.8: 7), a juglet (Pl.8:8), and a strainer spouted jug with basket

handle (Pl. 8:9). The spouted jug has clear standard Phoenician decoration but is not a

commonly found form. A parallel form was found at Achzib which, based on


690 Eilat Mazar, The Phoenician Family Tomb N.1 at the Northern Cemetery of Achziv (10th-6th Centuries
BCE) (Barcelona: Laboratorio De Arquelogia De La Universidad Pompeu Fabra De Barcelona, 2004),
Fig.9:10.
691 Susannah Vibert Chapman, "A Catalouge of Iron Age Pottery from the Cemeteries of Khirbet Silm,
Joya, Qraye, and Qasmeieh of South Lebanon: With a note on the Iron Age Pottery of the American
University Museum, Beirut," Ber 21 (1972): Fig. 27:300; Moshe W. Prausnitz, "Red-Polished and Black on
Red Wares at Ahkziv Israel and Cyprus in the Early-Middle Iron Age," in Praktika tou Protou Diethnos
Kyprologikou Synderiou (Nicosia: Leuko ̄sia Hetaireia Kypriako ̄n Spoudon, 1972; R. Saidah, "Fouilles de
Khaldé. Rapport préliminaire sur la première et deuxième campagnes (1961-1962)," BMB 19 (1966): 58:2.
692 Yadin et al., Hazor III-IV, Pl. LVIII:16, LXIV: 20-23, CCXXVII: 7; Israel Finkelstein, David Ussishkin,
and Baruch Halpern, Meggido III: The 1992-1996 Seasons (Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications
In Archaeology, 2000), Fig. 11.53:3.
693 Gilboa, "The Dynamics of Phoenician Bichrome Pottery: A View from Tel Dor," 6; Ben-Tor, Zarzecki-
Peleg, and Cohen-Anidjar, Yoqne`am II, 337.



172


petrographic analysis, was determined to likely be a Cypriot import.694 Other parallels to

this vessel shape have been found in Cyprus.695

The basket handled strainer jug has preliminarily been associated with Philistine

manufacture by excavators at Tel Dan.696 The association of this type of vessel with the

Philistines is based on Trude Dothan’s study of Philistine ceramic types.697 Dothan

argued that this vessel was a fusion of two common vessel types found in earlier periods,

the strainer-spout jug and the basket-handle jug. Dothan offered three bichrome examples

of these vessels, two from Megiddo and one from Tell Qasile, along with vessels with

differing paint schemes from Beth-Shemesh, Tell Jemmeh, and Tell el-Far`ah.698 More

recently, basket handled strainer jugs have been found at Yokneam in a variety of shapes

and decoration. The Yokneam examples are classed either as globular (J VA) or biconical

(J VB). The four types of decoration present in the Yokneam assemblage include

Phoenician bichrome, Philistine bichrome, bichrome, and monochrome.699 Further

examples from Tel Keisan Strata 9a and 9c likely belong to a Phoenician mode of

production.700 Similarly, basket handled jugs suddenly appear in the Iron I repertoire at

the northern site of Tel Kazel.701

Dothan does not consider this type of vessel to be related to Mycenaean or

Cypriot forms since most of the Iron Age Levantine forms are considered closed vessels


694 Michal Dayagi-Mendels, The Ahkziv Cemetaries: The Ben-Dor Excavations, 1941-1944 (Jerusalem:
Israel Antiquities Authority, 2002), 137.
695 Einar Gjerstad, The Swedish Cyprus Expedition: The Cypro-Geometric, Cypro Archaic and Cypro-
Classic Periods. (vol. IV,2 of; Stockholm: The Swedish Cyprus Expeditions, 1948), Fig. XIII: 7,8.
696 Ilan, "Northeastern Israel in the Iron Age I: Cultural, Socioeconomic and Political Perspectives", 93-95.
697 Trude Krakauer Dothan, The Philistines and Their Material Culture (New Haven Yale University Press,
1982), 191-94.
698 Ibid. 194.
699 Ben-Tor, Zarzecki-Peleg, and Cohen-Anidjar, Yoqne`am II, 322-25.
700 Briend and Humbert, Tell Keisan, Pl.61: 18, 71:8.
701 Capet and Gubel, "Tell Kazel- Six Centuries of Iron Age Occupation (c. 1200-612 B.C.)," 439.



173


with tall necks.702 Similar to the basket handled strainer jug is the basket handled spouted

vessel, or feeding bottle. Though there is a distinction between these two vessel forms,

the basket handled strainer from Tel Dan has a more open shape, similar to a

monochrome globular feeding bottle found at Mycenae.703 Both open and closed feeding

bottle forms appear in the Cypriot assemblage. Feeder bottles with open shape were

found at Lapithos and date to the Cypro-Geometric II period (950-850 BCE).704 Feeding

bottles with closed forms and tall necks found at Lapithos date to the Cypro-Geometric

II-III periods.705 Both Aren Maeir, and Ayelet Gilboa state that evidence of Cypriot

influence becomes increasingly apparent in the 11th century material culture preserved at

both Philistine Tell es Safi and Phoenician Tel Dor.706 It is therefore likely that the

presence of this vessel at Tel Dan indicates an increase in social or economic interactions

between Cyprus and the Levant during the 11th century.

5.3.11. Krater

A large rim fragment of a bichrome painted krater with an everted ledge-like rim and

painted handle was recovered from L8019 in Area M. This vessel preserves the same

ledge shaped rim as Gilboa’s krater Type 1 found at Tel Dor. However, the vessel from


702 Dothan, The Philistines and Their Material Culture, 194.
703 P.A. Mountjoy, Regional Mycenaean Decorated Pottery (Leidorf: Rahden/Westf, 1999), 109-10, Fig.
21:23; Carl W. Blegen et al., The Palace of Nestor at Pylos In Western Messenia: Volume III Acropolis,
and Lower Town Tholoi, Grave Circle, and Chamber Tombs Discoveries Outside the Citadel (vol. III of;
New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1973), 211, 15, Fig. 74:4.
704 Einar Gjerstad et al., The Swedish Cyprus Expedition: Finds and Results of the Excavations in Cyprus
1927-1932 Vol. I text (Stockholm: The Swedish Cyprus Expeditions, 1934b), 248, 73, no. 61; Einar
Gjerstad et al., The Swedish Cyprus Expedition: Finds and Results of the Excavations in Cyprus 1927-1932
Vol. I Plates (Stockholm: The Swedish Cyprus Expeditions, 1934a), Pl. LIV:6, Pl. LIX:1.
705 Gjerstad et al., The Swedish Cyprus Expedition: Finds and Results of the Excavations in Cyprus 1927-
1932 Vol. I text, 187-92, 208; Gjerstad et al., The Swedish Cyprus Expedition: Finds and Results of the
Excavations in Cyprus 1927-1932 Vol. I Plates, Pl. CXXXII:2, CXXXIII:7,CXXXV:1.
706 Gilboa, "Archaeology and Ethnicity at Iron Age Dor: Sea Peoples, Phoenicians, and Israelites."; Aren
M. Maeir, "Open, Closed (?), Open: The Philistines and the Outside World during the Iron I and Early Iron
IIA " International Meeting. The Ancient Near East in the 12th-10th Centuries BCE: Culture and History,
Haifa, 2010.



174


Tel Dan is carinated at the handle with the lower portion of the vessel sloping in toward

the base, similar to Gilboa’s krater Type 3. Very few examples of Type 3 vessels were

recovered at Dor, and Type 1 is the only krater featuring bichrome decoration. Fragments

of three Type 1 kraters featuring bichrome decoration were found in area B-west,

attributed to Stratum IVB in Ilan’s dissertation.707 At Tel Qasile several kraters with very

similar form to the Tel Dan Type 1 appear with painted decoration in Stratum X.708 Trude

Dothan suggests that during this period Philistine decorative practices merged with local

ceramic traditions.709 In the example from Area M, it is clear that the decoration is

standard Phoenician with the enclosed band design. However, the vessel type is rare at

Phoenician sites, appearing only at Tel Keisan.710 Several parallel forms can be seen

further from the coast at Megiddo Strata VIIB-VIIA, Hazor Xb, Izbeth Sarṭah III, and

possibly Jokneam XII.711 The later context of parallel vessels suggests that the

stratigraphic context of the Tel Dan example may be later than Stratum IVA. The

combination of Phoenician art style with a vessel form infrequently found at coastal sites

suggests some type of cross regional exchange of form and decoration. Petrographic

analysis may provide insight into the regional origin of this example from Tel Dan.

5.3.12. Red-Slipped Ware - Thin Walled

At Tel Dan, several examples of a very thin, 2-3mm thick, highly burnished Red-Slipped

Ware appear in phase 2093b. In loci L2200, L2479, L2241 there are examples of a

pinkish yellow ware which has red wheel burnished slip on the exterior wrapping over

707Ilan, "Northeastern Israel in the Iron Age I: Cultural, Socioeconomic and Political Perspectives", 73.
708 Dothan, The Philistines and Their Material Culture, 195-96.
709 Dothan, The Philistines and Their Material Culture, 195-99.
710 Briend and Humbert, Tell Keisan, Pl. 78:1, 1a, 1d-f 81:10.
711 Loud, Megiddo II. Seasons of 1935-1939, Pl. 69:1; Yadin et al., Hazor III-IV, Pl. CLXXI:2; Finkelstein,
`Izbet Sartah- An Early Iron Age Site Near Rosh Ha`ayin, Israel, Fig. 13; Ben-Tor, Zarzecki-Peleg, and
Cohen-Anidjar, Yoqne`am II Fig. II.14.2.



175


the lip of the vessel. At Tyre, vessels with this type of slip sequence appear in Strata IX-

VI, but are hand burnished rather than wheel burnished. Bikai notes this type of ware is

the predecessor to the later wheel burnished type.712 Due to the fragmentary nature of the

evidence, the form of the bowl is unknown but rim shape and slip style suggest these

fragments are parallel to Aznar’s type 3 found at Hazor X-IX and Tell Abu-Hawam III

(980-760). Based on petrographic analysis, Aznar concludes that this form was

manufactured on the coast from Haifa to Phoenicia proper.713 Yet another RSW sherd

appears in L2357, but it is thicker and the interior has a red wash. The shape suggests that

this may be a variation of Aznar’s type 3.

5.3.13. Red-Slipped Ware - Thick Walled

Red-Slipped Ware-thick walled commonly referred to as Samaria Ware usually refers to

bowls or plates with a red slip and burnished surface. As specified by Crawford, the

typology was confined to thin forms typically no more than 3mm in thickness. However,

later publications of Hazor expand the repertoire to include thick forms.714 The

appearance of this ware at inland regions associated with Israelite territory, and at

northern coastal regions has led to some debate on the origin of this ware.715 Recent

excavations at Tyre Al-Bass demonstrate that large Red-Slipped thick-walled bowls were


712 Bikai, The Pottery of Tyre, 29.
713 Aznar, "Exchange Networks in the Southern Levant during the Iron Age II: A Study of Pottery Origin
and Distribution", 106, 71-72.
714 Aznar, "Exchange Networks in the Southern Levant during the Iron Age II: A Study of Pottery Origin
and Distribution", 102.
715 Ibid. Cf. William Culican, "The Repertoire of Phoenician Pottery," in Phönizier im Westen (ed. Hans
Georg Niemeyer; Mainz Am Rhein: Philipp Von Zabern, 1982), 78-82.



176


part of the mortuary kit used in Phoenician cremation burials by the end of the 9th

century.716

At Tel Dan, Red-Slipped Ware thick-walled (RSW-Tk) bowls are more common

than the thin ware types and appear in several different forms in Stratum IVA loci. In the

second phase of the oil press building, several vessels were found on top of pit L2395.

The vessels themselves belong to the bottom of L2385, and thus are contemporary with

the rest of the material associated with the second phase of the oil press building

including a Snake-band pithos and a figurine holding a lotus blossom. Two of the three

vessel types were recovered from this one location.

5.3.13.1. RSW-Tk type 1

The vessels belonging to this type are around 8mm thick with a heavy interior burnished

red slip. The exterior has a red wash that is partially preserved. These vessels have a low

profile ring base with carinated sides and a slightly outturned (everted) rim that has been

cut flat( Pl. 9:3). A variation of this bowl has a more pronounced tapering rim and a more

pinkish red slip (Pl.9:4). A parallel to this vessel can be found at Tyre Stratum VIII-IX

.717 A similar form also appears at Hazor IX with a highly burnished exterior and an

irregular interior burnish.718

5.3.13.2. RSW-Tk type 2

Bowls belonging to type 2 are strongly carinated with everted rims. The form is overall

more delicate than type 1 and does not have a cut rim. One of the bowls belonging to this

type was recovered from L2093 along with two Snake-band pithoi (Pl. 9:5-6). Both


716 Francisco J. Núnez Calvo, "Phoenicia," in Beyond the HomeLand: Markers in Phoenician Chronology
(ed. Claudia Sagona; Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement; Lueven: Peeters, 2008), 60-61.
717 Bikai, The Pottery of Tyre, Pl. XIX:24-25.
718 Yadin et al., Hazor III-IV, Pl. CCVIII:26.



177


bowls have a red interior burnished slip, and a weak red wheel burnished slip on the

exterior.

5.3.13.3. RSW-Tk type 3

A type 3 bowl was found in L2395, and is similar to the BIII bowl found at Horvat Rosh

Zayit.719 Vessels of this type have a mid body carination and flat base, with a simple

rounded rim. This type of bowl is small, around 20 cm in diameter. Parallels can be found

at Horvat Rosh Zayit level IIa-IIb and Hazor XB-IXB.720 A similar bowl with pinkish red

slip that is wheel burnished both inside and out also appears in L2395. Both slipped and

unslipped forms were found in the same locus. These examples supports Zvi Gal’s claim

that slip and burnish finishes are not necessarily a geographic or chronologic indicator,

rather, the presence or lack of slip likely has to do with the function of the vessel.721

Thus, the ceramic material associated with Stratum IVA is comprised of forms

from diverse regions. As can be seen from the chart below, the material from the inland

sites of Jokneam and Hazor provide strong points of parallel. Tell Keisan and Horvat

Rosh Zayit also provide strong points of parallel for some forms not present at the inland

sites. Jokneam XIV, Hazor IX, Keisan 9a-b, and Horvat Rosh Zayit IIa provide a

terminus post quem for the Stratum IVA material found in Area T.

5.3.13. Pyxis

The pyxide is a common vessel found at Tel Dan appearing as early as Late Bronz Age

Stratum VIIA, growing in frequency in Stratum V, and persisting into the Iron IVB


719 Gal and Alexandre, Horbat Rosh Zayit, 36-37.
720 Ibid., Fig. III.72; Yadin et al., Hazor III-IV, Pl. CLXXI:7.
721 Ibid., 34.



178


period.722 In total 36 complete vessels were recovered at Tel Dan, most with painted

decoration on their surface. The origin of the pyxide form has been attributed to

Mycenae; it was copied by Canaanite potters and became a common feature from the

Late Bronze Age II to the Iron Age IIa.723 In the Mycenaean tradition, this type of vessel

is referred to as an alabastron.724 At Tel Dor, fragmentary evidence appears in level X. Of

the painted examples none are painted in the standard Phoenician bichrome style. Thus,

the mode of decoration of the vessels found at Tel Dan does not indicate the origin of

these vessels, since Phoenician and inland Canaanite decoration are indistinguishable in

the Iron I period.725 At Tel Keisan numerous pyxides with a shape parallel to those found

at Tel Dan were found in levels 9c, and 9a.726 Unlike Tel Dan all of the Tell Keisan

examples are decorated in monochrome.

5.3.14. Conclusion

The juxtaposition of forms whose terminal use was in the Iron IIA, and forms whose

initial use appeared in the Iron IIA provides the strongest evidence for dating Stratum

IVA to the Iron IIA period. The following chart compares the ceramic types attributed to

Stratum IVA and their parallels at other sites.






722 Ilan, "Northeastern Israel in the Iron Age I: Cultural, Socioeconomic and Political Perspectives", 92.
723 Ann E. Killebrew, "Ceramic Craft and Technology During the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age: The
Relationship between Pottery Technology, Style and Cultural Diversity" (The Hebrew University of
Jerusalem, 1998), 133-34.
724 For a detailed analysis of the regional forms of this vessel in Mycenae, see Mountjoy, Regional
Mycenaean Decorated Pottery 81, 86, 107, 17.
725 Gilboa, "The Dynamics of Phoenician Bichrome Pottery: A View from Tel Dor," 2-5
726 Briend and Humbert, Tell Keisan, Pl. 61:10, 70:1-1f.



179


Table. 5.1. Parallels to Tel Dan Stratum IVA Ceramic Types.

Tel Dan Stratum IVA Ceramics

Vessel type Jokneam Hazor Keisan R. Zayit Achzib Tyre

Pithoi

PWB XIII 9c XV

PSB 9c

Amphoriskos

AMP XIV 9a-b IIa

BoR

Juglet XV-XIII X-IX IIa

CP

CP3c1/CP2c1 XIV-XII IX 9c-7 IIa

CP3a5/CP2a5 9c, 8 IIa-I

CP3a6 XIII-XI VI 5-4

Store Jar

SJ2 XV-XIV 7 IIa

SJ2b XIV 7 IIb

Bichrome

Decanter VIII-VA 5 9-7th V-III

Krater XII Xb

RSW

Thin walled X-IX IX-VI

RSWT 1 IX VIII-IX

RSWT 2

RSWT 3 XB-IXB IIa-IIb

Pyxis 9c-9a





180


5.4. Petrographic Analysis

Interpreting the nature of the relationship between ceramic forms and their geographic

distribution often requires additional data. Is the presence of Phoenician style ceramics a

result of cultural influences at Tel Dan, economic or political exchanges with the coast, or

a combination of both? In order to establish whether the presence of Phoenician style

ceramics at Tel Dan in the Iron I-IIA periods was related to importation or local

manufacture, forty-one samples were selected for petrographic analysis. The types of

vessels analyzed included Wavy-band pithoi, Snake-band pithoi, pixides, basket handled

strainer, sherds with monochrome decoration, sherds with bichrome decoration, and

sherds with standard Phoenician bichrome decoration. All of the samples were analyzed

by Nissim Golding-Meir, whose final report will be published as part of the Dan

publication series. In this chapter I will present Golding-Meir’s conclusions and provide

some comments regarding their ethnic and geopolitical implications.

5.4.1. Fabric Types.

Two fabric types are considered local to the Tel Dan region, Group A and Group

B. The fabric of Group A is clayey with silt sized grains of basaltic tuff and small

amounts of opaque material including limestone. Group A clearly belongs to the local

geology of Tel Dan. The fabric of Group B is characterized by argillaceous, ferruginous,

shale-rich clay, with relatively high content of opaque grains and ferruginous oolites.

While Group B fabric can be found in the region of Tel Dan there are other regions with

similar Levantine Lower Cretaceous shales: including the Negev, Samaria, the eastern



181


side of the Dead Sea, the eastern slopes of the hills of Galilee, the Hermon Mountains,

the Lebanon Mountains and the Anti-Lebanon.727

Two other fabrics identified in the sample source come from two separate regions

of the Northern coast. The fabric of Group C is characterized by ferruginous fine clay

comprised of hamra soils. Hamra soils are spread along the coastal plain of Israel from

the region of Ashdod northward. The presence of volcanic tuffs narrows the region of

origin down to the Carmel coast. Group C, therefore, comes from the Carmel coast. The

fabric of Group D consists of fine-textured, dense, foraminiferous and ferruginous marl;

it also has numerous granules or streaks of ferric oxide which give a reddish hue. The

inclusions comprise mainly limestone fragments; some large fragments of fossil shell or

coralline algae and also a very small amount of quartz grains. Group D fabric has been

identified in the region between Tyre and Sidon.728

5.4.2. Storage and Transportation Forms

In a previous study, neutron activation analysis and petrographic analysis of Wavy-band

pithoi from Tel Dan and other highland sites including Sasa, Mt. Adir, and Horvat Avot,

demonstrated that these large storage vessels were imported from coastal regions. 729 In

order to expand our understanding of coastal influence at Tel Dan, several storage vessel

types were selected for petrographic analysis. First, four samples of large pithoi were

selected, three of which were clearly Snake band pithoi. Petrographic analysis shows that

these pithoi contained fabric from Group A and B, and are likely local to Tel Dan. The


727 Nisim Golding-Meir, "Petrographic Analysis of Iron Age Pottery from Tel Dan" (unpublished, Nelson
Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology Jerusalem 2011), 1-2.
728 Golding-Meir, "Petrographic Analysis of Iron Age Pottery from Tel Dan" (unpublished), 2.
729 Yellin and Gunneweg, "Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis and the Origin of Iron Age I Collard-
Rim Jars and Pithoi from Tel Dan," 133-4; Cohen-Weinberger and Goren, "Petrographic Analysis of Iron I
Pithoi from Sasa," 77-84.



182


fourth pithos fragment is of the Wavy-band type and was manufactured in the coastal

territory of Tyre and Sidon. This rim was found in a Stratum IVA building associated

with oil production. The presence of this pithos points to direct commercial exchange

between Tel Dan and the Phoenician coast. Unfortunately, pithoi are quite durable, and

often reused. It is possible that the vessel first came to the site in the previous period.

In addition to pithoi, seven sack-shaped store jar rims and one painted store jar

rim were analyzed. Despite their smaller size and similarity to coastal forms, all of the

sack-shaped vessels found at Tel Dan belong to Group A or B. Half the vessels tested

belong to Group B; which is a fabric type found at Tel Dan, the Galilee, Mount Hermon,

and Lebanese mountain regions. The storage jars tested at Horvat Rosh Zayit were also

composed of shale-rich clay. 730 In order to clarify the origin of Group B vessels at Tel

Dan, petrographic analysis of domestic forms common to Tel Dan were analyzed. Several

bellow pots were made of Group B fabric. Given the likelihood that these bellows were

made on site, it is believed that other vessels with Group B fabric represent ceramics

manufactured at Tel Dan.731

Aznar proposes that these sack-shaped vessels with a ridged neck were used for

taxation purposes, and that Horvat Rosh Zayit was a collection/storage facility.732

According to Aznar’s theory, one could expect a diversity of fabrics among all the

vessels at Horvat Rosh Zayit, potentially including fabrics from Tel Dan. Despite the

uncertainty regarding the relationship between the vessels at Tel Dan and Horvat Rosh


730 Aznar, "Exchange Networks in the Southern Levant during the Iron Age II: A Study of Pottery Origin
and Distribution", 220-21.
731 Golding-Meir, "Petrographic Analysis of Iron Age Pottery from Tel Dan" (unpublished), Table 2.
732 Aznar, "Exchange Networks in the Southern Levant during the Iron Age II: A Study of Pottery Origin
and Distribution", 220-27.



183


Zayit, it is clear that the sack-shaped jars do not come from either the Sidonian or Carmel

coast. It is possible that the form of these vessels was informed by Phoenician ceramic

tradition and locally produced at Tel Dan, or coastal forms may have been influenced by

a ceramic tradition coming from the Galilean hills.

Table. 5.2. Petrography of Pithoi and Store Jars.

# Object Locus # Basket # Area/
square


Petrography Description Fig.

1 Pithos 2397 12669 T/C15 Group A Large pithos rim
2 Pithos 2380 12668 T/E14 Group B Pithos fragment

with possible
snake decoration



3 Pithos 2093 11725 T/C19 Group B Pithos fragment
with possible
snake decoration

Pl. 1.1.

4 Pithos 2407 12699 T/C15 Group D Small pithos rim
5 Storage

Jar
2094 11701 T/D19 Group A Storage jar rim

burnt
Pl. 8.4.

6 Storage
Jar

2157 12019 T/D18 Group A Storage jar
rim/collar



7 Storage
Jar

2353 12660 T/D14 Group B Storage jar sherd

8 Storage
Jars

2423 12743 T/C18
-19

Group A Storage jar sherd

9 Storage
Jar

2457 11761 T/C13 Group B Storage jar

10 Storage
Jar

2487 12706 T/B18 Group B Storage jar rim

11 Storage
Jar

2794 19569 T/F20-
21

Group B Storage jar rim

12 Storage
Jar

8024 20089 M/E12 Group C Storage jar rim
painted

Fig.
5.9.3.



5.4.3. Bichrome Decoration

In addition to vessels used for storage and transportation, eighteen samples of bichrome

ware were selected for analysis. Many bichrome fragments were selected for their

possible coastal origin, which included a few Mycenaean forms. As seen from the table



184


below, the Mycenaean forms such as pyxides and a basket handled strainer were all

locally produced. This demonstrates that the persistence of Mycenaean forms at Tel Dan

is due to the local preservation of earlier Late Bronze Age forms.

Among the painted samples tested four fragments come from coastal regions.

Two fragments came from the Carmel coast. One sherd with a bichrome leaf pattern

found in Stratum IVA-III (Fig. 5.4) is comparable to the decoration found on an Iron IB

bichrome strainer spouted jug from Megiddo.733 The second sample belongs to a painted

storage jar rim. Two other samples came from the region of Tyre and Sidon. The

decoration on a sherd found in Stratum IVA, L478, exhibits a basic alternating red and

black pattern on pinkish fabric. This color of ware is uncommon at Tel Dan, but is known

from Tyre.734 The other fragment which comes from the Phoenician coast belongs to

Stratum V and is decorated with “Overlapping Multiple Diagonal Strokes” (OMDS). This

pattern is known from the Late Bronze and Iron I Syrian sites of Ugarit, Tell Tweini, Tell

Kazel, Amuq, and `Ain Dara.735 Vessels with OMDS pattern also appear in Iron I

contexts at Tel Dor and in the Jezreel valley. The spread of this pattern southward is

attributed to Syrian influence along the Northern Levantine coast in the Iron I period.736

The fragment analyzed from Tel Dan is unique in that it is bichrome rather than

monochrome. As discussed in Chapter 3, the combination of Phoenician and Syrian

material culture appears at Tel Dor in this period, which was ruled by the Sikil. Thus, this

Syrian style vessel produced in the region of Tyre and Sidon and found at Dan is

733 Ibid. Fig. 6.4
734 Bikai, The Pottery of Tyre, 29.
735 Ayelet Gilboa, "Fragmenting the Sea Peoples, With an Emphasis on Cyprus, Syria and Egypt: A Tel
Dor Perspective," in Cyprus, the Sea Peoples and the Eastern Mediterranean: Regional Perspectives of
Continuity and Change (ed. Timothy P. Harrison; Toronto: Canadian Institute for Mediterranean Studies,
2008), 223-25.
736 Ibid., 232-34.



185


evidence of the complex cultural and political dynamics which affected this region in the

Iron I period.

In summary, the persistence of Mycenaean forms in the Iron Age at Tel Dan is

rooted in the local preservation of Late Bronze age commercial forms. There is no

evidence that these vessels were used in market exchanges with the coast. Iron I contact

with the Phoenician coast is represented by the OMDS pattern found in Stratum V. The

remaining evidence of contact with the Carmel and the Phoenician coast belongs to

Stratum IVA material.

Table. 5.3. Petrography of Bichrome Ceramics.

# Object Locus # Basket # Area/
square


Petrography Description Fig.

1 Rim 113 611 B/F18 Group C Incised BC rim
2 Sherd 205 1086 G/F19/20 Group C BC sherd with

leaf decoration


3 Sherd 419 6164 B/H15 Group A Red concentric
circle

Fig. 5.12.6.

4 Sherd 478 6747 M/F13 Group D BC sherd pink
ware



5 Sherd 547 9457 B1/C17-
18

Group A BC sherd pink
ware



6 Jug 612 9663 B1/A17-
18

Group A BC basket
handled strainer

Pl. 8.9.

7 Sherd 1207 10574 B1/A18-
B18

Group D BC OMDS
pattern

Fig. 5.11.6.

8 Pyxis 1218 10639 B1/C19 Group A BC pyxis
9 Pyxis 4264 18350 AB Group A BC pyxis
10 Pyxis 8181 20623 M/E-F12 Group B BC pyxis Fig. 5.11.

4.


5.4.4. Standard Phoenician Bichrome Decoration

Eight samples of bichrome decoration were selected that exhibited the enclosed band

pattern associated with Phoenician style. Contrary to expectation, all of the samples were

clearly manufactured at Tel Dan. These results are the same as the findings of a separate



186


petrographic study conducted by Paula Waiman-Barak and Ayelet Gilboa.737 Thus, the

increase in Phoenician style decoration on material found in Stratum IVA context cannot

be attributed to market exchanges with the Phoenician coast. Rather, it appears that a

local workshop produced Phoenician style vessels for local use. In addition to standard

Phoenician bichromether other artifacts point to Phoenician presence at Tel Dan in the

Iron IIA period. In Area T several Egyptian-style statues were recovered, which as

discussed earlier in Section 4.3.2.3. is a characteristic feature of Phoenician sites in the

Iron IIA period. These ritual objects and locally produced bichrome ware point to

Phoenician influence on the cult at Dan in the Iron IIA period.



















Table. 5.4. Petrography of Phoenician Bichrome Ceramics.

# Object Locus # Basket # Area/
square


Petrography Description Fig.

1 Sherd 106 576 B/F17 Group A Pink fabric, thin
black lines
enclosing wide




737 Paula Waiman-Barak and Ayelet Gilboa, "A Petrographic Study of Early Iron Age Containers at Dan,"
in Dan IV: The Iron Age I Levels (ed. David Ilan; Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College, Anticipated 2013)



187


red line
2 Sherd 547 9159 B1/C17-

18
Group A Thin black lines

enclosing wide
red band

Fig. 5.12.9

3 Sherd 2093 11713 T/C19 Group A Thin black lines
enclosing wide
red band



4 Sherd 2353 12514 T/E13-14 Group A Thin black lines
enclosing wide
red band



5 Sherd 2504 12924 T/C14 Group B Thin black lines
enclosing wide
red band



6 Jug 2794 19565 T/F20-21 Group B Jug with thin
black lines
enclosing wide
red band

Pl. 5.10.

7 Sherd 2839 19744 T/F19 Group A Thin black circle
enclosing wide
red circle



8 Krater 8226 20869 M/D12 Group A Krater thin black
lines enclosing
wide red band

Fig. 5.10.



5.4.5. Red-Slipped Ware

Despite the variation in forms and thickness of the various Red-Slipped Ware recovered

at Tel Dan, the petrographic analysis of 11 samples shows nearly no variation in origin.

All vessels tested belong to Group A, save one example assigned to Group B. As with the

tested samples of pottery with standard Phoenician bichrome decoration, the RSW can

not be used to discuss market exchanges between Tel Dan and the Coast. Rather, these

vessels demonstrate the local production of a prestigious form commonly associated with

the Phoenician coast. Most of the vessels tested were found in Stratum IVA contexts in

Area T. Several nearly intact RSW bowls were discovered in the installation associated

with the oil press, where a large pithos from the region of Tyre and Sidon was also found.

This evidence, the presence of locally produced standard Phoenician bichrome ware, and



188


Egyptian style statues suggests that individuals with strong ties to Phoenician material

culture and cultic paraphernalia were incorporating these items into the cult at Tel Dan.

Table. 5.5. Petrography of Red-Slipped Ware.

# Object Locus # Basket # Area/
square


Petrography Description Fig.

1 Sherd 169 762 B/G18 Group A RSW Thick
2 Rim 162 773 B/F18-

G18
Group A RSW-Thick

type 2/3


3 Sherd 2080 11668 T/D19 Group A RSW-Thick
4 Rim 2093 11737 T/C19 Group A RSW-Thick

type 2


5 Sherd 2200 11769 T/D19 Group A RSW-Thin
6 Sherd 2241 11894 T/B18 Group A RSW-Thin red

bands
Fig. 5.13.1.

7 Sherd 2386 12636 T/D15 Group A RSW-Thin
8 Rim 2395 12664 T/C15 Group A RSW-Thick

type 2
Fig. 5.13.3.

9 Rim 2395 12664 T/C15 Group A RSW-Thick
type 3



10 Rim 2416 12732 T/D15 Group A RSW-Thick
type 1

Fig. 5.13.2.

11 Rim 2357 12558 T/D13 Group B RSW-Thin


5.5 Summary

The goal of the present analysis was to define and analyze various ceramic forms found

at Tel Dan in Iron I-IIA contexts, with the aim of discerning the nature of exchange

between Tel Dan and the Phoenician coast. Though several types of vessel forms and

decoration commonly found in coastal contexts were examined petrographically, only a

few examples were manufactured on the coast. Thus, there appears to be limited evidence

of market exchanges between Tel Dan and the Phoenician coast in the Iron I-IIA period.

Instead, the ceramic evidence points to cultural exchanges with the Phoenician coast.

Although the production of Phoenician bichrome and Red-Slipped fine ware may be

interpreted as a local imitation of coastal style, the presence of Egyptian-style statues and



189


ashlar masonry in the sacred precinct points to some type of interaction between the cult

activities at Tel Dan and the Phoenician Coast.

This evidence converges generally with narratives found in the books of Kings

which discuss the influential role the Sidonians had on Judahite and Israelite cult. A

detailed discussion of the relationship between the biblical data and archeological data

follows in Chapter 6.






































190


Chapter VI: Hebrew Bible

6.1 Methodology

Most scholars of Phoenician History regard the Hebrew Bible as a valuable source of

information concerning geographical locations and persons in Phoenician territory.

Biblical narratives set in the Iron I-Iron III periods provide a broad range of material to

reconstruct Phoenician history. However, recent challenges to the historicity of the

Hebrew Bible preclude scholars’ citing these narratives without also justifying their use

through critical evaluation. Establishing a sound methodology to assess the biblical

material is increasingly necessary, given recent trends regarding the Hebrew Bible in

historical studies.738

The comparative method is a common methodological approach employed in the

field of biblical studies. This method seeks analogies between the Hebrew text and other

ancient Near Eastern textual material. This approach grew organically out of the

discovery and decipherment of thousands of hieroglyphic and cuneiform texts in the 19th

century, but led to hasty associations between the biblical material and these ancient

sources. For instance, the “parallelomania” phenomenon which inspired unwarranted

analogies due to poorly defined rules governing the early use of the comparative

method.739 Despite the comparative method’s potential weaknesses, William Hallo has


738 The culmination of decades of skepticism regarding the value of the Hebrew Bible for historical
information has resulted in a complete rejection of the Hebrew Bible by some biblicists. Keith W.
Whitelam, The Invention of Ancient Israel: The Silencing of Palestinian history (New York: Routledge, 1996),
231-32.. Cf. Iain W. Provan, V. Philips Long, and Tremper Longman, A Biblical History of Israel
(Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), 3-35.
739 Samuel Sandmel, "Parallelomania," JBL 81 (1962)



191


advanced a more technical approach to this method.740 Hallo’s contextual method

compares and contrasts the biblical text with ancient Near Eastern texts to establish a

context for the biblical material.741 According to Hallo, the context of any given text

encompasses two dimensions. The first dimension is horizontal and includes the

geographical, historical, religious, political, and literary setting in which a text was

created and disseminated. The second dimension is vertical and refers to both the earlier

works which helped inspire the text and later works that reacted to it.742 Thus, Hallo’s

method refines the comparative method by incorporating both diachronic (historical) and

synchronic (literary) aspects of comparison.743

Despite the popularity of the comparative method, it is a method that relies

heavily on texts with little emphasis on archaeological material. As demonstrated in

Chapter 3, only a few primary texts are of value for the history of the Phoenician coast in

the Iron I-IIA period. To expand the discussion of the biblical material, it is necessary to

move beyond the comparative method to an approach that recognizes the relationship

between the biblical text and archaeological material. Recently, William Dever defined a

method for comparing and contrasting text and artifact. Dever’s methodology recognizes

that texts and artifacts are both sets of data to be “read” and are valuable for history

writing. However, these distinct bodies of data preserve different types of information;


740 William W. Hallo, Biblical History in Its Near Eastern Setting: The Contextual Approach (eds. Carl D.
Evans, et al.; vol. 1 of; Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1980), 1-2; William W. Hallo, James C. Moyer, and Leo
G. Perdue, More Essays on the Comparative Method (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983; Jeffrey Tigay, "On
Evaluating Claims of Literary Borrowing," in The Tablet and the Scroll, Near Eastern Studies in Honor of
William Hallo (eds. M.E. Cohen, et al.; Bathesda: CDL Press, 1993), 250-5; Meir Malul, The Comparative
Method in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Legal Studies (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1990)
741 Hallo, “The Contextual Approach,” 3.
742 Hallo, The Context of Scripture, Vol. 1, xxvi
743 Brent A. Strawn, "Comparative Approaches: History, Theory, and the Image of God," in Method
Matters: Essays on the Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Honor of David L. Petersen (eds. Joel M.
LeMon and Kent Harold Richards; Atlanta: The Society of Biblical Literature, 2009), 121



192


they often run parallel to one another but only occasionally intersect. For example,

biblical texts when read in conjunction with other ancient Near Eastern texts provide

information about political history or theology. By contrast, artifacts provide information

about technology, socio-economics, and culture.744 Dever argues there are points at

which both biblical and archeological data converge. It is at these points of convergence

that a given interpretation of the two sets of data becomes “less subjective.”745 In

Dever’s opinion:

“All historians deal with possibilities, at best with probabilities, never with certainties.
The degree of subjectivity can and should be reduced, but it can never be eliminated.”746


Thus, identifying points of convergence between biblical and archeological data does not

provide proof or confirm a certain historical interpretation, but provides a reference point

for making a reasoned interpretation.

Dever’s application of his own methodology has been criticized. Reviewers

criticize Dever for his inflammatory remarks against other scholars, his poor treatment of

the biblical evidence, and his tendancy to overreach the archaeological evidence.747

Though Dever may fail to effectively implement his own methodology, there are those


744William G. Dever, What Did the Biblical Writers Know, and When Did They Know It?: What
Archaeology Can Tell Us About the Reality of Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 2001), 86.
745 Ibid., 84-95.
746 Dever, What Did the Biblical Writers Know, and When Did They Know It,? , 78.
747 J. Maxwell Miller, review of William G. Dever, What Did the Biblical Writers Know, and When Did
They Know It?: What Archaeology Can Tell Us About the Reality of Ancient Israel, BASOR 329 (2003):
84-88; Peter James, review of William G. Dever, What Did the Biblical Writers Know, and When Did They
Know It?: What Archaeology Can Tell Us About the Reality of Ancient Israel, PEQ 134, no. 2 (2002):176-
178; Philip Davies, review of William G. Dever, What Did the Biblical Writers Know, and When Did They
Know It?: What Archaeology Can Tell Us About the Reality of Ancient Israel, Shofar 21, no. 1 (2002): 158-
160; ,



193


who praise the methodology itself.748 Dever’s proposal that one should decrease

subjectivity by limiting historical discussions between the biblical data and the

archeological data to those areas in which the bodies of evidence converge, remains

sound.

6.2 Implementation

In order to synthesize Dever and Hallo’s strategies, I will take the following steps in the

present study. First, I will critically translate all passages mentioning Sidon, Tyre, their

inhabitants, and geographic environs. Second, I will present text critical commentary of

each passage with comments on genre and theories regarding authorship. Third, I will

offer historical commentary on each passage and comment on convergences apparent

between the biblical text and archaeological data from an Iron I-IIA context. Finally, I

will draw conclusions regarding what information the biblical data provides about

Phoenician ethnicity and geopolitics in the Iron I-IIA period.

6.3 Book of Joshua

6.3.1 Joshua 11:1-11 Battle against Jabin

- ְוֶאל 2 ַאְכָׁשף׃ ֶמֶל!- ְוֶאל ִׁשְמרֹון ֶמֶל!-ְוֶאל ָמדֹון ֶמֶל! יֹוָבב-ֶאל ַוִּיְׁשַלח; ָחצֹור- ֶמֶל! ָיִבין ִּכְׁשֹמַע ַוְיִהי 1

ּוִמָּים ִמִּמְזָרח ַהְּכַנֲעִני 3 ִמָּים׃ ּדֹור ּוְבָנפֹות ִּכְנרֹות ּוַבְּׁשֵפָלה ֶנֶגב ּוָבֲעָרָבה ָּבָהר ִמְּצפֹון ֲאֶׁשר ַהְּמָלִכים

ִעָּמם ַמֲחֵניֶהם- ְוָכל ֵהם ַוֵּיְצאּו 4 ַהִּמְצָּפה׃ ְּבֶאֶרץ ֶחְרמֹון ַּתַחת ְוַהִחִּוי ָּבָהר ְוַהְיבּוִסי ְוַהְּפִרִּזי ְוַהִחִּתי ְוָהֱאֹמִרי

ַוַּיֲחנּו ַוָּיבֹאּו ָהֵאֶּלה ַהְּמָלִכים ּכֹל ַוִּיָּוֲעדּו 5 ְמֹאד׃-ַרב ָוֶרֶכב ְוסּוס ָלרֹב ַהָּים-ְׂשַפת- ַעל ֲאֶׁשר ַּכחֹול ָרב-ַעם

ָּכֵעת ָמָחר- ִּכי ִמְּפֵניֶהם ִּתיָרא-ַאל ְיהֹוֻׁשַע -ֶאל ְיהָוה ַוּיֹאֶמר 6 ִיְׂשָרֵאל׃-ִעם ְלִהָּלֵחם ֵמרֹום ֵמי-ֶאל ַיְחָּדו


748 James K. Hoffmeier, review of William G. Dever, What Did the Biblical Writers Know, and When Did
They Know It?: What Archaeology Can Tell Us About the Reality of Ancient Israel, Hebrew Studies 43
(2003): 248; Anson F. Rainey, “Down to Earth Biblical History,” JAOS 122, 3 (2002): 543-44.





194


ָּבֵאׁש׃ ִּתְׂשרֹף ַמְרְּכבֵֹתיֶהם-ְוֶאת ְּתַעֵּקר סּוֵסיֶהם-ֶאת ִיְׂשָרֵאל ִלְפֵני ֲחָלִלים ֻּכָּלם-ֶאת ֹנֵתן ָאֹנִכי ַהּזֹאת

-ְּבַיד ְיהָוה ַוִּיְּתֵנם 8 ֶהם׃ּבָ ַוִּיְּפלּו ֵמרֹום ִּפְתֹאם ֵמי-ַעל ֲעֵליֶהם ִעּמֹו ַהִּמְלָחָמה ַעם-ְוָכל ְיהֹוֻׁשַע ַוָּיבֹא 7

ִּבְלִּתי- ַעד ַוַּיֻּכם ִמְזָרָחה ִמְצֶּפה ִּבְקַעת-ְוַעד ַמִים ִמְׂשְרפֹות ְוַעד ַרָּבה ִצידֹון-ַעד ַוִּיְרְּדפּום ַוַּיּכּום ִיְׂשָרֵאל

ַמְרְּכבֵֹתיֶהם-ְוֶאת ִעֵּקר סּוֵסיֶהם- ֶאת ְיהָוה לֹו-ָאַמר ַּכֲאֶׁשר ְיהֹוֻׁשַע ָלֶהם ַוַּיַעׂש 9 ָׂשִריד׃ ָלֶהם-ִהְׁשִאיר

ְלָפִנים ָחצֹור-ִּכי :ֶבָחֶרב ִהָּכה ַמְלָּכּה-ְוֶאת ָחצֹור-ֶאת ַוִּיְלּכֹד ַהִהיא ָּבֵעת ְיהֹוֻׁשַע ַוָּיָׁשב 10 ָּבֵאׁש׃ ָׂשַרף

ְנָׁשָמה-ָּכל נֹוַתר ַהֲחֵרם לֹא ֶחֶרב-ְלִפי ָּבּה-ֲאֶׁשר ַהֶּנֶפׁש-ָּכל-ֶאת ַוַּיּכּו 11ָהֵאֶּלה׃ ַהַּמְמָלכֹות-ָּכל רֹאׁש ִהיא

ָּבֵאׁש׃ ָׂשַרף ָחצֹור-ְוֶאת





Translation


1) When Jabin king of Hazor heard, he dispatched to Jobab king of Madon,749 to the king

of Shimron,750 and to the king of Akshaph, 2) and to the kings who were from the

northern mountains,751 and the Arabah south of Chinneroth,752 and in the lowlands, and

in Naphoth-Dor to the west,753 3) to the Canaanites from the east and the west,754 the


749 The LXXB and Syriac read marrōn which is to be preferred based on Egyptian and Assyrian sources
(ZDPV 91)
750 Shimron should be read Šimʽôn based on 2 Chronicles 16:9, 34:6, and the Egyptian attestations of this
site. See Anson F. Rainey and R. Steven Notley, The Sacred Bridge: Carta's Atlas of the Biblical World
(Jerusalem: Carta, 2006), 129. Cf. Thutmose III list a,b, and c number 35 in J. Simons, Handbook for the
Study of Egyptian Topographical Lists Relating to Western Asia (Leiden: Brill, 1937), 112.
751 The phrase ”kings of the mountains” likely refers to the western mountains of the Galilee, extending
north to the plain of Tyre. See Rainey and Notley, The Sacred Bridge, 129.
752 The “Arabah” typically refers to the valley/gorge that runs from the southern edge of the Chinnereth to
the Dead Sea. In the context of Joshua 11, some hold that the Arabah refers to the western edge of the
gorge and the important cities of Beth-Shean, and Rehob; see J. Alberto Soggin, Joshua: A Commentary
(eds. G. Ernest Wright, et al.; London: SCM Press, 1972), 135; Aharoni, The Land of the Bible: A
Historical Geography, Map 16. Others maintain that it is the eastern shore with the cities of Pella and
Succoth; see Robert G. Boling, Joshua: A New Translation with Notes and Commentary (eds. William
Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman; New York: Doubleday, 1982), 305.
753 Naphoth Dor includes the coastal zone between the Carmel headland and an unknown region to the
south, possibly Nahal Tanannim. See Rainey and Notley, The Sacred Bridge, 176.
754 Here the term Canaanite is used to define a group of people inhabiting both the coastal region later
associated with the lower areas of Phoenicia, and a more interior region typically associated with Late
Bronze Age Canaanites or later Israelite territory.



195


Amorites,755 the Hittites,756 the Perizzites, the Jebusites in the hill country, and the

Hivites757 below Hermon in the land of Mizpah.758 4) They went out and all of their camp

with them, a great people like the sand of the seashore in number, with very many horses

and chariots. 5) All these kings came and converged and camped together at the waters

of Merom,759 in order to fight with Israel. 6) Yahweh said to Joshua, “do not be afraid of

them, for tomorrow at this time I am going to make them all slain bodies before Israel.

Their horses you shall hamstring and their chariots you shall burn.” 7) So Joshua and the

entire fighting force with him, came against them suddenly at the waters of Merom and

descended upon them. 8) Yahweh gave them into the hand of Israel. They struck them

down and pursued them up to Great Sidon,760 and to Misrephoth-maim,761 and to the east


755 The term “Amorite” is first used in Old Akkadian texts with the meaning “west.” The term is used to
describe a Northwest Semitic people and language in North Syria from the Middle Bronze Age and earlier.
See George E. Mendenhall, "Amorites," The Anchor Bible Dictionary 199-200. By the Late Bronze Age
the term came to be equated with the kingdom of Amurru, located in the upper Orontes Valley. Six
generations of its rulers are known, beginning with Abdu-Ashirta, who was a vassal of Egypt. See EA 60,
62, 63, 65,74, 75. His successor Aziru became a vassal of the Hittites as recorded in a suzerainty treaty. See
Catalogues des Textes Hittites 49. For a translation, see G. Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts (2d ed.;
Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999), 37-41. In the context of Joshua 11:2, the term “Amorites”
may refer to former inhabitants of the Orontes Valley who took up residence in the Galilean hills.
756 The term “Hittite” may refer either to the Late Bronze Age inhabitants of a great kingdom located in
Anatolia, or to an Iron Age inhabitant of one of the Neo-Hittite states that emerged in southern Anatolia
and northern Syria, following the collapse of the Hittite empire.
757 The Perizzites, Jebusites, and Hivites are people groups unattested outside of the biblical tradition.
758 Mizpah is the valley that runs east of the hill country near the base of mount Hermon, leading toward
Sidon. See Simons, Handbook, 43; Boling, Joshua, 306; Rainey and Notley, The Sacred Bridge, 40.
759 The location of the waters of Merom is still a matter of debate. Rainey prefers an elevated location on
the plateau near Marun er-Ras, while Zvi Gal suggests Tel Qarnei Hittin in the coastal plain of the lower
Galilee. See Rainey and Notley, The Sacred Bridge, 129; Zvi Gal, Lower Galilee During the Iron Age (ed.
Baruch Halpern; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 88-89.
760 Great Sidon is a unique term mentioned only in Joshua 11:8 and 19:28. Some take it to mean the greater
territory of Sidon. See Rainey and Notley, The Sacred Bridge, 129. Others consider it a unique designation
for the city of Sidon. See Boling, Joshua: A New Translation with Notes and Commentary, 308; Richard D.
Nelson, Joshua: A Commentary (eds. James L. Mays, et al.; Louisville Westminster John Knox Press,
1997), 153.
761 Misrephoth-maim has been associated with the Bronze Age site Khirbet Musheirefeh, which is south of
Tyre near the modern Israeli-Lebanese border. See Rainey and Notley, The Sacred Bridge, 129; Boling,
Joshua: A New Translation with Notes and Commentary, 308. Others have argued that it is a reference to
the Litani River, Y. Aharoni and M. Avi-Yonah, The Macmillan Bible Atlas (New York; Macmillan
Publishing company), Plate 62.



196


as far as the valley of Mizpah. They struck them down without leaving a survivor. 9)

Joshua did to them just as Yahweh had told him. Their horses he hamstrung and their

chariots he burned. 10) Joshua turned back at that time and captured Hazor, and its king

he struck down with the sword. For Hazor was formerly the head of all those kingdoms.

11) They struck down at the edge of the sword every soul in it, destroying them: nothing

that breathed was left and Hazor he burned.

Text Criticism


Joshua 11:1-11 begins a new section which focuses on Israel’s conflict in the North. The

literary structure of Joshua 11 mirrors chapter 10. Both chapters describe the field of

battle, the victories in battle, and divine intervention. In chapter 11 the phrase ָּבֵעת ַהִהיא is

used repeatedly as a temporal marker to divide the chapter into three sections vv. 1-9, 10-

20, 21-23. While this vague temporal marker provides structure for the narrative, it does

not convey a strict chronological ordering of events. Chapter 11 also contains language

and themes typically associated with Deuteronomistic theology, as evident in verses 3, 8,

9, 11.762 The clear evidence of Dueteronomistic shaping and theological perspectives

found in Joshua 11: 1-11 raise concern regarding the overall historical accuracy of the

passage.

Historical Commentary

Joshua 11:11 claims Hazor was burned by Joshua. The question is, what evidence is there

for the destruction of Hazor around the Iron I period? Based on the archaeological data,

Hazor experienced a site wide destruction which brought an abrupt end to the Late


762 The Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites and Jebusites, are part of a standard list of enemies in the books of
Exodus and Deuteronomy( Ex. 3:8; 23:23; 34:11; Deut. 7:1; 20:17.) YHWH’s role as a warrior, and the
complete destruction of the enemy as an act of obedience are theologically linked to Deut. 2:31-35; 3:1-22.
See, Nelson, Joshua: A Commentary, 151.



197


Bronze Age culture of the site.763 Ben-Ami believes that the site was abandoned

immediately after this destruction, based on the presence of fill layers, the disuse of Late

Bronze Age architecture, and the scanty nature of the Iron I remains.764 The scholastic

focal point of this Late Bronze/Iron I transition revolves around the identity of those

responsible for the destruction and the identity of the later inhabitants. The presence of

pits used as silos and broken pottery used to line ovens suggests the initial occupants of

the site were transitory.765 Despite the theory held by Yadin that this is evidence of

Israelite occupation, current excavators are unable to point to any clear evidence

identifying the ethnicity of these transitory inhabitants.766 For the purpose of the present

study, the real value of the archaeological data lies in the fact that the destruction of

Hazor terminated the cities’ economic and political ties with the coast.

Joshua 11: 1 states that Achshaph was part of the coalition that was defeated by

Joshua’s army. The question is, what evidence is there for geopolitical changes at

Achshaph in the Iron I period? Currently, academic literature identifies two sites as the

possible location of ancient Achshaph: Tell Keisan and Tell Harbaj. However,

petrographic results of the El-Amarna letter 223 confirms Tell Keisan is the location of

ancient Achshaph.767 As discussed in Chapter 4, this site shows strong connections with

Phoenician material culture. Stratum 11 at Tell Keisan, dated to the latter part of the 12th


763 Yigal Yadin, Hazor: The Rediscovery of a Great Citadel of the Bible (Jerusalem Weidenfeld and
Nicolson, 1975), 259-72.
764 Doron Ben-Ami, "The Iron Age I at Tel Hazor in Light of Renewed Excavations," IEJ 51, no. 2 (2001):
168.
765Yadin, Hazor, 252-254
766 Amnon-Ben-Tor and Sharon Zuckerman, "Hazor at The End of the Late Bronze Age: Back to Basics,"
BASOR 350 (2008): 2.
767 The heading of letter 223 states that it was sent from the ruler of Achshaph. See, Yuval Goren, Israel
Finkelstein, and Nadav Naaman, Inscribed in Clay: Provenance Study of the Amarna Tablets and Other
Ancient Near Eastern Texts (Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, 2004), 231-32.



198


century, reveals a short period of rebuilding activity of a quality seen earlier in the Late

Bronze Age. This short period terminates without any clear signs of destruction. The

excavators casually suggest that regional conflicts between the Philistines, Israelites, or

Arameans may have been the reason for the abandonment.768 In other words, any of the

major states in the region could have caused the abandonment of the site. However, the

biblical claim that Achshaph was defeated by Israelites converges with the archeological

evidence that Stratum 11 terminated abruptly at the end of the 12th century. While the

convergence of the biblical data and archeological data does not confirm the identity of

those who destroyed Achshaph, it is clear both from the biblical texts and the

archeological record that Achshaph was not developed as an Israelite city in the Iron I

period..

Although the Israelites may have been responsible for the short disruption at Tell

Keisan, there is no evidence that the site fell under Israelite authority. Rather, the material

evidence following the disruption of Stratum 11 indicates that Achshaph remained

closely connected with coastal culture. Tell Keisan quickly renewed coastal connections,

and reached its zenith in the 11th century, demonstrating a rich material culture parallel to

that of sites along the Phoenician coast. Resumption of Phoenician influence at Achshaph

converges with Joshua 11:8 which describes a retreat of the Canaanite coalition to the

region of Sidon.


768 Jean-Baptiste Humbert, "Tell Keisan," NEAEHL 3:864.



199


6.3.2. Joshua 13:4-6 Territory yet to be taken

- ְוָהָאֶרץ ַהִּגְבִלי ְוָכל 5 ֲאֵפָקה ַעד ְּגבּול ָהֱאֹמִרי׃-ַעד ֶאֶרץ ַהְּכַנֲעִני ּוְמָעָרה ֲאֶׁשר ַלִּצידִֹנים-ִמֵּתיָמן ָּכל 4

-ַהְּלָבנֹון ַעד-יְֹׁשֵבי ָהָהר ִמן-ָּכל 6 ַעד ְלבֹוא ֲחָמת׃ ֶחְרמֹון-ַהְּלָבנֹון ִמְזַרח ַהֶּׁשֶמׁש ִמַּבַעל ָּגד ַּתַחת ַהר

ָאֹנִכי אֹוִריֵׁשם ִמְּפֵני ְּבֵני ִיְׂשָרֵאל ַרק ַהִּפֶלָה ְלִיְׂשָרֵאל ְּבַנֲחָלה ַּכֲאֶׁשר, ִצִּויִתיJ׃ ִצידִֹנים-ִמְׂשְרֹפת ַמִים ָּכל

Translation

4) In the south, all the land of the Canaanites from ‘Ara,769 which belongs to the

Sidonians, to Aphek,770 to the border of the Ammorites;771 5) and the land of the

Gebalites772 and all of the Lebanon eastward from Baal-Gad773 below Mount Hermon to

Lebo-Hamath.774 6) All the inhabitants of the hill country from Lebanon to Misrephoth-

maim,775 I (myself) will dispossess all the Sidonians before the Israelites; only allot it to

Israel as inheritance just as I commanded you.

Text Criticism

Joshua chapters 13-21 describe the allotment of tribal territory. As an introduction to the

allotments, Joshua 13: 1 notes that much of the land had yet to be claimed by Israel.


769 As vocalized in the MS ּוְמָעָרה should be read “cave,” The term appears in LXXmss as Γάξα (Gaza) which
does not make sense in context. One possible solution is that the mem is the prefix min attached to an
unknown toponym Arah.
770 Aphek, most often considered by commentators as Afqa, home to an impressive waterfall which is the
source of the Adonis river. This site located just east of Byblos is home to the ruins of the temple of
Aphrodite. Marvin H. Pope also suggests that Afqa should be associated with the mythical home of El
which is located at the source of two rivers. See Marvin H. Pope, "El in the Ugaritic Texts," VTSupp II
(1955): 61-62. Another possible location for Aphek is Tell Aphek located at the head waters of the Yarkon
in the Sharon Plain.
771 According to BHS .is corrupt and probably should be deleted from its currently position ְוָהָאֶרץ ָהֱאֹמִרי׃
Though the text is corrupt there is reason to suspect that the term ָהֱאֹמִרי was originally in this text but not in
its present location. The term Amorites in the Hebrew Bible typically is used as a general term for the
inhabitants of Canaan, but here refers specifically to the inhabitants of the Late Bronze Age kingdom
Amurru north of Byblos. See Richard Hess, Joshua: An Introduction and Commentary (Leicester: Inter-
Varsity Press, 1996), 231.
772 Gebalites refers to the inhabitants of Byblos whose ancient name was Gubla.
773 Baal Gad was located near the base of mount Hermon, but its exact location has yet to be determined.
Current theories associate Baal-Gad with Hasbeya in Wadi et Teim.
774 Lebo-Hamath is located on the Orontes river in Syria just north of Qatna.
775 The exact location of Misrephoth-maim is uncertain.



200


Verses 13: 2-6 then describe the territories that had yet to be conquered. Verses 2-3

describe clearly the southern coastal region controlled by the Philistines, Geshurites, and

Avvites. Verses 4-6 describe, less clearly, northern regions yet to be conquered. The

geographic summary found in verses 2-6 makes no mention of regions east of the Jordan

and stops short of the Euphrates as a northern boundary marker. Thus, the description

does not conform to the boundaries found in Deut.1: 7; 11: 24; Josh. 1:4.776 Furthermore,

this boundary description expands the region of Canaan as described by New Kingdom

Egyptian texts, which list Gaza as the southernmost city.777 Num. 34: 1-12 and Judges 3:3

include similar, geographic descriptions. The author of Joshua 13:2-6 describes territory

in terms of political power rather than geography. This emphasis on politics has been

attributed by modern scholars to the interests of writers during a period of centralized

rule in Judah or Israel.778

Historical Commentary


The exact boundaries of Sidonian territory as described in Joshua 13: 4 is uncertain. The

Hebrew formula ,ִמן...ַעד used to define the limits of a region in the following verses, has

been corrupted by the Massoretic vocalization ּוְמָעָרה (cave). The proposed reading of the

unknown toponym Arah, does not aid in defining one of the boundaries of Sidonian

territory. Aphek is equally problematic, since it may refer to either a northern limit, Afqa

in Lebanon, or a southern limit, Tel Aphek in the Sharon Plain. Two factors in particular

make Aphek’s location uncertain. First, the location of Arah is completely unknown.


776 Nelson, Joshua: A Commentary, 166.
40 New Kingdom geographic itineraries describing the southern limits of Canaan include those of
Thutmose III, Seti I, and Papyrus Anastasi I. See, Rainey and Notley, The Sacred Bridge, 34-36.
778 Soggin, Joshua: A Commentary, 151.



201


Second, the geographic marker following Aphek, “border of the Amorites” is textually

corrupt. Since the Amorite city state is clearly located north of Byblos it could not have

bordered the territory of Sidon. I propose instead, that the original text defined Sidon’s

geopolitical territory as the region between Arah and Afqa, and the territory of Byblos as

the region between Afqa and the border of the Amorites in the North.

In Joshua 13:5, the description moves eastward and defines the territory of

Lebanon. The southern boundary, Baal-gad, is located near the base of Mount Hermon

and the northern boundary Lebo-Hamath. Joshua 13:6 concludes the description of the

North with the vaguely defined “inhabitants of the hill country” who lived between

Lebanon and the uncertain location of Misrephoth-maim on the Phoenician coast.

The question is, how does Joshua 13:4-6 converge with the archeological and

ancient Near Eastern textual data? Based on the corrupt and uncertain nature of these

verses, I contend that they do not provide a useful body of data for history writing.

6.3.3 Joshua 19:24-31 The Allotment for the Tribe of Asher

ְוַאְכָׁשף׃ ָוֶבֶטן ַוֲחִלי ֶחְלַקת ְּגבּוָלם ַוְיִהי 25 ְלִמְׁשְּפחֹוָתם׃ ָאֵׁשרְבֵני־ ְלַמֵּטה ַהֲחִמיִׁשי ַהּגֹוָרל ַוֵּיֵצא 24

ּוָפַגע ָּדֹגן ֵּבית ַהֶּׁשֶמׁש ִמְזַרח ְוָׁשב 27 ִלְבָנת׃ ּוְבִׁשיחֹור ַהָּיָּמה ְּבַכְרֶמל ּוָפַגע ּוִמְׁשָאל ְוַעְמָעד ְוַאַלֶּמֶל! 26

ַעד ְוָקָנה ְוַחּמֹון ּוְרחֹב ְוֶעְברֹן 28 ִמְּׂשמֹאל׃ ָּכבּולֶאל־ ְוָיָצא ּוְנִעיֵאל ֵּביתָהֵעֶמק ָצפֹוָנה ֵאלִיְפַּתח־ ּוְבֵגי ִּבְזֻבלּון

ַהָּיָּמה ֵמֶחֶבל ֹתְצֹאָתיו ְוָהיּו חָֹסה ַהְּגבּול ְוָׁשב צֹרִמְבַצר־ ִעירַעד־ ָהָרָמהוְ ַהְּגבּול ְוָׁשב 29 ַרָּבה׃ ִצידֹון

ר ָאֵׁש ַמֵּטה ְבֵני־ ַנֲחַלת זֹאת 31 ְוַחְצֵריֶהן׃ ּוְׁשַּתִים ֶעְׂשִריםָעִרים ּוְרֹחב ַוֲאֵפק ְוֻעָמה 30 ַאְכִזיָבה׃

ְוַחְצֵריֶהן׃ ָהֵאֶּלה ֶהָעִרים ְלִמְׁשְּפחָֹתם

Translation



202


24) The fifth lot fell to the tribe of Asher for their clans. 25) Their borders were

Helkath,779 Hali, Beten, Achshaph, 26) Allammelech, Amad, Mishal; it touched Carmel

on the west and Shihor-libnath.780 27) It cut back East to Beth-dagon, and touched

Zebulun and the valley of Iphtah-el on the north. The border went northward781 to Beth-

emek and Neiel and proceeded north to Cabul, 28) Ebron,782 Rehob, Hammon, Kanah783

as far as Great Sidon. 29) The border veered to Ramah as far as the fortified city of

Tyre;784 then the border turned to Hosah, and ended at the sea in the region of Achzib,

30) Ummah, Aphek, and Rehob; twenty two cities and their precincts. 31) This was the

hereditary property for the tribe of Asherites by their clans, these cities and their

precincts.

Text Criticism



Structurally, Joshua 19:24-31 appears to be a border description combined with a city

list.785 The composition date of this geographic list is a matter of debate, with proposed

dates ranging from the time of Solomon to the Persian period.786

Historical Commentary




779 Helkath is associated with Tell Qassis, and is likely the toponym ẖrgt mentioned by Thutmose III.
Boling, Joshua: A New Translation with Notes and Commentary, 453.
780 Shihor-Libnath is associated with Tell Abu-Hawam. See section 4.1.12 for more information about the
site.
781 The LXX preserves kai eiseleusetai horia Saphthai which has been lost in the MS.
782 Most Hebrew manuscripts read Ebron; see Hess, Joshua: An Introduction and Commentary, 273.
783 Modern Qana is located about 10 km south of Tyre Boling, Joshua: A New Translation with Notes and
Commentary, 454.
784 The fortified site of Tyre was known as Uzu in Akkadian documents, or Palaetyrus in classical sources.
This place has been commonly associated with Rachidieh. Alternatively Rachideieh has also been
associated with Hosah. See section 4.1.2 for more information about the site.
785 Rainey and Notley, The Sacred Bridge, 184.
786 Ibid., 18; Zvi Gal, Lower Galilee during the Iron Age (ed. Baruch Halpern; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns,
1992), 98. Edward Lipiński, "The Territory of Tyre and the Tribe of Asher," in Phoenicia and the Bible:
Proceedings of the Conference held at the University of Leuven on the 15th and 16th of March 1990 (ed.
Edward Lipiński; Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta; Leuven: Departement Orientalistiek: Peeters, 1991),
153-66.



203


Joshua 19: 24-31 provides a long list of cities that are allotted to the tribe of Asher. The

question is, can we identify the archaeological sites associated with each of these place

names? Modern archaeological surveys make it is possible to correlate the current

proposed identifications to sites listed in Joshua 19:24-31. Some uncertainty remains

regarding the precise identification of nine cities listed in Joshua 19: 24-31.















Table. 6.3.3. Sites Associated with the Tribe of Asher.
Biblical name Arch. Site Periods Surveyed Source
Helkath T. Qassis787 LB-Persian
Hali Kh. Ras ‘Ali788 LB-Persian
Beten T.- al-Far 789 LB-Persian
Achshaph T. Harbaj790

T. Keisan791
LB-Persian
LB-Persian



Allammelech T. Naḥal792 LB-Persian


787 Gunnar Lehmann, "Das Land Kabul: Archäologische und Historisch-Geographische Erwägungen," in
Israeliten und Phönizier (eds. Markus Witte and Johannes F. Diehl; Fribourg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprect
Göttingen 2008), 8; Rainey and Notley, The Sacred Bridge, 18; Rafael Frankel, "The Territory of the Tribe
of Asher," in From the Ancient Sites of Israel. Essays on Archaeology, History and Theology in Memory of
Aapele Saarisalo (1896-1986) (eds. T Eskola and E Junkkaala; Helsinki: Theological Institute of Finland,
1998), 53-5; Yohanan Aharoni, The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography (trans. Anson F. Rainey; 2d
ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox Press, 1979), 163, 256.
788 Lehmann, "Das Land Kabul," 8; Rainey and Notley, The Sacred Bridge, 18; Frankel, "The Territory of
the Tribe of Asher," 5; Aharoni, The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography, 435.
789 Lehmann, "Das Land Kabul," 8; Rainey and Notley, The Sacred Bridge, 18; Frankel, "The Territory of
the Tribe of Asher," 56
790 Lehmann, "Das Land Kabul," 8; Rainey and Notley, The Sacred Bridge, 18; Frankel, "The Territory of
the Tribe of Asher," 56-5; Aharoni, The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography, 429.
791 Lehmann, "Das Land Kabul," 8; Briend and Humbert, Tell Keisan, ; Goren, Finkelstein, and Naaman,
Inscribed in Clay: Provenance Study of the Amarna Tablets and Other Ancient Near Eastern Texts



204


Amad T. al- ‘Idham793 Iron I-Persian
Mishal T. Keisan794

T Kurdana795
LB-Persian

Shihor-Libnath T. Abu Hawam796 LB-Persian
Beth-Dagon T. Tabun797

Kh. Bussib798
LB-Persian




Iphtah-el Wadi el Malik799 Uncertain
Beth-Emek T. Mimas 800

Kh. Abu Mudawer
Tamra801

LB-Persian

Iron Age



Neiel Kh. Ya‘nin 802
Tamra803

Iron I–Persian
Iron



Cabul Kh. Rosh Zayit804 Iron I-Iron II
Abdon (Ebron) Kh ‘Abdeh 805 Iron I-Persian
Rehob T. Bira806 LB-Persian
Hammon Kh. Umm el ‘Awamid807 Iron IIb-Persian
Kannah Qana808

Sahl al Battuf809
Uncertain
Uncertain




792 Tel Naḥal perhaps should be associated with the 45th toponym found on the Thutmose III geographic
list, r-ti-ma-al-ku. Lehmann, "Das Land Kabul," 8; Rainey and Notley, The Sacred Bridge, 72, 18; Frankel,
"The Territory of the Tribe of Asher," 5; Aharoni, The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography, 435.
793 Lehmann, "Das Land Kabul," 8; Rainey and Notley, The Sacred Bridge, 18; Frankel, "The Territory of
the Tribe of Asher," 58.
794 Lehmann, "Das Land Kabul," 8; Rainey and Notley, The Sacred Bridge, 18; Frankel, "The Territory of
the Tribe of Asher," 58.
795 Lehmann argues for Tel Kurdana on the grounds that it is the only significant Late Bronze Age site
between Akko and Achshaph Lehmann, "Das Land Kabul," 82.
796 Shihor is an Egyptian loan word for river. Rainey and Notley, The Sacred Bridge, 18; Frankel, "The
Territory of the Tribe of Asher," 5; Aharoni, The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography, 435.
797 Lehmann, "Das Land Kabul," 8; Rainey and Notley, The Sacred Bridge, 18; Frankel, "The Territory of
the Tribe of Asher," 54.
798 Lehmann, "Das Land Kabul," 81; Gal, Lower Galilee during the Iron Age, 103.
799 Rainey and Notley, The Sacred Bridge, 183.
800 Lehmann, "Das Land Kabul," 81; Rainey and Notley, The Sacred Bridge, 183; Frankel, "The Territory
of the Tribe of Asher," 60-61.
801 Lehmann, "Das Land Kabul," 8; Gal, Lower Galilee during the Iron Age, 26-27, 104.
802 Rainey and Notley, The Sacred Bridge, 183; Frankel, "The Territory of the Tribe of Asher," 61.
803 Lehmann, "Das Land Kabul," 78,82.
804Lehmann, "Das Land Kabul," 81; Rainey and Notley, The Sacred Bridge, 183; Frankel, "The Territory of
the Tribe of Asher," 59-60 Gal and Alexandre, Horbat Rosh Zayit, 3.
805 Lehmann, "Das Land Kabul," 81; Rainey and Notley, The Sacred Bridge, 183; Frankel, "The Territory
of the Tribe of Asher," 61.
806Lehmann, "Das Land Kabul," 82; Rainey and Notley, The Sacred Bridge, 184; Frankel, "The Territory of
the Tribe of Asher," 441.
807 Lehmann, "Das Land Kabul," 81; Rainey and Notley, The Sacred Bridge, 184; Frankel, "The Territory
of the Tribe of Asher," 61.
808 Lehmann, "Das Land Kabul," 81; Rainey and Notley, The Sacred Bridge, 184; Frankel, "The Territory
of the Tribe of Asher," 61



205


Ramah Ramiya?810
Ramah811

Uncertain
Uncertain



Fortified Tyre Rachidieh?812
Tyre Al Bass813

Iron IIA-Iron III
Iron IIA-?



Hosah Rachidieh814 Iron IIA-Iron III
Mahalab Kh. Al Mahalib?815 Uncertain
Achzib Achzib816 LB-Persian
Acco Acco817 LB-Persian
Aphek T. Kurdana818

T. Kabri819
LB-Persian
LB-Persian




Most of these cities were occupied from the Late Bronze Age to the Persian

period. Lehmann recently examined the settlement patterns of this region.820 His study

demonstrates a clear break between the settlement patterns of the Late Bronze Age and

the Iron I period. In the Late Bronze Age the population was concentrated in the Plain of


809 Lehmann notes that Sahl al Battuf is known in modern times as Kherbit Qana and may be related to
biblical Kannah. Lehmann, "Das Land Kabul," 81.
810 Ramiya is located 17 km west of Rosh ha-Niqra, but Iron Age remains have yet to be found at this site.
Gunnar Lehmann, Bibliographie der achäologischen Fundstellen und Surveys in Syrien und Libanon
(Orient-Abteilung: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut,, 2002), 468.
811 Ramah is a place identified on a map 3 km south of Tyre, but no archeological site has been positively
identified in this region. Lehmann, "Das Land Kabul," 82; Rainey and Notley, The Sacred Bridge, 184;
Frankel, "The Territory of the Tribe of Asher," 62.
812 There has been a lot of confusion and debate regarding Rachidieh and the biblical sites of fortified Tyre
and Hosah. Rainey groups fortified Tyre with Hosah treating it as a description of one geographic unit, and
associates the location with Rachidieh. As mentioned previously, there is no consensus amongst the
archeologists working in Lebanon on the subject. Rainey and Notley, The Sacred Bridge, 18; Claude
Doumet-Serhal, "The Location and Ancient Names of Mainland Tyre and the Role of Rachidieh in the
Context," in Decade: A Decade of Archaeology and History in the Lebanon (ed. Claude Doumet-Serhal;
Beirut: The Lebanese British Friends of the National Museum 2004), 60-69.
813 Recent excavations have found a significant tophet in what used to be the mainland side of Tyre.
Although no architectural features have been found in the area, the quantity and type of material culture
excavated thus far suggest there may be an Iron IIA site closer to the island of Tyre than Rachidieh. Maria
Eugina Aubet, "The Tyre Necropolis," in Decade: A Decade of Archaeology and History in Lebanon (ed.
Claude Doumet-Serhal; Beirut: Lebanese British Friends of the National Museum, 2004; Maria Eugenia
Aubet, "The Phoenician Cemetery of Tyre," NEA 73, no. 2-3 (2010) 144-55.
814 Rainey and Notley, The Sacred Bridge, 18; Frankel, "The Territory of the Tribe of Asher," 62
815 Lehmann, "Das Land Kabul," 8; Rainey and Notley, The Sacred Bridge, 18; Frankel, "The Territory of
the Tribe of Asher," 6; Aharoni, The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography, 235, 430.
816 Lehmann, "Das Land Kabul," 8; Eilat Mazar, "Achzib," The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological
Excavations in the Holy Land
817 Lehmann, "Das Land Kabul," 81; Rainey and Notley, The Sacred Bridge, 184
818 Lehmann, "Das Land Kabul," 81; Albrecht Alt, "Das Institute im Jahre 1927," Palästina Jahrbuch 24
(1928): 59.
819 Lehmann, "Das Land Kabul," 81; Frankel, "The Territory of the Tribe of Asher," 64.
820 Lehmann, "Das Land Kabul," 39-94.



206


Akko around large Cannanite cities. In the Iron I period the large Canaanite cities shrank

in size, while smaller settlements increased in the hills and mountains surrounding the

plain. The increased settlements in the Galilean hills during the Iron I period corresponds

to the territory ascribed to Asher in Joshua 19:24-31. Based on the convergence between

the biblical text and the increased settlement in the Galilean hills, it appears that a

migrant population drastically affected the region in the Iron I period. The question is,

does the primary textual data identify the inhabitants of this territory?

In Egyptian New Kingdom texts, reference is made to a location named ʼA-s-r.

This term has long been held by Gardner and other scholars to be an ancient reference to

the territory of the biblical tribe of Asher.821 However, Görg compiled a complete list of

the various references traditionally associated with the tribe of Asher in Egyptian texts,

proposing that they all refer to Assyria.822 I do not fully agree with Görg’s conclusion:

some of these texts could refer to Asher.

The term ʼA-s-r appears earliest as the fourth entry in a geographic list of Sethos I

at the Rock-Temple of Wadi Abbad, ë#ŠÛô< (ʼA-s-sA-ru).823 The same toponym

appears later in Papyrus Anastasi I 23:6, ë#ŠÛô5<(ʼA-s-sA-ru).824 In Papyrus Anastasi,

the common form of the toponym Megiddo j¥Ùk ë5< (m-ʽ-k-ti) appears in close

connection with the geographic region ʼA-s-sA-ru.825 In the Wadi Abbad inscription, the


821 More recently this reading has been challenged by Görg who argues this term represents a unique
spelling of Ashur
822 M. Görg, "Ascher außerbiblisch? Zum Problem der Nebenüberlieferungen eines israelitischen
Stammesnamens," Biblische Notizen 100 (1999): 11-17.
823 This list is published by J. Simons in his Egyptian Topographic lists number XVII (ETL XVII, 4). See
Simons, Handbook for the Study of Egyptian Topographical Lists Relating to Western Asia, 147.
824 Alan H. Gardiner, Egyptian Hieratic Texts: Part I The Papyrus Anastasi I and the Papyrus Koller
(Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1964), 70.
825 Anastasi I 23,1.



207


toponym immediately following ʼA-s-sA-ru, mÙ´¼< (m-ʽ-k-T) is held by some

scholars to be a corrupt spelling of Meggido.826 Based on the proximity of ʼA-s-sA-ru to

Megiddo in the above citations, the translation (Assyria) does not fit the Levantine

geographic context.827

Additional occurrences of the word ʼA-s-r appear in inscriptions dating to Ramses

II. On a pillar base of the first Pylon at Luxor, 놊ۻ (ʼA-s-sA-ru) follows two legible

toponyms, Hatti (6) and Naharin (7).828 The name immediately preceding ʼ-s-s-rw is

illegible. Given the preceding context, reading ʼA-s-sA-ru as Assyria may seem logical.

However, the toponym immediately following ʼA-s-sA-ru is Gë¾» (mw-ʼ -b), is typically

identified as Moab. Based on the few legible names in the list, it is not possible to

determine with any certainty either the function or geographic context of this list. Thus,

while Asher or Assyria are possible readings for this toponym, neither fits perfectly.829

Another example appears at the Temple of Ramses II at Abydos, ë†Ûô< (ʼA-s-

ru).830 Nine toponyms are listed in this inscription, forming a combination of names

associated with the Nine bows and prominent Late Bronze Age kingdoms. The kingdoms

listed include Naharin(2), Sangara(3), Hatti(4), Keftiu (5), Asiya(6), and A-s-ru. In my

opinion, this list seems to be an Egyptian New Kingdom recast of the traditional enemies


826 The ¼ sign is written defectively in ETL XVII, 5. The reconstruction (T) is based on a spelling found in
the annals of Thutmose III. See Simons, Handbook for the Study of Egyptian Topographical Lists Relating
to Western Asia, 147.
827 See Rainey and Notley, The Sacred Bridge, 110.
828 Hatti refers to the Hittite kingdom and Naharin refers to the Mittani kingdom ETL XXIId, 9.
829 A more recent proposal is that this was a West Semitic toponym “Ashur,” Cf. Peter van der Veen,
"Israel in Canaan (Long) Before Pharaoh Merneptah? A Fresh Look at Berlin Statue Pedestal Relief
21687," Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 2, no. 4 (2010).
830 ETL XV, 8.



208


of Egypt. Given the nature of this list, A-s-ru most likely refers to a great kingdom like

Assyria, rather than a smaller Levantine political entity.

In addition to Görg’s list, Lehmann offers the term wsr, which appears in Papyrus

Anastasi I 21:6, as a possible reference to the territory of Asher. In this text, wsr is the

name of a mountain whose location is listed in the region of Acco somewhere between

Achshaph and Shechem.831 Despite the seeming similarity between Egyptian wsr and

Hebrew ʼšr, these two terms are not linguistically related. Based on Hoch’s study, Semitic

aleph is always transliterated into Egyptian as [i] or [ʼ].832 Also Egyptian [ʼ] or [y] is

sometimes used to translate Semitic words originally beginning with [w], which is

exactly the reverse of Egyptian [w] representing Hebrew [ʼ].833 Therefore, from a

technical linguistic perspective, the evidence does not support the equation of Egyptian

wsr with Hebrew ʼšr.

Based only on the evidence from Papyrus Anastasi I, there is clear evidence that

ʼA-s-sA-ru was a toponym for a geographic location in proximity to Megiddo. The other

Egyptian evidence is less than certain. Furthermore, it is impossible to say conclusively

whether this toponym was derived from an ethnonym or vice versa. However, the

evidence from Papyrus Anastasi I converges with the biblical textual tradition that the

land near Megiddo was associated with a group of people known in Hebrew as the ְבֵני-

(.sons of Asher) ָאֵׁשר


831 Lehmann, "Das Land Kabul," 63.
832 James E. Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period
(Princeton: Princeton University, 1994), 413.
833 Ibid., 421.



209


6.4 Book of Judges

6.4.1 Judges 1:31-32 Asher Fails to Take Inheritance

ר 31 א ָאֵׁש֗ ֹ֤ יֶאת־ הֹוִריׁ֙ש ל יְוֶאת־ ַעּ֔כֹו יְֹׁשֵב֣ יקְוֶאת־ ֶחְלָּבה־ְוֶאת ַאְכִזיב֙ ְוֶאת־ ַאְחָל֤בְוֶאת־ ִצי֑דֹון יֹוְׁשֵב֖ ֲאִפ֖

ב׃ְוֶאת־ ֶׁש֙ב 32 ְרחֹֽ י ַוֵּי֙ ֵׁשִר֔ ֶרב ָהָא֣ י ְּב ֶק֥ ְּכַנֲעִנ֖ י ַהֽ ֶרץ יְֹׁשֵב֣ י ָהָא֑ א ִּכ֖ ֹ֥ הֹוִריֽׁשֹו׃ ל

Translation

31) Asher did not dispossess the inhabitants of Acco, or the inhabitants of Sidon, or

Ahlab834, or Achziv, or Helbah835, or Aphek or Rehov. 32) So the Asherites dwelt among

the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land; for they did not dispossess them.

Text Criticism



The first chapter of Judges bridges the content of the book of Joshua and the book of

Judges. Chapter 1 presents a view of early Israelite history that stands in contrast to the

highly successful campaigns described in Joshua 1-12. Judges 1 depicts various tribal

elements struggling to gain control of regions in Palestine. Although the overall content

of Chapter 1 stands in contrast to the book of Joshua, Judges 1:1-3 is considered by many

scholars to be the editorial work of a Deuteronomist or Deuteronomists responsible for

the overall shape of the book.836 The content of Judges 1:31-32, however, is believed to


834 Though the MS reads ַאְחָלב it is likely the same location ֶבלֵמֶח , which is listed in Joshua 19:29. A

Phoenician city Maḫalliba is mentioned by Sennacherib in the Taylor Cylinder, Col. ii. 1. 38. Based on this
evidence the spelling in Joshua 19:29 and Judges 1:31 should probably be amended to ַמֲחֵלב. Cf.
Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek: Sammlung von Assyrischen und Babylonischen Texten in Umschrift und
Übersetzung, ed. E. Schrader Vol.ii. pg 90; C.F. Burney, The Book of Judges: With Introduction and Notes
on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings (ed. Harry M. Orlinsky; New York: Ktav Publishing House,
1970), 28.
835 This is probably a corrupted duplication of Ahlab and should be deleted.
836 J. Alberto Soggin, Judges: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1981), 25-2; Carolyn
Pressler, Joshua, Judges and Ruth (London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 12; Robert G. Boling,
"Judges, Book of," Anchor Bible Dictionary 1107-17.



210


have come from an earlier account of Israel’s emergence into the promised land and is

not part of the Deuteronomistic framework.837

Historical Commentary

The previous discussion of archeological and Egyptian evidence regarding the tribe of

Asher identified points of convergence between Joshua 19 and other primary sources of

data. Yet, Judges 1:31-32 emphasizes that Asher did not succeed in taking over much of

the northern coastal territory, specifically the large city-states of Acco, Sidon, Mahalab,

Achzib, Aphek, and Rehov. Of these six locations, only Sidon, Achzib, and Acco have

been positively identified. Based on Assyrian textual evidence, Mahalab was situated on

the coast between Sarepta and Sidon.838 The presence of the tribe of Asher this far north

along the Phoenician coast is beyond the northern limits defined in Joshua 19:24-31.839

Rehov has yet to be positively identified, but is often associated with Tel Bira just south

of Acco.840 Aphek, as discussed above in Section 6.3.2., may refer to Afqa in Lebanon or

Aphek in the Sharon plain.

Based on the current state of research, the archaeology of Sidon, Acco, and

Achzib converge well with the description in Judges 1:31-32. Despite the changes in

settlement pattern that occurred in the Iron I period, these three sites were of significant

size and maintained strong ties with coastal material culture throughout the Iron I


837 Burney, The Book of Judges: With Introduction and Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings, 1;
Pressler, Joshua, Judges and Ruth, 128; Robert G. Boling, Judges (Garden City: Doubleday, 1975), 63.
838 Burney, The Book of Judges: With Introduction and Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings, 28.
839 The term “Greater Sidon” in Joshua 19:28 may refer to the northern most extent of Sidon’s geopolitical
control which could include Mahalab.
840 William Foxwell Albright, "Some Sites and Names in Western Galilee," AASOR 2-3 (1923): 26-29;
Max W. Prausnitz, "The Planning of the Middle Bronze Age Town at Achzib and its Defense," IEJ 25, no.
4 (1975): 202.



211


period.841 At Tel Bira, there is preliminary evidence of Phoenician cremation burials in

the Iron IIA period. This daughter site to Acco may have also enjoyed strong ties with the

Phoenician coast in the Iron I period.842 The convergence of the biblical and

archeological evidence indicates that during the Iron I period several large cities in the

northern coastal plain remained under Canaanite influence, a cultural continuity that

occurred in spite of the settlement changes in the more remote areas of the Galillee.

6.4.2. Judges 3:3 Enemies left to test Israel

׃ֵמַהר ַּבַעל ֶחְרמֹון ַעד ְלבֹוא ֲחָמת--יֵֹׁשב ַהר ַהְּלָבנֹון ַהְּכַנֲעִני ְוַהִּצידִֹני ְוַהִחִּוי-ֲחֵמֶׁשת ַסְרֵני ְפִלְׁשִּתים ְוָכל 3

Translation



3) Five rulers of the Philistines, and all the Cannanites, and Sidonians, and Hivites843 who

dwell in the hill country of Lebanon, from Mount Baal Hermon as far as Lebo-hamath.





Text Criticism



Judges 3:1-6 presents a short summary of the enemies that remained in conflict with

Israel and the reasons for their continued presence in the promise land. Verses 1-3

explain the situation pragmatically, as an opportunity for educating new Israelite

generations in the art of war. The enemies enumerated in verse 3 are specific and

historically identifiable. By contrast, the content of verses 4-6 has a Deuteronomistic

focus, and presents a covenantal justification for the conflicts. Verse 5 gives a more


841 See section 4.1.3 and 4.1.11.
842 Yardenna Alexandre and Edna J. Stern, "Phoenician Cremation Burials at Tel Bira," `Atiqot 42 (2001):
191-93.
843 On the basis of Joshua 11:3 it has been suggested that Hivite be read Hittite. Furthermore, part of the
geographic region described used to be Hittite territory and may have remained under localized Neo-Hittite
rule. Cf. Burney, The Book of Judges: With Introduction and Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of
Kings, 62.



212


traditional list of Israelite enemies, common to Israel’s exodus tradition.844 The content of

verses 1-3 appears more etiological and humanistic than verses 4-6. It has been suggested

that verses 1-3 may belong to an early text written during a period of Israelite

monarchy.845

Historical Commentary

As mentioned above in the discussion of Joshua 13:4-6, Judges 3:3 provides a description

of Levantine political powers and geographic boundaries similar to those found in

Egyptian texts from the end of the Bronze Age. Unlike Joshua 13:4-6, the text of Judges

3:3 is not corrupt and provides useful biblical data to compare with the geopolitical

descriptions found in Egyptian New Kingdom texts. Based on the convergence points

between both sets of data, it is clear that Philistines, Canaanites, Hittites and Sidonians

remained important geopolitical forces in Palestine during the Iron I-IIA period.

Unfortunately, there is no material evidence to converge with the biblical claim that Israel

engaged in armed conflict with Sidon in the Early Iron Age.

6.4.3. Judges 10: 6-7 Israel serves foreign gods

ֱאZֵהי ֲאָרם -ָהַעְׁשָּתרֹות ְוֶאת-ַהְּבָעִלים ְוֶאת-ַוּיִֹסיפּו ְּבֵני ִיְׂשָרֵאל ַלֲעׂשֹות ָהַרע ְּבֵעיֵני ְיהָוה ַוַּיַעְבדּו ֶאת 6

ְיהָוה ְולֹא -ַעּמֹון ְוֵאת ֱאZֵהי ְפִלְׁשִּתים ַוַּיַעְזבּו ֶאת- ֵניֱאZֵהי ִצידֹון ְוֵאת ֱאZֵהי מֹוָאב ְוֵאת ֱאZֵהי בְ -ְוֶאת

ְּפִלְׁשִּתים ּוְבַיד ְּבֵני ַעּמֹון׃-ַאף ְיהָוה ְּבִיְׂשָרֵאל ַוִּיְמְּכֵרם ְּבַיד-ַוִּיַחר 7 ֲעָבדּוהּו׃

Translation




844 Gen 15:20; Ex. 3:8-17; Deut. 20:17; 9:1
845 Susan Niditch, Judges (London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008), 55-5; Victor H. Matthews,
Judges and Ruth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 52.



213


6) The Israelites again did what is evil in the eyes of Yahweh. They worshipped the

Baalim and Ashtaroth, and the gods of Aram, the gods of Sidon, the gods of Moab, the

gods of the Ammonites, and the gods of the Philistines; they forsook Yahweh and did not

worship him. 7) Yahweh’s anger burned against Israel, and he sold them into the hands of

the Philistines and into the hands of the Ammonites.

Text Criticism

In the book of Judges, the stories follow a repeating pattern that reflects a

Deuteronomistic view of history. These Judge cycles associate Israel’s faithlessness to

YHWH with foreign oppression.846 The general format for the Judges cycle follows a five

step process.

Table. 6.4.3. The Judges Cycle.

The Five Steps of the Judges Cycle
847



Step 1 The people disobey.
Step 2 Oppression from a foreign nation.
Step 3 The people cry out to YHWH
Step 4 God raises a judge.
Step 5 The judge ends the oppression.



Throughout the book of Judges this cycle repeats in a pattern of diminishing returns: later

Judges experience a complete lack of success. Judges 10:6-7 describes the first step of

the Jepthah cycle,848 Israel’s apostasy to the foreign Baalim and Ashtoroth.

Historical Commentary

The indictment, “They worshipped the Baalim and Ashtoroth,” appears earlier in Judges

2:13 and later in I Samuel 7:4; 12:10. The biblical usage of the terms, Baalim and


846 Pressler, Joshua, Judges and Ruth, 137-3; Soggin, Judges: A Commentary, 43-4; Matthews, Judges and
Ruth, 49-5; Boling, Judges, 75-76.
847 Matthews, Judges and Ruth, 8.
848 Judges 10:6-12:7



214


Ashtoroth, suggests they function as general terms for Levantine gods and goddesses.

This type of construction is similar to the Assyrian phrase ilâni u ištarat, a general phrase

for gods and goddesses in Akkadian.849 Mark Smith argues that the generic use of Baalim

and Ashtoroth in Hebrew occurred during the period of the late monarchy,850 perhaps as a

result of Assyrian influence.

Although the use of Baalim in the present context is generic, Baal as a proper

name refers to an important Phoenician deity. The prominence of Baal worship among

the maritime Phoenicians can be traced back to the Ugaritic myths describing his lordship

over the sea.851 It is clear from the Eshmunazor inscription (KAI 14:18) that Baal was the

chief male diety at Sidon in the Persian period. Earlier evidence for the worship of Baal

at Sidon comes from an Assyrian inscription which mentions the payment of tribute to

Shalmaneser III by Baal-Eser King of Sidon.852 Baal-Eser II was the successor of the

biblical Ethbaal King of the Sidonians.853 Even the Baalistic names Ethbaal and Baal-

Eser support the view that Baal worship was practiced at Sidon during the 9th and 8th

centuries B.C.E. In the neighboring port of Byblos during the 10th century, Baal-Shamem

was the primary deity invoked by King Yehimilik.854 Furthermore, an 11th century king of

Byblos possessed the Baalistic name, Zakarbaal.855 Biblically, the association between

Baal worship and the Sidonians is most evident in the narratives related to Jezebel and


849 HALOT, 899; CAD I , 27; BDB, 800.
850 Mark S. Smith, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002), 77-78.
851 KTU 1.3-1.4
852 Fuad Safar, "A Further Text of Shalmaneser III from Assur," Sumer 7 (1951).
853 Cont. Ap 1.18, I Ki. 16:31.
854 KAI 4.3.
855 See earlier discussion in 3.3.4



215


her establishment of the Baal cult in Israel.856 While Judges 10:6-7 does not provide any

specific association between Baal worship and the Phoenicians, it is clear from the

ancient textual data and other biblical texts that Baal was worshipped by the Sidonians.

Since worship of the goddess Ashtoreth by Sidonians is explicitly stated in I

Kings 11:5, a detailed discussion of that subject will be presented below in the historical

commentary for Section 6.6.4.

6.4.4. Judges 18:7; 27-29 Dan Takes Laish

ֶׁשת ַוֵּיְלכּו֙ 7 ים ֲחֵמ֣ אּו ָהֲאָנִׁש֔ ְיָׁשה ַוָּיבֹ֖ םֶאת־ ַוִּיְר֣אּו ָל֑ ּהֲאֶׁשר־ ָהָע֣ ֶבת־ ְּבִקְרָּב֣ ֶבַטחיֹוֶׁשֽ ט ָל֠ ים ְּכִמְׁשַּפ֨ ט׀ ִצדִֹנ֜ ׁשֵֹק֣

ַח יםְוֵאין־ ּובֵֹט֗ ר ַמְכִל֨ ֶרץ֙ ָּדָב֤ ׁש ָּבָא֙ ֶצרּו יֹוֵר֣ ים ֶע֔ ָּמ֙ה ְרחִֹק֥ ים ֵה֙ דִֹנ֔ ר ִמִּצ֣ םֵאין־ ְוָדָב֥ ם׃ִעם־ ָלֶה֖ ָאָדֽ

ָּמה 27 ת ָלְק֜חּו ְוֵה֨ הֲאֶׁשר־ ֵא֧ ה ָעָׂש֣ ֶאת־ ִמיָכ֗ ר ַהּכֵֹהן֘ ְוֽ אּו לֹו֒ ָהָיה־ ֲאֶׁש֣ ִיׁשַעל־ ַוָּיבֹ֣ ט ַע֙ם ַעל־ ַל֗ ַח ׁשֵֹק֣ ַוַּיּ֥כּו ּובֵֹט֔

ם ֶרבְלִפי־ אֹוָת֖ ירְוֶאת־ ָח֑ ׁש׃ ָׂשְר֥פּו ָהִע֖ ין 28 ָבֵאֽ יל ְוֵא֨ י ַמִּצ֜ חֹוָקה־ ִּכ֧ יאְרֽ ר ִמִּצי֗דֹון ִה֣ םִעם־ ָלֶה֙ם ֵאין־ ְוָדָב֤ ְוִה֕ ָאָד֔

ֶמק ר יאָּבֵע֖ ירֶאת־ ַוִּיְב֥נּו ְר֑חֹובְלֵבית־ ֲאֶׁש֣ ּה׃ ַוֵּיְׁ֥שבּו ָהִע֖ ן ָהִעיר֙ ֵׁשם־ ַוִּיְקְר֤אּו 29 ָבֽ ן ְּבֵׁש֙ם ָּד֔ ם ָּד֣ ר ֲאִביֶה֔ ֲאֶׁש֥

ד ל יּוַּל֖ ם ְלִיְׂשָרֵא֑ ִיׁש ְואּוָל֛ ירֵׁשם־ ַל֥ ה׃ ָהִע֖ ָלִראׁשָֹנֽ

Translation


7) Then the five men went on and came to Laish and saw the people who were in it

dwelling securely after the manner of the Sidonians, tranquil and unsuspecting; and there

was nothing in the land to humiliate them,857 no ruler,858 and they were far from the

Sidonians and had no dealings with anybody859




856 See I Kings 16:31-32; 18:13-40 and section 6.6.5.
857 A literal reading of the Hebrew, (humiliating matter).
858 The meaning of ֶעֶצר יֹוֵרׁש is often translated as “ruler.” The LXX and Vulgate translate this word as
wealth. Alternatively, Burney argues that the phrase ֶעֶצר יֹוֵרׁש is a gloss explaining the difficult phrase
.ָּדָבר ַמְכִלים
859 Based on LXXA and the Syriac “Adam” is probably a corruption of the term “Aram.”



216


27) Taking what Micah had made and the priest that was his, they proceeded to Laish, to

a people quiet and trusting, and they attacked them with the sword; and they burned the

city with fire. 28) There was no one to rescue (them), because it was far from Sidon and

they had no dealings with anyone;860 it was in the valley of Beth-Rehov. They rebuilt the

city and dwelt in it. 29) They named the city Dan, after their forefather Dan who was

born to Israel; but Laish was the original name of the city.

Text Criticism



Judges 18:7 is part of the traditional narrative regarding the migration of the Danites. The

presence of two difficult phrases and one possible misspelling suggests that the original

text may now be corrupt. Judges 18:27-29 introduces the conquest of Laish by the

Danites. There is no language within these verses that explicitly points to the editorial

work of the Deuteronomist. However, in Judges 18:30 a Levite mentioned earlier in the

narrative is described as a descendent from Moses.861 Due to its late appearance in the

narrative, some commentators suggest that this genealogical information is a

Deuteronomistic addition.862

Historical Commentary

Although Judges 18:7 contains some obscure phrases, a general understanding of the

passage is possible when read in the context of Judges 18:27-29. The ancient city of

Laish was secure and peaceful like Sidon, but lacked any dealings with Sidon, or Aram.


860 See note on verse 18:7 for the possibility that “Adam” should be read as “Aram.”
861 The MT preserves the reading ְמַנֶּׁשה-ֵּגְרֹׁשם ֶּבן- ִויהֹוָנָתן ֶּבן “Jonathan son of Gershom, son of Manasseh”
However, the use of nun teluya in the name ְמַנֶּׁשה appears to be a massoretic device used to protect the
reputation of Moses from association with the idolatry of the Danites. The reading “Moses” instead of
“Mannaseh” is an early interpretive tradition going back to Rashi, and is still broadly accepted by modern
scholars. Cf. Burney, The Book of Judges: With Introduction and Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of
Kings, 434-35 Soggin, Judges: A Commentary, 26; Boling, Judges, 26; Matthews, Judges and Ruth, 178.
862 Soggin, Judges: A Commentary, 276.



217


The question raised by this text is, what was the geopolitical climate in the region of

Sidon during the Iron I period? Based on the discussion of the archeological finds at

Tyre, Sidon, and Sarepta in Chapter 4, there is no evidence which indicates that these

sites were afflicted by the conflicts commonly witnessed at other sites during the Late

Bronze/Iron I transition. Furthermore, the Egyptian Wenamun text and Assyrian annals

of Tiglathpileser I describe the maritime prominence of Sidon and its ability to avoid

conflict with the Assyrians.863 Thus, the biblical allusion to Sidon as a model of security

during this turbulent period converges well with the current archeological data and

ancient textual sources.

Another question raised by Judges 18:7; 27-29 is, what was the geopolitical

climate of Laish during the Late Bronze/Iron I transition? Unfortunately, little is known

about Late Bronze Age Tel Dan. Iron Age pits, terracing, and architectural activities

greatly disturbed the Late Bronze Age remains in most excavated areas.864 Despite this

unfortunate situation, some discoveries in the Late Bronze Age strata may be useful to

the present study. Finds dated to the 14th century (Stratum VIIB) include an extravagant

tomb (387) and remains of a pebble pavement connecting a gate to the corner of a public

building. Based on the quality of these remains, it is believed that Tel Dan was a wealthy

city in the 14th century. Stratum VIIB was brought to an end by some type of calamity as

evidenced by mudbrick collapse overlying the pebble pavement. The 13th century

Stratum VIIA2 is defined by poor walls built over the mudbrick collapse and Tomb 387.

Ceramics include Red-Slipped vessels which were either from the Lebanese coast, or


863 See earlier discussion in Chapter 3.3.5; 3.6.2.
864 Rachel Ben-Dov, Dan III: Avraham Biran Excavations 1966-1999, the Late Bronze Age (Jerusalem:
Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology, Hebrew Union College- Jewish Institute of Religion,
2011), 12.



218


were Mycenaean imports. Stratum VIIA1, dated to the 12th century, is defined primarily

by ceramic forms; there is no real architecture associated with this level due to a high

degree of disturbance from later building activities. However, clear evidence of heavy

destruction material overlies the Stratum VIIA1 floors.865

Due to the current lack of archaeological data, the status of Laish in the latter half

of the 13th century and early part of the 12th century is unknown. Until clearer Late

Bronze Age levels are uncovered, it is impossible to know whether Laish experienced a

decline in coastal based trade similar to that seen at Tell Kazel, Tell Keisan and Abu

Hawam.866 Based on the current evidence it is clear that Laish, unlike Sidon, succumbed

to a serious calamity in the Iron I period. The Iron I pits found at Tel Dan are very similar

to the Iron I remains found at Hazor. But are these pits evidence of early Israelite

presence at the site? A detailed analysis of the material culture found in the Iron I period

at Dan shows a complex combination of Syrian, Northern-Coastal, Philistine, and semi-

nomadic characteristics.867 Yet, there are uncertainties and reservations regarding the

culture of the Iron I inhabitants at Tel Dan.868 Some have suggested that the lack of pig

bones at Tel Dan and other Highland sites is indicative of early Israelite dietary

restriction. While associating Israel with a lack of pig bones is still a matter of debate, the

evidence from Tel Dan in the Iron I period does comprise part of this Highland

phenomenon.869 Preliminarily, it may be said that the site’s coastal affiliations in the Late


865 Ibid. 376-377.
866 See section 4.1.7., 4.1.8., 4.1.12
867 David Ilan, "Northeastern Israel in the Iron Age I: Cultural, Socioeconomic and Political Perspectives"
(Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Tel Aviv, 1999), 29-30.
868 Ibid., 128-29.
869 William G. Dever, What Did the Biblical Writers Know, and When Did They Know It?, 113; B. Hesse
and P. Wapnish, "Can Pig Bone s Be Used for Ethnic Diagnosis in the Ancient Near East," in The




219


Bronze Age changed during the Iron I period, resulting in the settlement of transitional

people groups similar to those found in the Highlands. Thus, the biblical data and the

archaeological data converge on the destruction of Laish in the late Bronze/ Iron I period.

However, the diversity of material culture that follows provides no clear indication

regarding the political or ethnic affiliation of those who controlled the site in the Iron I

period.870

6.5. Book of 2 Samuel

6.5.1. 2 Sam 5:11

ֶל!־צֹר ַמְלָאִכים 11 ָרֵׁשי ֶאֶבן ִקיר ַוִּיְבנּו־ַבִית ְלָדִוד׃ ַוִּיְׁשַלח ִחיָרם ֶמֽ י ֲאָרִזים ְוָחָרֵׁשי ֵעץ ְוָחֽ ֶאל־ָּדִוד ַוֲעֵצ֣

TranslationTranslationTranslationTranslation

11 Then Hiram, king of Tyre, sent messengers to David with cedar logs, and wood

workers, and stone masons; and they built a palace for David.



Textual Commentary

The author of II Samuel gives a brief account of David’s enthronement over Israel (II

Samuel 5:1-5), then proceeds to describe his great accomplishments as monarch. David’s

accomplishments include the capture of Jerusalem (II Sam. 5:6-10), the treaty between

David and Hiram (II Sam. 5:11-12), the marriages and birth of David’s heirs (II Sam.

5:13-16), and the Ark’s ascent to Jerusalem (II Sam. 6 1-23). These narratives about King

David do not include any chronological data which could be used to establish a timeline


Archaeology of the Past:Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present (eds. N.A. Silberman and D.
Small; Sheffield: Shefield Academic Press, 1997), 238-70
870 New perspectives on the political and ethnic affiliations of the inhabitants at Tel Dan in the Iron I period
will be presented by David Ilan in the forthcoming Dan IV volume.



220


of events. The literary context of verse 11 suggests the author cited the treaty with Hiram

as a parenthetic expansion of verse 9, which mentions the construction of David’s

residence in Jerusalem.871

Historical Commentary

There is no primary archaeological information regarding the characters of Hiram or

David.872 However, the construction of David’s palace in Jerusalem may provide a point

of convergence with currently available archaeological data.873 The question is, what

evidence is there for Phoenician participation in the construction of a monumental

building in Jerusalem during the late 10th and early 9th centuries?

Eilat Mazar recently excavated a monumental building in the city of David,

which she believes is King David’s palace. She argues that 10-9th century Phoenician

materials found in one of the rooms point to its construction by Phoenicians.874 The

goods recovered from the building include a Black-on-Red juglet and an ivory knife


871 P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., II Samuel: A New Translation with Notes, Introduction, and Commentary
(Garden City: Doubleday, 1984), 228. Cf. Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg, I & II Samuel: A Commentary
(Westminster Press: Philadelphia, 1964), 270-71.
872 This is not a challenge to the historicity of these two monarchs, but rather a statement of fact: we
currently have no primary evidence related to the rule of these two individuals. In the case of David, we do
know that the kings of Judah were referred to by the dynastic title bytdwd. See Avraham Biran and Joseph
Naveh, "The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment," IEJ 45 (1995): 1-18. Byblian inscriptions dated to the
10th-9th centuries provide some insight into the rulers of Byblos, but do not shed any light on Tyre or its
rulers. See KAI. 1-5. Historians of early Phoenician history have traditionally relied on the later witness of
Josephus (Con. Ap. I, 122-125), who wrote nearly a millennium after the events. See Katzenstein, The
History of Tyre, 77-128. Several recent studies have combined data from Assyrian and Greek sources to
develop a chronology of the Tyrian rulers, beginning with Hiram I in 980 B.C.E. Based on this chronology,
it is plausible that Hiram and David were contemporaries. See further William H. Barnes, Studies in the
Chronology of the Divided Monarchy of Israel (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 31. Frank Moore Cross,
"An Interpretation of the Nora Stone," BASOR 208 (1972): 17. Edwin R. Theile, The Mysterious Numbers
of the Hebrew Kings (3rd ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan/Kregel, 1983), 1; Gershon Galil, The Chronology
of the Kings of Israel and Judah (Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 1996), 12-32.
873 Eilat Mazar, The Palace of King David: Excavations at the Summit of the City of David, Preliminary
Report of Seasons 2005-2007 (Jerusalem and New York: Shoham Academic Research and Publication,
2009)
874 Ibid., 52-53.



221


handle similar to one found at Phoenician Achzib.875 Several well-known archaeologists

challenged Mazar’s interpretation in a report published in Tel Aviv.876 These scholars

argue that Mazar’s “Large Stone structure” was not built by Phoenicians; rather, the

building is a combination of architectural elements from multiple periods, among them

the Hasmonean and Byzantine.877 Furthermore, the report quotes Mazar herself

expressing doubts that the Phoenician goods were found in situ.878 Needless to say, a final

report is needed to weigh Mazar’s claims over those of her challengers.



6.5.2. 2 Sam 24:6-7


ָעֵריְוָכל־ צֹרִמְבַצר־ ַוָּיבֹאּו 7 ִצידֹון׃ֶאל־ ְוָסִביב ַּיַען ָּדָנה ַוָּיבֹאּו ָחְדִׁשי ַּתְחִּתים ֶאֶרץְוֶאל־ ַהִּגְלָעָדה ַוָּיבֹאּו 6

ָׁשַבע׃ ְּבֵאר ְיהּוָדה ֶנֶגבֶאל־ ַוֵּיְצאּו ְוַהְּכַנֲעִני ַהִחִּוי

Translation

6) Then they proceeded to Gilead and to the region of Tahatim Hodshi,879 and they came

to Dan-jaan880 and around to Sidon. 7) Then they came to the fortress of Tyre and all the

cities of the Hivites and Canaanites, then they concluded in the south of Judah at Beer-

sheba.



Textual Commentary


875 Eilat Mazar, "Did I Find King David's Palace?," BAR 32, no. 1 (2006): 14. See section 4.1.11 regarding
the archaeological data related to Achzib.
876 Israel Finkelstein et al., "Has King David's Palace in Jerusalem Been Found?," Tel Aviv 34 (2007): 142-
64.
877 Ibid., 149-150.
878 Ibid., 149.
879 This location is unintelligible and has been reconstructed as ָקֵדׁשַהִחִּתִים (Kadesh of the Hittites) on the
basis of LXXl. Another proposal is Ṭubâṣ located northeast of Shechem based on LXXb. Finally, it has been
argued from the parallel lists in Deut. 3:8; 4:48; Josh. 11:3,17; and 13:5 that ַּתַחת ֶחרמֹון was originally
intended. Cf. McCarter, II Samuel: A New Translation with Notes, Introduction, and Commentary, 504-05.
880 Probably a metathesis of ִעֹּין. See Rainey and Notley, The Sacred Bridge, 163.



222


II Samuel chapter 24 narrates the events surrounding a census conducted by King David.

The seemingly odd appearance of this narrative at the end of the book of II Samuel is

considered by some to be its original placement,881 while others argue that its placement

is due to a late reorganization of the text.882 Whichever theory one prefers, in its current

position chapter 24 sets the stage for Solomon’s construction of the temple. Verses 2-9

are often attributed to an old source text which formed the foundation for the later and

more complex narrative fashioned by a Deuteronomistic author/redactor.883

Historical Commentary

The inclusion of Tyre and Sidon in a census immediately raises a question: why would

Tyre and Sidon agree to have its citizens numbered by a king of Israel? David’s motive

for taking the census is typically interpreted as an enumeration of the men he had at his

disposal for warfare. However, the text does not explicitly state David’s reason for

counting the people ( ָהָעם ). Rather, it is inferred; the terms ַׂשר־ַהַחִיל (2 Sam. 24:2), ִאׁש־

ֵלף ֶחֶרבׁשֹ and ,(Sam. 24:9 2) חִיל (2 Sam. 24:9) support the warfare interpretation.884 Kyle

Greenwood has pointed out that elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible censuses were used to

number people for cultic service or for corvée labor.885 Greenwood argues that David’s

motive for numbering the people was to determine the size of the available workforce in

preparation for the construction of the temple. In addition to Greenwood’s textual


881 Bill T. Arnold, 1 & 2 Samuel: The NIV Application Commentary (ed. Terry Muck; Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2003), 64; Hertzberg, I & II Samuel: A Commentary, 415-16.
882 McCarter, II Samuel: A New Translation with Notes, Introduction, and Commentary, 516-17.
883 McCarter, II Samuel: A New Translation with Notes, Introduction, and Commentary, 51; W. Fuss, "II
Samuel 24," ZAW 74 (1962): 16; H. Schmid, Der Tempelbau Salomos in religionsgeschtlichter sicht (eds.
A. Kuschke and E. Kutsche; Tübingen: Mohr, 1970), 245-50.
884 Kyle Greenwood, "Labor Pains: The Relationship Between David's Census and Corvée Labor," BBR
20.4 (2010): 474.
885 Ibid., 472-74.



223


arguments, there are geopolitical factors to support his interpretation. Within the Hebrew

Bible, there is no indication that Israel and Tyre had a military relationship. Rather, the

cooperation between Israel and Tyre in amassing a large workforce for building activities

is the focal point of Tyrian and Israelite relations. Outside the Hebrew Bible, the only

evidence of a military connection between the Phoenician coast and Israel appears in an

inscription from Shalmaneser III.886 In this inscription Ahab king of Israel, the king of

Byblos, and the king of Arwad are listed as members of a coalition that fought against

Assyria. For some unknown reason Tyre and Sidon are not listed as participants.887 Thus,

there is no textual support for a proposed military relationship between Israel, Tyre, and

Sidon.

However, there is no direct evidence that David ordered a census of the Tyrian

and Israelite workforce. But this text does raise a more fruitful question: What evidence

is there of cooperation between Israel and Phoenicia in large-scale building projects in

the 10th century B.C.E.? Because this question is also relevant to I Kings 5:31-32, which

claims that the Phoenicians participated in large-scale building activities in Israel during

Solomon’s rule, the data regarding Phoenician and Israelite building activities during the

10th century will be treated below in section 6.6.1.

6.6. Books of 1 Kings and 2 Kings

6.6.1. 1 Kings 5:15 -32

ִּיְׁשַלח 15 ם ַו֠ ֶל!־ ִחיָר֨ הֶאל־ ֲעָבָדיו֙ ֶאת־ ֤צֹורֶמֽ י ְׁשZֹמ֔ ע ִּכ֣ י ָׁשַמ֔ ֶל! ָמְׁש֥חּו ֹא֛תֹו ִּכ֥ ַחת ְלֶמ֖ יהּו ַּת֣ י ָאִב֑ ב ִּכ֣ ָהָי֥ה ֹאֵה֗

ם ד ִחיָר֛ ים׃ָּכל־ ְלָדִו֖ ה ַוִּיְׁשַל֣ח 16 ַהָּיִמֽ םֶאל־ ְׁשZֹמ֔ ר׃ ִחיָר֖ ה 17 ֵלאֹמֽ ְעָּת ַאָּת֨ דֶאת־ ָיַד֜ י ָּדִו֣ י ָאִב֗ א ִּכ֣ ֹ֤ ָיכֹל֙ ל


886 RIMA 3, A.0.102.2, ii. 90b-95a.
887 Ibid.



224


ִית ִלְב֣נֹות יו ְיהָו֣ה ְלֵׁש֙ם ַּב֗ ה ִמְּפֵנ֥י ֱאZָה֔ ר ַהִּמְלָחָמ֖ הּו ֲאֶׁש֣ ד ְסָבֻב֑ ם ְיהָו֙ה ֵּתת־ ַע֤ ַחת ֹאָת֔ י׃ ַּכּ֥פֹות ַּת֖ ַרְגָלֽ

ה 18 יַח ְוַעָּת֕ י ְיהָו֧ה ֵהִנ֨ י ֱאZַה֛ יב ִל֖ ין ִמָּסִב֑ ן ֵא֣ ין ָׂשָט֔ ַגע ְוֵא֖ ע׃ ֶּפ֥ ר ְוִהְנִנ֣י 19 ָרֽ ִית ִלְב֣נֹות ֹאֵמ֔ ם ַּב֔ י ְיהָו֣ה ְלֵׁש֖ ֱאZָה֑

ר׀ ר ַּכֲאֶׁש֣ ה ִּדֶּב֣ דֶאל־ ְיהָו֗ ר ָאִבי֙ ָּדִו֤ ר ִּבְנJ֗ ֵלאֹמ֔ ן ֲאֶׁש֨ יJ֙ ֶאֵּת֤ Jַעל־ ַּתְחֶּת֙ הֽהּוא־ ִּכְסֶא֔ ִית ִיְבֶנ֥ י׃ ַהַּב֖ ִלְׁשִמֽ

ה 20 יְוִיְכְרתּו־ ַצֵּוה֩ ְוַעָּת֡ ים ִל֨ ֲעָבַדי֙ ַהְּלָב֗נֹוןִמן־ ֲאָרִז֜ יJִעם־ ִיְה֣יּו ַוֽ ר ֲעָבֶד֔ יJ֙ ּוְׂשַכ֤ ן ֲעָבֶד֙ ל ְלJ֔ ֶאֵּת֣ ר ְּככֹ֖ ֲאֶׁש֣

ר י׀ ּתֹאֵמ֑ ה ִּכ֣ ְעָּת ַאָּת֣ י ָיַד֗ ין ִּכ֣ נּו ֵא֥ יׁש ָּב֛ ַע ִא֛ יםִלְכָרת־ יֵֹד֥ ים׃ ֵעִצ֖ י 21 ַּכִּצדִֹנֽ ַע ַוְיִה֞ ם ִּכְׁשֹמ֧ יֶאת־ ִחיָר֛ ה ִּדְבֵר֥ ְׁשZֹמ֖

ח ד ַוִּיְׂשַמ֣ אֶמר ְמֹא֑ ֹ֗ ר ַהּ֔יֹום ְיהָו֙ה ָּב֤רּו! ַוּי ן ֲאֶׁש֨ ן ְלָדִוד֙ ָנַת֤ ם ֵּב֣ םַעל־ ָחָכ֔ ב ָהָע֥ ה׃ ָהָר֖ ח 22 ַהֶּזֽ ִחיָר֙ם ַוִּיְׁשַל֤

הֶאל־ ר ְׁשZֹמ֣ ְעִּתי ֵלאֹמ֔ ת ָׁשַמ֕ ְחָּת ֲאֶׁשר־ ֵא֥ י ָׁשַל֖ ֱעֶׂש֙ה ֲאִנ֤י ֵאָל֑ י ֶחְפְצJ֔ ָּכל־ֶאת־ ֶאֽ ים ַּבֲעֵצ֥ י ֲאָרִז֖ ים׃ ּוַבֲעֵצ֥ ְברֹוִׁשֽ

ָבַדי 23 דּו ֲע֠ ָּמה ַהְּלָב֜נֹוןִמן־ יִֹר֨ ֲאִני ָי֗ ם ַו֠ ד־ ַּבָּי֙ם ּדְֹב֤רֹות ֲאִׂשיֵמ֨ חֲאֶׁשר־ ַהָּמ֞קֹוםַעֽ י ִּתְׁשַל֥ ים ֵאַל֛ ם ְוִנַּפְצִּת֥ ה ָׁש֖ ְוַאָּת֣

א ה ְוַאָּת֙ה ִתָּׂש֑ יֶאת־ ַּתֲעֶׂש֣ ת ֶחְפִצ֔ ֶחם ָלֵת֖ י׃ ֶל֥ י 24 ֵּביִתֽ ן ִחי֜רֹום ַוְיִה֨ ה ֹנֵת֣ י ִלְׁשZֹמ֗ ים ֲעֵצ֧ י ֲאָרִז֛ יםְברֹוִׁש֖ ַוֲעֵצ֥

ן ּוְׁשZֹמה֩ 25 ֶחְפֽצֹו׃ָּכל־ ם ָנַת֨ ֶלף ֶעְׂשִרים֩ ְלִחיָר֜ ר ֶא֨ ֶלת ִחִּטי֙ם ּכֹ֤ ים ְלֵבי֔תֹו ַמּכֹ֣ ר ְוֶעְׂשִר֥ ֶמן ּכֹ֖ ית ֶׁש֣ ה־ ָּכִת֑ ןּכֹֽ ִיֵּת֧

ה ם ְׁשZֹמ֛ ה ְלִחיָר֖ ה׃ ָׁשָנ֥ ה 26 ְבָׁשָנֽ ן ַויהָו֗ ה ָחְכָמ֙ה ָנַת֤ ר ִלְׁשZֹמ֔ י ֑לֹוִּדֶּבר־ ַּכֲאֶׁש֖ ין ָׁשZ֗ם ַוְיִה֣ ין ִחיָר֙ם ֵּב֤ ה ּוֵב֣ ְׁשZֹמ֔

ית ַוִּיְכְר֥תּו ם׃ ְבִר֖ ַעל 27 ְׁשֵניֶהֽ ֶל! ַוַּי֨ ה ַהֶּמ֧ ס ְׁשZֹמ֛ לִמָּכל־ ַמ֖ י ִיְׂשָרֵא֑ ס ַוְיִה֣ ים ַהַּמ֔ ֶלף ְׁשZִׁש֥ יׁש׃ ֶא֖ ם 28 ִאֽ ַוִּיְׁשָלֵח֣

ֶרת ְלָב֗נֹוָנה ים ֲעֶׂש֨ ֶדׁ֙ש ֲאָלִפ֤ ֶדׁש ֲחִלי֔פֹות ַּבחֹ֙  ִים ַבְּלָב֔נֹון ִיְה֣יּו חֹ֚ ים ְׁשַנ֥ ם ְּבֵבי֑תֹו ֳחָדִׁש֖ ס׃ַעל־ ַוֲאדִֹניָר֖ י 29 ַהַּמֽ ַוְיִה֧

ה ים ִלְׁשZֹמ֛ ֶלף ִׁשְבִע֥ א ֶא֖ ל נֵֹׂש֣ ים ַסָּב֑ ֶלף ּוְׁשֹמִנ֥ ב ֶא֖ ר׃ חֵֹצ֥ ַבד 30 ָּבָהֽ י ְל֠ ים ִמָּׂשֵר֨ ר ִלְׁשZֹמ֙ה ַהִּנָּצִב֤ ֲאֶׁש֣

הַעל־ ים ְׁשZֶׁ֥שת ַהְּמָלאָכ֔ ים ֵמ֑אֹות ּוְׁשZׁ֣ש ֲאָלִפ֖ ם ָהרִֹד֣ ים ָּבָע֔ ה׃ ָהעִֹׂש֖ ו 31 ַּבְּמָלאָכֽ ֶל! ַוְיַצ֣ ים ַוַּיִּסעּו֩ ַהֶּמ֡ ֲאָבִנ֨

ים ְּגדֹ֜לֹות ד ְיָק֛רֹות ֲאָבִנ֧ ִית ְלַיֵּס֥ ית׃ ַאְבֵנ֥י ַהָּב֖  ִּיְפְס֞לּו 32 ָגִזֽ ה ּבֵֹנ֧י ַוֽ ים ִחי֖רֹום ּובֵֹנ֥י ְׁשZֹמ֛ ינּו ְוַהִּגְבִל֑ ים ַוָּיִכ֛ ָהֵעִצ֥

ים ִית׃ ִלְב֥נֹות ְוָהֲאָבִנ֖ ַהָּבֽ





Translation

15) When he heard they had anointed him king in place of his father, Hiram, king of

Tyre, sent his servants to Solomon, for Hiram had always been a friend of David. 16)

Then Solomon sent this message back to Hiram. 17) You know that my father David



225


could not build a house for the name of the LORD his God because of the wars that

surrounded him, until the LORD put them under the soles of his feet. 18) But now the

LORD has given me rest on every side; there is neither adversary nor misfortune. 19) So

I propose to build a house for the name of the LORD my God, as the LORD said to

David my father, “Your son, whom I will set on your throne in your place, he will build a

house for my name.” 20) Now command that they cut for me cedars of Lebanon, and my

servants will be with your servants; I will pay your servants wages according to what you

set, for you know that there is no one among us that knows how to cut timber like the

Sidonians. 21) When Hiram heard Solomon’s words, he rejoiced greatly and said, “

blessed be the LORD today who has given to David a wise son over this great people.”

22) Then Hiram responded to Solomon, “I have heard what you sent to me; I will do what

you desire concerning the cedar and cypress timber.” 23) My servants will bring them

from Lebanon down to the sea; and I will make them into rafts and send them888 to the

place you direct me. I will have them broken up there for you to haul. You will do what I

desire by giving me food for my house. 24) So Hiram supplied Solomon as much cedar

and cyprus wood as he desired. 25) And Solomon delivered to Hiram 20,000 kors of

wheat as provisions for his household, and twenty kors889 of beaten oil; thus Solomon

would pay to Hiram annually. 26) And Yahweh gave Solomon wisdom, as he had

promised him. There was harmony between Hiram and Solomon, and the two of them

made a treaty. 27) King Solomon imposed forced labor on all of Israel, the levy


888 The verb is missing from the Hebrew text
889 This measurement is not reasonable. It is very small in quantity and is a dry measurement. 2 Chronicles
2:9 provides a more meaningful measure, 20,000 baths of oil. However, the account in 2 Chronicles
expands the details of the grain as well. These expansions in 2 Chronicles may be later attempts to
reconcile the account found in I Kings 5:25.



226


numbered 30,000 men. 28) He sent them in shifts of 10,000 a month; they would spend

one month in Lebanon and two months at home. Adoniram oversaw the forced labor. 29)

Solomon also had 70,000 load bearers and 80,000 stone cutters in the hill country, 30)

besides the 3,300890 officials who were in charge of the work and supervised the people

doing the work. 31) The king commanded and they quarried huge valuable stones in

order to lay the foundation of the house with costly stones. 32) Solomon’s builders,

Hiram’s builders, and the Gebalites cut and prepared the timber and stone to build the

house.

Textual Commentary

I Kings 5:15-32 narrates the genesis of Solomon’s relations with Hiram king of Tyre.

This narrative is a mixture of theological and prosaic elements. The theological content in

verses 16-23 and 26 focuses on YHWH’s role in subduing the enemies of Israel, and

establishing stability for the nation of Israel. As a result, Solomon desires to build a

Temple for YHWH. Solomon’s message to Hiram in verses 17-19 is parallel to material

found in II Samuel 7:1-16.891 These parallels include the phrases “rest from enemies all

around,” and “house for the name of the LORD.” The overall theological content in I

Kings chapter 5 is attributed to Deuteronomistic author or redactor. Verses 15, 24-25, and

27-32 present the actions of Solomon and Hiram along with the specifics of their treaty


890 The 3300 overseers claimed in this passage is six times the figure provided in I Kings 9:23, which
claims their were 550 men who oversaw the work of Solomon’s building projects. This later figure would
place the workforce closer to 27,000 laborers, if each overseer was in charge of 50 men. Recent studies
propose a total population of around 200,000 in Judah and Israel during the 8th century B.C.E. It is clear
therefore that a workforce totaling 180,000 workers would not have been possible in the Iron IIA period.
Even the proposed 27,000 workers managed by 550 overseers would have been an excessively high
percentage of the working population in the Iron IIA period. For a detailed study on population figures for
the 8th century B.C.E. see, Magen Broshi and Israel Finkelstein, "The Population of Palestine in the Iron
Age II," BASOR 287 (1992): 47-60.
891 James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Book of Kings (ed. Henry Snyder
Gehman; Edinburgh: T&T Clark Limited, 1986), 133.



227


in a prosaic manner. The source of this non-theological material has been attributed to an

early Hebrew source, possibly the Acts of Solomon mentioned in I Kings 11:41.892

Historical Commentary

According to I Kings chapter 5, Hiram agreed to supply Solomon with all the timber he

desired. In return, Solomon provided Hiram with exactly 20,000 kors of wheat and 20

kors of beaten oil. The workforce for the construction project included men from Israel,

Tyre, and Sidon. The Hebrew text is specific that the laborers from Israel were part of a

levy numbering 30,000 men who were sent to Lebanon in shifts to work. In addition to

these 30,000 men, Solomon had 70,000 load bearers, 80,000 stone cutters, and 3,300

supervisors.

Curiously, the biblical author does not list any specific details regarding the

amount of timber nor the number of workmen supplied by Hiram. There are many

possibilities why the Israelite author did not include this information. Perhaps he had no

access to records that detailed Tyre’s role, or left the information out due to a primary

focus on Israelite history. Whatever the reason, all of the numerical information provided

in this chapter focuses on Israel’s obligation, leaving the numerical details of Tyre’s

obligation unknown. The ability of Tyre and Byblos to provide timber to Israel converges

well with the ancient textual data which demonstrate that Tyre and Byblos supplied these

goods to Egypt and Assyria a century earlier.893 The practice of rafting timber, mentioned

in verse 23, also converges with depictions of this practice on a wall relief from Sargon


892 Burke O. Long, I Kings with an Introduction to Historical Literature (Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1984), 80.
893 See sections 3.4 and 3.6.1.



228


II’s palace at Khorsabad.894 Thus, the archaeological and textual data generally confirm

that Tyre and Sidon were known for their timber trade.

Another detail missing from the account in I Kings 5 is the port of entry for the

timber from Lebanon. By contrast, the book of II Chronicles states Joppa was the port of

entry (2 Chron. 2:16). However, the current lack of Iron I architecture at Joppa 895 raises

doubt regarding Joppa’s maritime role in the 10th century. Rather, the archaological

evidence points to the Yarkon River as a point of entry with Tel Qasile serving as the port

of entry. 896

Despite the limited information regarding the Phoenician side of the treaty, I

Kings chapter 5 provides very detailed information about the workforce that was

assembled from within Israel to quarry stone. This prompts the question, what evidence is

there for large-scale quarrying in the 10th century B.C.E.? In 1975, Yigal Shiloh

conducted a study of quarries related to 10-9th century ashlar stone production. Shiloh

claimed that ashlars found in Stratum V at Megiddo belonged to the 10th century.897

Currently, however, it is believed that the Megiddo and Samaria quarries belong to the 9th

century B.C.E.898 Shiloh also mentions another Iron Age quarry, located in the Armenian

Garden in Jerusalem; unfortunately, there is no clear context to date this quarry.899 Thus,


894 Aubet, The Phoenicians and the West, 38.
895 www.tau.ac.il/humanities/archaeology/projects/proj_jaffa.html
896The lack of Iron Age architecture has led scholars to recommend other sites along the Yarkon river,
including Tel Qasile and Tel Qudadi. Cf. S. Yeivin, "Did the Kingdom of Israel have a Maritime Policy?,"
Jewish Quarterly Review 50 (1960): 204-0; Rainey and Notley, The Sacred Bridge, 16; Jeffery A. Blakely,
"Reconciling Two Maps: Archaeological Evidence for the Kingdoms of David and Solomon," BASOR 327
(2002): 50-52.
897 Yigal Shiloh, "Ashlar Quarries of the Iron Age in the Hill Country of Israel," BASOR 217 (1975): 44.
898 Norma Franklin, "Revealing Stratum V at Megiddo," BASOR 342 (2006): 107-08.
899 Shiloh, "Ashlar Quarries of the Iron Age in the Hill Country of Israel," 44.



229


there does not appear to be any solid evidence of 10th century quarrying activity in Israel

to provide a convergence with the claims in I Kings 5.

In an effort to look for evidence of Phoenician building activity in the 10th century

B.C.E., Dever has sought to identify the influence of Phoenician craftsman on

architectural style. He states that in the Late Bronze Age, the use of ashlar masonry,

combined with wood beams, was prominent at Alalakh, Ugarit, and Hazor.900 Similar

building techniques appear at Dan, Hazor, Meggido, Samaria, and Gezer in the Iron IIA

period. Dever attributes the continued use of this Late Bronze Age architectural style to

Phoenician influence.901 As discussed earlier in section 4.2.1, there is clear evidence that

the Phoenicians preserved and continued to use ashlar masonry in their building projects

throughout the Iron I period. Archaeologically, the point of debate among scholars is, in

what century did the Phoenicians begin to assist Israel in its building projects?

Unfortunately, the ongoing debate over the precise distinction between 10th and 9th

century pottery assemblages, used for dating, limits our ability to claim a clear

convergence between the biblical and archaeological data regarding 10th century ashlar

and timber construction.902

In addition to the details about the organized workforce, I Kings 5:25 provides

specific details regarding the agricultural payment which Solomon provided Hiram. The

quantities listed are 20,000 kors of wheat and 20 kors of beaten oil. While the grain

quantities seem reasonable, the small dry measurement used for the oil does not make


900 Dever, What Did the Biblical Writers Know, and When Did They Know It,? , 146-50.
901 Ibid., 147.
902 For a current overview of the various proposals, see
http://www.rehov.org/Rehov/publications/The%20Bible%20and%20Radiocarbon-%20Chapter%202.pdf



230


sense.903 It is estimated that 20,000 kors of grain represents the yield from one square

kilometer of land from each of Israel’s twelve administrative districts.904 This level of

payment is comparable to figures preserved in economic documents recovered at

Ugarit.905 But this data provides only a limited context for the biblical account, due to the

geographic and chronological gap between Iron IIA Israel and Late Bronze Age Ugarit.

The question remains, what direct evidence is there for large-scale grain

production in 10th century Israel? Since no ancient records exist for agricultural

production in 10th century Israel, we must look to other available archaeological data. As

mentioned above, some scholars associate tripartite buildings with long-term grain

storage.906 In contrast, Tel Horvat Rosh Zayit provides the clearest evidence of a grain

storage facility in the 10th century. In general, Horvat Rosh Zayit provides an excellent

example of an Iron IB-IIA site used for the collection and storage of agricultural

products. The site had an estimated storage capacity of 200 kors of grain,907 but it is

unclear whether this site was under Israelite or Phoenician control in the 10th century.908

Questions regarding who controlled the site notwithstanding, this site offers a possible

convergence with the biblical data regarding Solomon’s grain production efforts.


903 While it is tempting to replace the 20 kors of oil mentioned in 1 Kings 5:25 with the 20,000 baths of oil
mentioned in 2 Chronicles 2:9, the expansive nature of the 2 Chronicles text dealing with Solomon and
Hiram raises concern over the reliability of the information presented by the Chronicler.
904 Kenneth A. Kitchen, On The Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 113.
905 Michael Heltzer, Rural Community in Ancient Ugarit (Weisbaden: Dr Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1976),
36-40.
906 More recently, it has been proposed that these buildings were administrative. See, Blakely, "Reconciling
Two Maps," 5; Larry G Herr, "Tripartite Pillared Buildings and the Market Place in Iron Age Palestine,"
BASOR 272 (1988): 48.
907 Kitchen, On The Reliability of the Old Testament, 22.
908 As discussed in section 6.6.2., this agricultural site was likely part of a later trade transaction made with
Hiram.



231


In order for Israel to annually meet its obligation of 20,000 kors of grain, a high

level of administration would have been required. Jeffery Blakely argues that a network

of 10th century tripartite buildings, located along major trade routes at Israel’s borders,

points to this centralized administration.909 Proposed functions for these buildings include

storage, stables, entrepôts, and toll points.910 The architectural style of these buildings

suggests that they were well ventilated, and thus has led to arguments against their use as

granaries.911 However, it is still possible the buildings may have functioned as storerooms

for sealed jars of grain, oil, or wine. At Tel Qasile and Tell Abu Hawam, the tripartite

buildings likely were administrative, associated with inbound and outbound cargo.912 The

strong presence of Phoenician material culture at these sites suggests these were

important ports used for market exchanges between Phoenicia and Israel in the 10th

century. The tripartite buildings located at these ports may have been used as temporary

staging areas to audit the quantity of goods being shipped abroad to Hiram. Blakely’s

interpretation of the tripartite building network converges with the biblical text,

indicating that Israel was engaged in large-scale import and export during the 10th century

B.C.E.

In conclusion, the archaeological data converges with the biblical text on the

following points:

• Sidon was known for trade in timber, and rafted logs behind boats in the ocean.


909 Blakely, "Reconciling Two Maps," 50.
910Blakely, "Reconciling Two Maps," 5; Moshe Kochavi, "Tripartite Buildings: Divided Structures Divided
Scholars," BAR 25, no. 03 (1999): 44-55.
911 Kochavi, "Tripartite Buildings: Divided Structures Divided Scholars," 44-45.
912Blakely, "Reconciling Two Maps," 50.



232


• Phoenicians had significant influence on architectural style and construction in the

9th century, and perhaps earlier.

• Israel established a network of buildings that were likely associated with Israelite

and Phoenician market exchanges in the 10th century.

On the other hand, the current archeological data does not converge with the biblical

data regarding large scale quarrying activity in 10th century Israel.

6.6.2. 1 Kings 9:11-14; 26-28

ְׁשZֹמה ַהֶּמֶל! ִיֵּתן ָאז ֶחְפצֹוְלָכל־ ּוַבָּזָהב ְברֹוִׁשים ּוַבֲעֵצי ֲאָרִזים ַּבֲעֵצי ְׁשZֹמהֶאת־ ִנָּׂשא צֹרֶמֶל!־ ִחיָרם 11

ָיְׁשרּו ְולֹא ְׁשZֹמה לֹוָנַתן־ ֲאֶׁשר ֶהָעִריםֶאת־ ִלְראֹות ִמּצֹר ִחיָרם ַוֵּיֵצא 12 ַהָּגִליל׃ ְּבֶאֶרץ ִעיר ֶעְׂשִרים ְלִחיָרם

ַהֶּזה׃ ַהּיֹום ַעד ָּכבּול ֶאֶרץ ָלֶהם ַוִּיְקָרא ָאִחי ִּלי ָנַתָּתהֲאֶׁשר־ ָהֵאֶּלה ֶהָעִרים ָמה ַוּיֹאֶמר 13 ְּבֵעיָניו׃

ָזָהב׃ ִּכַּכר ְוֶעְׂשִרים ֵמָאה ַלֶּמֶל! ִחיָרם ַוִּיְׁשַלח 14

ִחיָרם ַוִּיְׁשַלח 27 ֱאדֹום׃ ְּבֶאֶרץ סּוףַים־ ְׂשַפתַעל־ ֵאלֹותֶאת־ ֲאֶׁשר ֶּגֶברְּבֶעְציֹון־ ְׁשZֹמה ַהֶּמֶל! ָעָׂשה ָוֳאִני 26

ֵמאֹותַאְרַּבע־ ָזָהב ִמָּׁשם ַוִּיְקחּו אֹוִפיָרה ַוָּיבֹאּו 28 ְׁשZֹמה׃ ַעְבֵדי ִעם ַהָּים יְֹדֵעי ֳאִנּיֹות ַאְנֵׁשי ֲעָבָדיוֶאת־ ָּבֳאִני

ְׁשZֹמה׃ ַהֶּמֶל!ֶאל־ ַוָּיִבאּו ִּכָּכר ְוֶעְׂשִרים

Translation

11) Since Hiram, king of Tyre, had set up Solomon with all the cedar wood, cyprus

wood, and gold that he wanted; Solomon gave Hiram twenty towns in the land of

Galilee. 12) Hiram left Tyre to see the towns Solomon gave him, but he was not pleased

with them. 13) Then he said, “ What kind of cities are these which you have given me,

my brother?” So they are called the land of Cabul913 to this day. 14) But Hiram had sent

to the king 120 talents of gold.


913 This toponym is likely derived from Phoenician ְּכַבל (like nothing) HALOT, 458.



233


26) King Solomon also built a fleet of ships at Ezion-geber, which is near Eloth on the

shore of the Sea of Reeds in the land of Edom. 27) Hiram sent his servants with the fleet,

mariners who knew the sea, to join Solomon’s servants. 28) They came to Ophir, and

obtained 420 talents of gold, which they delivered to King Solomon.

Textual Commentary

Verses 9:11-13 and 26-28 are devoid of any language that can be attributed to a

Deuteronomistic author/redactor. Verses 9:11-13 describe, in a very terse manner, the

sequence of events that resulted in Hiram receiving 20 villages in the Galilee. The

emphasis on Hiram’s naming the territory, “Cabul,” raises the possibility that this

narrative is etiological.914 Verses 26-28 briefly report the joint Israelite/Phoenician

expedition to Ophir. Similar to the prosaic elements in I Kings 5, this report may have

originally been drawn from an ancient Hebrew source, perhaps the Acts of Solomon.

Historical Commentary

I Kings 9:11-13 claims the Phoenicians made geopolitical gains in the Galilee

during the 10th century. The question is, what evidence is there of Phoenician presence at

small sites in the Galilee during the Iron IIA period?

In the last twenty years, two separate archeological surveys of sites in the western

Galilee have been published. The most recent survey by Gunnar Lehmann finds that Late

Bronze Age settlements were concentrated in the Akko Plain around large city centers

like Akko, Tell Keisan, Tell Abu Hawam, and Achziv. During the Iron I period, the

settlement pattern changed. Satellite sites and population density around city centers in

the plain of Akko decreased, while a concentration of small villages formed in the


914 Long, I Kings with an Introduction to Historical Literature, 112.



234


highlands of the Galilee. In the Iron IIA period, the settlement pattern changed again.

Former Late Bronze Age sites in the plain of Akko experienced new growth, and satellite

villages reappeared.915 The Iron IIA development pattern shows an increase in satellite

sites concentrated near the harbors of Achziv and Tell Abu Hawam. In his survey,

Lehmann refrains from making proposals regarding the ethnicity of various sites, except

in the case of Horvat Rosh Zayit and Dor, which he believes have a clear Phoenician

presence.916 Zvi Gal, the excavator at Horvat Rosh Zayit, identifies the site as biblical

Cabul. At Horvat Rosh Zayit a mid-10th century fort was found, which Gal believes was

built by Phoenicians.917 He argues these fortifications were established to reinforce

Tyre’s border with Israel. It appears the site was also an agricultural depot or taxation

center, based on the large quantity of storage containers and agricultural equipment found

there. In total, the fort was used to store nearly 200 kors of grain, oil, and possibly

wine.918 This quantity amounts to 1/100th of the annual produce that Solomon is said to

have given Hiram (I Kings 5:25).919 While the exact identification of Horvat Rosh Zayit

as Cabul cannot be confirmed, the Phoenician presence at this site does converge with the

biblical claim that Phoenicia had control of some territory in the Galilee during the 10th

century B.C.E.


915 Gal and Alexandre, Horbat Rosh Zayit, 84-86.
916 Ibid., 66-67.
917 Zvi Gal, Lower Galilee during the Iron Age (ed. Baruch Halpern; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 47-
53; Rainey and Notley, The Sacred Bridge, 184.
918 Kitchen, On The Reliability of the Old Testament, 22.
919 Kenneth Kitchen notes that 20,000 kors of grain would have been the produce from one square
kilometer of land in each of the twelve districts. See Kenneth A. Kitchen, On The Reliability of the Old
Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 113-14; Michael Heltzer, Rural Community in Ancient Ugarit
(Weisbaden: Dr Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1976), 113.



235


I Kings 9:26-28 states that Solomon built ships at Ezion Geber, and Tyre supplied

sailors for combined expeditions to Ophir. Since the location of these toponyms is

uncertain, the following examination explores the data related to Ezion Geber and Ophir.

Although the exact location of Ophir has yet to be determined, it is generally

believed among scholars to be in the southern area of the Red Sea region, either in

Ethiopia or Yemen.920 Some scholars associate Ophir with Egyptian Punt, based largely

on the similarities between Solomon’s prized imports and the exotic goods from Punt.921

In the Egyptian literature, Punt was a prized destination for many expeditions; an

example is the tale of the Shipwrecked Sailor— a fanciful account of Punt.922 Thanks to

recent chemical tests, the location of ancient Punt has been established. In 2010, oxygen

isotope tests conducted on mummified baboons from Punt concluded that the animals

came from the region of Eritrea and Ethiopia.923 Thus, the area of modern Eritrea and

Ethiopia may be the location of ancient Ophir provided the theory that Ophir equals Punt

proves true.924

Unfortunately, no archaeological data support the theory that Punt and Ophir are

one and the same. “Gold of Ophir” is mentioned in an 8th century inscription found by

archaeologists at Tel Qasile; this gold either belonged to or was intended for Beth-


920 Josephus placed Ophir in India, see Ant. 8.164. Edward Lipiński argues against a Red Sea location for
Ophir. Based on his reading of the biblical text, he argues that Ophir is somewhere in the Mediterranean.
See Edward Lipiński, Itineraria Phoenicia (Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Oosterse Studies,
2004), 191-202.
921 Gary D. Pratico, "Nelson Glueck's 1938-1940 Excavations at Tell el-Kheleifeh: A Reappraisal," BASOR
259 (1985), 165; Rainey and Notley, The Sacred Bridge, 165; Lipiński, Itineraria Phoenicia, 194.
922 R.B. Parkinson, The Tale of Sinuhe and Other Ancient Egyptian Poems 1940-1640 BC. (Oxford:
University Press, 1997), 89-101.
923 http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/history/baboon-mummy-analysis-reveals-eritrea-and-ethiopia-
as-location-of-land-of-punt-1954547.html
924 Due to political reasons, modern archaeological explorations in Eritrea have only been possible in the
last two decades. Hopefully, future research in this region will generate data regarding the maritime activity
in this region. For a recent collection of archaeological studies in Eritrea see, Peter R. Schmidt, Mathew C.
Curtis, and Zelalem Teka, eds., The Archaeology of Ancient Eritrea (Trenton: The Red Sea Press, 2007)



236


Horon.925 While this inscription does generally confirm that Ophir gold existed in Israel

by the 8th century, it offers no insight as to the location of ancient Ophir.

As with Ophir, the identity of Ezion-Geber has yet to be firmly established.

Initially, Nelson Glueck’s research identified Tell el-Kheleifeh as the most likely site of

Ezion-Geber.926 However, a reappraisal of Glueck’s excavations has demonstrated that

Tell el-Kheleifeh emerged in the 8th century B.C.E.927 In 1837, Frederich Von Schubert

suggested the island of Jezirat Faraun as a possible location of Ezion-Geber. In 1968 and

1972, archaeologists found pottery on this island belonging to the Iron I period and

evidence of small scale iron smelting activities, which led Alexander Flinder to suggest

that Jezirat Faraun is Ezion-Geber.928 The overall shape and construction method of the

harbor at Jezirat Faraun is analogous to harbors found at Phoenician sites, including Tyre,

Arwad, Atlit, and Motya.929 However, a lack of systematic excavation of the site

precludes a firm Iron I-IIA dating of its architectural features.930

The above discussion outlines the current theories regarding Ophir and Punt, and

demonstrates that a significant port may have been active on the island of Jezirat Faraun

in the early Iron Age. However, who controlled this harbor and when, remains a mystery.

Thus, the current archaeological data does not provide a point of convergence with I

Kings 9:26-28.


925 Johannes Renz, Handbuch der Althebräischen Epigraphik: Teil 1 Text und Kommentar (Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1995), 229-30.
926 Nelson Glueck, "Ezion-Geber: Solomon's Naval Base on the Red Sea," BA 1 (1938): 13-16.
927 Alexander Flinder, "Is this Solomon's Sea Port?," BAR 15, no. 4 (1989): 1-32.
928 Beno Rothenberg, Timna, Valley of the Biblical Copper Mines (London, 1972), 20; Alexander Flinder,
"Is this Solomon's Sea Port?," BAR 15, no. 4 (1989): 32.
929 Flinder, "Is this Solomon's Sea Port?," 40.
930 Ibid., 42.



237


6.6.3. 1 Kings 10:11; 22

ְוַגם ֳאִני ִחיָרם ֲאֶׁשר־ָנָׂשא ָזָהב ֵמאֹוִפיר ֵהִביא ֵמֹאִפיר ֲעֵצי ַאְלֻמִּגים ַהְרֵּבה ְמֹאד ְוֶאֶבן ְיָקָרה׃ 11

ַתְרִׁשיׁש ֳאִני ָּתבֹוא׀ ָׁשִנים ְלָׁשZׁש ַאַחת ִחיָרם ֳאִני ִעם ַּבָּים ַלֶּמֶל! ַתְרִׁשיׁש ֳאִני ִּכי 22

ְוֻתִּכִּיים׃ ְוקִֹפים ֶׁשְנַהִּבים ָוֶכֶסף ָזָהב נְֹׂשֵאת

Translation

11) Moreover, the ships of Hiram which hauled gold931 from Ophir brought932 a great

quantity of almug933 wood and precious stones.

22) For the king had a Tarshish fleet on the sea with the fleet of Hiram. Once every three

years the Tarshish fleet arrived bearing gold and silver, ivory,934 apes,935 and tailed

monkeys.936

Textual Commentary

I Kings 10:11 and 22 are two short statements regarding the wealth gained

through maritime exploits during the rule of Solomon. These two statements are part of a


931 Based on the depictions in the cult temple of Hatshepsut at Deir el Bahri, the gold from Punt was
described as “green” or “fresh.” Green/fresh probably refers to the natural form of the gold in either nugget
or flake form. Gold from Ophir may have had a similar natural quality. Edouard Naville, The Temple of
Deir el Bahri III (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1898), 25.
932 The second repetition of ֵמֹאִפיר is likely a dittograph and should be ignored.
933 I Kings 10:11 reads ַאְלֻמִּגים and the parallel passage in 2 Chronicles 9:10 reads ַאְלּגּוִּמים which is an
obvious metathesis. Cf. Jonas C. Greenfield and Manfred Mayrhofer, "The ’Algummim/’Almuggim-
Problem Reexamined," in Hebräische Wortforschung Ö Festschrift zum 80 Geburstang von Walter
Baumgartner (eds. G.W. Anderson, et al.; Supplements to Vetus Testamentum; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1967),
85-87.
934 The word ֶׁשְנַהִּבים appears only in this passage and the parallel verse in 2 Chronicles 9:21. It is a
compound word composed of two parts ֱׁשן (tooth) and a second word, probably elephant. It is debated
whether ַהּב was adopted from Egyptian Abw or more likely from an unknown African root. See HALOT
1602.
935The root קֹפ appears only in this passage and the parallel verse in 2 Chronicles 9:21. Outside the Hebrew
Bible, this word is well attested in Egyptian, Sumerian, Akkadian, Syriac, Greek and Sanskrit. See HALOT
1089.
936 The word ִּכִּייםֻּת appears only in this passage and the parallel verse in 2 Chronicles 9:21. Traditionally
this word has been interpreted as peacock. Albright argued the term was related to Egyptian tA-ky.t
(baboon). In the Egyptian text the Ship Wrecked Sailor, gwf and ky appear together as commodities
imported from Punt which parallels the biblical ְוֻתִּכִּיים ְוקִֹפים . See HALOT, 1731.



238


larger narrative which recounts Israel’s growth in fame and wealth due to international

exposure. It has been claimed that the overall genre of I Kings 9:26 – 10:29 is an editorial

composite or miscellany.937 These brief notices regarding relations between Solomon and

Hiram are believed to have come from an ancient Hebrew source, perhaps again the Acts

of Solomon.

Historical Commentary

I Kings 10:11 states that the very same ships Hiram used to haul gold from Ophir

also hauled precious stones and almug wood. Presumably, all of these goods came from

Ophir, but technically, the text does not specify the port of origin for the almug wood and

precious stones. Thus, the question is, where does almug wood come from?

As mentioned earlier, Ophir is believed to be somewhere in the Red Sea, and may

have been the same place as ancient Punt.938 In addition to gold, ebony (hbny) was a

prized timber procured from expeditions to Punt.939 Ebony was used by Egyptians in the

production of harps, furniture and other luxury goods.940 Likewise, according to I Kings

10:12, almug wood was used to make ֹרֹותִּכּנ (harps), which raises the question, should

almug wood be identified as ebony?

One problem with the theory that almug wood is ebony appears in Ezekiel 27:15

which refers to ebony as םָהְבִני , esentially a loanword from Egyptian hbny.941 While it is


937 Long, I Kings with an Introduction to Historical Literature, 117.
938 William Foxwell Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (3rd ed.; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
Press, 1953), 10; Katzenstein, The History of Tyre, 10; Martin Jan Mulder, 1 Kings (trans. John Vriend; vol.
1 of; Leuven: Peeters, 1998), 503.
939 Naville, The Temple of Deir el Bahri III, 15.
940 Rowena Gale, Peter Gasson, and Nigel Harper, "Wood," in Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology
(eds. Paul T. Nicholson and Ian Shaw; Cambridge: University Press, 2000), 339.
941 Yoshiyuki Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords in North-West Semitic (ed. Michael V.
Fox; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999), 281-82.



239


possible that Hebrew employed two different terms for ebony, the following evidence

argues against such a proposal. The word ַאְלֻמִּגים is probably related to the East Semitic

terms ELAMMAKUM, elammaku, elammaggu, and elammaḫḫi.942 From Akkadian and

Sumerian sources, we know this precious wood was used to make doors, tables, beds and

other items. In the Amarna texts, valuable gifts sent by Tushratta to Amenophis III were

made of this wood in combination with boxwood, gold, and silver.943 More important, a

Mari text states that Yaḫdunlim traveled to the mountain of Boxwood, Cedar and

Elammaku where he harvested these three trees.944 It is believed that this text refers to the

Amanus range in Syria.945 Thus, Elammaku appears to be some type of wood native to

the mountains of the Levant. 2 Chronicles 2:7 supports the view that almug wood comes

from Syria, since it is one of the species that Solomon requested from Hiram. How then

do ships hauling gold from Ophir in the Red Sea also haul almug wood from Syria?

As it stands, the information preserved in I Kings 10:11 is difficult to interpret.

The ships Hiram used on the Red Sea to carry gold from Ophir could not have been used

to ship almug wood down the Mediterranean coast from its habitat in the mountains of

Syria/Lebanon. It appears the author of 2 Chronicles recognized the paradox in the I

Kings account, and solved the problem by using the term ַעְבֵדי (servants) instead of ִני ֽאָ

(ships). There is no conflict with servants sailing in both the Mediterranean and Red Sea.

As I discussed in section 6.6.2., the location of Ophir was probably somewhere in the


942 CAD 75-76, AHW 196, DUL 57. Cf. Greenfield and Mayrhofer, "The ’Algummim/’Almuggim- Problem
Reexamined," 87. Many thanks to Benjamin Noonan who shared his unpublished work on the term
“Almuggim.”
943 EA 22 iv 6; EA 22 iv 34; EA 25 iv 30; EA 25 iv 63-64.
944 Georges Dossin, "L'inscription de Fondation de Iaḫdun-Lim, Roi de Mari," Syria 32 (1955): 13-14.
945 Greenfield and Mayrhofer, "The ’Algummim/’Almuggim- Problem Reexamined," 87.



240


Red Sea, making direct shipment of gold from Ophir to Tyre impossible. The gold could

have been shipped from Ophir to Eloth, and either transported via land routes directly to

Tyre, or transported to a harbor on the Mediterranean, and then shipped to Tyre. Perhaps

the original intent of I Kings 10:11 was to indicate that the Mediterranean fleet which

delivered the gold directly to Hiram was sent back to the Israelite port with rare Almug

wood.946 My proposed interpretation of I Kings 10:11 provides a simple solution, and

does not conflict with the alternate text in 2 Chronicles 9:10. Furthermore, this proposal

converges with the archeological and textual evidence that Tel Qasile may have been an

important Phoenician port with ties to gold from Ophir.947

I Kings 10:22 claims that Solomon had “Tarshish ships” which sailed with

Hiram’s fleet and returned every three years with precious goods. While the port of

destination is not specifically mentioned, the term ַתְרִׁשיׁש ֳאִני implies a port named

Tarshish. Traditionally, the name Tarshish is associated with a city named Tartessos in

Spain.948 This raises the question: What evidence is there for Phoenician maritime

activity on the Iberian peninsula in the 10th century B.C.E.?

Until quite recently, archaeological evidence did not support the traditional view

that Phoenicians were in Spain as early as the 10th century. However, recent excavations

946 If this interpretation is correct, then the original author was not describing a process in which the “ships”
were involved in the original procurement of the gold in the Red Sea. Rather, he is saying in a convoluted
manner that once Hiram received his gold, Solomon received his wood.
947 In section 6.6.1., it was mentioned that there is archaeological evidence that Tel Qasile may have been
an important port for market exchanges between Israel and Phoenicia. This port may have served as the
primary point for exporting Ophir gold and importing almug wood. Additionally, an 8th century B.C.E.
inscription found at Tel Qasile mentions gold from Ophir. Renz, Handbuch der Althebräischen Epigraphik:
Teil 1 Text und Kommentar, 229-30.
ַתְרִׁשיׁש ֳאִני 948 has been variously interpreted as referring to ships bound for Tarshish, or a derived meaning
referring to a type of heavy cargo ship. While both interpretations are possible, recent archaeological
discoveries in Huelva, Spain suggest these ships were bound for a port named Tarshish. Barry J. Beitzel,
"Was There a Joint Nautical Venture on the Mediterranean Sea by Tyrian Phoenicians and Early Israelites?
," BASOR 360 (2010): 42-44.



241


at Huelva, Spain have uncovered an ancient Phoenician emporium where goods from all

over the Mediterranean were traded. Domestic and industrial Phoenician ceramics

discovered at the site suggest an established Phoenician presence as early as the 10th-9th

centuries B.C.E. Radiocarbon dating on animal bones date the occupation to a period

between 930-830 B.C.E.949 Based on textual and archaeological evidence, Beitzel makes

a strong case for associating Tarshish with the remains found at Huelva.950 More

importantly, the finds at Huelva clearly demonstrate that Phoenicians were engaged in

maritime activity on the Iberian peninsula by the 10th-9th century B.C.E.

I Kings 10:22 mentions several commodities gold, silver, ivory, apes and tailed

monkeys acquired during the three year expeditions. The question is, were these

commodities available on the Iberian Peninsula at that time? Archaeological evidence

recovered from Huelva, Spain indicates that Phoenicians were engaged in silver

metallurgy and ivory production in the 10th-9th century. In addition, the Iberian peninsula

has long been an important source of gold, from the Chalcolithic period to the present.951

The real complication in linking this region with the biblical data centers on the two types

of primates specified in I Kings 10:22. While Africa is an obvious source for many types

of primates, it bears mentioning that Spain is home to a species of wild monkey, the

Barbary Macaque.952 In antiquity, these monkeys would have been easily sourced on the

Iberian peninsula. In addition to the tailess Barbary Macaque, a bas-relief from the palace

of Ashurnasirpal II clearly shows Phoenicians delivering tailed monkeys to Assyria as


949 Beitzel, "Was There a Joint Nautical Venture?," 49-50.
950 Ibid. 37-66.
951 Mark A. Hunt Ortiz, Prehistoric Mining and Metallurgy in South West Iberian Peninsula (Oxford:
Archaeopress, 2003), 324-27.
952 “Barbary Ape," The New Encyclopedia Britannica 886.



242


tribute in the 9th century B.C.E.953 These tailed monkeys may have been acquired at

North African ports, or indirectly, through trade networks leading to Iberia.

Thus, the archaeological evidence from Huelva, Spain converges well with four

of the five items listed in I Kings 10:22. Meanwhile, the fifth commodity could have

easily been obtained on the long voyage back from Spain. While it appears certain that

the Phoenicians profited greatly from expeditions to the Iberian peninsula during the 10th-

9th centuries B.C.E., there is no evidence to converge with the biblical account that the

king of Israel participated in these expeditions.954 As with the baboons from Punt, it is

possible that future isotope analysis of metal or ivory luxury objects found in 10th-9th

century contexts at Israelite sites could provide data regarding the origin of raw materials

used to make these commodities.

6.6.4. 1 Kings 11:1, 5

ִחִּתּיֹת׃ ֵצְדִנּיֹת ֲאדִֹמּיֹת ַעֳּמִנּיֹות מֹוֲאִבּיֹות ַּפְרעֹהַּבת־ְוֶאת־ ַרּבֹות ָנְכִרּיֹות ָנִׁשים ָאַהב ְׁשZֹמה ְוַהֶּמֶל! 1

ַעֹּמִנים׃ ִׁשֻּקץ ִמְלּכֹם ְוַאֲחֵרי ִצדִֹנים ֱאZֵהי ַעְׁשֹּתֶרת ַאֲחֵרי ְׁשZֹמה ַוֵּיֶל! 5

Translation

1) King Solomon loved many foreign women in addition to Pharaoh’s daughter: Moabite,

Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite… 5) Solomon followed Ashtoreth955

goddess956 of the Sidonians, and Milkom abomination of the Ammonites.




953 Richard David Barnett, Illustrations of Old Testament History (London: British Museum, 1966), 91.
954 Theoretically, it seems reasonable to suppose that such long-distance expeditions would have been very
costly in terms of supplies, ships, manpower, and degree of risk, and that splitting the costs and risks with
Israel would have increased the possible scale of such expeditions. Increased scale ultimately benefited the
Phoenicians, who later established a network of merchant colonies throughout the Mediterranean.
.is the Hebrew word for the Phoenician Goddess Astarte ַעְׁשֹּתֶרת 955
956 The Hebrew reads ֵהיZֱא (gods).



243


Textual Commentary

I Kings 11:1-8 is a complete unit focused on King Solomon’s straying after foreign

women. This text appears to be primarily the production of a Deuteronomistic author or

redactor, although it may include elements belonging to an earlier tradition.957

Historical Commentary

In I Kings 11:1 the author takes issue with Solomon’s unions with women from foreign

nations, including Sidon. Unfortunately, no ancient textual or archeological data exist that

converges with a 10th century Israelite king marrying a Sidonian. More generally,

however, it is well known that royal marriages occurred as acts of diplomacy between

nations in the ancient Near East.958 From a political perspective, Solomon’s union with a

Sidonian princess would have bolstered his treaty with Hiram.

The author of I Kings 11:1 makes no mention of the likely political aspect of

Solomon’s marriages; rather the focus is the impact made by these foreign brides on

Israelite religion. He condemns Solomon’s worship of the Sidonian goddess, Astarte. The

importance of Astarte in Sidonian worship is first attested in Ugaritic texts and in a 14th

century Egyptian medical papyrus.959 The continued veneration of Astarte by the

Sidonians is evident in Phoenician personal names which include Astarte as the

theophoric element.960 Evidence for the importance of Astarte in the royal cult at Sidon


957 Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Book of Kings, 231-3; Long, I Kings with
an Introduction to Historical Literature, 120-21.
958 Samuel A. Meier, "Diplomacy and International Marriage," in Amarna Diplomacy: The Beginnings of
International Relations (eds. Raymond Cohen and Raymond Westbrook; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 2000), 165-73.
959 Glenn Markoe, Phoenicians (Berkeley University of California Press, 2000), 115 Richard C. Steiner,
"Northwest Semitic Incantations in an Egyptian Medical Papyrus of the Fourteenth Century B.C.E.," JNES
51, no. 3 (1992): 194.
960 Frank L. Benz, Personal Names in the Phoenician and Punic inscriptions (Rome Biblical Institute,
1972) 297



244


persists up to the 5th century B.C.E.961 A 10th century B.C.E. clay cult stand found at

Taanach provides the only possible evidence that Israelites may have worshiped Astarte.

However, several fertility goddesses were worshipped in the Levant. Since there is no

inscription on the stand, there is no possible way of confirming the identity of the

goddess.962

In conclusion, the biblical claim that Sidonians worshiped Astarte converges with

the available archaeological and ancient textual evidence. However, the biblical claim

that Israel participated in the veneration of this specific deity in the 10th century B.C.E

does not converge with the currently available archaeological data.

6.6.5. 1 Kings 16:31-33

ַוֵּיֶל! ִצידִֹנים ֶמֶל! ֶאְתַּבַעלַּבת־ ִאיֶזֶבלֶאת־ ִאָּׁשה ַוִּיַּקח ְנָבטֶּבן־ ָיָרְבָעם ְּבַחּטֹאות ֶלְכּתֹו ֲהָנֵקל ַוְיִהי 31

ַאְחָאב ַוַּיַעׂש 33 ְּבׁשְֹמרֹון׃ ָּבָנה ֲאֶׁשר ַהַּבַעל ֵּבית ַלָּבַעל ִמְזֵּבַח ַוָּיֶקם 32 לֹו׃ ַוִּיְׁשַּתחּו ַהַּבַעלֶאת־ ַוַּיֲעבֹד

ְלָפָניו׃ ָהיּו ֲאֶׁשר ִיְׂשָרֵאל ַמְלֵכי ִמּכֹל ִיְׂשָרֵאל ֱאZֵהי ְיהָֹוהֶאת־ ְלַהְכִעיס ַלֲעׂשֹות ַאְחָאב ַוּיֹוֶסף ָהֲאֵׁשָרהֶאת־

Translation

31) And then- was it a light thing that he walked in the sins of Jereboam son of Nebat,963

he took as a wife Jezebel964 the daughter of Ethbaal king of the Sidonians, and followed

and worshipped Baal, and bowed to him. 32) Then he erected an altar to Baal, the temple

of Baal which he built in Samaria. 33) Then he made an Asherah and did more to


961 KAI 14, 14-18.
962 Judith M. Hadley, The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel (Cambridge Cambridge University Press,
2000), 169-76.
963 The Hebrew in the first part of verse 31 is awkward. Modern translations vary in the way they try to
provide a meaningful translation. In general the sense is that the author is emphatically stating that Ahab
committed far graver sins than Jeroboam. The above translation is a more literal translation provided by
Jerome Walsh. See Jerome T. Walsh, 1 Kings (ed. David W. Cotter; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1996),
218.
964 It is uncertain what the name ִאיֶזֶבל means. Based on the Phoenician onomasticon it has been proposed
that the name is related to יזבל a hypochoristic form of בעלאיזבל meaning ‘Baal carries.’ See KAI 67,1. For
a more detailed discussion of all the proposals see Katzenstein, The History of Tyre, 146.



245


provoke the anger of Yahweh, the god of Israel, than all the kings of Israel who

proceeded him.

Textual Commentary

I Kings 16:29-33 introduces the rule of Ahab, king of Israel. The structure and language

of this passage follow a pattern first used in I Kings 14:21-31.965 Verses 31-33 enumerate

the specific sins that Ahab committed. Unlike the prosaic accounts of Solomon’s

interactions with Hiram, the account of Ahab’s interaction with Sidon is tendentious.966

Historical Commentary

Outside of the Hebrew Bible, Ahab King of Israel is mentioned both directly and

indirectly in ancient Near Eastern texts.967 Ethbaal and Jezebel, on the other hand, are

figures known only from the Hebrew Bible and classical sources.968

I Kings 16:32-33 credits Ahab with constructing a temple to Baal and setting up

an Asherah in Samaria. Archeologically, the finds at Samaria offer some of the richest

evidence of ashlar construction at an Israelite site. Alarge artificial plateau was

constructed using casemate walls made of finely cut ashlar stones. On the summit stood a

large palace decorated with proto-aeolic capitals and carved ivory. The original

excavators of Samaria attributed these building activities to the work of Phoenician


965 Long, I Kings with an Introduction to Historical Literature, 171.
966 Ibid., 173
967Ahab’s participation in a coalition against Shalmaneser III is memorialized in the Kurkh Monolith. See
RIMA 3, A.0.102.2, ii. 90b-95a. The Mesha Inscription provides an account of Moab’s conflict with Omri
and Omri’s son, which converges with the narrative found in 2 Kings 3:4-8. See KAI 2.
968 The name yzbl appears on a stamp seal held by a private collector. It has been claimed by some that this
seal belonged to the biblical Jezebel while others contest this theory. Since it is an unprovenanced find it is
of limited value to the present discussion. See Marjo C.A. Korpel, "Fit for a Queen: Jezebel's Royal Seal,"
BAR 34, no. 2 (2008), 32-37, 80. See the recent online debate among scholars at http://www.bib-
arch.org/scholars-study/jezebel-seal-00.asp. For a detailed analysis of the classical sources regarding
Ethbaal and Jezebel, See Katzenstein, The History of Tyre, 129-92.



246


masons and craftsman969 However, Norma Franklin has recently examined mason marks

found on ashlar blocks at both Samaria and Megiddo. She argues against Phoenician

involvement based on the similarities between these marks and the Carian alphabet.

Franklin identified twelve different characters from the Carian alphabet at Samaria, and

at the time of her article claimed that no mason marks had been found at Phoenician

sites.970 However, since Franklins article mason marks have been recovered from an 8th

century harbor at Tyre. The finds at Tyre include four different characters, three of which

are similar to characters found at Samaria (Fig. 6.1).971 The marks found at Tyre have

been equated to similar signs in the Phoenician, proto-Sinaiatic, Cyprian alphabets.972 In

addition to the marks found at Tyre, other mason marks have been found at Byblos in 6th

century B.C.E. contexts. While the mason marks at Samaria do have strong parallels with

the 6th century Carian alphabet, the recently discovered parallels at Tyre in an 8th century

context lend some support to the view that the Phoenicians may have been involved in

construction efforts at Samaria.973

Despite the wealth of the 9th century architectural remains at Samaria, there is no

evidence of a 9th century temple. However, this may be because the construction of a later

Herodian temple destroyed the evidence.974


969 Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient
Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts (New York: Free Press, 2001), 180-83.
970 Norma Franklin, "Masons' Marks from the Ninth Century BCE Norther Kingdom of Israel. Evidence of
the Nacent Carian Alphabet," in Kadmos: Zeitschrift für vor-und frühgriechische Epigraphik (ed. Ernst
Grumach; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2001), 107-16.
971 G. Castellvi et al., "Recherches Archéologique sous-marine à Tyr " Bulletin d'Archeologie et
d'Architecture Libanaises 11 (2007), 63-64.
972 Ibid., 65-66.
973 Hopefully, Ibrahim Noureddine’s Ph.D. research on the costal and submerged harbors in the eastern
Meditteranean in the Bronze Age will shed some light on the possible origins of these symbols.
974 J.W. Crowfoot, Kathleen Kenyon, and E.L. Sukenik, The Buildings at Samaria (London: Palestine
Exploration Fund, 1946), 5-20; Richard S. Hess, Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical




247


Among the finds at Samaria were 102 inscriptions written on potsherds.975 These

ostraca primarily served as records of wine and oil deliveries to the Palace at Samaria.

Among the names recorded on the ostraca, nine individuals possessed names with

Yahweh as a theophoric element and five individuals possessed names with Baal as a

theophoric element.976 ( בעלא ,אבבעל, בעלזמר This onomastic data has .( מרבעל ,בעלאזכר ,

been used by some scholars as evidence of widespread Baal worship in Israel.977 It is also

a possibility that these names belong to non-Israelites.978 Two of these individuals appear

to have been mid-level officials at Samaria.979 Of the five names preserved in the Samaria

corpus, four have parallels in Phoenician/Punic onomastic tradition.980 These parallels

strengthen the argument that these individuals were Phoenicians employed by the

kingdom of Israel. Still, the onomastic evidence from Samaria is inconclusive.


Survey (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic 2007), 285. Yigal Yadin argues that ְּבׁשְֹמרֹון ָּבָנה ֲאֶׁשר ַהַּבַעל ֵּבית in
verse 32 is a gloss referring to the temple of Baal as a separate structure built somewhere in the kingdom of
Samaria not the city of Samaria. Yadin proposes that the temple was located on mount Carmel. See Yigal
Yadin, "The House of Ba'al; of Ahab and Jezebel in samaria, and That of Athalia in Judah," in Archaeology
in the Levant: Essays for Kathleen Kenyon (eds. Roger Moorey and Peter Parr; warminster: Aris and
Phillips, 1978), 129.
975 Nili S. Fox, In the Service of the King: Officialdom in Ancient Israel and Judah (Cincinnati: Hebrew
Union College Press, 2000), 204.
976 The names with Baal as a theophoric element are ( בעלא ,אבבעל, בעלזמר ,See Smith.( מרבעל ,בעלאזכר ,
The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel, 65-66.
977 Marvin H. Pope, “ Baal Worship,” Encyclopedia Judaica 4: 7-12; Anson Rainey, “ The Toponyms of
Eretz Israel,” BASOR 231 (1978): 1-17; B. Rosen, “ The Early Israelite Cult Centers in the Hill Country,”
VT 38 (1988): 114-117; Smith, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel,
65-66.
978 Fox, In the Service of the King, 21; Hess, Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey,
269-74.
979 Fox, In the Service of the King, 214.
עלאבב is parallell to the names אבבעל 980 and אבעל attested in both Phoenician and Punic. In Punic the name
is the name of a monarch and an individual זכרבעל appears without any theophoric element. The name זמר
from Byblos. Finally, the element מר, meaning lord, also appears in several Phoenician and Punic names
though none contain the theophoric element Baal. See Frank L. Benz, Personal Names in the Phoenician
and Punic inscriptions (Rome Biblical Institute, 1972), 54-143.



248


Other evidence cited as an indication of Baal worship in Israel, is an 8th century

inscription found at Kuntillet Ajrud, which venerates Baal.981 However, this inscription,

along with others venerating Asherah and Yahweh, were written in Phoenician script.982

While script does not confirm the ethnicity of the individual who wrote these inscriptions,

the context of these inscriptions at a remote caravansary raises the likelihood that they

were made by traveling merchants from the Phoenician coast. Therefore, these

inscriptions do not provide a strong point of convergence with the biblical claim that

Israelites widely engaged in Baal worship.

In Section 5.5. I demonstrated a dramatic increase in the presence of Phoenician

style ceramics in Iron IIA levels at Tel Dan. These ceramics, though Phoenician in style,

were locally produced. Given the evidence that Phoenician named individuals were

employed as officials at Samaria, it is possible that the sudden increase in Phoenician

style ceramics relates to the participation and employ of Phoenicians in the cultic

activities at Tel Dan. While not strictly conclusive, the concentration of Phoenician style

material culture within the main cult area at Dan converges with the biblical claim that

Ahab’s queen royally supported members of the Baal cult.983

6.6.6. I Kings 17:9

ְלַכְלְּכֶלJ׃ ַאְלָמָנה ִאָּׁשה ָׁשם ִצִּויִתי ִהֵּנה ָׁשם ְוָיַׁשְבָּת ְלִצידֹון ֲאֶׁשר ָצְרַפָתה ֵל! קּום 9

Translation


981Renz, Handbuch der Althebräischen Epigraphik: Teil 1 Text und Kommentar, 57-59. See the plaster
inscription from Kuntillet Ajrud in Ziony Zevit, Religions of Ancient Israel: A Parallactic Approach (New
York: Continuum, 2001), 372-405, and the Khirbet el-Qom inscription G.I. Davies et al., Ancient Hebrew
Inscriptions: Corpus and Concordance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 25.003.
982 Renz, Handbuch der Althebräischen Epigraphik: Teil 1 Text und Kommentar, 57-64.
983 I Kings 18:19



249


9) Go at once to Zarephath of Sidon, and stay there, I have designated a widow there to

sustain you.

Textual Commentary

I Kings 17:7-16 tells the story of God’s provision for Elijah through a Phoenician widow

and her son. The story is commonly held to be an old folktale or legend. This story, likely

well-known among prophetic circles, was used by the Deuteronomistic author/redactor to

introduce the prophet Elijah.984

Historical Commentary

Zarephath is the Hebrew term for Sarepta, an important Phoenician city located

along the Lebanese Coast between Tyre and Sidon. This site has provided some of the

richest data we have regarding Phoenicia in the Late Bronze- Iron Age.985

6.6.7. 2 Kings 23:13

ִיְׂשָרֵאלֶמֶל!־ ְׁשZֹמה ָּבָנה ֲאֶׁשר ַהַּמְׁשִחיתְלַהר־ ִמיִמין ֲאֶׁשר ְירּוָׁשַלִם ְּפֵניַעל־ ֲאֶׁשר׀ ַהָּבמֹותְוֶאת־ 13

ַהֶּמֶל!׃ ִטֵּמא ַעּמֹוןְּבֵני־ ּתֹוֲעַבת ּוְלִמְלּכֹם מֹוָאב ִׁשֻּקץ ְוִלְכמֹוׁש ִצידִֹנים ִׁשֻּקץ ְלַעְׁשֹּתֶרת׀

Translation

13) The king then defiled the high places facing Jerusalem to the south of the Mount of

the Destroyer. These Solomon king of Israel had built to Ashtoreth the abomination of

the Sidonians, to Chemosh the abomination of Moab, and to Milcom the abomination of

the Ammonites.





Textual Commentary


984 Long, I Kings with an Introduction to Historical Literature, 186-87.
985 See Section 4.1.4. for a detailed analysis of the archeological data related to the Iron I-IIA periods.



250


2 Kings 23:4-20 narrates the events surrounding King Josiah’s cultic reforms,

enumerating these events as brief reports. Its style stands in contrast to the complex

narrative of the previous section. While many arguments have been made regarding the

compositional history of this narrative, there remains no consensus regarding its origin.986

Verse 23:13 is a brief account of the destruction of the high places built previously by

Solomon.

Historical Commentary

Once again, Sidonian worship is associated with the goddess Ashtoreth.987 There

is no physical evidence of a high place dedicated to a Phoenician goddess, or any other

deity in the vicinity of Jerusalem. Thus, there is no convergence between the

archeological evidence and the biblical claim of a cultic site dedicated to Astarte.988

6.7. Book of Isaiah

6.7.1 Isaiah 23

סֵֹחר ִאי יְֹׁשֵבי ּדֹּמּו 2 ָלמֹו׃ִנְגָלה־ ִּכִּתים ֵמֶאֶרץ ִמּבֹוא ִמַּבִית ֻׁשַּדדִּכי־ ַּתְרִׁשיׁש ֳאִנּיֹות ֵהיִלילּו׀ צֹר ַמָּׂשא 1

ִצידֹון ּבֹוִׁשי 4 ּגֹוִים׃ ְסַחר ַוְּתִהי ְּתבּוָאָתּה ְיאֹור ְקִציר ִׁשחֹר ֶזַרע ַרִּבים ּוְבַמִים 3 ִמְלאּו!׃ ָים עֵֹבר ִצידֹון

ֵׁשַמעַּכֲאֶׁשר־ 5 ְבתּולֹות׃ רֹוַמְמִּתי ַּבחּוִרים ִגַּדְלִּתי ְולֹא ָיַלְדִּתיְולֹא־ ַחְלִּתילֹא־ ֵלאֹמר ַהָּים ָמעֹוז ָים ָאַמרִּכי־

ַקְדָמָתּה ֶקֶדםִמיֵמי־ ַעִּליָזה ָלֶכם ֲהזֹאת 7 ִאי׃ יְֹׁשֵבי ֵהיִלילּו ַּתְרִׁשיָׁשה ִעְברּו 6 צֹר׃ ְּכֵׁשַמע ָיִחילּו ְלִמְצָרִים

ָאֶרץ׃ִנְכַּבֵּדי־ ִּכְנָעֶניָה ָׂשִרים סֲֹחֶריה ֲאֶׁשר ַהַּמֲעִטיָרה צֹרַעל־ זֹאת ָיַעץ ִמי 8 ָלגּור׃ ֵמָרחֹוק ַרְגֶליָה יִֹבלּוָה

ֵאין ַּתְרִׁשיׁשַּבת־ ַּכְיֹאר ַאְרֵצ! ִעְבִרי 10 ָאֶרץ׃ִנְכַּבֵּדי־ָּכל־ ְלָהֵקל ְצִביָּכל־ ְּגאֹון ְלַחֵּלל ְיָעָצּה ְצָבאֹות ְיהָוה 9

תֹוִסיִפילֹא־ ַוּיֹאֶמר 12 ָמֻעְזֶניָה׃ ַלְׁשִמד ְּכַנַעןֶאל־ ִצָּוה ְיהָוה ַמְמָלכֹות ִהְרִּגיז ַהָּיםַעל־ ָנָטה ָידֹו 11 עֹוד׃ ֵמַזח


986 See discussion in Burke O. Long, 2 Kings (eds. Rolf P. Knierim and Gene M. tucker; Grand Rapids:
William B. Eerdmans, 1991), 273.
987 See discussion above in Section 6.6.4.
988 While a more general discussion of the archeological evidence regarding Josiah’s cultic reforms would
be fascinating, it lies beyond the focus of the present study.



251


ֶזה ַּכְׂשִּדים ֶאֶרץ ֵהן׀ 13 ָל!׃ ָינּוַח לֹא־ ָׁשםַּגם־ ֲעבִֹרי קּוִמי ִּכִּתים ִצידֹוןַּבת־ ְּבתּוַלת ַהְמֻעָּׁשָקה ַלְעלֹוז עֹוד

ַּתְרִׁשיׁש ֳאִנּיֹות ֵהיִלילּו 14 ְלַמֵּפָלה׃ ָׂשָמּה ַאְרְמנֹוֶתיָה עְֹררּו ַבחּוָניו ֵהִקימּו ְלִצִּיים ְיָסָדּה ַאּׁשּור ָהָיה לֹא ָהָעם

ִיְהֶיה ָׁשָנה ִׁשְבִעים ִמֵּקץ ֶאָחד ֶמֶל! ִּכיֵמי ָׁשָנה ִׁשְבִעים צֹר ְוִנְׁשַּכַחת ַההּוא ַּבּיֹום ְוָהָיה 15 ָמֻעְּזֶכן׃ ֻׁשַּדד ִּכי

ְוָהָיה 17 ִּתָּזֵכִרי׃ ְלַמַען ִׁשירַהְרִּבי־ ַנֵּגן ֵהיִטיִבי ִנְׁשָּכָחה זֹוָנה ִעיר סִֹּבי ִכּנֹור ְקִחי 16 ַהּזֹוָנה׃ ְּכִׁשיַרת ְלצֹר

ָהֲאָדָמה׃ ְּפֵניַעל־ ָהָאֶרץ ַמְמְלכֹותָּכל־ֶאת־ ְוָזְנָתה ְלֶאְתַנָּנה ְוָׁשָבה צֹרֶאת־ ְיהָוה ִיְפקֹד ָׁשָנה ִׁשְבִעים ִמֵּקץ׀

ֶלֱאכֹל ַסְחָרּה ִיְהֶיה ְיהָוה ִלְפֵני ַלּיְֹׁשִבים ִּכי ֵיָחֵסן ְולֹא ֵיָאֵצר לֹא ַליהָוה קֶֹדׁש ְוֶאְתַנָּנּה ַסְחָרּה ְוָהָיה 18

ָעִתיק׃ ְוִלְמַכֶּסה ְלָׂשְבָעה

Translation

1) The oracle concerning Tyre. Wail, O ships of Tarshish, destroyed, without home or

port, 989 from the land of Cyprus it was revealed to him. 2) Hush, you inhabitants of the

coastland, you merchants of Sidon; seafarers once filled990 you. 3) Over many waters

was her revenue, the grain of Shihor, the harvest of the Nile; and she was the market of

nations. 4) Be ashamed, O Sidon; for the sea speaks, the stronghold of the sea, saying, "I

have not labored nor given birth, I have not brought up young men nor reared virgins."

5) When the report reaches Egypt, they will be in anguish at the report of Tyre. 6) Pass

over to Tarshish; wail, O inhabitants of the coastland. 7) Is this your jubilant city, whose

origin is from antiquity, whose feet used to carry her to colonize distant places? 8) Who

has planned this against Tyre, the bestower of crowns, whose merchants were princes,

whose traders were the honored of the earth? 9) The LORD of hosts has planned it to

defile the pride of all nobles,991 to despise all the honored of the earth. 10) Overflow your


989 Given the context, ָמְבֹוא (entry/ port) makes better sense.
990 IQIsa reads מלאכיך (your messengers).
991 Based on Proto-Semitic dby. See G. R. Driver, "Isaiah I-XXXIX: Textual and Linguistic Problems," JSS
13, no. 1 (1968): 49.



252


land like the Nile, O daughter of Tarshish, this is a harbor no more. 11) He has stretched

His hand out over the sea, He has made the kingdoms tremble; the LORD has given a

command concerning Canaan to demolish its strongholds.992 12) He has said, "You shall

exult no more, O crushed virgin daughter of Sidon. Arise, pass over to Cyprus; even there

you will find no rest." 13) Behold, the land of the Chaldeans-- this is the people which

has ceased to be; Assyria appointed it for desert creatures-- they erected their seige

towers, they stripped its palaces, they made it a ruin. 14) Wail, O ships of Tarshish, for

your stronghold is destroyed. 15) In that day, Tyre will be forgotten for seventy years,

like the duration of one king. At the end of seventy years it will be for Tyre as in the song

of the harlot: 16) Take a harp, walk about the city, O forgotten harlot; play well, sing

many songs, that you may be remembered. 17) It will come about at the end of seventy

years that the LORD will visit Tyre. Then she will go back to her harlot's wages, and will

play the harlot with all the kingdoms on the face of the earth. 18) But her gain and her

harlot's wages will be set apart to the LORD; it will not be stored up or hoarded, but her

gain will become sufficient food and choice attire for those who dwell in the presence of

the LORD.

Textual Commentary

Chapters 13-23 of the book of Isaiah contain the oracles against foreign nations. In

general, it is held that much of this material comes from the prophet Isaiah and his work

in Jerusalem.993 While some of the chapters in this collection of oracles show signs of

later editing or reshaping, chapter 23, the oracle against Tyre, shows no signs of influence


992 The nun in ָמֻעְזֶניָה is likely a result of Aramaic vocalization. See John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah:
Chapters 1-39 (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdsman Publishing Company, 1986), 425.
993 H.G.M Williamson, The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah's Role in Composition and Redaction
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 156.



253


from a later author/redactor. Therefore, it is likely an original message delivered to an

audience in Jerusalem sometime in the latter half of the 8th century.994

Historical Commentary

The oracle against Tyre provides a great deal of data concerning Tyre’s activities beyond

the shores of the Levantine coast in the 8th century B.C.E.. While a comprehensive

treatment of Phoenicia’s expansion and colonization to the west falls beyond the focus of

the present study, broad convergences between Isaiah 23 and the archaeological data will

be treated in brief.995

The ships of Tarshish and the port of Tarshish feature prominently in this

oracle.996 As discussed earlier in Section 6.6.3., archeological data show that between the

10th-9th centuries B.C.E., Phoenicians established a significant trade emporium on the

Iberian peninsula at Huelva, Spain. Isaiah’s focus on Tarshish no doubt emphasizes the

importance of the economic relationship between the Iberian peninsula and the

Phoenician coast, even down to the 8th century. In addition to Huelva, excavations at

Cadiz demonstrate contact with Phoenicia by the first half of the 8th century. Other early

examples of Phoenician colonization in the Mediterranean include Kition (9th century),

Carthage (8th century), Utica (8/7th century), Motya (8th century), Sulcis (8th century),

Malaga (8th century), Granada (8th century), Almeria (8th century), and Morro de

Mezquitilla (8th century).997 This list of sites strongly suggests an explosion of Phoenician


994 Ibid. 188.
995 For a detailed study of Phoenician expansion and colonization of the Mediterranean see Aubet, The
Phoenicians and the West, .
996 Isaiah 23:1, 6, 10, and 14.
997 Aubet, The Phoenicians and the West, 51-54, 213-346.



254


colonizing efforts in the Mediterranean in the 8th century, which converges well with

Isaiah 23:7.

Isaiah 23:3 and 5 speak to the close trade relations between Egypt and Tyre which

began early in the Iron Age. The Wenamun text mentions the xbr (trade contract)

between Egypt and Sidon/Byblos.998 Nile perch remains and ceramic store vessels found

at Tel Dor indicate that this relationship existed in the 11th century B.C.E.999 Diplomatic

relations with Sidon are evident earlier, based on the 12th century cartouche of

Twosret.1000 While there is evidence that Phoenicia maintained ties with Egypt during

the Iron I period, these ties appear to have grown much stronger during the Iron IIA

period. In the 22nd Dynasty, Egyptian culture strongly influenced Phoenicia in numerous

ways. Small art objects like scarabs, stamp seals, and amulets all show a strong

connection with the 22nd Dynasty in Egypt.1001 These scarabs and amulets played an

important role in Phoenician culture, perhaps best illustrated by the cremation burials at

9th-8th century Tyre.1002 Weights found in an early 9th century context at Horvat Rosh

Zayit show clear connections with Egyptian weight standards.1003 The Royal Byblian

inscriptions demonstrate political ties with Egypt and the Levantine coast.1004 This

archaeological evidence converges well with Isaiah’s description of the relationship

between Tyre and Egypt.

Isaiah 23:12 specifies Cyprus as a future place of refuge for Tyre. As

demonstrated earlier in Chapter 4, Rachidieh, Tel Kazel, Tell Keisan, and Tel Dor, all

998 See section 3.3.5.
999 See section 4.1.9.
1000 See sections 4.1.3.
1001 See section 4.2.3.2.
1002 Ibid.
1003 See Section 4.1.10.
1004 See KAI 4-7 and section 4.2.3.2.



255


traded with Cyprus in the 9th-8th centuries B.C.E.1005 Bichrome store jars and Black-on-

Red vessels provide ceramic evidence of market exchanges between Cyprus and the

Phoenician coast.1006 The use of ashlar masonry in architecture at Cyprus also suggests

strong ties between Cyprus and the Phoenician Coast in the 9th-8th centuries.1007

Furthermore, archeological and textual evidence from Kition show that the Phoenician

coast had administrative control of much of Cyprus by the 9th century B.C.E.1008

Isaiah 23:14 proclaims the future destruction of Tyre’s stronghold. Tyre’s

destruction came in 701, at the hand of the Assyrians. A bas-relief from Khorsabad,

unfortunately now lost, depicted Luli (Elulaios) king of Tyre fleeing in ships from the

fortified island of Tyre.1009 Textual evidence for the flight of Luli has been preserved in

the annals of Sennacherib.1010

To conclude, the content of Isaiah 23 primarily relates to the history of Phoenicia

beyond the mainland, and although most of this material falls beyond the geographic

focus of the present study, the numerous convergences between the biblical text and

archaeological record in the 8th century certainly warrant the brief synopsis above.

6.8. Book of Jeremiah

Three verses in the book of Jeremiah make reference to Tyre and Sidon. As seen in

Isaiah, Jeremiah 25:22 highlights Phoenicia’s influence beyond the Levant.1011 Jeremiah

27:3 lists Tyre and Sidon among the nations who have envoys in Jerusalem. Jeremiah


1005 See sections 4.1.2., 4.1.7., 4.1.8., and 4.1.9.
1006 See sections 5.3.6., 5.3.4.
1007 See section 4.2.1.
1008 Aubet, The Phoenicians and the West, 51-54.
1009 Ibid., 39.
1010 Luckenbill, The Annals of Sennacherib 29. For a full treatment of Classical and Assyrian sources
related to the rule of King Luli, see Katzenstein, The History of Tyre, 220-58.
1011 See Section 6.7.1.



256


47:4 notes that the Philistines were an asset to Tyre and Sidon and claims that they would

soon be missed. Each of these verses raises important historical questions related to the

6th century, questions that are beyond the timeframe of the present investigation .

6.9. Book of Ezekiel

The post-exilic book of Ezekiel devotes chapters 26-28 to oracles against Tyre and Sidon.

Chapter 26 contains prophetic utterances regarding the fall of Tyre at the hand of

Nebuchadnezzar. Chapter 27 laments Tyre and her forecasted destruction. Chapter 28

contains prophetic utterances against the king of Tyre, a lament for the king of Tyre, and

prophetic utterances against Sidon. However, the information presented in these passages

relates to Phoenician history in the 6th century, beyond the limits of the present study.1012

6.10. Book of Hosea

The book of Hosea is attributed to the prophetic ministry of Hosea ben Beeri, an 8th

century prophet to the northern state of Israel. Set in the 8th century, the book of

Hosea contains two brief statements related to Phoenicia and the Phoenicians.

6.10.1 Hosea 9:13

ָּבָניו׃ הֵֹרגֶאל־ ְלהֹוִציא ְוֶאְפַרִים ְבָנֶוה ְׁשתּוָלה ְלצֹור ָרִאיִתיַּכֲאֶׁשר־ ֶאְפַרִים 13

13) Ephraim, like I have seen1013 Tyre,1014 is planted in a pleasant meadow; but Ephraim

will bring out his children for slaughter.


1012 A recent study by Martin Alonso Corral explores the historical content and setting of Ezekiel 26- 28.
He concludes, on archaeological grounds, that Ezekiel’s oracles against Tyre converge well with the data
available from 580-570 B.C.E. See Martin Alonso Corral, Ezekiel's Oracles Against Tyre: Historical
Reality and Motivations (Rome: Editrice Pontifico Instituto Biblico, 2002), 169-78.
1013 On the basis of verse 11, it is suggested that this phrase be emended to ַאֶּיֶלת (doe, deer). See BHS



257


Textual Commentary

The significant difference between the LXX and the MS suggests that this verse is

corrupt. Based on the context, this verse likely referred to an animal metaphor rather than

the city-state Tyre.1015

Historical Commentary

Since the reading of “Tyre” is doubtful, this passage does not provide any data related to

Phoenicia in the 8th century B.C.E.

6.10.2 Hosea 12:8

ָאֵהב׃ ַלֲעׁשֹק ִמְרָמה מֹאְזֵני ְּבָידֹו ְּכַנַען 8

8) A merchant, in whose hands are false balances, he loves to oppress.

Textual Commentary

Hosea 12:1-15 is a prophetic synopsis of Israel’s history. In verse 8, the prophet likens

Israel’s actions to the dishonest practices of the “Canaanite.” Here the term, “Canaanite”

is synonymous with Phoenician merchant.1016

Historical Commentary

This 8th century biblical portrayal of notoriously dishonest Phoenician merchants

converges with 8th century Greek accounts. According to Homer, the Phoenicians were

merchants and pirates infamous for abducting people and selling them in foreign



1014 Based on the LXX, BHS recommends .(has set his sons for a hunter) ְלַצִיד ָׁשתּו ָלֶהם ָּבֶניָה
1015 James Luther Mayes, Hosea: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969), 134.
1016 See section 2.2.



258


lands.1017 No doubt the Phoenician monopoly over maritime trade networks afforded the

less scrupulous of them many opportunities to take advantage of customers.

6.11. The Hebrew Bible and Phoenician Ethnicity and Geopolitics

Having established points of convergence between the biblical data and the

archaeological data, I will now draw some conclusions regarding biblical evidence

related to ethnicity and geopolitics in the Iron I-IIA periods.

At the end of the Late Bronze Age or early in the Iron I period the major

Canaanite city Hazor was destroyed, probably by Israelites. The destruction severed

political and economic ties with the Phoenician coast in the following period. Concurrent

with the destruction of Hazor, the coastal site of Achshaph was abandoned. The

abandonment of this site may be related to the same conflict that destroyed Hazor.

However, unlike Hazor, Phoenician political and economic ties with Achshaph greatly

increased in the following period, which resulted in a golden age for this city through the

11th century. Despite the success of Achshaph in the 11th century, much of the population

concentrated near the major cities in the Akko plain decreased in the Iron I period. At the

same time, a dramatic increase in small settlements scattered throughout the hills of

Galilee appeared. A group of people known as Asher were among the inhabitants of this

region in the Iron I period. Despite the changes that occurred in the hills of Galilee, the

major cities of Akko, Sidon, and Achzib retained their coastal Canaanite culture through

the Iron I period.

By the 10th century B.C.E. evidence shows an increase in market exchanges

between the kingdom of Israel and Tyre. The tripartite buildings atTell Qasile and Tell


1017 Odyssey 13:272; 14: 287-300; 15:415-428.



259


Abu Hawam likely played a key role in the exchange of goods between Israel and Tyre. It

is likely that Tyre supplied timber and possibly skilled labor, while Israel supplied

geographic territory in the western Galilee, and possibly agricultural products. In addition

to the increased transactions between Tyre and Israel, Tyre began maritime enterprises to

the Iberian peninsula. These expeditions enriched the Phoenician coast through the

acquisition of gold, silver, ivory and primates. There is also a possibility that Tyre may

have been involved in maritime expeditions in the Red Sea in the 10th-9th centuries.

In the 9th-8th centuries there is preliminary evidence that points to ties between the

ashlar harbor at Tyre and the monumental buildings at Samaria. It is also likely that

ethnic Phoenicians held government positions at Samaria. I have also suggested that they

were employed as cult officials at Tel Dan. In addition, Tyre continued to expand its

colonization activities throughout much of the Mediterranean, and forged close relations

with Egypt, Cyprus, and the Iberian Peninsula.












260


Chapter VII: Conclusion

The primary objective of this study was to examine the data related to group identity

along the Northern Levantine littoral, more specifically, to identify characteristic features

related to the culture, and geopolitical interactions of the inhabitants along the Phoenician

coast in the Iron I-IIa periods. In order to do so, ancient Near Eastern texts, archeological

data, and biblical texts were examined for information related to group identity; these

characteristics include terms of identity, onomastics, script, language, ritual behavior,

architecture, mortuary practice, style of artifact, and technologies. In addition to these

characteristics an attempt has been made to better define the geopolitical history of the

region. From Tell Kazel to Tel Dor the present study has identified elements that

contribute to both a common group identity as well as disparate identities. The following

is a summary of the present findings.

7.1. Characteristics of Phoenician Identity

7.1.1. Terms of Identity

In every society labels are employed for both self definition and to define others. These

labels play an important role in group identity, and provide insight into both the

perception of those outside the group as well as the perception of those inside the group.

The term Phoenician most commonly used in the literature to define the Iron Age

inhabitants of the Lebanese coast, is likely of Indo-European rather than Semitic origin.

Based on the ancient Near Eastern textual evidence, the Semitic root Kn‘n (Canaanite)

was the preferred designation for much of the Egyptian-controlled Levant during the Late

Bronze Age. In the Iron Age, few texts labeled the inhabitants of the Phoenician coast

Canaanite. Rather, the Hebrew Bible and early Greek sources used the geopolitical terms



261


Sidonian, Byblian, and Tyrian to refer to individuals who came from the environs of

these major cities. Based on the currently available data, the major cities of Sidon,

Byblos, and Arwad can be identified as the centers of power along the Phoenician coast

in the Iron I period. While it is convenient to use the term “Phoenician” to refer generally

to the inhabitants of the Lebanese coast, ancient Near Eastern texts from the Iron I period

demonstrate that the whole of the Phoenician coast was divided into three major political

units.1018 Thus in terms of self perception it seems more accurate to acknowledge the

desparate identities in the region centered on several powerful cities.

7.1.2. Onomastics

Personal names also provide another important line of evidence for group identity. In the

ancient Near East personal names often contain theophoric elements. In the Iron Age

Levant these theophoric elements become increasingly linked to national dieties, and thus

provide some insight into national and religeous affiliations. The national and religious

affiliations of the names found at Byblos demonstrate that Baal was an important deity in

the onomastic tradition at Byblos in the Iron I-IIA periods. This evidence also aides in

correctly transliterating the name of the king of Byblos as recorded in the Wenamun

Papyrus.

While personal names can be characteristic of group identity, the presence of

similar names outside of Phoenician coastal territory raises questions. Do the five

Baalistic names found on ostraca from Samaria, indicate that foreigners from the

Lebanese coast were working in Samaria? Were Baalistic names also used by Israelites?


1018 Similarly, the term Israel is frequently used to refer generally to the inhabitants of the territory between
Dan and Beersheba. Obviously, in an Iron IIA-IIB geopolitical context it is more accurate to differentiate
Israel from Judah.



262


Why did the Sikil ruler of Dor in the mid-11th century have the Phoenician name Bad-el?

These questions demonstrate that the boundaries for group identity are not always clearly

defined by the onomastic evidence.

7.1.3. Script

The development of alphabetic writing is often ascribed to the Phoenicians. While there

is clear evidence of earlier alphabetic scripts in the ancient Near East, the seven

inscriptions found in early Iron levels at Byblos provide a rare corpus of data regarding

the unique style of script used at Byblos. The inscriptions are dated roughly to the 10th

century B.C. E. Evidence of stylistic change is apparent in these inscriptions which were

composed over a one hundred year period. The continued use of this script at Phoenician

sites in later Iron IIB inscriptions confirms the value of this script as a marker for group

identity along the Phoenician coast. Below is an example of the script found at Byblos:

Table. 7.1.1. Comparison of Modern Hebrew Script and Ahiram Script

א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י כ ל מ נ ס ע פ צ ק ר ש ת

א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י כ ל מ נ ס ע פ צ ק ר ש ת



7.1.4. Language

Another characteristic feature of group identity along the Phoenician coast is language.

The Byblian inscriptions provide the largest body of evidence regarding Phoenician

language during the Iron I-IIA periods. When compared to later inscriptions found along

the Phoenician coast it is clear that a common language was maintained through the Iron

Age along the Phoenician coast. Unfortunately, the data concerning the distribution of

this language in the Iron I-IIA is limited to the city of Byblos.



263


In addition to the Byblian inscriptions, the Wenamun text also provides some

data regarding the Phoenician language in the 11th century B.C.E. Several names in the

Wenamun text have clear Phoenician parallels. Also, the speech of Zakar-Baal

demonstrates the use of parallelism, a well-attested literary device in West Semitic

narrative poetry.

7.1.5 Ritual Behavior

Along the Phoenician coast at the end of the Iron I-IIA period, Egyptian-style artifacts

played a significant role in cultic activity. At the end of the 10th century B.C.E., Abibaal

King of Byblos offered a statue of Shoshenq I to the Lady of Byblos. Abibaal’s son,

Elibaal, similarly offered a statue of Osorkon I to the Lady of Byblos. At Tyre, Sarepta,

Tell Kazel, and Tel Dan small amulets depicting Egyptian deities also appear in Iron IIA

contexts. During this same period, Egyptian-style scarabs were in vogue at Tyre, Sarepta,

Achzib, Akko, Tell Abu Hawam, Horvat Rosh Zayit, and Dor. The majority of these

seals appear in mortuary contexts. Thus, the incorporation of Egyptian deities and

Pharonic symbols in cultic and ritual activities at the end of the Iron I and Iron IIA

periods is characteristic of those living along the Phoenician coast. The incorporation of

Egyptian culture into this facet of Phoenician group identity correlates directly with

renewed political ties with Egypt.

7.1.6. Architecture

In the Late Bronze Age, ashlar masonry was a common feature of palatial and harbor

construction throughout the Mediterranean world. During the Iron I period, ashlar

masonry is not very common, but does appear at the sites of Sarepta, Tell Kazel, Tell

Keisan, and Dor. In the 10th century B.C.E., the appearance of ashlar masonry expands to



264


include the sites of Horvat Rosh Zayit, Tell Abu Hawam, Achzib, and Tel Dan. By the

9th-8th centuries ashlar masonry appears in great abundance at Arwad, Tyre, and Sidon,

where entire harbors were constructed using ashlar stones. In addition to the Phoenician

coastal sites, ashlar masonry appears in abundance at numerous Israelite sites, especially

Samaria. Recently discovered mason marks at Tyre show ties with the mason marks

found at Samaria. Once again the lines between what is Israelite and what is Phoenician

blur suggesting some degree of positive reciprocity between Samaria and the Phoenician

coast in the Iron IIA period.

Another type of architecture characteristic of the Phoenician coast is pier-rubble

construction, an architectural style that incorporated both ashlar blocks and small

unworked stones. Architecture featuring this technique appears in 11th-10th century levels

at Tel Abu Hawam, Tell Keisan, Tell Kazel, and Horvat Rosh Zayit. At Beirut, this

architectural style continued to be used up to the eighth century. The great benefit of pier-

rubble construction is that it combines the strength and stability of costly ashlars with the

much more economical use of unworked stones.

7.1.7. Mortuary Practice

At Tyre, Rachidieh, and Achzib, there is clear evidence that cremation was one of the

major mortuary practices in the Iron IIA period. The typical cremation burial included a

large urn containing the ashes and bones of the deceased and a large plate to seal the urn.

Provisions for the dead in the afterlife included one pitcher and one jug; these probably

contained wine and honey. These burials were often marked with head stones marked

with symbols for Baal or Tanit. Egyptian stamp seals were often included with the dead,



265


perhaps to serve as talismen. Since these burials are unique to the coastal environs of

Tyre, they serve as a marker of Tyrian ethnicity in the Iron IIA period.

7.1.8. Style of Artifact

Ceramic types common to the Phoenician coast in the Iron I-IIA period include standard

Phoenician bichrome, Black-on-Red bowls, Red-Slipped bowls, and cylindrical store jars.

Based on petrographic studies, it is clear that cylindrical store jars were manufactured on

the Phoenician coast and then used in market exchanges with neighboring nations. The

use of standard Phoenician bichrome as decoration on cremation urns at Tyre suggests

that this painting style is characteristic of Phoenician artistic style on the whole.

However, standard Phoenician bichrome decoration also appears in some quantity on

commercial type vessels beyond the borders of the Phoenician coast. Black-on-Red bowls

and Red-Slipped bowls also appear beyond Phoenician territory. All of these vessels can

be considered either commercial or luxury forms, with clear connections to Cypriot-style

vessels. While these vessel types are clearly abundant along the Phoenician coast, and

certainly characteristic of Phoenician material culture, their function as marketable goods

makes them weak markers for ethnicity. Rather, they provide insight into the cultural

influence and market exchanges that took place between the Phoenician coast, Cyprus,

and Israelite territory. As with the ceramic evidence, decorative styles preserved on bone

and ivory objects during the Iron I period point to a Cypriot influence on the material

culture of both the Lebanese coast and the Akko plain in the Iron I period.

7.1.9. Technologies

Purple dye production is probably the technology most commonly associated with

Phoenicians. The reality is, this technology existed and was used by multiple cultures



266


throughout the Late Bronze Age. It was the preservation and continuity of this industry

along the Phoenician coast through the Iron I period that led to the development of Tyre’s

monopoly on this commodity. Evidence of the manufacture of purple dye during the last

century of the Late Bronze Age appears at Sarepta, Akko, and Tel Abu Hawam. In the

Iron I period, Sarepta continued to produce the dye, and new installations were founded

at both Tyre and Tel Keisan. In the Iron IIA period, Shiqmona also began to produce

purple dye. The incredible value of this ancient industry was a major source of wealth for

the Phoenician coast, and became one of its most defining characteristics.1019

Unlike the purple dye industry, there is a lack of evidence for the continuation of

bronze metallurgy in the Iron I period at Sarepta and other Phoenician sites. The evidence

of strong economic ties between Cyprus and the Phoenician coast through the Iron I

period indicates that Cyprus may have shared its iron technology. However, there is no

clear evidence for the use or manufacture of iron along the Phoenician Coast in the Iron I

period.

In addition to their monopoly of purple dye production, the Phoenicians greatly

expanded their maritime ventures, which enabled them to trade with Iberia by the 10th-9th

centuries B.C.E. Their seafaring expertise, combined with aggressive development of

trade colonies throughout the Mediterranean, led to Phoenician maritime dominance.

7.2. Geopolitics and Geographic Territory

7.2.1. The Iron I period

At the end of the Late Bronze Age, the cities of Tell Kazel (Ṣumer), Kamid el Loz

(Kumidi), Tell Keisan (Achshaph), Tell Abu Hawam, and Tel Dor were destroyed.


1019 Much like the modern association of Saudi Arabia with oil.



267


Sidon, Sarepta, and Tyre, on the other hand, show no evidence of destruction. According

to Joshua 11, the major Canaanite city of Hazor rallied the neighboring cities and regions

including Achshaph and Dor to fight against Israel, which they perceived was a threat to

the geopolitical stability of the region. The large army amassed by Hazor failed and the

forces were driven up to the environs of Sidon. Following this battle, Hazor and its allied

cities found their defenses diminished. As a result Hazor was razed and never

reestablished as a Canaanite city with coastal ties; ultimately, it fell under Israelite

control. Tel Dor was destroyed and reestablished in a spectacular way by the Syro-

Lebanese Sikil. Tell Keisan was abandoned, and quickly reestablished on a grand level by

the Sidonians. This interpretation of the evidence recognizes that at the end of the Late

Bronze Age, no single group of people can be blamed for the sweeping destruction and

decentralization that occurred at major cities throughout the Levant. Rather, Philistines,

Sikil, Israelites, and others competed constantly to expand geographic territory through

hostile conflict. In this martial environment, the cities of the Akko plain maintained ties

with the Phoenician coast, but experienced a major reduction in population. While the

cultural composition of the region between Dor and Arwad remained similar to previous

Late Bronze Age culture, Dor itself was influenced by a more Northern Coastal culture,

which acquired political control of the site in the Iron I period.

As settlements in the Akko plain decreased in the Iron I period, the number of

settlements in the highlands of the Galilee rose dramatically. Based on Papyrus Anastasi,

it is clear that in the Iron I period there was a location referred to by the Egyptians as ʼA-s-

sA-ru, in the environs of Megiddo. Further inland, at the site of Tel Dan, there is limited

evidence of market exchanges with the environs of Sidon in the form of imported pithoi.



268


By contrast, Phoenician-style painted ware was primarily a local production. Despite the

presence of these coastal materials at Tel Dan, architectural and industrial evidence

indicate stronger parallels with Kamid el Loz (Kumidi), Hazor, and the highlands of

Galilee rather than the Phoenician coast.

In terms of international relations, it is clear that Sidon and Byblos had trade

contracts and continued diplomatic ties with Egypt, as seen by the Twosret cartouche and

Wenamun text. Trade with Cyprus is also evident at Phoenician sites, and becomes quite

pronounced in the 11th century B.C.E. Trade between Arwad and Assyria also occurred

during the time of Tiglath-Pileser I.

7.2.2. The Transition Iron I-IIA period.

In the 10th century B.C.E., the first signs of market exchanges between the Phoenician

coast and the kingdom of Israel are evident. At Tel Qasile and Tel Abu Hawam

Phoenician ceramics appear in Israelite tripartite buildings. These ports may have

functioned as Israelite ports of entry for commerce with the Phoenician coast.

Commodities from Sidon and Byblos likely included timber. In the lower foothills of the

Galilee, Tyre appears to have expanded its territory to include the agricultural site of

Horvat Rosh Zayit. In addition, ashlar blocks in the temple area at Dan point to

Phoenician participation in construction projects within Israel. The large six-chambered

gates at Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer may have also been constructed with Phoenician

assistance in the latter part of the 10th century.

In addition to trade with Israel, the Phoenicians established a trade emporium on

the Iberian Peninsula at Huelva for a variety of imports including gold, silver, ivory, and

exotic animals. Trade with Cyprus also continued during this period. Toward the end of



269


the 10th century, Shoshenq I engaged in a major military campaign throughout much of

the Levant. During this period, diplomatic ties were reestablished between Egypt and

Byblos.

7.2.3. Iron IIA period.

In the Iron IIA period, the region between Arwad and the Carmel mountains remained the

territory of the Phoenician city-states. Purple dye at Shiqmona, cremation burials at

Achzib and Tyre, and Astarte figurines at Tell Kazel are among the finds characteristic of

Phoenician material culture in this period. Tyre, Sidon, and Arwad experienced extreme

wealth during this period as exhibited by the harbors built using only ashlar stones. Other

signs of wealth include the numerous cremation burials found at Tyre, Rachidieh and

Achzib. Dor, however, appears no longer to have been ruled by the Sikil; rather, Israel

controlled the site in the Iron IIA period.

Strong ties are evident between Israel and Phoenicia in the Iron IIA period.

Increased distribution of Black-on-Red ware, Red-Slipped bowls and cylindrical store

jars provide evidence of both market exchanges and cross-cultural influence. At the

Israelite capital of Samaria, mason marks similar to those found at the harbor of Tyre

suggest Phoenician craftsman may have participated in Israelite building projects.

Baalistic names found at Samaria suggest the employment of Phoenicians within the

Samarian government. Similarly, Phoenician-style ceramics and cult objects in the sacred

precinct at Tel Dan point to Phoenician influence on the Israelite cult. Finally, it is clear

that Israel partnered with Byblos and Arwad in a military coalition against Assyria during

the reign of Ahab.



270


Ties with Egypt established in the previous period continue well into the Iron IIB

period, as evident in the use of Egyptian scarabs in cremation burials. The presence of

Egyptian amulets also becomes more prevalent throughout the Phoenician sites.

However, the relationship between Cyprus and the Phoenician coast changed in the Iron

IIA period. An important trade partner in the Iron I period, Cyprus became home to a

large Phoenician colony. It appears that Phoenicia established some degree of governance

over the island of Cyprus in the Iron IIA period. In addition to Cyprus, numerous other

colonies were established throughout the Mediterranean in the 9th-8th centuries, including

the famous city of Carthage.

7.3. Contributions

One of the main contributions made by the present study has been to define material

evidence characteristic of a common group identity amongst the population of the central

Levantine littoral, later called Phoenicia, strictly through the archaeological evidence

from sites along the Phoenician coast. The present study also contributes proposals

regarding the Syro-Lebanese origins of the Sikil and their geopolitical role vis à vis Sidon

and Byblos in the Iron I period. This study also offers detailed proposals regarding

conflict and geopolitical competition in the Iron I period, which include the role of Egypt,

the Sea Peoples, and Israel in the Akko plain. This study also presents and analyzes

unpublished ceramics from Tel Dan. Finally, the present study offers refined translations

and interpretations of the Wenamun text and the Hebrew Bible.

7.4. Further Research

The investigation of the archeological material from Tel Dan was limited to Strata VI-

IVA materials for both time and methodological considerations. There are, however,



271


more Phoenician-style artifacts in later levels of the sacred precinct which need to be

analyzed.

The future publication of current excavations at Sidon will no doubt add new

evidence relevant to the discussion of Iron I-IIA ethnicity and geopolitics. Thus, future

research will focus more intensively on the evidence from Sidon.

In this study, it was proposed that the Sikil, Sidon, and Israel all contributed and

participated in changing the geopolitical landscape of a narrowly defined area of the

Levantine coast. This prompts several questions: how many ethno-political groups can be

identified along the Levantine Coast in the Late Bronze-Iron I transition? What might be

said about these groups’ role in changing the geopolitical landscape of Canaan in the Iron

I-IIA periods? Research in this area would contribute greatly to a more refined

understanding of the geopolitical landscape of Canaan at the end of the Iron I period.













272


Plates





Pithoi


Pl. 1. Area T Stratum IVA, Snake-Band Pithos Locus 2093 (1). Area M Stratum

IVB Wavy-Band Pithos Locus 8010 (2).







[image: image1.png][image: image2.png][image: image3.png][image: image4.png][image: image5.png][image: image6.png][image: image7.png][image: image8.png]

273




Amphoriskos and Decanter






Pl.2. Area T Stratum IVA, Amphoriskos Locus 2093 (1); Bichrome Decanter Locus

2093 (2).





[image: image9.png][image: image10.png][image: image11.png][image: image12.png][image: image13.png][image: image14.png][image: image15.png][image: image16.png][image: image17.png][image: image18.png][image: image19.png][image: image20.png]

274




Black-on-Red Ware






Pl. 3. Black-on-Red Ware from Area T Loci 2235 (1), 2231 (2), and 2094 (4). From

Area B Locus 318 (3).





[image: image21.png][image: image22.png][image: image23.png][image: image24.png][image: image25.png][image: image26.png][image: image27.png][image: image28.png][image: image29.png][image: image30.png][image: image31.png][image: image32.png]

275


Cooking Pots Part A









Pl. 4. Stratum IVA Cooking Pots from Area B Loci 106 (1), 254 (2), and 179 (3).

From Area T Locus 725 (4).





[image: image33.png][image: image34.png][image: image35.png][image: image36.png][image: image37.png][image: image38.png][image: image39.png][image: image40.png][image: image41.png]

276


Cooking Pots Part B






Pl. 5. Stratum IVA cooking pots from Area T Loci 2094 (1) and 2304 (2). From Area

B Locus 175 (3).







[image: image42.png][image: image43.png][image: image44.png][image: image45.png][image: image46.png][image: image47.png][image: image48.png][image: image49.png][image: image50.png][image: image51.png][image: image52.png]

277


Store Jars




Pl. 6. Stratum IVA Store Jars from Area B Locus 119 (1). From Area T Loci 2094

(2), (4), and 2235 (3).







[image: image53.png][image: image54.png][image: image55.png][image: image56.png][image: image57.png][image: image58.png][image: image59.png][image: image60.png][image: image61.png][image: image62.png][image: image63.png][image: image64.png]

278


Kraters








Pl. 7. Kraters from Stratum IVB/IVA in Area B Loci 613 (1), 645 (2), and 663 (3).







[image: image65.png][image: image66.png][image: image67.png][image: image68.png][image: image69.png][image: image70.png][image: image71.png][image: image72.png][image: image73.png][image: image74.png][image: image75.png][image: image76.png]

279


Bichrome Flasks and Jugs



Pl. 8. Bichrome Flasks and Jugs From Stratum VI Area B Locus 4264 (3). From

Stratum V Area B Locus 1229 (1). From Stratum IVB Loci 597 (4), 7062 (5), 563 (6),

584 (7), 129 (8), and 612 (9). From Stratum IVA Locus 205 (2).





[image: image77.png][image: image78.png][image: image79.png][image: image80.png][image: image81.png][image: image82.png][image: image83.png][image: image84.png][image: image85.png]

280


Red-Slipped Ware-Thick Walled


Pl. 9. Stratum IVA Red-Slipped Ware- Thick Walled from Area T Loci 2460 (1),

2494 (2), 2395 (3), 2424 (4), 2395 (5), (8), 2094 (6), 2506 (7).



[image: image86.png][image: image87.png][image: image88.png][image: image89.png][image: image90.png][image: image91.png][image: image92.png][image: image93.png][image: image94.png][image: image95.png]

281


Bichrome Jug


Pl. 10. Bichrome Jug from Area T Locus 2794.

[image: image96.png][image: image97.png][image: image98.png][image: image99.png][image: image100.png][image: image101.png]

282


Figures


Fig. 4.1. Pier-rubble wall at Beirut.

1020





Fig. 4.2. Standard Phoenician bichrome vessel.

1021



1020 Josette Elayi, "An Unexpected Archaeological Treasure: The Phoenician Quarters in Beirut City
Center," NEA 73, no. 2-3 (2010): Fig. 6.
1021 Ayelet Gilboa, "The Dynamics of Phoenician Bichrome Pottery: A View from Tel Dor," BASOR 316
(1999): Fig. 5.3.

[image: image102.jpg][image: image103.png]

283



Fig. 4.3. Red-on-Black ceramics from Horvat Rosh Zayit.

1022





Fig. 4.4. Red-Slipped burnished bowl.

1023



1022 Zvi Gal and Yardenna Alexandre, Horbat Rosh Zayit. An Iron Age Storage Fort and Village
(Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2000), photo cover page.
1023 www.bu.edu/anep/BethShanIVBowl.gif.

[image: image104.jpg][image: image105.png]

284



Fig. 4.5. Wavy-Band Pithos from Tel Dan.






[image: image106.jpg]

285



Fig. 4.6. Amulets from Sarepta.

1024





Fig. 4.7. Cartouche of Taworset on an alabaster jar found at Sidon.

1025



1024 www.bu.edu/anep/SareptaShrine1Amulets1.gif.
1025 Marcel Marée, "A Jar From Sidon With the Name of Pharaoh-Queen Taworset," Archaeology and
History in Lebanon 24 (2006): 122-23.

[image: image107.png][image: image108.jpg]

286



Fig. 4.8. Scarab with Thutmose III cartouche from a cremation burial at

Tyre.
1026






Fig. 4.9. Scarab with Thutmose III cartouche from Jerusalem.




1026 Ingrid Gamer-Wallert, "IX The Scarabs," in Phoenician Cemetary of Tyre-Al Bass (ed. Maria Eugenia
Aubet; Beirut: Ministère de la Culture Direction Général des Antiquités, 2004), Fig. 259.1; 61.

[image: image109.jpg][image: image110.jpg]

287



Fig. 4.10. Purple dye industry at Tel Dor.

1027





Fig. 4.11. Harvested murex shells from Beirut.

1028



1027 Dor.huji.ac.il/Images/DOR_030.jpg.
1028 Elayi, "An Unexpected Archaeological Treasure: The Phoenician Quarters in Beirut City Center," Fig.
15.

[image: image111.jpg][image: image112.jpg][image: image113.jpg]

288



Fig. 4.12. Bellow pot from Iron I level at Tel Dor.

1029





Fig. 4.13. Cremation burial kit at Tyre Al-Bass.

1030



1029 Ayelet Gilboa and Ilan Sharon, "Between the Carmel and the Sea: Tel Dor's Iron Age Reconsidered,"
NEA 71, no. 3 (2009): 154.
1030 Maria Eugenia Aubet, "The Phoenician Cemetery of Tyre," NEA 73, no. 2-3 (2010): Fig. 7.

[image: image114.jpg][image: image115.jpg]

289



Fig. 4.14. Bichrome crematio

[image: image116.jpg]

290



Fig. 5.1. Area T Stratum IVA, after Biran 1996.

[image: image117.png][image: image118.png][image: image119.png][image: image120.png][image: image121.png][image: image122.png][image: image123.png][image: image124.png][image: image125.png]

291



Fig. 5.2. Area and Section Plan of Area T South, The Oil Press Installation.



[image: image126.png][image: image127.png][image: image128.png][image: image129.png][image: image130.png][image: image131.png][image: image132.png][image: image133.png][image: image134.png][image: image135.png]

292



Fig. 5.3. Area M plan, after Biran 1996

[image: image136.jpg]

293



Fig.5.4 Plan of Area B-East Strata III and IV, c.1968.


Fig. 5.5. Plan of Stratum IVB, after Ilan 1999.

[image: image137.png][image: image138.png][image: image139.png][image: image140.png][image: image141.png][image: image142.png][image: image143.png][image: image144.png]

294



Fig. 5.6. Plan of Stratum III, c. 1975.


Fig. 5.7. Stratum IVA in Area B, East and West.

[image: image145.png][image: image146.png][image: image147.png][image: image148.png][image: image149.png][image: image150.png][image: image151.png][image: image152.png]

295



Fig. 5.8. Wall 123 in Stratum IVA and its Position Beneath Stratum III.



























[image: image153.png][image: image154.png][image: image155.png][image: image156.png][image: image157.png][image: image158.png]

296



Fig. 5.9. Painted Sherds from Area M



[image: image159.jpg]

297



Fig. 5.10. Bichrome Krater from Area M, Scale 1:2.5.



























[image: image160.jpg]

298



Fig. 5.11. Bichrome and Monochrome Painted Ware.



[image: image161.jpg]

299



Fig. 5.12. Phoenician-Style Painted Ware.



[image: image162.jpg]

300



Fig. 5.13. Red-Slipped Ware.




[image: image163.jpg]

301


Tyre1031 Samaria1032 Byblian
Pseud-
Heiroglyph1033

Carian1034















Fig. 6.1 Samarian and Tyrian masson marks compared with known writing systems.












1031 G. Castellvi et al., "Recherches Archéologique sous-marine à Tyr " Bulletin d'Archeologie et
d'Architecture Libanaises 11 (2007): 63.
1032 Norma Franklin, "Masons' Marks from the Ninth Century BCE Norther Kingdom of Israel. Evidence of
the Nacent Carian Alphabet," in Kadmos: Zeitschrift für vor-und frühgriechische Epigraphik (ed. Ernst
Grumach; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2001), 110.
1033 Marice Dunand, Byblia Gramata: Documents et recherches sur le développement de le'écriture en
Phénicie (Beirut: Republique Libanaise, Ministere de l'Education National des Beaux-Arts 1945), 88.
1034 Ignaciao J. Adiego, The Carian Language (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 21.

[image: image164.jpg][image: image165.png][image: image166.jpg][image: image167.png][image: image168.jpg][image: image169.jpg][image: image170.jpg][image: image171.png][image: image172.jpg][image: image173.png][image: image174.jpg][image: image175.png][image: image176.jpg][image: image177.png]

302


Bibliography


Aharoni, Yohanan. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Translated by Anson

F. Rainey. 2d ed. Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox Press, 1979.

_____. "Mount Carmel as Border." Archäologie und Altes Testament (1970): 1-7.

Albenda, Pauline. "Syrian-Palestinian Cities on Stone." The Biblical Archaeologist 43,

no. 4 (1980): 222-29.

_____. "A Syro-Palestinian (?) City on a Ninth Century B. C. Assyrian Relief." Bulletin

of the American Schools of Oriental Research 206 (1972): 42-48.

Albright, William Foxwell. Archaeology and the Religion of Israel. 3rd ed. Baltimore:

Johns Hopkins Press, 1953.

_____. "The Phoenician Inscriptions of the Tenth Century B.C.from Byblos." Journal of

the American Oriental Society 67, no. 3 (1947): 153-60.

_____. "A Revision of Early Hebrew Chronology." The Journal of the Palestine Oriental

Society 1, no. 1 (1920).

_____. "The Role of Canaanites in the History of Civilization."Studies in the History of

Culture. Wisconsin: Menasha, 1942.

_____. "Some Important Recent Discoveries: Alphabetic Origins and the Idrimi Statue."

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 118 (1950): 11-20.

_____. "Some Sites and Names in Western Galilee." The Annual of the American Schools

of Oriental Research 2-3 (1923): 26-29.

_____. The Vocalization of the Egyptian Syllabic Orthography. New Haven: American

Oriental Society, 1934.

_____. "The Eastern Mediterranean about 1060 B.C." Pages 223-31 in Studies Presented

to D.M. Robinson I. Edited by G. Mylonas. Saint-Louis: Eden, 1951.

Alexandre, Yardenna. "A Canaanite-Early Phoenician Inscribed Bronze Bowl in an Iron

Age IIA-B Burial Cave at Kefar Veradim, Northern Israel." Maarav 13, no. 1
(2006): 7-41.


Alexandre, Yardenna and Edna J. Stern. "Phoenician Cremation Burials at Tel Bira."

Atiqot 42 (2001): 183-95.

Alt, Albrecht "Das Institute im Jahre 1927." Palästina Jahrbuch 24 (1928): 5-10.



303



Amadasi, Maria Giulia. "Two Phoenician Inscriptions Carved in Ivory: Again the Ur Box

and the Sarepta Plaque." Orientalia 59, no. 1 (1990): 58-66.

_____“"Under Western Eyes"." Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente Antico 4

(1987): 121-27.

Amnon-Ben-Tor, Ruhama Bonfil, and Yosef Garfinkel. James A. De Rothschild

Expedition at Hazor: Hazor V an Account of the Fifth Season of Excavation,
1968. Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society, and The Hebrew University of
Jerusalem, 1997.


Amnon-Ben-Tor and Sharon Zuckerman. "Hazor at The End of the Late Bronze Age:

Back to Basics." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 350
(2008): 1-6.


Anderson, William P. "The Beginnings of Phoenician Pottery: Vessel Shape, Style, and

Ceramic Technology in the Early Phases of the Phoenician Iron Age." Bulletin of
the American Schools of Oriental Research 279 (1990): 35-54.


_____. Sarepta I: The Late Bronze and Iron Age Strata of Area II, Y. Beirut: Université

Libanaise, 1988.

Aquaro, Enrico. "Bronzes." Pages 422-35 in The Phoenicians. Edited by Sabatino

Moscati. New York: Abbeville, 1988.

Arie, Eran. "Reconsidering the Iron Age II Strata at Tel Dan: Archaeological and

Historical Implications." Tel Aviv 35, no. 1 (2008): 6-64.

_____. "The Iron I Pottery From Levels K-5 and K-4." Pages 191-298 in Megiddo IV:

The 1998-2002 Seasons. Edited by Israel Finkelstein, David Ussishkin, and
Baruch Halpern. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology,
2006.


Ariel, Donald T. and Joseph Naveh. "Selected Inscribed Sealings from Kedesh in the

Upper Galilee." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 329
(2003): 61-80.


Arnold, Bill T. 1 & 2 Samuel: The NIV Application Commentary. Edited by Terry Muck.

Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003.

Artzi, Pinhas. "Some Unrecognized Syrian Amarna Letters (EA 260, 317, 318)." Journal

of Near Eastern Studies 27, no. 3 (1968): 163-71.

Artzy, Michal. "Nami: A Second Millennium International Maritime Trading Center in

the Mediterranean." Pages 17-40 in Recent Excavations in Israel: A View to the



304


West. Edited by Seymour Gitin. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/ Hunt Publishing
Company, 1995.


Assman, Jan. Kulturelle und Literarische Texte. Edited by Antonio Loprieno. New York:

Brill, 1996.

Astour, Michael C. "Les Frontières et Districts du Royaume D'Ugarit: Éléments de

topographie historique régionale " Ugaritic Forschungen" (1981): 1-12.

_____. "The Location of Ḫaṣura of the Mari Texts." Maarav 7 (1991): 51-65.

_____. "New Evidence on the Last Days of Ugarit." American Journal of Archaeology

69, no. 3 (1965): 253-58.

_____. "The Origin of the Terms "Canaan," "Phoenician," and "Purple"." Journal of Near

Eastern Studies 24, no. 4 (1965): 346-50.

Aubet, Maria Eugenia. "The Phoenician Cemetery of Tyre." Near Eastern Archaeology

73, no. 2-3 (2010): 144-55.

_____. The Phoenicians and the West: Politics, Colonies and Trade. Translated by Mary

Turton. second ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

_____. "The Tyre Necropolis." Pages 15-27 in Decade: A Decade of Archaeology and

History in Lebanon. Edited by Claude Doumet-Serhal. Beirut: Lebanese British
Friends of the National Museum, 2004.


Avigad, Nahman. "Notes on Some Inscribed Syro-Phoenician Seals." Bulletin of the

American Schools of Oriental Research 189 (1968): 44-49.

_____. "Two Phoenician Votive Seals." Israel Exploration Journal 16 (1966): 243-51.

Avigad, Nahman and Jonas C. Greenfield. "A Bronze "Phiale" with a Phoenician

Dedicatory Inscription." Israel Exploration Journal 32, no. 2-3 (1982): 118-28.

Avishur, Yitzhak. "Studies of Stylistic Features Common to the Phoenician Inscriptions

and the Bible." Ugarit-Forschungen 8 (1976): 1-22.

_____. "Word Pairs Common to Phoenician and Biblical Hebrew." Ugarit-Forschungen

7 (1975): 13-48.

Avishur, Yitzhak. Inscriptions and the Bible: Select Inscriptions and Studies in Stylistic,

and Literary Devices Common to the Phoenician Inscriptions and the Bible. Tel-
Aviv-Jaffa: Archaeological Center Publication, 2000.





305


Avishur, Yitzhak and Michael Heltzer. "The "Great Sin" and its Punishment: Remarks on
the Letter of the King of Sidon to the King of Ugarit, from the Recent Publication,
in the Light of the Bible (OT), the "Mishna", and the II Targum of the Book of
Esther." Zeitschrift fur Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 10 (2004):
207-12.


Avner, Uzi. "Current Archaeological Research in Israel: Ancient Agricultural Settlement

and Religion in the Uvda Valley in Southern Israel." The Biblical Archaeologist
53, no. 3 (1990): 125-41.


Avner-Levy, Rina and Esther Eshel. "A Juglet with a Phoenician Inscription from a

Recent Excavation in Jaffa, Israel." Transeuphratène 12 (1996): 59-63.

Azize, Joseph. "The "Byblos 13" Inscription, "King Og" and "Athena Ogga"." Folia

Orientalia 40 (2004): 215-32.

Aznar, Carolina. "Exchange Networks in the Southern Levant during the Iron Age II: A

Study of Pottery Origin and Distribution." Ph. D. diss., Harvard University, 2005.

Badawi, Ah. "Die neue historische Stele Amenophis' II." Annales du Service des

antiquités de l’Égypte 43 (1943): 1-23.

Badre, Leila. "Tell Kazel, Syria. AUB Museum Excavations, 1985-1987 Preliminary

Reports." Berytus 38 (1990): 9-124.

_____. "Tell Kazel-Simyra: A Contribution to a Relative Chronological History in the

Eastern Mediterranean during the Late Bronze Age." Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 343 (2006): 65-95.


Badre, Leila and Eric Gubel. "Tell Kazel Syria: Excavations of the AUB Museum 1993-

1998 Third Preliminary Report." Berytus 44 (1999): 123-203.

Badre, Leila, Eric Gubel, Emmanuelle Capet, and Nadine Panayot. "Tell Kazel (Syrie):

Rapport préliminaire sur les 4e-8e Campagnes de fouilles (1988-1992)." Syria 71
(1994): 259-359.


Bakhuizen, S. C. "Greek Steel." World Archaeology 9, no. 2 (1977): 220-34.

Ephraim Stern, ed. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy

Land. 5 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1993.

Ballard, Robert D., Lawrence E. Stager, Daniel Master, Dana Yoerger, David Mindell,

Louis L. Whitcomb, Hanumant Singh, and Dennis Piechota. "Iron Age
Shipwrecks in Deep Water off Ashkelon, Israel." American Journal of
Archaeology : The Journal of the Archaeological Institute of America. 106, no. 2
(2002): 151-68.



306



Barag, Dan. "Tyrian Currency in Galilee." Israel Numismatic Journal 6/7 (1982): 7-13.

Barako, Tristan J. "The Philistine Settlement as Mercantile Phenomenon?" American

Journal of Archaeology 104, no. 3 (2000): 513-30.

Baramki, Dimitri. Phoenicia and the Phoenicians. Beirut: Khayats, 1961.

Barkay, Gabriel. "The Iron Age II-III." Pages 302-73 in The Archaeology of Ancient

Israel. Edited by Amnon Ben-Tor. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992.

Barkay, Gabriel, Marilyn J. Lundberg, Andrew G. Vaughn, and Bruce Zuckerman. "The

Amulets from Ketef Hinnom: A New Edition and Evaluation." Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 334 (2004): 41-70.


Barnes, William H. Studies in the Chronology of the Divided Monarchy of Israel.

Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991.

Barnett, Richard David. Ancient Ivories in the Middle East. Jerusalem: The Hebrew

University, 1982.

_____. "Ezekiel and Tyre." Eretz-Israel 9 (1969): 6-13.

_____. Illustrations of Old Testament History. London: British Museum, 1966.

_____. "Phoenicia and the Ivory Trade." Archaeology 9, no. 2 (1956): 87-97.

Barré, Michael L. "A Phoenician Parallel to Psalm 29." Hebrew Annual Review 13

(1991): 25-32.

Bartusch, Mark W. Understanding Dan: An Exegetical Study of a Biblical City, Tribe

and Ancestor Sheffield Sheffield Academic Press, 1985.

Bass, George, Cemal Pulak, Dominique Collon, and James Weinstein. "The Bronze Age

Shipwreck at Ulu Burun: 1986 Campaign." American Journal of Archaeology 93,
no. 1 (1989): 1-29.


Bass, George F. "A Bronze Age Shipwreck at Ulu Burun (Kas): 1984 Campaign."

American Journal of Archaeology 90, no. 3 (1986): 269-96.

_____. "The Cape Gelidonya Wreck: Preliminary Report." American Journal of

Archaeology 65, no. 3 (1961): 267-76.

Bass, George Fletcher. Cape Gelidonya: A Bronze Age Shipwreck. Philadelphia:

American Philosophical Society, 1967.




307


_____. A History of Seafaring Based on Underwater Archaeology. London: Thames and
Hudson, 1972.


Bass, George F. "A Hoard of Trojan and Sumerian Jewelry." American Journal of

Archaeology 74, no. 4 (1970): 335-41.

_____. "Nautical Archaeology." Expedition 49, no. 2 (2007): 36-44.

_____. "Review of Sean A. Kingsley; Kurt Raveh, The Ancient Harbour and Anchorage

at Dor, Israel. The Biblical Archaeologist 60, no. 1 (1997): 57.

Bass, George Fletcher. Shipwrecks in the Bodrum Museum of Underwater Archaeology.

Edited by Müzesi Bodrum Sualtı Arkeoloji. Bodrum Museum of Underwater
Archaeology, 1996.


Bass, George F., Peter Throckmorton, Joan Du Plat Taylor, J. B. Hennessy, Alan R.

Shulman, and Hans-Gunter Buchholz. "Cape Gelidonya: A Bronze Age
Shipwreck." Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 57, no. 8 (1967):
1-177.


Baumgarten, Albert I. The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos: A Commentary.

Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1981.

Beck, Bruce. "The Internationl Roles of the Philistines During The Biblical Period."

Dissertation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1980.

Beck, Pirhiya. "The Drawings From Horvat Teiman, Kuntillet `Ajrud." Tel Aviv 1 (1982):

3-86.

Beckman, G. Hittite Diplomatic Texts. 2d ed. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature,

1999.

Beitzel, Barry J. "Was There a Joint Nautical Venture on the Mediterranean Sea by

Tyrian Phoenicians and Early Israelites? ." Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research 360 (2010): 37-66.


Bell, Caroll. The Evolution of Long Distance Trading Relationships Across the LBA/Iron

Age Transition on the Northern Levantine Coast: Crisis Continuity and Change.
Oxford: Archaeopress, 2006.


_____. "The Influence of Economic Factors on Settlement Continuity Across the

LBA/Iron Age Transition on the Northern Levantine Littoral." Ph. D. diss.,
University College London, 2005.


_____. "Continuity and Change: The Divergent Destinies of the Late Bronze Age Ports in

Syria and Lebanon Acrost the LBA/Iron Age Transition."Forces of



308


Transformation: The End of the Bronze Age in the Mediterranean. Edited by
Christopher Bauchhuber and R. Gareth Roberts. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2009:
30-38.


Ben-Ami, Doron. "The Iron Age I at Tel Hazor in Light of Renewed Excavations." Israel

Exploration Journal 51, no. 2 (2001): 148-70.

Ben-Ami, Doron and Amnon Ben-Tor. "The Pottery of Strata X-IX."Hazor VI: the 1990-

2009 Excavations. Edited by Amnon Ben-Tor, Doron Ben-Ami, and Déborah
Sandhaus. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2012.


Ben-Arieh, Sara, Baruch Brandl, and Liora Kolska Horwitz. "Salvage Excavations Near

the Holyland Hotel, Jerusalem." Atiqot 40 (2000): 1-24.

Ben-David, Arye. "The Hebrew-Phoenician cubit." Palestine Exploration Quarterly 110

(1978): 27-28.

Ben-Dov, Rachel. Dan III: Avraham Biran Excavations 1966-1999, the Late Bronze Age.

Jerusalem: Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology, Hebrew Union
College- Jewish Institute of Religion, 2011.


Ben-Shlomo, David. Decorated Philistine Pottery: An Archaeological and

Archaeometric Study. Oxford Archaeopress, 2006.

Ben-Shlomo, David, Itzhaq Shai, and Aren M. Maeir. "Late Philistine Decorated Ware

("Ashdod Ware"): Typology, Chronology, and Production Centers." Bulletin of
the American Schools of Oriental Research 335 (2004): 1-35.


Ben-Tor, Amnon, ed. The Archaeology of Ancient Israel. Translated by R. Greenberg.

New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992.

_____. "Hazor and the Chronology of Northern Israel: A Reply to Finkelstein." Bulletin

of the American Schools of Oriental Research 317 (2000): 9-15.

_____. "The Fall of Canaanite Hazor: The "Who" and "When" Questions." Pages 456-67

in Mediterranean Peoples in Transition. Edited by Seymor Gitin, Amihai Mazar,
and Ephraim Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1998.


Ben-Tor, Amnon, Anabel Zarzecki-Peleg, and Shlomit Cohen-Anidjar. Yoqne`am II The

Iron Age and the Persian Period: Final Report of the Archaeological Excavations
(1977-1988). Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and the Israel
Exploration Society, 2005.


Benz, Frank L. Personal Names in the Phoenician and Punic Inscriptions Rome Biblical

Institute, 1972.




309


Bergoffen, Celia J. "Overland Trade in Northern Sinai: The Evidence of the Late Cypriot
Pottery." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 284 (1991): 59-
76.


Berlyn, Patricia. "The Biblical View of Tyre." Jewish Bible Quarterly 34, no. 2 (2006):

73-82.

Betlyon, John Wilson. "The Cult of ’Asherah/’Elat at Sidon." Journal of Near Eastern

Studies 44, no. 1 (1985): 53-56.

_____. "Notes on the Phoenician Ostraca from Near Sidon." Bulletin du Musee de

Beyrouth 26 (1973): 31-34.

Beyl, Thomas. "Lost in Translation: A proposal Regarding the Enigmatic WRKTR."

Maarav 16, no. 2 (2011): 191-200.

_____. "Iron I Painted Pottery from Tel Dan." Dan IV: The Iron Age I Levels. Edited by

David Ilan. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College, (forthcoming).

Bienkowski, Piotr. "Prosperity and Decline in LBA Canaan: A Reply to Liebowitz and

Knapp." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 275 (1989): 59-
63.


Bierling, Marilyn R. and Seymour Gitin. The Phoenicians in Spain: An Archaeological

Review of the Eighth-Sixth Centuries B.C.E.: A Collection of Articles Translated
from Spanish. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2002.


Bikai, Patricia M. "Observations on Archaeological Evidence for the Trade between

Israel and Tyre." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 258
(1985): 71-72.


Bikai, Patricia Maynor. The Phoenician Pottery of Cyprus. Nicosia: Published by the

A.G. Leventis Foundation with the assistance of the J. Paul Getty Trust, 1987.

_____. The Pottery of Tyre. Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1978.

Biran, Avraham. Biblical Dan. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society: Hebrew Union

College-Jewish Institute of Religion, 1994.

_____. "The Collard-Rim Jars and the Settlement of the Tribe of Dan." Annual of the

American Schools of Oriental Research 49 (1989): 71-96.

_____. Dan I: A Chronicle of the Excavations, the Pottery Neolithic, the Early Bronze

Age and the Middle Bronze Age Tombs. Jerusalem: Nelson Glueck School of
Biblical Archaeology, Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, 1996.





310


_____. "Tel Dan 1987, 1988." Israel Exploration Journal 39 (1989):93-96, Plates 12-13.

_____. "Tel Dan: Five Years Later." Biblical Archaeologist 43, no. 3 (1980): 168-82.

Biran, Avraham, Rachel Ben-Dov, and Baruch Arensburg. Dan II: A Chronicle of the

Excavations and the Late Bronze Age "Mycenaean" Tomb. Jerusalem: Hebrew
Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, 2002.


Biran, Avraham and Joseph Naveh. "The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment." Israel

Exploration Journal 45 (1995): 1-18.

Blakely, Jeffery A. "Reconciling Two Maps: Archaeological Evidence for the Kingdoms

of David and Solomon." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
327 (2002): 49-54.


Blegen, Carl W. et al., The Palace of Nestor at Pylos In Western Messenia: Volume III

Acropolis, and Lower Town Tholoi, Grave Circle, and Chamber Tombs
Discoveries Outside the Citadel. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1973.


Block, Daniel I. The Book of Ezekiel: 25-48. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1997.

Blumenthal, Elke. "Proigemena zu einer kassifizierung der ägzptischen

literatur."Proceedings of the 7th International Congress of Egyptologists,
Cambridge, 3-9 September 1995. Edited by C. Erye. Leuven: OLA, 1998.


Boling, Robert G. Judges. Garden City: Doubleday, 1975.

_____. Joshua: A New Translation with Notes and Commentary. Edited by William

Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1982.

_____. "Judges, Book of." in vol. 3 of Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel

Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Bondi, Sandro Filippo. "The Origins in the East." Pages 23-29 in The Phoenicians.

Edited by Sabatino Moscati. New York: Abbeville, 1988.

Borger, R. Die Inschriften Asarhaddons Königs von Asszrien. Osnabruck: BiblioßVerlag,

1967.

Borowski, Oded. Agriculture in Iron Age Israel. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1987.

Bouni, A., E. Lagarce, and J. Lagarce. Ras Ibn Hani, I: Le Palais Nord du Bronze Récent.

Beirut: Institute Français d' Archélogie u Proche Orient, 1998.

Briend, Jaques and Jean-Baptiste Humbert. Tell Keisan (1971-1976): une cite

phenicienne en Galilee. Fribourg, 1980.



311



Briquel-Chatonnet, Françoise. Les relations entre les cités de la côte phénicienne et les

royaumes d'Israël et de Juda. Leuven Department Oriëntalistiek; Peeters, 1992

_____. "Tableau Chronologique des Attestations de Ṣumur " Syria 71 (1994): 353-56.

Brody, Aaron. "From the Hills of Adonis through the Pillars of Hercules: Recent

Advances in the Archaeology of Canaan and Phoenicia." Near Eastern
Archaeology 65, no. 1 (2002): 69-80.


Broshi, Magen and Israel Finkelstein. "The Population of Palestine in the Iron Age II."

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 287 (1992): 47-60.

Brown, Shelby. "Perspectives on Phoenician Art." The Biblical Archaeologist 55, no. 1

(1992): 6-24.

Brueggeman, Walter. A Social Reading of the Old Testament: Prophetic Approaches to

Israel's Communal Life. Edited by Patrick D Miller. Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
1994.


Bruin, F. "Royal Purple and the Dye Industries of the Mycenaeans and Phoenicians."

Beyrouth: M. Mollat, 1966.

Bryce, Trevor. The Kingdom of the Hittites. New ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press,

2005.

Bullard, Reuben G., William G. Dever, H. Darrell Lance, George Ernest Wright,

Seymour Gitin, and Joe D. Seger. Gezer. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College /
Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology, 1970.


Bunimovitz, Shlomo. "Problems in the "Ethnic" Identification of the Philistine Material

Culture." Tel Aviv 17, no. 2 (1990): 210-22.

_____. "Sea Peoples in Cyprus and Israel." Pages 103-13 in Mediterranean Peoples in

Transition, Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE; in Honor of Professor
Trude Dothan. Eds.: Seymour Gitin, Amihai Mazar and Ephraim Stern.
Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1998.


_____. "Minoan-Mycenaean Olive Oil Production and Trade." Pages 49-54 in Olive Oil

in Antiquity; Israel and Neighbouring Countries from the Neolith to the Early
Arab Period. Edited by David Eitam and Michael Heltzer. Haifa: University of
Haifa, 1996.


Bunimovitz, Shlomo and Raphael Greenberg. "Of Pots and Paradigms." Pages 23-32 in

Confronting the Past; Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in



312


Honor of William G. Dever. Ed. by Edited by Seymour Gitin, J. Edward Wright,
and J. P. Dessel. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006.


Bunimovitz, Shlomo and Assaf Yasur-Landau. "Philistine and Israelite Pottery." Tel Aviv

23, no. 1 (1996): 88-101.

Bunnens, Guy. "Commerce et diplomatie Phéniciens au temps de Hiram 1er de Tyr."

Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 19 (1976): 1-31.

Burchardt, M. . Die Altkanaanäische Fremdworte und Eigennamen im Ägyptischen.

Leipzig, 1910.

Burn, A. R. Minoans, Philistines, and Greeks, B.C. 1400-900. London: K. Paul, Trench,

Trubner & Co., 1930. Reprin. London: Dawsons, 1968.

Burney, C.F. Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Book of Kings. Oxford: Clarendon Press,

1903.

_____. The Book of Judges: With Introduction and Notes on the Hebrew Text of the

Books of Kings. Edited by Harry M. Orlinsky. New York: Ktav Publishing House,
1970.


Calmeyer, P. Datierbare Bronzen aus Luristan und Kirmanshah. Berlin, 1969.

Caminos, Ricardo A. A Tale of Woe: From A Hieratic Papyrus in the A. S. Pushkin

Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow. Oxford: University Press, 1977.

Canales, F. Gonzalez De, L. Serrano, and J. Llompart. "The Pre-Colonial Phoenician

Emporium of Huelva ca. 900-770." Bulletin Antieke Beschaving 81 (2006): 13-29.

_____. "Tarshish and the United Monarchy of Israel." Ancient Near Eastern Studies 47

(2010): 137-64.

Capet, Emmanuelle. Corrected Reprint of Tel Kazel (Syria) Preliminary Report (1993-

2001. Beirut: The American University of Beirut, 2003.

Capet, Emmanuelle and Eric Gubel. "Tell Kazel- Six Centuries of Iron Age Occupation

(c. 1200-612 B.C.)." Pages 425-577 in Essays on Syria in the Iron Age. Edited by
Guy Bunnens. Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement. Louvain: Peeters, 2000.


Caquot, André, Maurice Sznycer, and Andrée Herdner. Textes religieux et rituels,

correspondance. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1989.

Cassin, Elena and Jean-Jacques Glassner. Anthroponymie et Anthropologie de Nuzi.

Malibu: Undena, 1977.




313


Castle, Edward W. "Shipping and Trade in Ramesside Egypt." Journal of the Economic
and Social History of the Orient 35, no. 3 (1992): 239-77.


Chapman, Susannah Vibert. "A Catalogue of Iron Age Pottery from the Cemeteries of

Khirbet Silm, Joya, Qraye, and Qasmeieh of South Lebanon: With a note on the
Iron Age Pottery of the American University Museum, Beirut." Berytus 21
(1972): 55-194.


Chernoff, Miriam. "Natural Resource Use in an Ancient Near East Farming Community."

Agricultural History 66, no. 2 (1992): 213-31.

Chernoff, Miriam C. and Samuel M. Paley. "Dynamics of Cereal Production at Tell el

Ifshar, Israel during the Middle Bronze Age." Journal of Field Archaeology 25,
no. 4 (1998): 397-416.


Clermont-Ganneau, Charles. "The Shapiro Collection." Palestine Exploration Fund

Quarterly Statement 6 (1874): 114-18.

Clifford, Richard J. "Phoenician Religion." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental

Research 279 (1990): 55-64.

Cohen-Weinberger, A and Yuval Goren. "Petrographic Analysis of Iron I Pithoi from

Sasa." Atiqot 28 (1996): 77-84.

Colless, Brian E. "Recent Discoveries Illuminating the Origin of the Alphabet." Abr-

Nahrain 26 (1988): 30-67.

Collon, Dominique. Near Eastern Seals. Berkley: Uiversity of California Press, 1990.

_____. "The Green Jasper Cylinder Seal Workshop."Pages 57-70 in Insight Through

Images-Studies in Honor of Edith Porada. Edited by M. Kelly-Buccellati. Malibu:
Bibliotheca Mesopotamica, 1986.


Conheeney, Janice and Alan Pipe. "Note on Some Cremated Bone From Tyrian Cinerary

Urns: AUB Rescue Action Tyre 1991." Berytus 39 (1991): 83-87.

Conrad, Diethelm. "The Akko Ware: A New Type of Phoenician Pottery with Incised

Decoration." Pages 127-42 in Studies in the Archaeology and History of Ancient
Israel: In Honor of Moshe Dothan. Edited by Moshe Dothan, Michael Heltzer,
Arthur Segal, and Daniel Kaufman. Haifa: Haifa University Press, 1993.


Conrad, Lawrence I. "The Biblical Tradition for the Plague of the Philistines." Journal of

the American Oriental Society 104, no. 2 (1984): 281-87.

Contenau, Georges. "Deuxième Mission Archéologique à Sidon (1920)." Syria IV

(1923): 261-81.



314



_____. "Deuxième Mission Archéologique à Sidon (1920) Deuxième article." Syria V

(1924): 9-23.

_____. "Deuxième Mission Archéologique à Sidon (1920) Troisième article." Syria V

(1924): 123-34.

_____. "Mission Archéologique à Sidon (1920)." Syria I (1920): 18-55.

Coogan, Michael D. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40, no. 2 (1978): 143-65.

Cook, Edward M. "On the Linguistic Dating of the Phoenician Ahiram Inscription (KAI

1)." Journal of Near Eastern Studies 53, no. 1 (1994): 33-36.

Cornelius, Izak. The Iconography of the Canaanite Gods, Reshef and Baʻal: Late Bronze

and Iron Age I periods (c 1500- 1000 BCE). Fribourg: University Press
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1994.


Corral, Martin Alonso. Ezekiel's Oracles Against Tyre: Historical Reality and

Motivations. Rome: Editrice Pontifico Instituto Biblico, 2002.

Craigie, P. C. "A Reconsideration of Shamgar Ben Anath (Judg 3:31 and 5:6)." Journal

of Biblical Literature 91, no. 2 (1972): 239-40.

Crenshaw, James L. Joel: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New

York: Doubleday, 1995.

Cross, Frank Moore. "An Archaic Inscribed Seal from the Valley of Aijalon (Soreq)."

Pages 299-203 in Leaves from an Epigrapher's Notebook: Collected Papers in
Hebrew and West Semitic Paleography and Epigraphy. Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns, 2003.


_____. "The Arrow of Suwar, Retainer of `Abday." Eretz Israel 25 (1996): 9-17.

_____. "An Inscribed Arrowhead of the Eleventh Century B.C.E. in the Bible Lands

Museum in Jerusalem." Eretz Israel 23 (1992): 21-26.

_____. "An Interpretation of the Nora Stone." Bulletin of the American Schools of

Oriental Research 208 (1972): 13-19.

_____. "Jar Inscriptions from Shiqmona." Israel Exploration Journal 18 (1968): 226-33.

_____. "Newly Found Inscriptions in Old Canaanite and Early Phoenician Scripts."

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 238 (1980): 1-20.




315


_____. "A Note on a Recently Published Arrowhead." Israel Exploration Journal 45
(1995): 188-89.


_____. "A Phoenician Inscription from Idalion: Some Old and New Texts Relating to

Child Sacrifice." Pages 93-107 in in Leaves from an Epigrapher's Notebook:
Collected Papers in Hebrew and West Semitic Paleography and Epigraphy.
Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003.


_____. "Statement on Inscribed Artifacts Without Provenience." Biblical Archaeology

Review 31, no. 5 (2005): 58-60.

Cross, Frank M., Jr. "The Structure of the Deuteronomistic History." Pages 9-24 in

Perspectives in Jewish Learning Volume III. Chicago, The college of Jewish
Studies Press, 1968.


Cross, Frank Moore. "Two Offering Dishes with Phoenician Inscriptions from the

Sanctuary of 'Arad." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 235
(1979): 75-78.


Cross, Frank Moore and Thomas Oden Lambdin. "An Ugaritic Abecedary and the

Origins of the Proto-Canaanite Alphabet." Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research 160 (1960): 21-26.


Crouwel, J.H. "Chariots in Iron Age Cyprus." Pages 141-73 in Selected Writings on

Chariots and other Early Vehicles, Riding and Harness. Edited by Peter
Raulwing. Leiden: Brill, 2002.


Crowfoot, J.W., G.M. Crowfoot, and K. M. Kenyon. The Objects From Samaria.

London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1957.

Crowfoot, J.W., Kathleen Kenyon, and E.L. Sukenik. The Buildings at Samaria. London:

Palestine Exploration Fund, 1946.

Culican, William. The First Merchant Venturers: The Ancient Levant in History and

Commerce. London: Thames & Hudson, 1966.

_____. "The Iconography of Some Phoenician Seals and Seal Impressions." Australian

Journal of Biblical Archaeology 1 (1968): 50-103.

_____. "The Repertoire of Phoenician Pottery." Pages 45-82 in Phönizier im Westen.

Edited by Hans Georg Niemeyer. Mainz Am Rhein: Philipp Von Zabern, 1982.

Dahood, Mitchell J. "The Phoenician Background of Qohelet." Biblica 47 (1966): 264-

82.




316


_____. "Phoenician Elements in Isaiah 52:13-53:12." Pages 63-73 in Near Eastern
Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright. Edited by William Foxwell
Albright and Hans Goedicke. Baltimore Johns Hopkins Press, 1971.


Dalley, Stephanie. "Neo-Assyrian Textual Evidence for Bronze Working Centers." Pages

97-110 in Bronzeworking Centers of Western Asia, c. 1000-539 B.C. Edited by
John Curtis. Taylor & Francis, 1988.


Davies, G.I., M.N.A. Bockmuehl, D.R. de Lacey, and A.J. Poulter. Ancient Hebrew

Inscriptions: Corpus and Concordance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1991.


Davila, James R. and Bruce Zuckerman. "The Throne of Ashtart Inscription." Bulletin of

the American Schools of Oriental Research 289 (1993): 67-80.

Dayagi-Mendels, Michal. The Ahkziv Cemetaries: The Ben-Dor Excavations, 1941-1944.

Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2002.

Delattre, A. L. "Les Tombeaux Puniques de Carthage." Revue Archéologique 17, no. 1

(1891): 52-69.

Delavault, Bernard and Andre Lemaire. "Les inscriptions phéniciennes de Palestine."

Rivista di Studi Fenici 7, no. 1 (1979): 1-39.

Deutsch, Robert, Gabriel Barkay, and Michael Heltzer. West Semitic Epigraphic News of

the 1st Millennium BCE. Tel Aviv, Israel: Archaeological Center Publications,
1999.


Deutsch, Robert and Michael Heltzer. "'Abday on Eleventh-Century BCE Arrowheads."

Israel Exploration Journal 47, no. 1-2 (1997): 111-12.

Dever, William G. "Ceramics, Ethnicity, and the Question of Israel's Origins." Biblical

Archaeologist 58 (1995): 200-13.

_____. "Cultural Continuity Ethnicity in the Archaeological Record, and the Question of

Israelite Origins." Eretz-Israel 23 (1993): 22-23.

_____. What Did the Biblical Writers Know, and When Did They Know It?: What

Archaeology Can Tell Us About the Reality of Ancient Israel. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001.


_____. Who Were the Early Israelites, and Where Did They Come From? Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 2003.

Dever, William G., Seymour Gitin, W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research,

and Research American Schools of Oriental. Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the



317


Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors from the Late
Bronze Age Through Roman Palaestina. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2003.


Dever, William G., Seymour Gitin, J. Edward Wright, and J. P. Dessel. Confronting the

Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in honor of William
G. Dever. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2006.


Diakonoff, Igor M. "The Naval Power and Trade of Tyre." Israel Exploration Journal 42,

no. 3-4 (1992): 168-93.

Dietrich, Manfried and Oswald Loretz. "Das 'SeefahrendeVolk' Šikila' (RS 34.129)."

Ugaritic Forschungen 10 (1978): 53-56.

Dorsey, David A. The Roads and Highways of Ancient Israel. Baltimore: The Johns

Hopkins University Press, 1991.

Dossin, Georges. "L'inscription de Fondation de Iaḫdun-Lim, Roi de Mari." Syria 32

(1955): 1-28.

_____. "Une mention de Cananéens dans une lettre de Mari." Syria 50 (1973): 277-82.


Dothan, Trude Krakauer. The Philistines and Their Material Culture. New Haven Yale

University Press, 1982.

Dothan, Trude Krakauer and M. Dothan. People of the Sea: The Search for the

Philistines. New York; Toronto; New York: Macmillan; Maxwell Macmillan
Canada; Maxwell Macmillan International, 1992.


Dothan, Trude Krakauer and Seymour Gitin. "The Arrival of the Sea Peoples: Cultural

Diversity in Early Iron Age Canaan." Annual of the American Schools of Oriental
Research 49 (1989): 1-58.


_____. Tel Miqne (Ekron) Excavation Project: Spring, 1982; Field report, Field I NE-

Areas 2,3,4,5,6,7. Jerusalem: Tel Miqne (Ekron) Excavation Project Publications
Office, 1982.


_____. Tel Miqne-Ekron: Summary Report of the 1986 Excavations in Fields INE, IISE,

IIISE/NE, IVNW, VSW. Jerusalem: W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological
Research, 1986.


Doumet, Joseph. "Purple Dye." Pages 15-27 in Decade: A Decade of Archaeology and

History in Lebanon. Edited by Claude Doumet-Serhal. Beirut: Lebanese British
Friends of the National Museum, 2004.





318


Doumet-Serhal, Claude. "Les tombes IV et V de Rachidieh." Annales d'Historie et
d'Archeologie de l'Universite Saint Joseph. 1 (1982) :89-148


_____. "Preliminary Report on the Iron Age at Sidon: British Museum Excavations 2003-

2004." Archaeology and History in Lebanon 23 (2006): 2-29.

_____. "A Ram's Head Handle from Sidon." Archaeology and History in Lebanon 13

(2001): 9-15.

_____. "Jars from the first Millennium BC at Tell Rachidieh: Phoenician Cinerary Urns

and Grave Goods." Pages 70-79 in Decade: A Decade of Archaeology and
History in the Lebanon. Edited by Claude Doumet-Serhal. Beirut: The Lebanese
British Friends of the National Museum 2004.


_____. "The Location and Ancient Names of Mainland Tyre and the Role of Rachidieh in

the Context."Decade:Pages 60-69 in A Decade of Archaeology and History in the
Lebanon. Edited by Claude Doumet-Serhal. Beirut: The Lebanese British Friends
of the National Museum 2004.


Drews, Robert. "The 'Chariots of Iron' of Joshua and Judges." Journal for the Study of the

Old Testament 45 (1989): 15-23.

_____. The End of the Bronze Age: Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe ca. 1200

B.C. . Princeton: Princeton University, 1993.

Dubertret, L. Carte géologique du Liban, Syrie et bordure des pays voisins. Paris, 1962.

Dunand, Maurice. Byblos Son Histoire, ses Ruines, Ses Légendes. Beirut: Musée National

De Beyrouth, 1963.

_____. Fouilles de Byblos I. Paris Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1939.

_____. Fouilles de Byblos II. Paris Librairie d'Amerique et d'Orient Adrien Maisonneuve,

1954.

_____. "Rapport Preliminaire sur les fouilles de Sidon en 1963-1964." Bulletin du Musee

de Beyrouth XIX (1966): 103-05.

_____. "Rapport Preliminaire sur les fouilles de Sidon en 1964-1965." Bulletin du Musee

de Beyrouth XX (1967): 27-44.

_____. "Rapport Preliminaire sur les fouilles de Sidon en 1967-1968." Bulletin du Musee

de Beyrouth XXII (1969): 101-07.




319


_____. "La statuaire de la favissa du temple d'Echmoun à Sidon."Pages 61-67
inArchäologie und altes Testement (Festschrift Für Kurt Galling) Edited by
J.C.B. Mohr. Tübingen, 1970.


Dunand, Maurice, A. Bounni, and N. Saliby. "Fouilles de Tell Kazel. Rapport

preliminaire." Annales Archéologiques Syriennes 14 (1964): 1-14.

Dussand, René. "Les Phéniciens au Négeb et en Arabie." Revue de L,Histoire des

Religions 28 (1933): 5-49.

Easton, D. F., J. D. Hawkins, A. G. Sherratt, and E. S. Sherratt. "Troy in Recent

Perspective." Anatolian Studies 52 (2002): 75-109.

Echt, Rudolf. Kamid El-Loz: 5. Die Stratigraphie. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt, 1984.

Edel, E. "Die Sikeloi in den ägyptischen Seevolkertexten und in Keilschrifturkunden."

Biblische Notizen 23 (1984): 7-8.

Edens, Christopher. "Khor Ile-Sud, Qatar: The Archaeology of Late Bronze Age Purple-

Dye Production in the Arabian Gulf." Iraq 61 (1999): 71-88.

Edgerton, William F. and John A. Wilson. Historical Records of Ramses III: The Texts in

Medinet Habu Volumes I and II. Edited by James Henrey Breasted. Chicago:
University of Chicago, 1936.


Egberts, A. "The Chronology of "The Report of Wenamun"." The Journal of Egyptian

Archaeology 77 (1991): 57-67.

_____. "Hard Times: The Chronology of "The Report of Wenamun" Revisited."

Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 125 (1998): 93-108.

Ehrlich, Carl S. The Philistines in Transition: A History from ca. 1000-730 B.C.E. Leiden

E.J. Brill, 1996.

Elat, Moshe. "Phoenician Overland Trade within the Mesopotamian Empires." Scripta

Hierosolymitana 33 (1991): 21-35.

Elayi, Josette. "Studies in Phoenician Geography during the Persian Period." Journal of

Near Eastern Studies 41, no. 2 (1982): 13-28.

Elgavish, Joseph. Shiqmona on the Shore of the Carmel (Hebrew). Tel-Aviv: Hakkibutz

Hameuchad Publishing House, 1994.

_____. "Shiqmona, 1975." Israel Exploration Journal 25 (1975): 257-58.




320


Ephraim Stern, ed. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy
Land. 5 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1993.


Eyre, C. H. "Is Egyptian Historical Literature "Historical" or "Literary"?" Pages 413-433

in Ancient Egyptian Literature: History and Forms. Edited by Antonio Loprieno.
New York: Brill, 1996.


Faust, Avraham. "The Rural Community in Ancient Israel during Iron Age II." Bulletin of

the American Schools of Oriental Research 317 (2000): 17-39.

Fensham, F. Charles. "Shamgar Ben Anath." Journal of Near Eastern Studies 20, no. 3

(1961): 197-98.

Fensham, Frank Charles. "The Treaty between the Israelites and Tyrians." Vetus

Testamentum Supplements 17 (1969): 71-87.

Fensham, F. Charles and P. A. H. de Boer. "The Treaty between Solomon and Hiram and

the Alalakh Tablets." Journal of Biblical Literature 79, no. 1 (1960): 59-60.

Finkelstein, Israel. "Ethnicity and Origin of the Iron I Settlers in the Highlands of

Canaan: Can the Real Israel Stand Up?" The Biblical Archaeologist 59, no. 4
(1996): 198-212.


_____. `Izbet Sartah- An Early Iron Age Site Near Rosh Ha`ayin, Israel. Oxford: Oxford,

1986.

_____. "Pots and People Revisited.” Pages 216-237 in The Archaeology of Israel;

Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present. Ed. by Neil Asher Silberman &
David Small. JSOTSup 237; Sheffield. Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.


Finkelstein, Israel, Ze'ev Herzog, Lily Singer-Avitz, and David Ussishkin. "Has King

David's Palace in Jerusalem Been Found?" Tel Aviv 34 (2007): 142-64.

Finkelstein, Israel and Neil Asher Silberman. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New

Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts. New York: Free Press,
2001.


_____. David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible's Sacred Kings and the Roots of the

Western Tradition. New York: Free Press, 2006.

Finkelstein, Israel, David Ussishkin, and Baruch Halpern. Meggido III: The 1992-1996

Seasons. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications In Archaeology, 2000.

Finley, M. I. "The Mycenaean Tablets and Economic History." The Economic History

Review 10, no. 1 (1957): 128-41.




321


Flinder, Alexander. "Is this Solomon's Sea Port?" Biblical Archaeology Review 15, no. 4
(1989): 31-43.


Fox, Nili S. In the Service of the King: Officialdom in Ancient Israel and Judah.

Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 2000.

Frankel, Rafael. ""Bibra" - A Forbidden Village in the Territory of Tyre." Israel

Exploration Journal 29, no. 3/3 (1979): 194-96.

_____. "The Territory of the Tribe of Asher." Pages 49-76 in Essays on Archaeology,

History and Theology in Memory of Aapele Saarisalo (1896-1986) Edited by T
Eskola and E Junkkaala. Helsinki: Theological Institute of Finland, 1998.


_____. "Upper Galilee in the Late Bronze I Transition." Pages 18-34 in From Nomadism

to Monarchy. Edited by Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Naaman. Jerusalem: Israel
Exploration Society, 1994.


Franklin, Norma. "Revealing Stratum V at Megiddo." Bulletin of the American Schools of

Oriental Research 342 (2006): 95-111.

Freedman, David Noel. "Early Israelite History in the Light of early Israelite Poetry."

Pages 3-35 in Unity and Diversity: Essays in the History, Literature, and Religion
of the Ancient Near East. Edited by Hans Goedicke and J.J.M Roberts. Baltimore
and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975.


Frisch, B., G. Mansfield, and W-R Thiele. Kamid El-Loz: 6. Die Werkstätten der

Spätbronzezeitlichen Paläste. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt, 1985.

Frost, Honor. "The Offshore Island Harbor at Sidon and Other Phoenician Sites in the

Light of New Dating Evidence." The International Journal of Nautical
Archaeology and Underwater Exploration 2, no. 1 (1973): 75-94.


Furumark, Arne. The Mycenaean Pottery Analysis and Classification. Stockholm: Kungl.

Vitterhets Historie Och Antikvitets Akademien, 1941.

Fuss, W. "II Samuel 24." Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 74 (1962):

145-64.

Gal, Zvi. "The Diffusion of Phoenician Cultural Influence in Light of the Excavations at

Hurvat Rosh Zayit." Tel Aviv 22, no. 1 (1995): 89-93.

_____. "Hurbat Rosh Zayit and the Early Phoenician Pottery." Levant 24 (1992): 173-86.

_____. "A Phoenician Bronze Seal from Hurbat Rosh Zayit." Journal of Near Eastern

Studies 53, no. 1 (1994): 27-31.




322


_____. Lower Galilee during the Iron Age. Edited by Baruch Halpern. Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns, 1992.


Gal, Zvi and Yardenna Alexandre. Horbat Rosh Zayit. An Iron Age Storage Fort and

Village. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2000.

Gale, Rowena, Peter Gasson, and Nigel Harper. "Wood." Pages 334-71 in Ancient

Egyptian Materials and Technology. Edited by Paul T. Nicholson and Ian Shaw.
Cambridge: University Press, 2000.


Galil, Gershon. The Chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah. Leiden: Brill Academic

Publishers, 1996.

Gamer-Wallert, Ingrid. "IX The Scarabs." Pages 397-413 in Phoenician Cemetery of

Tyre-Al Bass. Edited by Maria Eugenia Aubet. Beirut: Ministère de la Culture
Direction Général des Antiquités, 2004.


Garbini, Giovanni. I Fenici: Storia e Religione. Napoli: Instituto Univ. Orientale, 1980.

Gardiner, Alan. The Kadesh Inscriptions of Ramses II Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1960.

Gardiner, Alan H. Ancient Egyptian Onomastica. reprint ed. Vol. 1 of: Oxford

University, 1968.

_____. Ancient Egyptian Onomastica. reprint ed. Vol. 3 of: Oxford University, 1968.

_____. Egyptian Grammar: Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs. Third ed.

London: Oxford University Press, 1973.

_____. Egyptian Hieratic Texts: Part I The Papyrus Anastasi I and the Papyrus Koller.

Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1964.

Garfinkel, Yosef. "Mls hkrsym" in Phoenician Inscriptions from Cyprus, the "qrsy" in

Arad, "hkrsym" in Egypt, and "bny qyrs" in the Bible." Journal of Near Eastern
Studies 47, no. 1 (1988): 27-34.


Garr, W. Randall. "A Population Estimate of Ancient Ugarit." Bulletin of the American

Schools of Oriental Research 266 (1987): 31-43.

Gauthier, Henri. Dictionnaire des noms géographiques contenus dans les textes

hiéroglyphiques. 7 vols. Cairo : L'Imprimerie de l'Institut français d'archéologie
orientale pour la Société royale de géographie d'Égypte 1975.


Gelb, Ignance J., Pierre M. Purves, and Allan A. MacRae. Nuzi Personal Names.

Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1943.




323


Gesenius, Wilhelm. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament including the
Biblical Chaldee. Translated by Edward Robinson. Thirteenth ed. Boston:
Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1897.


Gesenius, Wilhelm and E. Kautzsch. Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar. Translated by A. E.

Cowley. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910.

Geva, Shulamit. "Archaeological Evidence for the Trade between Israel and Tyre?"

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 248 (1982): 69-72.

Gianto, Agustinus. "Some Notes on the Mulk Inscription from Nebi Yunis (RES 367)."

Biblica 68, no. 3 (1987): 397-401.

Gilboa, Ayelet. "Archaeology and Ethnicity at Iron Age Dor: Sea Peoples, Phoenicians,

and Israelites." Paper presented at the 2010 International Meeting. The Ancient
Near East in the 12th-10th Centuries BCE: Culture and History. Haifa, 2010.


_____. "The Dynamics of Phoenician Bichrome Pottery: A View from Tel Dor." Bulletin

of the American Schools of Oriental Research 316 (1999): 1-22.

_____. "Sea Peoples and Phoenicians along the Southern Phoenician Coast - A

Reconciliation: An Interpretation of Sikila (SKL) Material Culture." Bulletin of
the American Schools of Oriental Research 337 (2005): 47-78.


_____. "Southern Phoenicia during Iron Age I-IIA in the Light of the Tel Dor

Excavations: The Evidence of Pottery." Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University, 2001.

_____. "Fragmenting the Sea Peoples, with an Emphasis on Cyprus, Syria and Egypt: A

Tel Dor Perspective." Pages 209-44 in Cyprus, the Sea Peoples and the Eastern
Mediterranean: Regional Perspectives of Continuity and Change. Edited by
Timothy P. Harrison. Toronto: Canadian Institute for Mediterranean Studies,
2008.


_____. "The Significance of Iron Age "Wavy Band" Pithoi Along the Syro-Palestinian

Littoral, with Reference to the Tel Dor Pithoi." Pages 163-73 in Studies in the
Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands in Memory of Douglas L. Esse.
Edited by Samuel R. Wolff. Atlanta: ASOR Books, 2001.


Gilboa, Ayelet and Ilan Sharon. "An Archaeological Contribution to the Early Iron Age

Chronological Debate: Alternative Chronologies for Phoenicia and their Effects
on the Levant, Cyprus, and Greece." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research 332 (2003): 7-80.


_____. "Between the Carmel and the Sea: Tel Dor's Iron Age Reconsidered." Near

Eastern Archaeology 71, no. 3 (2009): 146-70.




324


Gilboa, Ayelet, Ilan Sharon, and Jeffery Zorn. "Dor and Iron Age Chronology: Scarabs,
Ceramic Sequence and 14C." Tel Aviv 31, no. 1 (2004): 32-59.


Gitin, Seymour. Ekron of the Philistines. Part II: Olive-Oil Suppliers to the World.

Washington D.C.: Biblical Archaeological Society, 1990.

_____. Tel Miqne-Ekron: A Type-Site for the Inner Coastal Plain in the Iron Age II

Period. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1989.

_____. "The Philistines: Neighbors of the Canaanites, Phoenicians, and Israelites." Pages

57-85 in American Schools of Oriental Research Centennial Celebration. Edited
by Douglas R. Clark and Victor H. Mathews. Washington DC: American Schools
of Oriental Research 2000.


Gitin, Seymour, Sidnie White Crawford, and Amnon Ben-Tor. "Up to the Gates of

Ekron:" Essays on the Archaeology and History of the Eastern Mediterranean in
Honor of Seymour Gitin. Jerusalem: published by the W.F. Albright Institute of
Archaeological Research, the Israel Exploration Society, 2007.


Gitin, Seymour and William G. Dever. "Recent Excavations in Israel: Studies in Iron Age

Archaeology." The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 49
(1989): iii-152.


Gitin, Seymour and Trude Dothan. "The Rise and Fall of Ekron of the Philistines: Recent

Excavations at an Urban Border Site." Biblical Archaeologist 50, no. 4 (1987):
197-222.


Gitin, Seymour, Amihai Mazar, Ephraim Stern, Trude Krakauer Dothan, and

Archaeology Philip and Muriel Berman Center for Biblical. Mediterranean
Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries B.C.E. Jerusalem:
Israel Exploration Society, 1998.


Gittlen, Barry M., Trude Krakauer Dothan, and Seymour Gitin. Tel Miqne-Ekron: Report

of the 1984 Excavations, Field III SE. Jerusalem: W.F. Albright Institute of
Archaeological Research, 1985.


Giveon, Raphael. Egyptian Scarabs from Western Asia from the Collections of the British

Museum. Freiburg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Göttingen, 1985.

Gjerstad, Einar. The Swedish Cyprus Expedition: The Cypro-Geometric, Cypro Archaic

and Cypro-Classic Periods Vol. IV. Stockholm: The Swedish Cyprus Expeditions,
1948.


Gjerstad, Einar, John Lindros, Erik Sjoqvist, and Alfred Westholm. The Swedish Cyprus

Expedition: Finds and Results of the Excavations in Cyprus 1927-1932 Vol. I
Plates. Stockholm: The Swedish Cyprus Expeditions, 1934.



325



_____. The Swedish Cyprus Expedition: Finds and Results of the Excavations in Cyprus

1927-1932 Vol. I text. Stockholm: The Swedish Cyprus Expeditions, 1934.

Glastrup, Jens. "A Note on the Analysis of the Binding Medium from a Phoenician

Shipwreck." Studies in Conservation 40, no. 1 (1995): 65-68.

Glueck, Nelson. "Ezion-Geber: Solomon's Naval Base on the Red Sea." Biblical

Archaeologist 1 (1938): 13-16.

Goedicke, Hans. The Report of Wenamun. Edited by Hans Goedicke. Baltimore: Johns

Hopkins University Press, 1975.

Goetze, Albrecht. "Contributions to Hittite Lexicography." Journal of Cuneiform Studies

1 (1947): 310.

_____. "Remarks on the Ration Lists from Alalakh VII." Journal of Cuneiform Studies

13, no. 1 (1959): 34-38.

Goitein, Shlomo Dov. "An Eleventh-Century Letter [in Hebrew script] from Tyre in the

John Rylands Library." Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library 54
(1971): 94-102.


Golding-Meir, Nisim. "Petrographic Analysis of Iron Age Pottery from Tel Dan."

Unpublished report. Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology Jerusalem,
2011.


Gordon, Robert P. 1 & 2 Samuel: A Commentary. Exeter: The Paternoster Press, 1986.

Goren, Yuval, Israel Finkelstein, and Nadav Naaman. Inscribed in Clay: Provenance

Study of the Amarna Tablets and Other Ancient Near Eastern Texts. Tel Aviv:
Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, 2004.


Görg, M. "Ascher außerbiblisch? Zum Problem der Nebenüberlieferungen eines

israelitischen Stammesnamens." Biblische Notizen 100 (1999): 11-17.

Gras, Michel, Pierre Rouillard, and Javier Teixidor. El Universo Fenicio. Madrid:

Biblioteca Mondadori, 1991.

Gray, D. H. F. "Metal-Working in Homer." The Journal of Hellenic Studies 74 (1954): 1-

15.

Grayson, Kirk A. Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC: I (1114-859 BC).

Edited by Kirk A. Grayson. Vol. 1 Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991.




326


_____. Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC: II (858-745 BC). Edited by
Kirk A. Grayson. Vol. 2 Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996.


Green, M. "<<m-k-m-r>> und <<w-r-k-t-r>> in der Wenamun-Geschichte." Zeitschrift

für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 113 (1986): 115-119.

Greenfield, Jonas C. "A Group of Phoenician City Seals." Israel Exploration Journal 35,

no. 2-3 (1985): 129-34.

Greenfield, Jonas C. and Manfred Mayrhofer. "The ’Algummim/’Almuggim- Problem

Reexamined."Hebräische Wortforschung Ö Festschrift zum 80 Geburstang von
Walter Baumgartner. Edited by G.W. Anderson, P.A.H. De Boer, G.R.
Castellino, Henrey Cazelles, E. Hammershaimb, H.G. May, and W. Zimmerli.
Supplements to Vetus Testamentum. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1967.


Greenwood, Kyle. "Labor Pains: The Relationship Between David's Census and Corvée

Labor." Bulletin for Biblical Research 20.4 (2010): 467-78.

Gröndahl, F. Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit. Rom, 1967.

Gruber, Mayer Irwin. "On H.J. van Dijk, "Ezekiel's Prophecy on Tyre: A New Approach"

(1968). Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 2, no. 1 (1969): 53-57.

Gubel, Eric. "<<Syro-Cypriote>> Cubical Stamps: The Phoenician Connection." Pages

195-224 in Phoenicia and the Eastern Mediterranean in the First Millenium B.C.
Edited by Edward Lipinski. Leuven: Peeters, 1987.


_____. "The Iconography of Inscribed Phoenician Glyptic."Pages 101-129 in Studies in

the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals Edited by Benjamin Sass
and Christoph Uehlinger. Fribourg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Göttingen, 1993.


Gubel, Eric and Pierre Bordreuil. "Statuette fragmentaire portant le nom de la Baalat

Gubal." Semitica 35 (1985): 5-11.

Guigues, P. E. "Lebe`a, Kafar-Garra, Qrayé; necropoles de la region sidonienne,"

Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth 3 (1937): 35-76.

_____. "Lebe`a, Kafar-Garra, Qrayé; necropoles de la region sidonienne: « deuxième

article »." Bulletin du Musee de Beyrouth II (1938).

Guillaume, Philippe. "Dating the "negatives Besitzverzeichnis" (Judges 1,27-34): The

case of Sidon." Henoch 23, no. 2-3 (2001): 131-37.

Hachmann, Rolf. "II. The Excavations." Berytus 37 (1989): 27-38.

_____. Kaamid El-Loz 1971-74. Bonn: Rudolf Halbert Verlag GMBH, 1982.



327



_____. "V. Kamid el-Loz Kumidi." Berytus 37 (1989): 89-94.

Hadley, Judith M. The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel. Cambridge Cambridge

University Press, 2000.

Haldar, Alfred. "Cana: Canaanites." The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by

George Arthur Buttrick. New York: Abingdon Press, 1962.

Hallo, William W. Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World. Vol. 1 of The

Context of Scripture. Leiden: Brill, 1997.

_____. "Biblical History in Its Near Eastern Setting: The Contextual Approach." Pages 1-

26 in Scripture in Context. Edited by C.D. Evans, W.W. Hallo, and J.B. White.
Pitsburg, 1980.


Hallo, William W., James C. Moyer, and Leo G. Perdue. More Essays on the

Comparative Method. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983.

Halpern, Baruch. The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History. San Francisco:

Harper & Row, 1988.

Hamilton, R. W. “Excavations at Tell Abu Hawam.” The Quarterly of the Department of

Antiquities in Palestine 4 (1935): 1-69.

_____. "Tell Abu Hawam: Interim Report.” Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in

Palestine 3 (1933): 74-80.

Haran, Menahem and Menahem Haran. ""Zebah hayyamim" [1 Sam 1:21, 2:19]." Vetus

Testamentum 19 (1969): 11-22.

Harding, G. Lankester. An Index and Concordance of Pre-Islamic Arabian Names and

Inscriptions. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1971.

Harris, S. A Grammar Of the Phoenician Language. New Haven: American Oriental

Series, 1936.

Hatton, G.D., A.J. Shortland, and M.S. Tite. "The Production of Blue and Green Frits

from Second Millenium BC Egypt and Mesopotamia." Jounal of Archaeological
Science 35 (2008): 1591-1604.


Haussig, Hans Wilhelm. Wörterbuch Der Mythologie I. Götter und Mythen im Vorderen

Orient. Stuttgart: Ernst Klent Verlag, 1965.

Hayes, John L. A Manual of Sumerian Grammar and Texts. Malibu: Undena, 1990.




328


Helck, Hans Wolfgang. Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2.
Jaurtausend v. Chr. 2 ed. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1971.


Hans Wolfgang Helck, ed. Lexicon Der Agyptologie. 7 vols. Wiesbaden: Otto

Harrassowitz, 1986.

Heltzer, Michael. "Comments on the Rise of Secondary States in the Iron Age Levant."

Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 46, no. 4 (2003): 525-
28.


_____. Rural Community in Ancient Ugarit Weisbaden: Dr Ludwig Reichert Verlag,

1976.

_____. "Some Considerations about Hebrew "sofer" and Punic "msfr"." Aula Orientalis

2, no. 2 (1984): 225-30.

_____. "A New Weight from Hamath and Trade Relations with the South in the Ninth-

Eighth Centuries BCE." Pages 133-35 in The World of the Aramaeans. 1, Biblical
Studies in Honor of Paul Eugene Dion. Edited by Paul-Eugene Dion, P.M.
Michele Daviau, John William Wevers, and Michael Weigel. Vol. II of Journal
for the Study of the Old Testament Suppliment Series. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic, 2001.


Herr, Larry G. "Tripartite Pillared Buildings and the Market Place in Iron Age Palestine."

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 272 (1988): 47-67.

Herrera, Maria D. and Francisco Gomez. Tell Abu Hawam (Haifa, Israel): El Horizonte

Fenico Del Stratum III Britanico. Salamanca: Universidad Pontificaia De
Salamanca, 2004.


Hertzberg, Hans Wilhelm. I & II Samuel: A Commentary. Westminster Press:

Philadelphia, 1964.

Hess, Richard. Joshua: An Introduction and Commentary. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press,

1996.

_____. "Arrowheads from Iron Age I: Personal Names and Authenticity." Pages 113-29

in Ugarit at Seventy-Five. Edited by K. Lawson Younger Jr. Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns, 2007.


Hess, Richard S. Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey. Grand

Rapids: Baker Academic 2007.

Hesse, B. and P. Wapnish. "Can Pig Bones Be Used for Ethnic Diagnosis in the Ancient

Near East?" Pages 238-270 The Archaeology of the Past: Constructing the Past,



329


Interpreting the Present. Edited by N.A. Silberman and D. Small. Sheffield:
Shefield Academic Press, 1997.


Hitchcock, Louise A. "And Above Were Costly Stones, Hewn According to

Measurment...:" Documentation of Pre-Classical Ashlar Masonry in the East
Mediterranean." Pages 257-67 in Metron Measuring the Aegean Bronze Age:
Proceedings of the 9th Aegean Conference, New Haven, Yale University 18-21
April 2002. Edited by Karen Polinger Foster. Liege: University of Liege, Service
d'histoire de l'art at d'archeologie de la Grece antique, 2003.


Hoch, James E. Middle Egyptian Grammar. Mississauga: Benben Publications, 1997.

_____. Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate

Period. Princeton: Princeton University, 1994.

Hoffner, Harry A. Jr. "A Term for the Early Canaanite Dyeing Industry." Journal of the

American Oriental Society 87, no. 3 (1967): 300-03.

Holst, Sanford. Phoenicians: Lebanon's Epic Heritage. Los Angeles: Cambridge &

Boston Press, 2006.

Hughes, J. Donald. "Sustainable Agriculture in Ancient Egypt." Agricultural History 66,

no. 2 (1992): 12-22.

Humbert, Jean-Baptiste. "Recent Travaux a Tell Keisan (1979-1980)." Revue Biblique

88, no. 3 (1981): 373-98.

Hunt Ortiz, Mark A. Prehistoric Mining and Metallurgy in South West Iberian Peninsula.

Oxford: Archaeopress, 2003.

Hunt, Patrick N., ed. Mount Saphon in Myth and Fact. Lueven: Peeters, 1991.

Iacouvou, Maria. Review of Nicola Schrieber, Phoenicia and Cyprus in the First

Millennium B.C.: Two Distinct Cultures in Search of Their Distinct
Archaeologies. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 336
(2004): 61-66.


Ikeda, Yutaka. "King Solomon and His Red Sea Trade." Pages 113-32 in Near Eastern

Studies; Dedicated to H.I.H Prince Takahito Mikasa on the Occasion of his
Seventy-fifth Birthday. Edited by Masao Mori, Hideo Ogawa, and Mamoru
Yoshikawa. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1991.


Ilan, David. "Northeastern Israel in the Iron Age I: Cultural, Socioeconomic and Political

Perspectives." Ph.D. diss.,University of Tel Aviv, 1999.




330


_____. "The Socioeconomic Implications of Grain Storage in Early Iron Age Canaan:
The Case of Tel Dan." Pages 87-104 in Bene Israel: Studies in the Archaeology of
Israel and the Levant during the Bronze and Iron Ages in Honor of Israel
Finkelstein. Edited by Alexnder Fantalkin and Assaf Yasur-Landau. Leiden: Brill,
2008.


Iwry, Samuel. "New Evidence for Belomancy in Ancient Palestine and Phoenicia."

Journal of the American Oriental Society 81, no. 1 (1961): 27-34.

Jackson, C.M. and P.T. Nicholson. "The Provenance of Some Glass Ingots from the

Uluburun Shipwreck." Journal of Archaeological Science 37, no. 2 (2010): 295-
301.


Jamieson, A.S. "Identifying Room Use and Vessel Function. A Case Study of Iron Age

Pottery from Building C2 at Tell Ahmar, North Syria." Pages 259-306 in Essays
on Syria in the Iron Age. Edited by Guy Bunnens.Ancient Near Eastern Studies
Suppliment. Louvain, 2000.


Jensen, Lloyd B. "Royal Purple of Tyre." Journal of Near Eastern Studies 22, no. 2

(1963): 104-18.

Jidejian, Nina. Byblos Through the Ages. Beirut: Dar El-Machreq, 1968.

_____. Tyre Through the Ages. Beirut: Dar el-Mashreq Publishers, 1969.

Jirku, Anton. "Die Ägyptischen Listen Palästinensischer und Szyrischer Ortsnamen."

KLIO Beitrege yur Alten Geschichte 38 (1937): 1-62.

Joffe, Alexander H. "The Rise of Secondary States in the Iron Age Levant." Journal of

the Economic and Social History of the Orient 45, no. 4 (2002): 425-67.

Johnstone, William. "Biblical Hebrew "wawim" in the Light of New Phoenician

Evidence." Palestine Exploration Quarterly 109 (1977): 95-102.

Karageorghis, Vasos. "Excavations at Maa-Palaeokastro, 1979-1982, A Preliminary

Report." Report of the Department of Antiquities Cyprus 17 (1982): 86-94.

Karmon, Nira and Ehud Spanier. "Remains of a Purple Dye Industry Found at Tel

Shiqmona." Israel Exploration Journal 38, no. 184-186 (1988).

Katzenstein, H. Jacob. The History of Tyre. Jerusalem: The Schocken Institute For Jewish

Research, 1973.

Katzenstein, Hans Jacob. The History of Tyre: From the Beginning of the Second

Millennium B.C.E. Until the Fall of the Babylonian Empire in 538 B.C.E. 2nd ed.
Jerusalem: Goldberg's Press, 1997.



331



_____. "Phoenician Deities Worshipped in Israel and Judah during the Time of the First

Temple." Pages 187-92 in Phoenicia and the Bible: Proceedings of the
Conference held at the University of Leuven on the 15th and 16th of March 1990
Edited by Edward Lipiński. Leuven: Departement Orientalistiek: Peeters, 1991.


Kaufman, Steven A. "The Classification of North West Semitic Dialects of the Biblical

Period and Some Implications." Pages 41-57 in Proceedings of The Ninth World
Congress of Jewish Studies: Panel sessions, Hebrew and Aramaic Languages.
Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1988.


Keel, Othmar. Corpus der Stepelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel Von de Anfängen

bis zur Perserzeit, Katalog Band I: Von Tell Abu Farağ bis ‘Atlit. Freiburg:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Göttingen, 1997.


_____. "La Glyptique." Pages 257-300 in Tell Keisan (1971-1976): une cité phénicienne

en Galilée. Edited by Jaques Briend and Jean-Baptiste Humbert.Orbis Biblicus Et
Orientalis, Series Archaeologica Frieburg: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht Göttigen,
1980.


Keel, Othmar and Christoph Uehlinger. Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient

Israel. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1998.

Kempinski, Aharon and Joseph Naveh. "A Phoenician Seal Impression on a Jar Handle

from Tel Kabri." Tel Aviv 18, no. 2 (1991): 244-47.

Khalifeh, Issam, A. Sarepta II: The Late Bronze and Iron Age Periods of Area II, X.

Beirut: Publications De L'Université Libanaise, 1988.

Killebrew, Ann E. Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity: An Archaeological Study of Egyptians,

Canaanites, Philistines and Early Israel 1300-1100 B.C.E. Atlanta: Society of
Biblical Literature, 2005.


_____. "Ceramic Craft and technology during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age: The

Relationship between Pottery Technology, Style and Cultural Diversity." Ph.D.
diss., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1998.


Kingsley, Sean A. The Ancient Harbour and Anchorage at Dor, Israel: Results of the

Underwater Surveys 1976-1991. Edited by Kurt Raveh. Oxford: Tempus
Reparatum, 1996.


Kitchen, Kenneth A. On The Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

2003.

_____. "Punt and How to Get There." Orientalia 40 (1971): 184-207.




332


_____. The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100-650 B.C.). Warminster: Aris &
Phillips LTD, 1986.


Kletter, Raz. "Phoenician(?) Weights from Horvat Rosh Zayit." Atiqot 25 (1994): 33-43.

Knapp, A. Bernard. "Bronze Age Mediterranean Island Cultures and the Ancient Near

East."Biblical Archaeologist 55, no. 2 (1992): 52-72.

_____. "Thalassocracies in Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean Trade: Making and

Breaking a Myth." World Archaeology 24, no. 3 (1993): 332-47.

Knauf, E. "King Solomon's Copper Supply." Pages 167-86 in Phoenicia and the Bible:

Proceedings of the Conference Held at the University of Leuven on the 15th and
16th of March 1990. Edited by Edward Lipinski.Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta.
Leuven: Departement Orientalistiek: Peeters, 1991.


Kochavi, Moshe. "Tripartite Buildings: Divided Structures Divided Scholars." Biblical

Archaeology Review 25, no. 03 (1999): 44-50.

Korpel, Marjo C.A. "Fit for a Queen: Jezebel's Royal Seal." Biblical Archaeology Review

34, no. 2 (2008): 32-37, 80.

Korpel, Marjo C.A. and Johannes C. de Moore. "Fundamentals of Ugaritic and Hebrew

Poetry." Ugaritic Forschungen 18 (1986): 173-211.

Krahmalkov, Charles. Phoenician-Punic Dictionary. Leuven: Peeters, 2000.

Krahmalkov, Charles R. A Phoenician-Punic Grammar. Edited by H. Altenmüler, B.

Hrounda, Baruch A. Levine, R.S. O'Fahey, K.R. Veenof, and C.H.M Versteegh.
Leiden: Brill, 2001.


Kuan, Jeffrey K. "Third Kingdoms 5.1 and Israelite-Tyrian Relations during the Reign of

Solomon." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 46 (1990): 31-46.

_____. "Was Omri a Phoenician?" History and Interpretation (1993).

Lagarce, J. "La Cachette de fondeur aux épées (Enkomi 1967) et l'atelier voisin." Pages

381-432 in Alasia: première série, publié à l'occassion de la XXe campagne de
fouilles à Enkomi-Alasia (1969) sous la direction de Claude F.-A. Schaeffer.
Edited by C. Schaeffer. Paris: Mission archéologique d'Alasia, 1971.


Lambdin, Thomas Oden. "Egyptian Loan Words in the Old Testament." Journal of the

American Oriental Society 73 (1953): 145-55.

Landsberger, Beno. "Assyrische Königsliste und Dunkles "Zeitalter"." Jounal of

Cueiform Studies VIII, no. 2 (1954): 47-73.



333



_____. "Über Farben im Sumerische-Akkadischen." Journal of Cunneiform Studies 21

(1967): 139-77.

Laperrousaz, E.M. "Aprés Le «Temple de Salomon» La bamah de Tel-Dan: L'Utilisation

de Pierres À Bossage Phénicien Dans La Palestine Préexilique." Syria 59 (1982):
223-37.


Lapp, Nancy. "Preliminary Excavation Reports and Other Archaeological Investigations:

Tell Qarqur, Iron I Sites in the North-Central Highlands of Palestine." The Annual
of the American Schools of Oriental Research 56 (1999): 1-218.


Lawergren, Bo. "Distinctions among Canaanite, Philistine, and Israelite Lyres, and Their

Global Lyrical Contexts." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
309 (1998): 41-68.


Le Lasseur, Denyse. "Mission archéologique à Tyr (deuxiéme article)." Syria 3 (1922):

116-33.

_____. "Mission archéologique à Tyr (premier article)." Syria 3 (1922): 1-26.

Lehmann, Gunnar. Bibliographie der achäologischen Fundstellen und Surveys in Syrien

und Libanon. Orient-Abteilung: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut,, 2002.

_____. "Reconstructing the Social Landscape of Early Israel: Rural Marriage Alliances in

the Central Hill Country." Tel Aviv 31 (2004): 141-93.

_____. Untersuchungen zur späten Eisenzeit in Szrien und LibanonÖ Stratigraphie und

Keramikformen zwishen ca. 720 bis 300 v.Chr. . Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1996.

_____. "Das Land Kabul: Archäologische und Historisch-Geographische Erwägungen."

Pages 39-94 in Israeliten und Phönizier. Edited by Markus Witte and Johannes F.
Diehl. Fribourg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprect Göttingen 2008.


Lemaire, Andre. "Date et origine des inscriptions hebraiques et pheniciennes de Kuntillet

Ajrud." Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente Antico 1 (1984): 133-43.

_____. "Le royaume de Tyr dans la seconde moitie du IVe siecle av. J.-C." Atti del II

Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici I (1991): 131-50.

_____. "Une inscription phenicienne decouverte recemment et le mariage de Ruth la

Moabite." Eretz-Israel 20 (1989): 124-29.

_____. "Asher Et Tyr." Pages 135-52 in Phoenicia and the Bible: Proceedings of the

Conference held at the University of Leuven on the 15th and 16th of March 1990.
Edited by Edward Lipinski. Leuven: Departement Orientalistiek: Peeters, 1991.



334



Lessing, Reed. "Satire in Isaiah's Tyre Oracle." Journal for the Study of the Old

Testament 28, no. 1 (2003): 89-112.

Leuchter, Mark. "Tyre's "70 years" in Isaiah 23,15-18." Biblica 87, no. 3 (2006): 412-17.

Levin, Marlin. The Fabled City of Dan. Chicago: Time, 1980.

Levy, Thomas. "Pastoral Nomads and Iron Age Metal Production in Ancient

Edom."Pages 147-78 in Nomads, Tribes, and the State in the Ancient Near East
Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives. Edited by Jeffrey Szuchman.The University of
Chicago Oriental Seminars. Chicago: The University of Chicago, 2009.


Lichtheim, Miriam. Ancient Egyptian Literature: The New Kingdom. Berkeley:

University of California, 1976.

Lie, Arthur Gotfreid. The Inscriptions of Sargon II King of Assyria. Paris: Librairie

Orientaliste Paul Geunthner, 1929.

Lipinski, Edward. "Šu-bala-aka and badalum."Pages 257-60 in Wirtschaft und

Gesellschaft von Ebla. Edited by H. Waetzoldt and H. Hauptmann. Heidelberg,
1988.


Lipiński, Edward. "The Eegy on the Fall of Sidon in Isaiah 23." Eretz-Israel 14 (1978):

79-88.

_____. Itineraria Phoenicia. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Oosterse

Studies, 2004.

_____. On The Skirts of Canaan in the Iron Age: Historical and Topographic Research.

Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Oosterse Studies, 2006.

_____. ed. Phoenicia and the Bible: Proceedings of the Conference held at the University

of Leuven on the 15th and 16th of March 1990. Leuven: Departement
Orientalistiek: Peeters, 1991.


_____. Phoenicia and the East Mediterranean in the First Millennium B.C.: Proceeding

of the Conference Held in Leuven from the 14.-16. of Nov. 1985.Orientalia
Lovaniensia analecta, 22. Leuven: Peeters, 1987.


_____. State and Temple Economy in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the

International Conference.Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta, 5-6. Leuven:
Departement Orientalistiek, 1979.


_____. "The Territory of Tyre and the Tribe of Asher." Pages 153-66 in Phoenicia and

the Bible: Proceedings of the Conference Held at the University of Leuven on the



335


15th and 16th of March 1990. Edited by Edward Lipiński.Orientalia Lovaniensia
analecta. Leuven: Departement Orientalistiek: Peeters, 1991.


Lipiński, Edward and Nina Assorodobraj-Kula. Studies in Economic Theory and

Practice: Essays in Honor of Edward Lipinski. Amsterdam: North-Holland
Publishing Company, 1981.


Lis, Jonathan and Nadav Shraqai. "Alleged Forger of Holy Land Antiquities Held."

Haaretz, July 23, 2003.

Littaur, M.A. and J.H. Crouwel. "A Late Bronze Age Spoked Wheel from Lidar Höyük

in Southeast Turkey, 1991." Pages 314-24 in Selected Writings on Chariots and
other Early Vehicles, Riding and Harness. Edited by Peter Raulwing. Leiden:
Brill, 2002.


Liverani, Mario. International Relations in the Ancient Near East, 1600-1100 BC. New

York: Palgrave, 2001.

_____. Prestige and Interest: International Relations in the Near East ca. 1600-1100

B.C. Padova: Sargon, 1990.

_____. "The Trade Network of Tyre According to Ezek. 27." Scripta Hierosolymitana 33

(1990): 65-79.

Loffet, Henri-Charles. "The Sidon Scaraboid S/3487." Archaeology and History in

Lebanon 24 (2006): 78-84.

Long, Burke O. I Kings with an Introduction to Historical Literature. Grand Rapids:

William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1984.

_____. 2 Kings. Edited by Rolf P. Knierim and Gene M. Tucker. Grand Rapids: William

B. Eerdmans, 1991.

Lopez-Ruiz, C. "Tarshish and Tartessos Revisited: Textual Problems and Historical

Implications " Pages 255-80 in Colonial Encounters in Ancient Iberia:
Phoenician, Greek, and Indigenous Relations. Edited by M. Dietler and C.
Lopez-Ruiz. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2009.


Lorton, David. The Juridical Terminology of International Relations in Egyptian Texts

Through Dyn. XVIII Edited by Hans Goedicke. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1974.

Loud, Gordon. Megiddo II. Seasons of 1935-1939. Chicago: Oriental Institute of

Chicago, 1948.

Luckenbill, Daniel David. The Annals of Sennacherib Chicago: University of Chicago,

1924.



336



Lundberg, Marilyn J. "Editor's Notes: The Ahiram Inscription." Maarav 11, no. 1 (2004):

81-93.

Macridy, Theodore C. Le Temple d'Echmoun à Sidon. Paris: Librairie Victor Lecoffre,

1904.

Maeir, Aren M. "Open, Closed (?), Open: The Philistines and the Outside World during

the Iron I and Early Iron IIA " Paper presented at the 2010 International Meeting.
The Ancient Near East in the 12th-10th Centuries BCE: Culture and History.
Haifa, 2010.


Maisler, B. "Canaan and the Canaanites." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental

Research 102 (1946): 7-12.

Malamat, A. "Syro-Palestinian Destinations in a Mari Tin Inventory." Israel Exploration

Journal 21, no. 1 (1971): 31-38.

Malbran-Labat, Florence. "Commerce at Ugarit." Near Eastern Archaeology 63, no. 4

(2000): 195.

Malul, Meir. The Comparative Method in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Legal

Studies. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1990.

Marée, Marcel. "A Jar from Sidon With the Name of Pharaoh-Queen Taworset."

Archaeology and History in Lebanon 24 (2006): 121-28.

Markoe, Glenn "The Emergence of Phoenician Art." Bulletin of the American Schools of

Oriental Research 279 (1990): 13-26.

Markoe, Glenn. Phoenician Bronze and Silver Bowls from Cyprus and the

Mediterranean. Berkeley University of California Press, 1985.

_____. Phoenicians. Berkeley University of California Press, 2000.

Matthews, Victor H. Judges and Ruth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Mayes, A.D.H. The Story of Israel between Settlement and Exile: A Redactional Study of

the Deuteronomistic History London: SCM, 1983.

Mayes, James Luther. Hosea: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969.

Mazar, Amihai. "Additional Philistine Temples at Tell Qasile." Biblical Archaeologist

40, no. 2 (1977): 82-87.




337


_____. Archaeology ofthe Land of the Bible 10,000-586 B.C.E. New York: Doubleday,
1990.


_____. Excavations at Tell Qasile. Jerusalem, Israel Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew

University of Jerusalem, 1980.

_____. "A Philistine Temple at Tell Qasile." Biblical Archaeologist 36, no. 2 (1973): 42-

48.

Mazar, Amihay and Robert A. Mullins. Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean, 1989-1996.

Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2006.

Mazar, Benjamin. "The Philistines, Israel, and Tyre." Pages 63-82 in The Early Biblical

Period. Edited by Shmuel Ahituv and Baruch A. Levine. Jerusalem: Israel
Exploration Society, 1986.


Mazar, Eilat. "Achziv Cemetaries: Buried Treasure From Israel's Neighbor." Biblical

Archaeology Review 36, no. 5 (2010): 34-47.

_____. "Did I Find King David's Palace?" Biblical Archaeology Review 32, no. 1 (2006):

16-27, 70.

_____. The Palace of King David: Excavations at the Summit of the City of David,

Preliminary Report of Seasons 2005-2007. Jerusalem and New York: Shoham
Academic Research and Publication, 2009.


_____. The Phoenician Family Tomb N.1 at the Northern Cemetery of Achziv (10th-6th

Centuries BCE). Barcelona: Laboratorio De Arquelogia De La Universidad
Pompeu Fabra De Barcelona, 2004.


_____. "Phoenician Family Tombs at Achziv: A Chronological Typology (1000-400

BCE)."Pages 267-294 in Fenicios y territorio; actas del II Seminario
Internacional sobre Temas Fenicios, Guardamar del Segura, 1999. Edited by A.
Gonzalez-Prats. Alicante: Instituto Alicantino de Cultura "Juan Gil-Albert,"
(2000).


Mazar, Eilat and Benjamin Mazar. Excavations in the South of the Temple Mount: The

Ophel of biblical Jerusalem. Jerusalem: The Institute of Archaeology, 1989.

Mazzoni, S. "The Late Iron I and Early Iron II Levels."Tel Afis (Syria): The 1988-1992

Excavations on the Acropolis. Edited by S.M. Ceccheni and S. Mazzoni. Pisa:
Edizioni ETS 1998.


McCarter, P. Kyle, Jr. II Samuel: A New Translation with Notes, Introduction, and

Commentary. Garden City: Doubleday, 1984.




338


_____. "Over the Transom: Three More Arrowheads." Biblical Archaeology Review 25,
no. 3 (1999): 42-43.


McGovern, Patrick E., Stuart J. Fleming, and Charles P. Swann. "The Late Bronze

Egyptian Garrison at Beth Shan: Glass and Faience Production and Importation in
the Late New Kingdom." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research,
no. 290/291 (1993): 1-27.


Meier, Samuel A. "History of Israel 1: Settlement Period " Pages 425-34 of Dictionary of

the Old Testament Historical Books Edited by Bill T. Arnold and H.G.M
Williamson. Downers Grove: InterVaristy Press, 2005.


_____. "Diplomacy and International Marriage." Pages 165-73 in Amarna Diplomacy:

The Beginnings of International Relations. Edited by Raymond Cohen and
Raymond Westbrook. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000.


Mendenhall, George E. "Amorites." Pages 199-202 in vol. 1 of The Anchor Bible

Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday,
1992.


Mercer, Samuel, ed. The Tell El-Amarna Tablets. Toronto: The Macmillan Company of

Canada, 1939.

Mersereau, Rebecca. "Cretan Cylindrical Models." American Journal of Archaeology 97,

no. 1 (1993): 1-47.

Meshel, Zeev. "Kuntilet `Ajrud-\- An Israelite Site from the Monarchial Period on the

Sinai Border " Qadmoniot 9 (1976): 119-24.

_____. Kuntillet `Ajrud: A Religeous Center from the Time of the Judean Monarchy on

the Border of Sinai. Israel Museum Catalogue 178 (1978):

Mikesell, Marvin W. "The Deforestation of Mount Lebanon." Geographical Review 59,

no. 1 (1969): 1-28.

Milik, J. T. "An Unpublished Arrow-Head with Phoenician Inscription of the 11th-10th

Century B. C." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 143 (1956):
3-6.


Milik, J. T. and Frank M. Cross, Jr. "Inscribed Javelin-Heads from the Period of the

Judges: A Recent Discovery in Palestine." Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research 134 (1954): 5-15.


Miller, James E. "The Maelaek of Tyre (Ezekiel 28,11-19)." Zeitschrift fur die

Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 105, no. 3 (1993): 497-501.




339


Mitchell, Terence C. "The Phoenician Inscribed Ivory Box from Ur." Palestine
Exploration Quarterly 123, no. 2 (1991): 119-28.


Moers, Gerald. Fingierte Welten in der ägyptischen Literatur des 2 Jahrtausends v. Chr.:

Grenzüberschreitung, Reisemotiv und Fiktionalität. Leiden: Brill, 2001.

Monroe, Christopher Montfort. Scales of Fate: Trade, Tradition, and Transformation in

the Eastern Mediterranean ca. 1350-1175 BCE. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2009.

Montet, Pierre. Byblos et L'Egypte, Quatre campagnes de fouilles à Gebeil 1921, 1922,

1923, and 1924: Atlas. Paris: Libraire Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1929.

_____. Byblos et L'Egypte, Quatre campagnes de fouilles à Gebeil 1921, 1922, 1923, and

1924: Texte. Paris: Libraire Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1928.

Montgomery, James A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Kings.

Edited by Henry Snyder Gehman. Edinburgh: T&T Clark Limited, 1986.

Moore, Michael S. "Big Dreams and Broken Promises: Solomon's Treaty with Hiram in

its International Context." Bulletin for Biblical Research 14, no. 2 (2004): 205-21.

Moorey, P. R. S. Materials and Manufacture in Ancient Mesopotamia: The Evidence of

Archaeology and Art. Oxford: B.A.R, 1985.

Moran, William L. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1992.

Moscati, Sabatino. "Early Hebrew Orthography." Journal of Near Eastern Studies 13, no.

2 (1954): 133-35.

_____. ed. The Phoenicians. New York: Abbeville Press, 1988.

_____. "Sulla storia del nome Canaan." Studia Biblica et Orientalia III (1959): 266-69.

_____. The World of the Phoenicians. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1968.

_____. "Metal Bowls." Pages 436-47 in The Phoenicians. Edited by Sabatino Moscati.

New York: Abbeville, 1988.

_____. "Who Were the Phoenicians?" Pages 17-19 in The Phoenicians: Under the

Scientific Direction of Sabatino Moscati Edited by Sabatino Moscati. New York:
I.B. Taurus & Co Ltd, 2001.


_____. ed. An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of The Semitic Languages:

Phonology and Morphology. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1964.

Mountjoy, P.A. Regional Mycenaean Decorated Pottery Leidorf: Rahden/Westf, 1999.



340



Muchiki, Yoshi. "The Unidentified God "PMY" in Phoenician Texts." Journal of Semitic

Studies 36, no. 1 (1991): 7-10.

Muchiki, Yoshiyuki. Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords in North-West Semitic.

Edited by Michael V. Fox. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999.

Muhly, James D. "Homer and the Phoenicians." Berytus 19 (1970): 19-64.

_____. "Sources of Tin and the Beginnings of Bronze Metallurgy." American Journal of

Archaeology 89, no. 2 (1985): 275-91.

Muhly, J. D., R. Maddin, T. Stech, and E. Ozgen. "Iron in Anatolia and the Nature of the

Hittite Iron Industry." Anatolian Studies 35 (1985): 67-84.

Mulder, Martin Jan. 1 Kings. Translated by John Vriend. Vol. 1 of. Leuven: Peeters,

1998.

_____. ""Pa'am" As a Measure of Length in 1 Kings 7.4 and KAI 80.1."Text and

Context: Old Testament and Semitic Studies for F.C. Fensham. Edited by F.
Charles Fensham and Walter Theophilus Claassen. Journal for the Study of the
Old Testament Supplement Series. Sheffield: JSOT, 1988.


Müller, Max. "Neues semitisches Sprachgut aus dem Papyrus Golénischeff."

Orientalistische Literaturzeitung. 3 (1900): 207-209.

_____. Egyptological Researches. Vol. 2 of. Washington: Carnegie Institute of

Washington, 1910.

Münger, Stefan. "Egyptian Stamp-Seal Amulets and Their Implications for the

Chronology of the Early Iron Age " Tel Aviv 30, no. 1 (2003): 66-82.

_____. "Kinneret Regional Project – The 2008 Field Season." Paper presented at the

American Schools of Oriental Research Annual Meeting. Boston, 2008.

Muniz, Adolfo. "Foods and Forts: Zooarchaeology Perspectives from the Edom Lowland

in Southern Jordan " Paper presented at the The Society of Biblical Literature
National Conference. Boston, 2008.


Muntaha, Saghieh. Byblos in the Third Millennium B.C.: A Reconstruction of the

Stratigraphy and a Study of Cultural Connections. Wilts: Aris & Phillips, 1983.

Naaman, Nadav. Ancient Israel's History and Historiography: The First Temple Period.

Vol. 3 Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006.




341


_____. "The Canaanite and Their Land."Canaan in the Second Millenium B.C.E. Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005.


_____. "The "Conquest of Canaan" in the Book of Joshua and in History."Canaan in the

Second Millenium B.C.E. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005.

_____. "Four Notes on the Size of Late Bronze Age Canaan." Bulletin of the American

Schools of Oriental Research 313 (1999): 31-37.

Na'aman, Nadav. "The Danite Campaign Northward (Judges XVII-XVIII) and the

Migration of the Phoneceans to Massalia (Strabo IV 1,4)." Vetus Testamentum 55,
no. 1 (2005): 47-60.


_____. "Esarhaddon's Treaty with Baal and Assyrian provinces along the Phoenician

coast." Rivista di Studi Fenici 22, no. 1 (1994): 3-8.

Naveh, Joseph. "Excavation of the Courthouse Site at Akko: Phoenician Seal

Impressions." Atiqot 31 (1997): 115-19.

_____. "Unpublished Phoenician Inscriptions from Palestine." Israel Exploration Journal

37, no. 1 (1987): 25-30.

_____. "Phoenician Ostraca from Tel Dor."Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical,

Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield. Edited by Jonas
C. Greenfield, Ziony Zevit, Seymour Gitin, and Michael Sokoloff. Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns, 1995.


Naville, Edouard. The Temple of Deir el Bahri III. London: Egypt Exploration Fund,

1898.

Neer, Wim Van. "Bronze Age Fish Remains from Sidon." Archaeology and History in

the Lebanon 24 (2006): 86-88

_____. "Fish Remains from Archaeological Sites as Indicators of Former Trade

Connections in the Eastern Mediteranean." Paléorient 30, no. 1 (2004): 101-48.

Negbi, Ora. Canaanite Gods in Metal: An Archaeological Study of Ancient Syro-

Palestinian Figurines. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, Institute of Archaeology,
1976.


_____. "Early Phoenician Presence in the Mediterranean Islands: A Reappraisal."

American Journal of Archaeology 96, no. 4 (1992): 599-615.

_____. "Evidence for Early Phoenician Communities on the Eastern Mediterranean

Islands." Levant 14 (1982): 179-82.




342


Negbi, Ora and S. Moskowitz. "The "Foundation Deposits" or "Offering Deposits" of
Byblos." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 184 (1966): 21-
26.


Nelson, R.D. The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History. Sheffield: JSOT

Press, 1981.

Nelson, Richard D. Joshua: A Commentary. Edited by James L. Mays, Carol A.

Newsome, and David L. Peterson. Louisville Westminster John Knox Press,
1997.


Niditch, Susan. Judges. London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008.

Noll, K. L. Canaan and Israel in Antiquity: An Introduction. London ; New York

Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.

Noth, Martin. The Deuteronomic History. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1943.

_____. Die Israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der Gemeinsemitischen

Namengebung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1928.

_____. Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche

Buchgesellschaft, 1960.

Núnez Calvo, Francisco J. "Phoenicia." Pages 19-98 in Beyond the Homeland: Markers

in Phoenician Chronology. Edited by Claudia Sagona. Ancient Near Eastern
Studies Supplement Series 28. Lueven: Peeters, 2008.


Oren, Eliezer, ed. The Sea Peoples and Their World: a Reassessment. Philadelphia:

University of Pennsylvania Museum, 2000.

Oswalt, John N. The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1-39. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdsman

Publishing Company, 1986.

Parkinson, R.B. The Tale of Sinuhe and Other Ancient Egyptian Poems 1940-1640 BC.

Oxford: University Press, 1997.

Parrot, Andre, Maurice H. Chehab, and Sabatino Moscati. Les Pheniciens: L'expansion

Phenicienne, Carthage. Paris: Gallimard, 2007.

Peckham, Brian. The Development of the Late Phoenician Scripts. Cambridge: Harvard,

1968.

_____. "Phoenicians and Aramaeans: The Literary and Epigraphic Evidence." Pages 19-

44 in The World of the Aramaeans: Biblical Studies in Honor of Paul Eugene



343


Dion. Edited by Paulette M. Michele Daviau, Paul-Eugene Dion, John William
Wevers, and Michael Weigel. Sheffield: sheffield, 2001.


_____. "Phoenicia and the Religion of Israel: The Epigraphic Evidence." Pages 224-48 in

Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross. Edited by
Patick D. Miller, Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1987.


Pettinato, Giovani "Le Città Fenicie E Byblos in Particolare Nella Documentazione

Epigrafica Di Ebla."atti del I Congesso Internazionale di Studi Fenici E Punici.
Rome: Consiglio Nazionale Delle Richerche, 1983.


Photos, E. "The Question of Meteoritic versus Smelted Nickel-Rich Iron: Archaeological

Evidence and Experimental Results." World Archaeology 20, no. 3 (1989): 403-
21.


Poidebard, A. "Reconnaissance dans l'ancien port de Tyr." Syria 18 (1937): 355-68.

Pope, Marvin H. "El in the Ugaritic Texts." Vetus Testamentum Supplements II (1955):

61-62.

Posner, Gerald L. Princes et Pays d'Asie et de Nubie. Textes hiératiques sur des figurines

d'envoutment du moyen empire [edited by G. Posner], suivis Remarques
paléographiques sur les textes similaires de Berlin, Par B. van de Walle. [with
plates.]. Bruxelles, 1940.


Pratico, Gary D. "Nelson Glueck's 1938-1940 Excavations at Tell el-Kheleifeh: A

Reappraisal." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 259 (1985):
1-32.


Prausnitz, Moshe W. "A Phoenician Krater from Akhziv." Oriens Antiquus 5 (1966):

177-88.

Prausnitz, Max W. "The Planning of the Middle Bronze Age Town at Achzib and its

Defense." Israel Exploration Journal 25, no. 4 (1975): 202-10.

Prausnitz, Moshe W. "Red-Polished and Black on Red Wares at Ahkziv Israel and

Cyprus in the Early-Middle Iron Age." Pages 151-56 in Praktika tou Protou
Diethnos Kyprologikou Synderiou. Nicosia: Leuko ̄sia : Hetaireia Kypriako ̄n
Spoudon, 1972.


Prausnitz, Max W. "Die Nekropolen von Akhziv."Pages 31-39 in Phönizier im Westen:

Die Beiträge des Internationalen Symposiums über Die Phönizische Expansion im
westlichen Mittelmeerraum in Köln vom 24. bis 27. April 1979. Edited by H.G.
Niemeyer. Mainz: von Zäbern, 1982.





344


Pressler, Carolyn. Joshua, Judges and Ruth. London: Westminster John Knox Press,
2002.


Pritchard, James Bennett. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament.

New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1974.

_____. Recovering Sarepta, a Phoenician City: Excavations at Sarafand, Lebanon, 1969-

1974, by the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania. New Jersey:
Princeton University Press, 1978.


_____. Sarepta IV: Objects from Area II, X. Beirut: Publications de l'Université

Libanaise, 1988.

_____. Sarepta, A Preliminary Report on the Iron Age: Excavations of the University

Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, 1970-72. Philadelphia: University
Museum, University of Pennsylvania, 1975.


_____. "Sarepta in History and Tradition." Pages 99-114 in Understanding the Sacred

Text: Essays in Honor of Morton S. Enslin on the Hebrew Bible and Christian
Bginnings. Edited by John Reumann. Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1972.


Proffitt, T. D., III. "The Philistines." Biblical Archaeologist 43, no. 3 (1980): 133.

Provan, Iain W., V. Philips Long, and Tremper Longman. A Biblical History of Israel.

Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003.

Pruin, Dagmar. "What is in a Text? - Searching for Jezebel." Pages 208-38 in Ahab

Agonistes. Edited by Lester L. Grabe. London: T&T Clark, 2007.

Raban, Avner. "The Philistines in the Western Jezreel Valley." Bulletin of the American

Schools of Oriental Research 284 (1991): 17-27.

_____. "Phoenician Harbours in the Levant." Michmanim 11 (1997): 7-27.

_____. "The Constructive Maritime Role of the Sea Peoples in the Levant."Pages 261-94

in Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean. Edited by Michael Heltzer
and Edward Lipinski. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peters, 1988.


Raban, Avner and Yaacov Kahanov. "Clay Models of Phoenician Vessels in the Hecht

Museum at the University of Haifa, Israel." International Journal of Nautical
Archaeology 32, no. 1 (2003): 61-72.


Rahmani, Levi Yizhaq. "A Phoenician Scarab from Ashkelon." Atiqot 11 (1976): 110-11.

Rainey, Anson F. "Toponymic Problems." Tel Aviv 9, no. 2 (1982): 130-36.




345


_____. "Toponymic Problems (cont.), The Way of the Sea Shim‘on— Shimron." Tel Aviv
8, no. 2 (1981).


_____. "Who is a Canaanite? A Review of the Textual Evidence." Bulletin of the

American Schools of Oriental Research 304 (1996): 1-15.

Rainey, Anson F. and R. Steven Notley. The Sacred Bridge: Carta's Atlas of the Biblical

World. Jerusalem: Carta, 2006.

Rawlinson, G. Phoenicia. Salem: Ayer, 1972.

Redford, Donald B. The Wars in Syria and Palestine of Thutmose III. Edited by B.

Halpern, M.H.E. Weippert, TH. P.J. Van De Hout, and I. Winter. Leiden: Brill,
2003.


_____. "The Tjeker." Pages 9-13 in Cyprus, the Sea Peoples and the Eastern

Mediterranean: Regional Perspectives of Continuity and Change. Edited by
Timothy P. Harrison. Scripta Mediterranea. Toronto: Canadian Institute for
Mediterranean Studies, 2008.


_____. "Egypt and Western Asia in The Late New Kingdom: An Overview." Pages 1-20

in The Sea Peoples and their World: A Reassessment. Edited by Eliezer D. Oren.
Philadelphia: University Museum, 2000.


Reese, David S. "Shells from Sarepta (Lebanon) and East Mediterranean Purple-Dye

Production." Pages 113-41 in Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 10,
no. 1 (2010): 113-41.


Renan, Ernest. Mission de Phénicie. Paris: Imprimerie Impériale, 1864.

Rendsberg, Gary. "A Further Note on Purple Dyeing." Biblical Archaeologist 54, no. 2

(1991): 121.

Rendsburg, Gary A. "Kabbîr in Biblical Hebrew: Evidence for Style switching and

Addressee-Switching in the Hebrew Bible." Journal of the American Oriental
Society 112, no. 4 (1992).


Renz, Johannes. Handbuch der Althebräischen Epigraphik: Teil 1 Text und Kommentar.

Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1995.

Rey-Coquias, Jean-Paul. Arados et sa Péréé aux Époques Grecque, Romaine et Byzantine

Paris: Libraire Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1974.

Reyes, Andre T. The Stamp-Seals of Ancient Cyprus. Oxford: Oxford University School

of Archaeology Institute of Archaeology, 2001.




346


Ritner, Robert K. The Libyan Anarchy: Inscriptions from Egypt's Third Intermediate
Period. Edited by Theodore J. Lewis. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature,
2009.


Rodriguez, Racquel Munoz. El Habitat Fenicio-Punico de Cadiz en el Entorno de la

Bahia. Oxford Archaeopress, 2008.

Röllig, Wolfgang. "On the Origin of the Phoenicians." Berytus 31 (1983): 79-93.

_____. "Die Phönizier des Mutterlandes zur zeit der Kolonisierung." Pages 15-30 in

Phönizier im Westen: Die Beiträge des Internationalen Szmposiums über Die
Phönizische Expansion im westlichen Mittelmeerraum in Köln vom 24. bis 27.
April 1979. Edited by H.G. Niemeyer. Mainz: von Zäbern, 1982.


Rollston, Christopher A. "The Dating of the Early Royal Byblian Phoenician Inscriptions:

A Response to Benjamin Sass " Maarav 15, no. 1 (2008): 57-79.

Rosenvasser, Abraham. "Kerub and Sphinx: More on the Phoenician Paradise (Ezekiel

28)." Milla wa-Milla 11 (1971): 28-38.

Rothenberg, Beno. Timna, Valley of the Biblical Copper Mines. London, 1972.

Rowe, Ignacio Marquez. "The King's Men in Ugarit and Society in Late Bronze Age

Syria." Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 45, no. 1 (2002):
1-19.


Ryckmans, G. . Les noms propres sud-sémitiques. Vol. I of. Louvain, 1934.

Sader, Helen. "Phoenician Stelae from Tyre." Berytus 39 (1991): 101-26.

Safar, Fuad. "A Further Text of Shalmaneser III from Assur." Sumer 7 (1951): 3-21.

Saidah, Roger. "Chronique." Bulletin du Musee de Beyrouth 20 (1967): 159-61.

Saidah, R. "Fouilles de Khaldé. Rapport préliminaire sur la première et deuxième

campagnes (1961-1962)." Bulletin du Musee de Beyrouth 19 (1966): 51-90.

Sandars, N. K. The Sea Peoples: Warriors of the Ancient Mediterranean, 1250-1150 B.C.

London: Thames and Hudson, 1978.

Sandmel, Samuel. "Parallelomania." Journal of Biblical Literature 81 (1962): 1-13.

Sass, Benjamin. The Alphabet at the Turn of the Millenium: The West Semitic Alphabet

ca. 1150-850 B.C.E. Tel Aviv: Yass Publications in Archaeology, 2005.




347


_____. "Inscribed Babylonian Arrowheads of the Turn of the Second Millenium and
Their Phoenician Counterparts." Ugaritic Forschungen 21 (1989): 349-56.


_____. "The Revadim Seal and its Archaic Phoenician Inscription." Anatolian Studies 33

(1983): 169-75.

_____. "Wenamun and His Levant—1075 BC or 925 BC?" Ägypten und Levante 12

(2002): 247-55.

Sass, Benjamin and Christoph Uehlinger. Studies in the Iconography of Northwest

Semitic Inscribed Seals: Proceedings of a Symposium Held in Fribourg on April
17-20, 1991. Fribourg: University Press, 1993.


Sasson, Jack M. "Canaanite Maritime Involvement in the Second Millennium B. C."

Journal of the American Oriental Society 86, no. 2 (1966): 126-38.

Schachermeyr, Fritz. Die Levante im Zeitalter der Wanderungen vom 13. bis zum 11.

Jahrhundert v. Chr. Wien: Verlag der O ̈sterreichische Akademie der
Wissenschaften, 1982.


Scheepers, A. "Anthroponyms et Toponymes du Rècit D'Ounamon."Pages 17-84 in

Phoenicia and the Bible. Edited by Edward Lipinski.Studia Phoenicia. Leuven:
Peeters, 1991.


Scheil, Vincent. Le Prisme S D'Assaraddon: Roi D'Assyrie 681-668. Paris: Librairie

Ancienne Honoré Champion, 1914.

Schipper, Bernd U. Die Erzählung des Wenamun. Fribourg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

Göttingen, 2006.

Schmid, H. Der Tempelbau Salomos in religionsgeschtlichter sicht. Edited by A.

Kuschke and E. Kutsche. Tübingen: Mohr, 1970.

Schmidt, Peter R., Mathew C. Curtis, and Zelalem Teka, eds. The Archaeology of Ancient

Eritrea. Trenton: The Red Sea Press, 2007.

Schneider, Thomas. Asiatische Personennamen in ägyptischen Quellen des Neuen

Reiches. Freiburg, Schweiz; Göttingen: Universitätsverlag ; Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1992.


Schneider, Tammi J. Judges. Edited by Ron E. Tappy. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press,

2000.

Schreiber, Nicola. The Cypro-Phoenician Pottery of the Iron Age. Leiden: Brill, 2003.

Seeden, Helga. "A Tophet in Tyre?" Berytus 39 (1991): 39-126.



348



Semple, Ellen Churchill. "Ancient Mediterranean Agriculture: Part I." Agricultural

History 2, no. 2 (1928): 61-98.

Sethe, Kurt. Die Ächtung Feindlicher Fürsten Völker und Dinge auf altägyptischen

Tongefässcherben des Mittleren Reiches. Berlin, 1926.

_____. Urkunden der 18 Dynastie. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1907.

Shahack-Gross, Ruth. "Geoarchaeology in an Urban Context: The Uses of Space in a

Phoenician Monumental Building at Tel Dor (Israel)." Journal of Archaeological
Science 32, no. 9 (2005): 1417-31.


Shalev, S. "Metal Production and Society at Tel Dan."Pages 57-65 in Biblical

Archaeology Today 1990, PreCongress Symposium: Supplement. Edited by
Avriham Biran and J. Aviram. Jerusalem, 1993.


Sharon, Ilan. "Phoenician and Greek Ashlar Construction Techniques at Tel Dor."

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 267 (1987): 21-42.

Sharon, Ilan and Anabel Zarzecki-Peleg. "Podium Structures with Lateral Access:

Authority Ploys in Royal Architecture in the Iron Age Levant."Pages 145-68 in
Confronting the Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in
Honor of William G. Dever. Edited by Seymour Gitin, J. Edward Wright, and J. P.
Dessel. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006.


Shiloh, Yigal. "Ashlar Quarries of the Iron Age in the Hill Country of Israel." Bulletin of

the American Schools of Oriental Research 217 (1975): 37-48.

_____. The Proto-Aeolic Capital and Israelite Ashlar Masonry. Qedem 11 Jerusalem:

Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1979.

Silberman, Niel A. Digging for God and Country: Exploration, Archaeology and the

Secret Struggle for the Holy Land 1799- 1917. New York: Knopf, 1982.

Simons, J. Handbook for the Study of Egyptian Topographical Lists Relating to Western

Asia. Leiden: Brill, 1937.

Singer, Itamar. "Merneptah's Campaign to Canaan and the Egyptian Occupation of the

Southern Coastal Plain of Palestine in the Ramesside Period." Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 269 (1988): 1-10.


_____. "Western Anatolia in the Thirteenth Century B.C. According to the Hittite

Sources." Anatolian Studies 33 (1983): 205-17.




349


Singer, Itmar. "Purple Dyers in Lazpa." Pages 21-43 in Anatolian Interfaces: Hittites,
Greeks and Their Neighbors: Proceedings of an International Conference on
Cross-cultural Interaction, September 17-19, 2004 Emory University, atlanta GA.
Edited by Billie Jean Collins, Mary R. Bachvarova, and Ian Rutherford. Oxford:
Oxbow Books, 2009.


Singer, Itamar. "The Origin of the Sea Peoples and Their Settlement on the Coast of

Canaan "Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean. Edited by Michael
Heltzer and Edward Lipiński. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peters, 1988.


Sivan, Daniel. A Grammar of the Ugaritic Language. Edited by H. Altenmüler, B.

Hrounda, Baruch A. Levine, R.S. O'Fahey, K.R. Veenof, and C.H.M Versteegh.
Leiden: Brill, 2001.


Sivan, Daniel and Ziporah Cochavai-Rainey. West Semitic Vocabulary in Egyptian Script

of the 14th to the 10th Centuries BCE Edited by Shmuel Ahituv. Ben-Gurion:
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, 1992.


Smith, Mark S. The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient

Israel. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002.

Sneh, A. and R Weinberger. Mettula, Geological Map of Israel, Sheet 2-II, 1:50,000.

Jerusalem: Israel Geological Survey, 2003.

Snodgrass, Anthony M. "Iron and Early Metallurgy in the Mediterranean." Pages 335-74

in The Coming of the Age of Iron. Edited by Theodore A. Wertime and James D.
Muhly. New Haven: Yale University 1980.


Soggin, J. Alberto. Judges: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1981.

_____. Joshua: A Commentary. Edited by G. Ernest Wright, John Bright, and James

Barr. London: SCM Press, 1972.

Speiser, E. A. "The Name Phoinikes." Language 12 (1936): 121-26.

_____. One Hundred New Selected Nuzi Texts. Edited by Millar Burrows and E.A.

Speiser. Vol. XVI New Haven: American schools of Oriental Research, 1936.

Stager, Lawrence. "Port Power in the Early and Middle Bronze Age: The Organization of

Maritime and Hinterland Production." Pages 625-38 in Studies in the Archaeology
of Israel and Neighboring Lands in Memory of Douglas L. Esse. Edited by
Samuel R. Wolff. Atlanta: ASOR Books, 2001.


_____. "The Archaeology of the East Slope of Jerusalem and the Terraces of the Kidron."

Journal of Near Eastern Studies 41, no. 2 (1982): 111-21.




350


_____. "Farming in the Judean Desert During the Iron Age." Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 221 (1976): 145-58.


Stager, Lawrence E. and Samuel R. Wolfe. "Production and Commerce in Temple

Courtyards: An Olive Press in The Sacred Precinct at Tel Dan." Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 243 (1981): 95-102.


Stanislawski, Dan. "Dark Age Contributions to the Mediterranean Way of Life." Annals

of the Association of American Geographers 63, no. 4 (1973): 397-410.

Stech-Wheeler, T., J. D. Muhly, K. R. Maxwell-Hyslop, and R. Maddin. "Iron at Taanach

and Early Iron Metallurgy in the Eastern Mediterranean." American Journal of
Archaeology 85, no. 3 (1981): 245-68.


Steiner, Richard C. "Northwest Semitic Incantations in an Egyptian Medical Papyrus of

the Fourteenth Century B.C.E." Journal of Near Eastern Studies 51, no. 3 (1992):
191-200.


Stern, Ephraim. Dor, Ruler of the Seas: Nineteen Years of Excavations at the Israelite-

Phoenician Harbor Town on the Carmel Coast rev. and exp. ed. Jerusalem: Israel
Exploration Society, 2000.


_____. Excavations at Dor: Final Report. Jerusalem: The Institute of Archaeology,

Hebrew University of Jerusalem, in cooperation with The Israel Exploration
Society, 1995.


_____. "A Favissa of a Phoenician Sanctuary from Tel Dor." Journal of Jewish Studies

33, no. 1-2 (1982): 35-54.

_____. "Israel at the Close of the Period of the Monarchy: An Archaeological Survey."

The Biblical Archaeologist 38, no. 2 (1975): 26-54.

_____. "New Evidence from Dor for the First Appearance of the Phoenicians along the

Northern Coast of Israel." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
279 (1990): 27-34.


_____. "New Phoenician Elements in the Architecture of Tel Dor, Israel." Hesed ve-Emet

(1998): 373-88.

_____. "New Types of Phoenician Style Decorated Pottery Vases from Palestine."

Palestine Exploration Quarterly 110 (1978): 11-21.

_____. "Phoenician Finds from Tel Dor, Israel." Rivista di Studi Fenici 19, no. 1 (1991):

95-105.




351


_____. "Phoenician Masks and Pendants." Palestine Exploration Quarterly 108 (1976):
109-18.


_____. "The Phoenician Source of Palestinian Cults at the End of the Iron Age." Pages

309-22 in Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past (2003).

_____. "A Phoenician-Cypriote Votive Scapula from Tel Dor: A Maritime Scene." Israel

Exploration Journal 44, no. 1-2 (1994): 1-12.

_____. "Two Phoenician Glass Seals from Tel Dor." Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern

Society 16-17 (1987): 213-16.

_____. "Phoenicians, Sikils, and Israelites in the Light of Recent Excavations at Tel

Dor." Pages 85-94 in Phoenicia and the Bible. Edited by Edward Lipinski.
Leuven: Peeters, 1991.


_____. "Four Phoenician Finds From Israel." Pages 319-34 in Immigration and

Emigration within the Ancient Near East: Festschrift E. Lipiński. Edited by
Edward Lipiński, Karel van Lerberghe, and A. Schoors. Orientalia Lovaniensia
Analecta. Leuven: Uitgevereij Peeters en Department Orientalistiek, 1995.


_____. "The Settlement of Sea Peoples in Northern Israel." Pages 197-212 in The Sea

Peoples and Their World: A Reassessment. Edited by Eliezer Oren. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania, 2000.


Stiebing, William H. "The End of the Mycenean Age."Biblical Archaeologist 43, no. 1

(1980): 7-21.

Stieglitz, Robert R. "Commodity Prices at Ugarit." Journal of the American Oriental

Society 99, no. 1 (1979): 15-23.

_____. "The Geopolitics of the Phoenician Littoral in the Early Iron Age." Bulletin of the

American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 279 (1990): 9-12.

_____. "Hydraulic and Fishing Installations at Tel Tanninim." Near Eastern Archaeology

61, no. 4 (1998): 256.

_____. "Long-Distance Seafaring in the Ancient Near East." Biblical Archaeologist 47,

no. 3 (1984): 134-42.

_____. "The Minoan Origin of Tyrian Purple." Biblical Archaeologist 57, no. 1 (1994):

46-54.

Stone, Bryan Jack. "The Philistines and Acculturation: Culture Change and Ethnic

Continuity in the Iron Age." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research 298 (1995): 7-32.



352



Stone, E.C. and P.E. Zimansky. The Iron Age Settlement at `Ain Dara, Syria. Oxford:

Archeopress, 1999.

Strawn, Brent A. "Comparative Approaches: History, Theory, and the Image of

God."Pages 117-42 in Method Matters: Essays on the Interpretation of the
Hebrew Bible in Honor of David L. Petersen. Edited by Joel M. LeMon and Kent
Harold Richards. Atlanta: The Society of Biblical Literature, 2009.


Sundwall, Johannes. Die Einheimischen Namen der Lykier nebst einem Verzeichnisse

kleinasiatischer Namenstämme. Leipzig: Dieterich´sche Verlagsbuchhandlung,
1913.


Susan and Andrew Sherratt. "The Growth of the Mediterranean Economy in the Early

First Millennium BC." World Archaeology 24, no. 3 (1993): 361-78.

Swift, G.E. "The Pottery of the `Amuq Phases K to O and its Historical Relationships."

Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1958.

Tappy, Ron E. The Archaeology of Israelite Samaria. Vol. 1 Atlanta: Scholars Press,

1992.

Theile, Edwin R. The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids:

Zondervan/Kregel, 1983.

Thompson, Henry O. Mekal the God of Beth-Shan. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1070.

Thompson, T. L. "A Neo-Albrightean School in History and Biblical Scholarship?"

Journal of Biblical Literature 114, no. 4 (1995): 683-98.

Tigay, Jeffrey. You Shall Have No Other Gods: Israelite Religion in the Light of Hebrew

Inscriptions. Atlanta: Scolars Press, 1986.

_____. "On Evaluating Claims of Literary Borrowing." Pages 250-55 in The Tablet and

the Scroll, Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Hallo. Edited by M.E.
Cohen, D.C. Snell, and D.B. Weisberg. Bathesda: CDL Press, 1993.


_____. "The Evolution of the Pentateuchal Narratives in the Light of the Evolution of the

Gilgamesh Epic." Pages 21-52 in Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism. Edited
by Jeffrey Tigay. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985.


Tite, M. S. and A. J. Shortland. "Production Technology for Copper- And Cobalt-Blue

Vitreous Materials from the New Kingdom Site of Amarna- A Reappraisal."
Archaeometry 45, no. 2 (2003): 285-312.





353


Tomback, R.S. A Comparative Semitic Lexicon of the Phoenician and Punic Languages.
Missoula: Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series, 1978.


Tsirkin, Iulii Berkovich. "Canaan, Phoenicia, Sidon." Aula Orientalis 19, no. 2 (2001):

271-79.

_____. "The Hebrew Bible and the Origin of Tartessian Power." Aula Orientalis 4, no. 1-

2 (1986): 179-85.

_____. "Japhet's Progeny and the Phoenicians." Pages 135-52 in Phoenicia and the Bible:

Proceedings of the Conference Held at the University of Leuven on the 15th and
16th of March 1990. Edited by Edward Lipinski. Leuven: Departement
Orientalistiek: Peeters, 1991.


Tubb, Jonathan N. "Bronze Arrowhead with Engraved Mark from Gezer in the British

Museum Collection." Palestine Exploration Quarterly 112 (1980): 1-6.

Uehlinger, Christoph. "Introduction."Pages XI-XIII in Studies in the Iconography of

Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals. Edited by Benjamin Sass and Christopher
Uehlinger. Fribourg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Göttingen, 1993.


_____. "Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals, Iconography and Syro-Palestinian Religions

of the Iron Age II: Some Afterthoughts and Conclusions." Pages 257-89 in
Studies in the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals. Edited by
Benjamin Sass and Christopher Uehlinger. Fribourg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht
Göttingen, 1993.


Ulrich, Dean R. "Dissonant Prophecy in Ezekiel 26 and 29." Bulletin for Biblical

Research 10, no. 1 (2000): 121-41.

Ussishkin, David. "Where Jezebel Was Thrown to the Dogs." Biblical Archaeology

Review 36, no. 4 (2010).

Ussishkin, David and John Woodhead. "Excavations at Tel Jezreel 1994-1996: Third

Preliminary Report." Tel Aviv 24, no. 1 (1997): 3-72.

Van Beek, Gus Willard and Ora Van Beek. "Canaanite-Phoenician Architecture - The

Development and Distribution of Two Styles." Eretz-Israel 15 (1981): 70-77.

Van der Steen, Eveline J. "The Central East Jordan Valley in the Late Bronze and Early

Iron Ages." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 302 (1996):
51-74.


Van Seters, John. In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the

Origins of Biblical History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983.




354


Vanderslyen, C. "Le dossier Égyptien des Philistins."The Land of Israel: Cross-Roads of
Civilizations. Edited by Edward Lipinski. Leuven: Peteers, 1985.


_____. "L'Étymologie De Phoïnix, <<Phenicien>>." Pages 19-22 in Phoenicia and the

East Mediterranean in the First Millennium B.C.: Proceedings of the Conference
held in Leuven from the 14th to the 16th of Novenber 1985. Edited by Edward
Lipinski.Studia Phoenicia. Lueven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1987.


Veen, Peter van der. "Israel in Canaan (Long) Before Pharaoh Merneptah? A Fresh Look

at Berlin Statue Pedestal Relief 21687." Journal of Ancient Egyptian
Interconnections 2, no. 4 (2010): 15-25.


Veldhuijzen, Harald Alexander. "Red Hot: The Smithy at Beth-Shemesh." Near Eastern

Archaeology 72, no. 3 (2009): 129-31.

Veldhuijzen, Harald Alexander and T. Rehren. "Slags and the City: Early Iron Production

at Tell Hammeh, Jordan, and Beth Shemesh, Israel." Pages 189-201 in Studies in
Archaeometallurgy. Edited by S.La Niece, D. R. Hook, and P.t. Craddock.
London: Archetype in association with the British Museum, 2007.


Ventris, M. and J. Chadwick. Documents in Mycenaean Greek: Three Hundred Selected

Tablets from Knossos, Pylos, and Mycenae, with Commentary and Vocabulary by
Michael Ventris and John Chadwick. With a foreword by Alan J. B. Wace.
Cambridge: University Press, 1953.


Vidal, Jordi. "Ugarit and the Southern Levantine Sea-Ports." Journal of the Economic

and Social History of the Orient 49, no. 3 (2006): 269-79.

Voss, Ross. "T: Early Iron Age Stratigraphy." Unpublished report. Nelson Glueck School

of Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem.

Waiman-Barak, Paula and Ayelet Gilboa. "A Petrographic Study of Early Iron Age

Containers at Dan." Dan IV: The Iron Age I Levels. Edited by David Ilan.
Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College, forthcoming.


Wainwright, G. A. "Meneptah's Aid to the Hittites." The Journal of Egyptian

Archaeology 46 (1960): 24-28.

Wakita, Shigeo, Hasahiko Wada, and Shin'ichi Nishiyama. "Tell Mastuma: Change in

Settlement Plans and Historical Context During the First Quarter of the First
Millenium B.C." Essays on Syria in the Iron Age. Edited by Guy Bunnens.
Louvain: Peeters, 2000.


Waldbaum, Jane C. From Bronze to Iron: The Transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron

Age in the Eastern Mediterranean. Göteborg: Paul Aströms Förlag, 1978.




355


_____. "Philistine Tombs at Tell Fara and Their Aegean Prototypes." American Journal
of Archaeology 70, no. 4 (1966): 331-40.


Walsh, Jerome T. 1 Kings. Edited by David W. Cotter. Collegeville: Liturgical Press,

1996.

Ward, William A., ed. The Role of the Phoenicians in the Interaction of Mediterranean

Civilizations. Beirut: American University of Beirut.

_____. "The Scarabs, Scaraboid and Amulet Plaque From Tyrian Cinerary Urns." Berytus

39 (1991): 89-99.

Wardini, Elie. Lebanese Place-Names: Mount Lebanon and North Lebanon. Leuven:

Peeters, 2002.

Watson, Wilfred G. E. Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Techniques. Sheffield:

JSOT Press, 1984.

_____. "Tribute to Tyre : Is 23:7." Vetus Testamentum 26 (1976): 371-74.

Watson, Wilfred G.E. Traditional Techniques in Classical Hebrew Verse. Edited by

David J.A Clines and Philip R. Davies. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1994.


Wehr, H. Arabisches Wörterbuch für die Schrifsprache der Gegenwart. Wisbaden:

Harrassowitz, 1985.

Weinfeld, Moshe. "Kuntillet `Ajrud Inscriptions and Their Significance." Studi Epigrafici

e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente Antico 1 (1984): 121-30.

Weinstein, James M. "Was Tell Abu-Hawam a 19th-Century Egyptian Naval Base."

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 238 (1980): 43-46.

Wengrow, D. "Egyptian Taskmasters and Heavy Burdens: Highland Exploration and the

Collared-Rim Pithos of the Bronze/Iron Age Levant." Oxford Journal of
Archaeology 15, no. 3 (1996): 307-26.


Wenke, Robert J. Archaeological Investigations at El-Hibeh 1980: Preliminary Report

Malibu: Undena, 1984.

Wertime, Theodore A. and James David Muhly. The Coming of the Age of Iron. New

Haven: Yale University Press, 1980.

Whitelam, Keith W. The Invention of Ancient Israel: The Silencing of Palestinian

History. New York: Routledge, 1996.




356


Wilkins, Augustus S. d. Ancient Phoenicia and Ancient Israel: A Historical Essay
Chicago Ares, 1980.


Williamson, H.G.M. The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah's Role in Composition and

Redaction. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994.

Wilson, Kevin A. The Campaign of Pharaoh Shoshenq I into Palestine. Tubingen: Mohr

Siebeck, 2005.

Winter, Irene J. "Carved Ivory Furniture Panels from Nimrud: A Coherent Subgroup of

the North Syrian Style." Metropolitan Museum Journal 11 (1976): 25-54.

_____. "On the Problems of Karatepe: The Reliefs and Their Context." Anatolian Studies

29 (1979): 115-51.

_____. "Phoenician and North Syrian Ivory Carving in Historical Context: Questions of

Style and Distribution." Iraq 38, no. 1 (1976): 1-22.

Woodard, Roger D. The Ancient Languages of Syria-Palestine and Arabia. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Wright, G. Ernest. "Archaeological Observations on the Period of the Judges and the

Early Monarchy." Journal of Biblical Literature 60, no. 1 (1941): 27-42.

_____. "Philistine Coffins and Mercenaries." The Biblical Archaeologist 22, no. 3 (1959):

53-66.

Yadin, Yigal. Hazor: The Rediscovery of a Great Citadel of the Bible. Jerusalem

Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1975.

_____. "The House of Ba'al of Ahab and Jezebel in Samaria, and That of Athalia in

Judah." Pages 127-35 in Archaeology in the Levant: Essays for Kathleen Kenyon.
Edited by Roger Moorey and Peter Parr. Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1978.


Yadin, Yigal, Yohanan Aharoni, Riuth Amiran, Trude Dothan, Moshe Dothan, Immanuel

Dunayevsky, and Jean Perrot. Hazor III-IV: An Account of the Seasons of
Excavations, 1957-1958. Jerusalem: Magnes Press at The Hebrew University,
1961.


Yamauchi, Edwin and Ephraim Stern. "Mycenaean or Canaanite?"Biblical Archaeologist

43, no. 1 (1980): 5-6.

Yeivin, S. "Did the Kingdom of Israel Have a Maritime Policy?" Jewish Quarterly

Review 50 (1960): 193-228.




357


Yellin, J. and J. Gunneweg. "Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis and the Origin of
Iron Age I Collard-Rim Jars and Pithoi from Tel Dan." Annual of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 49 (1989): 133-41.


Younger, K. Lawson Jr. "Neo-Assyrian and Israelite History in the Ninth Century: The

Role of Shalmaneser III."Pages 243-77 in Understanding the History of Ancient
Israel. Edited by H.G.M Williamson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.


Zaccagnini, Carlo. "The Transition from Bronze to Iron in the Near East and in the

Levant: Marginal Notes." Journal of the American Oriental Society 110, no. 3
(1990): 493-502.


Zadok, Ran. "Phoenicians, Philistines, and Moabites in Mesopotamia." Bulletin of the

American Schools of Oriental Research 230 (1978): 57-65.

Zarzeki-Peleg, Anabel. "Hazor, Jokneam, and Megiddo in the 10th Century B.C.E." Tel

Aviv 24, no. 2 (1997): 258-88.

Zawadzki, Stefan. "Nebuchadnezzar and Tyre in the Light of New Texts from the

Ebabbar Archives in Sippar." Eretz-Israel 27 (2003): 276-81.

Zevit, Ziony. "A Phoenician Inscription and Biblical Convenant Theology." Israel

Exploration Journal 27, no. 2/3 (1977): 110-18.

_____. Religions of Ancient Israel: A Parallactic Approach. New York: Continuum,

2001.

Ziderman, I. Irving. ""BA" Guide to Artifacts: Seashells and Ancient Purple Dyeing."

Biblical Archaeologist 53, no. 2 (1990): 98-101.

Ziskind, Jonathan R. "Sea Loans at Ugarit." Journal of the American Oriental Society 94,

no. 1 (1974): 134-37.