The Fall of Hazor to Joshua and Israel
(The Archaeological Evidence)
Please click here for this website's most important article: Why the Bible Cannot be the Word of God.
For Christians visiting this website my most important article is: The Reception of God's Holy Spirit: How the Hebrew Prophets _contradict_ Christianity's Teachings. Please click here.
25 Nov. 2003 Updates/Revisions through 18 December 2009
Jos 11:1............. Jabin, king of Hazor
Jos 11:10........... took Hazor, and smote the king
Jos 11:10........... for Hazor beforetime was the head
Jos 11:11........... and he burnt Hazor with fire
Jos 11:13........... Israel burned none of them, save Hazor
Judges 4:2.......... king of Canaan, that reigned in Hazor
Judges 4:17........ peace between Jabin, the king of Hazor
1 Samuel 12:9..... of Sisera, captain of the host of Hazor
The book of Joshua (11:1-15) portrays Hazor as "the head of all those kingdoms" (11:1-5) in the northern Hill Country and Arabah south of Chinneroth, including Jerusalem's Jebusites in the Hill country.
A coalition of Canaanite kings assemble their chariot forces near the waters of Merom and are defeated. After which Hazor is destroyed with all its peoples.
What has archeology uncovered to "confirm" the biblical account of "the fall" of Hazor?
Archaeologists have confirmed that in the Late Bronze Age, ca. 1560-1200 BCE Hazor was the largest city in Canaan. It consisted of a mound or citadel comprising 30 acres, and a lower city of 170 acres, both fortified since Middle Bronze Age IIB, ca. 1750-1550 BCE ( it was UNFORTIFIED before MB IIB), for a total occupied area of approximately 200 acres. Its height of prosperity was the Tell el Amarna era (14th century BCE).
The Late Bronze Age city came to an end, accompanied by a great conflagration, sometime in the second third of the 13th century BCE according to its excavator, Yigael Yadin:
"Hazor reached its peak in the 14th century BCE, the el-Amarna period, at which time it was the largest city in area in the whole land of Canaan. The final destruction of Canaanite Hazor, both of the upper and lower cities, probably occurred in the second third of the 13th century BCE, by conflagration. This destruction is doubtless to be ascribed to the Israelite tribes, as related in the book of Joshua.
Important evidence for understanding the process of Israelite settlement is the remains of stratum XII. These remains, which clearly belong to the 12th century BCE, when Hazor ceased to be a real city, are esentially identical with the remains of the Israelite settlements in Galilee. This indicates, in the opinion of this writer, that the Israelite settlement, which was still semi-nomadic in character, arose only after the fall of the cities and provinces of Canaan." (p.603. Vol.2. Yigael Yadin. "Hazor." Ephraim Stern. Editor. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. New York. Simon & Schuster. 1993)
Yadin's dating of the fall of Hazor to the second third of the 13th century is interesting as Pharoh Merneptah mentions defeating Israel in this general area ca. 1208 BCE in his victory stela. Was his campaign into Canaan to put down an invading Israel? Was Israel able to destroy Hazor BEFORE Merneptah arrived on the scene? Was the "unrest" in Canaan that Merneptah boasts of putting down, an "unrest" precipitated by Israel's pentration in the Canaan by ca. 1260-1230 BCE?
The American archaeologist, Profesor William G. Dever, has noted that ancient urban populations are estimated by archaeologists as a "rough rule-of-thumb" at approximately 100 individuals to an acre. This would suggest that Israel was successful in annhilating a population of roughly 20,000 individuals at Hazor! Allowing one-third of that population figure to be males of warrior age, gives a rough estimate of 6,000 men to defend the city.
Dever:
"In Mesopotamia, Falconer's testcase, the urban threshold is ca. 85 acres -or, using typical formulae for demographic estimates of 100 per acre, a site with a population of some 8,000-9,000. For Palestine, however, the scalar differences noted above would, in my opinion, reduce the 'urban threshold' to some 20 acres and 2,000 people." (p. 418. William G. Dever. "Social Structure in Palestine in the Iron II Period on the Eve of Destruction." Thomas E. Levy. Editor. The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. New York. Facts on File. 1995)
The biblical account, however, suggests that Hazor's main fighting force was at the waters of Merom with a coalition of other Canaanite kings or Princes, so much less than 6,000 men would have been in place to defend the city. Perhaps the "defending" force was 1000 to 2000 men?
Allowing for some possible "embellishment" in the numbers of warriors in Israel's army (600,000+ suggested in the Exodus, cf. Nu 2:32 ), the Israelites still must have been composed of a "sizable force" inorder to defeat in excess of 6,000 Canaanites assembled at the waters of Merom and then be able to take Hazor and its population of 15,000-20,000!
However, we have a "problem," NOT ALL SCHOLARS "agree" in regards to estimating populations in an ancient urban environment. Pasciuti and Chase-Dunn have noted that a number of scholars tend to prefer approximately 100 individuals per Hectare in an ancient urban setting. One Hectare is the equivalent of roughly 2.47 Acres. Pasciuti and Chase-Dunn on population estimates:
"The accuracy of estimating the total number of residents for an urban area remains highly questionable and problematic. Many historians, archaeologists, sociologists, and even economists have tried various means of estimating populations by using standard multipliers and complex formulas for making inferences from historical records. Even differences in the physical size of a settlement, amount of area devoted to housing, the number of stories per house, or even the issue of what constitutes the extent of an urban area remain highly debated issues..."
"Fekri A. Hassan, in Demographic Archaeology also uses a standard of 100 people per hectare when estimating urban population centers. Others have used similar methods to determine populations sizes/ Robert M. Adams (1965) used an average of 200 persons per hectare to estimate the populations of ancient mesopotamian cities. He reached this figure by studying the modern cities in the area, specifically the old quarters of Baghdad (216 persons/ha) and many towns and villages on the Susiana Plain (223 persons/ha) and Kur Basin (137 persons/ha). Braidwood and Reed (1957) "took the size of the present population of the mound of Erbil to arrive at an estimate of 213 persons per acre (19 meters squared per person) of the town area" (Hasan 66). Frankfort (1950) studied the sizes of houses in the Middle East to reach an estimate of 297-494 persons/ha and Colin Renfrew estimated the urban populations of the Aegean in the Late Bronze Age at 300 persons/ha and 200 persons/ha for the Neolithic period."
Citing the work of three scholars who have published on the subject of estimating ancient urban populations, Chandler, Bairoch and Hassan, Pasciuti and Chase-Dunn note that a rough "rule-of-thumb" is 100 persons per Hectare (cf. the following url for the details, charts, footnotes, bibliography : Daniel Pasciuti and Christopher Chase-Dunn. Urbanization and Empire Formation Project. Research on World Systems. University of California, Riverside. <http://irows.ucr.edu/research/citemp/estcit/estcit.htm>)
If Chandler, Bairoch and Hassan are "correct" about 100 persons per Hectare, then Hazor's 200 acres becomes 80 Hectares, with a total population of roughly 8,000 people, which would include women and children. Allowing one-third of this population to be men fit for war, gives us a defense force of approximatley 2,640 men. If most were at the waters of Merom, then probably only a few hundred men remained to defend the city against the Israelites.
Using Renfrew's estimate of 300 persons per hectare, Hazor's total population was 24,000 with a warrior-aged force of about 7,920 men.
If, on the other hand, estimates as high as 494 persons a Hectare is allowed, then Hazor's population was 39,520 individuals, with a warrior-age force of approximately 13,041.
The name Jabin has been found at Hazor, but of a much earlier era than the 13th century BCE, suggesting it might be a 'dynastic name' (?):
"The archaeologists are hopeful that they will discover in these palace ruins the archives of the Canaanite kings of Hazor. A promising indication in this direction was the discovery this season [1992] of a 3,700 year old letter written on a clay tablet in cuneiform letters that is directed to Jabin, the Canaanite King of Hazor. This is the first time the name Jabin was found in any kind of document in the Hazor excavations.
The two centimetre tablet found this year - which is less than half the original document - dates from the 18th-17th centuries B.C.E. (the time of Abraham and of Hammurabi, King of Babylonia), and the inscription on it is written in Old Babylonian.
Prof. Aaron Shaffer and Dr. Wayne Horowitz, of the Department of Assyriology of the Hebrew University, said that the document is addressed to someone named "Ibni," a name similar in linguistic derivation to Jabin. Jabin, King of Hazor, is mentioned in the books of Joshua and Judges in the Bible as one of the kings who fought against the Israelite tribes. The king mentioned in the fragment just uncovered, however, predates the Jabin of the Bible by some 600 years.
Prof. Ben-Tor pointed out that "Ibni-Addu, King of Hazor," is mentioned by name in the royal archive discovered at the site of the ancient city of Mari on the Euphrates River in Syria. The newly discovered document at Hazor may have been addressed to the same person."
( cf. "1992 Season," <http://unixware.mscc.huji.ac.il/~hatsor/1992.htm>)
The biblical texts mention that Israel is to destroy the altars and temples erected to Canaanite gods and the evidence at 13th century BCE Hazor seems to bear this out. Within the sacred precints of the Late Bronze Age city archaeologists found a basalt statue of a seated god with its head knocked off and lying nearby, also an overtuturned basalt stele with two upraised human rams adoring a cresent and orb, perhaps Moon-worship; a corner of a basalt ncense altar had been knocked off, and it had been thrown down. Also found were the remains of a god standing evidently on the back of a bull. Thus, the archaeological evidence does seem support to some degree the notion that Hazor met its end in a conflagration and its gods and sacred symbols had been desecrated by the invading Israelites.
Yadin on a the temple found in the "upper" city :
"The temple of stratum 1-a is identical with the previous one, with only minor repairs and alterations...Of particular interest in this temple are the cultic furnishings. These were found in a thick layer of ash, especially in the holy of holies, showing that stratum 1-a was brought to an end by a conflagration..." (p.598. Vol. 2. Yigael Yadin. Ephraim Stern. Editor. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. New York. Simon & Schuster. 1993)
In the "lower" city a small broadhouse temple was found of the last Late Bronze Age stratum, which contained ash everywhere like the "upper" city, both came to an end when Mycenean III B pottery was in vogue, before the close of the 13th century BCE :
"The temple was also reconstructed in this stratum, and all the accessories of the former stratum were found in situ -a row of small basalt stelae, one with two hands streched towards a divine lunar symbol (crescent and circle), and a statuette of a seated male figure. The head of the male figure had been deliberately broken off and was found lying on the floor. Mycenean III B sherds, together with the local pottery, indicate that this city came to an end before the close of the 13th century BCE, when occupation ceased in the lower city...Many incense burners and Mycenean III B vessels were also found in stratum 1-a, which was completely destroyed in the 13th century BCE." (p. 596. Vol. 3. Yigael Yadin. "Hazor." Ephraim Stern. Editor. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. New York. Simon & Schuster. 1993)
Stager noted that the Mycenean III B pottery could be dated to the reigns of Pharaohs Merneptah, Siptah and Queen Tewosret, and that it apparently came to an end at Ugarit just a scant 10 years or so before the 1175 BCE confrontation of the Sea Peoples with Ramesses III.
"Myc III B pottery was once thought to terminate with Ramesses II (1279-1212), until a sword bearing the cartouche of his son Merneptah (1212-1202) was found in the final destruction layer of Ugarit, where Myc III B was abundant and Myc III C did not appear. Two large Egyptian jars inscribed with cartouches of Seti II (1199-1193) (Oren 1993c: 1390), discovered in the fortress of Haruba in northeastern Sinai,and a faience vase with the cartouche of Tewosret (1193-1185), from Deir Alla in the Central Jordan Valley, were found in contexts with Myc III B pottery. The vase must date to ca. 1186-1185, since she became pharaoh only during the last two years of her reign.
The lower date for the final appearance of Myc III B pottery was recently confirmed by another synchronism between Egypt and the Levant. Shortly before the final destruction of Ugarit, a Syrian named Baya or Bay, "chief of the bodyguard of pharaoh of Egypt," sent a letter in Akkadian (Ras Shamras 86.2230) to Ammurapi, the last king of Ugarit (Freu 1988; Hoffner 1992). Baya served under both Siptah (1193-1187) and Tewosret (1193-1185). His letter arrived at Ugarit while Myc III B pottery was still in use. Myc III C pottery does not appear there because the Sea Peoples did not occupy the site after they destroyed it. In fact Ugarit lay deserted for the next seven centuries (Yon 1992). However, at nearby Ibn Hani, the Sea Peoples built over the charred remains, containing Myc III B ware, of the seaside palace of the Ugaritian king. More than half of the ceramic yield from their new settlement was Myc III C pottery (Lagarce 1982...), a proportion comparable to that of stage 1 settlements in Philista (see below). Thus the final destruction of Ugarit, as well as many other coastal cities in the eastern Mediterranean occurred only a decade or so before the summary of events recorded by Ramesses III (1182-1151) in his much cited "War Against the Peoples of the Sea" (Wilson 1969a:262). (pp.335-336. Lawrence Stager. "The Impact of the Sea Peoples in Canaan (1185-1050 BCE)." Thomas E. Levy. Editor. The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. New York. Facts on File. 1995)
Trude Dothan, a specialist in Philistine archaeology noted that her husband Moshe had found Philistine sherds at Hazor:
"The rise of Hazor's importance and its international trading connections throughout the Middle and Late Bronze Ages were clear from the many fragments of imported Cypriot and Mycenaean pottery found there. But Moshe also found two characteristic Philistine sherds. True, two sherds out of hundreds were not much, but their very presence was provocative: Hazor was, after all, 165 miles from the core of Philistine settlement." (p. 96. Trude Dothan & Moshe Dothan. People of the Sea, the Search for the Philistines. 1992. New York. Macmillan Publishing Company)
Moshe Dothan on his finding of the sherds:
"Just how far north their [the Philistine's] influence extended became clear to me soon after, when I was called out on another emergency excavation, at Hazor, sometime before Trude was to join Yigael Yadin's major dig there. It was there, as already noted, that we found two Philistine sherds." (p. 105. "Along the Trade Routes." Trude Dothan & Moshe Dothan. People of the Sea, the Search for the Philistines. 1992. New York. Macmillan Publishing Company)
Amon Ben-Tor has stated that _no_ Philistine pottery has been found at Hazor. This would seem to contradict Moshe Dothan's claim (Ben-Tor is dismissing the notion Hazor fell to the Sea Peoples)
"As for the Sea Peoples, Ben-Tor notes that not a single sherd of their distinctive decorated pottery has been found in the city..."
(Abraham Rabinovich & Neil Asher Silberman. "The Burning of Hazor." Abstracts, vol. 51. No. 3, May/June 1998. Archaeology (Magazine).
I must say I find Ben-Tor's statement rather amazing. One would think that the finding of two Philistine Sherds at Hazor by Moshe Dothan would have been an event written up and discussed in the archaeological literature (professional journals of the day), yet Ben-Tor knows nothing of this discovery.
Trude Dothan explained that Philistine pottery was assumed to have made its appearance in Canaan in the course of the reign of Pharaoh Ramesses III, they being defeated ca. 1175 BCE in their attempt to invade Egypt. If this proposal is correct then Hazor probably fell in the days of this Pharaoh or some later Ramesside Pharaoh, not in the days of Pharaoh Merneptah, who mentioned a skirmish with Israel ca. 1208 BCE in or near Canaan.
Of interest here is that the biblical account has Israel fearful of Philistines when she leaves Egypt, and that some 40 years later Canaan and Hazor are attacked under Joshua. The presence of Philistine sherds in Hazor's last Late Bronze Age layer suggests that perhaps the Bible is correctly recalling a Philistine presence in Canaan before Israel attacked Hazor. If the Philistines are settling Canaan after 1175 BCE in the reign of Ramesses III, then Hazor was attacked and destroyed by Israel sometime after 1175 BCE (Note: Bryant G. Wood argues for a 1446 BCE Exodus and 1406 BCE Conquest. He claims Late Bronze Age I Hazor was destroyed by Joshua and 13th century destruction is by Deborah and Barak)
Merneptah mentioned defeating Israel ca. 1208 BCE and apparently sometime after 1175 BCE Hazor falls. That's the time space of about _one generation_, reckoning 20-25 years for a generation. To a degree the Bible seems to recall this "generational interval of time," noting that the first attempt to conquer Canaan was a failure, she being repulsed at Kadesh Barnea, then a generation or two later (cf. the 40 years of wandering in Nu 14:33-45) she successfully attacks and destroys Hazor (Josh 11:10-13). Is it possible that the defeat of Israel by Merneptah ca. 1208 BCE came to be recalled in the Bible as Israel being defeated at Kadesh Barnea, and her later success in destroying Hazor under Joshua recalls a post 1175 BCE event ?
I have proposed elsewhere that Kadesh Barnea is Tell Masos, the largest Iron IA site in the Negev. Its excavators noted an absence of Philistine sherds in its earliest stratum, but they do appear in later strata. They thus suggested the site was occupied before the Philistine wares could make their way inland from the coastal settlements. They proposed the site was initially settled between either 1220-1150 BCE or 1200-1150 BCE. These dates align somewhat with Hazor's destruction and its Philistine wares.
At Beth-Shean were found houses constructed after the Egyptian manner and a cartouche was found on a door lintel bearing the name of Pharaoh Ramesses III :
"One of Fisher's first major discoveries at Beth Shean was an inscribed stele, erected by Merneptah's grandfather, Seti I (ca. 1318-1304 BC)...[he] found a complex of Egyptian-style buildings, temples and store-rooms...Beth Shean was an Egyptian garrison town...several of the inscribed lintels bore the name of...Ramesses III. (p. 58. Dothan. 1992)
A cartouche of Ramesses XI (ca. 1113-1085 BCE) was found on a scarab at Tell el-Farah by Petrie, which might suggest an Egyptian presence in south Canaan as late as the early 11th century BCE :
"Petrie also relied heavily on scarabs -beetle-shaped images held sacred by the ancient Egyptians- for dating the tombs at Tell el-Farah. Since the earliest tomb in the series containe a scarab of the late 18th Dynasty and others contained scarabs from Ramesses II (ca. 1304-1227 BC) through Ramesses XI (ca. 1113-1085 BC), confident that his proposed chronology had been vindicated." (p. 67. Dothan. 1992)
Conclusions :
Hazor's destruction has to be determined by the dating of the pottery found in its destruction layer.
Yadin's excavations established that Mycenaean IIIB pottery was in vogue when the city was destroyed. This pottery is attested for the reigns of Pharaoh Ramesses II, Merneptah, Siptah and Queen Twosret and "apparently" (?) Pharaohs Sethnakhte and his son and successor Ramesses III.
Moshe Dothan's finding of two Philistine sherds could suggest the city fell after their arrival and settlement in southwest coastal Canaan ca. 1175 BCE in the reign of Ramesses III.
The "window" of opportunity, according to the pottery debris evidence, Mycenean IIIB for Israel to attack and destroy Hazor could be anytime between Ramesses II and Ramesses III.
If the destruction of Hazor took place some time _after_ the settlement of the Philistines in south Canaan in the days of Ramesses III, and after the arrival of the Israelites not later than ca. 1208 BCE in the days of Pharaoh Merneptah, this _might align_ with the Iron IA settlement at Tel Masos, which I have proposed is Kadesh Barnea in the Negev at the base of the Judaean Hill Country which is dated bewteen ca. 1220-1150 BCE or 1200-1150 BCE, due to the absence of Philistine sherds in the earliest strata (because of its 4-room houses, it is considered to be Israelite by some scholars). To date, Tel Masos is the BIGGEST Iron IA site in the Negeb, hence the reason I have proposed it may be Kadesh Barnea. Please click here for the article.
Of interest is that the earliest strata suggest initially a tent encampment with beaten earthen floors and pits for grain storage with a few rude huts. Its 15 acres or 8 hectares suggests a population of approximately 1500 to 2000 individuals, allowing 1/3rd to be males of warrior age, the fighting force would have been roughly 600 men. The biblical portrayal of Israel attacking Canaan when Philistines are present suggests an invasion after ca. 1175 BCE, this date being when Ramesses III defeated the Philistines and "let" them settle as mercenaries in fortresses "bound in his name," like for instance, Gaza and Beth Shean (note: the Dothans suggest the defeat of the Philistines was ca. 1191 BCE by Ramesses III, on p. 63, alternately 1175 BCE on p. 260).
There is a "problem" with Tel Masos being Kadesh Barnea, the Iron IA (ca. 1230-1150 BCE) settlements in Jordan and Canaan (from Galilee to the Negev), suggest for some scholars a population settling down of between 20,000 to 50,000 people. Tel Masos does NOT possess such a population.
Update 22 July 2004
The Fall of Lachish and Meggido After 1175 BCE?
Ussishkin on the demise of Late Bronze Age Lachish:
"The end of the Canaanite city. Level VI was totally destroyed in a fire and the inhabitants were killed or deported. The city was abandoned and was not resettled until the 10th century BCE. A probe dug beneath the foundations of the city gate from the time of the Judaean kingdom yielded some pieces of bronze scrap, including a broken item bearing a cartouche of Rameses III.
These remains were buried under the destruction layer of level VI, indicating that the city was destroyed toward the end of Rameses' III's reign or later. It seems that the destruction of Lachish is related to the collapse of Egyptian hegemony over southern Canaan in about 1130 BCE; lacking Egyptian protection, the unfortified city fell easily into the hands of its enemies...The lack of inscriptions prevents the identification of the city's conquerors. One possibility (raised by Tufnell) is that level VI was destroyed by the Sea Peoples...Another posibility (first suggested by Albright) is that level VI was destroyed by the Israelites, as related in Joshua 10:31-32.
The archaeological data fit the biblical account: a large, unfortified Cananite city that was easily conquered and that was burned and abandoned, following the killing of all the inhabitants by the conquerors. However this explanation is not easy to accept. The Israelites did not resettle the city, as is apparent from a survey of the Judean Shephelah carried out by Dagan, there are no traces of Israelite settlements in this region before the period of the United Monarchy." (p. 904. Vol. 3. David Ussishkin. "Lachish." Ephraim Stern. Editor. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. New York. Simon & Schuster. 1993)
Ussishkin understands on the basis of the cartouche found of Rameses III that the city either fell in his reign or sometime thereafter. Of interest is that Moshe Dothan found two Philistine sherds at Hazor, which he understood were markers that the city fell to Israel some time after the arrival and settlement of the Philistines in Canaan, which he dated ca. 1175 BCE in the days of Ramesses III. It would appear to me, that Israel is engaged in war against the Canaanites in the days of Rameses III and the Philistines, or sometime thereafter.
Shiloh on Megiddo's earliest Iron Age stratum VIIA, which he understands to be Canaanite, the Israelite occupation beginning under king David in stratum VI B:
"Stratum VIIA is the earliest level that ca be ascribed to the Iron Age. The layer of debris and the clear signs of destruction separating the architectural remains of VII B and VIIA, especially the palace, indicate that these were two separate strata of occupation. It seems, however, that the same or at least similar inhabitants occupied both levels, because some of the VII B public buildings (most notably the sanctuary) were reused in VIIA.
The date of stratum VIIA was determined by cartouches of Ramses III and Ramses VI. The cartouche of the former was found on one of the carved ivories discovered in the 'treasury' and of the latter on the bronze pedestal of a statue from locus 1832 in area CC. Although the pedestal was discovered beneath a wall belonging to stratum VII B, the excavators suggest that it was deliberately buried there by the inhabitants of VIIA...The inhabitants of stratum VIIA continued to use the VII B palace even though a considerable part of it was buried under a layer of debris 1.5 meters thick...The destruction of the palace in VII B was so extensive that in VIIA it proved easier to level the ruins and rebuild on top of them rather than vlear them away...The settlement of VIIA was brought to an end by a sudden and total destruction. This is shown not only by the fact that the following stratum (VI B) is totally unlike stratum VIIA, but by signs of devastation wrought upon the VIIA buildings and by the numerous objects (the ivories and pottery of the VIIA sanctuary) found strewn over the floors of this level. If the pedestal bearing the cartouch of Ramses VI does indeed belong to stratum VIIA, then the end of this stratum can be dated to approximately 1130 BCE...Building remains in stratum VI B were uncovered in several areas (mainly in area AA). The construction of the buildings was very poor, and the city seems to have been unfortified. The sacred area, which had an almost uninterrupted tradition of temples and bamot throughout the Bronze Age and into the beginning of the Iron Age, now showed no trace whatsoever of a temple. This demonstrates that the settlement at Meggido suffered a sharp decline in stratum VI B, and that a new and different group of people occupied the site...Stratum VIA...can be dated quite confidently to the 11th century BCE. This city was destroyed suddenly in a violent conflagration that left a destruction level more than 1 meter deep. This total destrction of stratum VIA is attributed to the campaigns of king David...The structures in the stratum VI B city were erected shortly after the destruction of the previous level. Scattered over the entire area of the mound, and rather poorly built of field stones or sun-dried brick, they indicate a period of decline. These structures, built on the ruins of the stratum VIA city, were also more modest in plan and size...Based on the limited pottery finds, this level has been ascribed to the beginning of the 10th century BCE, representing the beginning of the Israelite occupation of Megiddo, probably in David's time." (p. 1016. Vol.3. Yigal Shiloh. "Megiddo." Ephraim Stern. Editor. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. New York. Simon & Schuster. 1993)
Megiddo falls to Joshua (Josh 12:21), but Judges 1:27 suggests that Canaanites are in "re-possession" of the city and Israel is unsuccessful in driving them out. Still later, Megiddo is one of Solomon's cities (1 Kings 4:12) which he fortified (1 Kings 9:15).
Could Megiddo's VIIA stratum containing cartouches of Rameses III and VI be "clues" that Israel under Joshua destroyed Megiddo stratum VII B, but that later, the Canaanites rebuilt and re-occupied it in VIIA, thus the reason the book of Judges understands that the Canaanites were not succesfully driven from this city despite its initial fall to Joshua?
When the archaeological "clues" from Hazor, Lachish and Meggido are brought together, they collectively suggest _to me_ an Israelite period of destruction some time after 1175 BCE and the arrival of the Philistines. The Bible knows nothing of Israel contending with Egyptians for control of Canaan, only of Canaanites and later, Philistines. Many scholars understand that Egypt withdrew from Canaan under Ramesses VI who reigned ca. 1141-1133 BCE, suggesting that Canaan's settlements were now undefended by Egypt and easy prey for Israel by ca. 1130 BCE. This would suggest that Israel's successful conquest and settlement of Canaan occurred principally during the reigns of Ramesses VII through Ramesses XI (1133-1070 BCE).
Israel's defeat by Merneptah ca. 1207 BCE would suggest to me that she struck Canaan when she had the opportunity to do so, that is to say, after the Egyptian withdrawal by ca. 1133 BCE.
27 Jan 2005 Update:
Related articles of interest at this website:
Manetho, an Egyptian priest who wrote a "History of Egypt" in Greek in the 3rd century BCE for his overlord Ptolemy II, noted that TWO EXPULSIONS of Asiatics had occurred from a place called Avaris. The first expulsion was of the Asiatic Hyksos in the mid-sixteenth century BCE by Pharaoh Ahmose I founder of the 18th Dynasty. The second expulsion from Avaris was by a Pharaoh Amenophis (Greek for Egyptian Amenhotep) and his "son" variously rendered Rampses or Sethos-Rampses (Greek for Egyptian Seti-Ramesses). The 1st century CE Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, who preserved Manetho's account in his "History of the Jews," argued that the Hyksos expulsion was probably the Exodus because its chronology most closely aligned with the Exodus chronology preserved in the Bible. Josephus strenuously objected to Manetho's claim that the Exodus was a Ramesside event, under Amenophis and "son" Sethos-Rameses. _IF_ those scholars who understand that the sudden appearance of 200+ villages of stone appearing in the hill country of Canaan from Galilee to the Negev in a Ramesside world of Iron I A (ca. 1230-1150 BCE) are CORRECT that this is Israel settling the land under Joshua, then it would appear that Manetho was correct, the Exodus was indeed a Ramesside event. Please click here for my article on Manetho vs. Josephus on the dating of the Exodus.
Another "related" article is on the city of Avaris in Ramesside times. Many scholars today understand that the biblical city of Rameses, from which the Exodus commenced according to the Bible, may be Qantir and nearby Tell ed-Dab'a. Some scholars have proposed that Qantir is biblical Rameses and that it spread into Tell ed-Dab'a (ancient Avaris?), making the latter a suburb of the former. That is to say, Manetho's Avaris should have evidence of a 16th century BCE Hyksos occupation, a period of abandonment for several centuries, and a resettlement in Ramesside times _according to his account_ of events. Archaeology HAS CONFIRMED that Tell ed-Dab'a (Avaris?) was occupied in Hyksos times, abandoned for several centuries, and later resttled in Ramesside times. Please click here for this article.
Yet another related article on the theme of a Ramesside Exodus is the archaeologically attested presence of Midianites and Amalekites in a Ramesside setting, in locations associated with the Exodus account appearing in the Bible. Please click here for the article.
20 June 2005 Update:
Some Conservative scholars understand that 1 Kings 6:1 statement of 480 years elapsing between the 4th year of Solomon and the Exodus implies a Conquest of Canaan under Joshua circa 1406 BCE. What sayeth archaeology ?
Hazor did exist in the 15th century BCE, its stratum are given for the "Lower City" as:
Stratum 4, Middle Bronze IIB, 18th century BCE;
Stratum 3 Middle Bronze Age IIC, 17th-16th century BCE;
Stratum 2, Late Bronze Age I, 15th century BCE;
Stratum 1-b is Late Bronze IIA (el-Amarna period) 14th century BCE;
Stratum 1a is Late Bronze Age IIB, 13th century BCE.
(cf. Vol. 2. p. 595. "Hazor." Yigael Yadin. Ephraim Stern. Editor. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. New York. Simon and Schuster. 1993)
However, Conservative scholars like John Bimson and Bryant Wood argue that the strata are misdated and that the Middle Bronze IIC ought not to be ending circa 1540 BCE in conjunction with the Hyksos expulsion from Egypt by Pharaoh Ahmose I, but rather 1406 BCE.
The problem? If Israel captured the Hill Country from Galilee to the Negev in 1406 BCE where is the archaeological evidence for her settlemments in this area?
According to Rosen, Finkelstein and Stager, this region, the Negev to the Galilee, in Late Bronze Times was very sparsely settled. But in Iron I the area suddenly explodes with hundreds of villages, aligning with the capture of this region by Joshua.
Rosen on the Negev:
"The virtual absence of remains from the Middle Bronze or Late Bronze Ages in this area [the Lower Negeb] and the rest of the Negeb contradict the 38 year Israelite settlement recounted in Exodus. Similar problems attend virtually all attempts to identify specific sites (especially Mt. Sinai) in the Central Negeb with places mentioned in Exodus." (Vol. 4. p.1064. Steven A. Rosen. "Negeb."David Noel Freedman. Editor.The Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York. Doubleday. 1992)
In addition to Rosen's above observation of an ABSENCE of a Late Bronze Age presence (1540-1200 BCE) of Israel in the Negev is that field surveys undertaken by the Israeli Department of Antiquities in the 1970's through 1980's FAILED to find a presence of Israel in the Hill Country of Canaan from the Galilee to the Negev in the same time period. That is to say, those scholars arguing for an Exodus circa 1446 BCE on the basis of 1 Kings 6:1 statement of 480 years elapsing from the Exodus to Solomon's 4th year have _no archaeological proof_ of Israel's presence in these areas after a 1406 BCE Conquest by Joshua. The Galilee to the Negev is pretty much DEVOID of any human occupation, sedentary or non-sedentary. If Israel settled in this area under Joshua circa 1406 BCE as maintained by some Conservative Bible scholars, where's the archaeological proof?
Professor Finkelstein on the ABSENCE of an extensive Late Bronze Age presence in the Hill Country of Canaan from the Galilee to the Negev:
"However Late Bronze Age sites are virtually absent not only in my own southern Samaria survey, but also in the surveys which have been carried out in the Galilee (Frankel 1994; Gal 1992:56), in the the hill country north of Jerusalem (Finkelstein and Magen 1993) and in the Judaean hills (Ofer 1994). In all these regions, which were surveyed by different teams, hundreds of survey days have revealed very little evidence for sedentary sites of this period, and almost no evidence for non-sedentary activity." (p. 25. "The Archaeology of Nomads, Survey Methods." Israel Finkelstein. Living on the Fringe, the Archaeology and History of the Negev, Sinai and Neighboring Regions in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Sheffield, England. Sheffield Academic Press. 1995, 2001)
For a more detailed account of the "absence" of a Late Bronze Age presence in the lands allotted the Tribe of Benjamin please click here.
Stager found fault with Finkelstein's notion that Nomads wandering the periphery of Canaan settled down to become "Israel" in Iron I and become sedentary. His concern was that the archaeological data suggested a massive influx of peoples and he couldn't accept that such numbers could come from the impoverished Late Bronze Age Canaanite city-states or Nomads wandering about on Canaan's periphery.
Stager provides more details on the number of Late Bronze Age vs. Iron Age I sites and the estimated populations:
"The Israeli archaeologist [Finkelstein] has adapted and updated Alt's nomadic hypothesis to explain the hundreds of new settlements that have been recorded in archaeological surveys. But it is difficult to believe that all of these new founded, early Iron I settlements emanated from a single source, namely, sheep-goat pastoralism. In symbiotic relations the pastoral component rarely exceeds 10 to 15 percent of the total population. Given the decline of sedentarists in Canaan throughout the Late Bronze Age, it seems unlikely that most of the Iron Age settlers came from indigenous pastoralist backgrounds." (p. 139. Lawrence E. Stager. "Forging An Identity, The Emergence of Ancient Israel." M.D. Coogan, editor. The Oxford History of the Biblical World. New York. 1998)
"In the nine areas surveyed, 88 Late bronze Age sites occupy a built-up area of more than 200 hectares (500 acres), for an estimated total population of about 50,000. In the same areas there are 678 Iron Age I settlements, each site being a hectare or less, for a total of about 600 hectares (nearly 1,500 acres), with an estimated 150,000 inhabitants...633 or 93% of these Iron Age I sites are new foundations, usually small, unwalled villages. Most of these new settlements are located in the highlands or plateaus on both sides of the Jordan river. Settlement is especially dense in the territories of Manesseh and Ephraim in the west and in Gilead and Moab in the east, both "frontiers" having been sparsely settled in the Late Bronze Age. This extraordinary increase in occupation during Iron I cannot be explained only by natural population growth of the few Late Bronze Age city-states in the region: there must have been a major influx of people into the highlands in the 12th and 11th centuries BCE." (p.134. Lawrence E. Stager. "Forging An Identity, The Emergence of Ancient Israel." M.D. Coogan, editor. The Oxford History of the Biblical World. New York. Oxford University Press. 1998)
Is there a "way out" for Conservative scholars favoring a Conquest circa 1406 BCE as implied by the Bible (1 Kings 6:1)? Perhaps. They "might" argue that from 1406 to 1200 BCE Israel dwelt in tents which leave no traces of an occupation and for unknown reasons, circa 1200 BCE, Israel began building hamlets and villages of stone. The problem? Why would Israel wait almost 200 years before building villages?
Yigael Yadin had observed that Hazor's "peak" of prosperity was in the el-Amarna period, the 14th century BCE. If Conservative scholars are "correct" and Hazor was destroyed by Joshua ca. 1406 BCE, how do they account for archaeology concluding the city's greatest period of power and prosperity was in the century following its alleged destruction by Joshua?
Yadin:
"Hazor reached its peak in the 14th century BCE, the el-Amarna period, at which time it was the largest city in area in the whole land of Canaan. The final destruction of Canaanite Hazor, both of the upper and lower cities, probably occurred in the second third of the 13th century BCE, by conflagration. This destruction is doubtless to be ascribed to the Israelite tribes, as related in the book of Joshua.
Important evidence for understanding the process of Israelite settlement is the remains of stratum XII. These remains, which clearly belong to the 12th century BCE, when Hazor ceased to be a real city, are esentially identical with the remains of the Israelite settlements in Galilee. This indicates, in the opinion of this writer, that the Israelite settlement, which was still semi-nomadic in character, arose only after the fall of the cities and provinces of Canaan." (p. 603. Vol.2. Yigael Yadin. "Hazor." Ephraim Stern. Editor. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. New York. Simon & Schuster. 1993)
31 Jan 2006 Update:
The below exchange of views I thought might be of interest regarding "the dating of the Conquest of Canaan" by the Israelites. As noted in the below exchange, the books of Judges and Samuel make no mention of Lachish. If this 'absence' is because the site did not exist as a habitable location in the days of the Judges, this 'anomaly' could be another clue as to when the Conquest was, it was in Iron Age times, NOT the end of Middle Bronze IIC, because Lachish continued to flourish as a Canaanite city throughout the Late Bronze Age until ca. 1130 BCE.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AncientBibleHistory/message/50037
George wrote:
>
> Let's look at Lachish as a different example. Sometimes it
> is not the city mentioned that makes good evidence... but the
> city NOT mentioned!
>
> We have 10 references to Lachish in Joshua, in 3 different
> chapters.
>
> Do we have notice of Lachish in Judges? No.
>
> Do we have notice of Lachish in Samuel? No. Despite the
> proximity to the Philistines, Ziklag and Hebron, there is
> NOTHING about Lachish! Interestingly, Joshua refers to
> Ziklag too!
>
> We don't find Lachish in 1st Kings, but we do find four
> references of Lachish in 3 different chapters of 2nd Kings.
Dear George,
You have made a "big issue" about the importance of the _absence_ of
any mention of Lachish in the book of Judges in your attempt
to "redate" various parts of the Primary History (Genesis-Kings), so
I have _taken the trouble_ to quote to you the findings of its
excavator, David Ussishkin. He noted that after its destruction
circa 1130 BCE, IT WAS ABANDONED UNTIL being resettled in the United
Monarchy period. It appears to me that one of the "possible" reasons
for the LACK of any mention of Lachish in the book of Judges was
because it WAS ABANDONED in the days of the Judges (in fact the
whole Shephelah area Lachish lies in was NOT settled by Israel,
_contra_ the senario in Joshua), and resettled only under the
Monarchy, it becoming a FORTIFIED city "second only to Jerusalem" in
the 10th century BCE under Rehoboam (928-911 BCE), Asa (908-867
BCE), or Jehoshaphat (870-846 BCE).
Ussishkin:
"Level VI was totally destroyed in a fire and the inhabitants were
killed or deported. THE CITY WAS ABANDONED AND WAS NOT RESETTLED
UNTIL THE TENTH CENTURY BCE. A probe dug beneath the foundations of
the city gate FROM THE TIME OF THE JUDEAN KINGDOM yielded some
pieces of bronze scrap, including a broken item bearing the
CARTOUCHE OF RAMSES III. These remains were buried under the
destruction layer of Level VI, indicating that THE CITY WAS
DESTROYED TOWARD THE END OF RAMSES III'S REIGN OR LATER.
It seems that the destruction of Lachish is related to the collapse of
Egyptian hegemony oversouthern Canaan in ABOUT 1130 BCE; lacking
Egyptian protection, the UNFORTIFIED CITY fell easily into the hands
of enemies.
The lack of inscriptions prevents the identification of the city's
conquerors. One possibility (raised by Tufnell) is that Level VI was
destroyed by the Sea Peoples. The destruction of Canaanite Lachish
was part of the Sea People's campaign to conquer the region of
Philista, which resulted in the collapse of Egyptian domination in
southern Canaan. Another possibility (first suggested by Albright)
is that Level VI was destroyed by the Israelites, as related in
Joshua 10:31-32. The archaeological data fit the biblical account: a
large, UNFORTIFIED Canaanite city that was easily conquered and that
was burned and then abandond, following the killing of all the
inhabitants by the conquerors. However, this explanation is not easy
to accept. THE ISRAELITES DID NOT RESETTLE THE CITY, and as is
apparent from a survey of the Judaean Shephelah carried out by
Dagan, THERE ARE NO TRACES OF ISRAELITE SETTLEMENTS IN THIS REGION
BEFORE THE PERIOD OF THE UNITED MONARCHY. Thus, the validity of the
latter possibility is mainly contingent upon accepting the source in
the book of Joshua as historical." (p. 904. Vol. 3. David
Ussishkin. "Lachish." Ephraim Stern. Editor. The New Encyclopedia of
Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. New York. Simon &
Schuster. 1993)
"Level V. Lachish was resettled after A LONG GAP. Building remains
from this level (V) were exposed in various parts of the mound. The
settlement WAS UNFORTIFIED, although structural remains uncovered in
area S indicate the possibility that the houses built on the edge of
the mound were joined to form a defensive line surrounding the
site...The cult room was destroyed by fire...it can be surmised that
it began in the period of the United Monarchy and that its
destruction was related to Shishak's campaign in about 925 BCE.
Level IV marks the construction of a LARGE FORTIFIED CITY AT
LACHISH; IN JUDAH AT THIS TIME, LACHISH WAS SECOND IN IMPORTANCE
ONLY TO JERUSALEM. However, the archaeological data are in
sufficient to date the foundation of Level IV. It should be assumed
that the decision to turn Lachish into a major FORTIFIED CITY
stemmed from new strategic considerations that arose from the
division of the kingdom following the death of Solomon. If this is
so, then the building of Level IV can be dated to the days of the
Judaean kings, perhaps to Rehoboam (928-911 BCE), Asa (908-867 BCE),
or Jehoshaphat (870-846 BCE)." (p. 905. Vol. 3. David
Ussishkin. "Lachish." Ephraim Stern. Editor. The New Encyclopedia of
Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. New York. Simon &
Schuster. 1993)
Regards, Walter
17 June 2007 Update:
On 08 April 2007 the History Channel showed a TV film documentary titled The Bible Unearthed, of interest here is that an Israeli archaeologist, Professor Amon Ben Tor, stated that _no_ Philsitine pottery was found at Iron Age Hazor. He understood the city fell to the Israelites some time in the 13th century BCE. His statement _contradicts_ Moshe Dothan's claim to having found two Philistine pottery sherds at the site. Who to believe, Ben-Tor or Dothan? Was Ben Tor _unaware_ of Dothan's claim? Or has Dothan's claim been invalidated?
For those who may have missed this TV documentary, parts of it have been posted to the internet as ten video clips with sound and can be accessed by clicking here.
Bibliography
William G. Dever. "Social Structure in Palestine in the Iron II Period on the Eve of Destruction." p.418. Thomas E. Levy. Editor. The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. New York. Facts on File. 1995)
Trude Dothan & Moshe Dothan. People of the Sea, the Search for the Philistines. New York. Macmillan Publishing Company. 1992.
Israel Finkelstein."The Archaeology of Nomads, Survey Methods." Living on the Fringe, the Archaeology and History of the Negev, Sinai and Neighboring Regions in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Sheffield, England. Sheffield Academic Press. 1995, 2001.
Steven A. Rosen. Vol. 4. p.1064. "Negeb."David Noel Freedman. Editor.The Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York. Doubleday. 1992.
Yigal Shiloh. "Megiddo." p. 1016. Vol.3. Ephraim Stern. Editor. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. New York. Simon & Schuster. 1993.
Lawrence Stager. "The Impact of the Sea Peoples in Canaan (1185-1050 BCE)." pp.335-336. Thomas E. Levy. Editor. The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. New York. Facts on File. 1995.
Lawrence E. Stager. "Forging An Identity, The Emergence of Ancient Israel." M.D. Coogan, editor. The Oxford History of the Biblical World. New York. Oxford University Press. 1998.
David Ussishkin. "Lachish." p. 904. Vol. 3. Ephraim Stern. Editor. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. New York. Simon & Schuster. 1993.
Yigael Yadin. "Hazor." p.603. Vol.2. Ephraim Stern. Editor. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. New York. Simon & Schuster. 1993.
Urls:
Daniel Pasciuti and Christopher Chase-Dunn. Urbanization and Empire Formation Project. Research on World Systems. University of California, Riverside. <http://irows.ucr.edu/research/citemp/estcit/estcit.htm>
