The Contribution of the Amarna Letters to the Dabate on Jerusalem’s Political Position in the 10th Century BCE. Pp. 1-17.in Nadav Na'aman 3rd VOl.; BASOR 304: 17-27
01. Introduction. Pp 01-03.
Until recent time, the scholarly consensus: Jerusalem was the center of a state from the time of David onward.
Jerusalem: the capital city of Israel in the 10th century BCE. See 1Kgs 4:7-19.
Jamieson-Drake (1991), Knauf(1991) Thompson (1992) Davies(1992) Lemche(1994) Lemche and Thompson(1994) à skeptical scholars about the historicity of Ancient Israel kingdoms until the 8th Century BCE. The Deutronomistic history was composed no earlier than the late 7th century BCE.
So the biblical sources are not historical resources. – Non-biblical sources and non archaeological evidences
l The archaeological excavation evaluation à settlement size small, / social stratification evidence rare. In the 10th century, Judah à chiefdom far from an incipient state. By Jamieson-Drake(1991:138-139)
l Jerusalem was a small provincial town at best. Not superior to Shephelah towns as like Lachish and Geser.(Thompson 1992: 409-411) only in the 7th century, Judah set up its state status.
No sedentary population, / no transregional political or economic base of power.
l Judah was formed as a secondary state. By Davies (1992:69)
l There is no room for a historical United Monarchy. Their narratives are imaginary world of long ago that never existed as such. (Lemche and Thompson 1994: 19-20)
The criticism to these scholars. 2 points.
1. The evaluation of the results of the archaeological excavations conducted in Jerusalem
2. The Contribution of the Amarna tablets to the debate about the emergence of a kingdom in Israel.
02. Excavation of the Ophel Hill: Legitimate and Illegitimate Conclusion. Pp. 3-4
Ophel Hill: the city of David.
The history of the excavation of city of David.
Kenyon(1974: 114-114) : the wall fragment on the northeastern side of the Ophel Hill – casemate fortification.
Shiloh (1984:27) : the stepped stone structure in area G to the 10th century.
è The scholars demand that it was no more than a small provincial town until the expansion of settlement to the Western Hill in the 8th century BCE.
l But the problem of this conclusion based on the excavation evaluation.
1. The area of Jerusalem’s public buildings is under the Temple Mount and can’t be examined.
2. An uninterrupted continuity of settlement in the Ophel Hill from the 10th to the early 6th century BCE.
3. The old city of Jerusalem built on terraces and bedrock was settled for thousands of years, each new city erecting its foundations on bedrock and destroying what was underneath.
l And the documentary evidence of the history of Jerusalem from the early time.
1. Jerusalem in Amarna letters (Urusalim) – a local king seat.
Except: hardly any LB II building remains and the paucity of LB II remains.
But the roading leading from Urusalim westward passing through Aijalon (EA 287:53-57)
No other sited maybe indicatd as Urusalim but Jerusalem in the Amarna Letters.
2. No terrace of the fortification wall built under Nehemiah and described in great detail in his memoirs (Neh 3:1-22) has been identified positively in the excavations.
è These excavations can neither prove nor disprove the political position of the city in the 10th century BCE.
03. The Kingdom of Shechem and Jerusalem in the Amarna Age. Pp. 4-8.
Political formations and socio-economic conditions of the LB II with that of Iron IIA and examining the long-term changes within an identical setting are instructive for the study of Jerusalem’s political position in the early first millennium BCE.
The key-point of discussion: the area of central highland in LB II.
Two Canaanite kingdoms: Shechem and Jerusalem.
l Shechem: the powerful state in the Amarna Letters.
North: Jezreel / West: Sharon plains / South: Nahal Shiloh / East: Jordan valley.
But the archaeological excavation is different from the written documents.
The area of the city was about 4-4.5 hectares. No more than 800 people lived there.
Shechemite territory – 23-25 hectares compared with 240 sites in MB II and in Iron I.
è The size of Shechem in the LB II – a medium size of Canaanite city-state.
l Jerusalem: the seat of a a king nominated by the Pharaoh.( EA 286: 9-13, 287:25-28; Moran 1975)
He lived in a palace (EA 287:33-37; 73-75) Egyptian garrison of about 50 soldiers (EA 139: 32; 238:11; 295) Egyptian messengers to the court of Jerusalem (EA 286:16-20; 287:45-50; 288:16-22; 289:30-33; 37-40) the king sent rich caravans to Pharaoh (EA 287:53-56; 288:12, 14-22)
The size of local Jerusalem kingdom:
North: south of Bethel / West: Shephelah/ South: Hebron / East: Jordan vallery.
But the archaeological data is quite different from the Amarna letters.
A handful of LB II pottery and a few building fragments in the Ophel Hill in the 14th century.
Only two and three sites unearthed. – a few small rural communities, isolated pastoral groups and refugees.
The Amarna letters about 2 cities: mayors(hazannu) as like the governors of Egyptian towns(h3ty-c)
In non Egyptian documents: kings (sarru) compared with the local rulers(the kings of Babylonia(EA8:25) and Mitanni(EA 30:1) Tagu, ruler of Ginti-kirmail. Lab’ayu ruler of Shechem by the title “king”
l The nature of personal oath in which the vassal was bound to his overlord.
Lab’ayu, king of Shechem (EA 253:11-15) Abimilaku of Tyre (EA 150:35-36 “my fathers”) ‘Abdi-Heba king of Jerusalem (EA 286:9-13, 288:13-15)
l Society of economy of the kingdoms of Shechem and Jerusalem : the superior to lowland city state.
l Six letters sent by the king of Jerusalem to the Pharaoh
How can we resolve the difference between the archaeological date and the written documents in that same era?
è The self perception of the people of the LB and modern scholarly definitions
04. Tenth century Jerusalem: The problem of the Written Sources.
Socio – archaeological study according to Jamieson-Drake(1991:26-47) – “chiefdom” – settlement size, distribution, social stratification.
l The problem of the sources for the study of the 10th century
1. Hieratic numerals and signs in epigraphic documents of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah in 8-7th century. But this signs had entered the Hebrew script before the 10th century BCE.
2. The Account of Shichak’s campaign. Against Jerusalem. In his inscription.
And his routed for the battle assumpted by the scholars – the possibility of being as like state in the Judah central highland.
3. And the indication about the old written sources (e.g. 2 Sam 8:16-18; 20:23-26; 23:8-39; 1Kgs 4:2-19; 9:15-18) The office of scribe (e.g. 2 Sam 8:17; 20:25; 1Kgs 4:2)
è These 3 cases – It is convincible that the writing was in the court of Jerusalem in 10th century.
4. The Tell-Dan Inscription: the evidence of Davidic dynasty from 10th century.
The eponymic / dynastic name Bit-PN in the early 2nd millennium BCE. The Son(mar) of a tribal eponym or of the founder of a dynasty , is designed of “bit PN”
It is certain that in the 9th century BCE, the being of Davidic dynasty was admitted by the other kingdom that were surrounded it. And the name of Beth-David was regarded the founder of kingdom of Judah at that time.
5. The building and dedication of the temple of Jerusalem – maybe authentic explanation.
05. Tenth Century Jerusalem and the Emergence of the Israelite State.
The overall number of sites in the Cisjordanian central highlands was approximately 300-350. ( compared with about 30sites in LB II)
The stronghold of Zion.(2 Sam 5:7; 1 Chro 11:5)
It is really impossible that Davidic dynasty was in that era?
Cf) Lab’ayu, king of Shechem – enormous, massive territory of his kingdom in LB
The Iron IIA – the 15 -20 times larger than that in LB II Shechem
17 Iron I sites in the hill country of Judah(Ofer 1994: 102)
10 sites in the district of Benjamin (Finkelstein and Magen 1993: 26)
è It is possible that Jerusalem governed about 35-45 highlands sites even minimally we evaluate, as well as a few more sites in the Shephelah and the Beer-Shebah valley.
06. Conclusion.
a. No negative conclusions about Jerusalem in the LB II and Iron I-IIA.
b. Amarna letters. – territorial, political, social, economical situation in the highlands of Canaan in the 14th century BCE and to compare it with LB II archaerlogical data.
c. The enormous growth of settlement and population between the LB II and Iron IIA – that means it is able the emerging states to mobiblize many people and send them on military operations and corvee work. (2 Sam 20:24, 1 Kgs 4:6; 5:27-28; 9:15; 11:28; 12:3-14, 18)
d. The precise extent of the dynasty is difficult to approve.
e. The number of settlements in its domain was greater than that of the LB II highland kingdom of Shechem. – and the Tel-Dan stele.
f. So, the scholars must perceive that gap between our modern definitions of states and societies and the self-perception of ancient societies.
