All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be

reproduced, photocopied, stored in a retrieval system or
transmitted in any form or by any means—for example,
electronic, photocopy, audio recording—without the
prior written permission of the publisher.

COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL
 Behind the Scenes
of the Old Testament

CULTURAL, SOCIAL, AND HISTORICAL CONTEXTS

EDITED BY

Jonathan S. Greer, John W. Hilber,

and John H. Walton

K
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL
_Greer_BehindScenesOT_BKB_djm.indd 3 8/24/18 9:00 AM
 © 2018 by Jonathan S. Greer, John W. Hilber, and John H. Walton

Published by Baker Academic

a division of Baker Publishing Group
PO Box 6287, Grand Rapids, MI 49516-6287
www.bakeracademic.com

Printed in the United States of America

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted in any form or by any means—­for example, electronic, photocopy, recording—­without the
prior written permission of the publisher. The only exception is brief quotations in printed reviews.

Library of Congress Cataloging-­in-­Publication Data

Names: Greer, Jonathan S., editor. | Hilber, John W. (John Walter), editor. | Walton, John H.,
1952– editor.
Title: Behind the scenes of the Old Testament : cultural, social, and historical contexts / edited by
Jonathan S. Greer, John W. Hilber, and John H. Walton.
Description: Grand Rapids, MI : Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group, [2018] |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2018020594 | ISBN 9780801097751 (cloth : alk. paper)
Subjects: LCSH: Bible. Old Testament—History of contemporary events. | Middle East—
History—To 622. | Middle East—Civilization—To 622.
Classification: LCC DS62.23 .B45 2018 | DDC 221.9/5—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018020594

Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version of
the Bible, copyright © 1989, by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the
Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations labeled CEB are from the Common English Bible © 2011 Common English
Bible. Used by permission.

Scripture quotations labeled NIV are from the Holy Bible, New International Version®. NIV®.
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights
reserved worldwide. www.zondervan.com

Figure 19.7 included courtesy of The Eretz Israel Museum.

Figure 22.1 included courtesy of the Israel Museum. Collection of the Israel Museum, Jerusalem, and
courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority, exhibited at the Israel Museum, Jerusalem.

Cover art
Top register: Painted lion hunt scene from Til Barsip (Fort Shalmaneser) dating
to the reign of Tiglath-Pileser III (r. 745–727 BCE).
Bottom register: Monleon y Torres, Rafael (1835–1900). Watercolor. Navy Museum,
Madrid. The painting is apparently based on Phoenician vessels depicted in an
Assyrian wall relief from the southern palace of Sennacherib (r. 704–681 BCE).

        23 24   7 6 5 4 3 2 1

COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL
_Greer_BehindScenesOT_BKB_djm.indd 4 8/24/18 9:00 AM
 7
Archaeology of the Iron Age I
A REN M. M AEIR
The Late Bronze / Iron Age Transition
Starting from the mid-to-late thirteenth cen-
tury BCE and well into the mid-to-late twelfth
century BCE, the eastern Mediterranean in
general and the Levant in particular witnessed
major changes in social, political, and eco-
nomic makeup (in general, see Cline 2014).
During most of the preceding Late Bronze
Age (ca. 1500–1200 BCE), the socioeconomic
structure in the eastern Mediterranean was of
a “club” of “superpowers,” including New
Kingdom Egypt, the Hittite Empire, and the
Assyrian Kingdom, along with regional and
local kingdoms of varying influence and ad-
ditional cultural and ethnic groups of vary-
ing character. All these entities were players
in a web of intense diplomatic, cultural, and
economic connections. Starting in the late
thirteenth century, but more so in the twelfth,
many of the basic building blocks of the Late
Bronze Age world order disappear. The Hittite
Empire collapses, the Egyptian Empire loses its
control of Canaan by the mid-to-late twelfth
century, the Mycenaean palace polities break
down, the volume of international trade is
54
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL
_Greer_BehindScenesOT_BKB_djm.indd 74
significantly reduced, many of the Canaanite
cities in Canaan are abandoned or destroyed,
and new cultural and ethnic groups seem to
appear throughout the region. This includes
the so-called Sea Peoples, the Israelites, the
Aramaeans, and various other groups. And
while during the Late Bronze Age there are
diverse written sources from throughout the
ancient Near East, from the early twelfth cen-
tury until well into the late eleventh and early
tenth centuries there are few contemporane-
ous written sources relating to the historical
situation in the southern Levant. Due to this,
this period is very much a “dark age,” and
to reconstruct the underlying mechanisms
that lead up to this period and what happens
during it scholars are very much dependent
on archaeological remains. The biblical text,
while seemingly relating to this period, is really
of tangential utility as a historical source for
dealing with it, as the various narratives re-
garding the formation of Israel and related
issues appear, by and large, to be based on
later understandings, and some memories,
of this period.
8/24/18 9:01 AM

Chronological Framework
Traditionally, the Iron Age I usually is dated
between 1200 and 1000 BCE, more or less
between the end of the Nineteenth Egyptian
Dynasty and the traditional dates of the begin-
ning of the so-called biblical United Kingdom.
This, though, should be regarded as only a very
rough chronological framework.
To start with, various processes and mecha-
nisms that are connected to the Late Bronze /
Iron Age transition start before 1200 BCE. This
includes some sites (such as Hazor) that ap-
pear to have been destroyed before 1200 BCE,
evidence of the existence of the Israelites prior
to 1200 BCE (such as in the Merneptah Stela),
and possible indications of the first hints of
the “Sea Peoples” phenomenon, yet in the thir-
teenth century BCE.
On the other hand, there are many who
argue that most of the primary processes
marking the collapse of the Late Bronze Age
system did not occur until the early, mid-, or
in some cases late twelfth century BCE. For
example, major Late Bronze Age sites such
as Boğazkale and Ugarit were not destroyed
or abandoned before the second decade of the
twelfth century; similarly, most, if not all, of
the evidence for the Sea Peoples and the Philis-
tines does not date before the first and perhaps
even the second quarter of the twelfth century;
and finally, at various sites (such as Megiddo)
the Canaanite culture continues well into the
eleventh century.
As to the end of the Iron Age I, it is almost
universally accepted nowadays that the ma-
terial culture typical of the Iron Age I continues
into the tenth century BCE; the question is
whether it ends in the first decades of the cen-
tury (e.g., A. Mazar 2011) or perhaps around
the mid-to-late tenth century (e.g., Finkelstein
and Piasetzky 2011).1
1. Suggestions to date the appearance of the Israelites
and other related phenomena to earlier periods, such
as the transition between the Middle and Late Bronze
Ages (ca. 1500 BCE), as propounded by, for example,
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL
_Greer_BehindScenesOT_BKB_djm.indd 75
Archaeology of the Iron Age I
The Israelites
The vibrant biblical description of the Israelite
conquest and settlement in Canaan and its car-
dinal role in biblical and postbiblical traditions
have made the search for evidence of the initial
stages of the Israelite culture of much inter-
est in the study of the early Iron Age Levant.
The biblical text, and in particular many parts
of the book of Joshua, appear to portray a
military conquest of the land by the Israelites.
On the other hand, in the book of Judges, a
more gradual process of settlement is implied.
For many years, research on the appearance of
the Israelites2 was divided into several distinct
schools of thought: (1) those who believed that
archaeological evidence of the Israelite con-
quest could be found, such as Albright (e.g.,
1949b) and Yadin (e.g., 1963); (2) those who
preferred to see a process of gradual settlement
by peoples coming from outside Canaan, such
as Alt (1925) and Aharoni (1957); and (3) those
who believed that the appearance of the early
Israelites should be explained primarily as
an internal phenomenon, mostly made up of
peoples originating in Canaan, who during the
early Iron Age realigned their identity, such as
Mendenhall (1973) and Gottwald (1979).
Recent research has, to all intents and pur-
poses, negated the “conquest view.”3 While
there are a few sites at which evidence of
destructions dating to the late Late Bronze
or the early Iron Age can be found (such as
Hazor [e.g., A. Ben-Tor 2016]), by and large,
at most sites of this period, including several
B. G. Wood regarding the finds at Khirbet Maqatir (Wood
2009), are hard to accept. On this, see Maeir 2011, 100.
2. In most research, the term “Israelites” refers to the
peoples of both the northern (later the kingdom of Israel)
and the southern (later the kingdom of Judah) groups.
And while there is much in common, the distinct differ-
ences between these groups should be taken into account,
including during the Iron Age (see, e.g., Fleming 2012;
Maeir 2013a).
3. There are still some attempts in recent literature
(e.g., Hawkins 2013; Provan, Long, and Longman 2015)
to adhere to the conquest model, but I do not believe they
are convincing. See, e.g., Maeir 2016.
55
8/24/18 9:01 AM
 The Sets and Props: Archaeology
that play a central role in the biblical narra-
tives of the Israelite conquest (such as Jericho,
Ai, and Arad), there is no evidence of large-­
scale destructions at the majority of the sites
mentioned in the biblical texts regarding the
supposed conquest. Similarly, while there does
seem to be a gradual process of settlement
in many parts of the central hills and Upper
Galilee throughout the early Iron Age, some
regions are hardly settled (such as the Judean
mountains), and for the most part, there is
much similarity between the material culture
of these new settlements in the central hills and
the previous Canaanite culture. So much so
that most scholars nowadays would agree that
the early Israelites were comprised of a sub-
stantial amount of local Canaanite elements
(mostly rural and nomadic elements who were
already in the central hills region), some people
deriving from the lowlands Canaanite urban
matrix, along with some groups that entered
the region in a gradual manner, perhaps from
areas to the east and northeast of Canaan
(such as Zertal’s claims regarding the early
Iron Age sites in Samaria; e.g., Zertal 2004). In
other words, there is only marginal evidence of
each of the three major schools noted above:
conquest, slow but steady infiltration from
the east, and dislocation from the Canaanite
lowland cities. Rather, it appears that aspects
of these three processes, and others, occurred
at varying degrees during this time of change.
During the early Iron Age (perhaps even
starting in the late thirteenth century BCE),
there is substantial archaeological evidence of
the appearance of many new sites in the central
hills region, particularly in the region between
Jerusalem in the south and the Jezreel Valley
in the north (more or less, the region known
as Samaria). Additional sites are known on the
western foothills of Samaria (such as the well-­
known site of Izbet Zarta), in the hills in the
eastern fringes of Samaria (above the Jordan
Valley), and in northern Galilee (sites such as
Saʿsaʿ and Har Adir). Interestingly, very few of
56
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL
_Greer_BehindScenesOT_BKB_djm.indd 76
these sites are found in the region of Judah,
from Jerusalem and southward (outstanding
examples are Giloh and Tel Rumeida).4 Most
of these “settlement” sites can be character-
ized as small, enclosed villages with very sim-
ple, mainly domestic, architecture, primarily
utilitarian pottery (storage jars, such as the
well-known “collared rim jars,” and cooking
vessels), and almost no prestige or imported
items. The majority of these “settlement” sites
are built at new locations, but in some cases
(such as at Hazor and Ai) they are built on sites
that were occupied in earlier periods. In addi-
tion, a few sites with cultic remains are known,
such as Shiloh (Finkelstein, Buni­movitz, and
Lederman 1993), Mount Ebal (which can be
identified as cultic even if one does not ac-
cept its identification as the “Altar of Joshua”
[Zertal 1986–87; Hawkins 2012]), and the so-­
called Bull Site (A. Mazar 1982a). The late
Adam Zertal, excavator of the Mount Ebal
site, also suggested identifying a set of sites in
eastern Samaria, which he claimed had a unique
“sandal-­shaped” form (Zertal and Ben-­Yosef
2009). He believed that these were sites of the
early Israelite settlers deriving from the regions
east of the Jordan River and that the shape of
the site was meant to mark occupation of the
land. This interpretation has not been accepted
by most scholars (e.g., Maeir 2014).
While the overall character of the “settle-
ment sites” is quite different from that of the
Late Bronze Age Canaanite cultural “assem-
blage” (e.g., Dever 2003; Faust 2007), many
aspects, such as some of the pottery types,
ritual objects, and subsistence patterns, are
quite reminiscent of Canaanite traditions. This
is one of the primary arguments for a connec-
tion between the inhabitants of these sites and
4. While somewhat outdated, Finkelstein 1988, Finkel-
stein and Naʾaman 1994, and A. Mazar 1990a, 295–367,
still provide overviews and discussions of many of the
issues and sites relevant to the early Israelite settlement.
For a more recent survey of the relevant literature on
the Israelite settlement (although with a different under-
standing than suggested here), see Hawkins 2013.
8/24/18 9:01 AM

the indigenous population of Canaan. Never-
theless, even if there is much continuity and
similarity with cultures in Late Bronze Age Ca-
naan, the overall “package” seen in these “set-
tlement sites” in the hill country indicates the
formation of new cultural identities in rather
defined geographic zones. Many aspects of the
early Iron Age “Israelite” sites do continue into
the Iron II–III Israelite and Judahite cultures.
This includes the “four-­room house,” which
becomes very common in Iron II Israel and
Judah, and an apparent lack of consumption
of pig, at least in Judah but not necessarily in
Israel (but note that both aspects should be
related to with caution and cannot be used,
per se, as definite identification of Israelite/
Judahite sites; see, e.g., Faust 2007; 2012a; as
opposed to, e.g., Maeir 2013c; Sapir-­Hen et al.
2013; Kletter 2014).
All told, the processes that occurred in the
central hills and Galilee regions during the
Iron Age do point to the formation of new
identity groups during the Iron I period. With-
out a doubt, these processes were of complex
nature and cannot be boiled down to this or
that monolithic trajectory. Rather, one should
see a complex interplay of local and nonlocal
groups, of various backgrounds and tradi-
tions, and the effects of various transforma-
tions, on local and regional scales, occurring
during this period. It appears that many of
these people, by the end of the Iron Age I,
did in fact become what are later known in
the biblical and nonbiblical sources as the Is-
raelite and Judahite tribes and, subsequently,
kingdoms. That said, a simplistic and linear
relationship between all the Iron I settlement
sites and later Judah/Israel should not be as-
sumed (e.g., Nestor 2010). The situation on
the ground undoubtedly was more complex.
Similarly, shifting meta-­identities should be
acknowledged as well, where certain groups
may have had fluid, fluctuating identities.
They may very well have phased in and out
of identification with the Israelite and Judahite
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL
_Greer_BehindScenesOT_BKB_djm.indd 77
Archaeology of the Iron Age I
cultures, both during and after the Iron Age I,
depending on specific political, economic,
and social circumstances. This would be the
case for groups in the regions bordering other
“major” cultures (e.g., Philistines, Canaanites,
Phoenicians, Transjordanian peoples). And
some probably shifted between the internal
Israelite and Judahite identities. Nevertheless,
during the transition between Iron I and Iron II
(somewhere in the tenth century BCE), many
of the peoples in the various regions noted
above coalesced into larger groups that served
the basis for the kingdoms of Israel and Judah.
The Philistines
During the transition between the Late Bronze
and Iron Ages, there is substantial evidence
for movements of peoples, of different ori-
gins and sociopolitical character, throughout
the eastern Mediterranean. Mainly from the
Egyptian, but also from Hittite and Ugaritic
written sources, there is evidence for groups
of peoples originating from diverse regions in
the eastern, central, and northern Mediter-
ranean who reach the southern Levant. Some
of these are termed in modern research as the
“Sea Peoples” (e.g., Killebrew and Lehmann
2013). While in past research it was common
to neatly divide the Sea Peoples into different
groups of very specific origins and the areas
they settled in the Levant in the early Iron Age
(e.g., Shardanu, Sikil, Dananu, Philistine), it is
now quite clear that the very definition of these
groups, their origins, makeup, cohesiveness,
and process of arrival, settlement, and trans-
formation are much more complex. And in
fact, the archaeological identification of other
Sea Peoples groups besides the Philistines is
highly contested at best.5
5. Recent suggestions to identify a “Northern Phi-
listine” group in the Amuq Valley in Southern Turkey
(e.g., Janeway 2017) are not without problems. While it
is clear that this is a phenomenon connected to the Late
Bronze / Iron Age transformation, and includes ample
57
8/24/18 9:01 AM
 The Sets and Props: Archaeology
For the current discussion, we will focus on
the Philistines (Yasur-­Landau 2010; Maeir and
Hitchcock 2017a; 2017b), one of the groups
included among the Sea Peoples (referred to
in the Egyptian sources as the Peleset) and,
according to the biblical sources and the ar-
chaeological remains, one of the main cul-
tural groups in Canaan during the Iron I (and
Iron II–III). Without a doubt, the Philistines
were a major player, and opponent, in relation
to the Israelite/Judahite elements. The Philis-
tines were located in the southern coastal plain
of modern-­day Israel (biblical Philistia), more
or less between the Yarkon River in the north
and Gaza in the south and from the Mediter-
ranean in the west to the Shephelah (Judean
foothills) in the east. The actual size of the
region dominated by the Philistine culture
fluctuated during the Iron Age.
Although the biblical texts often discuss
the relations between the Philistines and the
Israelites/Judahites prior to the period of David
and Solomon, in fact, when comparing the
extensive archaeological evidence from Iron I
Philistia, it appears that the biblical depictions
mostly reflect later Iron Age realia.
On the other hand, archaeological evidence
of the early Iron Age Philistine culture is ex-
tensive. Current research on the Philistines,
based on ongoing excavations at various major
Philistine sites, enables us to re-­create a clear
picture of who they were, where they came
from, and how their culture developed, trans-
formed, and eventually disappeared in the Late
Iron Age. Earlier research (e.g., Dothan 1982)
portrayed the Philistines as primarily deriving
from Mycenaean Bronze Age Greeks who ar-
rived in Canaan in the early twelfth century,
captured and destroyed the Canaanite cities
evidence of Aegean-­oriented material culture, there are
issues with associating this with the Philistines. First, it
appears that the Aegean style pottery is later than that
of the early Philistine pottery from Philistia and, second,
the suggested association of local ethnonym “Palasitin/
Walasitin” with the ethnonym “Philistine” is contested
(see Younger 2016, 127–34).
58
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL
_Greer_BehindScenesOT_BKB_djm.indd 78
in the southern coastal plain, settled in these
cities with a unique, foreign influenced culture,
and then, over a process of several hundred
years, were slowly more and more influenced
by the local cultures, until the last Philistine
cities were destroyed in the late seventh century
BCE by the Babylonians.
As opposed to this, current research (e.g.,
Maeir and Hitchcock 2017a and 2017b) sug-
gests the following: The Philistine culture of
the early Iron Age does not derive from one
nonlocal region (e.g., the Mycenaean culture),
but rather consists of various groups of diverse
nonlocal origins (e.g., mainland Greece, Crete,
western and southern Anatolia, Cyprus) that
settled in Philistia during the Iron I. These
groups were of varied socioeconomic char-
acter and may have included some that origi-
nally were of pirate-­like nature. There is little
evidence of destructions in the Late Bronze
cities in the region, and if so, only in limited
parts of the sites, perhaps the elite zones. Si-
multaneously, it appears that these nonlocal
elements settled side by side with Canaanite
elements, who continued living in these sites.
Together, they formed what has been termed
a “transcultural” or “entangled” culture. This
complex culture had rich and diverse traditions
and shows a high level of ceramic technology,
architecture, metallurgy, and other aspects.
Side by side with this, there are major differ-
ences between the culture of early Iron Age
Philistia and that of the surrounding regions.
Many of the foreign originating facets (pottery,
urbanism, architecture, cult, diet, burial, etc.)
are quite different from those of other cultural
groups in the region, but as stated above, they
are related not to a specific, uniform origin but
rather to a broad range of roots.
The Philistine material culture includes an
impressive pottery tradition, including unique
decorated vessels, cultic and other objects, a
unique diet (including the consumption of pig
and dog meat at most sites, and new types of
plants being consumed), differences in food
8/24/18 9:01 AM

preparation (such as the use of hearths and spe-
cific cooking vessels), new agronomic traditions,
specific cult practices, and many other aspects.
Archaeological excavations at Ashdod,
Ashkelon, Ekron, and Gath (Tell es-­Safi) have
revealed significant remains of the Philistine
culture, while the fifth city of the Philistine
pentapolis, Gaza, has yet to be excavated.
Other Philistine Iron I sites are known as well,
and the sites of Tel Qasile and Nahal Patish,
both with temples with rich remains, are of
particular note.
The early Iron Age socioeconomic and
political structure of the Philistines appears
much more developed than that of the Iron I
highland settlements. The Philistine culture
was an urban-­oriented, relatively complex
culture, while the Israelite culture was much
less hierarchical, complex, and technologically
advanced. This appears to be reflected in the
biblical texts, in which the Philistine polities
and their military and social complexity pose
a threat to the Israelites, before and during the
early monarchy. The archaeological remains
very likely indicate that the Philistines were
socially, economically, and perhaps mili­tarily
dominant throughout the Iron Age I (and
perhaps well into the Iron IIA as well). That
said, at present there is no evidence of com-
plex bureaucratic structures in the Philistine
culture, and claims of the existence of an
Aegean-­inspired writing system have not been
corroborated. Similarly, while the biblical por-
trait of the Philistines would seem to indicate
a very martial character of this culture, in fact,
archaeologically, there is very little evidence of
Philistine weaponry (Maeir in press).
During the late Iron I and the transition
to the Iron II, the Philistine culture becomes
more and more similar to the surrounding
cultures, but still it retains (in fact until the
end of the Iron Age) unique identifying char-
acteristics. Archaeological evidence of intense
bidirectional contacts and influences between
the Philistines and these neighboring cultures
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL
_Greer_BehindScenesOT_BKB_djm.indd 79
Archaeology of the Iron Age I
is known, and perhaps also hinted at in the
Samson narratives, in which many levels of
Israelite-­Philistine interaction are depicted.
The Phoenicians
The Phoenicians are, by and large, the continu-
ation of the Late Bronze Age Canaanite culture
and population along the coastal regions of the
central and northern Levant, from the Carmel
coast in Israel up through the coast of Lebanon
to the southern part of the Syrian coast (in
general, see, e.g., Markoe 2006). Much of the
turbulence of the transition between the Late
Bronze and Iron Ages is not felt in this coastal
region, and, as opposed to many other regions
in Canaan, it appears that international trade,
particularly with Cyprus, continued to flourish
during this period, except perhaps during the
very beginning of the Iron I. The site of Dor
serves as an example of this pattern. While it
was often assumed that Dor should be seen as
a site of the Sikil Sea Peoples, recent excava-
tions have quite clearly demonstrated that the
Late Bronze Canaanite culture continues at
the site, and evidence of flourishing connec-
tions with Cyprus, and even with Egypt, can
be seen (Waiman-­Barak, Gilboa, and Goren
2014; Gilboa and Goren 2015). Already during
the late Iron I, the Phoenicians, particularly in
the cities along the Lebanese coast, develop
vibrant polities with complex socioeconomic
structures and lay the foundations for the far-­
ranging trading activities of the Phoenicians
during the Iron II–III and later.
Canaanites
In other regions of Canaan, such as the Jez-
reel Valley, and according to some views in the
Shephelah between the Philistines and the Isra-
elites, some sites present evidence of a continu-
ity of Canaanite culture during the Iron I. At
sites such as Megiddo (e.g., Sass and Finkelstein
2016) and Rehov (A. Mazar 2016) in the north
59
8/24/18 9:01 AM
 The Sets and Props: Archaeology
and perhaps Beth Shemesh (e.g., Bunimovitz
and Lederman 2011) and Azekah (Kleiman,
Gadot, and Lipschits 2016) in the south, there
is a continuity of Canaanite elements during
most of the Iron I, but eventually these sites are
incorporated into the surrounding sociopoliti-
cal entities and the unique Canaanite aspects
are lost (but see Maeir and Hitchcock 2016 for
reservations on this). This is opposed to the
Phoenicians on the one hand, who developed
into a vibrant and cosmopolitan culture dur-
ing the Iron I, and to the Philistines and the
Israelites on the other, who incorporated into
their cultures certain Canaanite features, but
nevertheless developed more unique cultural
facets at an earlier phase of the Iron Age.
Aramaeans
Early evidence of the Aramaeans in northern
Syria is documented in the Assyrian texts from
the eleventh century BCE and onward (see, e.g.,
Lipiński 2000; Younger 2016). In northern Ca-
naan, in the area of the present-­day northeast of
Israel and southern Syria, archaeological finds
from several sites (such as Kinrot and Hadar
[see studies in Sergi, Oeming, and de Hulster
2016]) indicate that already in the Iron I, groups
that are later identified with the various Ara-
maean groups in this region during the Iron II–
III (such as the Geshurites) have a physical
presence in this region. This said, the lack of
sufficient comparative archaeological data from
southern Syria makes it difficult to assess the
character of these sites and the culture(s) they
represent, and one should take into account
the possibility that they represent other local
groups in various stages of societal develop-
ment during this formative stage in Canaan.
Transjordanian Groups
The early Iron Age is represented throughout
Transjordan (see, e.g., Fischer and Bürge 2013;
60
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL
_Greer_BehindScenesOT_BKB_djm.indd 80
Gass 2009; Levy, Najjar, and Ben-­Yosef 2014;
B. W. Porter 2013; Routledge 2008; Tyson 2014;
van der Steen 2004), but it appears to be quite
different from the areas to the west of the Jor-
dan. During the early Iron Age, sites in the
eastern Jordan Valley seem to be more con-
nected to the west. This includes several sites
with cultic structures (Pella, Deir Alla) as well
as some with possible connections with the
Sea Peoples (Saidiyeh, Abu Kharaz). In central
Jordan, there is evidence of several fortified
sites during the early Iron Age, including Tall
al-­ʿUmayri, Hesban, and Lahun. In southern
Jordan, in the area later defined as Edom, there
is evidence of nomadic groups (see, e.g., in the
cemetery near Faynan), most likely evidence
of the Shasu nomads mentioned in contem-
porary Egyptian sources. During the Iron I, a
few sites seem to have been destroyed (Pella,
Deir Alla, Umayri), but for the most part, many
new sites are founded. Interestingly, at quite
a few sites in central Jordan structures of the
“four-­room house” type have been reported,
which are among the various reasons some
scholars have suggested one can find evidence
of the Israelite tribes in Transjordan (Reuben,
Gad, Manasseh) as depicted in the Bible. This,
though, would seem to require more substan-
tial evidence than presently available.
All told, the Iron I finds from Transjordan
present the early stages of the formation of
the cultures and polities known in the region
during the Iron II–III—­for example, Ammon,
Moab, and Edom.
Summary
The early Iron Age, commencing during the
transition from the Late Bronze Age and con-
tinuing into the early Iron II, is a drawn-­out
period of more than two centuries in which
the southern Levant transformed from a region
under imperial Egyptian domination during
the Late Bronze Age to that of a mosaic of
ethnic kingdoms in the Iron II–III. While the
8/24/18 9:01 AM

processes of the appearance and crystalliza-
tion of the Israelite tribes are probably the
best-­known motifs during this period, a broad
range of groups were going through a complex
variety of dynamic processes at the time. As
this is a period with very few written sources,
and the biblical narratives most likely reflect
only vague memories of the events during
this period, the picture that we can paint is
somewhat limited. Thus, although the con-
quest, settlement, and period of the judges
play a central role in the formative narratives
of the Israelite/Judahite biblical texts, there
is very little concrete archaeological evidence
to corroborate much of what is mentioned in
these texts. That said, it is clear that during
the two hundred or so years of the Iron I in
the regions of the central hills, rural, tribal
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL
_Greer_BehindScenesOT_BKB_djm.indd 81
Archaeology of the Iron Age I
elements existed, which in a broad manner
fit in well with the biblical depiction of tribal
sociopolitical structures.
As noted above, these processes that the
early Israelites and the other cultural groups
were going through cannot be explained in
monolithic, simplistic terms, but rather must be
seen as multipronged and long-­term processes.
Likewise, while it is convenient to pigeonhole
the archaeological evidence into neat packages
of cultural and other identities (much of it
based on groups and identities known from
later periods), the on-­the-­ground situation
was most likely much more complex. Never-
theless, these processes are the background for
the formation of the better-­known cultural and
political entities of the Iron Age II–III.
61
8/24/18 9:01 AM