Here is wha David Ussishkin says about dating the Jezreel enclosure:
Page 137, "Archaeology of the Bible Period: On Some Questions if
Methodology and Chronology of the Iron Age." David Ussishkin regarding
Samaria and Jezeel:
"Third, based on the biblical evidence, the foundation of the city of
Samaria and the building of the enclosure of Jezreel should be dated to
the
reigns of Omri and Ahab, in the second quarter of the ninth century
(Ussihkin 2007). This would mean that the pottery assemblage recovered in
the one-period Jezreel enclosure dates to that time."
Aha! Here Ussishkin violates his own preference, that is, to leave the
history to the historians and the archaeology to the archaeologists. But
as
he admits, that is hard to do, since archaeologists depend upon historical
reference to help them figure things out. But here's the problem wtih the
Jezreel enclosure.
The pottery assemblage at the Jezreel enclosure matches the pottery
assemblage of Megiddo VA-IVB per Finkelstein, and thus Jezreel was
destroyed
at the same time as Megiddo. If the Jezreel enclosure is historically
linked to Ahad then that pushes the destruction of Megiddo post Ahab as
well. But that contradicts the Biblical reference that otherwise
Megiddo
VA-IVB would have been destroyed by ****shak, since that is the level of
the
palaces associated with Solomon's building. Is there a solution?
YES! Ussishkin has made an error in considering the JEZREEL ENCLOSURE as
the same palace of Ahab. Why? Because there is no palace there. Indeed,
it is just an ENCLOSURE. Ahab's palace, further was next to a vineyard.
Naboth's vineyard. So was there a vineyard inside this Jezreel enclosure?
Hardly!
Further, it is clear that Jezreel was destroyed shortly after it was built
BECAUSE there are no palaces found in the enclosure. So what gives?
Where
is Ahab's palace in association with the Jezreel enclosure. In addition,
this enclosure is on the top of a hill, not in a valley where you'd expect
to find a vineyard. Therefore, in no way is there any connection with
this
Jezreel enclosure to Ahab's palace.
This allows us to date this enclosure to late in the reign of Solomon
shortly before ****shak arrives in year 39 of Solomon and destroys it.
Apparently, never again to be rebuilt. Ahab built his palace somehwere
else, in the valley of Jezreel, near the vineyard of Naboth. Tha's where
archaeologists should start looking for remants of Ahab's palace. Not at
the Jezreel enclosure site.
Further, Finkelstein makes it a point to note that Jezreel is not on
****shak's list of cities destroyed nor is there a reference that Solomon
built it. But there was a 6-year co-ruler****p between Solomon and
Rehoboam
and it could have been built by Rehoboam during that time. It would have
been relatively new and destroyed shortly after it was built, just as the
Bible indicates. Since it was an unfinished city and just a forticiation,
there might have been no reason to mention it specifically. It was too
new
to even be settled. It was just a fortified outpost at the time.
As far as the pottery assemblages with Samaria, Samaria would have been
built just a few years after this, so that style of pottery could have
still
been in use. Samaria was not destroyed though until much later during
the
Assyrian Period. So why did ****shak miss out on destroying Samaria if it
was already built and a major city?
At any rate, this underscores what Ussishkin said, that the Biblical
scholars and archaeologists need to work together because often the casual
reading of scriptures by archaeologists are not specifically understood
enough to apply effectively to the archaeological findings, as in this
case,
misassigning the Jezreel COMPOUND to the site of Ahab's palace, unless
they
think a private vineyard and an inheritance was located within the
compound
walls? No likely. No palace was found there, there should have been
enough of a hint. It was a brand new enclosure that was destroyed shortly
after being built. That points to being built late in Solomon's reign
just
before ****shak's invasion and thus likely built by Rehoboam, perhaps why
it
was not mentioned in the Bible.
Lars Wilson
|
