Archaeology of the Biblical Period: On Some Questions of Methodology and Chronology of the Iron Age

Author(s):  
DAVID USSISHKIN

This chapter discusses the role of archaeology in the study of the biblical period and biblical history, with special reference to the ninth century – that is, the Bronze Age and the Iron Age, in the land of Israel. This discipline is known as biblical archaeology. When biblical archaeological research began more than 150 years ago, it was dependent on the Bible and biblical research. The dependence of archaeology on the biblical text is symbolized by the phrase ‘bible and spade’. The chapter argues that the disciplines of archaeology on the one hand and history and biblical studies on the other are based on different methods and different ways of thinking, and also claims that the archaeologist should refrain from analysing the Bible and history. Furthermore, it contends that the proper methodology should involve some cooperation between archaeologists, biblical scholars, and historians. The chapter also takes a look at the archaeological framework of the Iron Age, which is made of stratigraphy and chronology.

Starinar ◽  
2016 ◽  
pp. 173-191
Author(s):  
Aleksandar Kapuran ◽  
Dragana Zivkovic ◽  
Nada Strbac

The last three years of archaeological investigations at the site Ru`ana in Banjsko Polje, in the immediate vicinity of Bor, have provided new evidence regarding the role of non-ferrous metallurgy in the economy of the prehistoric communities of north-eastern Serbia. The remains of metallurgical furnaces and a large amount of metallic slags at two neighbouring sites in the mentioned settlement reveal that locations with many installations for the thermal processing of copper ore existed in the Bronze Age. We believe, judging by the finds of material culture, that metallurgical activities in this area also continued into the Iron Age and, possibly, into the 4th century AD.


Author(s):  
Avraham Faust

The term “biblical archaeology” has meant different things to different people at different times. During most of its history, the term was used broadly and included archaeological (and archaeology-related) activities in the biblical lands, mainly the Near East but even beyond it, from prehistory to the medieval period. Later, the term was seen as parochial, narrow, and religiously loaded, and many felt uncomfortable using it, sometimes calling for a “secular archaeology” (e.g., William Dever), and preferring instead terms such as “Syria-Palestinian archaeology,” “Near Eastern archaeology,” or “archaeology of the Levant.” The change has also been connected with the decrease in the historical value attributed to the biblical narratives, and to political correctness. The term, nevertheless, is still widely used, and many scholars speak today about “new biblical archaeology.” Geographically, the new term is narrower, covering mainly the Land of Israel (also known as the southern Levant, Palestine, or the Holy Land; roughly covering the area of modern Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority). Chronologically, it still covers a long period, but a difference exists between Israeli usage and American/European usage. Both “groups” begin the era with the start of the Bronze Age (although all agree that there was nothing “biblical” in those periods). For Israeli scholars, however, the biblical period refers to the time covered in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), and it ends by the Late Iron Age, or the Persian period. For most American and European scholars, especially in the past, the term embraced the Hellenistic period, the Roman period, and perhaps even the Byzantine period. Today, however, scholars specialize either in the early periods (Bronze and Iron Ages) or in the later (Hellenistic-Byzantine) periods, and the term “biblical archaeology” is becoming synonymous with the Bronze and Iron Ages (including the Persian period). Indeed, these are the periods that will receive most attention here. Although originally the “child” of biblical studies and archaeology, in its current usage the term is not necessarily connected with the Bible; rather, it relates to studies of a certain era in a certain region. Due to the wide definitions of biblical archaeology, and in light of the differences in meanings associated with it, the boundaries between biblical archaeology and other disciplines are not always clear cut, and they have changed over the course of the discipline’s history. Therefore, the following sections will address some works that are not archaeological in nature. Notably, this article will usually not refer to excavation reports or technical ceramic studies.


Author(s):  
David Segal

Chapter 13 is the last chapter. It suggests how the 21st century may be described in terms of ‘ages’ analogous to the Bronze Age or Iron Age. Will the 21st century be described as the Silicon Age? Or perhaps be referred to as the Genomic Age? Or maybe the New Polymer Age? The role of climate change and international conflict on the pace of materials development are discussed.


2020 ◽  
pp. 5-35
Author(s):  
Soohong Lee

Social stratification in the Bronze Age and the appearance and transition of chief tombs in the early Iron Age are reviewed based on the ancient tomb data in Yeongnam Province. Chief, which means a ruler of unequal societies, first appeared in the early Iron Age. Evidence to support the appearance is given as follows: the articles from , production and distribution of ironware, construction of tombs for not a community but an individual, and the beginning of trade between local regions. In the late Bronze Age, tomb clusters turned into a common cemetery, and huge dolmens with graveyards were built. With social stratification being intensified, communities would have been maintained by blood ties and regionalism. The construction of huge tombs was for a community, not for a single person. That is, it was the tomb of the leaders, not of a chief. The types of the leader tombs vary depending on the regions: huge dolmens with graveyards in South Gyeongsang Province, and tombs with long-sharpened daggers in Daegu. In the early Iron Age, chief tombs are categorized into a group of dolmens from the patternless earthenware culture and a group of wooden coffin tombs from the Koreanstyle bronze dagger culture. The former group of chief tombs can be seen in huge dolmen areas such as Gimhae Gusan-dong and Changwon Deokcheon-ri archeological sites, and it is more of an individual’s tomb rather than a community’s. The chiefdom of dolmens and the one of wooden coffin tombs coexisted only until the chiefdom of wooden coffin tombs took over the other. In Yeongnam Province, the wooden coffin tombs first appeared in the third century B.C., and the ironware began to be buried in the second century B.C. By the first century B.C., the wooden coffin tombs clustered and the Chinese Han relics began to be buried. This is when the chiefdom was formed and the Bronze Age came to an end. In South Gyeongsang Province, chief tombs are centered in Gimhae. In Daegu-North Gyeongsang Province, chief tombs are distributed by equal intervals on the road connecting Ulsan, Gyeongju, Yeongcheon, Gyeongsan, and Daegu; it is due to the consolidation of foreign negotiation command of a chief.


Author(s):  
Dan Pioske

Jerusalem is the most important location in the Bible and the most researched within the realm of biblical studies. Already a Canaanite city of some standing by the Middle Bronze Age period (c. 2000–1550 bce), Jerusalem’s significance for the biblical writers begins in earnest with the portrayal of the city’s acquisition by David around 1000 bce. Jerusalem functions in the Hebrew Bible as the royal center for the House of David and the divine sanctuary for Yahweh, the God of Israel, for the next four centuries until, in 586 bce, the location is conquered and destroyed by the Babylonians. Around 515 bce the Second Temple is constructed and Jerusalem becomes a modest temple-city within the Persian Empire (c. 550–330 bce), during which time a number of biblical texts are written and revised. A century and a half after Alexander the Great’s conquest of the region, a Jewish group called the Maccabees revolted against the Greek rulers of the time (c. 167 bce) and established an autonomous kingdom with Jerusalem as its capital. The independent status of this kingdom ends, however, when the Roman general Pompey took control of Jerusalem in 63 bce and incorporated it and the region of Judea into the Roman Empire. During the reign of Herod the Great (37–4 bce), a client-king of the Romans, the temple in Jerusalem is extensively renovated and a number of other impressive building measures are carried out in the city’s precincts. This large, Roman city is the one referred to at various moments in the Gospels and in the Book of Acts, and it is the location where Jesus of Nazareth is said to have been crucified around 33 ce. Though Jerusalem is destroyed by the Romans in 70 ce after the First Jewish-Roman War, a new, heavenly Jerusalem is depicted in the later writings of the Book of Revelation.


1970 ◽  
Vol 36 ◽  
pp. 171-213 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger J. Mercer

The practice of Archery in the Bronze Age and early Iron Age as it survives to us in the archaeological record is difficult of interpretation owing to the low survival value of most archery equipment—the one relic of fairly high survival value being the arrow-head, of flint, bronze or iron. This paper deals with a topic little touched upon previously, and, setting aside the tradition of stone arrow-head manufacture (which persisted well into the Bronze Age in various parts of Europe) essays a treatment of the evidence for the manufacture and use of metal arrow-heads. These will be divided into three types, tanged, socketed and spurred—a threefold division which will appear to be significant not only from the purely typological point of view, but also in the more general context of prehistory.A catalogue of all finds known to the writer in 1967 will be found at the end of the paper. While this catalogue makes no claim to be complete, it is representative enough to serve as a firm basis, and although further research may bring more examples to light, it will probably not reveal any major new concentrations of metal arrow-heads within Europe (at any rate within the framework of existing knowledge).


2008 ◽  
Vol 74 ◽  
pp. 235-322 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Allen ◽  
Matt Leivers ◽  
Chris Ellis ◽  
Simon Stevens ◽  
Susan Clelland ◽  
...  

Developer-funded archaeology on the Isle of Sheppey resulted in the discovery of not one but two Neolithic causewayed enclosures on the same hilltop in very close (c. 300 m) proximity. In the later Bronze Age enclosures and cremation cemeteries were constructed immediately to the east, followed by Iron Age enclosures and, ultimately, field systems dating to the later Iron Age onwards. A radiocarbon programme enabled the chronological sequence and hiatus between all of these events to be discerned, but the majority of this paper explores the physical, chronological, and social relationship between the two Neolithic causewayed enclosures. These were of different forms and, although on the same hilltop, they each seem to have had distinctly different viewsheds over the Thames and the Swale respectively. There are subtle, but potentially significant, differences in the material culture and deposition which allow exploration of the possible functions and role(s) of the two largely contemporaneous sites. Questions may be addressed such as whether they performed the same functions for two communities or had separate and distinct roles for a single community. Beyond the Neolithic, the paper also explores the nature of the later use of the hilltop. The Bronze Age enclosures, though agricultural in function, clearly seem to respect their Neolithic predecessors invoking a remembrance of space, which is lost by the Iron Age. The shift away from the special function of this landscape in the Neolithic to a subsequent agricultural use is explored, as is the hiatus in use and subsequent re-use of the area.


2020 ◽  
Vol 118 (2) ◽  
pp. e2014956117
Author(s):  
Ashley Scott ◽  
Robert C. Power ◽  
Victoria Altmann-Wendling ◽  
Michal Artzy ◽  
Mario A. S. Martin ◽  
...  

Although the key role of long-distance trade in the transformation of cuisines worldwide has been well-documented since at least the Roman era, the prehistory of the Eurasian food trade is less visible. In order to shed light on the transformation of Eastern Mediterranean cuisines during the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age, we analyzed microremains and proteins preserved in the dental calculus of individuals who lived during the second millennium BCE in the Southern Levant. Our results provide clear evidence for the consumption of expected staple foods, such as cereals (Triticeae), sesame (Sesamum), and dates (Phoenix). We additionally report evidence for the consumption of soybean (Glycine), probable banana (Musa), and turmeric (Curcuma), which pushes back the earliest evidence of these foods in the Mediterranean by centuries (turmeric) or even millennia (soybean). We find that, from the early second millennium onwards, at least some people in the Eastern Mediterranean had access to food from distant locations, including South Asia, and such goods were likely consumed as oils, dried fruits, and spices. These insights force us to rethink the complexity and intensity of Indo-Mediterranean trade during the Bronze Age as well as the degree of globalization in early Eastern Mediterranean cuisine.


1989 ◽  
Vol 84 ◽  
pp. 447-463 ◽  
Author(s):  
K.A. Wardle

Excavation in 1988 demonstrated the systematic organisation of the settlement in every phase. Regular blocks of buildings, separated by parallel streets, existed throughout the history of the settlement from the fourteenth to the ninth century BC. The continuity of occupation from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age is beyond doubt. The discovery of two more crop storerooms in the earliest level (Phase 9) adds to the unique evidence for centralised agricultural storage at Assiros at the period when Mycenaean palaces flourished in Southern Greece.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document