Trends in the Local Pottery Development of the Late Iron Age and Persian Period in Syria and Lebanon, ca. 700 to 300 B. C.

1998 ◽  
Vol 311 ◽  
pp. 7-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gunnar Lehmann
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.


Religions ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. 487
Author(s):  
Yigal Levin

For several hundred years, from the late Iron Age to the end of the 2nd century BCE, the southern neighbor of Judea was “Idumea”, populated by descendants of Edomites, together with Qedarite and other Arabs and a mix of additional ethnicities. This paper examines the known data on the identity, especially religious identity, of these Idumeans, using a wide range of written sources and archaeological data. Within the Bible, “Edom” is presented as Israel’s twin and its harshest enemy, but there are hints that the Edomites worshipped the God of Israel. While the origins of the “Edomite deity” Qaus remain obscure, as does the process of their migration into southern Judah, the many inscriptions from the Persian period show that Qaus became the most widely worshipped deity in the area, even if other gods, including Yahweh, were also recognized. The Hellenistic period brought heightened Greek and Phoenician influence, but also the stabilization of “Idumea” as an administrative/ethnic unit. Some of the practices of this period, such as male circumcision, show an affinity to the Judaism of the time. This paper also discusses the outcome of the Hasmonean conquest of Idumea and the incorporation of its inhabitants into the Jewish nation.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 169-185
Author(s):  
Yair Almakiyes ◽  
Aharon Tavger

A system of pits recently discovered in Khirbet el-Hammam in northern Samaria apparently meets the accepted definition of “Gibeon pits”. These pits, used to store wine in the late Iron Age and early Persian period, are evidence of a developed local agriculture and of the site’s centrality. The location and identification of these pits in connection to other remains from Khirbet el-Hammam may shed new light on the size and centrality of the city during the Iron Age.


2019 ◽  
Vol 74 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-97
Author(s):  
Richard Massey ◽  
Matt Nichol ◽  
Dana Challinor ◽  
Sharon Clough ◽  
Matilda Holmes ◽  
...  

Excavation in Area 1 identified an enclosed settlement of Middle–Late Iron Age and Early Roman date, which included a roundhouse gully and deep storage pits with complex fills. A group of undated four-post structures, situated in the east of Area 1, appeared to represent a specialised area of storage or crop processing of probable Middle Iron Age date. A sequence of re-cutting and reorganisation of ditches and boundaries in the Late Iron Age/Early Roman period was followed, possibly after a considerable hiatus, by a phase of later Roman activity, Late Iron Age reorganisation appeared to be associated with the abandonment of a roundhouse, and a number of structured pit deposits may also relate to this period of change. Seven Late Iron Age cremation burials were associated with a contemporary boundary ditch which crossed Area 1. Two partly-exposed, L-shaped ditches may represent a later Roman phase of enclosed settlement and a slight shift in settlement focus. An isolated inhumation burial within the northern margins of Area 1 was tentatively dated by grave goods to the Early Saxon period.<br/> Area 2 contained a possible trackway and field boundary ditches, of which one was of confirmed Late Iron Age/Early Roman date. A short posthole alignment in Area 2 was undated, and may be an earlier prehistoric feature.


2018 ◽  
Vol 73 (1) ◽  
pp. 110-136
Author(s):  
Oliver Good ◽  
Richard Massey

Three individual areas, totalling 0.55ha, were excavated at the Cadnam Farm site, following evaluation. Area 1 contained a D-shaped enclosure of Middle Iron Age date, associated with the remains of a roundhouse, and a ditched drove-way. Other features included refuse pits, a four-post structure and a small post-built structure of circular plan. Area 2 contained the superimposed foundation gullies of two Middle Iron Age roundhouses, adjacent to a probable third example. Area 3 contained a small number of Middle Iron Age pits, together with undated, post-built structures of probable Middle Iron Age date, including a roundhouse and four and six-post structures. Two large boundary ditches extended from the south-west corner of Area 3, and were interpreted as the funnelled entrance of a drove-way. These contained both domestic and industrial refuse of the late Iron Age date in their fills.


2015 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 56-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Negahnaz Moghaddam ◽  
Simone Mailler-Burch ◽  
Levent Kara ◽  
Fabian Kanz ◽  
Christian Jackowski ◽  
...  

1963 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 228-263 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ernest Greenfield

SummaryTwo shrines of circular and polygonal shape, probably part of a larger group, were erected early in the second half of the third century A.D., and occupied until late in the fourth century. The shrines occur in an area of widespread settlement dating from the late Iron Age until the end of the fourth century. Many objects of bronze and iron of ritual significance, together with a large number of votive deposits and coins, were recovered from the circular shrine. Miss M. V. Taylor's discussion of the principal objects appears on pp. 264–8.


Author(s):  
Jan Petřík ◽  
Katarína Adameková ◽  
Libor Petr ◽  
Isabelle Jouffroy-Bapicot ◽  
Petr Kočár ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document