The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Isreal and the Origin of Sacred Texts (33 page)

Thus we have hints that Hazael’s invasion of Israel in the mid-ninth century
BCE
was followed up by prolonged occupation and the establishment of at least three fortresses—at Dan, Hazor, and Bethsaida—that display common features, some of them characteristically Aramean. And there is further reason to believe that the population in this part of the Israelite kingdom was at least partially, if not mostly, Aramean. This is indicated by the fact that in almost every major Iron Age II site in the region, excavations yielded ostraca written in Aramaic.

The Syrian occupation of Israel did not last long. From Assyrian sources we know that Hazael was able to push to the west and south into Israel because for a few decades in the second half of the ninth century the reigning Assyrian kings were preoccupied with disorders in other parts of the empire. But with the accession of a powerful new Assyrian monarch, Adad-nirari III, in
811
BCE
, the balance of power between Aram and Israel changed dramatically. Adad-nirari immediately renewed the military pressure in the west and besieged Damascus, now the strongest regional power. Damascus may have been able to overcome Israel, but it was no match for the armies of the Mesopotamian superpower of the time. Bar-hadad III, the son of Hazael, surrendered and paid massive tribute to Assyria. These events brought the hegemony of Aram-Damascus to an end and terminated the military pressure on Israel.

In this light we can begin to understand the enormous impact that Assyrian
imperialism had on the course of events in the kingdom of Israel and how so much of the history that is described in the Bible as a function of the impiety or greed of the kings of Israel had far more to do with the winds of international power politics. Although the books of Kings depict Ahab primarily as an idolatrous tyrant, we know from the monolith inscription of Shalmaneser III that he was one of the most energetic opponents of Assyrian domination—sending his massive chariot force to confront the Assyrians at Qarqar. And while Jehu, the rebel, is pictured in the Bible as God’s instrument to destroy idolatry in Israel, the famous “black obelisk” of Shalmaneser shows him bowing low to the ground at the feet of the great Assyrian king. Shalmaneser also notes: “The tribute of Jehu, son of Omri; I received from him silver, gold, a golden saplu-bowl, a golden vase with pointed bottom, golden tumblers, golden buckets, tin, a staff for a king.” (The fact that Jehu is named “son of Omri”—in essence son of the family he is reported to have exterminated—implies only that he ruled a vassal kingdom whose capital city was founded by Omri.)

The resurgence of Israel under Jehu’s grandson Joash (
2
Kings
13
:
22
–
25
) had more directly to do with the Assyrian humbling of Damascus than God’s reported change of heart. The end of the regional hegemony of Aram-Damascus gave the northern kingdom of Israel—which had pledged its loyalty to Assyria as early as the time of Shalmaneser III—a splendid opportunity to be recognized as Assyria’s most-favored vassal. Under the leadership of King Joash the northern kingdom quickly recovered and started regaining its territories that had been lost to Damascus (
2
Kings
13
:
25
). And the expansion of Israel apparently continued under Jeroboam II (
2
Kings
14
:
25
,
28
), who is reported to have extended Israel’s boundaries well into the former territories of Aram. When we look at the archaeological record, there is clear confirmation that Joash’s son Jeroboam II, whose term was the longest in the history of the northern kingdom, presided over a period of unparalleled prosperity in Israel.

The new phase of prosperity that began around
800
BCE
was apparently long remembered as a golden age for the northern kingdom—even in the memory of the people of Judah. The biblical author of the books of Kings
was forced to find an explanation for this otherwise puzzling good fortune enjoyed by the sinful northerners. He explained the turn of events by the sudden compassion of the God of Israel (
2
Kings
14
:
26
–
27
), but we can now see that a more likely reason was the Assyrian aggression against Damascus and Israel’s eager participation in the growing Assyrian world economy. At Dan, the victory stele of Hazael was apparently smashed and the fragments reused in later construction (where they would be found by archaeologists some twenty-eight hundred years later), when Israelite builders established a new city there. At Bethsaida, the stele bearing the Aramean-style deity was likewise intentionally upended and laid upside down. And at about the same time, Hazor was taken, destroyed, and rebuilt anew; it may not be complete coincidence that Hebrew inscriptions appear at Hazor for the first time in this building phase.

The strength of the Israelite economy during the reign of Jeroboam II may best be demonstrated by Israel’s developments in agriculture and its impressive population growth. For millennia, the highlands around Samaria had formed the best region in the country for the cultivation of vineyards and olive groves. Intensive archaeological surveys in the hilly regions to the south of Samaria have yielded evidence for unprecedented expansion of olive oil production in the Iron Age. In the eighth century, we see for the first time settlements built on rocky spurs in the heart of the best orchard-growing regions, whose inhabitants apparently specialized in this branch of agriculture (
Figure
25
). Scores of olive presses and other processing installations were cut in the bedrock around these villages, some of which may have been royal estates or at least built specifically for this purpose. There was no lack of potential markets: the olive oil from the highlands of Israel could have been profitably exported to Assyria and shipped to Egypt, since both Egypt and Assyria lacked prime olive-growing regions. Indeed the famous Samaria ostraca—a collection of sixty-three ink-inscribed pottery sherds written in Hebrew and plausibly dated to the time of Jeroboam II—record shipments of oil and wine from outlying villages to the capital city, Samaria.

That agricultural hinterland was, in the meantime, becoming more thickly populated than ever before. Tied to a world economy and facing no significant military threat, the population of the northern kingdom expanded dramatically. The large-scale surveys undertaken in the last few decades throw light on the dramatic demographic growth from the tenth to the eighth centuries
BCE
. By the late eighth century the northern kingdom—the highlands of Samaria and the northern valleys alike—was the most densely settled region in the entire Levant.
2

Figure 25: Plan of an oil-producing site in the highlands, northwest of Jerusalem.
After a plan published in
Atiqot.

Though the numbers are admittedly sketchy, they provide a general estimation that the population of the northern kingdom in the eighth century, including its territory in Transjordan, was about
350
,
000
. By the same procedure scholars estimate that in the Bronze Age, the population of the
entire
territory of western Palestine did not even reach
250
,
000
. The demographic growth is particularly dramatic when we consider that the highlands population in the Early Iron Age numbered hardly more than
45
,
000
. Even in the eighth century, the population of the kingdom of Judah did not count much more than
100
,
000
souls. The population of the
Transjordanian states of Ammon and Moab together hardly reached a third of the population of northern Israel.

These comparative numbers explain the military might and economic power of the northern kingdom. They also hint at the human resources of Israel, which enabled both a military buildup and impressive building activities. It appears that Joash, or more likely Jeroboam II, undertook major building operations not only at Megiddo (including the great water system and the two huge sets of stables) but also in the rebuilding of Hazor as a stronghold in the territories taken back from the Arameans and in the reconstruction of the city of Gezer, a strategic outpost of the northern kingdom on the borders of Judah and Philistia. A massive new city wall and gate at Gezer may date to this time.

The grandeur of the reborn kingdom of Israel is clear from the evidence. It is significant that Jeroboam II is the earliest Israelite monarch for whom we have an official seal. This exceptionally large and beautiful artifact was found in the beginning of the twentieth century at Megiddo. It depicts a powerful, roaring lion and a Hebrew inscription reading: “Belonging to Shema the servant [i.e., high official] of Jeroboam.” The design of the lion on the seal is typical of the eighth century
BCE
, so it cannot be ascribed to the earlier Jeroboam, who founded the northern kingdom almost two centuries earlier. By the standards of its prosperity, international connections, and expansive building projects, Jeroboam II’s realm may have remained alive in the memory of both Israelites and Judahites as the model for a glorious monarchy. Recall the famous passage of
1
Kings
9
:
15
, which describes the building activities of Solomon at Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer. Is it possible that the later Judahite author, composing his history almost a hundred years later, romantically (and patriotically) ascribed the ruins of the great structures built by Jeroboam to the golden age of Solomon?

Horses, it seems, were one of the northern kingdom’s most prized and most valuable products. Some tantalizing clues to the extent of horse breeding and training in Israel may come from the rebuilding of Megiddo in the time of Jeroboam II (
Figure 22
, p.
182
).

The most prominent element in the last Israelite city of Megiddo is the
two large complexes of pillared buildings that the University of Chicago team suggested in the
1920
s were stables built by Solomon—and later re-dated by Yadin as stables built by Ahab, who had marshaled such an enormous chariot force against the Assyrians at the battle of Qarqar. Whether arguing for an association with Solomon or with Ahab, the supporters of the stables theory argued that the horses were kept in long, narrow side aisles of the buildings, where they were tied to stone pillars and fed in the mangers placed between the pillars (
Figure 17
, p.
138
). The central aisle, whose floor was covered with smooth plaster, supposedly served as a service area, where the grooms could groom the horses and distribute feed. The archaeologists also suggested that the large courtyard in front of the southern set of stables served as a training and exercise yard.

There was only one problem with this attractive theory: no items related to horses, chariotry, or cavalry were found in any of the buildings. And the side aisles of similar structures uncovered at other sites were filled with pottery vessels, which suggested to many scholars that
all
such three-aisled buildings were used as storehouses. Some theorized that the mangers found in the Megiddo buildings were used to feed beasts of burden, probably donkeys, who brought goods to the storehouses in caravans. Other scholars proposed that the pillared buildings at Megiddo, as well as at other places in the region, served as army barracks or even as public bazaars.

In the ongoing excavations at Megiddo, attempts are being made to resolve the problem by the systematic chemical testing of earth recently excavated from the floors of the pillared buildings—to identify traces of feed or animal excrement. So far the results are inconclusive. But one thing has already been clarified in the renewed excavations. We should not expect to find any significant horse-related items in the buildings, since after the Assyrian takeover of the city they were thoroughly cleaned and at least partially reused, and later dismantled at the time of their abandonment. They were intentionally destroyed by having their walls pulled down.

Due to the redating of the Megiddo strata—and the reassessment of the archaeological history of the northern kingdom—we can now reject the earlier theories and say with confidence that the stable-like structures at Megiddo belong to the time of Jeroboam II. Ahab, though clearly maintaining a great chariot force, constructed the great palaces at Megiddo that
precede
the level of the “stables” (even though some scholars suggest that
this city too, which was only partially excavated, had stables). But linking the “stables” to Jeroboam II does not definitively settle the problem of their function. Are there any other clues for highlighting the importance of horses in the kingdom of Israel—and perhaps understanding Israel’s military role in the larger Assyrian imperial society?