Historical Biblical Archaeology and the Future by Thomas Evan Levy

Author:Thomas Evan Levy [Levy, Thomas Evan]
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9781845532581
Barnesnoble:
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Published: 2010-09-01T00:00:00+00:00

Samaria Parallel

A third main argument for Finkelstein’s low chronology is based on a comparison of Megiddo VA–VIB and Samaria building period I. The monumental palace unearthed in Samaria, like the palace at Jezreel, was built during the reign of Omri in the 9th century according to the biblical evidence (1 Kgs 16:23–24). Also like the case of Jezreel, all parties agree that the stratum in question represents the 9th century. Norma Franklin—a doctoral student of Finkelstein’s—claims that there is a close parallel between stratum VA-IVB at Megiddo and the Building Period I of Samaria, which supports a 9th-century date for the Megiddo stratum. The comparison in this case, however, is not based on pottery typology—it is based on parallels in the construction style of the two strata. Franklin compares three specific elements of Palace 1723 of Megiddo with Samaria I:

To summarize, at Megiddo and Samaria, both palaces attest to the use of the short cubit of 0.45 meters, both palaces are built using roughly hewn ashlars devoid of drafted margins or intervening fieldstone courses, and significantly both palaces have unique masons’ marks inscribed on the ashlars contained in their foundation courses. These three similarities testify to a clear technical, and therefore also a chronological, correlation between Samaria Building Period I and Megiddo Stratum V. (Franklin 2005a: 319; cf. 2005b: 143)

Finkelstein has repeatedly endorsed this argument as a point in favor of his chronology (Finkelstein 2000a: 244; 2000b: 129; 2002a: 125; 2004: 185; Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2003b: 773; 2006a: 384). Since one of us has critiqued this argument in detail elsewhere, we will give only a brief summary of the problems with the three points of Franklin’s comparison: cubit length, ashlar style, and masons’ marks.10

Short Cubits

Measurements of ancient Israelite structures are not the clean data one might imagine. This is mainly because, based on excavated buildings we can measure, the Israelites did not seem to care much for precision. It is almost impossible to divide any structure’s dimensions into consistent units of length. Thus, for Franklin to prove that the two buildings in Megiddo and Samaria were based on the same cubit measure, she must round the measurements up or down to suit her conclusions—sometimes by relatively large amounts.11 It is not at all clear, based on Franklin’s measurements, that it is possible to determine which cubit was used for these buildings.

Additionally, it is just as important to determine when the cubit in question was used.12 Why should we connect the 45 cm cubit with the 9th century but not the 10th? Franklin says that the short cubit in question—which most agree was borrowed from Egypt’s 6-palm cubit—dates to the 22nd ‘Libyan’ Dynasty (935–730) of the Third Intermediate Period, which overlaps with Omri’s 9th-century reign in Samaria (Franklin 2004: 90–91; 2005a: 321). This is true, but it is only part of the picture. The short cubit is also attested on two Egyptian cubit rods from the 18th Dynasty (1550–1295) of the New Kingdom,13 and is in use as late as the 26th Dynasty (664–525) (Wilkinson 2005: 260).

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.