Hazael destructions workshop – Jan. 19, 2017

As mentioned previously, on Thursday, Jan. 19th, 2017, the first workshop of 2017 for of the RIAB Minerva Center, was held at BIU, and the topic was discussions of sites with possible remains of a Hazael-related destruction, and sites of similar chronological/regional sequences. This included papers on Tell es-Safi/Gath, Gezer, Tel Hamid, Aphek and Jerusalem.

In the 2nd part of the day, a workshop in which pottery from Tell es-Safi/Gath and Gezer were displayed and discussed.

One the things that clearly could be seen from the discussions is that very distinct “micro-regionality” can be seen at sites from the 9th and early 8th cent. BCE in the Shephelah, Philistia and the southern parts of the Israelite (northern) Kingdom, and it may very well be that pottery types that are often seen as indicative of this or that chronological phase, may appear at earlier or later phases at different sites. Similarly, sites which are very close to one another, have very distinct differences in more or less the same chronological horizon.

What is clear from this day was that more research and joint discussions and workshops are needed. We have to have additional ones in the future.

The lectures in the first part were filmed live, using “Facebook Live” – which turns out is an excellent method to live stream an entire series of lectures and discussions, for those who could not be at the workshop.

And here are some pictures from the pottery workshop, with discussions on the Gezer and Tell es-Safi/Gath materials.

3 thoughts on “Hazael destructions workshop – Jan. 19, 2017

  1. Hello Dr. Maier. I have a question about your view of Et-Tell, Khirbet el-Maqatir and Ai.

    The first thing to note is the amazingly problematic identification of Et-Tell as Ai, when it’s bigger than Gibeon (contradicting Joshua 10:2), abandoned nowhere near the time of the conquest, etc. I’m sure we’re both aware of this.

    I remember reading a paper of yours from 2011 where you rejected the identification of Ai as Khirbet el-Maqatir because the pottery noted in Wood’s ‘The Search for Joshua’s Ai’ was not from the early LB as he said, but late MB as you postulated. However, since your 2011 paper, excavations at Khirbet el-Maqatir have yielded a scarab that seems to undeniably date to the LB I, about 1550 – 1400 BC. If this scarab is legit and does date to when it seems to be dated to, would this change your view on the identification of Ai from Et-Tell to Khirbet el Maqatir?

    Like

    1. arenmaeir

      The problems with IDing Kh. el-Maqatir as Ai are not limited to whether or not there is early LB at the site. The main problem with this suggestion is the lack of overall support for the supposition that the Exodus/Conquest occurred in the late MB/early LB. For a broad range of reasons (a topic to long to be discussed here), this suggestion runs counter to just about everything we currently know about the archaeology of the Southern Levant, historical sources of the period, modern study of the Bible, etc.
      It just does not fit…
      Best
      Aren

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s