Folia Theologica 16. (2005)

Solomon Pasala: Archaeological Evidences for Solomonic period

ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCES

139

BC. A second point was the attribution of the destruction of Megiddo IVB-VA and related assemblages to Shoshenq's raid42.

Answering Finkelstein's argument that "one cannot accept the idea that daily pottery...would remain restricted the original Philistine centers for several decades.../' Mazar says it is unconvincing because the few shreds of this pottery found outside the main cities of the Philistine Pentapolis are negligible in comparison to the vast quantities present in Ashdom and Ekron43. He is of the opinion that, in spite of the difficulties pointed out by Finkelstein, he sees no reason to push the beginning of the Philistine settlement in the territory of Philistia to more than 40 years after Ramsess Ill's eighth year. In his view, Phases 2 and 3 should be united into one phase44.

Jezreel is a major reference point for Finkelstein's discussion. Because it was founded by the Omrides in the ninth century and its pottery is "somewhat similar" to that of Megiddo 1VB-VB, he claims that a ninth century BC date is indicated for the latter. Thus "Solomonic" Megiddo should be moved, according to his view, to the time of the Omrides. In the opinion of Mazar the resemblance of Jezreel to Megiddo has still to be proved45.

In the opinion of Mazar, Finkellstein's ideas concerning Megiddo raises formidable questions rather than solving problems. For the eleventh century BC he leaves only Stratum VIB, a poor level identified only in some of the excavation areas. Stratum VI is dated by him to the tenth century BC, Stratum IVB-VA to the ninth century and stratum IVA is pushed into the late ninth or eighth century BC. These dates turn Megiddo of the United Monarchy into a flourishing Canaanite city with some elements of Sea People culture, while Ahab's Megiddo is basically an unfortified city.46

In one of his main conclusions Finkelstien says "from the archaeological perspective, the line between the Iron Age I and Iron

II....should be put in the early ninth century rather than c. 1000 BC", In the opinion of Mazar this interpretation is unacceptable on basis

42 A. MAZAR. «Iron Age Chronology», 157.

43 A. MAZAR. «Iron Age Chronology», 158.

44 A. MAZAR. «Iron Age Chronology». 159.

45 A. MAZAR. «Iron Age Chronology», 161.

46 A. MAZAR. «Iron Age Chronology», 161.