Sei sulla pagina 1di 18

171

The Last Labayu:


King Saul and the Expansion of
the First North Israelite Territorial Entity

Israel Finkelstein

Tel Aviv University

One of Nadav Naamans major elds of interest has been the Amarna ar-
chive. Nadav has contributed perhaps more than any other scholar to the study
of the geographical and historical aspects of the correspondence. His special
interest in this broad eld has been the character of the highland territories:
Jerusalem (Naaman 1992a), Shechem (Naaman 1975: 2746), and Amurru.
In fact, this has been a topic of mutual interest for both of us, and Nadav and
I have cooperated more than once (Goren, Finkelstein, and Naaman 2003;
Finkelstein and Naaman in press). In many of his studies, Naaman has em-
phasized the importance of the Amarna Letters for analyzing the situation in
Canaan in the Iron I (for example, Naaman 1996). In this essay dedicated to
a teacher, colleague, and friend, I wish to point out an example of a possible
Amarna-like situation in the Iron I: the case of the Saulide region in the high-
lands. Not surprisingly, the history of the Saulide dynasty has also been a
theme of interest for Naaman (1990; 1992b).

Preliminary Comments

The biblical story of King Saul and his heirs raises difcult questions: about
its historicity, the date of the events described, the geographical background,
andmost importantthe source of the narrative (the theological and literary
perspectives related to the Saul narrative will not be dealt with in this essay).
In order to judge whether Saul and the Saulide dynasty can be considered
historically reliable, one should evaluate them according to four considerations:
1. the geographical and historical progression within the biblical story;
2. what we know about the sociopolitical development in the highlands of
Canaan in the second millennium

b.c.e

.;
3. the relevance of the sole extrabiblical text on late Iron I Canaan, the
Shoshenq I list from the Temple of Amun in Karnak (Naaman 1998;
Finkelstein 2002a);
If Finkelstein and
Naaman in press
has appeared,
please update
information.
Please update
any other in
press or
forthcoming
items

00-NaamanFs.book Page 171 Wednesday, June 28, 2006 5:24 PM

Israel Finkelstein

172

4. the results of archaeological explorations (excavations and surveys alike)
on the GibeonBethel pleateau.
I believe that the evidence resulting from these four considerations proves the
Saulide regime to be historical in its main framework, though not necessarily
in details. In what follows, I will try to show that the biblical story reects, in
the main, positive Northern oral traditions on the Saulides, which were put
into writing in Judah in the late 8th century. At this stage they were manipu-
lated to serve the royal ideology of the Jerusalem dynasty (Finkelstein and Sil-
berman 2006). I begin with the rst two items in my list above.
The geography of the Saulide entity in the biblical narrative is detailed and
accurate. This of course may stem from its proximity to Jerusalem, that is, to
the location of the late-monarchic authors. But the fact that some of the topo-
nyms (for example, 1 Sam 9:4) seem to pre-date Deuteronomistic place-names
(which are evident in the tribal lists in the book of Joshua) seems to strengthen
the credibility of the story. And as I will demonstrate later, this is a rare case in
which archaeology supports rather than contradicts a biblical narrative about
the formative phases in the history of early Israel. The fact that the text de-
scribes a territorial entity centered around the plateau to the north of Jerusa-
lem rather than in the traditional centers (such as Shechem or Samaria) also
lends it trustworthiness. In other words, if this were a late, ahistorical construct
based on realities closer to the time of the redactors, one would expect the
center of the events to be farther north.
As for the sociopolitical and territorial realities, the biblical description of
the rise and rule of Saul is consonant with the long history of strongmen who
established early territorial domains (more than city-states and less than devel-
oped states) in the highlands. Expansion of these highland holdings took place
in various regions and periodsfrom the Bronze Age to recent centuries: that
is, from Labayu, the ruler of Shechem (Finkelstein and Naaman in press), and
Abdi-Ashirta and Aziru, the rulers of Amurru (Goren, Finkelstein, and
Naaman 2003) in the Amarna period, to the rise of Fakhr ad-Din in the
mountains of Lebanon (Abu Husayn 1985: 67128) and Dahir al-Umar in
the Galilee during the Ottoman period (Cohen 1973: 718). Expansion usu-
ally occurred in twilight periods, when no great empire ruled the region (this
ts, for example, the case of the Saulide dynasty), when a great empire was
weak and unable to enforce its rule, or in a friction zone between two neigh-
boring empires.
I turn now to the last two items in my list above (the Shoshenq I list and
the archaeological nds in the highlands), which deserve a more detailed
discussion.

00-NaamanFs.book Page 172 Wednesday, June 28, 2006 5:24 PM

The Last Labayu

173

Soshenq I and the Highlands to
the North of Jerusalem

I have dealt with the Soshenq I campaign in detail elsewhere (Finkelstein
2002a), so an updated summary of the arguments will sufce. Comprehensive
studies of late Iron I and early Iron IIA pottery in recent years (Arie 2004;
Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2004; Finkelstein and Piasetzky in press) and an ac-
cumulation of new

14

C samples from late Iron I destruction layers (Boaretto
et al. 2005; Finkelstein and Piasetzky in press) have resulted in a change in
some of my views, mainly with regard to the identication of the levels in the
north from the time of the Egyptian campaign.

A Word about Dating

I should begin by saying that the traditional dating, which places Saul in the
late 11th century and the Shoshenq I campaign in 926

b.c.e

. (almost a century
later) does not stand in the way of this study.
The widely accepted date for Sauls reign, ca. 10251005

b.c.e

., is calcu-
lated on the basis of the biblical sequence and numbers: counting back from
later monarchs for whom we have extrabiblical synchronisms; accepting the
biblical testimony to a 40-year reign for both Solomon (1 Kgs 11:42) and Da-
vid (2 Sam 5:4); and acknowledging the biblical order Saul


David


Solomon
(for example, Cogan 1992).
Most scholars agree that the accession formula with regard to Saul in 1 Sam
13:1 (stating that he ruled Israel for 2 years) is garbled. Reviewing the se-
quence of events in Sauls reign, especially his military exploits, scholars have
come to the conclusion that he must have ruled for a signicant number of
years. Taking into account the number that does appear in the text, they
speculate that the original number must have been 20 or 22 years of reign
(summary in Edelman 1992: 99293).
However, none of this can serve as solid evidence. The 40-year reigns of
Solomon and David should be considered symbolic (typological; see, for ex-
ample, Handy 1997: 1012; Ash 1999: 2425), and the evidence for the
length of Sauls rule is highly unreliable (Blenkinsopp 1972: 55; Ahlstrm
1993: 452; Hughes 1990: 6061). Moreover, the sequential ordering of the
three early Israelite monarchs may have been the work of a later redactor.
From the text itself we cannot know for sure whether David ruled after Saul
or whether their reigns overlapped. Edelman rightly argued that: A date for
Saul cannot be rmly established. . . . He was associated with Israel, so any at-
tempt to situate him in time needs to be done in relation to other Israelite
kings whose existence can be veried by extrabiblical documentation. . . . It
would seem logical to place Saul sometime during the tenth century

b.c.e

.

00-NaamanFs.book Page 173 Wednesday, June 28, 2006 5:24 PM

Israel Finkelstein

174

(Edelman 1996: 158; see also Ahlstrm 1993: 451). In addition, we do not
know the number of Saulide rulers or their exact lengths of reign.
The widely accepted dating of the Shoshenq I Palestinian campaign to 926

b.c.e

. is similarly unreliable, because it is based solely on the biblical reference
to Shishak (1 Kgs 14:25).

1

The complicated chronology of the 21st and 22nd
Egyptian Dynasties (for example, Hagens 1996; Dodson 2000) provides a mar-
gin of several years plus or minus in the dating of Shoshenq I (Wente 1976:
276; Dodson 2000: 8). In addition, it is not clear whether Shoshenq launched
this campaign early in his reign or late (Redford 1973: 10; 1992: 312; Dodson
2000: 8). Thus, the Shoshenq I campaign could have taken place almost any
time in the mid-to-late 10th century

b.c.e

. (see also Ash 1999: 2734). One
can hardly be more precise.

The Shoshenq I List, the Highlands, and Transjordan

Of the three main areas mentioned in the Shoshenq I listthe Negeb, the
Jezreel Valley, and the central highlands plus the Jabbok areathe most im-
portant for this discussion is the latter.
A group of toponyms in the Shoshenq I list includes places to the north of
Jerusalem. The names that have been identied with certainty are Beth-horon
(no. 24), Gibeon (no. 23), and Zemaraim (no. 57). Zemaraim is mentioned in
the list of the cities of Benjamin ( Josh 18:22) together with Bethel and
Ophrah (the village of et-Taiyibeh to the northeast of Beitin = Bethel). It
should be sought in a high spot (Mount Zemaraim), probably to the south of
Bethel, Jeshanah (= Burj el-Lisaneh; Albright 1923: 78; Finkelstein, Leder-
man, and Bunimovitz 1997: 57377), and Ophrah (2 Chr 13:4, 19). The only
reasonable location is Ras et-Tahune in el-Bireh (Kallai 1971), an Iron Age site
located on a commanding hill overlooking the entire region (Finkelstein, Le-
derman, and Bunimovitz 1997: 51213). The three sites mentioned in the
Shoshenq I list are located, therefore, in one restricted area of the highlands,
to the north of Jerusalem. It is noteworthy that the Shoshenq I list also men-
tions a group of sites along the Jabbok River to the east of the Jordan: Adamah
(no. 56), Succoth (no. 55), Penuel (no. 53), and Mahanaim (no. 22). It is
equally important to point out that other parts of the highlandsJerusalem,
all of the Judean highlands, and (except for one possible place) northern Sa-
mariaare missing from the list.

1. The reference to the fth year of Rehoboam may have been schematically arranged
to t the theology of the Deuteronomistic Historian (Hughes 1990: 78, 193). No wonder
that several scholars have moved the campaign from the time of Rehoboam to the days
of Solomon (Garbini 1988: 2930; Redford 1992: 315; Niemann 1997: 297).

spread is 3 points short

00-NaamanFs.book Page 174 Wednesday, June 28, 2006 5:24 PM

The Last Labayu

175

One may argue that the name

Jerusalem

had originally been included but
was not preserved (Niemann 1997: 297). This is possible but not likely, be-
cause rows II and V of the list, which mention places in the highlands to the
north of Jerusalem, do not have many damaged toponyms. Moreover, no
other Judahite town (in the highlands or in the Shephelah) appears on the list.
Most scholars explain the absence of Judah by adapting the biblical story in
1 Kings 14 to the reality of the Shoshenq I list: Jerusalem

was

subdued but was
saved from destruction by a heavy ransomthe temple treasures that were
handed over to the pharaoh at Gibeon (for example, Herrmann 1964; Kitchen
1986: 447). This interpretation of the events is hardly acceptable. First, why
would Shoshenq I receive the surrender tribute at Gibeon and not in the cap-
ital of Judah, located only 10 km to the south? Second, had Shoshenq subdued
the capital of a great United Monarchy, even without conquering it, he would
certainly have included it in his list (Knauf 1991: 182 n. 60).
Indeed, new analyses of the archaeological data from Jerusalem have shown
that the settlement of the 10th century

b.c.e

. was no more than a small, poor
highland village without monumental construction (Finkelstein 2001; Ussish-
kin 2003). Furthermore, archaeological surveys have revealed that at that time
the hill country of Judah to the south of Jerusalem was sparsely inhabited by
a few relatively small settlements, with no larger, fortied towns (Ofer 1994).
No less important, apparently the expansion of Judah to include the territories
of the Shephelah and Beer-sheba Valley did not take place before the 9th cen-
tury

b.c.e

. (Finkelstein 2001). This means that the rst signs of statehood in
Judah appeared only in the 9th century

b.c.e

., probably in its later stage. At
the time of the Shoshenq I campaign, Judah was a marginal, bilateral chief-
dom in the southern highlands and was ruled from a small village. All of these
details render the biblical description of the events in the fth year of Reho-
boam highly unlikely. First and foremost, the poor material culture of Judah
in the 10th century leaves no room to imagine great wealth in the temple
certainly not wealth great enough to appease an Egyptian pharaoh. Indeed, at
least some of the repeated references to the looting of the treasures of the
temple in the Deuteronomistic History (Mullen 1992) should probably be
seen as a theological construct rather than as historical references.
Although the absence of Jerusalem and the Judean highlands from the Sho-
shenq I list may sound logical because of the sparseness of Iron I occupation in
the southern hill country (Ofer 1994), sparse occupation could not have been
the reason for the absence of northern Samaria, the most densely settled area
in the hill country in Iron I. Shechem, the most important city in this area, is
not mentioned, and the same holds true for other important places, such as Ta-
puah and Dothan.

00-NaamanFs.book Page 175 Wednesday, June 28, 2006 5:24 PM

Israel Finkelstein

176

It is noteworthy that the two regions mentioned in the Shoshenq I list (the
highlands to the north of Jerusalem and the Jabbok area) are far from the main
international highways and were never of interest to the Egyptian pharaohs.
Moreover, in the time of the New Kingdom, Egyptian pharaohs refrained
from penetrating into the sparsely settled, wooded, rugged, hostile hill coun-
try. The march of Shoshenq I on this area is therefore an exception. Having
concluded that the target was probably not Jerusalem, one needs to ask what
it was that attracted the attention of the Egyptian pharaoh to this relatively re-
mote area of no real geopolitical importance. The only reasonable answer is
that the area around Gibeon (together with the Jabbok region) was the hub of
an emerging body politic that threatened Egyptian interests in Canaan.
The GibeonBethel area was relatively densely settled in the Iron I, with
clear evidence of a hierarchy that was based on size of the towns (Finkelstein
and Magen 1993). A strong regional authority could have developed there in
the late Iron I. One way in which a strong territorial entity of this sort could
have threatened Egyptian interests was by attempting to expand into northern
Samaria and the areas near the Jezreel Valley.

Shoshenq I, the Saulide Territory, and Archaeology

Is it possible to tie this somewhat theoretical interpretation of the texts to
archaeology? The answer may be yes. Excavations and surveys revealed that
throughout the entire highlands, most Iron I settlements were occupied unin-
terruptedly in the Iron II (for example, compare lists in Finkelstein, Lederman,
and Bunimovitz 1997: 894902). The only systemic exceptionthat is, a

clus-
ter

of sites (rather than single sites) that were abandoned during early Iron
IIAis found precisely in the area under discussion, the GibeonBethel area.

2

Three cases t this description:
1. Iron Iearly Iron IIA sites that were abandoned and not reoccupied in
the later phases of Iron II: Kh. Raddana (Lederman 1999), et-Tell
(Marquet-Krause 1949: 2224; Callaway 1976: 2930), and Kh. ed-
Dawwara (Finkelstein 1990though this site may have survived a bit
longer than the rst two; see Finkelstein and Piasetzky in press).

2. After my rst article on the Shoshenq I campaign had been published, I noticed that
the sites under discussion continued to be inhabited in the early phase of Iron IIA. For an
extensive discussion of ceramic nds, see Finkelstein and Piasetzky in press. The ceramic
assemblage is also one of the reasons for my somewhat revised view regarding Shoshenq I
and the stratigraphy of the Jezreel Valley sites (below).

00-NaamanFs.book Page 176 Wednesday, June 28, 2006 5:24 PM

The Last Labayu

177

2. Sites that were abandoned and were resettled only in late Iron II: Tell el-
Ful (compare the pottery of Periods III and III in Sinclair 1960: pls.
2021 and 2223, respectively; see also Lapp 1993) and possibly Gibeon
and Ras et-Tahune (= Zemaraim); surveys in Ras et-Tahune yielded
Iron I and late Iron II sherds (Finkelstein, Lederman, and Bunimovitz
1997: 51213).
3. Sites that were signicantly diminished in size in Iron II; this group
seems to include Kh. Tell el-Askar, a large Iron I settlement that also
produced a limited quantity of Iron II sherds (Feldstein et al. 1993: 187
89) and possibly Gibeon.
This phenomenon of site abandonment could have been caused by many dif-
ferent events, but the possibility that it was the result of the Shoshenq I cam-
paign is the most attractive theory. In other words, it seems logical to suggest
that the Egyptian campaign was directed against a late Iron I regional power
that was centered around the GibeonBethel plateau and that the campaign
resulted in the abandonment of many sites in this region.
The only literary clue to a late Iron I territorial formation centered in the
vicinity of Gibeon is the biblical account of the days of Saul. Both the Sho-
shenq I list and the biblical sources describing the Saulide territorial entity de-
scribe the same niche in the hill country to the north of Jerusalem, and both
connect it with the Jabbok area; the biblical story specically connects the
Gibeon area with Jabesh-gilead (1 Samuel 11; 2 Sam 2:47) and Mahanaim
(see 2 Sam 2:12). As I have stressed above, this geographical combination of
the same two relatively remote areas is unique, and the possibility that this is
a mere coincidence seems highly unlikely. This is especially true because the
two sources seem to describe events that were far apart chronologically.
One may ask if the biblical material on the Saulide territorial entity is
historically reliable. It is widely accepted that 1 Samuel contains pre-Deuter-
onomistic material that was incorporated into the Deuteronomistic History
(McCarter 1980b: 2627; Noth 1981: 77, 86; Rost 1982; Naaman 1992b).
But it could not have been put into writing in the 10th century

b.c.e

. (contra
the widely accepted theory of, for example, Rost 1982; von Rad 1966: 176
204; McCarter 1980b; Halpern 2001). First, the account of a great United
Monarchy is a late-monarchic ideological construct (e.g., Miller 1997; Knauf
1997; Niemann 1997; Finkelstein and Silberman 2001: 12345; Finkelstein
and Silberman 2006). Second, archaeology has shown that signicant scribal
activity did not appear in Judah prior to the 8th century

b.c.e

. (Schniede-
wind 2004). It seems to me that (oral?) northern Saul traditions reached Ju-
dah with Israelite refugees in the late 8th century

b.c.e

., after the fall of the
Northern Kingdom. Evaluation of data recorded in archaeological surveys in

00-NaamanFs.book Page 177 Wednesday, June 28, 2006 5:24 PM

Israel Finkelstein

178

the highlands indicates that many of these refugees came from southern Sa-
maria (near Bethel and near the hub of the ancient Saulide entity). In late-8th-
century Jerusalem, these traditions were incorporated into a grand history of
the early days of the Davidic dynasty, a history that served the needs and goals
of the dynasty in a time when Judah was revolutionized demographically and
transformed, almost overnight, into a full-blown state (see in detail in Finkel-
stein and Silberman 2006). This suggests that, ignoring propaganda, apologia
(McCarter 1980a; Halpern 2001: 73103), and insertion of later details, at
least the general framework of the story about the Saulide entity should be
taken as a genuine (though somewhat vague) Northern memory.
Going back to geographical consideration: throughout history, as long as
the highland entities did not expand to the fertile, rich, strategically important

lowlands

, they did not pose a threat to neighboring powers. Is it possible that
the Saulide entity did just that?

The Territory of the Saulide Entity

The biblical text is not clear on the extent of the territory that was ruled by
Saul. It tells us that he was a Benjaminite and that the hub of his territory was
the land of his tribe and immediately to its north. The places that play a dom-
inant role in the Saul stories (Ramah, Mizpah, Geba, Michmash, and Gibeon)
are all located in the highlands immediately north of Jerusalem. When Saul
searches for the lost asses of his father, Kish (1 Samuel 9), he goes to the hill
country of Ephraim, to the land of Shalishah, to the land of Shaalim, and to
the land of Benjamin. The rst and last names correspond to tribal territories.
The other two are usually sought on the southern ank of the land of Ephraim
(Edelman 1988). Sauls center of power may have been located at Gibeon
(Blenkinsopp 1974; Ahlstrm 1993: 436; Edelman 1996: 15556; van der
Toorn 1993: 52023; Knauf 2001: 17). And, as mentioned above, the text
emphasizes the connection of the Saulides with Jabesh-gilead and Maha-
naimboth of which are located east of the Jordan, in the Gilead-Jabbok area.
Another clue to the territory of the Saulides comes from the description of
the territory of Ish-bosheth (Ishbaal), the son of Saul, who was made king
over Gilead, the Ashurites, Jezreel, Ephraim, and Benjamin and all Israel
(2 Sam 2:9). This description has usually been considered a genuine historical
memory of the territory ruled by the Saulides, partly because it does not cor-
respond to any later reality in the history of Israel. The location of Ephraim,
Benjamin, and Gilead is clear. The Ashurite district should probably be sought
in the southwestern sector of the hill country of Ephraim, which had an Ash-
erite enclave (Edelman 1985; this enclave is referred to in the genealogy of the
tribe of Asher in 1 Chr 7:3031, which mentions Birzait, the mound in the

00-NaamanFs.book Page 178 Wednesday, June 28, 2006 5:24 PM

The Last Labayu

179

village of Bir Zeit to the northwest of present-day Ramallah). Jezreel must re-
fer to the valley or its southern margins.

3

Edelman (1985) noted that the verse
uses two different Hebrew prepositions: Ish-bosheth was made king

al

(over) Benjamin and Ephraim and

el

(to) the Gilead, the Ashurites, and
Jezreel. She proposed that the rst term refers to direct rule, while the second
represents outlying areas where Sauls (and thus Ish-bosheths) sovereignty
would have been respected but not directly administered.
To sum up this point, minimalists consider the extent of the kingdom of
Saul to be Benjamin, Ephraim, and the Jabbok area (Miller and Hayes 1986:
141; Ahlstrm 1993: 440), and maximalists add the Gilead and northern Sa-
maria as far as the Jezreel Valley (Naaman 1990; Edelman 1992: 997; Knauf
2001: 16). Taking into account the strong memories that link Saul to Mt. Gil-
boa and Beth-shean in the southern Jezreel Valley, I tend to agree with the
maximalists. The Saulide dynasty probably ruled the Israelite highlands from
the area north of Jerusalem to the margin of the Jezreel Valley, with an exten-
sion into the GileadJabbok areas in the east. There is good reason to assume,
then, that this is parallel to a situation during the Amarna period, when a
northern highland power attempted to expand into the Jezreel Valley and by
doing so threatened Egyptian interests there.

The Last Labayu

Nadav Naaman and I have recently compared the expansion of the North-
ern Kingdom in the days of the Omrides to the attempts of the 14th-century
ruler of Shechem, Labayu, to establish a territorial state in the highlands (Fin-
kelstein and Naaman in press). I argue that the case of the Saulide dynasty is
not very different. In fact, Saul and the Saulides may compare better with La-
bayu than do the Omrides. Both Saul and Labayu established a large territorial
entity in the highlands; both seem to have attempted to expand into the low-
lands; and both failed to do so.
The Amarna Letters describe the attempts of Labayu and his sons to expand
their dominion primarily in two directions: across the Jordan to the east and
into the Jezreel Valley to the north. In the east, the words of Balu-

ur.sag

in
EA 250: 3538 indicate that the sons of Labayu attempted to take over Pihilu
in the eastern Jordan Valley, facing Beth-shean (Naaman 1975: 39; Moran
1992: 3034; Liverani 1998: 141). EA 255 discloses that Mut-Bahlu, the ruler
of Pihilu, was the son of Labayu. In EA 256 Mut-Bahlu says that he helped

3. Naaman (1990) read the latter two toponyms as up to Jezreel and the Geshurites,
but his reconstructed Saulide territory remains the same: the entire central hill country
north of Jerusalem and the Gilead.

00-NaamanFs.book Page 179 Wednesday, June 28, 2006 5:24 PM

Israel Finkelstein

180

Ashtaroth when all the cities of Garu had become hostile. Hostilities be-
tween Ashtaroth and Hazor are mentioned in EA 364. This should probably
be understood as a struggle for control over the international road that passed
from Beth-shean through the southern Golan and Bashan to Ashtaroth and
the east (Naaman 1975: 43).
In the north, Megiddo was a bitter enemy of Labayu and his sons and was
physically threatened by them (EA 244246). EA 249 and 250 disclose that
Balu-

ur.sag

, the sender, was also an enemy of Labayu and his sons. From the
content of EA 250 it is quite clear that Balu-

ur.sag

ruled in the Jezreel Val-
ley, and because Megiddo dominated the western sector of the valley, it is
reasonable to infer that he governed in the east (see also his reference to Da-
mascus in EA 250: 2327). Indeed, the petrographic investigation of EA 249
points to Rehob as the possible seat of Balu-

ur.sag

(Goren, Finkelstein, and
Naaman 2002; 2004: 24850). After Labayus death, his sons put strong pres-
sure on Balu-

ur.sag

in an effort to persuade him to switch sides, support the
Shechem alliance, and attack the men of Gina (EA 250: 1519). Bayadi, the
author of EA 237238 (Goren, Finkelstein, and Naaman 2004: 24043) was
an ally of Labayu. He complains that, after the capture of Labayu, Labayus
enemies attacked him (Bayadi) and conquered his towns (see Naaman 1975:
3738; 1997: 616). The petrographic investigation (Goren, Finkelstein, and
Naaman 2004: 24043) indicates that his city was located in eastern Lower
Galilee, probably at Tel Rekhesh (Tell el-Mukharkhash) in Nahal Tavor (for
the site, see Gal 1981), most likely the site of the Canaanite and biblical city of
Anaharath (Aharoni 1967; Goren, Finkelstein, and Naaman 2004: 24143).
Therefore, at the peak of success, Shechem and its allies dominated the
highlands of Samaria, the Jordan Valley, and (I propose) at least part of Gilead;
they also put pressure on city-states in the Jezreel Valley that were loyal to
Egyptian rule, specically to the Egyptian stronghold at Beth-shean (EA 244,
246, 248, and 250). They advanced against the city-states of Megiddo and Re-
hob and seem to have managed to gain territory in several places in the valley.
These maneuvers threatened the Egyptian interests in Canaan, and as a result
Labayu was captured and killed.
The expansion of the Saulide entity in the 10th century

b.c.e

. is parallel in
several ways to these 14th-century

b.c.e

. events. In the east, it is quite clear
that the Saulide territory included at least parts of the Gilead and the Jabbok
area. In the north, 2 Sam 2:9 and the northern traditions that linked the death
of Saul to Mt. Gilboa and Beth-shean seem to hint that the Saulide territory
reached at least the margin of the Jezreel Valley. Archaeology may provide evi-
dence to support this notion.
In another place I have dealt with the revival of Canaanite city-states in the
Jezreel Valley in the Iron I (Finkelstein 2003). The main centers of this system,
spread is 9 points long

00-NaamanFs.book Page 180 Wednesday, June 28, 2006 5:24 PM

The Last Labayu

181

which I have labeled New Canaan, were located at Megiddo, Yokneam,
Taanach, and Tel Rehov in the Jezreel Valley; Tell Keisan in the Acco plain
(all of these were also important centers in the Late Bronze Age; Goren,
Finkelstein, and Naaman 2004); Kinnereth on the northern shore of the Sea
of Galilee; and Dor on the coast. Beth-shean also ourished at this time,
though it was a much smaller site. These cities peaked in prosperity in late
Iron Ithe horizon of Stratum VIA at Megiddoand were then destroyed
in a violent conagration. Radiocarbon dates from Tel Rehov, Dor, Yokneam,
Megiddo, and contemporary Tel Hadar put this destruction sometime in the
10th century

b.c.e

. (Boaretto et al. 2005; 965 40 in Finkelstein and Pia-
setzky in press).
There are two candidates for the agent of this 10th-century destruction.
According to one theory, the New Canaan centers were hit by a killer earth-
quake (Kempinski 1989: 90). Marco and Agnon have recently identied pos-
sible (though not decisive) evidence of an event of this sort in a study of the
seismic history of Megiddo (Marco et al. in press). The fact that not many
skeletons were found under collapse debris at these sites and the fact that pot-
tery analysis appears to indicate differences in the dates of the destructions
(Arie 2004) somewhat weaken this theory.
The second alternative is destruction by humans. There are two possible
explanations, both compatible with the

14

C results (Finkelstein and Piasetzky
in press: table 7). According to the rst theory, the New Canaan system was
attacked by Shoshenq I. The Karnak relief shows that the Jezreel Valley was
one of the main targets of his campaign; Megiddo, Rehov, Taanach, and Beth-
shean are specically mentioned in his list, and a fragment of a Shoshenq I
stele was found at Megiddo (unfortunately in an unstratied context). Several
problems with this theory have been raised. Ussishkin (1990: 7273) doubts
that a pharaoh would erect a stele at a ruined site (at Megiddo). One might
also ask why a pharaoh, who was probably interested in a long-term Egyptian
inuence in Canaan, would destroy the most important centers of the fertile
valley. Indeed, there are no contemporary destruction layers in the other two
areas conquered by Shoshenq I: the Negeb and the central highlands. In addi-
tion, the radiocarbon results of samples taken from the destruction layers un-
der discussion may be a bit too high for the Shoshenq I campaign.
The second explanation involving destruction by humans is that expanding
settlement in the highlands dealt a blow to the cities of the lowlandsat least
the cities in the southern Jezreel Valley.

4

This destruction did not occur all at

4. It is noteworthy that at least three of the four sites in the valley that were destroyed
in late Iron I (Yokneam, Megiddo, and Rehov) belonged to the anti-Shechem coalition in
the Amarna period (Finkelstein and Naaman in press).

00-NaamanFs.book Page 181 Wednesday, June 28, 2006 5:24 PM

Israel Finkelstein

182

once but gradually, over a short period of time (for the pottery, see Arie 2004).
In this scenario, the Jezreel Valley towns were probably destroyed in raids, not
in a planned campaign. It is noteworthy that, when these towns were reset-
tledprobably by the same valley peoplein early Iron IIA (the Megiddo
VB horizon), they developed uninterrupted into the early-9th-century towns
of the Megiddo VAIVB horizon that were ruled by the Omride dynasty. Ac-
cording to this scenario, these are the settlements that were taken over by Sho-
shenq I. In other words, at Megiddo his stele was originally placed in the
Stratum VB settlement. The advantage of this alternative is that, from the pot-
tery-typology perspective, the Megiddo VB horizon ts the end phase of Kh.
Raddana and et-Tell in the Gibeon area and the Tel Masos IIArad XII hori-
zon in the Beer-sheba Valley (for the southern toponyms in the Shoshenq I
list, see Finkelstein 2002a: 11317) better than the Megiddo VIA horizon.
According to this reconstruction of the events, the expanding late Iron I
highlands entity posed a threat to the revived Egyptian interest in Canaan in
the early days of the 22nd Dynasty, probably because of its activities in or on
the margin of the Jezreel Valleyalong the international highway to the north
and near the ages-long Egyptian base of Beth-shean. Shoshenq I decided to
intervene, making the highlands entity a major target of his campaign. He as-
saulted the hub of this growing formation in the highlands around Gibeon as
well as its eastern ank in the Jabbok area. And he took over the towns of the
Jezreel Valley, towns that at this stage still might have been independent or un-
der north Israelite domination.

5

This scenario explains several peculiar elements in the biblical story of King
Saul. First, it sheds light on the otherwise difcult-to-explain memory that
Saul died in battle on Mt. Gilboafar from the hub of his territory around
Gibeon in the highlandsand that his corpse was displayed on the wall of
Beth-shean, the ancient Egyptian stronghold in the valley. Second, it claries
the otherwise strange mention of the Philistines in the Battle of Gilboa. The
notion of a Philistine league of cities capable of assembling a great army is no
doubt inuenced by the Greek realities of late-monarchic times (Finkelstein
2002b). In the late Iron I, no Philistine city could assemble a force strong
enough to march as far north as Beth-shean. The book of Samuel may retain

5. It is possible that the rst to prot from these events was Jerusalem. As vassals during
a short period of Egyptian domination, or after the Egyptian withdrawal from the hill coun-
try, the Jerusalem chiefs could have taken over the former Saulide territories in the hill
country and the Gilead. This could also have been the historical seed of the memory in late-
monarchic Judah of a great United Monarchy in the time of the early Davidides. If this
was the case, the breakdown of the United Monarchy was caused by the establishment of
a new Northern dynastythis time in northern Samaria, around Shechem.

00-NaamanFs.book Page 182 Wednesday, June 28, 2006 5:24 PM

The Last Labayu

183

an ancient memory of an Egyptian army, possibly assisted by Philistine city-
states; when the material was put into writing, Egypt was already long gone,
but the Philistines were a present reality. In other words, the Philistines took
over the role of Egypt in the story.

6

Conclusion

I see a great deal of similarity between Shechem under Labayu and his sons
in the 14th century and the Saul territorial entity in the 10th century

b.c.e

.
Both expanded from their highland hubs to the Gilead, east of the Jordan;
both threatened cities in the Jezreel Valley; both were stopped because they
endangered Egyptian interests in Canaan. Needless to say, there are several dif-
ferences between the two powers: Labayu and his sons ruled from Shechem,
while the Saulides ruled from the area of Gibeon; Labayu and his sons coali-
tion included the territories of Gezer and Ginti-kirmil in the coastal plain
(Finkelstein and Naaman in press), whereas there is no indication of westward
expansion by the Saulide dynasty; in the Iron I, the highlands were much
more densely settled than in the Late Bronze Age; and in the Late Bronze,
Egypt ruled Canaan directly.
In any event, Saul was the last Labayu. The Late BronzeIron I lawlessness
in the highlands that brought about the rise of strongmen such as Labayu and
Saul ended in the late 10th and early 9th century. Egypt was not strong
enough to maintain its grip on Canaan, and after its withdrawal, another
Northern dynastythe Omridesmanaged, for the rst time, to fulll the
aspirations of 14th-century Shechem and 10th-century Israel to expand into
the lowlands and established a long-term dominion there.

6. This explanation also holds true for the biblical reference to Philistine garrisons in the
highlands (1 Sam 13:3; 2 Sam 23:14), a presence that also is highly unlikely. However, for a
while after the campaign, Egyptian troops may have been stationed in a few strategic places
in the highlands. The late-monarchic Historian, who had a vague memory of these events,
switched the Egyptians and their allies, the Philistines, who were better known to him.

References

Abu Husayn, A.-R.
1985

Provincial



Leaderships in Syria, 15751650.

Beirut.
Aharoni, Y.
1967 Anaharath.

JNES

26: 21215.

00-NaamanFs.book Page 183 Wednesday, June 28, 2006 5:24 PM

Israel Finkelstein

184

Ahlstrm, G. W.
1993

The History of Ancient Palestine from the Paleolithic Period to Alexanders Conquest.

JSOTSup 146. Shefeld.
Albright, W. F.
1923 New Identications of Ancient Towns.

BASOR

9: 510.
Arie, E.
2004

Then I Went Down to the Potters House: Intrasite Spatial Analysis in the Pottery
of Megiddo VI/A

. M.A. thesis, Tel Aviv University. [Hebrew]
Ash, P. S.
1999

David, Solomon and Egypt: A Reassessment

. JSOTSup 297. Shefeld.
Blenkinsopp, J.
1972

Gibeon and Israel

. Cambridge.
1974 Did Saul Make Gibeon His Capital?

VT

24: 17.
Boaretto, E., et al.
2005 Dating the Iron Age I/II Transition in Israel: First Intercomparison Results.

Radiocarbon

47: 3955.
Callaway, J. A.
1976 Excavating Ai (et-Tell): 19641972.

BA

39: 1830.
Cogan, M.
1992 Chronology. Pp. 100211 in vol. 1 of

ABD

.
Cohen, A.
1973

Palestine in the 18th Century: Patterns of Government and Administration

. Jerusalem.
Dodson, A.
2000 Towards a Minimum Chronology of the New Kingdom and Third Intermedi-
ate Period.

The Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar

14: 718.
Edelman, D.
1985 The Ashurites of Eshbaals State (2 Sam. 2.9).

PEQ

117: 8591.
1988 Sauls Journey through Mt. Ephraim and Samuels Ramah (1 Sam. 9:45, 10:2
5).

ZDPV

104: 4458.
1992 Saul. Pp. 98999 in vol. 5 of

ABD

.
1996 Saul ben Kish in History and Tradition. Pp. 14259 in

The Origins of the Ancient
Israelite States

, ed. F. Fritz and P. R. Davies. JSOTSup 228. Shefeld.
Feldstein, A., et al.
1993 Southern Part of the Maps of Ramallah and el-Bireh and Northern Part of the
Map of Ein Kerem. Pp. 133264 in

Archaeological Survey of the Hill Country of
Benjamin

, ed. I. Finkelstein and Y. Magen. Jerusalem.
Finkelstein, I.
1990 Excavations at Kh. ed-Dawwara: An Iron Age Site Northeast of Jerusalem.

Tel
Aviv

17: 163208.
2001 The Rise of Jerusalem and Judah: The Missing Link.

Levant

33: 10515.
2002a The Campaign of Shoshenq I to Palestine: A Guide to the 10th Century

b.c.e.

Polity.

ZDPV

118: 10935.
2002b The Philistine in the Bible: A Late-Monarchic Perspective.

JSOT 27: 13167.
2003 City-States to States: Polity Dynamics in the 10th9th Centuries b.c.e. Pp. 75
83 in Symbiosis, Symbolism and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and
Their Neighbors, ed. W. G. Dever and S. Gitin. Winona Lake, IN.
00-NaamanFs.book Page 184 Wednesday, June 28, 2006 5:24 PM
The Last Labayu 185
Finkelstein, I.; Lederman, Z.; and Bunimovitz, S.
1997 Highlands of Many Cultures: The Southern Samaria SurveyThe Sites. Tel Aviv.
Finkelstein, I., and Magen, Y.
1993 Archaeological Survey of the Hill Country of Benjamin. Jerusalem.
Finkelstein, I., and Naaman, N.
In press Shechem of the Amarna Period and the Rise of the Northern Kingdom of Is-
rael. IEJ.
Finkelstein, I., and Piasetzky, E.
In press The Iron IIIA in the Highlands and Beyond:
14
C Anchors, Pottery Phases and
the Shoshenq I Campaign.
Finkelstein, I., and Silberman, N.
2001 The Bible Unearthed: Archaeologys New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its
Sacred Texts. New York.
2006 David and Solomon: In Search of the Bibles Sacred Kings and the Roots of Western
Tradition. New York.
Gal, Z.
1981 Tel Rekhesh and Tel Qarney Hittin. ErIsr 15 (Aharoni Volume): 21321.
[Hebrew]
Garbini, G.
1988 History and Ideology in Ancient Israel. New York.
Goren, Y.; Finkelstein, I.; and Naaman, N.
2002 The Seat of Three Disputed Canaanite Rulers according to Petrographic Inves-
tigation of the Amarna Tablets. Tel Aviv 29: 22137.
2003 The Expansion of the Kingdom of Amurru according to the Petrographic In-
vestigation of the Amarna Tablets. BASOR 329: 211.
2004 Inscribed in Clay: Provenance Study of the Amarna Tablets and other Ancient Near
Eastern Texts. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv Uni-
versity 23. Tel Aviv.
Hagens, G.
1996 A Critical Review of Dead Reckoning from the 21st Dynasty. JARCE 33:
15363.
Halpern, B.
2001 Davids Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King. Grand Rapids.
Handy, L. K.
1997 On the Dating and Dates of Solomons Reign. Pp. 96105 in The Age of Solo-
mon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, ed. L. K. Handy. Leiden.
Herrmann, S.
1964 Operationen Pharao Schoschenks I. im stlichen Ephraim. ZDPV 80: 5579.
Herzog, Z., and Singer-Avitz, L.
2004 Redening the Centre: The Emergence of State in Judah. Tel Aviv 31: 20944.
Hughes, J.
1990 Secrets of the Times: Myth and History in Biblical Chronology. Shefeld.
Kallai, Z.
1971 Zemaraim, Mount Zemaraim. Pp. 74243 in vol. 6 of EncBib. [Hebrew]
Kempinski, A.
1989 Megiddo: A City State and Royal Centre in North Israel. Munich.
00-NaamanFs.book Page 185 Wednesday, June 28, 2006 5:24 PM
Israel Finkelstein 186
Kitchen, K. A.
1986 The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100650 b.c.). Warminster.
Knauf, E. A.
1991 King Solomons Copper Supply. Pp. 16786 in Phoenicia and the Bible, ed. E. Li-
pinski. Leuven.
1997 Le roi est mort, vive le roi! A Biblical Argument for the Historicity of Solomon.
Pp. 8195 in The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, ed.
L. K. Handy. Leiden.
2001 Saul, David, and the Philistines: From Geography to History. BN 109: 1518.
Lapp, N. L.
1993 Ful, Tell el-. Pp. 44548 in vol. 2 of NEAEHL.
Lederman, Z.
1999 An Early Iron Age Village at Khirbet Raddana: The Excavations of Joseph A. Calla-
way. Ph.D. diss., Harvard University.
Liverani, M.
1998 Le lettere di el-Amarna 12. Brescia.
Marco, S., et al.
In press Searching for Megiddo Earthquakes, in Megiddo IV: The 19982002 Seasons,
ed. I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin, and B. Halpern. Tel Aviv.
Marquet-Krause, J.
1949 Les fouilles de Ay (et-Tell). Paris.
McCarter, K. P.
1980a The Apology of David. JBL 99: 489504.
1980b I Samuel. AB 8. Garden City, NY.
Miller, M. J.
1997 Separating the Solomon of History from the Solomon of Legend. Pp. 124 in
The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, ed. L. K. Handy.
Leiden.
Miller, M. J., and Hayes, J. H.
1986 A History of Ancient Israel and Judah. London.
Moran, W. L.
1992 The Amarna Letters. Baltimore.
Mullen, T. E.
1992 Crime and Punishment: The Sins of the King and the Despoliation of the Trea-
suries. CBQ 54: 23148.
Naaman, N.
1975 The Political Disposition and Historical Development of Eretz Israel according to the
Amarna Letters. Ph.D. diss., Tel Aviv University. [Hebrew with English abstract]
1990 The Kingdom of Ishbaal. BN 54: 3337.
1992a Canaanite Jerusalem and Its Central Hill Country Neighbours in the Second
Millennium b.c.e. UF 24: 27591.
1992b The Pre-Deuteronomistic Story of King Saul and Its Historical Signicance.
CBQ 54: 63858.
1996 The Contribution of the Amarna Letters to the Debate on Jerusalems Political
Position in the Tenth Century b.c.e. BASOR 304: 1727.
We changed
Naaman 1992b
page nos. from
638858 to what
we have here
(63858).
Correct??
00-NaamanFs.book Page 186 Wednesday, June 28, 2006 5:24 PM
The Last Labayu 187
1997 The Network of Canaanite Kingdoms and the City of Ashdod. UF 29: 599
626.
1998 Shishaks Campaign to Palestine as Reected by the Epigraphic, Biblical and Ar-
chaeological Evidence. Zion 63: 24776. [Hebrew]
Niemann, H. M.
1997 The Socio-Political Shadow Cast by the Biblical Solomon. Pp. 25299 in The
Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, ed. L. K. Handy. Leiden.
Noth, M.
1981 The Deuteronomistic History. JSOTSup 15. Shefeld.
Ofer, A.
1994 All the Hill Country of Judah: From a Settlement Fringe to a Prosperous
Monarchy. Pp. 92121 in From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Histor-
ical Aspects of Early Israel, ed. I. Finkelstein and N. Naaman. Jerusalem.
Rad, G. von
1966 The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays. Edinburgh.
Redford, D. B.
1973 Studies in Relations between Palestine and Egypt during the First Millennium
b.c. JAOS 93: 317.
1992 Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton.
Rost, L.
1982 The Succession to the Throne of David, trans. M. D. Rutter and D. M. Gunn. His-
toric Texts and Interpreters in Biblical Scholarship 1. Shefeld. [Originally, Die
berlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids, 1926.]
Schniedewind, W.
2004 How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel. Cambridge.
Sinclair, L. A.
1960 An Archaeological Study of Gibeah (Tell el-Ful). AASOR 3435: 152.
Toorn, K. van der
1993 Saul and the Rise of the Israelite State Religion. VT 43: 51942.
Ussishkin, D.
1990 Notes on Megiddo, Gezer, Ashdod and Tel Batash in the Tenth to Ninth Cen-
turies b.c. BASOR 277/278: 7191.
2003 Solomons Jerusalem: The Text and the Facts on the Ground. Pp. 10315 in Je-
rusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period, ed. A. G. Vaughn and
A. E. Killebrew. SBLSymS 18. Leiden.
Wente, E. F.
1976 Review of The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt by K. A. Kitchen. JNES 35:
27578.
00-NaamanFs.book Page 187 Wednesday, June 28, 2006 5:24 PM
00-NaamanFs.book Page 188 Wednesday, June 28, 2006 5:24 PM

Potrebbero piacerti anche