Tel Dor and Iron Age IIA Chronology

N a d a v N a ’a m a n

The article discusses the date and historical background of the transfer of Tel Dor from Phoeni­cian to Israelite hands. Archaeologically, the transfer was peaceful and took place in the late Iron Age IIA. I suggest that it happened under the reign of either Omri or Ahab, at a time when Israel expanded on all fronts. Either Tel Dor was endowed as a dowry on the occasion of Jezebel’s mar­riage to Ahab (cf. 1 Kgs 9:16), or the king of Israel purchased it as part of his alliance with Tyre (cf. 1 Kgs 9:11-14). Dating the Israelite-Tyrian alliance helps establish the date of the transition between the early and late Iron Age IIA.

Keywords: Dor; late Iron Age IIA; Omrides; Tyre; Jezebel

The Stratigraphy of Tel Dor in Light of a Recent Study

I n a recently published article, Ayelet Gilboa, Ilan Sharon, and Elizabeth Bloch-Smith (2015) sug­gested a new stratigraphical division for the Iron

Age strata at Tel Dor and a new chronological-cultural interpretation for these strata. Ephraim Stern, the former director of Dor’s excavations, suggested dividing the pre- Assyrian Iron Age town into four chronological-cultural phases: the Sea Peoples’ town (ca. 1175-1050 b.c.e.); the Phoenician town (ca. 1050-980 b.c.e.); the first Israelite town, which overlaps with the time of the united mon­archy (980-925 b.c.e.); and the second Israelite town, which overlaps with the time of the Northern Kingdom (925-734/732 b.c.e.) (Stern 1990; 1993; 2008, with ear­lier literature). Against Stern’s fourfold division, which mainly followed the biblical chronology, Gilboa, Sharon, and Bloch-Smith (2015) established that there are only two major chronological-cultural phases in the Iron Age I-IIB town: an early phase, which they labeled “Phoeni­cian,” and a later phase, which they labeled “Israelite.”

The newly suggested two-phase division rests on a detailed examination of the stratigraphy in each of the excavated areas. When synchronizing the archaeological

Nadav Na’aman: Tel Aviv University, PO Box 39040, Tel Aviv 6997801, Israel, nnaaman@post.tau.ac.il

data from all areas, a clear and coherent picture emerges. In the early major cultural phase, which Gilboa, Sharon, and Bloch-Smith call “the Phoenician sequence,” the elite of Dor conducted far-reaching commercial activity and had extensive contact with neighboring and remote regions. This far-reaching activity is indicated by the rich ceramic assemblage unearthed at the site, which includes pottery imported from close and remote regions—in particular, from Cyprus. The pottery assemblages of the Phoenician town of Dor are dated to the Iron I and early Iron IIA phases. In the course of the transition to the next major chronological-cultural phase, which occurred in the late Iron IIA phase, significant changes took place in the urban layout of the site and in ceramic produc­tion. In the words of Gilboa, Sharon, and Bloch-Smith, “all excavated domestic structures . . . were deserted in an advanced stage of Ir2a. . . . There is no destruction layer to speak of, but to various extents each structure produced pottery in primary contexts on some of its floors” (2015: 62b). In the next stage, which they called “the Israelite sequence,” the town was fortified, became an administrative city, and all commercial relations with neighboring regions came to an end. In the words of Gil­boa, Sharon, and Bloch-Smith, “We submit that the to­tal transformation of the town’s landscape, architecture, ceramic repertoire (more gradually) and inter-regional contacts at a late stage of Ir2a signifies the conversion of Dor into an Israelite administrative centre. This is the only instance of such a profound change in the course of her Iron Age history (prior to the Neo-Assyrian take­over)” (2015: 66b).

© 2016 American Schools of Oriental Research. BASOR 376 (2016): 1-5.

2 NADAV NA’AMAN BASOR 376

Archaeologically, the Israelite town covered the sec­ond stage of the late Iron Age IIA and the Iron Age IIB phases, and came to an end when Tiglath-pileser III con­quered Dor and annexed its district into the Assyrian Empire (734/732 b.c.e.). According to Gilboa, Sharon, and Bloch-Smith, the transition between the Phoenician and Israelite phases was peaceful, and although a drastic change took place in the town plan, no sign of destruc­tion in the Phoenician town was detected in the exca­vated areas (2015: 57, 62b, 71b).

The 2015 article is the last in a series of archaeological reports and detailed discussions that the directors of the Tel Dor excavations have published over the last 15 years (Gilboa 1999; 2005; 2006-2007; Gilboa and Sha­ron 2008; Sharon and Gilboa 2013). It presents a picture drawn from about 30 years of intensive archaeological research of the site. Thus, the two-phase chronological- cultural division of the Iron Age I—IIB at Tel Dor should be considered as the definitive expression of the cultural history of Dor and should be taken as a point of depar­ture for all future discussions of the site, its chronology, and its history.

Chronology of the “Phoenician” and “Israelite” Sequences

Many scholars agree today about the internal division of the Iron Age II to four major chronological stages— that is, early Iron Age IIA, late Iron Age IIA, Iron Age IIB, and Iron Age IIC.1 The dating of each stage is mainly based on radiocarbon determinations, combined with some historical considerations. While there is agreement on the typological-cultural division of the Iron Age II into four stages, scholars still debate the exact dates of each of these stages. The focus of my discussion is on the transition of the town from Phoenician to Israelite hands—that is, the transition from the early to the late Iron Age IIA. The last Phoenician town is dated to the beginning of the late Iron Age IIA and still features all the characteristics of Phoenician culture, whereas in the lat­ter stage, which began in the course of the late Iron Age IIA, Phoenician cultural characteristics disappeared, a new town plan was devised, and Dor became an Israelite administrative center.

Supporters of the higher chronology (the so-called Modified Conventional Chronology) date the beginning of the late Iron Age IIA to the late tenth or early ninth century b.c.e. (Mazar and Bronk Ramsey 2010; Mazar 2011: 106-7). Proponents of the lower chronology date the transition to the second quarter of the ninth century,

1 See Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2004; 2006; Finkelstein and Pia- setzky 2010a: 11-19; Mazar 2011: 106-7; and Gilboa, Sharon, and Bloch-Smith 2015: 57, 59, 70.

at the earliest (Sharon et al. 2005; 2007; Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2010a; 2010b; 2011: 52; 2015: 894-99). The directors of the Dor excavations support the late chro­nology and date the construction of the Israelite town at Dor to the middle-to-late ninth century b.c.e. (Gilboa, Sharon, and Bloch-Smith 2015: 70b).

Difficulties with the latter dating come to the fore when Gilboa, Sharon, and Bloch-Smith try to combine their radiocarbon dating with the historical evidence. On one hand, they realized that the most reasonable historical date for the transfer of Dor to Israel was un­der the Omrides and, in particular, during the reign of either Omri or Ahab. In their words, “taking over Dor and rebuilding it conforms to this [i.e„ the Omrides’] expansionist policy” (Gilboa, Sharon, and Bloch-Smith 2015: 72a). As an alternative, they suggest that the town might have been transferred to Israel as a result of a terri­torial treaty with the Phoenicians and possibly intermar­riage (Gilboa, Sharon, and Bloch-Smith 2015: 80a). On the other hand, they suggest that “in the mid-to-late-9th century, most probably under the Omrides, the town of Dor underwent a thorough programme of urban inno­vation” (Gilboa, Sharon, and Bloch-Smith 2015: 71b). Note, however, that the radiocarbon (mid-to-late ninth century) and historical dates referred to in this statement contradict each other, as the expansion of the Omrides took place in the first half of the ninth century b.c.e. (see below).

According to the commonly accepted biblical chro­nology, the Omrides ruled the kingdom of Israel around 884/882-842 b.c.e. Omri is dated to ca. 884/882-873/871 and Ahab to ca. 873/871-853/852.2 Thus, an inconsis­tency exists between the dates of the Omrides—in particular, those of Omri and Ahab—and the lower ra­diocarbon dates advocated by Gilboa, Sharon, and Bloch- Smith (mid-to-late ninth century). Since the dates of the Omrides are firmly anchored within the Assyrian chro­nology, what must be questioned is the radiocarbon dates advocated by the supporters of the lower chronology.

The Transfer of Dor to the Omrides

My point of departure from their historical discus­sion is the observation of Gilboa, Sharon, and Bloch- Smith that no signs of destruction exist at the end of the last Phoenician stratum. Scholars agree that during the reigns of Omri and Ahab, Israel expanded on all fronts. In the time of Joram, son of Ahab, on the other hand, Mesha, king of Moab, rebelled and possibly captured the Moabite occupied territories east of the Dead Sea and some of the former Israelite towns north of Moab

2 For the dates, see Tadmor 1962: 289-97, 302; Thiele 1965: 62-71, 205; and Galil 1996: 21-23, 32-43.

2016 TEL DOR AND IRON AGE IIA CHRONOLOGY 3

(Timm 1980; 1982; Miller and Hayes 2006: 284-326; Finkelstein 2013: 83-109). Under the Jehuhites (Jehu and Joahaz), Israel was subjugated to Aram and unable to expand on its western front. Moreover, the former close relations of Israel with Tyre were disrupted after the murder of Queen Jezebel and the destruction of the symbols of Phoenician cult and cultures in the capital city of Samaria. Hence, it is inconceivable that a peaceful transfer of a former Phoenician town to Israel took place under Jehu or Joahaz. The shift of Dor from Phoenician to Israelite hands—either peacefully or by political pres­sure—must have taken place during the time of Israel’s expansion on all fronts—that is, under the reign of either Omri or Ahab.

What might have been the context of the transfer of Dor to Israel? One of the key passages for this discussion is 1 Kgs 9:16, “Pharaoh King of Egypt had come up and captured Gezer and burned it with fire, and had killed the Canaanites who dwelt in the city, and had given it as a dowry (silluhlm) to his daughter, Solomon’s wife.”3 In this context, silluhlm is a bridal present that the daughter receives when she marries and leaves her father’s house (Koehler and Baumgartner 1999:1505-6; Gesenius 2010: 1358, with earlier literature).4

Scholars hotly debate the historicity of the episode of King Solomon’s marriage to the daughter of the pharaoh, but that is not my concern here.5 What matters is the fact that the biblical author of the history of Solomon consid­ered it possible that in a case of a marriage between two royal houses, the father-in-law might give his daughter a town as a dowry.

Ancient Near Eastern sources document very rich dowries dispatched with royal brides who married for­eign kings; such dowries are particularly prominent in the Amarna correspondence (Pintore 1978; Cochavi- Rainey 1999, with earlier literature). The endowment of a town and its territory might provide a commercial value equal to these rich dowries. Indeed, according to the biblical history of Solomon (1 Kgs 9:11-14), Solomon sold Hiram of Tyre 20 towns, along with their territories in the land of Cabul, located west of the Akko plain, for 120 talents (about 3.6 tons) of gold (for more details, see Na’aman 1997: 67-69). Regardless of the historicity of the two episodes in 1 Kgs 9:11-14 and 16, they indicate that towns might either be sold to a neighboring king or granted as a dowry to a royal princess.

3 The noun silluhlm is found also in Exod 18:2 in the sense of “send­ing away [a woman],” and in Mic 1:14 with the connotation of a “fare­well present.”

4 Several scholars connected Ugaritic tlh with the biblical silluhlm (see Rainey 1975: 73; Segert 1991: 1433; and Loretz 1999: 310-19).

5 For discussions, see Malamat 1958: 98-99; 1963: 9-12; Schipper 1999: 84-107; 2000; 2002; Jansen-Winkeln 2000; Lemaire 2006: 699- 710, with earlier literature in n. 22; and Davidovich 2010.

The letters of Mari indicate that kings might possess towns and plots of land in the territory of neighboring kingdoms (Durand 2002: 87).6 The best-known example is that of Zimrilim, king of Mari, who—with the approval of Hammurabi, king of Halab—purchased the town of Alahtum (possibly Alalakh in northern Syria), located in Halab’s territory (Durand 2002: 59-93). Unfortunately, it remains unknown whether any of the towns of foreign countries were transferred as a dowry on the occasion of an inter-kingdom marriage.

Moshe Anbar (1985) noted an Old Babylonian letter from Shemshara, a city located on the upper Zab River, which mentions a proposition of marriage that would give the bride two towns, with their territory, as a dowry. The background for this proposal is a struggle between Shamshi-Addu, whose seat was at Shubat-Enlil in the up­per Habur area, and Endusse, king of Gutium (Eidem 1985: 103-4; Eidem and Laessoe 2001: no. 71). The mes­senger of Shamshi-Addu suggested creating a treaty with Endusse that would be reinforced by diplomatic mar­riage. The relevant passage runs as follows (lines 8-15):

He wrote thus to Endusse: You and I have reached agree­ment. I shall have an image of you and an image of me made in gold and we shall embrace each other. I will give you my daughter and as a [bridal] gift for my daughter I will give you the land of Shushara and the land of [...]. (Eidem 1985: 103-4)

In light of the comparative material, I suggest two al­ternative solutions for the transfer of Dor to Israel. Either Ittoba'al (■’ethflG/), king of Tyre, gave Dor as a dowry to his daughter Jezebel on the occasion of her marriage to Ahab (1 Kgs 16:31);7 or the king of Israel purchased the town as part of the alliance attained at that time between Israel and Tyre. Hence the peaceful transition of the city from Tyrian to Israelite hands as indicated by the mate­rial remains. The marriage took place either in the late years of Omri or in the early years of Ahab,8 and the two kingdoms formed an alliance that must have been useful to the political and commercial interests of both parties.

Gilboa, Sharon, and Bloch-Smith (2015:62b, 70b) noted that all of the excavated domestic structures in the Phoeni­cian town were deserted at an advanced stage of IrllA (late Iron Age IIA). Hence, the beginning of the latter phase antedated the transfer of Dor to Israel. Dor was delivered either in the late years of Omri or the early years of Ahab—

6 I would like to thank Professor Yoram Cohen of Tel Aviv Univer­sity for drawing my attention to the Mari documents.

7 For a tentative reconstruction of “historical Jezebel,” see Timm 1982: 224-31; and Pruin 2006: 308-31; 2007: 208-35, with earlier literature.

8 For discussions, see Katzenstein 1973: 144-46; Timm 1982: 224- 31; and Briquel-Chatonnet 1992: 63-70, with earlier literature.

4 NADAV NA’AMAN BASOR 376

that is, in about 875-865 b.c.e. We may thus posit that the transition between the early and late Iron Age took place no later than the early ninth century b.c.e., close to the date suggested by the advocates of the Modified Conventional Chronology. Unlike the carbon dates that are sometimes open to different interpretations, the date I suggest rests on the firm foundations of the Assyrian chronology. Al­

though the transfer of Dor—either as dowry or for silver/ gold—on the occasion of Jezebels marriage to Ahab is not mentioned anywhere, I believe that it is the best solution for the archaeological data provided by Tel Dors excava­tions and should be taken as a point of departure for all chronological debates on the transition from the early to the late Iron Age IIA in the Levant.

References

Anbar, M.1985 1 Kings 9:16—“and Gave It as Dowryto His Daugh­

ter.” Shnaton: An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 9: 233 (Hebrew).

Briquel-Chatonnet, F.1992 Les relations entre les cites de la cote phenicienne et

les royaumes d’Israel et de Juda. Orientalia Lovani- ensia Analecta 46; Studia Phoenicia 12. Leuven: Peeters.

Cochavi-Rainey, Z.1999 Royal Gifts in the Late Bronze Age, Fourteenth

to Thirteenth Centuries b.c.e.: Selected Texts Re­cording Gifts to Royal Personages. Beer-Sheva 13. Beer-Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press.

Davidovich, T.2010 Emphasizing the Daughter of Pharaoh. Scandina­

vian Journal of the Old Testament 24 (1): 71-84.Durand, J.-M.

2002 Le culte d’Addu dAlep et Vaffaire d ’Alahtum. Me- moires de N.A.B.U. 8; Florilegium Marianum 7. Paris: Societe pour 1 etude du Proche-Orient ancien.

Eidem, J.1985 News from the Eastern Front: The Evidence from

Tell Shemshara. Iraq 47: 83-107.Eidem, J., and Laessoe, J.

2001 The Shemshara Archives, Vol. 1: The Letters. Histo- risk-filosofiske skrifter 23. Copenhagen: Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab.

Finkelstein, I.2013 7he Forgotten Kingdom: The Archaeology and His­

tory of Northern Israel. Ancient Near East Mono­graphs 5. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.

Finkelstein, I„ and Piasetzky, E.2010a Radiocarbon Dating the Iron Age in the Levant:

A Bayesian Model for Six Ceramic Phases and Six Transitions. Antiquity 84: 374-85.

2010b The Iron I/IIA Transition in the Levant: A Reply to Mazar and Bronk Ramsey and a New Perspective. Radiocarbon 52: 1667-80.

2011 The Iron Age Chronology Debate: Is the Gap Nar­rowing? Near Eastern Archaeology 74: 50-54.

2015 Radiocarbon Dating Khirbet Qeiyafa and the Iron I—IIA Phases in the Shephelah: Methodological Comments and a Bayesian Model. Radiocarbon 57: 891-907.

Galil, G.1996 The Chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah.

Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 9. Leiden: Brill.

Gesenius, W.2010 Silluhim. P. 1358 in Hebrdisches und Aramdisches

Handworterbuch iiber das Alte Testament, Lieferung 6. 18th ed. Ed. R. Meyer and H. Donner. Berlin: Springer.

Gilboa, A.1999 The Dynamics of Phoenician Bichrome Pottery: A

View from Tel Dor. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 316: 1-22.

2005 Sea Peoples and Phoenicians along the Southern Phoenician Coast—A Reconciliation: An Inter­pretation of Sikila (SKI) Material Culture. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 337: 47-78.

2006- Fragmenting the Sea Peoples, with an Emphasis on2007 Cyprus, Syria and Egypt: A Tel Dor Perspective.

Scripta Mediterranea 27-28: 209-44.Gilboa, A., and Sharon, I.

2008 Between the Carmel and the Sea: Tel Dor’s Iron Age Reconsidered. Near Eastern Archaeology 71: 146-70.

Gilboa, A., Sharon, I., and Bloch-Smith, E.2015 Capital of Solomons Fourth District? Israelite Dor.

Levant 47: 51-74.Herzog, Z., and Singer-Avitz, L.

2004 Redefining the Centre: The Emergence of State in Judah. Tel Aviv 31: 209-44.

2006 Sub-Dividing the Iron Age IIA in Northern Israel: A Suggested Solution to the Chronological Debate. Tel Aviv 33: 163-95.

Jansen-Winkeln, K.2000 Anmerkungen zu “Pharaos Tochter.” Biblische

Notizen 103: 23-29.Katzenstein, H. J.

1973 The History of Tyre, from the Beginning of the SecondMillennium b.c.e. until the Fall of the Neo-Babylo­nian Empire in 538 b.c.e. Jerusalem: Shoken Insti­tute for Jewish Research of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America.

Koehler, L., and Baumgartner, W.1999 Silluh lm : slh. Pp. 1505 -6 in The Hebrew and Ara­

maic Lexicon of the Old Testament, Vol. 4. Rev. J. J. Stamm. Ed. M. E. J. Richardson. Leiden: Brill.

2016 TEL DOR AND IRON AGE IIA CHRONOLOGY 5

Lemaire, A.2006 Salomon et la fille de Pharaon: Un probleme

d’interpretation historique. Pp. 699-710 in “I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times:” Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, Vol. 1, ed. A. M. Maeir and P. de Miroschedji. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Loretz, O.1999 Ug./he. slh/slh “Kanal; Salhu/Schelach” und tlh/

slwhym “Mitgift.” Ugarit-Forschungen 31: 307-22.Malamat, A.

1958 The Kingdom of David and Solomon in Its Contacts with Egypt and Aram Naharaim. Biblical Archae­ologist 21: 96-102.

1963 Aspects of the Foreign Policies of David and Solo­mon. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 22: 1-17.

Mazar, A.2011 The Iron Age Chronology Debate: Is the Gap Nar­

rowing? Another Viewpoint. Near Eastern Archae­ology 74: 105-11.

Mazar, A., and Bronk Ramsey, C.2010 A Response to Finkelstein and Piasetzky’s Criticism

and “New Perspective.” Radiocarbon 52: 1681-88.Miller, J. M., and Hayes, J. H.

2006 A History of Ancient Israel and Judah. 2nd ed. Louis­ville, KY: Westminster John Knox.

Na’aman, N.1997 Sources and Composition in the History of Solo­

mon. Pp. 57-80 in The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, ed. L. K. Handy. Stud­ies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 11. Leiden: Brill.

Pintore, F.1978 II matrimonio interdinastico nel Vicino Oriente du­

rante i secoli XV-XII1. Orientis Antiqui Collectio 14. Rome: Centro per le antichita e la storia dell’arte nel Vicino Oriente, Istituto per l’Oriente.

Pruin, D.2006 Geschichten und Geschichte: Isebel als literarische

und historische Gestalt. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 222. Fribourg: Academic; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

2007 What is a Text? Searching for Jezebel. Pp. 208-35 in Ahab Agonistes: The Rise and Fall of the Omri Dy­nasty, ed. L. L. Grabbe. Library of Hebrew Bible/ Old Testament Studies 421; T&T Clark Library of Biblical Studies. London: T8rT Clark.

Rainey, A. F.1975 Institutions: Family, Civil, and Military. Pp. 69-107

in Ras Shamra Parallels: The Texts from Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible, Vol. 2, ed. L. R. Fisher. Analecta Orien- talia 50. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum.

Schipper, B. U.1999 Israel und Agypten in der Konigszeit: Die kulturellen

Kontakte von Salomo bis zum Fall Jerusalems. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 170. Fribourg: Universitats- verlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

2000 Salomo und die Pharaonentochter—zum histo- rischen Kern von 1 Kon 7, 8. Biblische Notizen 102: 84-94.

2002 Nocheinmal zur Pharaonentochter—ein Gesprach mit Karl Jansen-Winkeln. Biblische Notizen 111: 90-98.

Segert, S.1991 The Use of Comparative Semitic Material in He­

brew Lexicography. Pp. 1426-34 in Semitic Stud­ies in Honor of Wolf Leslau on the Occasion of His Eighty-Fifth Birthday, November 14th, 1991, Vol. 2, ed. A. S. Kaye. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Sharon, I., and Gilboa, A.2013 The SKL Town: Dor in the Early Iron Age. Pp.

393-468 in The Philistines and Other “Sea Peoples” in Text and Archaeology, ed. A. E. Killebrew and G. Lehmann. Society of Biblical Literature Archae­ology and Biblical Studies 15. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.

Sharon, I.; Gilboa, A.; Boaretto, E.; and Jull, A. J. T.2005 The Early Iron Age Dating Project: Introduction,

Methodology, Progress Report and an Update on the Tel Dor Radiometric Dates. Pp. 65-92 in The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science, ed. T. E. Levy and T. Higham. London: Equinox.

Sharon, I.; Gilboa, A.; Jull, A. J. T.; and Boaretto, E.2007 Report on the First Stage of the Iron Age Dating

Project in Israel: Supporting a Low Chronology. Radiocarbon 49: 1-46.

Stern, E.1990 New Evidence from Dor for the First Appearance

of the Phoenicians along the Northern Coast of Israel. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 279: 27-34.

1993 The Many Masters of Dor, Part 2: How Bad was Ahab? Biblical Archaeology Review 19 (2): 18-29.

2008 Dor. Pp. 1695-703 in The New Encyclopedia of Ar­chaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 5, ed. E. Stem. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society; Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society.

Tadmor, H.1962 Chronology. Pp. 245-310 in Encyclopaedia Biblica,

Vol. 4, ed. N. H. Tur Sinai, C. Rabin, and S. Yeivin. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute (Hebrew).

Thiele, E. R.1965 The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. 2nd

rev. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.Timm, S.

1980 Die territorial Ausdehnung des Staates Israel zur Zeit der Omriden. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palds- tina-Vereins 96: 20-40.

1982 Die Dynastie Omri: Quellen und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Israels im 9. Jahrhundert vor Chris- tus. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 124. Gottingen: Van­denhoeck & Ruprecht.

Copyright of Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research is the property ofAmerican Schools of Oriental Research and its content may not be copied or emailed tomultiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.