|
Ben-Tor, Amnon
- “Hazor and the Chronology of Northern Israel: A Reply to Israel Finkelstein”, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (2000), pp. 9-15
Ben-Tor, Amnon & Ben Ami
- “Hazor and the Archaeology of the Tenth Century B.C.E.”, Israel Exploration Journal (1998), pp. 1-37
Ben-Shlomo, David
- “The Iron Age Sequence of Tel Ashdod: A Rejoinder to ‘Ashdod Revisited’ by I. Finkelstein and L. Singer-Avitz” Tel Aviv (2003), pp. 83-107
Coogan, Michael
- “Assessing David and Solomon: From the Hypothetical to the Improbable to the Absurd”, BAR (2006), pp. 56-60
Dever, William G
- “Visiting the Real Gezer: A Reply to Israel Finkelstein”, Tel Aviv (2003), pp. 259-282
- Beyond the Texts: An Archaeological Portrait of Israel and Judah, 2017, Society of Biblical Literature Press
- Has Archaeology Buried the Bible?, 2020, Erdmans
Faust, Avraham
- “The Large Stone Structure in the City of David: A Reexamination”, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins (2010), pp. 116-130
- “Did Eilat Mazar Find David’s Palace”, BAR (2012), pp. 47-70
- “Between the Highland Polity and Philistia: The United Monarchy and the Resettlement of the Shephelah in the Iron Age IIA, with a Special focus on Tel ‘Eton and Khirbet Qeiyafa”, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (2020), pp. 115-136
Faust, Avraham & Yair Sapir
- “The ‘Governor’s Residency’ at Tel ‘Eton, The United Monarchy, and the Impact of the Old-House Effect on Large-Scale Archaeological Reconstructions”, Radiocarbon (2018), pp. 801-820
Garfinkel, Yosef et al.
- “Debating Khirbet Qeiyafa: A Fortified City in Judah from the Time of King David” (2016)
- “Lachish Fortifications and State Formation in the Biblical Kingdom of Judah in Light of Radiometric Datings”, Radiocarbon (2019), pp. 695-712
Hardin, James & Joe Seger
- “Gezer Rectified: The Dating of the South Gate Complex” in (eds. Gitin et al.) Confronting the Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of William G. Dever (2006), pp. 51-60
Kalimi, Isaac
- Writing and Rewriting the Story of Solomon in Ancient Israel, 2019, Cambridge University Press, pp. 19-93
Keimer, Kyle
- “The historical geography of 1 Kings 9:11-14”, Palestinian Exploration Quarterly (2020), pp. 186-206
Mazar, Amihai
- Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 1992, Yale University Press
- “Iron Age Chronology: A Reply to I. Finkelstein” Levant (1997), pp. 157-167
- “The Debate over the Chronology of the Iron Age in the Southern Levant” in (eds. Lvy & Higman) The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text, and Science (2005), pp. 15-30.
- “Archaeology and the Biblical Narrative: The Case of the United Monarchy” in (eds. Kratz & Spieckermann) One God - One Cult - One Nation: Archaeological and Biblical Perspectives (2010), pp. 29-58
- “The Iron Age Chronology Debate: Is the Gap Narrowing? Another Viewpoint” Near Eastern Archaeology (2011), pp. 105-111
- “Archaeology and the Bible: Reflections on Historical Memory in the Deuteronomistic History” in (ed. Maier) Congress Volume Munich 2013 (2014), pp. 347-369.
Mazar, Amihai & Christopher Bronk Ramsey
- “14C Dates and the Iron Age Chronology of Israel: A Response” Radiocarbon (2008), pp. 159-180
- “A Response to Finkelstein and Piasetzky’s Criticism and ‘New Perspective’” Radiocarbon (2010), pp. 1681-1688
Mazar, Eilat
- “The Stepped Stone Structure” in (ed. Mazar) The Summit of the City of David Excavations 2005-2008: Final Reports Volume I: Area G (2015), pp. 169-188
Zarzeki-Peleg, Anabel
- “Hazor, Jokneam and Megiddo in the Tenth Century B.C.E.”, Tel Aviv (1997), pp. 258-288
POSTSCRIPT: The conclusion of mainstream Levantine archaeological scholarship on the views of Israel Finkelstein, as summarized by William G. Dever:
“The chronological correlations seem sound. But in the mid-1990s, an Israeli archaeologist, Israel Finkelstein, began to advocate for an idiosyncratic “low chronology,” which would lower conventional dates by almost a century. His supposed evidence consisted of (1) the fact that Philistine bichrome pottery does not appear at Lachish in the twelfth century BCE, as elsewhere, so that pottery must be later; (2) the pottery conventionally dated to the tenth century BCE could also be dated to the ninth century BCE; (3) radiocarbon dates of various samples turn out to be as much as a century later; (4) the ashlar, chisel-dressed masonry of Samaria must be ninth century BCE, since the Bible shows that the site was founded only in the days of Omri. Consequently, the similar masonry of the gates at Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer must be down-dated to the ninth century, as with all other related sites. None of these arguments holds water, even though Finkelstein and his admirers have tirelessly promoted the scheme.
(1) Philistine pottery does not occur at Lachish in the twelfth century BCE simply because the Philistines never penetrated inland that far.
(2) The pottery conventionally dated to the tenth century can indeed continue to the ninth century BCE. We have long known that. But so what? The fact that it can be later does not mean that it must be.
(3) Some relevant radiocarbon dates do fall in the tenth century BCE; but they are few, and many others confirm the conventional “high date.” In any case, carbon-14 dates are notoriously difficult to interpret; and even in the best case, they cannot come closer than about fifty years, so they cannot solve the problem themselves.
(4) The appearance of ashlar masonry is no criterion. Such masonry is well attested from the fourteenth century BCE to the Hellenistic era.
'Finkelstein’s low chronology, never followed by a majority of mainstream scholars, is a house of cards. Yet it is the only reason for attributing our copious tenth-century-BCE archaeological evidence of a united monarchy to the ninth century BCE. Finkelstein himself seems to have doubts. Originally, he insisted that no Judean state emerged until the eighth century BCE. Then it was the ninth century BCE. Eventually he posited a tenth-century-BCE “Saulide polity” with its “hub” at Gibeon—not Jerusalem, and not Solomon, only his predecessor! But there is absolutely no archaeological evidence for such an imaginary kingdom. Finkelstein’s radical scenario is clever, but not convincing. It should be ignored. The reigns of Saul, David, and Solomon are reasonably well attested.” (W.G. Dever, Has Archaeology Buried the Bible? 2020, Eerdmans.)
Editshmedt (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Get your facts straight: I didn't switch this section, but [1]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- I moved it one step upwards because having this section at the bottom while the discussion is ongoing in the section above is very confusing. ImTheIP (talk) 08:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
|
