• Area A - Plate IX.2 -
  Area A Plate IX 2.
  
  Looking east. Northern wall of Locus 113 (Stratum VI) found slanting as the result of an earthquake. To left, southern wall of pillared-Building (Stratum VIII)
  
  [Description by Austin et. al. (2000) - Southward-leaning wall within Hazor Stratum VI (Area A, Locus 113). Many walls within Stratum VI that did not collapse show significant tilt southward. The rod was oriented to vertical using the plumb line. Thickness of the wall is ~1 m (from Yadin et al., 1960, plate IX).]
  
  Yadin et al. (1960)
  Southward-leaning wall within Hazor Stratum VI from Yadin et al. (1960)
• Area A - Plate IX.3 -
  Area A Plate IX 3.
  
  Looking west. Locus 78 (Stratum VI). In the northwest corner of this room can be seen segment of wall that collapsed as the result of an earthquake.
  
  Yadin et al. (1960)
  Wall collapse within Hazor Stratum VI from Yadin et al. (1960)
• Area A - Plate IX.4 -
  Area A Plate IX 4.
  
  Looking west. Same as above [Area A Plate IX 3.] after removal of wall debris. In the centre, entrance of Locus 78 (Stratum VI) blocked by stone debris. To right, slanting northern wall.
  
  Yadin et al. (1960)
  Wall after removal of collapse debris within Hazor Stratum VI from Yadin et al. (1960)

• Figure 2 - Southward-leaning wall
  FIG. 2
  
  Southward-leaning wall within Hazor Stratum VI (Area A, Locus 113). Many walls within Stratum VI that did not collapse show significant tilt southward. The rod was oriented to vertical using the plumb line. Thickness of the wall is ~1 m (from Yadin et al., 1960, plate IX).
  
  Austin et. al. (2000)
  within Hazor Stratum VI Area A from Austin et. al. (2000)
• Figure 3 - Time-stratigraphic
  FIG. 3
  
  Time-stratigraphic correlation chart of Iron IIb excavations throughout an extensive region of Israel and Jordan. Datum for correlation is earthquake debris or rebuilding horizons assigned to a single, 750 B.C. seismic event. Locations of cities are shown in Figure 1. Strata names at each site are from primary archaeological reports.
  
  Symbols
  
  

  • P = pottery date
  • C-14 = radiocarbon date
  • T = dated text material
  • D = military destruction layer with historical date assigned
  • A = historically dated architectural style
  • E = earthquake destruction layer
  • E ? = probable earthquake destruction layer (significant rebuilding horizon without evidence of military conquest)

  
  
  Austin et. al. (2000)
  correlation chart of Iron IIb excavations throughout an extensive region of Israel and Jordan from Austin et. al. (2000)

• Figure 6 - Map of Israelite and Phoenician cities
  Fig. 6
  
  Israelite and Phoenician cities during circa 1500-574 B.C.E.
  
  (Published with permission of Whitehouse and Whitehourse [1975, p. 103] and W.H. Freeman Publishing House)
  
  Ben-Menahem (1991)
  ca. 1500-574 BCE from Ben-Menahem (1991)
• Figure 7 - Southward-tilting northern wall
  Fig. 7
  
  Tilting toward the south of a northern wall at Hazor, caused by the earthquake of 759 B.C.E. The direction of tilt of the shown wall and others in the same site reveal that the causative fault was to the NE of Hazor.
  
  Ben-Menahem (1991)
  within Hazor Stratum VI Area A from Ben-Menahem (1991)
• Figure 8 - Horizontal shear (SH) acceleration
  Fig. 8
  
  Azimuthal horizontal shear (SH) acceleration in the near field of the M = 7.3 earthquake of 759 B.C.E. Northern walls at Hazor tilted southward, while western walls tilted eastward [ Yadin et al., 1959], in accord with a left-hand strike slip fault, circa 20 km, NE of the city.
  
  Ben-Menahem (1991)
  in the near field from Ben-Menahem (1991)

Tectonic faults are found throughout the fertile crescent due to the impingement of the Arabian plate on the Eurasian, leading to mountain building of the Zagros and Taurus, and to the abutment of the Arabian and African Plates (see Figure 1). One might say that this ongoing geological process is what created many of the large scale landscape features that allowed for the growth of many ancient peoples and civilizations. More specific to ancient Israel is the Dead SeaTransform, the northern extension of the Syro-African Rift between the African and Arabian plates (see Figure 2). It stretches from the Gulf of Aqaba in the south into southeastern Turkey.The current intersection of these plates is a left-lateral strike-slip fault. The motion along these faults is due to the fact that although both plates are moving northward, the Arabian plate is moving faster than the African and to the northeast.⁴⁶ Earthquakes along the Dead Sea Transform result from the non-continuous movement directly along the faults as the local ground moves in order to release the built up energy from the plate's movement.

Earthquakes due to movement in this array of faults have been evidenced for over the past 50,000 years.⁴⁷ Our knowledge of seismic activity before the past 4,000 years comes from paleoseismological research that uses geological information, such as lake bed cores of the Dead Sea, to analyze ancient seismicity. From then through 1900 C.E., two other sources of information are available: textual evidence, of which the references in Amos are some of the oldest, and archaeological evidence. Direct seismographic data has been accumulated only over the past century.⁴⁸

Archaeologists have sporadically and unevenly attempted to interpret some archaeological arrangements as evidence of earthquake damage. Initial suggestions of earthquake damage, in the first half of the 20th century, were most often in interpretation of destructions levels. Toward the middle of the century, these ideas were commonly dismissed and even ridiculed, but over the past two decades a significant change has come about in which archaeologists and seismologists have begun to collaborate as part of a new discipline, Archaeoseismology. With the new combination of methods, confidence has been raised in assertions of earthquake damage in some instances, although many such ascriptions have yet to be reinvestigated and the methodologies are still in flux. A series of attempts have been made at assembling criteria by which certain configurations of ancient ruins may be ascribed to seismic activity.⁴⁹ Most recently, there has been movement in the direction of applying more quantitative measures, often drawn from seismology, to these archaeological problems in order to allow for factors pro and con to be more easily weighed, which is very difficult when dealing solely with various, isolated, qualitative facts and their interpretation. A very promising quantitative approach, which attempts to encompass all possible factors on multiple levels of resolution as well as providing results that should be easy to compare across the board, is a scale of the probability for the assignment of such evidence to earthquakes that has been adopted from paleoseismology.⁵⁰

Regarding the earthquake referenced in Amos, strata identified as belonging to Iron Age IIB in the 8th century BCE, at sites as far flung as Hazor and Meggido in the north, Gezer and Lachish in the middle, and Beersheba and Tell Deir Alla in the south, have been proposed as containing damage from this earthquake (see Table 2 for a list). Some archaeological arrangements that have been suggested as possibly indicative of earthquake damage related to the earthquake in Amos are: site abandonment; building restorations; destruction layers;destroyed buildings; and deformation of buildings or city walls, including fallen, tilted, or displaced walls, displaced blocks, or cracks in wall stones, especially vertically and in a series of contiguous stones. Since many of these things can happen in connection with normal geological processes over longer stretches of time,⁵¹ scholars have sought criteria for better identification of finds.⁵² Most important other than identifying possible reasons for the unusual geometry of finds are stratigraphic considerations.⁵³ Also, one must keep in mind that in areas where earthquakes are common, damage often occurs as an accrual of smaller structural problems from several earthquakes over longer spans of time, rather than of major collapse at one time.⁵⁴

Yigael Yadin was the first to attempt to ascribe an archaeological arrangement to the earthquake mentioned in the Book of Amos. Yadin excavated for four seasons in 1955-58,working in several different areas on Tell Hazor, as well as one season in 1968. He claimed to have found evidence for earthquake-related ruins at Hazor in his Stratum VI, which he dated to the 8th century B.C.E., to the time of Jeroboam II, and connected it to the earthquake mentioned in Amos. Aside from the excavation reports,⁵⁵ Yadin describes and interprets his excavations in two later works, Hazor: Head of All Those Kingdoms, the 1972 publication of the Schweich Lectures he gave in 1970,⁵⁶ and Hazor: The Rediscovery of a Great Citadel of the Bible , 1975.⁵⁷ Further excavations, directed by Amon Ben-Tor, began in 1990 and are ongoing, but only partially published.⁵⁸

Yadin reported observations of several leaning walls, some partially collapsed walls, and fallen ceiling materials as proof of his interpretation of earthquake damage. All of this damage was found in levels he ascribed to Stratum VI in Area A, on the middle of the upper citadel area of the tell (see Figure 3). Yadin described this area in Stratum VI as mostly shops and workshops.⁵⁹ Another building with purported earthquake damage is Building 2a (see Figure 4).⁶⁰ Yadin claims, based on his observations, that "[t]he house was severely damaged by an earthquake."⁶¹

Yadin also noted “that floors of many of the houses were covered by fragments of the ceilings that had fallen suddenly,” which he claims is an “unusual phenomenon in archaeological excavations.” In room 148, built in a room of an older casemate wall, they found “great blocks of fallen bricks,” which Yadin surmised were found from the earlier city wall and reused, “from beneath which were visible fragments of many vessels” from walls built above the remaining height of the casemate walls. “The rest of the room was full of jars and other vessels, standing side by side and smashed to bits by the fallen roof,” a hypothesis that Yadin supports by explaining that “[they] managed to restore most of them, which shows that the roof fell in suddenly.”⁶³ In Building 2a, “all the floors were littered with hundreds of pieces of ceiling plaster,”⁶⁴ including a large chunk in room 82a. Shulamit Geva, in an analysis of the site based solely on Yadin’s published reports, lists items buried in several rooms. She ascribes their buried position to the earthquake, and it seems that she means they were located so due to fallen ceilings. Yadin went so far with his emphatic descriptions of purported earthquake damage in his popular book as to imagine that “[t]here was evidence that the ‘last supper’ of the residents, eaten just before the quake, consisted, among other things, of olives, if the many olive stones found on the floor are any indication.” The implication is that those olive remains were a meal left abandoned and caught under the rubble of the fallen ceilings.

In summary of his findings, Yadin states, “In the 1956 season we were able to establish that Stratum VI was destroyed by an earthquake.” Yadin supports his interpretation with anonymous, undocumented expert assessment, writing, “Geologists from the Hebrew University, to whom we showed these phenomena when they visited the site, confirmed our supposition that Hazor had been some distance from the epicenter of the earthquake. Yadin seems to understand the earthquake as the main factor in the transition between Strata VI-V: “The destruction wrought by the earthquake was quickly repaired and the next city represented by Stratum V is very similar indeed in character to that of Stratum VI,” and “Stratum V […] was rebuilt immediately following the destruction of City VI by the earthquake.” Yadin mentions his broad conclusions regarding his feeling of having found significant evidence for an earthquake several times. He claims that “[t]he earthquake which destroyed Stratum VI seems to be the one referred to in the Bible, which occurred during the reign of King Uzziah (c. 760 B.C.).” In fact, he uses this as a chronological anchor point in order to date Stratum V to between the earthquake and the destruction by Tiglat-pileser in 732 B.C.E. and in aid of dating the destruction of Stratum VII to the Aramean attack at the end of the 9th century B.C.E. and thereby dating the well-appointed Stratum VIII to the time of Ahab in the early-middle of that century.

There are several problems with Yadin’s conclusion that an earthquake is evidenced by finds in Stratum VI at Tell Hazor and that that earthquake is to be identified with the one described in the Book of Amos, in the mid-8th century B.C.E. Some pieces of Yadin’s evidence for an earthquake are not convincing and his stratigraphic conclusions in Area A, where all of the purported earthquake evidence was found, have been challenged by Ben-Tor’s excavations. The items of evidence Yadin found are mainly of two types: leaning or fallen walls or pillars and fallen ceiling pieces. In total, Yadin describes 7 leaning or partially fallen walls, 3 leaning columns, collapsed plaster ceilings in 2 buildings, and broken pottery under some of those ceilings.

Regarding the first group of evidence of walls and pillars, Yadin thought that the reason why no other walls had fallen or were leaning was that these were of the thinner walls. To some degree, these walls are thinner, but not very significantly. I would also add that one of the walls that partially collapsed, the west wall of room 113, was freestanding on one end, making it highly susceptible to tilt from any sort of uneven load. Plus, the description of whole courses of stones falling together is unintelligible in light of the construction of these walls, made out of unfinished and partially finished stones of various sizes, held together with mortar. These are not walls of ashlar masonry which could actually be said to fall in rows. In addition the evidence of walls or pillars falling in the same direction is not necessarily indicative of an earthquakes directional force. All of this evidence was found only in Area A, which is at the eastern end of the upper city.

In terms of the direction of the walls and pillars tilt or collapse, all of the walls were to the east or southeast, toward the downward slope of that part of the tell. Yadin seems to have thought it was the eastern end of the previous levels in the upper city, which would have been constituted of only the upper city’s western half. As noted by Ambraseys, it is most common for walls to fall in the direction of downward sloping, which is outwards at a major slope or edge of a tell. This makes it more likely that the tilting of several walls within close proximity to one another can have occurred due to slower processes, such as water seepage causing leeching of soils in the particulate, not well compacted ground of a tell. Although it is difficult to discern in the site reports how much the ground sloped at the time of Stratum VI, it is notable that in the southeast corner of Building 21a, in room 80a, where the wall and pillars are leaning southward, the floor is 0.2 m. lower than the floors in rooms 81a and 2a, at 229.55 m. elevation rather than 229.75 m. (see Figure 4). Nonetheless, we cannot rule out an earthquake as the cause of the damage to these walls.

For the evidences of ceiling collapse, it is not simple to ascribe them to earthquake damage; they may be due to abandonment and weakening. It is important for this to have a cataloging of the ceiling fragments according to size and location in order to distinguish between slow and sudden collapse, but this is absent in the Hazor reports. However, in Yadin’s favor, it is unclear if there would have been enough time for slow collapse in Stratum VI according to his chronology of the stratigraphy. It is also difficult to tell to what extent ceilings actually collapsed as the reports only contain mention of it in two buildings, whereas elsewhere Yadin implies that there was more widespread collapse as previously noted. Also, the discovery of broken pottery with ceiling fragments above it does not lead to the necessary conclusion that the ceiling fragments destroyed the pots.

A curious point is the fact that, in Building 2a, the Stratum V walls were built immediately on top of the leaning Stratum VI walls with essentially the same plan as the earlier stratum. In addition, Yadin claims that the material culture of the two strata is very similar if not identical. He concludes from this that there was a quick rebuilding of this structure (and the others) after the earthquake at a higher level, with the fallen parts of the structure buried under the floor of the next level so as not to necessitate the removal of the rubble. Yadin views this as conclusive evidence that an earthquake is what destroyed the previous stratum, but, even if he is correct that this indicates a quick rebuilding, an earthquake as the cause of the previous destruction is not the necessary cause. The biggest evidentiary problem facing Yadin’s proposal is that he does not report any earthquake related damage in any of the other areas excavated in this stratum, neither in Areas B nor G. The lack of widespread destruction makes it much less likely that an earthquake was the cause of these damaged walls and fallen ceilings. Stiros invokes widespread damage as a usual feature of earthquake-related damage and indicates that it is crucial for identification of an earthquake in archaeological remains.

A further complication to Yadin’s assembled evidence is that his whole analysis of the stratigraphy of Area A has been challenged by the newer excavations. One of the goals of the renewed excavations was to inspect Yadin’s stratigraphy in this area. Area heads Greenberg and Bonfil constructed a differing stratigraphy from Yadin’s. They noted an asymmetry in the ceramic, architectural, and stratigraphic phases as well as problems with the correlation of strata between the three Areas: A, B, and G. Part of their solution was to combine Yadin’s Stratum VIII and part of Stratum VII into a single Stratum 5, during which the Pillared Building and connected storehouse originally functioned. Stratum 4 equates to the rest of Stratum VII. At that time, Building 2a was initially built, while the Pillared Building was still in use, as opposed to Yadin’s ascription of it to Stratum VI. Stratum 3 corresponds to Yadin’s Stratum VI and possibly Stratum 2 to Yadin’s Stratum V, although those last results were not clear after the first four seasons of renewed excavation. This reorganization of the stratigraphy places the damage noted by Yadin to the end of Stratum 4, Yadin’s Stratum VII, and coterminous with the large Pillared Building and adjacent storehouse going out of use. This significant change in the layout of the buildings and the change to using smaller buildings in the area seems to imply that a significant change occurred. But, since no earthquake evidence was found in the other buildings Yadin ascribed to Stratum VII and since the large building went out of use in favor of smaller ones, it seems that a period of abandonment leading to a reorganization of the area is more probable than an earthquake. If so, then Yadin’s argument from the sealing of the floor of the initial stratum in Building 2a after an earthquake is unappealing. In addition, it would seem that the fallen ceiling pieces and leaning wall and pillars in Building 2a would then be distanced in time from the leaning walls and fallen ceilings in the nearby buildings to its northeast.

In sum, although Yadin’s reasoning and evidence is questionable in several different ways, making it more probable that it does not substantiate the earthquake mentioned in Amos than that it does, more investigation is necessary to make solid conclusions. One can hope that the current excavations will include experts trained in the detection of archaeoseismic evidence, that the excavation design will include emphasis on answering this question, and that the reports will contain the detail needed to investigate such possibilities. More recently, William Dever claimed to have discovered evidence for an earthquake in the middle of the 8th century B.C.E. at Tell Gezer. The focus of his evidence is on the outer wall of the city, in which he has found cracks through several courses of stones, bends in the wall, and stones fallen off of it, supposedly with stretches of courses together. Although the arrangement of courses of stones falling in both directions off of a wall is good evidence for an earthquake, “collapsed, bulging or outwardly leaning retaining walls are unlikely to be due to earthquake damage alone.” And, even though the bottom courses of the wall “were set into leveled-out depressions cut directly into the bedrock,” the outward pressure from the inside ground of the tell could very well have caused significant displacement of higher stones. Since Dever offers no other evidence than that of the outer wall at Gezer, our conclusion will have to be open ended until further inspection of the site and/or its reports are completed.

This paper has investigated the possible biblical and some of the possible archaeological evidence relating to the earthquake in the days of Uzziah mentioned in the Book of Amos. Our conclusions are mixed. Biblical evidence points toward an impactful earthquake. As of yet, the archaeological evidence which has been suggested as indicative of this earthquake by several archaeologists and scholars is largely inconclusive. Further archaeological excavations with this problem in mind, as well as with personnel knowledgeable in archaeoseismological investigation could make significant inroads toward its solution. The biblical evidence is very strong since most scholars recognize the earliest parts of the Book of Amos as belonging to the 8th century B.C.E. Because of that, there is an expectation that corresponding archaeological evidence will be found, but that will not necessarily occur. It is quite possible that no recognizable trace of this earthquake has remained in the archaeological record due to myriad factors. Even if it might exist, the biblical account is so vague regarding the location of actual damages incurred that digs may not be aimed in the correct locations. As such, it remains an open problem.

J. L. Porter, Handbook for Travellers in Syria and Palestine, London 1875, 414-415

J. Garstang, PEQ 59 (1927), 224-225

Y. Yadin, Antiquity and Survival2 (1957), 165-186

id., Archaeology 10 (1957), 83-92

id., Guildhall Lectures 1962, 7-26

id., The Biblical Archaeologist Reader 2 (eds. E. F. Campbell, Jr., and D. N. Freedman), Garden City, N.Y. 1964, 191-224

id., Archaeology and Old Testament Study (ed. D. W. Thomas), Oxford 1967, 244-263

id., Hazar: The Head of All Those Kingdoms (Schweich Lectures 1970), London 1972; id., BTS 156 (1973), 8-14

id., Hazar: The Rediscovery of a Great Citadel of the Bible, New York 1975

0. Tufnell, PEQ 91 (1959), 90-105

J. Gray, VT !6 (1966), 26-52

Weippert 1988 (Ortsregister).

Y. Yadin, BA 19 (1956), 1-12

32 (1969), 49-71

id., IEJ 6 (1956), 120-125

7 (1957), 118- 123

8 (1958), 1-14

9 (1959), 74-88

19 (1969), 1-19

(withY. Shiloh) 21 (1971), 230

id., RB 67 (1960), 371-375

76 (1969), 550-557

78 (1971), 584-585.

Y. Yadin et al., Hazar 1-4, An Account of the First Season of Excavations, Jerusalem 1955.- Second Season, 1956.-Third and Fourth Seasons, 1957-1958, pis. (The James A. de Rothschild Expedition at Hazor), Jerusalem 1958-1961

Third and Fourth Seasons 1957-1958, text (ed. A. Ben-Tor), Jerusalem 1989

P. Bienkowski, PEQ 119 (1987), 50-61

G. C. Grindstaff, "An Analysis of Five Late Bronze Age Cities in the Ancient Mediterranean World" (Ph.D. diss., Oklahoma 1988).

J. Garstang, Joshua-Judges, London 1931

B. Mazar, HUCA 24 (1952-1953), 80ff.

F. Mass, Von Ugarit nach Qumran (ZAW Beiheft 77), Berlin 1958, 108ff.

Y. Aharoni, BAR I/4 (1975), 3-4, 26

Y. Yadin, ibid. 2/1 (1976), 3ff.

8/2 (1982), 25-36

id., ASOR Symposia (ed. F. M. Cross, Jr.), Cambridge, Mass. 1979, 57-68

W. E. Rast, E/20 (1989), 166*-173

W. G. Dever, BASOR 277-278 (1990), 121-130; G. J. Wightman, ibid., 5-28.

Y. Yadin, IEJS (1958), 80-86

W. G. Dever, BA 32 (1969), 71-78

K. M. Kenyon, Royal Cities of the Old Testament, London 1971, 53-58

R. Reich, IEJ 25 (1975), 233-237

D. Cole, BAR 6/2 (1980), 8-29

D. Milson, ZDPV 102 (1986), 87-92

Y. Shiloh, Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation (D. Glenn Rose Fest.), Atlanta 1987, 207-209

S. Geva, Hazar, Israel: An Urban Community of the 8th Century B.C.E. (BAR/IS 543), Oxford 1989

0. Lipschitz, TA 19 (1990), 69-99

E. Stern, IEJ 40 (1990), 12-30

W. F. Albright, VT Supplement 4 (1957), 242-258

K. Galling, ZDPV 75 (1959), 1-13; Y. Yadin, NEAT, 200-231

H. Shanks, IEJ23 (1973), 234-235

M. Ottosson, Temples and Cult Places in Palestine (Uppsala Studies in Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern Civilizations 12), Uppsala 1980; P. Beck, IEJ 33 (1983), 78-80

id., TA 17 (1990), 91-95.

W. W. Hallo and H. Tadmor, IEJ27 (1977), I-ll

H. Tadmor, ibid., 98-102

J. Naveh, EI !5 (1981), 85*

Buried History 27 (1991), 91-93.

A. Malamat, JBL 79 (1960), 12ff.

id., BA 46 (1983), 169-174

id., 2nd International Congress on Bibilical Archaeology 24 June-4 July 1990: Abstracts, Jerusalem 1990, 17

id., Mari and the Early Israelite Experience (Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 1984), Oxford 1989, 55-69

id., Reflets de Deux Fleuves (A. Finet Fest.), Leuven 1989, 117-118.

Hazor V: An Account of the 5th Season of Excavations, 1968 (The James A. De Rothschild Expedition at Hazor

eds. A. Ben-Tor & R. Bonfil), Jerusalem 1997

ibid (Reviews) NEA 61 (1998), 134. — BASOR 311 (1998), 92–94. — Orientalia N. S. 68 (1999), 140–142. — Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 94 (1999), 679–685. — JNES 59 (2000), 296–299. — Syria 77 (2000), 330–332. — NEAS Bulletin 46 (2001), 65–66

Y. Stepansky, The Periphery of Hazor during the Bronze Age, the Iron Age and the Persian Period: A Regional-Archaeological Study (M.A. thesis), Tel Aviv 1999 (Eng. abstract)

D. Ben-Ami, The Galilee and the Ḥula Valley during the Early Iron Age II: The Characteristics of the Material Culture in Northern Israel in View of the Recent Excavations at Tel Hazor, 1–2 (Ph.D. diss.), Jerusalem 2003 (Eng. abstract)

S. Zuckerman, The Kingdom of Hazor in the Late Bronze Age: Chronological and Regional Aspects of the Material Culture of Hazor and its Settlements, 1–3 (Ph.D. diss.), Jerusalem 2003 (Eng. abstract).

A. Ben-Tor (et al.), ESI 10 (1991), 68–69

13 (1993), 12–13

14 (1995), 9–13

15 (1996), 12–14; 18 (1998), 9–10

19 (1999), 2*–3*

20 (2000), 4*–5*

110 (1999), 4*–5*

111 (2000), 2*–4*

115 (2003), 3*–4*

116 (2004), 3*–4*

id., IEJ 42 (1992), 17–20, 254–260

43 (1993), 253–256

45 (1995), 65–68, 283–287

46 (1996), 262–268

47 (1997), 261–264

48 (1998), 1–37 (& D. Ben-Ami), 274–278

49 (1999), 269–274

50 (2000), 243–249

51 (2001), 235–238

52 (2002), 254–257

53 (2003), 218–223

54 (2004), 230–235

55 (2005), 209–216

id. (& M. T. Rubiato), Revista de Arqueologia 148 (1993), 22–33

183 (1996), 26–33

194 (1997), 26–35

id., AJA 98 (1994), 489–490

100 (1996), 735–738

102 (1998), 769– 771, 774

id., ASOR Newsletter 46/2 (1996), 19

id., EI 25 (1996), 89*–90*

id., The Archaeology of Israel, Sheffield 1997, 107–127

id., OEANE, 3, New York 1997, 1–5

id., MdB 105 (1997), 53

id., BAR 24/1 (1998), 44

25/2 (1999), 26–37, 60

25/3 (1999), 22–39 (& M. T. Rubiato)

id., Mediterranean Peoples in Transition, Jerusalem 1998, 456–467

id., BASOR 317 (2000), 9–15

id., Cultural Interactions in Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean during the Bronze Age (3000–500 B.C.) (BAR/IS 985

ed. B. Werbart), Oxford 2001, 7–8

id., TA 28 (2001), 301–304

id., Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 16 (2002), 303–308

id., Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past, Winona Lake, IN 2003, 540–542

id., Ägypten und Levante 14 (2004), 45–67

id., Jahrbuch des Deutschen Evangelischen Instituts für Altertumswissenschaft des Heiligen Landes 10 (2004), 182–184

D. Milson, ZDPV 107 (1991), 39–47

id., PEQ 124 (1992), 31–41

M. Bonechi, Florilegium Marianum (M. Fleury Fest.

N.A.B.U. Mémoires 1), Paris 1992, 9–22

W. G. Dever, ABD, 5, New York 1992, 578–581

id., Retrieving the Past, Winona Lake, IN 1996, 37–42

id., The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium (Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 11

ed. L. K. Handy), Leiden 1997, 217–251

id., BAR 30/6 (2004), 42–45

S. Geva, EI 23 (1992), 151*

J. M. Hamilton, ABD, 3, New York 1992, 87–88

A. Malamat, Ägypten und Levante 3 (1992), 121–123

id., BAT II, Jerusalem 1993, 66–70

id., Mari and the Bible (Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 12), Leiden 1998, 41–50

id., Semitic and Assyriological Studies (P. Fronzaroli Fest.), Wiesbaden 2003, 355–357

G. R. Stone, BH 28 (1992), 50–63

D. Ussishkin, TA 19 (1992), 274–281

27 (2000), 248–256

P. Daviau, Houses, Sheffield 1993, 73–88, 220–259

id., “Où demeures-tu?” (Jn 1,38): La maison depuis le monde biblique (G. Coutureir Fest.

ed. J. -P. Petit), Saint Laurent, Quebec 1994, 71–92

J. Poulin, MdB 81 (1993), 42–44

M. T. Rubiato Diaz, Sefarad 53 (1993), 193–208

54 (1994), 151–154

56 (1996), 189–197

id., Simposio Biblico Español 4/1, Valencia 1993, 59– 65

J. D. Seger, BASOR 290–291 (1993), 134–135 (Review)

N. A. Silberman, A Prophet from Amongst You: The Life of Yigael Yadin, Reading, MA 1993

id., Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period (Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 18

eds. A. G. Vaughn & A. E. Killebrew), Leiden 2003, 395–405

S. R. Wolff, AJA 97 (1993), 143–144

100 (1996), 741–742

J. G. Van der Land, Bijbel: Geschiedenis en Archeologie 1 (1994), 1–12

W. A. Ward & W. G. Dever, Scarab Typology and Archaeological Context: An Essay on Middle Bronze Age Chronology (Studies on Scarab Seals 3), San Antonio, TX 1994, 62–63

R. North, BR 11/3 (1995), 33–35

J. Renz, Die Althebräischen Inschriften 1 (Handbuch der Althebräischen Epigraphik), Darmstadt 1995, 124–128

S. Bunimovitz, Cathedra 81 (1996), 185

id. (& A. Faust), BAR 28/4 (2002), 33–41

A. Cohen-Weinberger, ASOR Newsletter 46/2 (1996), 28

J. Ebeling, ibid., 20

V. Fritz, The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States (JSOT Suppl. Series 228

ed. V. Fritz), Sheffield 1996, 187–195

id., Jahrbuch des Deutschen Evangelischen Instituts für Altertumswissenschaft des Heiligen Landes 5 (1997), 59–66

R. Greenberg, The Ḥula Valley from the Beginning of the Early Bronze Age to the End of the Middle Bronze Age IIA (Ph.D. diss.), Jerusalem 1996

id. (& N. Porat), BASOR 301 (1996), 5–24

id., Ceramics and Change, Sheffield 2000, 183–200

G. Heinsohn, Chronology and Catastrophism Review N.S. 1 (1996), 21–26

A. Rabinovich, Archaeology 49/6 (1996), 15

51/3 (1998), 50–55 (& N. A. Silberman)

Y. Stepansky, ‘Atiqot 28 (1996), 195

A. Zertal, Michmanim 9 (1996), 73–82

K. Covello-Paran, ESI 19 (1997), 1*

115 (2003), 4*–5*

G. Galil, Cathedra 84 (1997), 189

id., Israel Oriental Studies 18 (1998), 373–385

L. G. Herr, BA 60 (1997), 122, 137–138

A. Hurowitz, BAR 23/3 (1997), 46– 47

A. M. Maeir, The Material Culture of the Central Jordan Valley during the Middle Bronze II Period: Pottery and Settlement Pattern, 1–2 (Ph.D. diss.), Jerusalem 1997

id., PEQ 132 (2000), 37–58

A. Mazar, Levant 29 (1997), 157–167

id., Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past, Winona Lake, IN 2003, 85–98

B. Rochman, BAR 23/6 (1997), 25

H. Shanks (et al.), BAR 23/4 (1997), 26–42, 66

24/2 (1998), 56– 61

M. Widell, Svensk Exegetisk Arsok (Uppsala) 62 (1997), 27–56

Anabel Zarzecki-Peleg, TA 24 (1997), 258–288

J. R. Zorn, IEJ 47 (1997), 214–219

D. Arnaud, Aula Orientalis 16 (1998), 27–35

I. Finkelstein, Levant 30 (1998), 177–187

id., BASOR 314 (1999), 55–70

id., TA 27 (2000), 231–247

id., ZDPV 116 (2000), 114–138

id., PEQ 134 (2002), 118–129

id., BAIAS 21 (2003), 96–100

D. Fleming, RAs 92 (1998), 41–78

W. Herrmann, Deutsches Pfarrerblatt 12 (1998), 715–718

J. Leclant & G. Clerc, Orientalia 67 (1998), 435

A. Faust, Levant 31 (1999), 179–190

35 (2003), 123–138

id., PEQ 132 (2000), 2–27

H. Geva, Archaeological Sites in Israel, 4, Jerusalem 1999, 6–10

G. Hagens, Antiquity 73/280 (1999), 437

B. Halpern, EI 26 (1999), 52*–63*

id., VT Suppl. 80, Leiden 2000, 79–121

id., David’s Secret Demons (The Bible in its World), Grand Rapids, MI 2001

D. Ilan, Northeastern Israel in the Iron Age I: Cultural, Socioeconomic and Political Perspectives, 1–2 (Ph.D. diss.), Tel Aviv 1999

M. Bietak & K. Kopetzky, Synchronisation, Wien 2000, 108–110

M. Dolan, BH 36 (2000), 4–12

T. Dothan, IEJ 50 (2000), 1–15

Y. Goren, ibid., 29–42

E. A. Knauf, VT Suppl. 80, Leiden 2000, 219–233

H. M. Niemann, TA 27 (2000), 61– 74

id., UF 35 (2003), 445–447 (421–485)

Y. Roman, Eretz 73 (2000), 17–26

C. Schäfer-Lichtenberger, VT Suppl. 80, Leiden 2000, 179–202

id., Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 15 (2001), 104–122; D. Ben-Ami, IEJ 51 (2001), 148–170

id., ASOR Annual Meeting 2004, www.asor.org/AM/am.htm

id., TA 31 (2004), 194–208

A. Fantalkin, Levant 33 (2001), 117–125

T. Ornan, IEJ 51 (2001), 17

UNESCO, Ancient Water Systems in the Biblical Tell: Proposed World Heritage Serial Nomination by the State of Israel, 1–2, Jerusalem 2001

Y. Y. Baumgarten, Cura Aquarum in Israel, Siegburg 2002, 237–238

P. Beck, Imagery and Representation, Tel Aviv 2002, 307–368

G. J. Van Wijngaarden, Use and Appreciation of Mycenaean Pottery in the Levant, Cyprus and Italy (ca 1600–1200 BC), Amsterdam, 2002, 75–97

BAR 29/1 (2003), 53

Z. Gal, IEJ 53 (2003), 147–150

B. Janeway, Bible and Spade 16/3 (2003), 92–96

K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, Grand Rapids, MI 2003 (subject index)

I. Marquez Rowe, A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law 1 (ed. R. Westbrook), Leiden 2003, 737–743

B. Alpert Nakhai, AASOR 58 (2003), 136

N. Schreiber, The Cypro-Phoenician Pottery of the Iron Age (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 13), Leiden 2003, 189–195

W. Zwickel, Gottes Wege Suchend: Beiträge zur Verständnis der Bibel und ihrer Botschaft (R. Mosis Fest.

ed. F. Sedlmeier), Würzburg 2003, 47–61

A. Gilboa et al., JAS 31 (2004), 681–694

K. McGeough & J. Lev-Tov, ASOR Annual Meeting 2004, www.asor.org/ AM/am.htm

S. M. Ortiz, The Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions. The Proceedings of a Symposium, 12–14.8.2001 at Trinity International University (eds. J. K. Hoffmeier & A. Millard), Grand Rapids, MI 2004, 121–147

S. Zuckerman, ASOR Annual Meeting 2004, www.asor.org/AM/am.htm

E. Boaretto et al., Radiocarbon 47 (2005), 39–55

B. Felker, Bible and Spade 18/1 (2005), 29–31

K. Freiling, Artifax 20/3 (2005), 17–21

S. Souza, Bible and Spade 18/1 (2005), 47–52; E. Villeneuve & S. Laurant, MdB 168 (2005), 44–46.

A. Ben-Tor, IEJ 42 (1992), 17–20

W. Horowitz (& A. Shaffer), ibid., 21–33, 165–166; 46 (1996), 268–269

47 (1997), 190–197

48 (1998), 262–264 (& O. Tammuz)

50 (2000), 16–28

169– 174 (& N. Wasserman)

52 (2002), 179–186 (& T. Oshima)

id. (et al.), JAOS 122 (2002), 757

id. (& N. Wasserman), Nomades et sédentaires dans le Proche-Orient ancien: Compe rendu de la XLVIe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Paris, 10–13.7.2000 (Amurru 3

ed. C. Nicolle), Paris 2004, 335–344

J. P. Allen, Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar 15 (2001), 13–15

R. S. Hess, ASOR Annual Meeting Abstract Book, Boulder, CO 2001, 38

id., UF 33 (2001), 237–243

K. A. Kitchen, Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 16 (2002), 309–313

id., IEJ 53 (2003), 20–28

Y. Goren et al., Inscribed in Clay, Tel Aviv 2004, 226–231

N. Na’aman, IEJ 54 (2004), 92–99

B. Sass, The Alphabet at the Turn of the Millennium: The West Semitic Alphabet Ca. 1150–850 bce (Tel Aviv Occasional Publications 4), Tel Aviv 2005, 85–88.