THE DATE OF KUNTILLET >AJRUD: THE 14C PERsPECTIVE*

Israel Finkelstein
Tel Aviv University

Eli Piasetzky

Abstract In this article we take a fresh look at the radiocarbon results from Kuntillet >Ajrud. We maintain that they can provide a reasonably accurate date for both the construction and abandonment of the site. The 14C determinations seem to indicate that the site was built between 820 and 795 BCE and was abandoned after 745 BCE. Historical consideration discussed in the article may narrow this time-span to ca. 795730/720 BCE. Fixing the dates of construction and desertion of Kuntillet >Ajrud is essential for the study of key issues in the history of the Levant in the Iron II: the nature of the Arabian trade; the Assyrian involvement in the southern deserts; the relationship between the Arabs, Israel and Judah, etc. Two avenues exist for verifying these dates: studying the pottery of the site in comparison to well-known assemblages from Judah and Israel, and interpreting the 14C determinations for samples taken from the site.

PAST RESEARCH
The date of the Kuntillet >Ajrud pottery has been debated. Ayalon, who published the pottery of the site (1995: 198), compared it to (mainly northern) assemblages from the 9th and first half of the 8th century; accordingly he dated the site to the end of 9th and beginning of the 8th century BCE.1 singer-Avitz has recently
* This study was carried out with the help of the Chaim Katzman Archaeology Fund and the Jacob M. Alkow Chair in the Archaeology of Israel in the Bronze and Iron Ages, Tel Aviv University. Paleographically, Cross (1980: 18) and Naveh (1982: 66, 69) dated the Kuntillet >Ajrud inscriptions to ca. 800 BCE, while Lemaire (1984) dated them to the first half of the 8th century BCE. Historically, Lemaire opted for the days of Jeroboam II.

175

Tel Aviv 35 (2008)

proposed down-dating the site by ca. a century, to the late 8th century, arguing that its pottery belongs to the Lachish III horizon in Judah. she concluded that the abandonment of the site may have happened concurrently with the dramatic events in Judah during sennacheribs 701 BCE campaign, or perhaps a short while later (singer-Avitz 2006: 211212) and that the foundation of the site may have been linked to the Assyrian construction effort along the southern trade-routes, for instance at Tell Abu salima, Ruqeish and Blakhiyah (idem: 213). Accordingly, singer-Avitz proposed associating the northern pottery forms found at Kuntillet >Ajrud with Israelite refugees who came to Judah after the fall of the North in 722/720 BCE. The two conflicting dates for Kuntillet >Ajrud put the site in utterly different historical backgrounds: the first, during the high days of the Northern Kingdom, ca. 800 BCE, and the second under Assyrian auspices, ca. 700 BCE. sixteen samples from Kuntillet >Ajrud, mainly of wood remains, provided 14C determinations. segal (1995) interpreted them as dating the occupation of the site from the end of the 9th to the beginning of the 8th century BCE. Meshel, Carmi and segal (1995) used the same set of data to date the site to 830760 BCE. Carmi and segal (1996) proposed a narrower time-range800770 BCE. since most of the radiocarbon measurements originated from wood samples, one could argue that the dates are influenced by the old wood effect (e.g., singer-Avitz 2006: 197), i.e., that the occupation of the site is later than the date of the wood used for construction. In what follows we wish to take a fresh look at the radiocarbon results from Kuntillet >Ajrud. We maintain that they can provide a reasonably accurate date for both the construction and abandonment of the site.

THE DATA
The radiocarbon measurements from Kuntillet >Ajrud are presented in Table 1 (segal 1995).2 We excluded Nos. 15 and 16. The former was removed as it is a single measurement much younger than all the rest (5 sD lower than the lower group below); if not removed it would determine the terminus post quem of the site by itself. No. 16 is older than the rest of the readings; removal of this sample bears no consequences on our procedure (below).

A sample not cited in the table, RT 2095 (segal 1995: 208), is obviously modern.

176

Finkelstein and Piasetzky: The Date of Kuntillet >AjrudThe 14C Perspective

TABLE 1. 14C DETERMINATIONs FOR sAMPLEs FROM KUNTILLET >AJRUD

No.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Type
Tamarix Tamarix Tamarix Tamarix Tamarix Tamarix Tamarix Worked wood

Sample no.
RT-18271* RT-18271* RT-18291* RT-18291* RT-1832 RT-1833 RT-1835 RT-2094

Uncalibrated date [BP]

263545 271060 264545 266050 269550 260045 264050 266045

9 10 11 12 13 14

Arundo/Phragmites (reed) Acacia raddiana Tamarix Tamarix Phoenix dactylifera (date palm) Fabric

RT-1828 RT-1830 RT-1831 RT-1834 RT-1836 RT-2096A

241045 242570 255545 250560 248050 249540

15 16

Tamarix straw

RT-1826 RT-2097

227540 278555

* sample prepared and measured twice.

METHOD
C dates of charcoal and wood can provide only a terminus post quem for the stratum/site in which they were found; in other words, the stratum must date to the time of the wood or later. In this work we use a new quantitative method which allows us to determine the oldest possible date which can be imposed on a given stratum/site by a set of wood/charcoal measurements. We define a quantity marked '2 that depends only on the measurements below the actual date of the stratum and reflects how much this date is above (earlier than)
14

177

Tel Aviv 35 (2008)

these points. The proposed quantity is the square of the average distance between the date (y) and the points below it (i.e., younger than the actual date), normalized by the standard deviation of the measurements:

Where yi and i are respectively the value and standard deviation of the wood measurement for sample i; y is the proposed age for the stratum; and n is the number of measurements that are below (younger than) y. The y that corresponds to '2 =1 is the limit on the stratum age, i.e., the stratum must be younger than y('2 = 1). In limited cases, in order to be on the safe side, one can use the more conservative limit of '2 2.

RESULTS
The value of '2 as a function of the assumed age of the stratum (y) is shown in Figure 1, calculated for the 14 measurements between 2400 to 2700 BP. The points are shown at intervals of 5 years. These data points yield y('2 = 1) = 2470 BP and y('2 = 2) = 2525 BP. Using the IntCal04 atmospheric calibration curve (Reimer et al. 2004) by means of the OxCal V 4.0 program (Bronk Ramsey 1995; 2001), the terminus post quem established by the wood samples is 746 and 770 BCE for '2 = 1 and '2 = 2 respectively. In other words, it is clear that the site functioned after 770 BCE and reasonable to argue that it was still active after 746 BCE. We can take this a step further. The Kuntillet >Ajrud radiocarbon readings may be divided into two groups (Fig. 2). The average uncalibrated age of the older group (samples 18) is 265117 BP and the average date of the younger group (samples 914) is 248322 BP. The dates of the two groups are 16828 (6) apart, which indicates that they probably represent a genuine time difference. One can interpret the old group as originating from wood used in the construction of the site and the young group as representing items and materials used in the end-phase of its activity. The small fluctuations in the older group may be interpreted as indicating that all the wood was cut at the same time, for the construction of the site. This is not surprising in an arid environment, where (unlike in a tell situation) old wood was difficult if not impossible to come by. In this case the calibrated average for this group 818801 BCEprovides the date of construction of the site. A similar date is achieved if one deploys the procedure to determine the terminus post quem (above) for the old group alone. The calibrated date for the younger group is 754544 BCE. The broad range is due to a flat section of the calibration curve. The starting date (754 BCE) fits well between the two limits discussed above in the middle of the 8th century BCE (770 and 745 BCE).
178

Finkelstein and Piasetzky: The Date of Kuntillet >AjrudThe 14C Perspective

Fig 1. The '2 function for the data in Table 1. The two dashed horizontal lines mark '2 = 1 and '2 = 2.

Another way to deal with the data is to separate the nine tamarix samples. Tamarix was used at Kuntillet >Ajrud in the construction of the walls (see picture in Meshel 1978: 8, Fig. 3 in this article). The tamarix samples (with the exclusion of the outlierNo. 15) yield an average uncalibrated date of 262720 BP, which translates to a calibrated date of 810796 BCE for the construction of the sitequite similar to the date achieved for the early group. To sum up this section, the 14C results for the wood samples from Kutillet >Ajrud seem to supply more information than can be seen at first glance. The site was probably built between 820 and 795 BCE and was abandoned after 745 BCE.

179

Tel Aviv 35 (2008)

Fig 2. Radiocarbon measurements from Kuntillet >Ajrud. The y('2 = 1) and y('2 = 2) are marked by dashed lines. The samples excluded from the analysis are crossed out.

DISCUSSION
It remains to review the geopolitical circumstances that brought about the construction and abandonment of Kuntillet >Ajrud. In a broader sense, we refer to the growing prosperity and decline of the Darb el-Ghazza as an important thoroughfare for the lucrative southern trade (Fig. 4). Regarding the date of construction of the site, the period of time between ca. 820/810 and 795 is characterized by stormy events in the region. In the late 9th century the territory of the Northern Kingdom in the lowlands, as well as the Coastal Plain and the shephelah, were dominated by Hazael king of Aram Damascus (Lemaire 1991; Naaman 1997; Lipiski 2000: 377383). In order to take over the
180

Finkelstein and Piasetzky: The Date of Kuntillet >AjrudThe 14C Perspective

Fig. 3. Branches of tamarix used as construction material in a wall at Kuntillet >Ajrud (Meshel 1978: 8).

southern Coastal Plain and the shephelah, Hazael assaulted Gath (Tell es-afi) seemingly the most powerful Philistine city at that time (Maeir 2004). Radiocarbon measurements put the destruction of Gath in the range 840820 BCE (sharon et al. 2007; Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2007). At the end of the 9th century the geopolitical situation in the region changed dramatically. Adad-nirari III renewed the Assyrian pressure in the west and defeated Damascus. His references to Edom
181

Tel Aviv 35 (2008)

and Philistia in the Calah inscription and to Joash King of Israel as paying tribute to Assyria in the Tell er-Rima stele (for both inscriptions see Tadmor 1973) seem to indicate that he inherited control (though not direct) over the southern Coastal Plainan area which had previously been dominated by Hazael (Naaman 2006: 203204). Contemporaneously, and probably in collaboration with Assyria, the Northern Kingdom recovered from several decades of decline and struck back at Aram Damascus. This recovery began in the days of Joash (2 Kings 13:25), who ruled in the years 800784 BCE (e.g., Miller and Hayes 1986: 289302; Lemaire 1993; Lipiski 2000: 395; Naaman 2006: 231233). In parallel Joash seems to have acted against Judah (see 2 Kings 8:14, which must have preserved at least a kernel of historical events). With regard to Kuntillet >Ajrud, there are two possible scenarios: According to the first, the growing prosperity of the Darb el-Ghazza and the construction of Kuntillet >Ajrud had been connected to the trade initiatives of Hazael. According to the second, this prosperity was stimulated by the recovery of Israel in the days of King Joash. Unambiguous Iron IIA pottery was not found at Kuntillet >Ajrud. Had the site been built in the late 9th century, some sherds representing this initial period of activity should have been found there. In other words, it is preferable to date the construction of Kuntillet >Ajrud as late as possible (in radiocarbon terms this means the beginning of the 8th century BCE) and relate it to the trade initiatives of the Northern Fig. 4. Two alternative routes for the Arabian trade: Kingdom in the days of King The EdomBeersheba Valley Road and the Darb Joash, probably in conjunction el-Ghazza.
182

Finkelstein and Piasetzky: The Date of Kuntillet >AjrudThe 14C Perspective

with Judah (which was dominated by Israel) and possibly also in conjunction with its suzerain, Assyria, which at that time was not yet directly involved in this region (Naaman 2006: 231233). Accordingly, activity at Kuntillet >Ajrud must have expanded in the days Jeroboam II (Lemaire 1984: 138). Regarding the abandonment of Kuntillet >Ajrud, as convincigly argued by singer-Avitz, the sites pottery assemblage, which evidently represents its final days, belongs to the Lachish III horizon in Judah. As such it is later than the pottery assemblage from Level 3 at Beth shemesh, described by the excavators as showing close affinities with the pottery of Lachish IV [i.e., Iron IIAI.F. and E.P.] and transitional pottery groups between Lachish IV and III. On the other hand, some types are related to the pottery of Lachish III (Bunimovitz and Lederman 2006: 419). The destruction of Beth shemesh 3 is 14C dated to 765745 BCE (sharon et al. 2007: 40, 44; Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2007). As for the North, the Kuntillet >Ajrud pottery is later than the late-Iron IIA assemblage from the upper destruction layer at Tell el-Hammah in the Beth shean Valley, which is radiocarbon dated to 800780 BCE (sharon et al. 2007: 39, 44; Finkelstein and Piasetzky forthcoming). All this well fits the radiocarbon terminus post quem for the end of activity at Kuntillet >Ajrud ca. 745 BCE. Dating the beginning of the Lachish III assemblage in Judah to the mid-8th century BCE is not surprising if one considers that at Arad this assemblage characterizes three strata (XVIII), the latter destroyed by sennacherib in 701 BCE (singer-Avitz 2002 159180). But when, after ca. 745 BCE, was Kuntillet >Ajrud abandoned? In order to answer this question one needs to turn to broader historical considerations. With the Assyrian take-over of the southern Coastal Plain, the main route of the Arabian-trade passed along the Edomite plateau and crossed the Beersheba Valley to the coast (Fig. 4; Finkelstein 1992; singer-Avitz 1999). In order to administer and protect it the Assyrians built large fortresses at Tell elKheleifeh and >En Hazeva and an administration complex at Buseirah. In parallel they subjugated some of the Arab tribes of the southern deserts and probably reached agreements with others (Ephal 1982). This Assyrian initiative could have started in the days of Tiglath-pileser III, but probably reached its peak in the days of Sargon II. No such effort is seen along the Darb el-Ghazzathe alternative route for the southern trade, which passed through extremely arid territory far from the hands of Assyria and its vassal states.3 In short, it seems that under Assyrian domination, the EdomBeersheba Valley road replaced the Darb el-Ghazza as the main thoroughfare
3

The fort of Kadesh Barneamuch smaller than the fortresses of Tell el-Kheleifeh and >En Hazevaguarded the Darb el-Ghazza in the late 8th and 7th centuries BCE, after the desertion of Kuntillet >Ajrud (see Bernick-Greenberg 2007: 157). This Judahite fort probably served the Assyrian interests in this remote arid area.

183

Tel Aviv 35 (2008)

for Arabian goods and that this was the reason for the abandonment of Kuntillet >Ajrud. Had the site been active in the late 8th century, as argued by singer-Avitz (2006: 211212), there would have been no reason for its abandonment; in other words, in that case it should have continued to function in the 7th century, in the days of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal. Hence, we would suggest that Kuntillet >Ajrud was abandoned some time between ca. 745 and 730/720 BCE. To sum up, the 14C data together with historical consideration seem to indicate that Kuntillet >Ajrud functioned between ca. 795 and 730/720 BCE.

REFERENCEs Ayalon, E. 1995. The Iron Age II Pottery Assemblage from Horvat Teiman (Kuntillet >Ajrud). Tel Aviv 22: 141205. Bernick-Greenberg, H. 2007. The Ceramic Assemblages and the Wheel-Made Pottery Typology. In: Cohen, R. and Bernick-Greenberg, H. Excavations at Kadesh Barnea (Tell el-Qudeirat) 19761982 (IAA Reports 34). Jerusalem: 131186. Bronk Ramsey, C. 1995. Radiocarbon Calibration and Analysis of stratigraphy: The OxCal Program. Radiocarbon 37: 425430. Bronk Ramsey, C. 2001. Development of the Radiocarbon Program OxCal. Radiocarbon 43: 355363. Bunimovitz, s. and Lederman, Z. 2006. The Early Israelite Monarchy in the sorek Valley: Tel Beth-shemesh and Tel Batash (Timnah) in the 10th and 9th Centuries BCE. In: Maeir, A.M. and de Miroschedji, P., eds. I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar. Winona Lake: 407427. Carmi, I. and segal, D. 1996. 14C Dating of an Israelite Biblical site at Kuntillet >Ajrud (Horvat Teiman): Correction, Extension and Improved Age Estimate. Radiocarbon 38: 385386. Cross, F.M. 1980. Newly Found Inscriptions in Old Canaanite and Early Phoenician scripts. BASOR 238: 120. Ephal, I. 1982. The Ancient Arabs. Jerusalem. Finkelstein, I. 1992. Horvat Qitmit and the southern Trade in the Late Iron Age II. ZDPV 108: 156170. Finkelstein, I. and Piasetzky, E. 2007. Radiocarbon Dating and Philistine Chronology with an Addendum on el-Ahwat. Egypt and the Levant 17: 7482. Finkelstein, I. and Piasetzky, E. Forthcoming. Radiocarbon, Iron Age II Destructions and the Israel-Aram Damascus Conflicts in the 9th Century BCE. UF.
184

Finkelstein and Piasetzky: The Date of Kuntillet >AjrudThe 14C Perspective

Lemaire, A. 1984. Date et origine des inscriptions hebraiques et pheniciennes de Kuntillet >Ajrud. Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici 1: 131143. Lemaire, A. 1991. Hazal de Damas, roi dAram. In : Charpin, D. and Joanns, F., eds. Marchands, diplomates et empereurs: tudes sur la civilisation msopotamienne offertes Paul Garelli. Paris : 91108. Lemaire, A. 1993. Joas de samarie, Barhadad de Damas, Zakkur de Hamat. La syrie-Palestine vers 800 av. J.-C. EI 24: 148*157*. Lipiski, E. 2000. The Aramaeans: Their Ancient History, Culture, Religion. Leuven. Maeir, A.M. 2004. The Historical Background and Dating of Amos VI:2: An Archaeological Perspective from Tell es-safi/Gath. VT 54: 319334. Meshel, Z. 1978. Kuntillet >Ajrud: A Religious Center from the Time of the Judaean Monarchy on the Border of Sinai (Israel Museum Catalogue 175). Jerusalem (Hebrew). Meshel, Z., Carmi, I. and segal, D. 1995. 14C Dating of an Israelite Biblical site at Kuntillet >Ajrud (Horvat Teiman). Radiocarbon 37: 205212. Miller, J.M. and Hayes, J.H. 1986. A History of Ancient Israel and Judah. London. Naaman, N. 1997. Historical and Literary Notes on the Excavations of Tel Jezreel. Tel Aviv 24: 122128. Naaman, N. 2006. Ancient Israels History and Historiography: The First Temple Period. Collected Essays Vol. 3. Winona Lake. Naveh, J. 1982. Early History of the Alphabet. Leiden. Reimer, P.J. et al. 2004. INTCAL04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 26-0 ka BP. Radiocarbon 46: 10291058. segal, D. 1995. 14C Dates from Horvat Teiman (Kuntillet >Ajrud) and Their Archaeological Correlation. Tel Aviv 22: 208212. sharon, I., Gilboa, A., Jull, T.A.J. and Boaretto, E. 2007. Report on the First stage of the Iron Age Dating Project in Israel: supporting a Low Chronology. Radiocarbon 49: 146 singer-Avitz, L. 1999. Beersheba: A Gateway Community in southern Arabian Long-Distance Trade in the Eighth Century B.C.E. Tel Aviv 26: 374. singer-Avitz, L. 2002. Arad: The Iron Age Pottery Assemblages. Tel Aviv 29: 110214. singer-Avitz, L. 2006. The Date of Kuntillet >Ajrud. Tel Aviv 33: 196228. Tadmor, H. 1973. The Historical Inscriptions of Adad-Nirari III. Iraq 35: 141150.

185