The alleged “anchor point” of 732 BC for the destruction of Hazor V

Abstract: All previous discussions of the chronology of Iron Age Hazor assume as an “anchor point” the destruction of Hazor V by Tiglath-pileser III in 732 BC. Re-examination of Yadin’s case for this date shows that it was merely an assumption on his part. A review of the dating evidence – partly...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: James, Peter
Formato: Artículo
Lenguaje:Inglés
Publicado: Pontificia Universidad Católica Argentina. Facultad de Ciencias Sociales. Departamento de Historia. Centro de Estudios de Historia del Antiguo Oriente 2021
Materias:
CRONOLOGIA
EDAD DE HIERRO
ANTIGUO ORIENTE
HISTORIA ANTIGUA
Acceso en línea:https://repositorio.uca.edu.ar/handle/123456789/11997
Aporte de:
Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad Católica Argentina (UCA) de Universidad Católica Argentina
id I33-R139123456789-11997
record_format dspace
institution Universidad Católica Argentina
institution_str I-33
repository_str R-139
collection Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad Católica Argentina (UCA)
language Inglés
topic CRONOLOGIA
EDAD DE HIERRO
ANTIGUO ORIENTE
HISTORIA ANTIGUA
spellingShingle CRONOLOGIA
EDAD DE HIERRO
ANTIGUO ORIENTE
HISTORIA ANTIGUA
James, Peter
The alleged “anchor point” of 732 BC for the destruction of Hazor V
topic_facet CRONOLOGIA
EDAD DE HIERRO
ANTIGUO ORIENTE
HISTORIA ANTIGUA
description Abstract: All previous discussions of the chronology of Iron Age Hazor assume as an “anchor point” the destruction of Hazor V by Tiglath-pileser III in 732 BC. Re-examination of Yadin’s case for this date shows that it was merely an assumption on his part. A review of the dating evidence – partly historical but principally the input from the independently dateable archaeological chronologies of Cyprus, Phoenicia, Mesopotamia and Egypt – suggests that Hazor V fell much later than 732 BC. Consequently both the Yadin (“high”) and Finkelstein (“low”) models for the chronology of Iron II Hazor are working from an incorrect baseline. A model is offered here which, while arguing a shift of the Iron IIA period from the tenth to ninth century BC, does not unduly compress Strata X-VII, closes the alleged long settlement gap at the site during the Neo-Babylonian to Early Persian period and resolves numerous dating anomalies arising from imported finds.
format Artículo
author James, Peter
author_facet James, Peter
author_sort James, Peter
title The alleged “anchor point” of 732 BC for the destruction of Hazor V
title_short The alleged “anchor point” of 732 BC for the destruction of Hazor V
title_full The alleged “anchor point” of 732 BC for the destruction of Hazor V
title_fullStr The alleged “anchor point” of 732 BC for the destruction of Hazor V
title_full_unstemmed The alleged “anchor point” of 732 BC for the destruction of Hazor V
title_sort alleged “anchor point” of 732 bc for the destruction of hazor v
publisher Pontificia Universidad Católica Argentina. Facultad de Ciencias Sociales. Departamento de Historia. Centro de Estudios de Historia del Antiguo Oriente
publishDate 2021
url https://repositorio.uca.edu.ar/handle/123456789/11997
work_keys_str_mv AT jamespeter theallegedanchorpointof732bcforthedestructionofhazorv
AT jamespeter elpretendidopuntodeanclajede732acparaladestrucciondehazorv
AT jamespeter allegedanchorpointof732bcforthedestructionofhazorv
bdutipo_str Repositorios
_version_ 1764820525293502466

Ejemplares similares