The myth of Solomon
Abstract
This paper deals with the chronology of Palestine during Iron Age II, i. e., the tenth and ninth centuries B. C. The author evaluates the development of the conception of Solomonic archaeology from the 1920s to the present at Lachish, Ashdod, and Tel ʿIraʾ, and concludes that this conception is based primarily on intuitive guesses and untested assumptions. He calls for revisions in the stratigraphic sequences at sites like Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer. The author presents a lower chronology for Iron Age II, based largely on the data from Samaria.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Finkelstein and others dated Stratum VIII to the 9th century BC and suggested associating it with the northern Israelite kingdom under the Omride dynasty.
“Following a low chronology for the Iron I to IIA transition, Finkelstein and others dated Stratum VIII to the 9th century BC and suggested associating it with the northern Israelite kingdom under the Omride dynasty [81, 85–88].”
From The chronology of Gezer from the end of the late bronze age to iron age II: A meeting point for radiocarbon, archaeology egyptology and the Bible (2023) · cites this paper as [85]
The data and model, with constraints provided by overlying Stratum 7, rule out a 9th century BC date for Stratum VIII.
“The data and model–with constraints provided by overlying Stratum 7 –rule out a 9th century BC date for Stratum VIII (contra [81, 85–88]).”
From The chronology of Gezer from the end of the late bronze age to iron age II: A meeting point for radiocarbon, archaeology egyptology and the Bible (2023) · cites this paper as [85]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Webster, L. C., Wolff, S. R., Ortiz, S. M., Barbosa, M., Coyle, C., Arbino, G. P., Dee, M. W., Hua, Q., & Jacobsen, G. E. (2023) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0293119 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
On archaeological methods and historical considerations: Iron Age II Gezer and Samaria.
Finkelstein, I. (1990) · Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research · doi:10.2307/1357376 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
- Authors
- Wightman, G. J.
- Corresponding author
- Wightman, G. J.
- Venue
- Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 1990-02
- Volume
- 277-278
- Pages
- 5-22
- ISSN
- 0003-097X (ISSN-L)
- 2161-8062
- OpenAlex
- W2334760961
- Cited by
- 23
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2014: 2
- FWCI
- 41.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Biblical Studies and Interpretation
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Ancient Near East History
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Archaeology and Historical Studies
- Keywords
- Iron Age II, Lachish, Ashdod, Hazor, Megiddo, Gezer, Samaria, stratigraphic sequence, biblical archaeology
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
