Joe Uziel, Yuval Baruch and Nahshon Szanton Jerusalem in the Late Bronze Age – The Glass Half Full Over twenty years ago, N. Na’aman (1996) presented a seminal study in which he par- alleled 10th Century BCE Jerusalem to that of Jerusalem of the el-Amarna period. In both periods, the archaeological remains discovered in over 150 years of excavations have been quite meager, yet the historical and/or biblical accounts indicate Jerusa- lem’s stature as the center of some sort of political entity. In the Late Bronze Age (=LB), the el-Amarna archives present us with evidence of ‘Abdi-Heba’s Jerusalem, the center of a hill country polity, which interacted with other such entities (e.g., Gezer, Gath). 1 The biblical account describes Jerusalem of the 10th Century BCE as the capital of the United Monarchy – that of David and Solomon. The latter period has been discussed extensively, as scholars have grappled about the authenticity of these accounts, particularly in light of the meager archaeological evidence (e.g., Finkelstein et al. 2007). On the other hand, 14th Century BCE Jerusalem (and as a re- sult – LB Jerusalem as a whole) has been accepted as a fact in most reconstructions of the southern Levant in the LB (e.g., Pfoh 2016: 95–96). This of course is a reflection of the objective nature of Jerusalem’s mention in the Amarna correspondence, as opposed to the difficulties of interpreting biblical historiography. Yet many scholars – including Na’aman (1996) – have noted the discrepancy between the textual evidence of the el Amarna period and the archaeological re- mains uncovered at the site. The basis of understanding LB Jerusalem is not whether the site existed or not – but rather the nature of the evidence, or more pre- cisely the lack of evidence. Na’aman’s stance (and therefore then implied to Jerusa- lem of the 10th Century BCE) stems from the principle of negative evidence and its limitations. Others – including Finkelstein, Koch and Lipschits (2011) and Reich (2011) – use the negative evidence as factual, indicating a need to search for a new locale for LB Jerusalem. In the following paper, the LB finds from Jerusalem – in- cluding some old materials and some new ones as well – will be presented and Joe Uziel, Yuval Baruch, Israel Antiquities Authority Nahshon Szanton, Israel Antiquities Authority and Tel Aviv University 1 For further discussions on Jerusalem in the Amarna letters, see e.g., Na’aman 2011, and referen- ces therein. Important to note is that Na’aman (ibid. 34) stresses that the name – despite the Hur- rian theophoric element – does not indicate an ethnic relationship to the Hurrians, but rather the common practice of the spread of such names throughout the southern Levant (see Hess 1993), which seems to indicate the eclectic religious nature of the region in this period, which resulted in the introduction of foreign deities into the Canaanite realm (for further discussion on the religious diversity of the LB, see Uziel 2011). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110628371-009 Brought to you by | Israel Antiquities Authority Authenticated | nahshon.sz@gmail.com author's copy Download Date | 7/29/19 2:53 PM