Transjordan in the Bronze and Iron Ages: A Critique of Glueck's Synthesis

Abstract

On the basis of his regional surveys in Transjordan, Glueck reconstructed a major phase of occupation during the latter part of the EB (his MBI); a gap during most of the MB and LB; a rise in occupation during Iron I-II; and another gap during late Iron II-Persian. He correlated this archaeological evidence with the biblical sources, and connected the late EB material with Abram/Abraham; the MB-LB gap with a late Conquest; the Iron I-II occupations with the Israelite, Ammonite, Moabite, and Edomite kingdoms; and the late Iron II-Persian gap with the Exile. Today, the EB IV occupation has been substantiated, but its connection with the patriarchal period is in dispute. The MB-LB gap has disappeared in central and northern Transjordan, where major (Canaanite) tell sites are well attested. The Iron I period was correctly identified, and includes both Iron IA (probably related to the early Israelites, Ammonites, Moabites, and Edomites), and Iron IB (probably related to the Philistines). Iron IC is attested in Transjordan, and during Iron II the distinctive Israelite, Ammonite, Moabite, and Edomite painted potteries emerge. The Neo-Babylonian and Persian gap has been shown to be incorrect, especially in central and southern Transjordan, in the regions of Ammon and Edom.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 19 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.