King Hazael of Aram-Damascus Subjugates Israel, 9th Century B.C.E.

The Bible presents Hazael as a cruel and powerful enemy, who devastated Israelite and Philistine cities, forcing Jerusalem’s King Joash to empty the Temple coffers to save his city. Archaeology helps us to reconstruct his military campaigns and their impact on the Levant.

APA Style

Click to copy

"King Hazael of Aram-Damascus Subjugates Israel, 9th Century B.C.E." (n.d.). TheTorah.com. Retrieved October 30, 2026, from https://www.thetorah.com/article/king-hazael-of-aram-damascus-subjugates-israel-9th-century-bce

SBL Style

Click to copy

"King Hazael of Aram-Damascus Subjugates Israel, 9th Century B.C.E.." TheTorah.com. Accessed October 30, 2026. https://www.thetorah.com/article/king-hazael-of-aram-damascus-subjugates-israel-9th-century-bce.

Assaf Kleiman
King Hazael of Aram-Damascus Subjugates Israel, 9th Century B.C.E.

A bearded figure carved on ivory, ca. 8th cent. B.C.E., from Arslan Tash in northern Syria (Wikimedia, adapted). Some suggest the image is that of King Hazael of Aram-Damascus.

The prophet Elisha goes to Damascus, where he meets Hazael, who will soon assassinate Hadadezer the king of Aram-Damascus, take the throne for himself, and attack Israel.[1] Standing before Hazael, Elisha starts to cry:

‏מלכים ב ח:יב וַיֹּאמֶר חֲזָאֵל מַדּוּעַ אֲדֹנִי בֹכֶה וַיֹּאמֶר כִּי יָדַעְתִּי אֵת אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשֶׂה לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל רָעָה מִבְצְרֵיהֶם תְּשַׁלַּח בָּאֵשׁ וּבַחֻרֵיהֶם בַּחֶרֶב תַּהֲרֹג וְעֹלְלֵיהֶם תְּרַטֵּשׁ וְהָרֹתֵיהֶם תְּבַקֵּעַ.
2 Kgs 8:12 “Why does my lord weep?” asked Hazael. “Because I know,” he replied, “what harm you will do to the Israelite people: you will set their fortresses on fire, put their young men to the sword, dash their little ones in pieces, and rip open their pregnant women.”

Arameans tearing apart Israelites is also mentioned in Amos, which describes it as “threshing” (דּוּשׁ)—drawing on the image of crushing and shredding grain stalks in the process of extracting grain kernels:

‏עמוס א:ג כֹּה אָמַר יְ־הוָה עַל שְׁלֹשָׁה פִּשְׁעֵי דַמֶּשֶׂק וְעַל אַרְבָּעָה לֹא אֲשִׁיבֶנּוּ עַל דּוּשָׁם בַּחֲרֻצוֹת הַבַּרְזֶל אֶת הַגִּלְעָד.
Amos 1:3 Thus said YHWH: For three transgressions of Damascus, for four, I will not revoke it: Because they threshed Gilead with threshing boards of iron.

Hazael ruled over Aram-Damascus for most of the second half of the 9th century, and his consistent attacks on Israel are described in multiple biblical accounts, sometimes mentioning him by name, and sometimes just referring to the Arameans.

The Tel Dan Inscription

The sensational discovery of the Tel Dan Stele, which describes the wars between Aram and the Northern Kingdom from the perspective of the King of Damascus, probably Hazael, has certainly enriched our understanding significantly.[2] First of all, it provides us an extra-biblical evidence for the wars between the two kingdoms in the 9th century. It also offers a different perspective on the war’s beginning:

ויעל · מלך · ישראל · קדם · בארק · אבי
The king of Israel had previously entered my father’s land.

According to this, the attack on the Kingdom of Israel, was actually a response to an earlier attack of the Israelites, most likely an allusion to the Battle over Ramoth-Gilead. The text goes on to describe the wars:

ואקתל · מל[כן · שב]ען · אסרי · א[לפי · ר]כב · ואלפי · פרש · [וקתלת · אית · יו]רם · בר · [אחאב · ]מלך · ישראל · וקתל[ת · אית · אחז]יהו · בר · [יהורם · מל]ך · ביתדוד
I killed [seve]nty king[s], who harnessed thou[sands of cha]riots and thousands of horsemen. [And I killed Jo]ram son [of Ahab], king of Israel, and I kill[ed Ahaz]yahu son of [Jehoram, kin]g of BetDavid.[3]

Notably, the text reveals a different perspective on the death of these two kings. While the Bible attributes their death Jehu’s coup (2 Kgs 9:22–28),[4] the Tel Dan inscription credits this to the king of Aram.

In addition to these texts, archaeology allows us to reconstruct the length and nature of wars, and even trace the territorial expansion of Aram-Damascus.[5]

In Search of the Damascene Subjugation of the Southern Levant

In the late 1950s,[6] the Israeli archaeologist Yigael Yadin (1917–1984) suggested that the destructions of two strata at Hazor, an important mound on the border between Israel and Aram-Damascus, may have been caused by the Aramaeans: Stratum IX by Ben-Hadad I and Stratum VII by Hazael.[7]

In the following decades, various scholars suggested that other cities located in the vicinity of Hazor, including Tel Dan, Tel Kinrot, et-Tell/Bethsaida, and Tel ‘Ein Gev, were also destroyed the Arameans.[8] And yet, most of the destruction layers in cities in this region were dated earlier or later than the late 9th century,[9] leaving the footprints of the military conflicts between Israel and Aram-Damascus during Hazael’s reign relatively faint from an archaeological perspective.

In the 1990’s Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University introduced a new dating system which he called the Low Chronology and contributed to the visibility of these conflicts in the field. Its main feature was to down-date many archaeological strata previously assumed to be 10th century and considered as part of David and Solomon’s kingdom to the second half of the 9th century.[10] This changed the picture in many sites.[11] Monuments and events that were previously dated to the 10th century are interpreted now against a 9th century reality, the time of the Omride and early Nimshide kings.

Even though, some of the proposed changes have not withstood the test of time,[12] the ripple effect it had in scholarship led many archaeologists—even those who do not accept the low chronology—to reevaluate the dating of strata throughout the land. The direct consequence of this new understanding for our subject is that, nowadays, many more strata containing destruction or abandonment layers are dated to the latter half of the 9th century, a decision which finds consistent support in many radiocarbon-based studies.[13]

As Nadav Na’aman of Tel Aviv University has proposed, these layers likely reflect the Aramaean campaigns in the region as described in the Bible. Collating the biblical and archaeological evidence leads to the hypothesis that the Hazael’s incursion into the southern Levant occurred in three stages, which consequently suggests that the Damascene takeover of the region was a slow and planned process rather than occasional raids against an hateful enemy.[14] The evidence for the first stage is mostly biblical, the second mostly archaeological, and the third rests on both pillars.[15]

1. War Over Gilead

The first point of reference for the wars between Israel and Aram-Damascus[16] is the battle of Ramoth-Gilead, an important city in the Irbid Plateau, the northern sector of biblical Gilead.[17] As many scholars have argued, these clashes probably commenced with the death of King Adad-Idri (biblical Hadadezer) mentioned above, likely at Hazael’s hands, sometimes between 845–843 B.C.E.[18]

It is very likely that Hazael’s usurpation of the throne provided Joram, the Israelite king, with the justification for breaking the former alliance between the two kingdoms, as reflected, first and foremost, in the Battle of Qarqar, when the Israelite and Aramaean kings fought side by side against the Assyrians.[19] According to the Bible, Joram starts the war by claiming territories in the Gilead,[20] which at that time were apparently under Damascene rule:[21]

‏מלכים א כב:ב וַיְהִי בַּשָּׁנָה הַשְּׁלִישִׁית וַיֵּרֶד יְהוֹשָׁפָט מֶלֶךְ יְהוּדָה אֶל מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל. כב:ג וַיֹּאמֶר מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל עֲבָדָיו הַיְדַעְתֶּם כִּי לָנוּ רָמֹת גִּלְעָד וַאֲנַחְנוּ מַחְשִׁים מִקַּחַת אֹתָהּ מִיַּד מֶלֶךְ אֲרָם. כב:ד וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל יְהוֹשָׁפָט הֲתֵלֵךְ אִתִּי לַמִּלְחָמָה רָמֹת גִּלְעָד וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוֹשָׁפָט אֶל מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל כָּמוֹנִי כָמוֹךָ כְּעַמִּי כְעַמֶּךָ כְּסוּסַי כְּסוּסֶיךָ.
1 Kgs 22:2 In the third year, King Jehoshaphat of Judah came to visit the king of Israel. 22:3 The king of Israel said to his courtiers, “You know that Ramoth-gilead belongs to us, and yet we do nothing to recover it from the hands of the king of Aram.” 22:4 And he said to Jehoshaphat, “Will you come with me to battle at Ramoth-gilead?” Jehoshaphat answered the king of Israel, “I will do what you do; my troops shall be your troops, my horses shall be your horses.”

Joram’s move turned out to be a substantial strategic mistake, as Aram-Damascus defeated the north-Israelite army in the battle where Joram himself was mortally wounded:[22]

מלכים ב ח:כח וַיֵּלֶךְ אֶת יוֹרָם בֶּן אַחְאָב לַמִּלְחָמָה עִם חֲזָהאֵל מֶלֶךְ אֲרָם בְּרָמֹת גִּלְעָד וַיַּכּוּ אֲרַמִּים אֶת יוֹרָם.
2 Kgs 8:28 He marched with Joram son of Ahab to battle against King Hazael of Aram at Ramoth-gilead, but the Arameans wounded Joram.[23]

The clashes in the Gilead were a primary crossroads in the political relations between the two kingdoms, as from this point, the territorial conflicts between Aram-Damascus and Israel continued into the 8th century B.C.E.

Unfortunately, for the conflicts under discussion, archaeology has little to contribute to our understanding of this phase of the conflict. Even Paul Lapp’s excavations at Tell er-Rumeith,[24] identified in the past by many scholars as the location of Ramoth-Gilead, do not clarify the events, as the earliest strata in this fortified stronghold were not satisfactorily preserved.[25]

2. The Fall of the North-Israelite Cities in the Northern Valleys

In the next stage, it is possible to observe multiple destruction and abandonment layers in cities dotting the northern valleys (i.e., the Jezreel, Hula, and Beth-shean valleys). In contrast to the previous stage in the Damascene takeover of the region, we know about this stage mostly from archaeology, although hints for this process appear in both the Tel Dan Stele (quoted above) and the Bible:

מלכים ב יג:ג וַיִּחַר אַף יְ־הוָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וַיִּתְּנֵם בְּיַד חֲזָאֵל מֶלֶךְ אֲרָם וּבְיַד בֶּן הֲדַד בֶּן חֲזָאֵל כָּל הַיָּמִים.
2 Kgs 12:3 And the anger of God was kindled against Israel, and He delivered them into the hand of Hazael king of Aram, and into the hand of Ben-hadad the son of Hazael, continually.

The most important site in this region is the city of Hazor, a fortified stronghold in the Hula Valley, which looked toward Aram-Damascus in the northeast and the Phoenician city-states in the northwest.[26] While little evidence can be marshalled for the destruction of Hazor Stratum IX, with no conclusive signs of a conflagration,[27] this stratum of Hazor shows clear signs of having been rapidly abandoned.[28]

Amnon Ben-Tor of Hebrew University, the excavator, dates this abandonment to the early 9th century B.C.E. However, many other scholars date it to the second half of the 9th century B.C.E. and attribute its abandonment to Aram-Damascus.[29] The limited data we have—the pottery assemblage and the few radiocarbon dates—support the later dating.[30]

Thus, it would appear that, despite its heavy fortifications, Hazor was quickly abandoned before an Aramaean attack. It was not burned by the Aramaeans,[31] but instead, like Tel Dan further north (Stratum IVA), it was repurposed as an Aramean site (Hazor Stratum VIII).[32]

The natural next step in the subjugation process of the Northern Kingdom by the Aramaeans was the takeover of prime locations in the Jezreel Valley, the “breadbasket” of the Kingdom of Israel, and of the Beth-Shean Valley, which controlled the trading routes connecting the Transjordan with Phoenicia.[33]

At Megiddo, the most investigated site in the Jezreel Valley, very limited evidence for conflagration was identified in two places around the site: within a storage facility in the southeastern sector of the mound and a domestic structure near the gate area. Both contexts seem to reflect, however, incidental and localized events.[34]

While no decisive evidence of violent destruction has been found in any of the monumental structures of the city, the site appears to have been rapidly abandoned in this period. This means that complete vessels were left on the floors of houses, but no clear signs of any burning was found by the excavators. Similar “peaceful” abandonment episodes were also documented at other nearby sites in the Jezreel Valley, such as Yoqne‘am and the royal compound exposed at Jezreel.[35]

Destruction in the Beth-shean Valley

The Beth-Shean Valley tells a different story. Here, the Arameans left a wake of destruction: in Tel Rehov, Tel Beth-shean, Tel Amal, and Tell el-Hammah, all of which have destruction layers dated to the second half of the 9th century B.C.E.[36] Tel Rehov suffered the most severe attack, which led to the abandonment of the lower settlement after several centuries of continuous activity.

We have no written record of why the treatment of sites in the Beth-shean Valley was so much harsher than that of the Jezreel and Hula valleys. Possibly, this region was considered especially hostile to Aram, given that it was the region from which Jehu, king of Israel, and his clan, the Nimshites, hailed. Indeed, archaeological inscriptions connect this clan specifically with Tel Rehov which, as noted, was demolished.[37]

3. Hazael’s Campaign against Philistia and Judah

The book of Kings mentions that Hazael conquered the Philistine city-state of Gath, after which he turned against the Kingdom of Judah:

מלכים ב יב:יח אָז יַעֲלֶה חֲזָאֵל מֶלֶךְ אֲרָם וַיִּלָּחֶם עַל גַּת וַיִּלְכְּדָהּ וַיָּשֶׂם חֲזָאֵל פָּנָיו לַעֲלוֹת עַל יְרוּשָׁלִָם.
2 Kgs 12:18 At that time, King Hazael of Aram came up and attacked Gath and captured it; and Hazael proceeded to march on Jerusalem.

Many scholars have argued that the Aramaeans, having defeated Israel, Philistia, and Judah, must have extended their political hegemony over the entire southern Levant.[38] Some scholars suggest that this campaign occurred ca. 830 B.C.E., while others date it toward the very end of the 9th century B.C.E.[39]

Here archaeology adds to the picture. On their way to the south, the Aramaeans had to cross the central coastal plain, and indeed, here we find two destruction layers of seemingly Israelite sites dated to the late 9th century B.C.E.: one in Tel Michal, near the harbor of modern Herzliya, and another one in Tel Aphek, on the sources of the Yarkon River.[40]

Possible support for the correlation of the destruction of Aphek in the Sharon with Hazael’s campaigns, and its political affiliation with the Kingdom of Israel could also be found in a half verse found only in in the Lucianic recension of the Septuagint in the book of Kings.[41] The main verse reads:

מלכים ב יג:כב וַחֲזָאֵל מֶלֶךְ אֲרָם לָחַץ אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל כֹּל יְמֵי יְהוֹאָחָז.
2 Kgs 13:22 King Hazael of Aram had oppressed the Israelites throughout the reign of Jehoahaz.

The Lucianic recension of the LXX continues with the following phrase, absent in the MT and other versions of the LXX:

2 Kgs 13:22 [LXX L✝] And Hazael took the Philistines (lit. “foreigner”) from his (=Jehoahaz’s) hand, from the Sea of the Evening to Aphek.[42]

According to the simple meaning, Israel was ruling over part of Philistia before Hazael arrived. As this is unknown elsewhere, and the term “Sea of Evening” is an unusual name for the Mediterranean Sea, many scholars assume that the text is corrupt and offer alternative reconstructions. And yet, the simple meaning of the text works well with the archaeological record.[43]

Elsewhere in Philistia, the long-term excavations of Tell es-Safi, unanimously identified with biblical Gath,[44] revealed a substantial destruction layer that was radiocarbon-dated to the second half of the 9th century B.C.E. [45] Additionally, several small-scale soundings excavated along the fringes of the lower mound unearthed evidence for a moat-like feature, which was interpreted by the excavators as an Aramaean siege system.[46]

In the vicinity of the Philistine city, additional destruction layers dated to the same period were identified in sites that most likely comprised part of the periphery of Gath (e.g., Tel Harasim, Tel Zayit, and Tel Goded), further clues for the decisive efforts of the Aramaeans to take power in this region.[47] But what about Jerusalem?

Jerusalem Pays Hazael All the Gold in the Temple

The biblical authors describe how following the destruction of Gath, Hazael turned to conquer Jerusalem but was appeased by the gifts King Joash offered him.

מלכים ב יב:יט וַיִּקַּח יְהוֹאָשׁ מֶלֶךְ יְהוּדָה אֵת כָּל הַקֳּדָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר הִקְדִּישׁוּ יְהוֹשָׁפָט וִיהוֹרָם וַאֲחַזְיָהוּ אֲבֹתָיו מַלְכֵי יְהוּדָה וְאֶת קֳדָשָׁיו וְאֵת כָּל הַזָּהָב הַנִּמְצָא בְּאֹצְרוֹת בֵּית יְ־הוָה וּבֵית הַמֶּלֶךְ וַיִּשְׁלַח לַחֲזָאֵל מֶלֶךְ אֲרָם וַיַּעַל מֵעַל יְרוּשָׁלִָם.
2 Kgs 12:19 Thereupon King Joash of Judah took all the objects that had been consecrated by his fathers, Kings Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, and Ahaziah of Judah, and by himself, and all the gold that there was in the treasuries of the Temple of YHWH and in the royal palace, and he sent them to King Hazael of Aram, who then turned back from his march on Jerusalem.

This implies that we should not find further destruction of Judahite sites in this period. Indeed, the archaeological evidence from settlements located to the south of Nahal Guvrin and the Beersheba-Arad Valley, territories that are usually assumed to be controlled by the Kingdom of Judah, do not reveal any evidence of major destruction events dated to the late 9th century B.C.E., a situation that may aligns with the biblical accounts that describe its quick submission to the Aramaeans.[48]

Hazael’s Step-by-Step Campaigns

The Damascene subjugation of the southern Levant was a slow and calculated process. It is not surprising that the biblical authors may have exaggerated the nature of the events, whether out of (northern) animus to Aram-Damascus or to demonstrate the (Judahite) view that Israel was being punished for their profoundly wrong religious practices.

That said, when the biblical picture is put along side the archaeological picture, we can see the stark reality of Hazael’s powerful drive into the Levant over the decades of his rule.[49] After the initial conquest of the Gilead, Hazael moved into the Hula Valley, whose cities were repurposed as Aramean cities, the Jezreel Valley, whose cities were abandoned, and into the Beth-shean Valley, whose cities, the home region of Israel’s ruling dynasty, were destroyed.

After establishing his rule in the north, Hazael carried out additional campaigns to the southern districts of Canaan, destroying Philistine Gath and its satellites, and turning Judah into a vassal state. With that Aram-Damascus seems to have contributed to the decline of the lucrative copper trade[50] and established itself as the dominant regional power, at least for a short while. Hazael likely intended to establish permanent hegemony over his neighboring states, but his time of power was cut short by the renewal of the Assyrian campaigns to the west.

Israel Pushes Back

Following Hazael’s death in ca. 805 B.C.E., the Israelite kings, whose political control was limited thus far to the Samaria Highlands and some nearby regions, harness the new geopolitical situation in their favor and strike back at Aram-Damascus:

מלכים ב יג:כה וַיָּשָׁב יְהוֹאָשׁ בֶּן יְהוֹאָחָז וַיִּקַּח אֶת הֶעָרִים מִיַּד בֶּן הֲדַד בֶּן חֲזָאֵל אֲשֶׁר לָקַח מִיַּד יְהוֹאָחָז אָבִיו בַּמִּלְחָמָה שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים הִכָּהוּ יוֹאָשׁ וַיָּשֶׁב אֶת עָרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.
2 Kgs 13:25 Then Jehoash the son of Jehoahaz took again from Ben-hadad the son of Hazael the cities that he had taken from Jehoahaz his father in war. Three times Joash defeated him and recovered the cities of Israel.

Joash’s campagins already signified that beginning of a new era in the relations between the two neighboring kingdoms. From an archaeological perspective, the military campagins of the Northern Kingdom in the days of Joash and his son, Jeroboam II, are best reflected in the shattering of the Tel Dan Stele[51] the most vivid indication for the control of Aram-Damascus over the northern valleys of Israel, and the establishment of Israelite rule over an extensive territory, stretching, at least for a little while, from Kuntillet Ajrud in the south to the Lebanese Beqaa in the north.[52]

View Footnotes

Published 2022-08-11

  1. This article is generally based on Assaf Kleiman, “The Damascene Subjugation of the Southern Levant as a Gradual Process (ca. 842–800 BCE),” in In Search of Aram and Israel: Politics, Culture and Identity, ed. Omer Sergi, Manfred Oeming, and Izaak de Hulster, ORA 20 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 57–76.

  2. See discussion in, Erhard Blum, “The Relations between Aram and Israel in the 9th and 8th Centuries BCE: The Textual Evidence,” in In Search of Aram and Israel: Politics, Culture and Identity, ed. Omer Sergi, Manfred Oeming, and Izaak de Hulster, ORA 20 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 37–56, and earlier literature therein. The reaction to the text as sensational is due in large part to its mentioning of David. For the original publication of the three fragments, see Avraham Biran and Joseph Naveh, “The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment,” Israel Exploration Journal 45 (1995): 1–18. See also, Shmuel Aḥituv, Echoes from the Past: Hebrew and Cognate Inscriptions from the Biblical Period, trans. Anson F. Rainey, A Carta Handbook (Jerusalem: Carta, 2008), 466–473; Peter Bekins, Inscriptions from the World of the Bible: A Reader and Introduction to Old Northwestern Semitic (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2020), 198–202.

  3. The term means “House of David,” and can be a reference to the kingdom of Judah or the city of Jerusalem.

  4. For a discussion of this story, see Norma Franklin, “Jezreel: A Military City and the Location of Jehu’s Coup,” TheTorah (2017).

  5. See, e.g., Merrill F. Unger, Israel and the Aramaeans of Damascus: A Study in Archaeological Illumination of Bible History (Grand Rapids: Evangelical Theological Society, 1957); Benjamin Mazar, “The Aramean Empire and Its Relations with Israel,” BA 25 (1962): 97–120. For critical reevaluations of the biblical accounts relating to the Israel-Aram wars, see, e.g., Sigurður Hafþórsson, A Passing Power: An Examination of the Sources for the History of Aram-Damascus in the Second Half of the Ninth Century B.C. (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2006), 137–182; Shuichi Hasegawa, Aram and Israel during the Jehuite Dynasty (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012), 74–83; K. Lawson Younger Jr., A Political History of the Arameans: From Their Origins to the End of their Polities (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2016), 591–630; Christian Frevel, Geschichte Israels (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2018), 220–221, with extensive bibliography.

  6. For earlier work on this topic, see, e.g., Emil G.H. Kraeling, Aram and Israel or the Aramaeans in Syria and Mesopotamia (New York: Columbia University Press, 1918), 81–82.

  7. Recent studies have demonstrated, however, that Stratum VII was not destroyed, see, e.g., Amnon Ben-Tor, Doron Ben-Ami, and Débora Sandhaus, Hazor VI: The 1990–2009 Excavations. The Iron Age (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2012), 2–3; Harel Shochat and Ayelet Gilboa, “Elusive Destructions: Reconsidering the Hazor Iron Age II Sequence and Its Chronological and Historical Implications,” Levant 50 (2018): 363–386.

  8. Benjamin Mazar et al., “‘Ein Gev: Excavations in 1961,” IEJ (1964): 1–49 [p. 32]; Avraham Biran, Biblical Dan (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994), 181–183; Rami Arav, “Towards a Comprehensive History of Geshur,” in Bethsaida: A City by the North Shore of the Sea of Galilee Vol. 3, ed. Rami Arav and Richard A. Freund (Kirksville: Truman State University Press, 2004), 11.

  9. Earlier events were frequently attributed to Shishak I’s campaign to Canaan in the late 10th century B.C.E. (1 Kgs 14:25), while later ones were affiliated with the Tiglath-Pileser III’s campaigns of 732 B.C.E. (2 Kgs 15:29).

  10. Israel Finkelstein, “The Archaeology of the United Monarchy: An Alternative View,” Levant 28 (1996): 177–187. For selected responds, see Amihai Mazar, “Iron Age Chronology: A Reply to I. Finkelstein,” Levant 29 (1997): 157–167; Amnon Ben-Tor and Doron Ben-Ami, “Hazor and the Archaeology of the Tenth Century B.C.E.,” IEJ 48 (1998): 1–37.

  11. For the impact of this suggestion on the history of Hazor, see Israel Finkelstein, “Hazor and the North in the Iron Age: A Low Chronology Perspective,” BASOR 314 (1999): 55–77. For a respond, see Amnon Ben-Tor, “Hazor and the Chronology of Northern Israel: A Reply to Israel Finkelstein,” BASOR (2000): 9–15. See also the detailed chronological discussion in Shochat and Gilboa, “Elusive Destructions.”

  12. See, e.g., Assaf Kleiman et al., “The Date and Origin of Black-on-Red Ware: The View from Megiddo,” AJA 123 (2019): 531–555 for high dating of the transition between the early and late phases of the Iron Age IIA.

  13. See concise summaries of the debate in Israel Finkelstein and Eli Piasetzky, “The Iron Age Chronology Debate: Is the Gap Narrowing?,” NEA 74 (2011): 50–54; “The Iron Age Chronology Debate: Is the Gap Narrowing? Another Viewpoint,” NEA 74 (2011): 105–111. For radiocarbon studies see Ilan Sharon et al., “Report on the First Stage of the Iron Age Dating Project in Israel: Supporting a Low Chronology, Radiocarbon (2007): 1–46; Michael B. Toffolo et al., “Absolute Chronology of Megiddo, Israel, in the Late Bronze and Iron Ages: High-Resolution Radiocarbon Dating, Radiocarbon 56 (2014): 221–244; Yosef Garfinkel et al., “Lachish Fortifications and State Formation in the Biblical Kingdom of Judah in Light of Radiometric Datings,” Radiocarbon 61 (2019): 695–712.

  14. Nadav Na’aman, “Historical and Literary Notes on the Excavation of Tel Jezreel,” TA 24 (1997): 122–128. Needless to say, this does mean that every destruction layer dated roughly to the 10th and 9th centuries must be correlated with Hazael’s campaigns, see, e.g., Assaf Kleiman, “Comments on the Archaeology and History of Tell el-Far‘ah North (Biblical Tirzah) in the Iron IIA,” Semitica (2018): 85–104 [p. 97].

  15. For the correlation of the destruction of Iron Age IIA south-Levantine cities with the territorial expansion of Aram-Damascus, see Nadav Na’aman, “Historical and Literary Notes on the Excavation of Tel Jezreel,” TA 24 (1997): 122–128; Aren M. Maeir, “The Historical Background and Dating of Amos VI 2: An Archaeological Perspective from Tell eṣ-Ṣâfī/Gath,” VT 54 (2004): 319–334; Aren M. Maeir, “Tell es-Safi/Gath Archaeological Project 1996–2010: Introduction, Overview and Synopsis of Results,” in Tell eṣ-Ṣāfi/Gath I: The 1996–2005 Seasons, Part 1: Text, ed. Aren M. Maeir, ÄAT 69 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2012), 1–88 [pp. 26–49].

  16. I am putting aside the much-debated biblical account of Ben-Hadad I’s campaign against the Northern Kingdom (1 Kgs 15:20) since: 1) the list is suspiciously similar to the list of Tiglath-Pileser III’s campaigns against Israel (2 Kgs 15:29); and 2) no destruction layers can be associated with it, i.e., no destruction layers in the far north are radiocarbon-dated to the early 9th century B.C.E. For more on the issues with the historicity of this campaign, see discussion in, Nadav Na’aman, “The Northern Kingdom in the Late Tenth–Ninth Centuries BCE,” in Understanding the History of Ancient Israel (Oxford and New York: Published for the British Academy by Oxford University Press, 2007), 399–418 [p. 406]; Israel Finkelstein, The Forgotten Kingdom: The Archaeology and History of Northern Israel, ANEM 5 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature), 75–76.

  17. Scholars debate the modern loction of Ramoth-Gilead. In early scholarship, its identification with Tell er-Rumeith was accepted, but today there is a tendency toward the unexplored mound apparently buried below modern Ramatha. See Ernst A. Knauf, “The Mists of Ramthalon, or: How Ramoth-Gilead Disappeared from the Archaeological Record, BN 110 (2001): 33–36; Israel Finkelstein, Ido Koch, and Oded Lipschits, “The Biblical Gilead Observations on Identifications, Geographic Divisions and Territorial History,” UF 43 (2013): 131–159.

  18. While the majority of the conflicts between Israel and Aram-Damascus are assumed to have taken place only after the retreat of the Assyrians from southern Syria in ca. 838–837 B.C.E., some hostilities between the two kingdoms began a few years earlier. Hazael’s usurpation is hinted in the Bible (e.g., 1 Kgs 19:15), and especially in the Assyrian sources, which designated him as the “son of nobody.” See detailed discussion in Younger, Political History, 592–606.

  19. For this battle, see Younger, Political History, 449–468 with discussion and references to earlier literature.

  20. From the Bible’s perspective, the Gilead was already Israelite, and it was the Arameans who took it from them. Historically speaking, this is questionable. Certainly, Aram-Damascus must have expanded into the Gilead sometimes before (from its core territory in the Damascus Oasis), but this does not mean it took it from the Northern Kingdom. Indeed, some scholars believe that the description of an Israelite Gilead before the 8th century, as part of the Solomonic kingdom, is a biblical projection of later reality into more ancient times, and I am of this view.

  21. Nadav Na’aman, “The Story of Jehu's Rebellion: Hazael’s Inscription and the Biblical Narrative,” IEJ 56 (2006): 160–166; Omer Sergi, “The Gilead between Aram and Israel: Political Borders, Cultural Interaction and the Question of Jacob and Israelite Identity,” in In Search of Aram and Israel: Politics, Culture and Identity, ed. Omer Sergi, Manfred Oeming, and Izaak de Hulster, ORA 20 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 333–354.

  22. Edward Lipiński, “An Assyro-Israelite Alliance in 842/841 BCE?,” Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies 1 (1977): 273–278 [pp. 274–275].

  23. See also 1 Kings 22; 2 Kings 9:14.

  24. For the results of the excavations, see Tristin J. Barako and Nancy L. Lapp, Tell er-Rumeith: The Excavations of Paul W. Lapp, 1962 and 1967 (Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2015). See also Israel Finkelstein, Oded Lipschits, and Omer Sergi, “Tell er-Rumeith in Northern Jordan: Some Archaeological and Historical Observations,” Semitica 55 (2013): 7–23. In addition, none of the large mounds of the region have been adequately explored, including Ramatha, was explored adequately.

  25. See summary of the data in Assaf Kleiman, The Archaeology of Borderlands between Israel and Aram in the Iron I–II (ca. 1150–750 BCE), unpublished Ph.D. dissertation (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 2019), 342–354.

  26. For a reassessment of the Iron Age II strata at Tel Dan, which suggests that the site was abandoned or poorly settled throughout most of the 10th and 9th centuries, see Eran Arie, “Reconsidering the Iron Age II Strata at Tel Dan: Archaeological and Historical Implications,” TA 35 (2008): 6–64.

  27. Ben-Tor and Ben-Ami, “Hazor and the Archaeology,” 12; Israel Finkelstein, “Destructions: Megiddo as a Case Study,” in Exploring the Longue Durée: Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager, ed. J. David Schloen (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 113–126 [p. 120]; Kleiman, “Damascene Subjugation,” 65; Shochat and Gilboa, “Elusive Destructions,” passim.

  28. Many complete vessels in the many domestic structures unearthed provide strong evidence for the abandonment of the city. For the finds from Stratum IX at Hazor, see Ben-Tor, Ben-Ami, and Sandhaus, Hazor VI, 81–108.

  29. E.g., Finkelstein, Forgotten Kingdom, 119–122; Shochat and Gilboa, “Elusive Destructions,” 378–379; contra Amnon Ben-Tor, Hazor: Canaanite Metropolis, Israelite City (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2016), 146–147.

  30. See, e.g., Kleiman, “Damascene Subjugation,” 61; Shochat and Gilboa, “Elusive Destructions,” 378–379.

  31. Even limited evidence of ash would not prove that the city was burnt. While in the past it was common to correlate every ash layer discovered in the fieldwork with violent destruction episodes, more recent studies have demonstrated the various activities, particularly industrial actions related to metalworking, could generate such deposits. See Finkelstein, “Destructions,” 119–120; Igor Kreimerman, “A Typology of Destruction Layers: The Late Bronze Age Southern Levant as a Case Study,” in Crisis to Collapse: The Archaeology of Social Breakdown, ed. Tim Cunningham and Jan Driessen, Aegis 11 (Louvain: Louvain University Press, 2017), 173–203 [p. 175–176]. For studies concerning metalworking in the Kingdom of Israel, see, e.g., Naama Yahalom-Mack et al., “Metalworking at Megiddo during the Late Bronze and Iron Ages,” JNES 76 (2017): 53–74.

  32. According to Eran Arie (“Iron Age II Strata,” 34–38), Dan is sparsely settled or abandoned during the Omride Period. It was (most likely) Hazael that rebuilt it in the 9th century B.C.E. (Stratum IVA), where he situated his royal inscription. See also, Finkelstein, Forgotten Kingdom, 127–128; Omer Sergi and Assaf Kleiman, “The Kingdom of Geshur and the Expansion of Aram-Damascus into the Northern Jordan Valley: Archaeological and Historical Perspectives,” BASOR 379 (2018): 1–18 [pp. 9–10].

  33. For the commercial routes crossing the Beth-Shean Valley, see Amihai Mazar, “The Tel Reḥov Excavations: Overview and Synthesis,” in Tel Reḥov: A Bronze and Iron Age City in the Beth-Shean Valley, Volume I, ed. Amihai Mazar and Nava Panitz-Cohen, Qedem 59 (Jerusalem: The Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2020), 69–140 [pp. 103–106].

  34. See more details in Kleiman, “Damascene Subjugation,” 65.

  35. Anabel Zarzecki-Peleg, “Stratigraphy and Architecture,” in Yoqne‘am II. The Iron Age and the Persian Period. Final Report of the Archaeological Excavations (1977–1988), ed. Amnon Ben-Tor, Anabel Zarzecki-Peleg, and Shlomit Cohen Anidjar, Qedem Reports 6 (Jerusalem: The Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2005), 3–232 [p. 108]; David Ussishkin and John Woodhead, “Excavations at Tel Jezreel 1994–1996: Third Preliminary Report, TA 24 (1997): 6–72 [pp. 44–46, 70]; Norman Franklin, “Jezreel: Before and After Jezebel,” in Israel in Transition, from Late Bronze II to Iron IIa (c. 1250–850 B.C.E.), Volume I: The Archaeology, ed. Lester L. Grabbe, LHBOTS 491 (New-York and London: T&T Clark, 2008), 45–53 [p. 48].

  36. See especially, Amihai Mazar, “Culture, Identity and Politics Relating to Tel Reḥov in the 10th–9th Centuries BCE,” In Search of Aram and Israel: Politics, Culture and Identity, ed. Omer Sergi, Manfred Oeming, and Izaak de Hulster, ORA 20 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 89–119 [pp. 126–127]; idem, “Overview and Synthesis,” 127.

  37. Mazar, “Culture,” 110; idem, “Overview and Synthesis,” 122, 125–126. This proposal is based on the appearance of the name Nimshi, allegedly Jehu’s father (Kgs 19:16; 2 Kgs 9:20; 2 Chr 22:7) or grandfather (2 Kgs 9:2, 14) in several inscriptions discovered in the Beth-Shean Valley. For these finds, see Shmual Ahituv and Amihai Mazar, “The Inscriptions from Tel Rehov and Their Contribution to the Study of Script and Writing during the Iron Age IIA,” Maarav 20 (2013): 205–246. See also, Israel Finkelstein and Benjamin Sass, “The West Semitic Alphabetic Inscriptions, Late Bronze II to Iron IIA: Archeological Context, Distribution and Chronology,” HeBAI 2 (2013): 149–220.

  38. E.g., Maeir, “Historical Background”; idem, “Introduction,” 26–49; Angelika Berlejung, “Outlook: Aramaeans Outside of Syria; Palestine,” in The Aramaeans in Ancient Syria, ed. Herbert Niehr, HdO 106 (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2014), 339–365; Christian Frevel, “State Formation in the Southern Levant—The Case of the Arameans and the Role of Hazael’s Expansion,” in Researches on Israel and Aram: Autonomy, Interdependence and Related Issues. Proceedings of the First Annual RIAB Center Conference, Leipzig, June 2016, ed. Angelika Berlejung and Aren M. Maeir, ORA 34 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019), 347–372. Some even theorized that Hazael’s principal objective was to monopolize the copper trade by destroying Gath, which controlled, at least partially, the transportation of raw materials from the Arabah Valley to the Mediterranean coast. Alexander Fantalkin and Israel Finkelstein, “The Sheshonq I Campaign and the 8th-Century-BCE Earthquake—More on the Archaeology and History of the South in the Iron I–IIA,” TA 33 (2006): 18–42; Erez Ben-Yosef and Omer Sergi, “The Destruction of Gath by Hazael and the Arabah Copper Industry: A Reassessment,” in Tell it in Gath. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Israel Essays in Honor of Aren M. Maeir on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, ed. Itzhak Shai et al., ÄAT 90 (Münster: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2018), 461–480.

  39. For a summary of the different suggestions, see Maeir, “Introduction,” 47–49; Assaf Kleiman, “A Late Iron IIA Destruction Layer at Aphek in the Sharon Plain,” Tel Aviv 42 (2015): 177–232 [pp. 205–207].

  40. Kleiman, “Destruction Layer.”

  41. Lipiński, Aramaeans, 386; Kleiman, “Destruction Layer,” 227–228; Frevel, Geschichte Israels, 219

  42. Καὶ ἔλαβεν Ἀζαὴλ τὸν ἀλλόφυλον ἐκ χειρὸς αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῆς θαλάσσης τῆς καθ᾽ ἑσπέραν ἕως Ἀφέκ

  43. For recent discussions that highlighted the corrupted nature of the verse and thus questioned its conventional interpretation, see Matthieu Richelle, “Les conquêtes de Hazaël selon la recension lucianique en 4 Règnes 13,22,” BN 146 (2010): 19–25; Shuichi Hasegawa, “The Conquests of Hazael in 2 Kings 13: 22 in the Antiochian Text,” JBL 133 (2014): 61–76. See also, Younger, Political History, 626–627.

  44. See, e.g., the discussion in Yigal Levin, “Gath of the Philistines in the Bible and on the Ground: The Historical Geography of Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath,” NEA 80 (2017): 232–240.

  45. For a concise description of the destruction layer, see Maeir, “Introduction,” 26–27.

  46. Aren M. Maeir and Shira Gur-Arieh, “Comparative Aspects of the Aramean Siege System at Tell es-Safi/Gath,” in The Fire Signals of Lachish: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Israel in Honor of David Ussishkin, ed. Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na‘aman, ed. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 227–244; Shira Gur-Arieh, “Siege Matters: Insights from the Zakkur Inscription and Other Ancient Sources on Ancient Near Eastern Siege Warfare,” in Tell it in Gath: Studies in the History and Archaeology of Israel Essays in Honor of Aren M. Maeir on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, ed. Itzhak Shai et al., ÄAT 90 (Münster: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2018), 481–492.

  47. For discussion, see Gunnar Lehmann, “Hazael in the South,” in Researches on Israel and Aram: Autonomy, Interdependence and Related Issues. Proceedings of the First Annual RIAB Center Conference, Leipzig, June 2016, ed. Angelika Berlejung and Aren M. Maeir, ORA 34 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019), 277–292.

  48. I am not accepting the suggestion of Alexander Fantalkin and Israel Finkelstein that Judah’s expansion to the west occurred only after Hazael’s campaign. See also Nadav Na’aman, “The Kingdom of Judah in the 9th Century BCE: Text Analysis versus Archaeological Research,” TA 40 (2013): 247–276 [p. 260]; David Ussishkin, “Gath, Lachish and Jerusalem in the 9th Cent. B.C.E.—an Archaeological Reassessment,” ZDPV 131 (2015): 129–149 [p. 138].

  49. For Hazael’s northern excursions to Syria, see Younger, Political History, 627–630.

  50. See, e.g., the metal objects that were found in Olympia in Greece and were produced from copper originated from Wadi Feinan (Moritz Kiderlen et al., “Tripod Cauldrons Produced at Olympia Give Evidence for Trade with Copper from Faynan (Jordan) to South West Greece, c. 950–750 BCE,” Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 8 (2016): 303–313.

  51. For the archaeological reflection of the territorial expansion of Israel in the late 9th/early 8th centuries B.C.E., see Assaf Kleiman, “The Cultural Biography of Two Volute Capitals at Iron Age Hazor,” PEQ. https://doi.org/10.1080/00310328.2021.1951987.

  52. See, e.g., the recent collection of articles on Jeroboam II’s Israel in HeBAI 6. For the broader cultural and political context of the relations between Israel and Aram-Damascus in the early first millennium , especially in borderlands, see Assaf Kleiman, Beyond Israel and Aram. The Archaeology and History of Iron Age Communities in the Central Levant, ORA (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, forthcoming).

Related Topics:Aramaeans