346 angelika berlejung
in this transition period, people shifted increasingly into a half- or non-
sedentary way of life, indicated archaeologically by the evident reduction
of the number of cities and settlements in the lowlands and the village
character of the settlements that replaced the destroyed cities. during this
period of decline, indigenous population groups of palestine sought new
modes of life. at the same time they had to welcome some new popula-
tions: the philistines in the south and some south syrian, i.e., aramaean,
tribes in the north. Because the new foundation of fortified cities in the
iron age i period in palestine is a rare phenomenon, it is usually attributed
to the arrival of new population groups and settlers. kinneret at the sea of
Galilee is one of these exceptional sites that can be linked with new set-
tlers. since the cultural influence from syria is evident,32 the excavators
consider the city in the iron age i as the settlement of the aramaean tribe
of Geshur,33 which established its local tribal chief/-kingdom at the sea of
Galilee ca. the 12th century B.C. (founding phase stratum Vi). even if an
aramaean entity named Geshur and Geshurite (dtn 3: 14; Josh 12: 5; 13:
2,11,13; 1 sam 27: 8; 2 sam 3: 3; 13: 37f; 14: 23, 32; 15: 8; 1 Chr 2: 23; 3: 2 and
maybe in Gen 10: 23 meant with “Geter”) is mainly/only known from the
Old testament (whether ea 256: 21–28 refers34 to Geshur is still doubtful),
some archaeological sites confirm the existence of a chief-/kingdom around
the sea of Galilee in the 12th to 9th centuries B.C. with clear connections
with syria. since syria was in this period dominated by the aramaeans (see
above, section 1.), it seems plausible to refer here to aramaean tribes set-
tling or re-settling the area35—keeping in mind that the label “aramaean
chiefdom” always includes the general multi-ethnic character of syria
and palestine. in addition to kinneret, tell hadar, et-tell, and ein Gev
32 for kinneret of the iron age i münger 2012: 232–235 mentions 8 affinities (e.g.,
glyptics, pottery types, architecture, burial intra muros) with the north syrian culture.
33 dietrich – münger 2003; fritz 1993; id. 2008; hafÞórsson 2006: 218–222.
34 see lipiński 2000a: 336 n. 85; id. 2006: 238, who rejects the widely accepted emen-
dation of Ga-ri to Ga-šu-ri. hess 2004: 49f argues in favor of this emendation, even includ-
ing ea 364.
35 according to lipiński 2000a: 336, the name of the Geshurite king talmay (given
only in the Old testament 2 sam 3: 3; 13: 37; and 1 Chr 3: 2) is hurrian, indicating that
Geshur was not an aramaean but a hurrian kingdom during the 10th century B.C. in any
case it is highly problematic to define the ethnicity of an area/chief-/kingdom by the name
of a ruler whose name is only given in the Old testament. hess 2004: 57 also supports the
hurrian origin of the king’s name, but convincingly points to the fact that the onomastic
profile of Geshur is multi-ethnic. for the multi-ethnic character of syria and palestine, see
below, section 4.