348 angelika berlejung
century B.C. a storage jar with an incised aramaic inscription belonged
“to the cupbearer,” indicating the existence of this high official, who was
surely active in the royal court (probably in et-tell or already damascus).
in the iron age ii ein Gev replaced tel hadar as the commercial port until
tiglath-pileser iii conquered the area (733/2 B.C.).40
et-tell41 was founded in the middle of the 10th century B.C. it is con-
sidered by its excavators as the capital of the kingdom Geshur and is iden-
tified with Betsaida.42 since kinneret iV had been abandoned in the first
half of the 10th century B.C., it appears that the population left kinneret
and shifted to et-tell at the northeastern end of the sea of Galilee, where
they founded their new city. et-tell’s palace structures (area B stratum Vi,
iron age iia, bit-hilani type north of the city gate), cultic installations, and
city fortifications with two parallel walls show the influence of syrian, i.e.,
aramaean culture. the palace indicates that this was the residence of an
aramaean chief/king of syrian background whose tribal state fell victim
to the expansion of aram-damascus into the lake district from the 9th
century B.C. on. stratum Vi was destroyed during the 9th century B.C.
by a major conflagration. according to e. lipiński43 and s. hafÞórsson,
who take 1 kgs 15: 16–22 as a reliable historical source, Bar/Ben-hadad i
(900–880 B.C.) had already conquered dan to kinneret in order to reach
Galilee, the Jezreel Valley, and finally the coast. et-tell could have been
another victim of these wars. Others (arie, see below) believe that it was
only hazael (the successor of hadad-ezer, and “son of a nobody”)44 who
expanded into this territory and annexed it.45 et-tell appears to have lost
its political independence during these events in the 9th century B.C. (see
the changes of the bit-hilani in stratum V). in any case they did not put
40 Bar-yosef – mazar – kochavi 1993; kochavi – tsukimoto 2008. they propose the bib-
lical identification with aphek. summarizing the older excavations in ein Gev: hafÞorsson
2006: 207–211.
41 for the following, see arav 2004: 1–48 and id. 2008.
42 arav 1999: 107; id. 2004: 1. for some doubts, see lipiński 2006: 241, with reserva-
tions hafÞórsson 2006: 211–218.
43 lipiński 2000a: 372 and hafÞórsson 2006: 141–144, 181. Consider further Niehr 2011:
345.
44 rima 3, a.0.102.40 i 25–27. for a longer discussion of the “father” of hazael resp.
his predecessor, see kottsieper 2007a: 119–121 (hadad-ezer instead of Bar-hadad i); Niehr
2011: 340–342. for a survey of the Bar/Ben-hadads of the Old testament, see hafÞórsson
2006: 178–181.
45 Na ʾaman 2002: 205/44 resp. 53 also argues in favor of the annexation of Geshur (and
Ṣobah, being the two kingdoms of Bit rehov) by hazael only.