The use of archaeological data in representative historical reconstructions of Iron Age IIA Israe

The purpose of this dissertation is to investigate to what extent historians still hold to the traditional Iron Age IIA Israelite archaeological consensus as evidenced by their acceptance of established interpretations based upon archaeological data. Recent histories of the United Monarchy reflect a variance in the confidence that historians of ancient Israel hold in a consensus concerning the period of Solomon which began forming in the early twentieth century and solidified by the early 1970s.;In order to investigate this issue and how it is reflected in representative histories, an examination is made of issues concerning Iron Age IIA historical reconstructions. Part of the process required to conclude if Syro-Palestinian archaeology still possesses a consensus to present to historians is to examine the proper procedures of excavating and interpreting the archaeological data. Faulty approaches related to excavations and interpretations are often mentioned as reasons for rejecting the traditional consensus. The archaeological syntheses of four leading Syro-Palestinian archaeologists are examined in order to determine if they reveal a confidence in the Solomonic consensus. Five historical reconstructions are studied with the goal of ascertaining whether or not the authors follow this consensus.;Research seems to indicate two major points concerning the Solomonic consensus that had formed among Syro-Palestinian archaeologists by the early 1970s. First, the consensus still stands. It has been modified; updated is also a correct term to use. Scholars disagree as to whether the changes have strengthened or weakened the consensus, but the consensus still possesses the confidence of most Syro-Palestinian archaeologists and most ancient Israelite historians.;This confidence is largely a result of the second point. The various aspects of the consensus have been continuously reinvestigated and challenged over the past quarter of a century. As new sites, such as Tel Rehov, have been opened for the first time, and old sites, such as Hazor and Megiddo, have been re-excavated, interpretations of the newly collected data are applied to the points of the consensus. Although a few scholars have totally rejected the consensus, for most the research still supports the traditional archaeological Solomonic consensus.