Changing allegiances in disputed borderlands: Dan's political status on the eve of the Aramaean invasion.

Patrimonial configurations are of high importance for evaluating periods that lacked the presence of an imperial rule in the ancient Near East and for understanding the creation of local territorial kingdoms. Hence, the patrimonial model can contribute significantly to one of the enduring debates in the archaeology and history of the southern Levant—the agency of indigenous societies in shaping the sociopolitical reality of the region in the early first millennium bce (Iron Age IIa). A vibrant dialogue between archaeology and text stimulated the development of two scholarly paradigms concerning Tel Dan in the Iron Age IIa: a traditional biblical view that sees Dan as the cultic capital of the northern Israelite kingdom built by king Jeroboam and an alternative view arguing that Dan was initially built by Hazael, king of Aram-Damascus. A renewed study of the Iron Age IIa materials from Dan has raised an alternative explanation for the distinct character of the city by highlighting its autonomous nature. This new insight is supported by a longue durée testimony from late nineteenth to early twentieth centuries CE. It illustrates the key role that Dan and the northern Hula Valley played in formative periods when local semi-nomadic leadership negotiated loyalty and control with various, often rivalrous, political powers. This analysis sheds new light on the identity of the ruling authority and the social make-up of Dan at the eve of the Aramaean conquest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]