cyberjosh
Member
- Oct 19, 2005
- 3,472
- 11
As anyone who has studied the field of Biblical archaeology for long will take notice of, there is a split in the field of Biblical/Syro-Palestinian archaeology and scholarship as to the correct chronology of the Old Testament events as interpreted from the historico-archaeological evidence present in texts, artifacts, architectual remains, and stratum. Israel Finkelstein heads the Low Chronology school that believes that the events described during the reign(s) of kings David and Solomon could not have taken place to the degree/expansiveness described for the Israelite Kingdom during the actual period contemporary with their reigns (the 10th century B.C), but rather that such centralization and expansion of the Israelite kingdom took place a century later in the 9th century B.C (thus conclusing the biblical text is anachronistic). The other side/school believes that there is no reason to reasonably alter the biblical chronology for the period of the consolidation of power under the United Israelite Monarchy from the late 11th to the 10th century B.C. Not all who hold the latter view are of a conservative or evengelical bent as pertains to archaeological interpretation, and some recent finds have recently appeared that challenge Finkelstein's Low Chronology although he does not deign to acknowledge it. Among the recent finds is the 10th century city or tell (earthen mound with the remains of a city) called Khirbet Qeiyafa in the area of ancient Judah that is being excavated by Yosef Garfinkel, who believes that it is the biblical city Sha'arayim (Two Gates). This city he believes provides a contemporaneous example of a well-fortified city in the 10th century that is concurrent with David and/or Solomon's reign (something Finkelstein says did not exist until the 9th century B.C. in Judah, fortified cities that is). Garfinkel released some of his preliminary findings and interpetations of the significance of the site in this article.
Also supporting an earlier biblical chronology are the findings by anthropologists Thomas Levy and Mohammad Najjar in Jordan, in the region of ancient Edom, where copper mines at Khirbet en-Nahas have yielded evidence of 10th century mining activities on a large scale, and also discovered were nearby tombs of a nomadic people possibly to be identified with the Shasu of ancient Egyptian texts (and the Edomites themselves would have been such nomads, being a "tented kingdom" as Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen puts it, in the style of earlier Assyrian and Babylonian kings who ruled among tented settlements as their kingdom). There is also some point of comparison of this site with the Egyptian mining site of Timna (further south in the Arabah Rift Valley), except that the Egyptians were not known to have mined at Khirbet en-Nahas, meaning that it was mined by the local inhabitants (and most likely traded/exported to neighboring lands).
Recently National Geographic released an article that attempted to summarize the "state of the argument" so-to-speak between proponents of the Low Chronology and those of a higher Traditional Chronology. It tries to play devil's advocate with both positions, and perhaps comes accross a little skeptical in favor of Finkelstein in the process, but take it for what it is worth: David & Solomon, Kings of Controversy - National Geographic Magazine.
I can provide several links to Garfinkel and Levy's findings if you are interested. I wrote an article on Levy's findings on my web site several months ago (which I will provide a link for once I get my site fixed) and so NatGeo's recent article was a nice summary for me that let me know that people are still following these recent developments and the recent rise of evidence that potentially conflicts with the Low Chronology hypothesis. I especially like Levy because he is not in the argument out of any ideological bias I can discern and has been hard at work at excavating the Khirbet en-Nahas area since at least 2004. It has been in the course of his dutiful excavations that he discovered how truly ancient the site is (dating to the 10th century). Levy's current working theory, in accordance with the period of activity at the copper mines at Khirbet en-Nahas, is that Egyptian Pharaoh Shishak/Sheshonq I is responsible for disrupting/stopping the mining activities later in the 9th century, "They found in this layer 22 date pits, which they dated to the tenth century B.C., along with Egyptian artifacts such as a lion-headed amulet and a scarab, both from the time of the pharaoh Shoshenq I" (NatGeo Article = NGA).
Finkelstein though (of course) doubts that the dating for Tom Levy's excavated sites is as old as the 10th century. He even gives a highly curious excuse as to why no one would have lived at the mining location, "I don't buy that it's from the tenth century B.C. There's no way people lived on this site during production. The fire, the toxic fumes—forget it!" (NGA). The journalist who wrote the article remarks to this "The notion of living in a fortress next to a copper-smelting site would not seem ludicrous to West Virginia coal miners or residents near Three Mile Island, for example". Anyway, we don't need the NatGeo article though to investigate the findings, and I can point you to the actual papers published by Thomas Levy and Mohammad Najjar on their findings in the area (which are appropriately cautious but optimistic about a 10th century date for the beginning of Iron Age activity there).
Also, as an aside, this is not an ad-hominem attempt (because it has no bearing on proving or disproving his argument) against Finkelstein but somewhat humorously I had a rather surprised reaction to the quote from Finkelstein where he said "But look, I enjoy reading everything Tom writes about Khirbat en Nahas. It has brought all sorts of ideas to me. I myself would never dig in such a place—too hot! For me, archaeology is about having a good time. You should come to Megiddo—we live in an air-conditioned B&B next to a nice swimming pool" (NGA). I was thinking, "C'mon! Thomas Levy is doing all the hard work in Jordan, and is more familiar with the evidence at Khirbet en-Nahas because he is there on site, and you complain about such a site being too hot for an archaeologist (who wants to "have a good time") to work there? And swimming pools...? Why yes, Ms. Gertrude Bell, have a cup of tea under your umbrella too while you're at it." :D I feel that Finkelstein saying that only shows the dedication of Thomas Levy to his work (for over 6 years now in this area). Although, granted, archaeologists should have their fun too!
Anyway, you can watch the following video of Levy's work below:
[video=youtube;RtsTV0LwwMo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtsTV0LwwMo[/video]
(source: YouTube - King Solomon's Copper Mines - Digital Archaeology Project)
Also I have already posted a thread on an interesting artifact/ostacon with potentially the oldest Hebrew writing (although its debated if is isn't a different semitic dialect) on it from Khirbet Qeiyafa: * see here *.
I can discuss this more with you according to your interest, and can elaborate more on the issues of chronology etc. I also have additional evidence I can relay as it was presented by Michael Coogan for the plausibility of the activities/description of the Israelite Monarchy in the 10th century as described in the Bible, but I will save that for another post.
God Bless,
~Josh
Also supporting an earlier biblical chronology are the findings by anthropologists Thomas Levy and Mohammad Najjar in Jordan, in the region of ancient Edom, where copper mines at Khirbet en-Nahas have yielded evidence of 10th century mining activities on a large scale, and also discovered were nearby tombs of a nomadic people possibly to be identified with the Shasu of ancient Egyptian texts (and the Edomites themselves would have been such nomads, being a "tented kingdom" as Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen puts it, in the style of earlier Assyrian and Babylonian kings who ruled among tented settlements as their kingdom). There is also some point of comparison of this site with the Egyptian mining site of Timna (further south in the Arabah Rift Valley), except that the Egyptians were not known to have mined at Khirbet en-Nahas, meaning that it was mined by the local inhabitants (and most likely traded/exported to neighboring lands).
Recently National Geographic released an article that attempted to summarize the "state of the argument" so-to-speak between proponents of the Low Chronology and those of a higher Traditional Chronology. It tries to play devil's advocate with both positions, and perhaps comes accross a little skeptical in favor of Finkelstein in the process, but take it for what it is worth: David & Solomon, Kings of Controversy - National Geographic Magazine.
I can provide several links to Garfinkel and Levy's findings if you are interested. I wrote an article on Levy's findings on my web site several months ago (which I will provide a link for once I get my site fixed) and so NatGeo's recent article was a nice summary for me that let me know that people are still following these recent developments and the recent rise of evidence that potentially conflicts with the Low Chronology hypothesis. I especially like Levy because he is not in the argument out of any ideological bias I can discern and has been hard at work at excavating the Khirbet en-Nahas area since at least 2004. It has been in the course of his dutiful excavations that he discovered how truly ancient the site is (dating to the 10th century). Levy's current working theory, in accordance with the period of activity at the copper mines at Khirbet en-Nahas, is that Egyptian Pharaoh Shishak/Sheshonq I is responsible for disrupting/stopping the mining activities later in the 9th century, "They found in this layer 22 date pits, which they dated to the tenth century B.C., along with Egyptian artifacts such as a lion-headed amulet and a scarab, both from the time of the pharaoh Shoshenq I" (NatGeo Article = NGA).
Finkelstein though (of course) doubts that the dating for Tom Levy's excavated sites is as old as the 10th century. He even gives a highly curious excuse as to why no one would have lived at the mining location, "I don't buy that it's from the tenth century B.C. There's no way people lived on this site during production. The fire, the toxic fumes—forget it!" (NGA). The journalist who wrote the article remarks to this "The notion of living in a fortress next to a copper-smelting site would not seem ludicrous to West Virginia coal miners or residents near Three Mile Island, for example". Anyway, we don't need the NatGeo article though to investigate the findings, and I can point you to the actual papers published by Thomas Levy and Mohammad Najjar on their findings in the area (which are appropriately cautious but optimistic about a 10th century date for the beginning of Iron Age activity there).
Also, as an aside, this is not an ad-hominem attempt (because it has no bearing on proving or disproving his argument) against Finkelstein but somewhat humorously I had a rather surprised reaction to the quote from Finkelstein where he said "But look, I enjoy reading everything Tom writes about Khirbat en Nahas. It has brought all sorts of ideas to me. I myself would never dig in such a place—too hot! For me, archaeology is about having a good time. You should come to Megiddo—we live in an air-conditioned B&B next to a nice swimming pool" (NGA). I was thinking, "C'mon! Thomas Levy is doing all the hard work in Jordan, and is more familiar with the evidence at Khirbet en-Nahas because he is there on site, and you complain about such a site being too hot for an archaeologist (who wants to "have a good time") to work there? And swimming pools...? Why yes, Ms. Gertrude Bell, have a cup of tea under your umbrella too while you're at it." :D I feel that Finkelstein saying that only shows the dedication of Thomas Levy to his work (for over 6 years now in this area). Although, granted, archaeologists should have their fun too!
Anyway, you can watch the following video of Levy's work below:
[video=youtube;RtsTV0LwwMo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtsTV0LwwMo[/video]
(source: YouTube - King Solomon's Copper Mines - Digital Archaeology Project)
Also I have already posted a thread on an interesting artifact/ostacon with potentially the oldest Hebrew writing (although its debated if is isn't a different semitic dialect) on it from Khirbet Qeiyafa: * see here *.
I can discuss this more with you according to your interest, and can elaborate more on the issues of chronology etc. I also have additional evidence I can relay as it was presented by Michael Coogan for the plausibility of the activities/description of the Israelite Monarchy in the 10th century as described in the Bible, but I will save that for another post.
God Bless,
~Josh
). In terms of the spectrum of "persuasions" in Biblical/Syro-Palestinian Archaeology I would place him more to the minimalist side, whereas Dever would be symmetrically opposite him more toward the maximalist side (although Dever still doubts much history in the Pentatuech). Anyway, maybe I can create another topic on the minimalist/maximalist debate in general sometime. But I think Finkelstein's conclusions are being challenged by this new evidence, even though he dismisses it.
