However, Amihai Mazar, a distinguished archaeologist from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and cousin of Eilat Mazar, takes the position that the traditional dating for David and Solomon— in the tenth century BCE—is correct, countering Finkelstein’s arguments with radiocarbon dates from his own site of Tel Rehov, as well as other sites in Israel, among other data. As a result of this debate, two alternative versions of the archaeology and history of Israel from this time period are now available, but the debate remains unresolved, with the size and importance and correct dates of the kingdoms of David and Solomon hanging in the balance.
Finally, besides issues of chronology, biblical archaeology during the 1990s and into the new millennium closely followed trends seen elsewhere in world archaeology. Rather than continuing to excavate biblical sites without an explicit methodology beyond determining the history of the site, the leading practitioners began to ask specific questions designed to allow the investigation of topics such as ethnicity, migration, gender, feasting, the rise of rulership, and other anthropologically oriented themes. These questions in turn demand not only the utilization of traditional methods of excavation but the supplementation of such methods with hard science, such as DNA analysis, residue analysis, and petrography, which will almost certainly be a hallmark of biblical archaeology in its next phase.
For example, at Amihai Mazar’s site of Tel Rehov, in Israel’s Bet She’an Valley, thirty beehives (forming an apiary or bee yard) from the tenth or ninth century BCE were found. The beehives are the earliest discovered anywhere in the ancient Near East and give new meaning to the biblical phrase “land of milk and honey.” The excavators had already begun to suspect that they were excavating an apiary, so they decided to employ residue analysis—in which the surface of an excavated vessel is scraped, or a small piece of it is crushed, and a gas chromatography instrument and mass spectroscopy are used to look for any organic materials that may indicate the type of food that was once contained in the vessel. At Rehov, the residue analysis indicated the presence of degraded beeswax in the vessels, confirming the archaeologists’ suspicions that they were indeed excavating an apiary.
By the turn of the new millennium, biblical archaeologists were also using advanced detection techniques such as magnetometers, ground-penetrating radar, electric resistivity meters, and satellite photography alongside traditional methods of excavation. These techniques enable archaeologists to peer beneath the ground surface before physical excavation begins. Outlines of walls and other physical features, including monumental gates to cities such as Megiddo, can be seen before a pickaxe ever touches the soil, thus allowing archaeologists to use their precious resources in predetermined areas that will produce useful results.
For instance, in 2003 archaeologist Assaf Yasur-Landau and geophysicist Yizhaq Makovsky from Tel Aviv University joined forces temporarily and revisited the site of Tel Kabri, which had previously been excavated from 1986 to 1993. The earlier excavators, Israeli archaeologist Aharon Kempinski and German archaeologist Wolf-Dietrich Niemeier, had uncovered a Canaanite palace at the site dating to the Middle Bronze Age, just after the time of Abraham. Yasur-Landau and Makovsky were wondering if perhaps the palace might not have been even larger than Kempinski and Niemeier had suspected. They employed two methods of detection, electric resistivity (or conductivity) and magnetometry, without ever breaking out a pick or a trowel.
Both methods are used to detect walls and other architectural features buried below ground. Magnetometers measure the strength of the local magnetic field—in addition to the earth’s magnetic field, some archaeological features have a measurable magnetic field. For instance, if there is a buried ditch in the area, the soil within the ditch will frequently contain magnetic particles, which can be measured and which will show up differently on the sensor than a part of the site without a buried ditch. Similarly, a resistivity meter—which usually consists of two metal spikes inserted into the ground and attached by wires to a electric box—will measure the amount of resistance to an electrical current passing through the ground: the wetter the soil, the lower the resistance. If there is a buried stone wall or a hard pavement present below ground, such features will show up because of their resistance to conducting the electrical current.
At Tel Kabri, both methods indicated the presence of buried walls in an area of the site immediately adjacent to that in which the earlier excavations had found the remains of the Middle Bronze Age Canaanite palace. When preliminary excavations were subsequently undertaken by Yasur-Landau and the present author in 2005, it was confirmed that the palace was twice as large as the previous excavators had imagined, with both stone walls and solid plaster floors found about six feet beneath the present ground level. As a result, a new series of excavations was initiated at the site. Similar remote sensing detection systems are now being used with good results at other sites in the Holy Land and elsewhere, initiating a new phase in archaeology that holds great promise for the future.
Part II
Archaeology and the Bible
Chapter 7
From Noah and the Flood to Joshua and the Israelites
While biblical archaeologists working today are generally more interested in learning about details of daily life in the ancient biblical world than proving or disproving the accounts in the Bible, many lay people have these priorities reversed. They want to know: Did the Flood take place? Did Abraham and the Patriarchs exist? Were Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed by fire and brimstone? Did the Exodus occur? These were some of the original questions in biblical archaeology that intrigued the earliest pioneers of the field. They still resonate today but are far from being answered by biblical archaeologists.
In fact, solutions and answers to such questions are more frequently proposed by pseudo-archaeologists or archaeological charlatans, who take the public’s money to support ventures that offer little chance of furthering the cause of knowledge. Every year, “scientific” expeditions embark to look for the Garden of Eden, Noah’s Ark, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Ark of the Covenant, and the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel. These expeditions are often supported by prodigious sums of money donated by gullible believers who eagerly accept tales spun by sincere but misguided amateurs or by rapacious confidence men.
These ventures, which usually originate outside the confines of established scholarly institutions, engender confusion about what is real and what is fake. By practicing pseudo-archaeology rather than by using established archaeological principles and real science, the archaeological charlatans bring discredit to the field of biblical archaeology.
The fact of the matter is that during the past one hundred or so years, there have been fabulous archaeological discoveries in the Near East of sites dating from the second millennium BCE. However, while these have provided enormous insights into the Canaanites of Syro-Palestine, the Hittites of Anatolia, the Egyptians, and the peoples of Mesopotamia, all of whom are relevant to the biblical text and to the world of the Bible, such discoveries have shed relatively little light on the actual stories found in the Hebrew Bible—particularly those in Genesis and Exodus. As a result, many of the earlier stories in the Hebrew Bible, especially those from Creation to the Exodus, have not been corroborated by archaeologists and remain a matter of faith.
On the other hand, events from a slightly later period, i.e., during the era of the Divided Kingdoms in the first millennium BCE after the empire of David and Solomon broke asunder, benefit from extrabiblical inscriptions, records, and other data that can be used to corroborate the biblical details. For instance, the attack on Judah in 701 BCE by Sennacherib and the Neo-Assyrians and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 586 BCE by Nebuchadnezzar and the Neo-Babylonians are events described in the Hebrew Bible that have been independently confirmed by archaeological excavation and artifacts.
A good example of the difficulties involved in finding archaeological evidence for events depicted in the early portions of the Hebrew Bible, and for the opportunities
that this provides to the pseudo-archaeologists is that of the Flood and Noah’s Ark, as described in the book of Genesis.
In 1929, the British archaeologist Leonard Woolley—who had, fifteen years earlier, partnered with T. E. Lawrence in conducting an archaeological survey of the Negev—was excavating at the ancient site of Kish, in what is now modern Iraq, when he and his team came upon several feet of silt that had been laid down by a flood in antiquity. Both below and above the silt were man-made artifacts, including pottery, demonstrating that humans had lived at the site before and after the flood. It was Woolley’s wife who excitedly exclaimed that he had “found the Flood!” The discovery made headlines in newspapers around the world, but within a short time Woolley disavowed any such connection, stating that what he had found was simply evidence for a local flood, rather than a worldwide inundation. In fact, evidence for such local floods has been found at a number of sites in Mesopotamia, which is not surprising since this is the “land between two rivers”—namely the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, which frequently overflowed their banks and flooded nearby areas.
On a larger scale, there is geological evidence that in the not too distant past, certainly by the time that humans occupied areas of the Near East and Asia Minor, extensive flooding sometimes occurred over a wider area. In 1997, William Ryan and Walter Pitman, two geologists at Columbia University, presented data documenting such an event in the area of the Black Sea around 7,500 years ago, when the sea broke through its barriers and flooded a large area in Turkey and perhaps farther south. These events could have been the catalysts for myths and epics of a great flood.
It is conceivable that such localized, perhaps devastating, floods were the origin for the stories told by the Sumerians, Akkadians, and Babylonians that have so many details in common with the story of Noah and his Ark in the Hebrew Bible. The first such story appears to be a Sumerian version, perhaps dating back to about 2700 BCE, featuring a man named Ziusudra who survives the Flood. In a version dating to several hundred years later, the survivor is a man named Atrahasis. By 1800 BCE, in the Epic of Gilgamesh, it is Utnapishtim who survives the Flood and tells the story to the epic’s protagonist, Gilgamesh. Only much later, most likely sometime between 1200 and 900 BCE, was the biblical version of Noah and the Flood written down.
The details of these stories are too close to be coincidental. In essence, these versions seem to originate from the same story, although some of the details differ—the name of the Flood survivor, the number and types of birds released immediately after the Flood, and the reasons behind the inundation. In the earlier versions, for example, the flood is sent because humans are too noisy; in the biblical version it is sent because humans are too evil and corrupt. The biblical story of the Flood may therefore be an example of a “transmitted narrative”—a story that is not only handed down from generation to generation within a tribe or people but from culture to culture as well, as from the Sumerians to Akkadians to Babylonians, and then to the Israelites, perhaps via the Canaanites.
However, in terms of archaeology, no indisputable evidence for a worldwide flood has yet been uncovered by archaeologists. Similarly, no remains of Noah’s Ark have yet been found by a credible professional archaeologist. And yet, claims are made almost every year that another “expedition” has found the Ark. A prime example is Bob Cornuke, founder of the Bible Archaeology Search and Exploration (BASE) Institute in Colorado. Cornuke is a self-described former police investigator and SWAT team member turned biblical investigator, international explorer, and best-selling author.
In 2006 Cornuke led an expedition searching for Noah’s Ark. Some media reports announced that Cornuke’s team had discovered boat-shaped rocks at an altitude of 13,000 feet on Mount Suleiman in Iran’s Elburz mountain range. Cornuke said the rocks look “uncannily like wood.... We have had [cut] thin sections of the rock made, and we can see [wood] cell structures.” But peer review by professional geologists quickly debunked these findings. Kevin Pickering, a geologist at University College London who specializes in sedimentary rocks, said, “The photos appear to show iron-stained sedimentary rocks, probably thin beds of silicified sandstones and shales, which were most likely laid down in a marine environment a long time ago.” Despite the grandstanding by Cornuke, there was no archaeological—or geological—evidence that the Ark had been located.
Among the many sites at which Leonard Woolley excavated was a site in Mesopotamia known as Tell Muqayyar. According to inscriptions found at Tell Muqayyar itself, it was the site of an ancient city named Ur. Woolley and others quickly linked this site to the biblical “Ur of the Chaldees”—according to tradition, the birthplace of Abraham, the patriarch revered in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. However, there were several sites in the ancient Near East that had the name Ur, just as there are many cities and towns in the United States today with the name “Troy,” and it is not clear which city named Ur, if any, is to be associated with Abraham, just as none of the cities in the United States are actually associated with the original Trojan War.
The question of the existence of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—the Patriarchs, as they are called—remains a contentious issue among archaeologists and biblical scholars. While some archaeologists argue that the details contained in the stories of the Patriarchs and their wanderings fit well within the conditions and practices of the early second millennium BCE, others argue that the stories and the characters could just as easily have been made up centuries later, in the first millennium BCE. The simple fact of the matter is that although numerous excavations have recovered tremendous quantities of archaeological remains from the early second through the early first millennia BCE, at sites in lands ranging from ancient Mesopotamia to Canaan to Egypt, there has not yet been any direct archaeological or extrabiblical textual evidence found to confirm or deny the existence of Abraham and his fellow Patriarchs.
Similarly, perhaps the most vexing question asked by, and most frequently of, biblical archaeologists, is whether there is evidence that the Exodus took place. Exodus with a capital “E” refers to the departure of the Hebrews from Egypt, where they had been enslaved by a succession of pharaohs. Acknowledgment of that event (or at least a portion of it) is celebrated annually by the Jewish festival of Passover. However, despite attempts by a number of biblical archaeologists—and an even larger number of amateur enthusiasts—over many years, credible direct archaeological evidence for the Exodus has yet to be found. While it can be argued that such evidence would be difficult to find, since nomads generally do not leave behind permanent installations, archaeologists have discovered and excavated nomadic emplacements from other periods in the Sinai desert. So if there were archaeological remains to be found from the Exodus, one would have expected them to be found by now. And yet, thus far there is no trace of the biblical “600,000 men on foot, besides children” plus “a mixed crowd . . . and livestock in great numbers” (Exod. 12:37-38) who wandered for forty years in the desert. That is not to say that such an event did not take place, but merely that no archaeological evidence has yet been found for it.
Related to the Exodus story is the biblical account regarding the Israelite conquest of Canaan, which is told in the books of Judges and Joshua in the Hebrew Bible. It describes how Joshua and his army swept down upon the land and overran it in a lightning series of attacks, destroying the major Canaanite cities and capturing their kings. Over the past century, biblical archaeologists have argued about when this took place—settling upon 1250 BCE as the most likely time because of Pharaoh Merneptah’s inscription of 1207 BCE that mentions an entity named “Israel in the region of Canaan by that date—and have suggested several competing theories concerning how the Israelite conquest of Canaan actually took place, based upon the archaeological evidence discovered during excavations at the various sites named in the biblical account.
For instance, William F. Albright favored the Conquest Model, which took the biblical account of events essentially at face value, arguin
g that the conquest occurred after a sudden and violent blitzkrieg attack. Not everyone agreed. Two German scholars, Albrecht Alt and Martin Noth, favored a Peaceful Infiltration Model, suggesting that over time small groups of Hebrew nomads entered Canaan quietly. Americans George Mendenhall and Norman Gottwald suggested the Revolting Peasants Model, arguing that the Israelites were an underclass within Canaanite society and that the conquest was actually a Marxist-type rebellion in which the oppressive upper class was overthrown and the proletariat took over. And finally, Israel Finkelstein has suggested the Invisible Israelites Model, which argues that Israelites and Canaanites were both present and sharing the land until the economy of Canaan collapsed following the withdrawal of Egypt from the region at the end of the Late Bronze Age. At that time, and only then, the Israelites gradually, and peacefully, emerged from the shadow of the Canaanites and took over.
All of these models call upon archaeological evidence to support their arguments. There is a small problem, however, for those who would follow Albright and the Conquest Model. Many of the sites mentioned in the biblical account and specifically noted as being destroyed by the invading Israelites have now been excavated by biblical archaeologists, with an interesting conundrum resulting. On the one hand, most of the sites described as being destroyed do not show any archaeological evidence of destruction—and some, such as Jericho, were not even occupied at the time. On the other hand, there are sites in the region that were definitely destroyed at that time, but none of these sites is mentioned in the biblical account. One of the few places named in the Bible as being destroyed by the Israelites and at which a destruction has been found by archaeologists is the site of Hazor.
Biblical Archaeology_A Very Short Introduction Page 7
