By Vern Crisler
Copyright, 2007
Rough Draft
1. Introduction
2. Judgment & Years of Wandering
3. The MB1 Settlements
4. Mount Hor
5. Kadesh-barnea
6. How Shall We then Live?
7. A New Generation is Prepared
8. Occupying the Transjordan
9. Notes on the Theology of Wandering & Conquest
10. The Tribes of Israel
11. Cities of the Conquest
12. Criticism of Courville’s Model
1. Introduction
This chapter is an interlude between chapters on Egyptian chronology. In a way, it parallels the MB1 pottery itself, in that the MB1 civilization is considered to be a nomadic interlude between the Early Bronze Age civilization and the Middle Bronze Age civilization. This is why some archaeologists, such as Kenyon, called it an “Intermediate” period. Our emphasis in this chapter will be on the MB1 pottery itself and its relation to the history of the Israelites from the Wandering stage to the Conquest stage. In addition, we will describe in more detail the history of Israel and its theological perspective.
2. Judgment & Years of Wandering
According to the Bible, after the great sin of making the golden calf, the Israelites journeyed from Sinai, until they came to Kadesh-barnea. Here the Israelites refused to fight against the inhabitants of the Promised Land, and the result was that all the fighting men, 20 years and above, were condemned to spend the rest of their lives wandering in the wilderness (Num. 14, the exception being Joshua and Caleb). Some of the Israelites could not accept this, and rebelled, but were swallowed up by the earth as part of a divine judgment (Num. 16:33). Others, still not wanting to accept the judgment of Wandering, complained and fell victim to a terrible plague (Num. 16:49). At this point in the book of Numbers, the early part of the Wandering ends with the miraculous budding of Aaron’s Rod (Num. 17).
Some might think the punishment of the Israelites was too harsh. After all, is complaining about lack of water, or not enough variety in a diet, really that bad? This, however, is only a superficial view of the great sin of the Israelites. First, their refusal to go up and fight the Canaanites was not their first rebellion, but was their tenth, ironically corresponding to the ten times Pharaoh hardened his heart at the Exodus (Num. 14:22). Secondly, the Israelites were not just guilty of “equivalency” thinking. They did not say, “We should just stay in this wilderness, or go back to Egypt, for fighting the Canaanites is just as bad.” No, they went beyond the evil of moral or situational equivalence, and actually claimed that living in the wilderness or living in Egypt was better than fighting the Canaanites:
“If only we had died in the land of Egypt! Or if only we had died in this wilderness! Why has the Lord brought us to this land to fall by the sword, that our wives and children should become victims? Would it not be better for us to return to Egypt?….Let us select a leader and return to Egypt” (Num. 14:2-4).
Not only were they ready to go back to Egypt, but they would not listen to Caleb and Joshua, and were ready to murder them (Num. 14:10). Thus, there was more involved in the sin of the Israelites than complaining, or fear. It was a whole attitude, a backward-looking attitude.
We see it today with people who are freed from slavery or oppression and who subsequently run into hard times. Unless they are a people of great character, they will complain that they were better off under their oppressors. In mid-19th century America, the African orator Frederick Douglas broke from the “moral improvement” approach of ending slavery (advocated by William Lloyd Garrison) and believed it could only be ended by political action. Accordingly, against the advise of other abolitionists, he started his own newspaper. James M’Cune Smith said of Douglas that he “had fully grown up to the conviction…, to wit: that in their own elevation—self-elevation—colored men have a blow to strike ‘on their own hook,’ against slavery and caste.” (“Introduction,” to Frederick Douglas, My Bondage and My Freedom, 1855.) That men must fight for their freedom is a truth often lost, especially by those who have never been free. Douglas, upon first realizing he was a slave, and understanding what it meant, said that the “revelation haunted me, stung me, and made me gloomy and miserable. As I writhed under the sting and torment of this knowledge, I almost envied my fellow slaves their stupid contentment.” (Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave, 1845.) Contentment in slavery! Douglas, however, was not willing to go back to the leeks and onions of Egypt, as it were. Echoing Patrick Henry, he said, “For my part, I should prefer death to hopeless bondage.”
Perhaps this is what the first generation of Israelites lacked, a true sense of what slavery meant. It is true that their service was bitter with hard bondage—that they were made to serve with rigor (Ex. 1:13, 14). And yet, did they ever wake up one day to realize that they were slaves? Did this realization ever haunt them in the way it haunted Douglass? Or was the alleviation of physical hardship their only concern? When they were confronted in the Wilderness by the ten trials, did the Israelites see these as obstacles to be overcome for the sake of the future? Or rather as high walls that required a return to a hopeless past? For most it was the latter, but at least two were of strong enough character to choose the former, Joshua and Caleb. Once a man has been born to a life of slavery or caste, it seems almost impossible to free him from seeing himself as inferior, and of being seen as inferior. Joshua and Caleb, however, proved that faith in the Lord could overcome the psychology of slavery (Num. 13:9).
The Wandering Phase of the Exodus: The historical narrative of the Wandering is not taken up again until Numbers 20, where the Israelites have returned to Kadesh-barnea. Yet this is 38 years later. What happened in the meantime? In Deuteronomy, Moses reviews the history of Israel from when they first arrived in Kadesh-barnea (Deut. 1:19). After their miserable failure before the Amorites (Deut. 1:44), the Israelites “remained in Kadesh many days…” (Deut. 1:46). The next temporal reference is in Deut. 2:14, which says, “And the time we took to come from Kadesh Barnea until we crossed over the Valley of the Zered was thirty-eight years….” The Valley of the Zered was in Transjordan, and was reached just before the invasion of the Promised Land. Moses was summarizing all the Wandering of the Israelites since leaving Kadesh-barnea for the first time. Moses also wrote a detailed itinerary, which is contained in Numbers 33—let us call it the “Wandering List” —and it starts with verse 16, as follows (including Hebrew meanings for the stations):
1. Wilderness of Sinai (receiving of the law)
2. Kibroth Hattaavah (“graves of lust”; 3 days journey, Num. 11:34; quail sent)
3. Hazeroth (“settlement”; Num. 12; Miriam punished, 7 day wait)
4. Rithmah (“heath”; Num: 12:16; located at Kadesh)
5. Rimmon Perez (“pomegranate of the breach”)
6. Libnah (“pavement”)
7. Rissah (“ruin”)
8. Kehelathah (“assembly”)
9. Mount Shepher (“beauty”)
10. Haradah (“fear”)
11. Makheloth (“place of assembly”)
12. Tahath (“station”)
13. Terah (also “station”)
14. Mithkah (“sweetness”)
15. Hashmonah (unknown)
16. Moseroth (“chastisement”; located at Mt. Hor; Deut. 10:6)
17. Bene Jaakan (“sons of twisting”; a place with wells, Deut. 10:6)
18. Hor Hagidgad (or Gudgodah; Deut. 10:7; “cavern of Gidgad”)
19. Jotbathah (“pleasantness”)
20. Abronah (“passage”)
21. Ezion Geber (“backbone of a man”; at Gulf of Aqaba)
22. Kadesh (40th year; death of Miriam; )
23. Mount Hor (death of Aaron)
24. Zalmonah (“shady”; start of journey to the land of Moab)
25. Punon (“darkness”; Num. 21:6, fiery serpents)
26. Oboth (“waterskins”)
27. Ije Abarim (“ruins of Abarim”; east of Moab)
28. Dibon Gad (Dibon means “wasting”; Gad is Israelite tribe)
29. Almon Diblathaim (“concealing the two cakes”)
30. Mt. Nebo (death of Moses; Deut.34)
The Numbers itinerary listed above has not been transmitted in its original order in the case of Bene Jaakan and Moseroth. The actual order was from Hashmonah to Bene Jaakan, then to Moseroth, then to Hor Hagidgad. (Compare, Deut. 10:6). Also, many of the above names appear to be nicknames, e.g., Kibroth Hattaavah (“graves of craving”) and Moseroth, plural for “chastisement.” In addition, Kibroth Hattaavah was earlier nicknamed Taberah (or Burning; Num. 11:3). Others may be updated names, i.e., names given to those cities after the Conquest, or at least after the Transjordan had been divided between the tribes (Deut. 3:12, 13). For instance, the city of Dibon Gad took its new name after Gad had received its tribal allotment (Num. 32:3; 34). Some of the names of towns after the site of Ije Abarim (Num. 21:20) were part of another list—the “Transjordan List”—and were not included in Numbers 33. In addition, Numbers 33 does not list all the cities captured in the defeat of Amorite kings Sihon and Og (Num. 21:21, 33, the “Amorite List”). Thus, we need to remember that there are three lists, the Numbers List, the Transjordan List, and the Amorite List.
The journey to Mt. Hor (no. 16) in the middle of the itinerary suggests that the main area of Wandering was close to the Kadesh-barnea region. However, the Israelites also appear to have journeyed far and wide, given that they made it all the way to Ezion Geber at the northern tip of the Gulf of Aqaba before returning to the city of Kadesh for the last time.
Can any of these sites be located? Aside from Kadesh-barnea, Ezion Geber, and Mt. Nebo, very little is known. Between the first settlement at Kadesh to the last settlement at Kadesh, 38 years went by. Thus, the Wandering started at “Rithmah” (no. 4, located at Kadesh), and lasted all the way to Ezion Geber (no. 21). There is no information about how long the Israelites stayed at each location. If 18 stations are divided into 38 years, the average stay per station would be about 2.1 years. However, this would be a fallacious inference since Numbers 9:22 states that the time allotted to each station could be two days, a month, or a year, i.e., there was no average time for each station. We could infer, however, that anything longer than a few months or a year would be regarded as a permanent or semi-permanent camp where building could take place. Anything less might only involve the pitching of tents, with no central buildings constructed. More than likely, most of the Israelites pitched tents anyway, even at “permanent” settlements. Buildings would then represent the work of only a few.
3. The MB1 Settlements
Here we wish to discuss in detail the archaeology of the Middle Bronze 1 settlements across the Negev and northern Sinai. In terms of both Classic and New Courville, the MB1 people are the Israelites, so it is not surprising that the MB1 distribution in the Kadesh-barnea region would seem to track well with the history of the Israelites. In a previous chapter, it was pointed out that the MB1 distribution is on both sides of the Red Sea (Gulf of Suez), so that there is a significant correlation with the history of the Israelites at the time of the Exodus. To cite Rothenberg again:
“The area of distribution of the occupation wave of Early Bronze Age IV comprises the border region of the Negev all the way down to the Red Sea….Considerable remains of that period were, astonishingly, found also on the Mittla and Giddi Passes, as far as the banks of the Suez Canal between Port Taufiq [at the eastern tip of the Gulf of Suez] and the Small Bitter Lake [north of the Gulf]—and across the Suez Canal to Gebel Atika in Lower Egypt.” (Sinai, p. 121.)
The site of Gebel Atika is on the western side of the Gulf of Suez, in Lower Egypt proper, while all other EB4 (i.e., MB1) sites are on the eastern side of the Gulf of Suez, or up around the Bitter Lakes area. This matches what the Bible says, in that the Israelites turned away from the Wilderness and went back over to the western side of the Red Sea (thus allowing the Exodus pharaoh to catch them with their backs against the sea). While we cannot prove on the basis of the MB1 distribution that the Israelites crossed the Red Sea by miraculous intervention, the situation on the ground is at least consistent with the biblical narrative, and certainly calls for an intensive archaeological research program in the area.
Between the initial Exodus from Egypt and the Conquest of the Holy Land, there was a long period of Wandering. It is our opinion that many of the large MB1 sites reflect this period in Israel’s history. As pointed out previously, Rothenberg surveyed many of these MB1 settlements, noted the types of pottery found in the Negev, and described the presence of MB1 sites in the areas he visited. A closer look at the major MB1 sites in the Negev will be of value in the study of the relation between the MB1 people and the Israelites during the Wandering era.
4. Mount Hor
In the Bible, Mount Hor is famous for being the burial place of the high priest Aaron. Aaron was a descendent of Levi, and the brother of Moses (Ex. 4:14), and was also the representative of Moses to the king of Egypt (Ex. 5:1). Near the end of the Wilderness Wandering, the Israelites moved from their camp at Kadesh to Mount Hor. The hand-over of Aaron’s priestly vestments to his son symbolized that the priesthood was now the responsibility of a new generation. When this was finished, Aaron died and was buried on the mountain, and was mourned by Israel for thirty days (Num. 20:29). The man who had spoken for Moses in the presence of Pharaoh, who had committed great sin on more than one occasion, and who had stood by Moses when the Israelites refused to take the Promised land, was now dead. His sister Miriam had died at Kadesh, and his brother Moses was soon to die in the land of Moab (Deut. 34:5). By God’s design, the leaders of the great Exodus from Egypt—Moses and Aaron—who were responsible for the liberated people, would now accompany them even in death. This must have been some comfort to their children in the Promised Land, who were reassured that their fathers had not been wholly abandoned, if even Moses and Aaron died with them.
Various suggestions have been made respecting the site of Mount Hor, e.g., Jebel Harun or Jebel el Madra. However, the identification of Ain el Qudeirat as Kadesh-barnea rules out the first site, while the second site has no archaeological remains at all. Yohanan Aharoni points out that Mount Hor should be found on the way to Arad, not to the Araba (east of the Jordan). (God’s Wilderness, 1961, p. 141.) For this reason, he identifies Mount Hor with Bir Rekhme (i.e., Yeruham):
“The fact that Mount Hor is mentioned as being on the borders of Edom accords with its being not too far from Kadesh-barnea, which also is described as a city on the uttermost border of Edom (Num. xx. 17).” (God’s Wilderness, p. 141.)
The remains indicate that Tell Rekhme (Yeruham) was “a main burying place for the region’s inhabitants.” Further, “We have no certain proof, but it seems to the writer that this mountain must be regarded as one of the most serious candidates for identification with the Biblical Mount Hor.” (Idem.) Aharoni says that the wadi that runs near the mountain is named Harunia and this led to an earlier identification of the site as Mount Hor.
Rothenberg, in the same book, says that the main archaeological finds were from Middle Bronze 1: “The structures [on Rekhme] were on top of a narrow rock rising to a height of some few yards in the centre of the slope, and 110 yards above the level of the wadi. We found sherds as soon as we reached the site; all were Middle Bronze I. The structures were fairy clear, too; tombs, partly broken up by the action of man or beast, partly eroded by time.” (God’s Wilderness, p. 16.) From there Rothenberg went to the top of the steep hill and found more MB1 sherds, along with a wall of unhewn stone that went around the flat hill-top. Much of the settlement on top of the hill would eventually be “razed to the ground” and the stones used for tombs, “perhaps for the burial of the settlement’s warriors….” (Ibid., p. 17.) Rothenberg says,
“It is interesting to note that the largest tomb has next to it a smooth rock with a number of large cup-marks and many more very small ones. The dwellings have their courtyards attached, indicating a well-organized settlement….The site is strewn with numerous sherds and flint impliments. Sherds and ruins are all indubitably MB I.” (God’s Wilderness, pp. 17-18.)
If the MB1 people were the Wandering Israelites, and if Rekhme is Mount Hor, which is where Aaron was buried, one wonders whether the largest tomb at the site was the burial place of Aaron. Since Rothenberg thinks MB1 represents “patriarchal” material, he did not ask the question, nor did he provide a description of the tomb contents. In any case, he believes that the area of Tell Rekhme was the “Negeb of the Jerahmeelites.” This identification is based on linguistic speculation found in Palmer & Drake’s 1873 Our Work in Palestine: “‘Any tolerably competent linguist will see that Jebel Rekhme is an echo of the name Negeb of the Jerahmeelites.’” (Ibid., p. 18, note 2.) Since most of us are not tolerably competent linguists, or even incompetent ones, we will have to take Palmer & Drake’s word for it. Of course, if it is true that the area of Rekhme was part of the south of the Jerameelites, it would not disprove that the mountain at Tell Rekhme was also Mount Hor. Jerahmeel was the great-grandson of Judah and the brother of Caleb (which, by the way, seems to support the short chronology of the oppression in Egypt). As such, Jerahmeel would have received his inheritance within the tribal land of Judah, which encompassed Kadesh-barnea and presumably Mount Hor (Josh. 15:3). Thus, Mount Hor (at Tell Rekhme) could very well have been part of the tribal allotment to Jerahmeel. As it stands now, Aharoni’s Tell Rekhme seems to be the best candidate site for Mount Hor.
5. Kadesh-barnea
In the Bible, Kadesh-barnea was the site where the Israelites camped when the spies were sent north into the land of Canaan. At least two encampments at Kadesh are mentioned, one at the beginning of the Wandering period (at Rithmah, located at Kadesh-barnea) and one at the end (when Miriam was buried 38 years later). As we noted earlier, in the Wandering List (Num. 33), Moseroth is listed in the middle of all the stations of wandering. According to Deuteronomy 10:6, Moseroth was located at Mt. Hor¾“where Aaron died, and where he was buried”¾a few miles north of the Kadesh-barnea area. The stay at Moseroth (or Mount Hor) came only a few stations before the final journey to the Gulf of Aqaba. The movement of the Israelites up to Mount Hor appears to indicate that they were in relatively easy reach of the mountain, that is, they must have been staying in the region surrounding Kadesh-barnea for many years. This would make the journey to Mount Hor more convenient than if they had been far away in the southern Sinai.
With respect to the Israelites’ last journey, it is not clear how long it lasted, perhaps a couple of years. Our guess is that this last journey was a departure from the Kadesh-barnea region, wherein the Israelites move south to Ruweiset el Akheider, then into the region of Wadi el Shallala and Wadi Gharandal (near the Gulf of Suez). If this is the correct trajectory of their last Wandering, it is possible that the Israelites continued farther south, then turned east on an ancient path that later became a Roman road. This road was pictured on the Medieval Peutinger Table, showing a route from Aqaba to Suez. Rothenberg believes this Roman road ran from:
“Elat [Elath], through the Wadi Tueiba or one of the wadis parallel to it and thence ran south…through the wadis parallel to the coast as far as ‘Ain Hudera [near the Gulf of Aqaba] From there, the route ran through the Wadi Saal and the Wadi Zaghra into the central ore-bearing massif in the south. The big oasis in the Wadi Feiran [near the Gulf of Suez] was the southern-most point on this route….From the Wadi Feiran…the track led to the north, up to the Tih plateau and then followed the watershed towards the north to Clysma=Suez.” (Cf., Rothenberg, Sinai, pp. 160).
Rothenberg found settlement remains on this route from the Neolithic period to the New Kingdom, though he does not specify whether he found MB1 or not. The Israelites would have been going in the opposite direction, moving from the Wadi Gharandal down towards the Feiran Oasis, crossing over to ‘Ain Hudera, then moving up to Ezion Geber. Once they arrived there, the Israelites would then have moved on to their final stay at Kadesh-barnea and Mount Hor, during which time Miriam and Aaron died and were buried. Thus, in our opinion, all the previous stations before Moseroth (Mount Hor) were in the area surrounding Kadesh-barnea, and those that followed Moseroth were the stations on the way south, then east over to the Gulf of Aqaba and up to Ezion Geber.
In 1914 C. L. Wooley and T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia) identified Kadesh-barnea with the site of Ain el Qudeirat, the richest spring in northern Negev. It is about 12 miles north of Ain Qadeis, and several miles south of Beersheba. With respect to its archaeology, Yohanan Aharoni says,
“Remains of a wave of settlement across the length and breadth of the Negeb have been discovered dating from the first stage of the Middle Bronze Age [MB1], sometimes referred to as the Patriarchal period….” (God’s Wilderness, p. 123.)
As with Rothenberg, Aharoni believed that this was the period of the Amorites, and the remains at Kadesh-barnea represent the colonization of the Amorites. From our point of view, the remains represent that of the Wandering generation of Israelites near the time of the Exodus. The Kadesh-barnea region lacks anything after the MB1 period until the Iron Age period, the supposed period of the Judges in conventional chronology. As Aharoni says:
“Traces of the Israelites’ stay in Kadesh-barnea even in the thirteenth century b.c., [sic] before they entered Canaan, have yet to be found.” (God’s Wilderness., p. 123.)
By this he means that no material from the end of the Late Bronze Age had been found, since that is when the Exodus is conventionally placed. Not a trace of the Israelite presence, not even a little bit, was found¾truly another nail in the coffin of any Late Bronze Age exodus theory. Aharoni attempts to explain the lack of evidence by claiming that the Israelites were “semi-nomads” and would have been using wood or leather, something easily portable, and “they would pass on their way leaving little traces of their presence, since these materials cannot be found and recognized after such a lengthy span of time.” (Ibid., p. 124.) Since the MB1 people were also “semi-nomads,” why did they not also use such materials? Why did they leave their pottery and building remains scattered throughout the Negev, while their mirror-image, the Israelites, left not a trace? Like the MB1 people, if two million Israelites wandered in the Kadesh-barnea region for several years, it is likely they would have left some traces of their encampments, and in fact, it would not just be a likely thing, but would be a virtual certainty.
(In response to this on the New Courville List, someone claimed that the reason the Israelite presence cannot be found in the Negev and in Kadesh-barnea is that the Israelites were clean and picked up after themselves. Presumably, this means that the MB1 people were slobs in comparison. However, the argument is problematic in that everyday trash would have disintegrated over time, so its absence would not prove one thing or another. The remains archaeologists are interested in, however, are permanent artifacts such as pottery sherds, tombs, or rocks used in architectural structures. These are not the kinds of things that can be carried off, like human skeletal remains, or even trash. If the Israelites lived in the Negev and in Kadesh-barnea for 40 years, we should expect to find plenty of these permanent artifacts.)
Given the burial of Miriam at Kadesh-barnea, it is interesting that a large cemetery was found in the region. It consisted of a walled enclosure with two large stone circles, and the pottery was from MB1, IA2, and the Roman and Byzantine periods. According to Rothenberg:
“In this arid catalogue of remains, masonry, conjectural routes, the interest of this huge, enigmatic ancient cemetery stands out. On this hill-top that stands at the intersection of two broad wadis covered with gleaming loess and low shrubs, with flints and pebbles, hundreds—perhaps thousands—of early Israelites have been ‘gathered to their fathers’; semi-nomads who died in the Negeb in the beginning of the Patriarchal period [i.e., MB1] and were brought to the Holy Mountain from afar off; wanderers of the Exodus who camped near the springs of Kadesh-barnea and to whom a sight of the Promised Land was never to be vouchsafed.” (God’s Wilderness, p. 21.)
Rothenberg, of course, does not believe the MB1 remains are of the Israelites of the Wandering period. He is willing, at most, to follow conventional views and link them to Abraham in some way. In any case, as with the main site for Mount Hor, Kadesh-barnea also evidences the existence of a cemetery or burial ground during the MB1 phase, and this is consistent with the biblical description of the burials of Aaron and Miriam.
Other sites located within or near the Kadesh-barnea region are El Qusaima, Gebel Halal, Bir Hasana, and Gebel Maghara. These are to the west or south-west of Kadesh-barnea, and all have MB1 pottery indicia. The Giddi Pass and Ruweiset el Akheider (near the Parker Memorial) may also be considered close to the Kadesh-barnea region, though further south. These also show evidence of settlement during the MB1 phase, though I think Ruweiset el Akheider may have been visited during the last phase of the Wandering. (Cf., Beno Rothenberg, Sinai, pp. 120-21; 126.)
The lack of any archaeological material between the MB1 period and the Iron 2 period is a real problem for any who would locate the Exodus, Wandering, and Conquest within the archaeological span of MB2a through the Late Bronze Age into Iron Age 1. Such material is not only lacking at Kadesh-barnea, but has not been found in the whole Negev region. No satisfactory explanation of this phenomenon has been forthcoming from the various revisionist camps—if they even see the problem—and it is not likely there will be any in the near future. As it stands of this date, only Classic and New Courville are compatible with the most important data of all—the archaeological evidence from the Holy Land. Reconstructions of Egyptian or Mesopotamian chronology that ignore this tremendous problem are sterile, and can never produce a consistent or convincing account of the chronology of the ancient world.
6. How Shall We then Live?
In 1996, Mordechai Haiman published an essay entitled “Early Bronze Age IV Settlement Pattern of the Negev and Sinai Deserts: View from Small Marginal Temporary Sites,” (BASOR, 303, 1996, pp. 1-32.) The purpose of the essay was to explain why there should have been such large-scale settlement during the EB4 [MB1] period (a thousand sites) when the environmental conditions were so difficult for human existence. Of course, a reading of the Bible indicates that God was sustaining the Israelites throughout all of this period, which is why they could survive in such harsh desert conditions. The conditions were so bad as almost to cry out for the miraculous. Haiman describes the situation:
“This arid desert region has few water sources, and the average annual rainfall is…well below the minimum necessary for cultivation of grain. Most of the area lacks suitable farming land, and the grazing potential only allows for small herds of sheep and goats, which cannot serve as a sole source of income. Frequent drought and extreme fluctuation in the amount of rainfall from year to year make it impossible to plan agricultural activity in advance or to base the economy on exploitation of local resources.” (BASOR, 303, p. 1.)
Haiman asks the question, “How was such extensive settlement possible in an impoverished desert?” (Ibid., p. 2.) He then reviews previous studies of EB4 such as those of Glueck, Rothenberg, Dever, Cohen, and Oren & Yekutieli. These researchers theorized that the MB1 culture was either from the north (Kurgan, Hebron Hills), or was from Egypt, or was even indigenous to the region. Large settlements of the MB1 people have been found in northern Israel, and on both sides of the Jordan. “Nevertheless,” says Haiman, “we still need to explain this large scale settlement in the desert.” Further, “[T]here is a reasonable basis for doubt that the natural resources of the desert could accommodate the large number of settlements that emerged during EB IV.” (Idem.)
The point is also made that the MB1 people may not have had the intention to exploit all the resources in the area. According to Haiman, “Not only was there extensive settlement in the arid desert region, but hundreds of sites were dispersed throughout the central Sinai in hyperarid niches and in the harshest areas imaginable while no sites were surveyed at all in the southern Sinai [Jebel Musa, etc.], which has abundant water sources.” (Ibid., p. 3.) So, Haiman theorizes that the settlements were not set up to exploit the natural resources (agriculture and pastoralism), but rather to exploit the copper trade, which is independent of desert resources. For Haiman, the copper trade, “constituted the main component of the economy.” (Idem.) We disagree with this assessment.
Haiman distinguishes “permanent” settlements vis-à-vis what he calls “temporary” settlements. The main difference between the former and the latter is not ethnic or tribal but quantitative. In the Negev there are seven large settlements or “central settlements” located near water sources. These quantitatively rich areas allowed year round occupation, and are described as “permanent” settlements. Among the large settlements are three groups: the ’En Ziq Group, with sites having multiple acres, and up to 200 round structures of one-room type; the Har Yeroham Group, 2.5 acres, with two strata of occupation; and the Nahal Nizzana Group, 2.5 acres, 80 courtyards, and 90 rooms.
The smaller sites are described as “temporary” and there are about a thousand of them. Most are not near water sources, but have numerous animal pens. Each site contained between 1 to 10 structures. Haiman says, ““The distribution of the sites reflected the same strange phenomenon discovered in the Sinai. Contrary to environmental logic, the number of sites increases in proportion to distance from water sources.” (Ibid., p.5.) In theory, these “temporary” sites are seasonal settlements: “In my opinion,” says Haiman, “these sites are satellites of permanent settlements, reflecting seasonal migration from the permanent settlements to peripheral areas specifically for farming and herding.” (Ibid, p. 7.)
Further, according to Haiman, the two strata at Har Yeroham indicate that “even permanent settlements did not exist throughout the entire period.” (Ibid., p. 15.) The “permanent” settlements are found mainly in the areas northeast and northwest of Kadesh-barnea, i.e., in the Negev Highlands and Negev Lowlands. (Ibid, pp. 4; 10.) Haiman holds to the older view that the homogeneous MB1 culture came from the north, that it “spread from the Dead Sea to Egypt….” (Ibid., p. 14.) It is regarded as a “single cultural framework” and its origin was in Jordan.
From this point, Haiman reviews the question of subsistence. With respect to pastoralism, he points out that there was simply not enough grazing capacity to sustain a large population in the Negev by way of animal husbandry:
“The limited potential for herding, scarcity of water sources, and shortage of manpower to care for the large herds in the Negev—the herds must be spread over vast areas—and particularly the lack of animal pens in permanent settlement, lead to the conclusion that during EB IV pastoralism could not have been the main economic component.” (BASOR, 303., p. 18.)
Haiman also argues that agriculture was of little significance in the EB4 (MB1) culture. This was in contrast to other periods, EB2, IA2, the Byzantine, and Early Islamic, where there was found large numbers of sickle blades and clear evidences of agricultural activity. In addition, sickle blades from EB4 could be found in the northern region of the Holy Land, on both sides of the Jordan, but very few could be found in the Negev:
“[T]he scarcity of blades in the Negev settlements suggests that agriculture played a marginal role in that area. Other finds such as grinding-stones, hammerstones, and saddle querns are indicative of food processing rather than cultivation of grain.” (BASOR, 303., p. 18.)
These are interesting points, for according to the Bible, the Israelites were sustained by divine manna, and God opened springs of water for Moses and the children of Israel. From this perspective, a large pastoral or agricultural economy in the wilderness was not needed, and the food processing equipment noted above may have simply been needed to convert the manna into more mundane form. In short, according to the Bible, there was no need for large flocks of animals, nor for farming or grain cultivation.
Nevertheless, Haiman does not consider any of this to be related God’s miraculous provision for the Israelites. He is aware of Cohen’s “Mysterious Bronze Age” essay, wherein Cohen argued that the MB1 people were Israelites, or at least proto-Israelites. Modern historians have simply ruled out in advance the possibility of supernatural intervention in human affairs. Instead, Haiman puts forth the theory that the main avenue of subsistence for the MB1 people was the copper trade.
“The limited evidence of pastoralism and agriculture and the abundant indications of copper industry and trade suggest that the latter constituted a central element of the economy.” (BASOR, 303, p. 20.)
In our opinion, Haiman has an uphill battle in proving this, for most archaeologists who have surveyed the Negev did not regard the copper industry as of any great importance. Haiman himself admits: “The quantity of copper ingots found in the Negev may not be impressive enough to prove that they were the central element of the economy.” (Ibid., p. 20.) In mitigation of this, however, he claims that “families of craftsmen” would take the “expensive” ingots with them when they left the area. He therefore does not think it “reasonable” to expect that many more ingots will be found in the Negev since the ones found were primarily from “hordes.” This is a rather strange way of defending the case, explaining away in advance the lack of evidence. Moreover, there are other possible explanations, as well. If the MB1 people were the Israelites, as we hold, then a small-scale copper industry would most likely be used for making weapons, which the Israelites needed. Furthermore, Moses had married into the Kenite clan, which was a metallurgical guild, and Haiman even says swords were found among the ingots. (Idem. More than likely, the swords were left behind because they were defective.)
Haiman does proffer what he thinks is evidence for the “commercial transport of ingots.” (Ibid., p. 21.) First, the settlement plan at such sites as Be’er Resisim or at sites of the ’En Ziq group, reveal a “strange phenomenon” of one-room structures rather than family dwellings. These one-room structures are taken as “primitive inns” for “copper traders traveling to Egypt.” (Ibid., p. 22.) This was housing for “representatives” of families engaged in the copper trade. However, the settlement patterns at sites of another group, the Har Yeroham group, reflect “regular family dwelling structures” and would seem to contradict Haiman’s view that single-room structures are necessarily correlated to a copper trade. Not to worry, however, for Haiman restricts the Har Yeroham group to an “earlier period of copper transport to Egypt….” (Idem.) Thus, aside from the Har Yeroham settlement patterns, the housing patterns at other sites show, in Haiman’s view, a large scale copper trade that required “mass delivery and more rapid transportation” than had been used in the “earlier” period of copper transport.
For Haiman, the primary mode of subsistence for the MB1 people cannot be based on the environment, which is too harsh for pastoralism or agriculture, but must be based on something external to the region, such as government interest. (Ibid., p. 23.) The government that Haiman selects is Egypt. It was the existence of international trade with Egypt that made it profitable to settle in the Negev. This would seem to be problematic, however, since the MB1 people correspond to the First Intermediate Period in Egypt, where there is little, if any, evidence of Egyptian contact with the Negev. However, Haiman argues that, “there is no reason to assume that Egypt would not have continued to consume copper only because the kingdom had dissolved into small political entities….” (Idem.) He does admit, however, that “[n]o relevant finds have been discovered in Egypt.” (Ibid., p. 24.) But this does not dissuade him, for “the only reasonable destination for the ingots found in the Negev was Egypt.” (Idem.)
One gets the uneasy feeling from reading Haiman’s article that he all too often attempts to prove his theory by appealing to aspects of his own theory as evidence. When the facts on the ground contradict his theory, he divides the facts into earlier and later periods, as with the “representative” theory of copper trade. When the lack of evidence in Egypt for any trade with the MB1 people is admitted, an appeal is made to a negative, i.e., there is no reason to assume that Egypt would not have continued to consume copper during the First Intermediate Period. When no MB1 presence is found in Egypt [aside from the Gulf of Suez indicia], Egypt is regarded as the only reasonable destination for the ingots from the Negev. Apparently, Haiman’s case for a commercial copper industry as the main mode of subsistence for the MB1 people in the Negev is merely the absence of any large pastoral or agricultural economy in the Negev. Since Haiman thinks the only other alternative is a copper industry as the mode of subsistence, it wins by default. Nevertheless, Haiman spends much of his article trying to explain away the absence of evidence for his theory rather than providing positive support for it. According to Amihai Mazar: “[T]he EB IV/MB I sites do not appear to have been related to any outside economic system.” (Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 1990, p. 157.) Haiman’s lack of success in providing such evidence for an external economic system is sufficient proof of Mazar’s point.
The evidence does not provide scientific confirmation of the miraculous provisions of meat, bread, clothing and water for the Israelites (cf., Exodus 16:8; 17:6, Josh. 5:12, etc.). Nevertheless, the lack of any large pastoral, agricultural, or commercial modes of subsistence in the Negev is at least what one would expect to be the case if the Exodus and period of Wandering took place as the Bible describes them.
7. A New Generation is Prepared
When the last of the disobedient generation died out, the new generation was now ready to obey and conquer. For 38 years of wandering, Moses provided leadership and instruction for the people, but now the time had come for Moses to stay behind in death with the first generation, while Joshua would lead the new generation in his place.
Thus began the final journey, this time through the Transjordan. Moses initially sent out a message to the king of Edom for permission to pass through his country, but was refused. The king of Edom even came out in force on the border of Edom near Kadesh, where the Israelites were living (cf., Num. 20:16). On modern maps, Edom is often shown as southeast of the Dead Sea, but at the time of the Exodus, the land of Edom went farther west, almost to the Kadesh-barnea region. Thus, when the Israelites were required to go around Edom, they could not just cut straight east from Mount Hor to the Dead Sea. They had to go down to the Gulf of Aqaba to skirt the western territory of Edom.
After the death of Aaron, the king of Arad attacked and captured some of the Israelites, but the Israelites fought back and destroyed the cities of the Canaanites (Num. 21:1-3). It is possible that the Arad destroyed by Moses was the EB2 site of “Arad” (called that by contemporary archaeologists). This could only be true if the EB2 sites in southern Palestine carried on into the time represented by EB3. Some scholars have argued this very point, that EB2 sites in the south were contemporary with EB3 sites in the north. The lack of archaeological correlation between the two regions may simply be due to the absence of Khirbet Kerak ware in the south that is characteristic of EB3 sites in the north. In Rudolph Cohen’s view, “the Khirbet Kerak pottery simply never penetrated into the south….” (“The Mysterious MB1 People,” available online at Biblical Archaeology Society Website.) Paul Lapp also questions the chronological significance of Khirbet Kerak ware for some sites in Palestine. (Cf., “Palestine in the Early Bronze Age,” in J. A. Sanders, ed., Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century, pp. 128, ftn. 88.) It is hard to evaluate these suggestions, but in our judgment it at least shows the need for a more reliable indicator of the EB3 period than the possibly ethnic Khirbet Kerak ware.
From Mount Hor the Israelites journeyed down to the Gulf of Aqaba (the Way of the Red Sea), but they repeated the sin of their fathers—implying that they would be better off in Egypt—and many were bitten by poisonous serpents and perished (Num. 21:6). Nevertheless, once the Israelites arrived at the Red Sea, they made their way north through the Transjordan, to Oboth, then Ije Abarim, “east of Moab” (Num. 21:11), then, according to the Transjordan List, camped in the Valley of Zered. From there they journeyed into the land of the Amorites, which was above the Arnon, then to Beer, then Mattanah, Nahaliel and Bamoth, then to Pisgah (Num. 21:20).
Above the Arnon, the Israelites encountered the Amorite Kings, Sihon and Og, who would not allow them to pass, despite a plea for peace (Num. 21:22). The Amorite List mentions some of the cities captured by the Israelites as Aroer, Jahaz, Heshbon, Dibon, Nophah, Medeba, Jazer, Edrei (Num. 21:23-35; Deut. 2:36).
When the Israelites made camp across from Jericho, the Moabite King Balak sent for Balaam, the Mesopotamian soothsayer, to come and curse the Israelites (Num. 22:5-6). Balaam, however, was forced to bless Israel instead. Despite this, Israel quickly turned out of the way, and at Baal Peor joined themselves with the women of Moab and sacrificed to their gods (Num. 25). Perhaps Balaam, seeing a way to hitch Moab to Israel’s future blessings, persuaded the women of Moab to seduce the men of Israel (Num. 31:16). However, the scheme failed, for a plague from the Lord killed twenty-four thousand Israelites, in addition to those who were executed for their idolatry. After this, Moses was commanded to recruit men from Israel to war against the Midianites. During this war, Balaam was killed in the conflict, along with the five kings of Midian (Num. 31:8). The treachery of the women of Midian, following the counsel of Balaam, led to the execution of the married women, as well as the male children (Num. 31:16). The victory over the Midianite warriors strengthened the morale of the Israelite fighting men, who would soon be at war with the Canaanites on the west side of the Jordan. At the same time, the death of the Midianite women and male children was a harsh lesson for the Israelites. Here they learned of the terrible consequences that ensued from the sins of idolatry and the worship of heathen gods.
8. Occupying the Transjordan
In his chapter on the Transjordan, Donovan Courville points out that the Israelites were not allowed to occupy the country of the Edomites since they were sons of Esau, the brother of Jacob. (Exodus Problem, 2:251.) Nor were the Israelites permitted to occupy the country of the Moabites and Ammonites since these were the descendents of Lot. (Ibid., p. 252.) Farther north in the Transjordan, the Amorites had displaced some of the territory of the Moabites, but they were defeated by the Israelites prior to the crossing of the Jordan. (Ibid., p. 253.)
Unfortunately, much of the archaeology of the Transjordan, at least during the 1970’s, had been done by way of surface examination. (Ibid., p. 254.) Courville, summarizing the results of Nelson Glueck’s rather cursory survey, says:
“[T]here had been two, and only two, eras of sedentary occupation of Transjordan in historical times. The first of these was the Early Bronze civilization, assumed by Glueck to have ended with the end of the Early Bronze Age west of Jordan. The second began with the beginning of the Iron Age. It was presumed that between these two, a gap in sedentary occupation encompassed the entire periods of Middle and Late Bronze Age.” (Courville, Exodus Problem, 2:254; cf., Glueck, The Other Side of Jordan, 1940.)
We should pause to note that Courville thinks the MB1 pottery represents a post-Conquest strata:
“Middle Bronze I, by the altered interpretation, represents the culture of the Israelites after the Conquest, when they had opportunity to settle down in their new inheritance and utilize their inherent abilities.” (Exodus Problem, 2:264; emphasis added.)
We disagree and think that Courville has confused, in this instance at least, Albright’s MB1 with Kenyon’s MB1. In Exodus Problem 2:264, Courville refers to MB1 as representing the Israelites’ settling down and utilizing their inherent abilities. In Exodus Problem 1:91, he ascribes this settling down period to the end of Kenyon’s Intermediate EB-MB phase (i.e., at the start of her MB1 phase). Nevertheless, Kenyon’s MB1 is really Albright’s MB2a, and her Intermediate EB-MB is really Albright’s MB1. Thus, Courville seems to have taken Kenyon’s MB1 as commencing at the same time as Albright’s MB1, and took the latter as referring to Kenyon’s MB1 “settling down” period. This cannot be right, however, inasmuch as the two archaeologists were using different terminology, i.e., Kenyon’s MB1 is not the same as Albright’s MB1. This may be why Courville did not recognize Albright’s MB1 indicia in the Negev as evidence of the Exodus and Wandering phase of Israel’s history. Contrary to Courville, however, the Negev material is unlikely to represent the post-Conquest phase, given that it can be found along the east side of the Gulf of Suez as well as on the west side in Egypt proper (both areas being outside of Israel’s post-Conquest territory). The MB1 distribution in the Negev, however, fits very well with the Exodus and Wandering phases of Israel’s history.
Courville thinks that because the Israelites did not occupy the territories of Edom and Moab at the time of the Conquest, the Early Bronze 3 period continued on in these areas without interruption “at least to the time of David and possibly even later.” (EP, 2:264-65.) While we agree that there was some EB3 continuity in the south of Transjordan for the reasons given by Courville, it is unlikely to have lasted all the way down to David’s day. The only “gap” that should show up in southern Transjordan would only be with respect to one culture, namely the MB1 culture (if the MB1 people were the Israelites). There is no reason that the archaeological phases of MB2a through the end of the Late Bronze Age would not show up in both the north and the south of Transjordan.
The problem, as most archaeologists now realize, is with surface surveys. They can be deceptive. Ram Gophna, writing in 1992, points out that since Glueck’s time (1947), intensive surveys of northern Transjordan have shown that “the extent of settlement in the Transjordanian plateau was no smaller than that of the hill regions west of the Jordan.” (“The Intermediate Bronze Age,” in Amnon Ben-Tor, ed., The Archaeology of Ancient Israel, 1992, p. 137.) Material from MB1 (i.e., Intermediate Bronze) has been found in Gilead, at Amman, and at Khirbet Iskander, Aroer, and Ader. With the exception of Ader, these sites are north of the Arnon River, though unfortunately, archaeologists have neglected much of this region.
Gophna notes that the Intermediate Bronze Age (i.e. Albright’s MB1) pottery in the west and in north Transjordan is different from the pottery in the south of Transjordan. The western and northern complex is:
“one cultural-geographical unit, differing from southern Transjordan. The latter region may be viewed, in light of the newest evidence, as a geographical unit with a different settlement history.” (Archaeology of Ancient Israel, p. 137; hereafter AOAI.)
He goes on, highlighting the differences between the regions:
“The three sites of the late third millennium [sic] excavated in southern Transjordan reveal a different picture from that of the Jordan valley and westward, in the Land of Israel.” (AOAI, p. 138.)
In Gophna’s opinion, while western Israel and northern Transjordan show a clear discontinuity with the EB3 civilization, the same is not true of the southern Transjordan region, which showed a different settlement history, which revealed a different picture, and was not interrupted as it was in the north and west:
“[T]he material culture sequence of the late third millennium [sic] was not interrupted, as appears to be the case in the southern Transjordanian plateau.” (AOAI, p. 138.)
According to the Bible, northern Transjordan was occupied by the Israelites, but they did not occupy the territory of southern Transjordan, the home of Edom and Moab. Thus we have a clear match between the MB1 distribution and the Israelite settlement pattern. If the Israelites skirted the southern Transjordan, then the southern Transjordan would not have experienced the MB1 conquest. Hence, the archaeology of southern Transjordan should show continuity with the earlier EB3 period, and show a different settlement history. This is exactly what the archaeology shows, as noted by Gophna. The southern Transjordan was not interrupted, but northern Transjordan and western Canaan were disrupted considerably.
Courville restricts the occupation of northern Transjordan to the post-Conquest phase. (EP, 2:265.) However, the Bible makes it clear that the Israelites conquered the northern territories of the Amorites before crossing the Jordan. In addition, this Conquest prepared the way for some of the tribes to settle down in the northern Transjordan. It is in Numbers 32 that we read of Moses’ grant to Reuben, Gad, and East Manasseh of permission to build cities and fortifications in the northern Transjordan region. This was done by the Transjordan tribes in order to protect their families and livestock. As a condition of this grant, the men promised Moses they would not settle down in their cities until all the other tribes had obtained their lands.
Moses said: “Build cities for your little ones and folds for your sheep, and do what has proceeded out of your mouth.” (Num. 32:24.) Gad and Reuben responded: “Your servants will do as my lord commands. Our little ones, our wives, our flocks, and all our livestock will be there in the cities of Gilead; but your servants will cross over, every man armed for war, before the Lord to battle, just as my lord says.” (Num. 32:25-27.)
In the above, Moses is commanding the Transjordan tribes commence the building of cities to protect their children and the livestock. Presumably, the cities were really villages, not large fortified tell-cities, but it is reasonable to assume that the cities had strong enough walls to provide some protection from invasion. In any case the women could keep watch for hostile forces and could send for the warriors if need be. Numbers 32:34 describes the building activity of the tribes in the Transjordan prior to the conquest of Canaan: “And the children of Gad built Dibon and Ataroth and Aroer…”, etc., (cf. Deut. 3:12, 19). The cities built or rebuilt were as follows:
|
Gad |
Reuben |
East Manasseh |
|
Dibon |
Heshbon |
Gilead |
|
Ataroth |
Elealeh |
Havoth Jair (later) |
|
Aroer |
Kirjathaim |
Nobah (Kenath) |
|
Atroth |
Nebo |
|
|
Shophan |
Baal meon |
|
|
Jazer |
Shibmah |
|
|
Jogbehah |
|
|
|
Beth Nimrah |
|
|
|
Beth Haran |
|
|
In addition, Joshua 13:13 says that the tribes of Reuben and Gad did not drive out all the Canaanites: “Nevertheless, the children of Israel did not drive out the Geshurites or the Maachathites, but the Geshurites and the Maachathites dwell among the Israelites until this day.” These verses may help explain some of the confusion regarding the terminology of the Middle Bronze 1 period. Archaeologists use different classifications for essentially the same period. The most widely accepted classification systems are those provided by W. F. Albright and Kathleen Kenyon;¾i.e., one either uses Albright’s terminology or one uses Kenyon’s terminology, and a reminder is usually given to the reader regarding which one is being used. Here is a comparison of the terminology, including those used by Paul Lapp and William Dever:
|
Albright |
Kenyon |
Lapp |
Dever |
|
MB II b-c |
MB II, i-v |
|
|
|
MB II a |
MB I |
|
|
|
MB I |
Intermediate EB-MB |
Intermediate Bronze II |
EB IV 2nd part |
|
EB IV |
|
Intermediate Bronze I |
EB IV 1st part |
|
EB III |
|
|
|
To make matters worse, some archaeologists even prefer using the terms Middle Bronze I, II, and III for Albright’s MB2a, MB2b, and MB2c. Others even want MB2b and MB2c to be one MB2b (divided into a first and second part). Hence, the complaint among archaeologists about terminological chaos for this period. (Cf., A. Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 1990, p. 152.)
Why does Kenyon adopt the terminology of Intermediate EB-MB, and MB1 for the period after? An answer is provided by John Van Seters:
“While the picture of MB I as a rather seminomadic interlude between two periods of highly developed urban life is true of Palestine west of the Jordan, it is not at all the case in Transjordan. The difference between the two regions is, in fact, so striking that it has caused a great deal of confusion in the treatment of MB I. During MB I in Transjordan there was a very significant sedentary civilization.” (The Hyksos, 1966, pp. 11-12.)
Van Seters also cites Nelson Glueck’s description of the MB1 sites in Transjordan:
“Most of the sites are large, strongly walled, and frequently built on an eminence easy of defense….The dwellers of the land were industrious tillers of the soil, who built strong walled villages in which they lived and used much excellent, if on the whole somewhat coarse, hand-made pottery.” (Glueck, Explorations in Eastern Palestine, Part 3, AASOR, 18-19, 1937-39, p. 83; in Van Seters, The Hyksos, p. 12.)
The Transjordanian MB1 pottery is mixed with pottery from the Early Bronze Age, leading Van Seters to deny that there was an invasion of the Transjordan like that which occurred in Palestine west of the Jordan:
“The coming of the MB1 people into Transjordan does not, as in Palestine, represent an invasion and sudden destruction of the previous EB III civilization. It is instead an immigration and settling, for the most part, on previously uninhabited sites. The rise of a new sedentary population began when the Early Bronze tradition of ceramics was still strong. The first phase of the new immigration [sic] is often known as EB IV….The mixture of ceramic styles of EB IV and MB I cannot be easily distinguished stratigraphically in Transjordan, and therefore Glueck’s designation EB IV-MB I for the whole period in Transjordan is a good one.” (The Hyksos, p. 13.)
Van Seters does not say whether he is talking about northern Transjordan or southern Transjordan, nor does he provide a map to show the locations of those cities he is talking about in the Transjordan. He lists Iskander, which is in the north, but he continues to trace cities down past the Wadi Arabah, then over to the Negev and on to the “borders of Egypt.” (Ibid., p. 12.) Van Seters is really illustrating his theory that a commercial system was operative at this time going from the Transjordan over to the Negev and then to the border of Egypt. Unfortunately, his book was written in 1966 and only had Glueck’s material on which to base such judgments. Ram Gophna has shown, however, that the northern region of the Transjordan had a different settlement history from southern Transjordan (see above).
Our view is that the new “immigrant” EB4 pottery does not represent a significant time period. It may be a poor version of EB3 pottery, perhaps a refugee pottery. “It appears,” says Mazar, “that this part of Transjordan became a refuge for population groups escaping from extermination which occurred at large parts of the country at the end of EB III.” (Amihai Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, p. 158.)
It may be a refugee pottery, perhaps even the pottery of such groups as the Geshurites or Maachathites, tribes that Israel was not able to drive out. The reason that we find MB1 fortifications in Transjordan is, as we discussed above, that the tribes of Reuben and Gad built their towns and fortifications prior to the Conquest under Joshua. They were thus still using MB1 pottery when they were building their cities. By the time the Conquest was complete, the Israelites put aside their rustic MB1 pottery and began to purchase and even make a higher quality of pottery, namely the MB2a pottery. This pottery signifies the beginning of urbanism in Palestine after the destruction of the towns at the end of the EB3 period. (We will later see that MB1 pottery and MB2a pottery have sometimes been found together, indicating an overlap between the two pottery styles.)
Thus, the confusion of terminology exhibited above may simply be due to archaeologists’ failure to understand the data at their disposal, a failure brought about by their reliance on conventional chronology.
On the whole there is a good match between the MB1 people and the Israelites, not only with respect to the Negev, but also with respect to the history of both southern and northern Transjordan Southern Transjordan represents a different archaeological history from northern Transjordan and Canaan, and this can be explained by the biblical injunctions that the territory of Edom and Moab could not be occupied by the Israelites. Additionally, the Transjordan tribes built their cities and homes before crossing the Jordan to help their brothers win the land of Canaan. We find that the MB1 pottery in northern Transjordan represents a “significant sedentary civilization,” and that its users “built strong walled villages.” (Van Seters, The Hyksos, p. 12.) Because this was a pre-Conquest effort, the pottery in use was still MB1. After the Conquest, the Israelites left off making MB1 pottery and began to purchase, or to learn, a different pottery style, i.e., the MB2a pottery. This would explain town life in northern Transjordan but the lack of MB1 town life in Canaan: “This lack of monumental architecture and planned urban life is characteristic of MB I throughout Palestine.” (The Hyksos, p. 10.) At first the Israelites lived, for the most part, in already built Canaanite cities, but by the time they began building their own cities, or at least new buildings, they were probably already using the new MB2a pottery. The MB1 pottery was therefore too short of a time period for Palestine, though the earlier building phase in northern Transjordan was still coincident with its use. Once the Israelites were no longer wanderers, they could turn their attention to cultural enrichment.
9. Notes on the Theology of Wandering & Conquest
a. The last year of Wandering is described in the Book of Deuteronomy. Here we have Moses addressing the people, reminding them of their history, encouraging them to conquer the Promised Land, and to remain faithful to their guiding theology. This theology was summarized in Deuteronomy 6:4: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one!” The unity of God means the world is not controlled by the whims of gods or goddesses, nor by inscrutable fate. The universality of God’s control of creation is expressed in the Shema, that there are no competitors to the Lord. This metaphysical fact is the basis for the first commandment, “You shall have no other gods before Me” (Ex. 20:3). In the Bible, ethics rests on ontology rather than on the caprice of men, nations, or gods. This objectivity is the basis of the natural law concept in Western culture, that there is a transcendent law—the law of God or law of nature—that cannot be dismissed as local custom, positive or circumstantial law, or as man-made, subjective ethics. (For a brief but good discussion of the natural law concept, see Russell Kirk, The Roots of American Order, 1974, 2003, pp. 106ff.)
b. The Shema cannot at the time of the Exodus be interpreted to teach the Christian doctrine of the Trinity (which according to Christian theology was not fully revealed this early). By the same token, however, it cannot be interpreted to teach unitarian or nominalistic conceptions of God, nor the Quranic deism of Islam. The emphasis at this time in the Old Testament is not on theological definition but on action, on loyalty to the covenant, on obedience to the law of God. Hence, the constant warnings about idolatry and Israel’s rebelliousness.
c. Much attention has been drawn to the harshness of the Conquest. Here we have Israelites killing women and children who had been taken as captives. Is this ever right? Does not this harshness and cruelty reflect upon the religion of Israel, upon the God of Israel?
We cannot mitigate the harshness of Israelite warfare by saying it was only restricted to the land of Canaan. That is true enough, but critics want to known why it was permitted even in the land of Canaan. Isn’t the killing of captives, especially of women and children, always wrong? Surely, we would not find such practices acceptable today. So has morality changed between the time of Moses and our time?
When this issue of the harshness of the Conquest is brought up, the question of moral equivalency must also be discussed. Those who point to the cruelty of God, or of the Israelites, are essentially saying that all actions are equivalent on the moral plane. This is a view that needs to be justified.
The harshness of holy war during the Conquest cannot be explained without taking into account the redemptive-historical nature of Israel. Israel was a unique nation, one that cannot be placed on an equivalent plane with the nations of the world. Israel was a priestly nation. In Christian theology, it had as its primary purpose the foreshadowing of the work of Christ, and was therefore required to be a holy nation, free from the blemish of idolatry. Harsh punishment and cruel warfare were the means of preserving the holiness of Israel vis-à-vis the syncretism and commonality of idolatry.
No other nation, either in the ancient world or today, can claim to be a priestly nation, to have a unique covenant with God after the manner of the Mosaic covenant. Holy warfare is therefore a thing of the past (as are imprecatory psalms). Holy warfare was allowable only at one time and for one nation, and that nation is now gone forever (as a unique covenantal nation). During the Conquest, Israel was acting as God’s agent of holiness, and Israel’s killing of its foes was no harsher than God’s similar punishment of sinners during the Flood, at the time of the plagues upon Egypt, and so on.
Perhaps it seems harsher because there is a human agent involved. That tends to be unsettling, for would this not provide a rationale for others to seek to enforce God’s will upon others by violence? Would it not be a recipe for cruelty in war?
Of course, when it comes to discussing fallen man, and his capability for cruelty and oppression, such questions are not silly, even if one does not go to Hobbesian extremes in describing the fallen state. Nevertheless, the redemptive-historical nature of Israel prevents any deduction from Israel’s mode of holy warfare to any modern model of total warfare (including jihad). There can no longer be any justification for harshness in war. Any state, any religion, or any cause that claims holy war as a proper method of fighting, or of propagating a message, is claiming a unique moral status. For Christians, however, such unique moral status was meant only for ancient Israel, and for no other nation, whether in the ancient world or in our own world of today.
Israel’s laws and forms of warfare cannot be explained in terms of setting up Israel as an ideal nation that all nations past and present must emulate, as if a modern polity could adopt Israel’s covenant and its laws, and thereby share in Israel’s unique moral status. As soon as one attempts to do this one is immediately confronted by the problem of holy war. Nevertheless, it is only by recognizing Israel’s redemptive-historical role that holy war can be fairly explained and also seen as forever discontinued.
10. The Tribes of Israel
According to the Bible, Israel consisted of twelve tribes. These were:
1. Reuben
2. Simeon (incorporated into Judah)
3. Levi (inherited the priesthood)
4. Judah
5. Issachar
6. Zebulun
7. Benjamin
8. Dan
9. Naphtali
10. Gad
11. Asher
12. Joseph (Ephraim, received land on west side of Jordan; and Manasseh, divided land east and west of Jordan).
Ephraim and Manasseh were sons of Joseph, and are often described as the Joseph tribes. They are sub-tribes of the tribe of Joseph, and the total tribes and sub-tribes would then be thirteen different cultural groups. Given that the Israelites entered into northern Transjordan and Canaan as one nation divided into diverse tribes, we should expect to see such unity and diversity revealed in the archaeological record. In addition, each tribe settled into a distinct geographic region, so we should expect to see signs of geographic regionalism. The latter has been amply documented by William Dever for the Middle Bronze 1 people (his EB4):
“Together with the pastoral-nomadic model, I suggested that the material culture of Palestine in EB IV, particularly the pottery, could best be understood in terms of several differing regional assemblages, or geographico-cultural ‘Families’.” (T. E. Levy, ed., The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, 1995, p. 289.)
The archaeology of this period shows a great discontinuity between MB1 and the previous EB3 and later MB2a civilizations. Kathleen Kenyon describes the end of the Early Bronze Age in terms of this discontinuity:
“At the end of the Early Bronze Age there was a complete and absolute break in Palestinian civilization. The town dwellers of the earlier period were succeeded by semi-nomadic pastoralists who had no interest in walled towns. They seem to have destroyed the towns of their predecessors, and with the exception of Megiddo, which is a special case, their contribution to the history of towns is negligible [sic].” (Kenyon, “Archaeological Evidence From Palestine,” Cambridge Ancient History, 1:2, 1971, p. 567.)
She goes on to point out that the Intermediate EB-MB (i.e., Albright’s MB1) archaeology is just as distinct from the Middle Bronze Age as it is from the Early Bronze Age. That is why she left Albright’s terminology aside, and instead adopted and abbreviated J. H. Iliffe’s terminology of “Intermediate Early Bronze-Middle Bronze” (or simpler “Intermediate E.B.-M.B”). Iliffe had been responsible for the arrangement of exhibits at the Palestine Archaeological Museum, and Kenyon felt his terminology served to call attention to the great difference of the Intermediate pottery from that which was under it and that which was above it. There was also a difference in weaponry. Kenyon points out that the Intermediate people were unique in their use of weapons:
“Metal weapons are rare in the Early Bronze Age, and not very common in the Middle Bronze Age. In the E.B.-M.B. period they are very common….” (CAH, 1:2, p. 568.)
This is provided with a ready explanation if the Intermediate period were the Israelites. Under Joshua, the tribes of Israel were warriors and had the services of the Kenites, famed for their metalurgical skills. So it is not surprising that the Israelites would be buried with their weapons, used in the Conquest of northern Transjordan and Canaan.
In the same volume of the Cambridge Ancient History, Kenyon goes on to describe various sites in Palestine in order to provide more evidence of the differentiation between the Early Bronze and the Middle Bronze periods. We have already written about Jericho, but Kenyon mentions something that may be of further interest about Jericho. Archaeologists in the 1952-58 expedition uncovered some EB3 houses on the east side of the tell that had not been destroyed:
“[I]n squares E III-IV the ruins of the Early Bronze Age houses showed no sign of destruction or disturbance in the E.B.-M.B. period, but no overlying Middle Bronze levels survived here.” (“Palestine: The Sites,” CAH, 1:2, 1971, p. 569.)
Could these Early Bronze houses be the dwelling place of Rahab, the famous spy? According to the Bible: “Now the city shall be doomed by the Lord to destruction, it and all who are in it. Only Rahab the harlot shall live, she and all who are with her in the house, because she hid the messengers that we sent.” (Josh. 6:17). Of course, the Bible does not say that the house would be spared no matter what, only that Rahab and her family would be spared while they remained in the house (as long as they placed the scarlet cord in the window). In addition, Rahab’s house is mentioned as being “on the city wall” (Josh. 2:15), so if the Israelites destroyed the walls of Jericho after the battle, it is not clear how Rahab’s house could have escaped destruction by fire. Still, it is tempting to identify these EB3 houses on the east of the tell as the area where Rahab and her family lived, and it might provide a good explanation as to why these EB3 structures were not destroyed.
The Intermediate people did not build a town or walls at Jericho. Kenyon says, “The non-urban character of the occupation is emphasized by the absence of town walls. Jericho was a nucleus of population rather than an urban centre.” These non-urban occupiers only set up structures on the slopes of Jericho, and on nearby hills. “Indeed,” says Kenyon, “it would appear that part of the town site was unoccupied, while on the other hand there were dwellings on the surrounding hill slopes [of Jericho].” Moreover, “The evidence for contemporary occupation beyond the limits of the tell comes from the hill slopes to the north and north-west, which was one of the main cemetery areas.” (CAH, 1:2, p. 569-70.) This is consistent with the Biblical narrative. The Israelites were forbidden to build the city of Jericho again, at the cost of a terrible curse, so they set up their temporary structures (tents, shacks) on the slopes of Jericho and on the surrounding hills, just as the Intermediate people did.
In terms of the biblical narrative, Rahab and her family were spared, and they lived among the Israelites after the battle. Once Rahab was rescued from the city, Jericho was burned with fire (Josh. 6:24). Kenyon says,
“The evidence from the tell thus suggests a destruction of the pre-existing Early Bronze Age town, followed by a camping period in which there were no solid structures on the site; subsequently there were buildings, slight in character and entirely different from the buildings of the Early Bronze Age. The evidence from the tombs suggests that there was a numerous and virile population, of which the burial practices were entirely different from those of the Early Bronze Age occupation of Jericho.” (Cambridge Ancient History, 1:2, p. 570.)
Kenyon then discusses the burial practices of the Intermediate people. Excavations at Jericho revealed at least seven tomb types: “In the E.B.-M.B. burials,” says Kenyon, “the emphasis is on individual tombs, but the Jericho finds show that there was a variety in the method of tomb excavation and burial that is significant for the interpretation of the evidence. Seven types of tomb could be identified, all of them consisting of rock-cut chambers approached by a vertical shaft.” (CAH, 1:2, p. 570.) The types of burial practices are categorized as:
|
Tomb |
Description |
|
1. Dagger type |
individual burial of complete skeleton; dagger, pins, and beads. |
|
2. Pottery type |
individual burial; disarticulated skeleton; pottery jars, lamp. |
|
3. Square-shaft |
tomb-shaft was square, not round; pots, weapons, javelin with curled tang. |
|
4. Bead type |
disarticulated skeletons; beads. |
|
5. Outsize type |
large shaft and chamber; pottery vessels, spouted jars, staves. |
|
6. Composite type |
mixture of tomb styles and grave goods of all the preceding types. |
|
7. Multiple-burial type |
a single tomb with three burials; weapons, vessels related to types found in southern Palestine. |
From these Kenyon concludes: “The features shared in common by these tombs and their contents leave no room for doubt that they belong to the same general period—the practice of individual burial, the overlap in pottery types and the similarities in pot-making techniques even when the forms varied, the similarities in weapon-types….They are distinguished from the tombs of the Early Bronze Age not only by complete difference in burial practices but also by the evidence of an absolute environmental break.” (CAH, 1:2, p. 574.)
The important thing to note in the above is that there were seven distinguishable tomb types. This means that there were either families, clans, or tribes that were distinct enough in their burial practices that at least seven could be distinguished. As noted above, the Israelites consisted of twelve tribes (thirteen if Joseph’s tribe is subdivided). Seven distinct burial customs among the Intermediate people is a pretty good match with the biblical narrative about the number of tribes who entered the land of Canaan. Kenyon comments:
“The very clear evidence of the Jericho tombs is therefore of the presence in the neighbourhood of a number of loosely connected groups. The newcomers were tribal groups, joining in a general movement, a movement that resulted in the submergence of the pre-existing civilizations, but one which did not impose a truly unified culture on the occupied area, except in the general sense that it was one that was semi-nomadic and pastoral rather than urban and agricultural.” (CAH, 1:2, p. 575; emphasis added.)
New Courville, of course, views the Intermediate people as the Israelites. Since the Conquest only lasted about six years, and since the Israelites probably upgraded with respect to pottery very soon after the Conquest, we need not follow Kenyon’s view that the Intermediate people were non-urban and non-agriculturalist. Additionally, if the Intermediate people are the Israelites, then their semi-nomadic phase only lasted forty or so years in the Negev, on only six or so years in the land of Canaan. Once the Israelites had finished the Conquest, they did not build many cities for themselves in Canaan proper, but occupied the tell cities, or practiced farming and agriculture within the boundaries of their inheritance. Only in this sense, that the Israelites settled into distinct geographic regions as separate tribal entities, would it be true to say that there was no truly unified culture. There would in fact be both unity and diversity in Israel’s cultural makeup, both a national and a local aspect to Israelite culture. Kenyon says, regarding the unity and diversity of the Intermediate people:
“By far the greatest amount of evidence comes from tombs, which attest the existence of a numerous population. The people which buried its dead in the tombs had little interest in the town sites of the preceding era [sic], either ignoring them or occupying them incompletely, with a spread out over the surrounding countryside, and in no case building town walls. Between the people living at these three places [Duweir, ‘Ajjul, Beit Mirsim] there was, on the pottery evidence, a close connexion, but not identity. The two cemeteries at ‘Ajjul could well indicate tribal groups; the less pronounced differences at the other two sites may suggest some amalgamation and interconnexions after groups had settled down.” (CAH,1:2, pp. 577-78; emphasis added.)
We reiterate, however, that the “spread” over the countryside could just as easily indicate a short period of time while the Israelite tribes were fighting in other parts of the land. On the New Courville theory, the Intermediate period does not need to represent an archaeological period lasting a couple hundred years. Thus, the reason the Intermediate people did not build towns is that they were fighting rather than building. They only built towns later, and only after occupying the remaining cities in the land.
Can any more burial practices be discerned? The answer is yes. In fact there are two more tomb groups, making a total of nine distinguishable funerary types. Kenyon points out that at Tell el-‘Ajjul, Petrie found two separate cemeteries, the 100-200 and the 1500 cemeteries. The tombs in these cemeteries contained only single burials, with 100-200 having a majority as disarticulated skeletons, and round shaft tombs. In cemetery 1500 intact crouched bodies were interred, and the shafts of the tombs were rectangular. There were also differences in pottery and weapons. From all this Kenyon infers that at ‘Ajjul:
“[I]t is again reasonable to deduce the presence of two separate but related groups. Neither used burial practices identical with those of the Jericho groups, but the tomb offerings are related.” (CAH, 1:2, p. 576.)
Again unity and diversity. At Duweir, some tombs were located north of the tell, with some similarities to the tombs at ‘Ajjul, but with differing pottery shapes. At Beit Mirsim, strata I and H of the Intermediate period showed pottery forms similar to Duweir’s pottery, but Kenyon says that “there are again variations, such as the predominance of knob handles on the large ovoid jars.” (CAH, 1:2, p. 577.)
The practices at these two sites would seem to bring the total of burial types up to eleven. Are there any more? Kenyon describes the variation in tomb types at Megiddo as “suggesting the arrival of immigrant groups with differing equipment and practices, for there are two entirely different types of tombs….There is no doubt that the tombs provide evidence at Megiddo of yet further tribal groups arriving in Palestine.” (CAH, 1:2, p. 579.)
Thus, there are two more groups at Megiddo. So far that is a total of thirteen different burial practices, and Kenyon does not hesitate to interpret these as tribal groups. So we can infer from the evidence of the diverse tomb groups that the Intermediate people were divided into thirteen separate tribes. This is rather obviously an exact match with the Israelites, who were distributed into thirteen distinct tribes or sub-tribes.
Nevertheless, we should be cautious at this point. Some of these burial practices may be clan or family traits, rather than tribal indicators. The evidence looks good for a match between the Israelites and the Intermediate people, but archaeologists should focus more attention to this issue, to make sure these are separate tribes.
Dever thinks another tribe of the Intermediate people can be discerned from the archaeological evidence, this time not in the west, but as part of the Transjordan:
“The only modification [of the regional theory]…has been the possible addition of a new family on the Transjordanian plateau, based on new material—‘Family AZ’ (for the Amman-Zerqa region).” (T. E. Levy, ed., The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, 1995, p. 289.)
Thus, we have the possibility of thirteen tribes represented in the west, and at least one in the east. Even if only seven or eight tomb types turn out to be indicative of real tribal characteristics, it would still represent a fairly significant match with the Israelites. The ease with which archaeologists were able to find even more tribal characteristics is what one would expect if the thirteen tribes or sub-tribes of the Israelites are the same as the tribes of the Intermediate people. That Dever was able to find another possible tribe in the Transjordan shows the predictive power of the Israelite-Intermediate people theory. For we know that Reuben, Gad and East Manasseh had their inheritance in the Transjordan. It is likely that more tomb types will be found in north-Transjordan besides the one mentioned by Dever.
11. Cities of the Conquest
In this section, the purpose is to drill down to the cities of the Conquest, so to speak, and see what their archaeology has to say. It is somewhat problematic, however, since it is not at all certain that the site matches made by archaeologists in their quest to identify biblical cities are correct. William Stiebing says,
“Correlating archaeological sites with places known from ancient texts is also not always a sure thing. Cities like Jerusalem, Athens, and Rome have remained occupied since antiquity, so their locations are not in questions. But the sites of many other places must be determined from clues found in ancient written material, and sometimes there are two or three possible archaeological sites for a given town or city. Archaeological excavation occasionally solves such disputes by uncovering on a site written evidence of its ancient identity. But the locations of many ancient cities known from texts remain debatable.” (Out of the Desert? Archaeology and the Exodus/Conquest Narratives, 1989, p. 34.)
All too often, as we’ve said before, archaeological sites are identified with biblical cities on the basis of Iron Age material. Such a criterion for identification is ultimately based on a circular argument, since the Iron Age is keyed to the beginnings of the Israelite settlement period on the basis of conventional chronology. If that chronology itself is being challenged, it is simply a petitio principii (not to mention sheer chutzpah) to use cities located on such a basis to criticize alternative chronologies.
In addition, it is also possible that city locations have changed. For instance, a City X of the Iron Age may have been located on a nearby tell during the Early Bronze Age or down through the Late Bronze Age. At some point, the earlier City X was destroyed by an enemy, or was subject to flooding, and a New City X was built at a safer site nearby. Failure to understand this may lead to faulty site location. Stiebing provides a good example:
“The location of ancient Beer-sheba is virtually certain. It is Tell es-Saba‘ (Arabic), or Tel Beer-sheba (Hebrew). Not only has the ancient name remained associated with the site, but there is no other mound in the vicinity that fits the ancient textual description….Yet, except for a few sherds from the fourth millennium B.C., the excavations failed to turn up any evidence of occupation earlier than the beginning of the Iron Age, c. 1200 B.C. [sic]. If the Israelite conquest of Canaan took place during the Late Bronze Age, there was no city of Beer-sheba to allot to either Judah or Simeon.” (Out of the Desert?, pp. 70-71.)
The site location for Beersheba does not even work on a conventional chronology basis, in which the Conquest is usually correlated to the Late Bronze Age. It is true that Tell es-Saba‘ became the site location of a new Beersheba during the Iron Age, but given its relatively recent origin in the archaeological record, it is more likely that the original Beersheba is at another site, possibly as has been suggested, underneath the modern city of Beersheba. (Cf., John Rogerson, Chronicles of the Bible Lands, 1985, 2003, p. 120; unfortunately, excavations at the modern city are, in the nature of the case, limited.)
We have already mentioned the idea of site relocation as an explanation of the apparent contradiction in the Bible regarding the sacred area at Shechem. Was it outside the city of Shechem, as the Book of Genesis says (Gen. 12:6; 33:18-20), or was it inside the city of Shechem, as the Book of Judges says (Judg. 9:6)? If the old city was destroyed, and a new one built around the sacred area, this apparent contradiction is given a reasonable explanation. (See the essay on Shechem in the files area.)
We have a similar problem with the city of Emar in Syria. Excavations at Tell Meskene show only Late Bronze remains, but Ebla and Mari texts mention the city as existing in the Early and Middle Bronze ages. Thomas Brisco, with no thought of chronological revision, says:
“Tell Meskene has been identified as Emar….Texts from Ebla and Mari mention Emar during the third and early second millennia, but the existing remains reflect only the Late Bronze Age city….Presumably the site of the earlier city was abandoned, perhaps due to the shifting course of the Euphrates River, and now lies below the newly formed Lake El Assad.” (Holmen Bible Atlas, 1998, p. 62.)
This may also have happened with other cities such as Beersheba, Gibeon, etc. The mere identification of a biblical city with an Iron Age site only proves that this was the biblical city during the Iron Age. It does not prove it was the site of the biblical city during the Early, Middle, or Late Bronze Ages. Careful examination and excavation of nearby sites might provide some clues as to whether an ancient city has relocated. Each site location should therefore be reviewed on a case by case basis in order to determine if this phenomenon is likely or unlikely at the relevant site. The following are some of the more important sites:
a) Jericho & Ai: We have already discussed these two cities extensively in separate essays and readers are referred to those essays in our files area. Basically, it was demonstrated that both cities were destroyed at the end of the Early Bronze Age. At Jericho, a massive wall was brought down by a natural catastrophe (likely an earthquake), and a hastily built structure on top of it was overrun, and the city was burned. With respect to Ai, one of the most important discoveries was that of a large heap of rocks that took a month for the excavators to remove, and was correlated to the end of the Early Bronze Age. The archaeology of these two sites fits the biblical narrative of events so well, especially the latter, so much so that they could be called the “smoking gun” of biblical archaeology.
b) Gibeon: This city has been identified as the site of el-Jib, which has material from the Early Bronze Age until Roman times. James Pritchard says, “Tombs have been discovered at el-Jib from each of six major archaeological periods in the city’s history: Early Bronze, Middle Bronze I, Middle Bronze II, Late Bronze, Iron, and Roman.” (James B. Pritchard, Gibeon: Where the Sun Stood Still, 1962, p. 125.) Again, “There were…scattered traces of pottery…the earliest of which reached back to the first occupation of the site at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age….” (Ibid., p. 81).
Pritchard describes the tomb materials of the MB1, MB2, and LBA periods: “In contrast to the richness of the burials of the Middle Bronze II period was the comparative poverty evidenced by the tombs of the Middle Bronze I period. Burials of this period were accompanied by a few plain jars, and sometimes by a four-spouted lamp and a javelin point or a dagger. In each of the five tombs that contained some unmistakable tokens of the Middle Bronze I period there was evidence of reuse in the subsequent period. In one instance material from a burial made in the Late Bronze Age demonstrates the very long use of the tomb.” (Ibid., p. 135; cf., also p. 151.)
Of course, per New Courville the MB1 pottery represents the Israelite Conquest of Canaan, and is short-lived and only relatively poor.
According to the Bible, the city of Gibeon was not defeated by the Israelites at the time of the Conquest, but through trickery its people entered into a covenant with the Israelites. For New Courville, there should then be EBA through MB1 continuity, and it is not surprising that the Israelite MB1 is found only in tombs rather than in the city itself. Pritchard also makes the startling statement:
“These relics of the Middle Bronze I people seem to indicate a fresh migration into the town of a nomadic people who brought with them an entirely new tradition in pottery forms and new customs in burial practices. They may have come into Palestine from the desert at the crossing of the Jordan near Jericho and may then have pushed on to settle eventually at such places as Gibeon, Tell el-Ajjul, and Lachish, where tombs of this distinctive type have been found….Since these Middle Bronze I newcomers into Palestine at Jericho camped at the site without the protection of a city wall and only later built houses, it is quite probable that they lived at Gibeon in similar temporary quarters.” (Gibeon: Where the Sun Stood Still, 1962, p. 153.)
This matches with the Israelite Conquest, though Pritchard’s last inference is not necessary. The Israelites did camp out at Jericho after the walls fell down (on our theory), but did not conquer Gibeon, and thus did not need to set up tents on its ruins.
Gibeon was described as a “great city” (Josh. 10:2), and Pritchard commented that “there should be some evidence for occupation of Gibeon in the Late Bronze period….” (Ibid., p. 135.) This is to be expected since conventional chronology places the Conquest at the end of the Late Bronze Age. Pritchard notes that the LBA pottery found in tombs was cosmopolitan, representing Egypt, Cyprus, and other foreign lands. The inference is that the city existed in the Late Bronze Age in order to account for the variety of LBA imports. (Ibid., pp. 157, 158.) Pritchard found evidence on the tell for the MB2 city (Hyksos period), which consisted of a buried house in the northwest sector of the site. (Ibid., p. 154.)
According to the Bible, Gibeon remained a Canaanite city during and after the Conquest, though in service to Israel. Not much is heard about the city after that, and it is first mentioned again during the monarchy period in Israel. Some structures that one should expect to find based on the biblical narrative are as follows:
1. The pool of Gibeon (2 Sam. 2.)
2. The great stone which is in Gibeon (2 Sam. 20.)
3. A high place large enough for a thousand burnt offerings (1 Ki. 3.)
4. A place called the “mountain of the Lord” at Gibeon (2 Sam. 21.)
Per New Courville, the first three should be Late Bronze Age structures since on our theory, David and Solomon were LB2b kings. The fourth is identified with Nebi Samwil, which is a mountain a mile to the south of el-Jib. (Pritchard, p. 39.)
In our opinion, the first three structures may not have been located yet. Could it be that el-Jib is not the correct site for Gibeon? Pritchard found inscriptions from the late Iron Age period with the name “Gibeon” in archaic Hebrew, and this convinced him more than anything else that el-Jib was the site of Gibeon. (Ibid., p. 47ff.) Other sites have been suggested but do not go back farther than the Iron Age. Nor does Pritchard mention any other tells in the vicinity that might contain Early through Late Bronze Age material. So it would seem el-Jib is Gibeon.
The spectacular find of a spiral staircase leading down to a large pool was interpreted to be an Iron Age structure. However, Pritchard does not report any stratified material associated with the pool, so his dating must be based on an educated guess that the pool was built after the Iron Age wall. (Ibid., p. 71.) His says it was a “defensive measure” and because of that “it must have been cut after the building of the inner and earlier phase of the city wall which runs to the east of it.” (Idem.) Thus, Pritchard’s dating of the pool to the Iron Age is a logical inference rather than a conclusion based on empirical evidence. Pritchard uses a similar argument to date the underground cistern and tunnel that leads to the pool. Nevertheless, while the evidence for dating is less than convincing, we shall have to rely on Pritchard’s archaeological judgment for the time being.
A large pool exists to the “east of the spring of the village of el-Jib.” (Ibid., p. 159.) Pritchard’s reason for rejecting this as the pool of Gibeon during David’s day is that he thinks the true pool must have been within the walls of the city. Of course, since these walls are dated to the Iron Age, Pritchard confines his candidates for the biblical pool to the Iron Age. We think it should be at the end of the Late Bronze Age, so there is no necessary reason to seek for the pool of Gibeon within the Iron Age walls.
Pritchard did find pottery from the Early and Middle Bronze ages on the summit of the hill at el-Jib (i.e., not just in tombs):
“[W]e turned to another objective of the 1959 season: the excavation of the summit of the hill at el-Jib. It is well known that in ancient Palestine the ‘high place’ of the city was the place of worship….A week of work produced some strange results. Pottery from the Iron Ages and from both the Early and Middle Bronze Ages appeared, but it was unassociated with house walls and floor levels.” (Gibeon: Where the Sun Stood Still, pp. 86-87.)
Unfortunately, these were mixed together and were not in a stratigraphic context. The reason for this is that el-Jib had been subject to shelling during World War I. “[T]he British,” said Pritchard, “had succeeded in virtually pulverizing by shell fire from Nebi Samwil the stratification within the area in which we had placed so much hope.” (Ibid., p. 88.) The reason for the shelling is that el-Jib had been the site of a Turkish emplacement. Archaeologists are thankful for even small favors when they dig up an archaeological site, so it is great that they were able to find any EBA or MBA material on the hill. However, archaeologists are not miracle workers; they cannot put back together an archaeological site that has been pulverized by twentieth century weapons technology. So we have unfortunately lost crucial information about the EBA and MBA periods.
Gibeon provides an illustration of what happens when a city is lived in continuously over the centuries. It is a good thing for the people who live in the city, but it is not so great for archaeologists. For the latter, the best cities are those that were sacked and burned several times, thus sealing in various archaeological levels. A similar problem is seen with the city of Jerusalem, where hardly any material exists for the existence of an LBA city, though Egyptian texts from the same time period indicate its existence.
A cemetery exists on the north end of el-Jib, making it impossible to excavate this area. (Ibid., p. 103.) Iron Age builders also scraped to bedrock before building the IA1 wall and “thus destroyed whatever evidence there may have been of previous occupation.”. (Idem.)
It is hoped that further excavation of Gibeon will bring to light at least some evidence of city structures during at least the EB3 and LBA periods. This might turn out to be the case if archaeologists would spend less time on the Iron Age levels (which they think are Israelite) and focus more on the EB3 and LBA levels. In any case, Pritchard points out that up until his own excavations, “we have dug into but a fraction of the total area” and he believes that the “great city” of Joshua’s day will eventually come to light. (Ibid, p. 158.)
c) Hazor: We have discussed the later history of Hazor in our essay “The Low Chronology & the Royal Cities of Solomon.” It was argued that the period of Solomon is reflected in Upper City stratum 13 and Lower City stratum 1-a. It was noted that at these levels we see repair and alteration, along with examples of biblical objects—the two capitals, and the sea—mixed with cultic objects explainable in terms of the idolatry of the divided kingdom period.
The following represents in part a chart of the archaeological periods of Hazor as given by Yigael Yadin in his book Hazor, The Schweich Lectures, 1970, 1972 p. 118:
|
Periods |
Upper City |
Lower City |
New Courville |
|
|
I |
|
|
|
|
II |
|
|
|
|
III |
|
|
|
|
IV |
|
|
|
“Hellenistic- Israelite” |
V |
No longer occupied |
|
|
|
VI |
|
|
|
|
VII |
|
|
|
|
VIII |
|
post-earthquake |
|
|
IX |
|
Uzziah’s earthquake |
|
“Solomon” |
X |
|
Omri/Ahab |
|
|
XI |
|
|
|
“Israelite”; early Iron Age |
XII |
Very few huts of Stratum XII |
post-Solomon, divided kingdom |
|
LB III |
XIII |
1A |
Solomon |
|
LBII |
XIV |
1B |
|
|
LBI |
XV |
2 |
|
|
MB IIC |
‘post XVI’ |
none found in Lower City |
|
|
MB IIC |
XVI |
3 |
Abimelech |
|
MB IIB |
XVII |
4 |
Judges |
|
MB IIA-B (transitional) |
‘pre XVIII’ |
none found in Lower City |
early Israelite settlement to Deborah |
|
MB I |
XVIII |
|
Exodus/ Conquest |
|
EB III |
XIX |
|
Canaanite period |
|
EB III |
XX |
Not yet occupied |
Canaanite period |
|
EB II |
XXI |
|
|
Unfortunately, Yadin and his team did not excavate the Early Bronze Age strata to the extent we would have liked. He says, “The small areas in which we struck EB strata do not enable us to say much about the EB cities, except that Hazor’s earliest cities were erected in that period.” (Hazor, p. 119.) Yadin found some EB houses under an MB2 wall, plus large quantities of EB sherds on the east side of the city. In one area, Yadin was able to distinguish three EB strata (21-19), and also found some Khirbet Kerak material. The city was apparently founded in the EB2 phase, with the earliest material found at level 21. Yadin says,
“The EB Hazor reached its zenith in the EB III period. This is attested by the abundance of Khirbet Kerak Ware already found [in 1955-8 and 1968]….The end of the EB Hazor seems to fall within the EB III, but in what seems to be a ‘post Khirbet Kerak’ phase.” (Hazor, p. 120.)
Early Bronze material was found above stratum 20 in stratum 19: “This group belongs to Stratum XIX, and is the last evidence we have of the EB city.” Moreover, “Thus Hazor serves as a further testimony to a densely populated Palestine in the EBII-III periods with its flourishing large cities spreading from Galilee in the north to the northern Negev in the south.” (Idem.)
The debris between the EB and MB strata indicated the existence of an MB1 settlement. However, Yadin mentions that the evidence for MB1 is of a “flimsy nature.” The reason is that:
“[T]he MB I level, like those of EB, was reached by us in limited areas only. Altogether, the picture of the MB I settlement is not unlike the situation in many excavated tells: an extensive settlement of semi-nomadic people dwelling mainly in huts or tents….The most important types of the MB I pottery are represented by the sherds found, including the ‘Megiddo Tea-Pots’, the ‘amphoriskoi’ of the Ma‘ayan Barukh type, the four-nozzled oil-lamps and also the large and deep bowls with ledge-handles. On the whole one may say, though, that this represents rather the northern MB I cultures than the southern—a fact to be expected.” (Hazor, pp. 120-21.)
From these preliminary reports, it appears that the some of the Intermediate people settled for a short time on the remains of the Early Bronze Age city. Unfortunately, the lack of significant excavation of the EBA and Intermediate strata makes it difficult to ascribe the end of the EBA city to the Israelites without further evidence. All that can be done now is to make inferences from the archaeology of the MB1 material in general and apply it to the particular case of Hazor. We think further excavations of EB3 levels will show that the city was massively burned at the end of the EB3 period, and this would represent the Israelite Conquest.
The Lower City of Hazor was built either at the end of MB2a or at the beginning of the MB2b period. The Upper City served as a citadel for the Lower City. Both levels were destroyed at the end of MB2c, more than likely by the Egyptians of the Eighteenth Dynasty. The city of stratum 13 was destroyed, though it is not easy to say who the invaders were (though Yadin believes they were the Israelites). The earliest phase of the Iron Age begins at stratum 12, which in conventional chronology represents the Israelite settlement period.
The Bible does not say that Deborah and the Israelite tribes under her leadership destroyed the city of Hazor. This was only done by Joshua and the Israelites of the Conquest period.
Yadin discusses a document that mentions the name of the king of Hazor. The letter is from Shamshi-Adad, the king of Assyria to his son Yasmah-Adad, the ruler of Mari. The name of the king of Hazor is Ibni-Adad or Yabni-Hadad. The name “Yabni” is the same as the Hebrew “Jabin,” the Y and J being interchangeable, and the last letters being reversible. (Hazor, p. 5.) Scholars have also correlated these kings with the famous Babylonia king Hammurabi. As we have argued, the time of Jabin, king of Hazor, mentioned in the Mari letters, and the time of Hammurabi, best correlates with the time of the Israelite Judge Deborah.
Since Yadin wrote, there has not been much more excavation in the Early Bronze or Middle Bronze 1 periods. Ongoing excavations at Hazor are reported in the Israel Exploration Journal but most only discuss Iron Age and some Late Bronze Age excavations. We hope further excavations will concentrate more fully on the Early Bronze and Middle Bronze 1 strata, and further elucidate the archaeology of Hazor.
d) Megiddo: We have discussed the later history of Megiddo in our “Low Chronology” essay. Briefly, it was argued that under New Courville, the latter part of stratum 7b should be assigned to Solomon, and the destruction of its palace and temple should be assigned to Shishak (Merneptah). Other public buildings continued into the next stratum (7a), thus showing that the same people inhabited the city. The post-Shishak city lasted until the New Philistines destroyed it. Later, stratum 5a-4b was destroyed by Uzziah’s earthquake, while stratum 4a was the rebuilding phase under Jeroboam 2. It was noted that the gate (built during the time of Ahab perhaps) survived the earthquake and a new, stronger wall was built to connect to the earlier style gate. Some interesting data about the Solomonic stratum were discussed, e.g., the Megiddo ivory handle with its depiction of a Semitic king and lion throne bearing a close resemblance to the throne of Solomon; and an ivory cache which matches the description of Solomon’s riches (1 Ki. 10:22).
The city of Megiddo has been fortified from the Early Bronze Age into the Iron Age. (Graham Davies, Megiddo: Cities of the Biblical World, 1986, p. 21.) Unfortunately, Megiddo was excavated prior to WWII when archaeological techniques were still somewhat primitive. Nevertheless, enough recorded data was available in subsequent years so that archaeologists could reasonably interpret the site, though this did not solve all problems.
The greatest difficulty has been the nature of the stratigraphy with respect to the Intermediate period (Albright’s MB1). According to Davies, “[T]he period between the end of EB III and the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age…has been, as far as the whole of Palestine is concerned, a source of particularly severe disagreement among scholars for over a generation.” (Ibid., p. 30.) As with Mazar, he points to the different terms used to designate this in-between period (MB1, Intermediate EB-MB, etc.), and chooses the term “Early Bronze Age IV” to designate the Intermediate period. He points out that the “coarser” Intermediate ware is found at Megiddo alongside much finer ware. “This would seem to imply,” says Davies, “that Megiddo was less seriously affected than other places by the factors, whatever they were, which brought about this period of widespread political and economic decline.” (Idem.)
The following table of the archaeology of Megiddo is based in part on Yigael Yadin’s article in Ephraim Stern’s Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, 1977, Vol. III, p. 833:
|
Stratum |
Conventional Date |
Archaeological Phase |
New Courville |
|
XX |
before 3300 [sic] |
Chalcolithic |
Babel |
|
XIX |
3300-3000 |
late EB1 |
|
|
XVIII |
3000-2500 |
EB2-3 |
|
|
XVII |
2500-? |
EB3 |
|
|
XVI |
?-1950 |
EB3 |
|
|
XV |
1950-1850 |
MB1, EB3 mixture |
Joshua’s Conquest |
|
XIV |
1850-1800 |
MB1, MB2a |
|
|
XIII-B XIII-A |
1800-1750 |
MB2a |
Early Settlement |
|
XII |
1750-1700 |
MB2b |
Deborah |
|
XI |
1700-1650 |
|
|
|
X |
1650-1550 |
MB2c |
Abimelech |
|
IX |
1550-1479 |
LB1 |
|
|
VIII |
1479-1350 |
LB2a |
Eli – Samuel |
|
VII-B VII-A |
1350-1150 |
LB2b IA1 |
Solomon post-Shishak |
|
VI-B VI-A |
1150-1100 |
IA2 |
Philistines
|
|
V-B |
1050-1000 |
|
|
|
V-A / IV-B |
1000-800 |
|
Uzziah’s earthquake |
|
IV-A |
800-780 |
|
Jeroboam 2 |
|
III |
780-650 |
|
|
|
II |
650-600 |
|
|
|
I |
600-350 |
|
|
Commenting on the Intermediate pottery, Yadin says: “The pottery of this stratum [15], as presented in the publication, shows a mixture of Early Bronze Age and Middle Bronze Age I-II ware.” (Ibid., p. 839.) This had also been Kathleen Kenyon’s conclusion. “There remains the problem of Megiddo,” says Kenyon. “As the material is published, there appears to be an overlap, with pottery of the Early Bronze, E.B.-M.B., and Middle Bronze [MB2a] appearing side by side in Strata XVI, XV, XIV and XIII. But I have shown [sic] that this is due to intrusive burials and other disturbances. No such mixture occurs in the tomb groups, and it is virtually certain [sic] that on the tell the occupation of the three periods is as distinct as it is elsewhere.” (Archaeology in the Holy Land, pp. 155-56.)
This overlap of EB, Intermediate, and MB2a pottery in four strata is the difficulty noted above. Yadin describes Kenyon’s analysis of the published data, which we summarize:
(1) The middle temple (4040) was built after the two western temples (the “twin temples”) were in ruins.
(2) Most of the pottery in Stratum 15 should be dated to MB1 and MB2[a], the latter being found in tombs. Kenyon argues that the tombs are dug into an earlier stratum, and some later tombs are erroneously ascribed to the earlier stratum.
(3) In stratum 14 of the middle temple a fenestrated bronze ax-head was found, a type of weapon characteristic of MB1 and early MB2a, showing that the middle temple lasted into MB2a.
(4) An MB2a wall and pavement were found above the round altar (in front of the middle temple), and were thus built after the presumed destruction of the middle temple. The pottery found with the wall and pavement was MB1. Thus the round altar must have been in ruins before the arrival of MB1. [Note that this appears to contradict (3).]
It must be remembered the Kenyon’s interpretations are based on the published data of archaeologists who had worked at Megiddo prior to WWII. The quality of the reports was not up to the same standards that are used today in archaeological investigations. Thus, any interpretation based on this early data is subject to a greater margin of error than would otherwise be the case if Megiddo had been excavated using modern methods and techniques.
In order to clear up the confused stratigraphy deriving from the published data, I. Dunayevsky conducted further excavations at Megiddo. He found a wall from the middle temple (and altar) running beneath the adjacent western temple. “This proved,” says Yadin, “that contrary to Kathleen Kenyon’s assumption, temple 4040 was built prior to the two western temples.” (Stern, p. 839.) In addition, the middle temple and altar were shown to be contemporary by a temenos wall that was connected to the altar but “joined the south wall of temple 4040….” (Ibid., p. 840.) This means that the altar was also built before the western temples. Dunayevsky was thus able to determine, based upon the points of contact between the walls of the temples, that the middle temple was in existence before the twin temples (contrary to Kenyon), and that the altar and middle temple existed at the same time. Yadin says:
“Once the relative stratigraphy of the three temples and the altar had been determined, the chronology of the structures could be reconsidered. It now appears that the temples do not date to the Middle Bronze Age I, but rather to the Early Bronze Age III….” (Stern, Encyclopedia, p. 840.)
Graham Davies, however, believes that the three temples should be dated to the Intermediate period (his EBIV), and claims that their ascription to EB3 is based on “very flimsy evidence.” (Megiddo, p. 31.) His reason for this is that, “[t]he pottery found in and around the temples is a mixture of EBII-III, EBIV, and Middle Bronze I [i.e., EB2-3, MB1, and MB2a]. The MBI pottery [i.e., MB2a] is almost entirely from tombs dug down from a later floor-level and can be disregarded. It is clear that the temples were in use in EBIV [MB1]…and the few EBII-III pieces could easily be intrusive.” (Idem.)
Thus we have a disagreement between Yadin and Davies. The former ascribes the beginning of the temples to the Early Bronze Age, whereas Davies ascribes them to the Intermediate period.
Contrary to Davies’ claim that the three temples “were all built at the same time” (Megiddo, p. 31), the evidence provided by Dunayevsky and Yadin support the conclusion that the middle temple and altar were built prior to the western temples. The fact that they have EB3 pottery indicates they were all probably built in the EB3 phase, and the mixture of Intermediate and MB2a material with the EB3 pottery would indicate continuity through these phases, over a relatively short period of time. For this reason, the theory of Davies that the temples were build in the Intermediate period seems very unlikely.
It is here acknowledged that the stratigraphy at Megiddo is not easy to interpret, nor is there much in the Bible about Megiddo throughout its history that can be of much help in sorting out the archaeology of the site. The city is mentioned at the time of Joshua’s conquest, but was not destroyed. In fact the Canaanites continued to dwell in the city, even though put under tribute by the Israelites during the Settlement period. The city is mentioned in the song of Deborah, but only in passing. It would seem that Megiddo’s chief claim to fame is its use in the Book of Revelation as an eschatological symbol.
For New Courville, the mention of the city at the time of the Conquest and its occupation by Canaanites, provides a clue that could help make sense of the archaeology. In the New Courville theory, Early Bronze Age IV (using Davies’ terminology) represents the Israelites at the time of the Conquest. Since the Israelites did not conquer Megiddo but put it under tribute, the situation described by Kenyon, Yadin, and Davies has a ready explanation, i.e., Megiddo was “less seriously affected” by the Israelites for the reason that the Israelites did not destroy the city (Judg. 1:27, 28). Though put under tribute for a time, the city was still mainly occupied by Canaanites, who were “determined to dwell in that land.”
From our perspective, the Intermediate period Israelites over-ran the EB3 civilization, and when they settled down, they began the MB2a culture in the Holy Land. Thus, the Intermediate pottery would not reflect an “age” of two hundred or so years coming in between EB3 and MB2a. Rather, it reflects only a short period of time, probably not more than six to ten years in northern Israel (forty years in the Negev). The pottery of MB2a gradually replaced the Intermediate pottery and overlaps it in some cases. There is thus no need to appeal to “intrusions” to explain the mixture of EB3, MB1, and MB2a in four different strata.
The temples, therefore, were, as Yadin says, EB3 temples, and since the Israelites did not destroy the EB3 city, there should be continuity in its buildings. Thus Davies could also be correct that the temples remained in use during the Intermediate period. The temples might then be Canaanite in origin, lasting from the EBA period into the MB2a period.
We cannot agree with Davies’ claim that the temples were built during the Intermediate period. The Intermediate people do not show anywhere else that they built large structures, much less temples. Rather, they were a “nomadic” group, who, at least west of the Jordan, did not build towns. Kenyon says, “The newcomers therefore were essentially nomads. They destroyed existing towns, but did not create their own. It is perhaps one of the clearest instances in the long history of Palestine of the temporary triumph of the Desert over the Sown.” (Archaeology in the Holy Land, p. 137.) If either Kenyon or Davies claims that these temples should be ascribed to the Intermediate period, it would certainly be a unique instance of Intermediate architecture, for in that case these would be the only instances.
However, we agree with Davies that the middle temple (4040) remained in use during the Intermediate period. The paving over the middle temple altar does not mean the middle temple itself was destroyed (as per Kenyon’s point 4 above). Davies says,
“On this pavement (which was mistakenly [sic] ascribed to Stratum XIIIB in the report) was found a small deposit of clearly EB IV pottery, including a curious lamp with seven interconnecting cups.” (Megiddo, p. 32.)
Davies believes that this paving over the altar, as well as the filling with rubble of the main part of the cult room, represents a significant change in religious practice: “These two changes seem to point to a move from a cult with a strongly public character and a long tradition (the round altar) to a much more enclosed style of worship, in which perhaps only a few priests participated.” (Megiddo, p. 33.) (Davies does not say why the paving was “mistakenly” ascribed to MB2a.)
This may have something to do with the Israelite presence in the land, which forced all public expressions of heathenism into more private expressions. However, given the paucity of information in the Bible about Megiddo, and the difficulties of stratigraphic interpretation, this can only be a guess at this point. Megiddo was a great commercial city in the Holy Land throughout its history, a focal point of trade with Syria perhaps, but it seems to have been of little importance in the more spiritually oriented view of the Bible.
e) Dan: The City of Dan was sometimes used as a boundary city in the phrase “From Dan to Beersheba.” It refers to the approximate length of Israel from north to south. The name Dan as a geographical marker is used anachronistically in Gen. 14:14 where Abraham pursued Lot’s kidnappers “unto Dan.” Aside from this editorial updating of the text, the name of the city before the Conquest was “Laish.” (Judg. 18:29.) Laish is mentioned in the records of Thutmose 3, as well as in the Mari documents, and in the earlier Execration texts. These are records of non-Israelites, who would have retained the traditional name Laish. In later times Dan would be the place where Jeroboam set up one of the golden calves in order to lure the people away from the Temple at Jerusalem (1 Ki. 12:29). Sometime during King Asa’s day, Ben-Hadad of Syria attacked the city of Dan, along with other cities (1 Ki. 15:20).
In the days of the Judges¾when there was “no king in Israel”¾the tribe of Dan had not occupied its promised inheritance (Jug. 18:1) This was because the Amorites had forced the Danites into the mountains, probably very soon after the beginning of the Early Settlement Period (Judg. 1:34). Men were sent to spy on the city of Laish (as it was then called), and it was noted that Laish had no allies, and their erstwhile friends the Sidonians were far away (Judg. 18:7). The Danites found a Levitical priest living in the house of Micah, and they took him on their way to Laish (nearly precipitating a war with Micah and his neighbors). After this the Danites went to the people at Laish and “struck them with the edge of the sword and burned the city with fire” (Judg. 18:27). Then they “rebuilt the city and dwelt there” (Judg. 18:28). It was at this point that the Danites renamed the city after their ancestor Dan, and set up the carved image taken from Micah’s house, “all the time that the house of God was in Shiloh” (Judg. 18:31).
It is said that Dan had priests all the way to the captivity of the land (during the Divided Kingdom period):
“[A]nd Jonathan the son of Gershom, the son of Manesseh, and his sons were priests” etc (Judg. 18:30).
It seems fairly certain that the name “Manesseh” is a copying error for Moses, since the priestly line came through Levi, not Manesseh. This would indicate that the burning of the city probably happened sometime in the middle of the Early Settlement period.
The following is a chart based on Avraham Biran’s Biblical Dan, 1994, p. 11, passim; and Ephraim Stern, ed., The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 1, 1993, pp. 323 ff.). This shows the correlations of the Danite levels, the archaeological ages, and the chronological revisions of the New Courville theory:
|
Strata |
Archaeological Age |
NC |
|
1 |
IA2c, Persian, Hellenistic & Roman |
|
|
2 |
IA2b, gate destroyed |
Babylonian conquest |
|
3 |
IA2b, gate complex |
Jeroboam 2 |
|
4b-a |
IA2a, partial destruction |
Uzziah’s earthquake |
|
5 |
IA1b, destroyed |
Asa, Ben-Hadad |
|
6 |
IA1a |
Divided Kingdom |
|
7a |
LB2b, Ramses 2 |
Solomon, Jeroboam 1 |
|
7b |
LB2a |
|
|
8 |
LB1, Mycenaean tomb, Thutmose 3 |
|
|
9 |
MB2c, destroyed |
Abimelech |
|
10 |
MB2b, tombs, Execration texts |
|
|
11 |
MB2a/b, gate & ramparts, Mari documents |
Deborah |
|
12 |
MB2a |
Israelite Settlement |
|
13 |
MB1 |
Joshua’s Conquest |
|
14 |
EB3 |
Laish |
|
15 |
EB2 |
|
There was not much archaeological investigation of the Early Bronze Age for the reason that it would have required the removal of Middle Bronze Age structures, which Biran was reluctant to do. (Biran, Biblical Dan, p. 37.) However, a clear sequence was obtained from a deep probe of one area on the tell:
“Seven phases of occupation could be discerned belonging to Early Bronze II (Stratum XV) and Early Bronze III (Stratum XIV periods,….Remains of walls, floors, a silo and a destruction level characterize this period.” (Biran, Biblical Dan, pp. 37-40.)
It is not clear from Biran’s comments whether the destruction level was at the end of the period or somewhere in between. At another point he asks what brought the EBA civilization at Laish to an end, but admits that he does not know the answer to the question: “There is no evidence of violent destruction, but the areas excavated are too small to enable us to determine the nature of whatever calamity befell the city.” (Ibid., p. 44.)
Apparently, a “calamity” overtook the city at some point. Still, Biran points to signs of continuity: “In at least two excavation areas, remains were found which are attributed to a period sometimes called Middle Bronze I….” (Ibid., p. 45.)
On the New Courville theory, Middle Bronze 1 in the Negev represents forty years of the wandering of the Israelites, and in the north, it represents Joshua’s Conquest and its immediate aftermath, say about ten years in the north after the 40 years in the Negev wilderness. MB2a would represent the Early Settlement Period of the post-Conquest Israelites. From what can be gleaned from the Bible, the original Canaanites were driven from Laish by Joshua and the Israelites, but that afterward the Canaanites came back to the city and forced the Danites into the mountains. The MB1 material at Laish represents the initial Conquest, not a permanent settlement by the Danites, so that the same EB3 people (and culture) would have continued on in the city for quite some time. The EB3 people of Laish would then have been contemporaneous with the Israelite MB2a culture elsewhere (as with Megiddo). Of course, the EB3 people of Laish eventually adopted some MB2a culture.
The earthen rampart and city gate complex were built during the transitional MB2a/b period, but the pottery making up the fill was “overwhelmingly Early Bronze Age…with some sherds of the Middle Bronze IIA.” (Ibid., p. 60-62.) This would seem to indicate that the MB2a culture had influenced the city of Dan, even if only to a small extent.
The gate is one of the famous arched gates that the original builders eventually found necessary to fill in due to structural unsoundness. For that reason it is still visible. (Cf., Ibid., pp. 76, 77.) The other gate, called the Triple Arched Gate, was found on the western facade, along with a wide stepped stairway. (Ibid., pp. 83, 87.) The mud-bricks used to build the gate were determined by the sherds in them to be from the Early Bronze period. “No sherds,” says Biran, “dated later than the Transitional Middle Bronze IIA-B period were found.” (Ibid., p. 89.) Further:
“After many years of research we have reached the conclusion that the material culture represented in the ramparts and the gate belongs to one homogeneous period—the Transitional Middle Bronze II A-B period,….This is the time when the Old Babylonian Kingdom reached the height of its power during the reign of Hammurabi.” (Biran, Biblical Dan, pp. 89-90.)
Our theory is that the Danites were the people who built the rampart and gates after destroying what was still largely an Early Bronze Age city. It is hoped that further excavations might reveal what caused the “calamity” that ended the EB3 city, but the fact that Early Bronze Age and MB2a sherds were found in the fill for the new building projects of MB2a/b, suggests that there was some overlap of the two cultures. It was this Early Bronze Age and MB2a culture at Dan that represents the Canaanites who had pushed the Danites into the mountains. It was their city that was attacked and burned by the Danites, who then commenced to build a defensive system to prevent the same from happening to them. In any case, given the genealogy of Jonathan, and the view that MB1 represents the Conquest, it seems like a real possibility that the MB2a/b transitional period represents the rebuilding of the city by the Danites.
With respect to Ben-Hadad’s attack on the city of Dan during King Asa’s time (1 Ki. 15:20), we would correlate this with the destruction of stratum 5 at Dan. According to Biran: “The fate that befell the city of Dan of Stratum V also affected the area of the workshops. As in the other excavated areas, here too a layer of destruction and ash was found above the installations and the room with the snake house. As mentioned, this destruction did not bring about the abandonment of the site….” (Ibid., p. 155.) Ben-Hadad’s campaign into Israel is dated to about 885 B.C.
It is possible that the Tel Dan stele which mentions the “house of David,” the “king of Israel,” and “Hadad,” may be a description of this event. (Biblical Dan, p. 277.) Unfortunately, it was not in its original context but was found in a secondary context, part of wall the bordered a piazza near the gate of the city. (Ibid., p. 275.) Biran gives the latest date for the secondary usage as the time of the Assyrian conquest, but for us this would be the Babylonian conquest (as discussed below). Biran believes the first use of the stele would be in the 9th century which he correlates to Dan 4. (Ibid., p. 11.) Of course, for us, stratum 4a would be the period just after Ben-Hadad’s destruction of Dan 5, and would thus make sense on our theory..
The next level is Stratum 4a, and we would tentatively correlate the destruction of store rooms and a sanctuary complex to the earthquake of Uzziah’s day. (Ibid., pp. 165, 168, 181.) The city of 4a was not visited by total destruction, as Biran notes, and this would be consistent with the selective nature of earthquakes (on our theory). In addition, level 4a saw the initiation of extensive new construction projects, which in our opinion was a post-earthquake building project, probably initiated by Jeroboam 2. (However, Biran ascribes it to Ahab based on conventional chronology.)
For New Courville, the Babylonian conquest would be matched to the destruction of structures of Stratum 2. Biran correlates Stratum 2 to the Assyrian conquest. (Ibid., p. 206.) This is likely due to the confusion over the proper dating of the Babylonian conquest with respect to the archaeological strata. We follow Peter James et al., in regarding the “Assyrian palace ware” as essentially Babylonian, and destructions ascribed to the Assyrians should really be ascribed to the Babylonians. Biran says:
“An abundance of pottery, including decanters, storage jars, cooking pots, lamps, and an ostracon with the inscription lb‘l plt [belonging to Ba‘al Pelet] indicate that Dan was inhabited right up to the Babylonian occupation—which left no layer of ash to testify to a conflagration.” (Biran, in Ephraim Stern, ed., The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, p. 331.)
On our theory, there is no need to posit a missing Babylonian stratum. What Biran describes as Assyrian is really Babylonian. The Assyrians did not usually destroy captured cities, but repopulated them with their allies. Even though Biran claims that Dan was on the “direct marching route” of the invading Assyrian army, he admits that the annals of Tiglath Pileser 3 do not mention Dan as a city captured by the Assyrians. (Biblical Dan, p. 246.) It is therefore much more likely that Level 2 destructions should be ascribed to the Babylonians.
f) Lachish: Lachish has been located at the site of Tell ed-Duweir, about 25 miles southwest of Jerusalem, and was excavated in the 1930’s by J. L. Starkey. After Starkey’s murder by Arab bandits, his assistant Olga Tufnell took over the task of publishing the results of the excavations in four volumes, Lachish I, II, III & IV, dealing respectively with the Lachish letters, the Fosse Temple, the Iron Age, and the Bronze Age. (For a review of early excavations, see G. E. Wright, “Judean Lachish,” in D. N. Freedman & E. F. Campbell, eds., The Biblical Archaeologist Reader, 2, 1964, pp. 301ff.) David Ussishkin took over the work during the 1970’s through the early 1990’s and published four volumes in 2004 titled The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973-1994).
Lachish in the Bible ¾ According to the Bible, Joshua encamped and fought against the Amorite city of Lachish, “and the Lord delivered Lachish into the hand of Israel, who took it on the second day, and struck it and all the people who were in it with the edge of the sword…” (Josh. 10:31-32). Since Lachish was a tell city, it was probably not significantly damaged by the Israelites during this attack, and probably received only localized destruction. Recall that Hazor was the only tell city that was burned to the ground (Josh. 11:13). Much later, the city was fortified during the divided kingdom period by Rehoboam (2 Chron. 11:9). At another point Amaziah, king of Judah, fled a conspiracy against him, but assassins caught up with him and killed him at Lachish (2 Ki. 14:19). During the days of Hezekiah (701 B.C.) the Assyrian king Sennacherib captured all the fortified cities of Judah, including Lachish, which appears to have become the king’s headquarters (2 Chron. 32:9). In order to turn away the Assyrian king from any further designs of conquest, Hezekiah offered a great quantity of gold and silver, but “from Lachish” Sennacherib sent out an army with the intention of conquering Jerusalem. Nevertheless, divine judgment cut short the planned conquest, and Sennacherib returned to his land in humiliation and was assassinated by his own sons (cf., 2 Ki. 18:; 2 Chron. 32; Isaiah 36). In 587 B.C. Nebuchadnezzar 2 conquered Lachish along with the rest of Judah: “Then Jeremiah the prophet spoke all these words to Zedekiah…when the king of Babylon’s army fought against Jerusalem and all the cities of Judah that were left, against Lachish and Azekah; for only these fortified cities remained of the cities of Judah” (Jeremiah 34:7).
Excavation Chart ¾ The following is based in part on archaeological information found in E. Stern’s, Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, 1977, Vol. 3, pp. 735ff.; Hershel Shanks & Dan Cole, Archaeology and the Bible: Early Israel, 1990, Vol. 1, pp. 124ff.; and A. Mazar’s, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 1990, charts on pp. 196, 242, 301, 372. The oldest layers of the city are represented at the bottom of the chart, while the younger are progressively higher:
|
Strata |
Archaeological Period |
New Courville |
|
1 |
Persian, Hellenistic |
Post-exilic |
|
2 |
IA2c, partly rebuilt, then destroyed |
Possibly Edomites |
|
3 |
IA2b, all buildings destroyed |
Sennacherib to Nebuchadnezzar 2 |
|
4 |
IA2b, major construction |
Jeroboam 2 |
|
5 |
IA2a, destroyed |
Omri to Uzziah Earthquake |
|
- |
IA1b, unfortified |
|
|
6 |
IA1a, destroyed by Sea Peoples? |
Asa |
|
7 |
LB2b |
Solomon to Rehoboam |
|
8 |
LB2a, Amarna |
Late Judges, Samuel |
|
9 |
LB1b |
|
|
- |
LB1a, Fosse, Temple 1 |
|
|
- |
MB2c, palace, rampart, destroyed |
Middle Judges, Abimelech |
|
- |
MB2b, not excavated |
Middle Judges, Deborah |
|
- |
MB2a, not excavated |
Early Judges |
|
- |
MB1, cemetery |
Conquest |
|
- |
EB3, not excavated |
Canaanite period |
Early Levels ¾ Unfortunately, there has been very little excavation of the earlier periods at Lachish, and at this point evidence of occupation during the Early Bronze Age and the MB1 period comes mainly from tombs. According to Olga Tufnell, the EBA city was not burned, in contrast to other cities at the end of EBA. (Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 3, p. 739.) With respect to MB1, Tufnell says, “In this period, newcomers arrived who were not immediately concerned with rebuilding the towns they had destroyed, and few buildings can be attributed to them. Knowledge of this phase is derived from their varied burial customs and from the offerings placed in the tombs.” (Ibid, p. 739.) While the Israelite destroyed many towns or cities of the Canaanites, they did not, as noted, burn or destroy tell cities, i.e., the cities on mounds, such as Lachish. Hazor is the only one specifically mentioned as being burned with fire. So the lack of a burn level at the end of Early Bronze Lachish is consistent with the biblical narrative.
Lachish was occupied during the Hyksos period and was a fortified city with glacis and fosse, including a palace. An inscription from the MB2b period was found that contained early alphabetic writing. (Ibid., p. 741.) Late Bronze Age levels show sparse occupation, though Lachish 7 was in existence at the time of Amarna. Lachish 6 is the final Late Bronze Age level and represents a thriving, prosperous city. Its destruction was possibly brought about by the Sea Peoples, whom we’ve tentatively correlated with the time of Asa. For New Courville, Lachish 5 might represent the time of Omri to the days of Jeroboam 2, and its destruction the result of the earthquake of Uzziah’s day.
Lachish 4¾The Centuries of Darkness group assigns the end of Lachish 4 to Sennacherib’s time: “The deeper Level IV, which also seems to have met a violent end, actually provides a perfectly good match with the city besieged and captured by Sennacherib in 701 BC.” (Centuries of Darkness, 1991, p. 178.) In our opinion, this is partly correct, but not entirely. Lachish 4 did not meet a “violent” end, if it’s meant that the city was destroyed by fire. Ussishkin points out:
“Level IV came to a sudden end, but it seems clear that this was not caused by fire. In any case, the data points to the continuation of life without a break at the end of Level IV. The Level IV fortifications continued to function in Level III, and other structures of Level IV were rebuilt in Level III.” (“Answers at Lachish,” Shanks & Cole, eds., Archaeology and the Bible: Early Israel, 1990, Vol. 1, p. 136.)
For New Courville, the beginning of Lachish 4 probably represents the rebuilding phase that occurred after the earthquake of Uzziah’s day, and the city would last relatively unscathed through Lachish 3 until its destruction during the days of Nebuchadnezzar. It is agreed that the “sudden end” of Lachish 4 was the result of Sennacherib’s attack on the city, but the evidence does not support the idea that the Assyrian king destroyed the city or completely burned it with fire, if that is what the CoD groups meant by “violent end.”
Lachish 3¾Olga Tufnell assigned the destruction of Lachish 3 to the Assyrian conquest under Sennacherib in 701 B.C. On the other hand, Kathleen Kenyon believed that Lachish 3 pottery must have come much later than Samaria 6 pottery, which she had dated to 720 B.C. This was because the Samaria pottery was very different from Lachish 3 pottery, so that a long time span must have ensued between them. She concluded that the end of Lachish 3 was caused by Nebuchadnezzar’s 597 B.C. invasion of Judah (the same view held by Starkey). Both Kenyon and Starkey believed that the next city, Lachish 2, was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar’s later 587 B.C. invasion of Judah. They pointed to the close resemblance of the pottery of Lachish 3 and 2 as proof of the short time span between these two cities. Tufnell did not agree with this view. According to Ussishkin:
“In her opinion there was a clear typological difference between the pottery of Level III and Level II….Tufnell also discerned to phases in the Level II gate, each of which had been destroyed by fire. If there were two phases within Level II, this made it even more unlikely that only a decade separate Level II and Level III.” (Archaeology and the Bible, p. 131.)
The Centuries of Darkness Theory¾The CoD group correlates Lachish 3 with the 587 B.C. destruction of Jerusalem and Judah by Nebuchadnezzar. (Cf., Centuries of Darkness, pp. 176ff.) While Starkey and Kenyon’s correlations are possible, New Courville tentatively goes along with the CoD group on this point, though without any strong commitment either way. Lachish 3 was completely burned, which is what one would expect from Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion in 587 B.C.—i.e., depopulation, burning, and destruction of the land of Judah. Describing the destruction of level 3, Ussishkin says:
“The palace-fort and the city gate were burnt down to their foundations, the city was razed to the ground, and houses were burnt and buried under the debris. Signs of conflagration are visible everywhere; in some places the accumulated destruction debris—including mud-bricks baked hard by the intense fire—reach a height of nearly 6 feet.” (Archaeology and the Bible, p. 141.)
In contrast, the earlier 597 B.C. invasion appears to have been for the purpose of placing the country in vassalage, not necessarily to destroy it. Thus, even though the difference amounts to less than a decade, the 587 B.C. invasion seems more likely as the cause of the destruction of Lachish 3, though, of course, the Starkey-Kenyon theory is still a distinct possibility.
Ussishkin’s Theory¾Against the Starkey-Kenyon view, David Ussishkin follows Tufnell in believing that the burning of Lachish 3 was carried out by Sennacherib in 701 B.C., not by Nebuchadnezzar. He admits, however, that Sennacherib did not record such a destruction in his annals, nor do the famous reliefs of the battle show any destruction of the city. (Cf., Archaeology and the Bible, p. 141.)
In our opinion, Ussishkin’s arguments in favor of Sennacherib’s time are not compelling. He first claims that Sennacherib burned the city of Lachish, then considers whether Lachish levels 5, 4, or 3 are candidates for Sennacherib’s time. Level 5 is rejected because it was a city that was “possibly” unfortified. Lachish 4 is also rejected because its sudden end was “not caused by fire.” (Ibid., p. 141.) The fact that there was continuity between Lachish 4 and 3 is also advanced as a reason to reject Lachish 4 as the city conquered by Sennacherib. Ussishkin then concludes for Lachish 3 as the city conquered by the Assyrian king: “The finds from this level correspond well with the accounts of the Assyrian attack describing the tragic fate of Lachish. The strong fortified city of this level was completely destroyed by fire.” (Ibid., p. 141.)
Nevertheless, Ussishkin never proved that Sennacherib destroyed the city of Lachish in 701 B.C. This theory is actually independent of any archaeological data at Lachish. It is an a priori assumption, based not upon archaeological data but rather on an interpretation of the biblical text and the annals and reliefs of Sennacherib. On the basis of this information, it is concluded that Sennacherib destroyed the city with fire. As noted, however, there is no evidence from Sennacherib’s annals or reliefs for such a total destruction of the city. Ussishkin admits,
“Although the burning and destruction of Lachish are not specifically recorded in Sennacherib’s annals, and in fact are not shown on the surviving parts of the relief…, it nevertheless seems likely [sic], considering the importance Sennacherib attached to Lachish, that the city was razed after its conquest.” (Archaeology and the Bible, p. 141.)
Ussishkin in fact invokes signs of burning on the “upper section of the relief” even though this section “has not been preserved.” (Ibid., p. 141.) Thus, the supposed evidence for the burning of Lachish by Sennacherib is entirely promissory, and an appeal is made to non-existent reliefs, and to probability (“seems likely”) rather than to actual data. In sum, the fact that Lachish 3 was completely destroyed by fire provides no independent grounds for assigning it to Sennacherib’s time, since there is no proof that the Assyrian king ever burned Lachish. Without this proof, there is no reason why a burn level at Lachish must necessarily correlate to Sennacherib. In any case, since there is no evidence to support Ussishkin’s initial assumption, there is no grounds for rejecting the end of Lachish 4 as the conquest of the city by Sennacherib. By the same token, there is no a priori reason to reject the end of Lachish 3 as the conquest by Nebuchadnezzar.
Lachish 2 ¾ The aftermath of the destruction of Lachish 3 was a “poor habitation level lying on the ruins of the destroyed city gate of Levels IV-III.” (Ussishkin in Archaeology and the Bible, p. 137.) This is consistent with the Bible’s description of the time after the fall of Judah: “Then Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard [of Nebuchadnezzar 2’s forces] carried away captive the rest of the people who remained in the city….But the captain of the guard left some of the poor of the land as vinedressers and farmers” (2 Ki. 25:11-12).
The Lachish Letters ¾ The Lachish Letters were found in the second phase of Lachish 2, and were initially dated to just before Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion. Harry Torczyner’s work on the Lachish Letters seemed to confirm the destruction of Level 2 to Nebuchadnezzar. (Cf., Centuries, p. 172.). Nevertheless, the CoD group believes that Torczyner’s work was not up to the task and he made critical errors in his identifications of names mentioned in the letters. Still, conventional chronologists accepted an early date for Lachish Level 2, even if they disagreed with Torczyner’s translations. The CoD group says:
“The dissection of Torczyner’s work took many years. Yet by the time it was all over no one seems to have noticed what had really happened. Almost without exception, the very scholars who had systematically pulled his case to pieces still accepted his date for the Letters.” (Centuries of Darkness, p. 173.)
In contrast, the CoD group points out that a certain “Tobiah servant of the king” in Lachish Letter 3 may be Tobiah, governor of Ammon, and enemy of Nehemiah. They would thus place Lachish 2 in the time of Nehemiah, c. 440 B.C. The destruction of Lachish 2 would then be the work of Philistines. Unfortunately, there is no real proof that the Tobiah of the Lachish Letters is the same as the Tobiah of the post-exilic period, and thus there is no compelling reason that the Lachish Letters should be assigned to the time of Nehemiah.
During the neo-Babylonian period and into the Persian period, the land of Judah was inhabited by an assortment of people who were allowed to settle there by the neo-Babylonian kings. Among these races were Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians, and Amorites (cf., Ezra 9:1). These groups would become a snare and a source of frustration for returning Jewish émigrés: “Then the people of the land tried to discourage the people of Judah. They troubled them in building [the Temple], and hired counselors against them to frustrate their purpose all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia” (Ezra 4:4-5). In addition, some of the Jews who had returned to Israel violated the laws of separation by marrying non-Jews: “For they have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, so that the holy seed is intermingled with the peoples of those lands. Indeed, the hand of the leaders and rulers has been foremost in this trespass” (Ezra 9:2).
It is thus difficult to discern who had control of Lachish after the exile. It is unlikely to have been the Jews, since only the poor were left in Judah. So the question is who built the fortifications of Lachish 2, and who destroyed it? This destruction sealed the Lachish Letters in place, to be later recovered in the twentieth century. Most of the letters were addressed to “my lord Yaush,” an army commander. (Cf., Olga Tufnell, in Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, 1977, p. 746.) Unfortunately, there appears to be precious little that could settle the issue of dating. So we have to take the best guess on who lived in Lachish 2 and who brought it to an end. The CoD group thinks the destruction of Lachish 2 was caused by the Philistines. (Centuries, p. 175.) This makes some sense because Lachish 1 has a material culture reflecting the culture of coastal cities. They would thus place the end of Lachish 2, or the beginning of Lachish 1, during the days of Artaxerxes I (444 B.C.) Aside from the speculative correlation of the Lachish Letters with the time of Hezekiah (and thus Artaxerxes), there is little evidence to solidify these correlations.
At some point the Edomites overran the land of Judah, and the city of Lachish became an administrative capital in Idumaea. (Tufnell, in Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, p. 746) Level 2 may therefore have been occupied by non-Jewish émigrés, and was possibly defeated by Edomites. Level 1 might then represent the post-exilic return of the Jews and Persian occupation.
The l’melekh handles ¾ In the destruction level of Lachish 3 were found storage jar handles with royal Judean impressions and emblems. The inscriptions included the phrase “belonging to the king” (l’melekh), and also had some names of towns. The emblems were either the four-winged or two-winged sun disks. Since these inscriptions and emblems were found at Lachish 3 levels, Ussishkin redated them all back to the time of Sennacherib in 701 B.C. (Archaeology and the Bible, p. 144.) This went hand in hand with a redating of Palestinian stratigraphy by archaeologists, and it effectively deprived the later Judean kingdom of any representation in the archaeological record.
Kenyon, in a letter to Ussishkin, objected to the redating of Lachish 3 to the late eighth century:
“I have, of course, been considering the new Lachish evidence very carefully…I still find it very difficult to accept the Lachish III remains as belonging to the Assyrian destruction of c. 700 B.C., both on the grounds given in Samaria-Sebaste 3 (the report on the excavations at Samaria), and because it leaves the seventh century B.C. a complete blank for progress as indicated by pottery forms…I do not have a closed mind on the subject…but I do think that there are problems to be accommodated.” (Archaeology and the Bible, p. 146.)
The CoD group also protested against this, especially the redating of Palestinian stratigraphy. They believed it was due to a misunderstanding of the “Assyrian Palace Ware” (Petrie’s term). This ware (and we agree) is really neo-Babylonian ware and should be diagnostic of the post-Assyrian empire period. (Cf., Centuries of Darkness, pp. 180-82.) The stratigraphy of the late Judean kingdom should therefore be restored and the “Assyrian Palace Ware” levels should be interpreted as neo-Babylonian levels. This would prevent the phenomenon of a “complete blank” in the archaeology that would normally represent the late Judean kingdom. It would also provide less reason to redate Lachish 3 to the Assyrian period.
12. Criticisms of Courville’s Model
Surprisingly, Courville says very little about the MB1 pottery in the Negev and at Kadesh-barnea. He is aware of the MB1 pottery in these areas: “Archaeology reveals that the area was populated by a people in Middle Bronze I who had mastered the problem of a water supply.” (EP, 2:254; footnote referencing Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert, 1960 [1959], p. 68.) A little later Courville says that the MB1 people are the Israelites after the Conquest: “Middle Bronze I, by the altered interpretation, represents the culture of the Israelites after the Conquest, when they had opportunity to settle down in their new inheritance and utilize their inherent abilities.” [Footnote, referencing his own discussion in Exodus Problem, Vol. 1, p. 91.] “At this time,” continues Courville, “the area of the Negeb was also occupied by certain tribes who preferred this type of life and who were then responsible for solving the problem of water supply….The culture at this time is the same as that for the territory to the north for the same period [citing Glueck], indicating that this occupation was an expansion of Israelite territory.” (EP, 1:264.)
Following the reference to his own discussion in the first volume of The Exodus Problem, we find that Courville identifies the Conquest of Canaan with the end of the Early Bronze Age: “The identification of the invaders at the end of Early Bronze IV as the Israelites is further evidenced by the tribal organization of the invaders.” (EP, 1:88.) Technically, this is not quite correct, for Courville should have said at the beginning of Early Bronze 4, unless he is mixing Albright’s terminology with Kenyon’s, which is entirely possible. Nevertheless, Courville still correlates the Conquest to the end of the Early Bronze Age, which is correct in our view. Kenyon’s terminology for the tribal invaders is Intermediate Early Bronze-Middle Bronze, and at the end of this period a new culture begins the Middle Bronze Age, which she calls Middle Bronze I. (Kenyon, Archaeology in the Holy Land, 1960, p. 136.) Albright ends the Early Bronze Age with Early Bronze IV, and correlates the “invaders” with Middle Bronze I. Kenyon’s new culture would then be his Middle Bronze II A. (The Archaeology of Palestine, 1960 [1949], p. 82; for further clarification of the confusing terminology, see our essay, “Moses & the Middle Bronze Age”)
Courville recognizes the distinction between the two periods: “The new pottery that appears at this point [end of EBA] was characterized by rims made for the first time in Palestine on a ‘fast wheel’ [citing Kenyon]. In the period following, the fast wheel was used also in shaping the lower body part of the pottery [citing Kenyon].” (EP, 1:91.) In her discussion, Kenyon ascribed the “new pottery” to the Intermediate Early Bronze-Middle Bronze period, and the pottery of the “period following” to the Middle Bronze I period. (Kenyon, p. 136; Albright’s MB2a.) So great was the change in culture from the end of the EB-MB period to the MB1 period, that Kenyon thought another invasion had taken place. (Kenyon, p. 162.) Courville disagrees and thinks Kenyon’s MB1 period [Albright’s MB2a] should be ascribed to the Israelites, who had given up their semi-nomadic life and settled down to their promised inheritance. With this we agree, and will discuss it more thoroughly in the next chapter.
Nevertheless, Courville makes some confusing remarks about the people of the Intermediate period: “It is to be expected that this Intermediate period would not be apparent generally in Palestine but rather in a more diffuse form elsewhere than in the Jericho area.” (EP, 1:91.) But why should this be expected? Apparently, because the base-camp of the Israelites was concentrated near Jericho, and most of the people would stay in this vicinity while the warriors were out fighting in different parts of the land. Apparently, then, Courville thinks the Intermediate period only lasted as long as the initial Conquest, about six years. From our point of view, however, the Intermediate period pottery lasted beyond the Conquest and for the first few years of the Settlement period, so there would be no reason for the pottery to be “diffuse” as compared to its concentration at the Jericho area.
Courville then goes on: “And this is exactly the situation that is revealed archaeologically. The evidence of this archaeological phase, other than at Jericho, is so meager that many scholars have preferred to disregard it entirely. By this view, the Middle Bronze is made to follow the end of the Early Bronze immediately.” (EP, 1:91.) Courville then cites Albright, who said that the Intermediate period in which Palestine was in the “throes of tribal upheaval” was one of the “least known times” in the archaeological history of Palestine. (Albright, p. 80.) From this Courville concludes for an extremely short and “diffuse” pottery horizon for the Intermediate period. Unfortunately, Courville attempts to downplay Albright’s statement that this was the situation “[u]ntil recently.” Albright goes on to explain, however, that he had found the Intermediate pottery at Tell Beit Mirsim, that Nelson Glueck had found it in the Transjordan and in the Negev. This allowed him to conclude that the pottery evidence shows the “virtually complete abandonment of the country to nomads.” (Albright, p. 82.) Since Albright wrote, a number of other archaeologists have written extensively about the Intermediate pottery, especially Dever.
Apparently, Courville’s downplaying of the distribution of Intermediate pottery is in order to associate the Middle Bronze pottery with the Israelites. Thus, he refers to the “Egyptian influence” of the “early culture following the end of the Early Bronze Age.” (EP, 1:93.) He then cites Albright’s description of the “sources of wealth of Hyksos Palestine” including the “preponderance of weapons and ornaments made in Egypt” and claims that this correlates to the Israelites “in the early phases of their settlement in Canaan.” However, Albright’s descriptions of the Hyksos culture refers to the Middle Bronze II B-C period. (Albright, p. 87.) The following is based in part on Albright’s chart of the archaeological ages correlated with Egyptian history:
|
Period |
Mirsim |
Megiddo |
Parallels |
|
Late Bronze 1a |
Gap |
9 |
Tell el-‘Ajjul 2 |
|
Middle Bronze 2c |
D |
10 |
Last Hyksos phase |
|
Middle Bronze 2b |
E2 |
11 |
Middle Hyksos |
|
Middle Bronze 2b |
E1 |
12 |
Early Hyksos |
|
Middle Bronze 2a |
F |
13 |
Thirteenth Dynasty. |
|
Middle Bronze 2a |
G |
14 |
Late Twelfth Dynasty |
|
Middle Bronze 1, 2a |
I, G |
15 |
composite stratum |
Since the Intermediate period is correlated to Mirsim I-H (Albright, p. 82), it is easy to see how difficult it would be to sustain Courville’s argument that the Hyksos phase could be matched with the early Israelites. There is simply no way to bring the MB2b and MB2c Hyksos material into correlation with Albright’s MB1 period. There are at least two major strata standing in the way of such temporal compression. This also shows the difficulty of Courville’s attempt to match the Hyksos with the Amalekites who attacked the Israelites during the period of the Exodus. It would face the same difficulty of a mismatch between the later strata and the earlier MB1 stratum (the time of the Amalekites on Courville’s theory).
Thus, there is no need to downplay the Intermediate pottery horizon, and especially if it is done so on the basis of a misplacement of later Middle Bronze Age strata. In our opinion, this has misled Courville into a faulty understanding of the relation between biblical history and archaeology for the subsequent Judges and Kingdom period.
End
