The main point I think I started wanting to make is that pastoralists and semi-nomad types seem to avoid archaeological detection.I want to add to that in this post, but due to your advice,I will not expand into too many other topics.The problem is that whenever these topics get started (about new discoveries supporting an early Edom or Judah), many come in and start talking about all the PREVIOUS Biblical periods where there is "no evidence".That kind of kicks off many side topics.The King David palace thread seems to be a chatroom of short unsubstantive posts from naysayers.I agree that it gets overloaded when people respond to all the OTHER issues , I have really overdone it.Im sure I will venture out a bit in my post here , but due to your advice, I have decided to not mention many other issues. Ill also try and explain why a certain something has revlance when it may seem off topic.
(Im going to get off to a BAD start lol)First , Ill show the Cohen reference, that tells of his radical chronological views.It actually manages to be relavent because the Iron Age clearly is going to be shortened, thanks to the major efforts of Israel Finkelstein.While I will mention the issue of a possible/likely chronological revision (since it annot be ignored), everything I will type will assume that the traditional dates both in conventional and Biblical history (aside from certain issues related to 1 Kings 6 and Judges)will remain the same.
My main point of this post however, is to make a half-o.k. case that Edom , Moab ,and Israel were around long before c1200 BCE.
Now, from the June-July Australian Archaeological Diggings issue, here is some of what Editor David Down said that has relavence.
"Ami Mazar and Israel Finkelstein are locked in a dispute over the date of the early Iron Age II...Alot depends on the outcome" (of the proposed Finkelstein 60-100 year lower revision)Down mentions that Dr. Rudolph Cohen places David in the Middle Bronze II (!).Finkelstein is quoted as saying that less than 500 people lived in Judah in the 10th century.A Radio Carbon conference at Oxford had many high powered attendents that wrestled over this issue with Finkelstein leading the charge.
Ted Stewarts outstanding and groundbreaking book (in a number of ways), Solving The Exodus Mystery Volume 1 , mentions a book titled Radio Carbon Variations and Absolute Chronology(the 12th Nobel Symposium held at Upsalla University in Sweden).In it there is a chapter byT. Save-Soderbergh and I.U. Olsson titled "Carbon-14 Dating and Egyptian Chronology".It was written in 1983 and it provided a welth of charts and data that showed that Egyptian carbon dates were off by about 350 years on average and it got worse the closer to the beginning of Dynasty 1 where the carbon dates show a 2350 BCE origin.
Stewart shows the quotes from updated Cambridge Ancient History articles expressing the concern over carbon dates consistently showing a much lower Egyptian chronology to the amount of 400-600 years.That was the 70s however.He then mentioned how they use tree ring dating to "calibrate" the carbon dates.Stewart questioned that too but presented alternative views from those like Dr. Gerald Aardsma who defend tree ring dating.
Carbon dating presents many problems and the Oxford conference that Finkelstein , Shanks, and others attended was very confusing to many who were present.Especially the margin of error issues involved.Howeve, there seems o be a renewed confidence in the method.But perhaps post 1990s dates are more accurate?
Ill come back to this later.
BEFORE, I start on the views of archaeologists as to Israels sedentarization (or "origins" as often described), Ill simply mention that I think the conquest happened in c1550 BCE beause that is where the archaeological evidence puts the massive destruction of the Middle Bronze Age cities.They were all mentioned in the Bibles Conquest and they were fortified with massive walls (described in the Bible as having reached up to heaven) during the MBA around c.1900-"whenever they were destoyed". Rohl and Stewart describe the period as Middle Bronze B-C and have it at what the conventional chronology places at c1700 BCE (they revise that to c.1406 BCE).Whenever mainstream achaeologists and historians mention these destructions (you will see that they are often ignored)they describe them as c.1550BCE.
I mentioned the Late Bronze Age Hazor destruction , that was usually dated at c. 1230 or so. It has often been held up by Conquest believers as evidence of a c1250 Exodus and they relate it to a battle in Joshua from the same time period as Ai and Jericho were destroyed.As somebody who believes in all (or nearly all) that battles in both Joshua and Judges, I see evidence that this battle was from the Judges period.The Bible put this battle as around 225 years after the Joshua Hazor destruction.Even assuming this Hazor destruction was in c.1200BCE,still only the c1550 BCE city destructions can be the Conquest battles.To push this LBA Hazor destruction back to the 14th century would bury the idea of a c1200 BCE Conquest IMO.David Rohl (in his 1994 book and I think even earlier in his Journal) was the first to let the general public know that a personnel conversation with an excavator at Hazor (he foonoted the source)revealed that the destruction was moved back 100 years to the 14th century.
Assuming that Solomon reigned from 970-930 BCE , then the Bibles dead reckoning puts the Judges era Hazor opression from 1335BCE-1315BCE and the destruction at 1315 BCE.E.W. Bulleinger placed it during this date back in the 1800s.Ill use his dates, though I think he overlaps some spots and it thus could sretch back even further.c970-Solomon 1010-David 1050-Saul 1090-Samuel 1130-Eli 1170-Philistine opression (Samson) 1178-Abdon 1188-Elon 1195-Ibzan 1201-Jephthah 1205-Jair 1228-Tola 1268-Gideon 1275-Midian servitude 1315-Barak 1335-Hazor servitude
That pegs the LBA Hazor destruction as perhaps 1315 but Jephthah (1205)was Judging 300 years after the Conquest according to the Bible , and the Conquest seems to fit c1550 BCE , so that would make c1250 the time of Jephthah and place the LBA Hazor destruction as c. 1350 BCE.
The Bible says Hazor had a King named Yabin (rare for the Bible to name a king) and that the city was defeated in the 14th century. The only Christian scholar (Bulleinger) Ginsberg let proof read and edit his edition of the Hebrew Messorah way back in the 1800s (before Hazor was such an issue)
placed the final destruction at c1300 BCE.
Here is what a roughly 10 page 2004 article by Neil Asher Silberman says (Ill not directly quote)in his Secrets Of The Bible book under the Archaeology Magazine banner.
He tells that the 200 acre ruins are among the most impressive and largest in Israel.The city was the only Canaaite city mentioned in the 18th century Mari achives.Correspondence between the King of hazor and Akhenaten is preserved in the Amarna archive of th 14th century.Thus the opportunity is outstanding to palce Biblical events in context.
A violent conflagration brought the enormous city to an end in the Late Bronze age.Very deep ash layers were everywhere.It was dated to c.1200 BCE. And related to Joshua's conquest.Israelite settlements were ientified in the 12th century.
A number of tablets have been found scattered over the tell and buried in debris.Fragments of a Sumerian-Akkadian dictionary point to the existence of a scribal school.Legal and economic documents date to the 18th century and 14th century.There is much hope that an archive can be found for at least one if not both occupational periods.It would shed amazing light on the history of Canaan and even Israel.
Hazor is unique in that is had a name of a King mentioned in a Pre-Monarchy Biblical event.Twice even.Both times "Yabin".Cuneiform tablets at Mari mention a King Ibni-Addu, an Akkadian variant of Yabin. A partially preserved name of a king on a tablet found a Hazor begins with Ibni."late 14th or early 13th".Yaldin believed it was 1230 or 1220 BCE, but Ben-Tor puts the dating earlier based on ceramics and carbon dating.He feels it hurts the Bibles claim the earlier you get.And he assumes that based on the Joshua battle much less that later Judges battle.
Absent archives , it is unclear to archaeologists who destroyed Hazor. If it took place in the early 1200s then Seti could have destroyed it.He claims to have destoyed Hazor in a military campaign. Ramses II could have on the way to Kadesh or back from.
Ben-Tor believes that the intentional smashing of statues depicting Egyptian Kings would preclude Egyptian destruction.There was no Canaanite state nearby who would seem powerful enough.Very few in the highlands it seemed.No Sea People pottery sherds.Most archaeologists accept that the Israelites were the first to settle in the ruins of the LBA city.Pottery and storage pits resemble many early Israelite settlements at places like Tel Dan , Tell Beit Mirsim, and Izbet Sartah.No evidence for stuctures , suggesting the earliet Israelites lived in huts and tents.The history of Hazor is very unclear after the destruction.Only a single very thin archaeological layer exists after the destruction and till the 10th century.Ben-Tor wonders if it was abandoned.He says the excavations dont account for 200 years , and he feels there was a gap,either after a small Isralite settlement right after the destruction of abandoned prior to a small Israelite settlement hundreds of years later.
My feeling is that nothing would have been found much at all reflecting the Israelites, if the site wasnt searched heavily and "staffed by virtually every senior archaeologist in Israel" during periods in the 50s and 60s.I think that thy were perhaps there all along.Ill develop that view later.
NOW BACK TO 16th-12th century archaeology of Israel , Judah , and Edom.
Now, I will get to another article in the book, where Israel Finkelstien is the subject of a Haim Watzman article.It may not be covered by me here , but Finkelsteins views on the Bronze Age archaeological details of peoples who he views as later becoming the Israelites are spot on IMO.Ill cover it later.And it is a theme that runs through nearly every article on the Canaanite period in this book.
Watzman mentions that the archaeological record confirms small Israelite settlements in the highlands of Palestine from 1200-1000. A clear abence of pig bones is mentioned as evidence we have all heard before for these new sites.Sites that didnt exist before c1200 BCE they say.
Finkelstin used to believe tht 10th century Israel was a full-blown state till the 1992-1993 period he says.Early articles reflected such.He doesnt mention the 1991 Centuries Of Darkness book and ealier Peter James scholarship as a reason but see "j." of the FAQ 13 I link to below.
http://www.centuries.co.uk/faq.htm#q13
Finkelstein attributes his reason for changing his view based on what he claims is the lack of archaeological evidence for Judah and epecially Jerusalem during the Bronze and Iron Age.While I think its a little unfair to expect to find much in Jerusalem (since the hottest spots for digs cant be made due to the massive modern day population and off limit locations)Finkelstein impresses me with his views of pastorial archaeology (Ill mention later).Anybody who has read David Rohls book knows that there have been SOME impressive finds in the Late Bronze Age Jerusalem though.Finkelstein felt Judah was largely pastoral , tribal, and lacking in inluence while there were clearly spotted sites in the Northern highland during the 10th century.Judah was to him a sparsely populated and economically backward chiefdom.
I feel that is due more to absence of evidence for the 10th century since it seems that evidence it turning up that there may have been impressive architecture at that time but from the 16th-12th (or later), the patten of lifestyle of Israelites and Judaeans could possibly leave few traces that could be easily found.
They get to mentioning the Oxford seminar about the large scale radio carbon surveys of Iron Age sites being undertaken presently.
Finkelstin confiently proclaimed that "Within 5, 6, ot 10 years the picture will have stabilized" and his chronology will have been confirmed.
"Preliminary results presented at the seminar point in this direction" said Watzman.
Finkelstein said "Then we'll argue over the details".
On to the theories of the highland sedentarization process that happened around c1200 BCE.
Much of this is based on the same Silberman book, and this is an article from him.
Before I get to the correct theory, here were the forunning theories.
"peaceful immigrants" by Alt and Noth
A gradual immigration view where the Apiru were already present in Canaan and hostile to the Canaanite rulers more than a century before c1200 BCE. The Israelites were desert nomands who slowly filtered into the highlands and after a long peiod of coexistnce with the Canaanite population,overan them.
That got rejected then the new theory was a "peasant revolt".George Mendenhall felt the Apiru were Canaanite peasants who formed a new religion and overthrew their fellow natives.
Gottwald expanded the view and viewed the peasants as having fled from the more heavily populated cities of the coatal plain and the natural destination they would have been attracted to was the frontier and forest regions.
The "peaceful immigration" theory explained the simplicity of the artifacts in the early Iron Age villages as being due to the Isralites primitive semi-nomadic origins (not far from the truth IMO).Gottwald felt however that the absence of luxury goods were because the high-status trade brokedown at the end of the Bronze Age.
No archaological evidence supported such a dmographic shift from the coastal plains to the highlands.
Here is the theory I like called "invisible Israelites" by Finkelstein.
Rejecting the idea of a peasant revolt for the c1200 transformation, and not acepting evidence of a struggle between Israelites and Canaanites , pastoralists and settled population, feudal lords and peasants.Finkelstein goes far beyond the "chronological limits" most accept.He traced settlement patterns over the canaanite hill country over hundreds of years.The demogrphic revolution of the Early Iron Age isnt to be seen in isolation.The issue of the Israelite settlement are connected closely to much much earlier developments.
"As recent archaeological surveys have indicated, the hill country of Canaan was thickly settled and dotted with fortified cities, towns, and hamlets in the period beginning around 1750 BC.Yet the surveys also showed that around 1550 B.C. , toward the end of what is called the Middle Bronze IIC period, the settled population in the hill country declined dramatically.During the succeeding Late Bronze Age (1550-1200), while the large cities along the coast and in the major valleys continued to flourish, more than 90% of the permanent settlment sites in the hill country were abandoned and the few surviving sites became much smaller in size.But that is not to say that the hill country of Cannan was empty.Far from it.according to Finkelstein, the people who would late become Israelites were already there."
Notice how Finkelstein brushes over the violent destructions and brutal genocide of c1550 described in the Bible and present in the archaeological evidence? Anyway.....
Finkelstein felt that what happened was the opposite of the general accepted view of the enlightenment thinker who felt pastoral nomads would settle in a 1 way street of accepted human progress.Finkelstein felt that conditions could cause farmers to become pastoralists at times, and figures this is precisely what happened to the Canaanite highland population at the end of the Middle Bronze Age.Some adopted a new wandering way of life ,others maybe toiled in the feilds of the coasts.They abandoned thei villages.
"These hill-country farmers-turned herdsman (almost invisible to archaologists when compared to populations that built permanent houses) were able to establish.." a new way of life.
Great upheavals of the 13th century created a new dynamic in hill country Canaan.After 1250BC, in the Aegean, many factors brought the end of the Mycenaean kingdoms and the dramatic collapse disturbed the entire Meiterranean world.The rituals of diplomacy and luzury goods were not maintained and it brought down the legitimization of the hundreds of Bronze Age warlords, princes, and priests in Canaan.
The scattered pastoralists in the hill country could no longer depend on markets in costal and valley regions where they were used to trading sheep and goats.
My view is that the increased population of Israelites in c1200 combined with the new economic conditions forced enough permanent settlements that archaeologists clearly noticed the Isralites for the first time in 350 years.
No massive immigration from outside in c1200 BCE and no "C"onquest despite new sites in places previously absent as well as new pottery types in already settled towns.
"Thus, the founding fathers of the Israelite nation can now be seen as scattered groups of pastoralists living in small family groups and grazing their flocks on hilltops and isolated valleys in th hill country of Canaan."
In a later article by Silberman in the same book, he adds.
"Scholars still debate the cause of the massive social disorder, military conflicts, and economic upheaval that wept across the eastern Mediterranean around 1200 B.C." He added that regardless of the cause, everything was changed forever.The Iron Age would see the rise of small independent kingdoms mntioned in the Bible.
Silberman thn goes on to mention no arhaeological evidence of a sudden invasion in c1250-1200.The new Israelite settlements seemed to worship old Canaanite Gods "at least initially", he says.Actually, the northern tribes did so way more often than not according to the Bible , not to mention Judah citizens nearly as much most times. Which are the geographic locations Silbermann is talking about.Silbermann cant help but later say "Even though sholarly infighting continues, a striking picture of the rise of Israelite society has emerged in which archaeological evidence in some cases flatly contradicts the biblical assertions.For example, the common occurrence of female fertility figurines and private offering altars at sites throughout the area of the kingdom of Judea and Isral indicates the exitence of a popular cult of healing and fertility along-side the official, royal cult of the Temple of Jerusalem."
What Biblical record is he reading lol? Sounds like what the texts says to me. Also, what archaeology in Jerusalem has been undertaken that indicates anything like a temple discovery? The texts from the Monarchy period, and especially before, are nearly non-existant. actually, more maybe has been found in the Bronze Age text wise though the Amarna tablets seem to cover Canaanite areas not Israelite.
Finkelstein accepts that during the Conquest period (c.1550 based on cities destroyed and the Biblical rcord), 90% of the population vanished.He doesnt always mention the violent destructions in the archaeological record, plus descibes the Canaanites as having simply walked away.He also accepts that Israelites were there, just not called Israelites. He also understands why they were invisible to the archaeological record.
My first post (above on page 2) described some scholarly articles from the book "Early Edom and Moab" that explained how pastoralist and semi-nomadic peoples are absent from the archaeological record in many places though non-Biblical texts clearly mention them.Included peoples from the area later known as Edom and Moab.
Here I will cover texts and comments from distinguished mainstream cholars Wilson, Luckenbill, Pritchard, and perhaps others. This is based on chapter 14 of Ted Stewarts Solving the Exodus Mystery. Stewart want interested in the lack of archaeological evidence , the texts were enough proof for him. he just wanted to peg Biblical period to Egyptian periods.I am presenting this to show textual evidence of populations not found in the archaeological record.
The Execration Texts wer curses against rulers fo foreign cities and countries in c.1900
J Wilson translated
"The ruler of ly-'Anaq, 'Erum, and all th retainers who are with him; the Ruler of ly-'anaq,Abi-yamimu , and all the retainers who are with him; the Ruler of ly-'anaq,'Akirum, and all retainrs who are with him."
Pritchard says ""Ly-;Anaq may be related to the Biblical name of Anak"
Next is omething kitchen covered, but I skipped over on my page 2 post.I instead covered Edom.Here is Moab being condemed in the Execration Texts.
"The Ruler of Shutu, Ayyabu, and all the retainers who are with him; the ruler of Shutu , Kushar , and the retainers who are with him; the Ruler of Shutu , Zabulanu , and all the retainers who are with him."
Pritchard identifies the Shutu as "probably Maob"
Numbers 24:17
"He will crush the foreheads of Moab , the skulls of all the sons of Sheth".
The names Ayyabum is cueniform for Job says Pritchard.
"The Bible says Job lived in 'the land of Uz'...scholars say that the land o Uz reached all the way from edom in the south to Syria in the north, on the east bank of the Jordan River..."included the country of Moab"Jeremiah says uz included Edom.Edom was south of Moab.One of Jobs friends lived in Teman, a village south of the Dead Sea.
Stewart wonders if Job was a ruler.The Bible mentions him as the greatest man of the East.Job said "i sat as their chief;I dwelt as a king among his troops"
No mention is made of Isralites in the book of Job.Perhaps he lived before Israelites were in Canaan.Modern critical scholars place Jobs writting btween 400-700 BCE.
"However,many scholars have also reconized that Job has close affinities to the style, ideas, and language of" Middle Kingdom documents. "The protests Of The Eloquent Peasant" , "The Admonitions of Ipu-Wer" , "A Dispute Over Suicide" , "the Wisdom of Amenemope" , "A Song Of The Harper, and other documents.
"The A-B-A style which sets semi-poetical speeches between a prose prologue and epilogue is found in both Job and Egyptian writings. Job is part narrative, part dialogue and par poetry. Several 12th dynasty documents possess this same style."
(Since I mentioned Ipuwur......Wilon, Gardner, Hayes, Lichtheim (and many others)all dscribe the orthography, style, and language of Ipuwur to the Middle Kingdom. Lichtheim and a few others (not mentioned above) place it a eywitness accounts of the end of the Middle Kingdom.Stewart clearly proves Ipuwur is describing things he saw , no other way of looking at it)
Anyway, Finkelstein has described c1550 (which could be said as some sort of Conquest like event all at the same time)as a period where 90% of the population vanished.He doesnt mention that the cities were Biblical cities conquered in Joshua.Finkelstein describes the post 1500BCE population as becoming invisible to archaeology.Much like the Edom and Moab non-Bilical textualevidence.Finkelstein doesnt feel that 90% of the Canaanites were killed and replaced by a smaller number of Israelites (the Bible describes the isrelites as much less in number than the Canaanites), but feel the whole population of Canaanites simply vanished and took to a pastoralist lifestyle (all 90%!).His archaeology is solid never the less.His "Invisible Israelites" (Silberman calls it) reference to Cananites (who he feels would later become Israelites) would be even more solid if he could say that the "new pastoralists" were already such to begin with, not odd reverse order converts from a sedintary lifestyle to pastoralist.In addition to being a smaller group and not 90% of teh previous population.
Anyway ,I feel many highland Canaanite cities with their non-Israelite populations (in addition to most plain and coastal) remained among the Israelites, with their pagan practises and all. Most were violetly killed in certain cities however.The archaeological record supports the Conquest and Judges period.The Amarna letters were Canaanites.Israelites lives in the unimportant highlands and what little letters came from the hill country were Canaanites.
The Edomites and Moabites , in addition to many Israelite lands werent populated with sedentary populations till c1200 BCE, and were harder to spot in the archaeological record.Plus carbon dating seems to give dates that make sites look younger.Finklstein figured it out , and that is why he is so eager to use it to support his new chronology.
All battles during the Judges period that have been compared to precise archaeological locations , fit the evidence.Like Hazor.Many others havnt been found yet. (I wish Ted Stewart wouldnt be ill, he promised alot of syncronisms in volume 2)
New chronologies, that reduce the Iron Age chronology to a condenced level may hurt the Bibles case.But everything seems to add up.
Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
