Comparing a One Dimensional
Biblico-Stratigraphical Model
with a Multi-Dimensional One
by
Damien F.
Mackey
The fundamental starting point for any biblically-conscious
reconstruction of the history of the ancient Near East has to be with the firm identification
of the Middle Bronze I (MBI) nomadic people with the Israelites under Moses and
Joshua!
My view regarding any
purely MBII model for the Exodus/Conquest, as has been proposed by some, is
that it, whilst immensely superior to the conventional Late Bronze Age (LBA)
placement, is yet too one-dimensional, too linear, and therefore cannot
accommodate all of the biblical data.
I now intend to elaborate
upon this.
Introductory: A Full Dimensional Archaeology
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And
perhaps here is where the problem lies for the revisionists, in that, whilst
the EBA and MBA models, pure and simple, are immensely superior from a biblical
perspective to the conventional LBA model, they do create certain serious
anomalies of their own at major points.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The typical archaeological
views about the Conquest tend to dismiss it as mythological. Thus M. Lemonick
wrote (“Are the Bible's Stories True?”
in TIME, 18 Dec., 1995, No. 50, p. 54):
Unlike the Exodus, the story of Joshua and the conquest
of Canaan can be tested against a rich archaeological record. The scientific
consensus: bad news for the biblical account. According to the Book of
Joshua, the Israelite leader and his armies swept into Canaan, destroying
cities including Jericho, Hazor and Ai…. Archaeology tells a more complicated
tale.... Joshua's conquest would have taken place in the 13th century B.C. But
British researcher Kathleen Kenyon, who excavated at Jericho for six years, found
no evidence of destruction at that time. Indeed, says Dead
Sea Scrolls curator emeritus Magen Broshi, “the city was destroyed from the
beginning of the 15th century until the 11th century B.C.” So was Ai ... And
so, according to archaeological surveys, was most of the land surrounding the
cities. Says Broshi: “The central hill regions of Judea and Samaria were
practically uninhabited. The Israelites didn't have to kill and burn to settle”.
[End
of quote]
In other words, the
conventional LBA scenario for the Conquest is an extremely poor fit at major
points for the detailed account of the Conquest as given in the Book of Joshua.
An MBII-based model may expose the inadequacies of the conventional model, be it
an 18th or a 19th dynasty (i.e. Egypt’s New
Kingdom) placement of the Exodus. This subject has already been adequately
dealt with anyway by other revisionists (Velikovsky, Courville, Bimson, James,
Rohl, Zwick, etc.).
S. Vaninger, for instance,
has written (“Abraham to Hezekiah: An
Archaeological Revision”, C and H, Vol. V, pt. 2, CA, July,
1983, p. 71):
At none of the points [in LBA]
is a cultural break indicated in the archaeological strata that would suggest
the arrival of a new people. At none of these points has there been found any
evidence of fortified cities at Jericho and Ai, much less of a destruction
level. At none has there been found a previous occupation at Arad and Hormah
that is required by Numbers 21:1-3 and Judges 1:17. In short, at none of these
points has there been any real success in matching the archaeological evidence
with biblical conquest narratives.
[End
of quote]
Vaninger could also have
included here, for example, the absence in LBA of Hebron and Gibeon (Numbers
13:22; Joshua 14:15 and 15:13; Judges 1:10, 20 and Gibeon in Joshua 9-10). This
lack of harmony has led even certain conventional scholars, like W. Stiebing
cautiously to admit that an earlier archaeological placement of the Conquest “would solve some problems”. (See The Exodus/Conquest Era below).
For revisionists now, Broshi’s assertion above, with regard to a/an LBA Conquest, is of no
significance, as the Conquest is of necessity to be placed earlier than LBA;
some revisionists opting for the Early Bronze Age (EBA), and others, for the
Middle Bronze Age (MBA).
And perhaps here is where
the problem lies for the revisionists, in that, whilst the EBA and MBA
models, pure and simple, are immensely superior from a biblical perspective to
the conventional LBA model, they do create certain serious anomalies of their
own at major points.
Because, as I see it, they
are yet too one-dimensional, too linear; so typical of modern dating methods.
Let me explain this by
means of an extremely telling quote from a book by Dame Kathleen Kenyon, who
nevertheless was in large part responsible for the negative view about a
destruction of Jericho by Joshua and his forces. Kenyon has been rightly
critical of the purely linear approach in regard to the Stone Ages in
Palestine, strongly recommending an overlap of several of these phases (as
quoted by E. Benn, Archaeology in the Holy Land, London, 1960, pp.
69-70, 273 (Emphasis added)):
In trying to fit into place the cultures these
communities represent, we should learn a lesson from the progress of research
in European prehistory. Earlier European scholars tried to place each
culture observed into a regular sequence. Now it is recognised that many
cultures represent regional developments, and several may have existed side
by side. The older sequence-method tended to produce very inflated
chronologies, which have had to be considerably reduced now that the
picture has become more coherent. This we should bear in mind in trying to
piece together the jigsaw puzzle which our present state of knowledge in
Palestine represents, and in fact some of the new pieces of the jigsaw ... do
suggest that the whole picture will eventually portray a number of groups of
people living side by side each with their own distinctive culture, but with
just enough links with other groups to suggest contemporaneity.
[End
of quote]
The same sort of mentality
needs to be applied to the later Bronze to Iron Age stratigraphy with which
biblical stratigraphic models are concerned. It seems to me that some of the
latter type models do not significantly question the linear stratigraphical
succession, which can I believe - and as implied by Kenyon - lead to awkward
anomalies and a failure to “link” contemporary peoples and events. Let me give
a classical example of this from what I maintain to be the proper
historico-archaeological reconstruction for the time of Abram (later Abraham). We
note that some biblically based models may state to have arrived at the same
conclusion as had Velikovsky about the amended dating for the el-Amarna pharaoh
Amenhotep III to the time of Ahab, though using “independent lines of evidence”. And fair enough. Now, to
exemplify Kenyon's point of ‘distinctive cultures existing side by side’.
Creationist Dr. John Osgood had shown, in a clinching piece of archaeological
evidence (“Times of Abraham”, EN Tech J., Vol. 2, 1987, 181. See also his elaboration on this in Vol. 3,
1988, “Techlets”, pp. 124-125), that the Amorite-held Hazezon-Tamar
(that is, En-gedi, 2 Chronicles 20:2) that the coalition of
four sacked, on its way to fight against the kings of Pentapolis (Sodom,
Gomorrah, etc.), can only be that of the Chalcolithic period (the other major
settlements, Roman and Israelite, being obviously irrelevant here). See also on
this my:
Bible Bending Pharaonic
Egypt. Part One: Abraham to Exodus.
This means that Abram was a
contemporary of both a sophisticated kingdom of Ur in southern Iraq, with its
splendid ziggurats and temples, but also of what is regarded as a Stone Age
culture (Chalcolithic) in southern Palestine.
Hence the extreme danger of
the purely linear approach to dating.
For more on Moses and the
Exodus, see my:
Moses - May be Staring
Revisionists Right in the Face
In light of all of this, certain
points need to be rigorously applied when determining upon a reconstruction of
the Exodus/Conquest:
1.
Does the newly-proposed revision provide us with a
well-integrated stratigraphy and history for that era?
2.
Does it allow for an appropriate time for the patriarchs
(such as Abraham)?
But more immediately, in
regard to the Exodus,
3.
Does it enable for an appropriate setting for Moses (and
Joseph before him)?
No longer can revised
reconstructions justifiably deal with one particular biblical locus,
without also being able to show convincingly how this effects, and can
accommodate, what comes before and after it. It is therefore important not just
to be confined to the Exodus/ Conquest in an MBII model, but to be able to look
beyond, backwards and forwards.
Why this may be so I shall
now enlarge upon.
Courville's Contribution
Surprisingly to me - though
it seems to be quite fashionable amongst revisionists - is the ready dismissal
of Dr. D. Courville’s stratigraphical suggestions. Courville’s methodical revision
(The Exodus Problem and its
Ramifications, Loma Linda, 1971, 2 vols.) was more systematic, and more
stratigraphically-based, than was that of Dr. I. Velikovsky; though perhaps a
bit stodgy as opposed to Velikovsky's exciting and eminently readable
publications. Unfortunately, Courville does not appear to have appreciated the
full stratigraphical implications of his pre-Egyptian New Kingdom realignment.
Easier of course to
recognize these things after years of hindsight advantage.
To my way of thinking,
Courville’s quite revolutionary reconstruction of Egypt’s Old and Middle
kingdoms, cutting right against the Indian file, linear approach, by
(i) situating the Middle kingdom “side by side” (to use Kenyon’s
phrase) with the Old, and
(ii) setting the Second
Intermediate following the Middle kingdom “side by side” with the First Intermediate Period following the
Old Kingdom - and thereby lopping off about 7 centuries of useless conventional
history - is the key to Abraham, Joseph, Moses, the Pyramids, the Exodus and
the Conquest!
Ignore Courville at your
peril, I would like to suggest to revisionists. Unhappily, most do. Courville’s
realignment of the Middle Kingdom against the Old Kingdom is perhaps the most
important Kenyon type, necessary “link”
that the revision has identified. A purely MBII based stratigraphic model,
therefore, may want to consider D. Courville’s contribution(s) on this issue.
Why is Courville’s
realignment so important?
Well, it solves significant
historico-archaeological problems, such as the problem Egyptologists have
expressed as to how the Giza pyramids could have been created in the Old
Kingdom when the technology for this was not available until the Middle
Kingdom. Not to mention how there can be so little documentary evidence, so
little known, for/about pharaoh Khufu (Cheops) who was apparently powerful
enough nonetheless to have overseen the construction of one of the Seven
Wonders of the ancient world: the great Giza Pyramid. “Cheops’ final resting place has never been found despite decades of
investigation at the [Great Pyramid] site …” (Daily Telegraph,
Sydney, August 31, 2004, “Pyramid
puzzle may be solved”, p. 29).
Also there is the problem
of who caused what Sir H. Breasted called a “carnival of destruction” at the end of the Old Kingdom, in the
anarchic First Intermediate Period? (as quoted by Courville, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 97).
The
answer:
the Hyksos invaders of the anarchic so-called Second Intermediate Period.
And, most especially
relevant for this analysis, Courville’s Old-Middle kingdom “link” enables for
that more full-bodied stratigraphy, a combination of EBA and MBA - instead of a
purely MBII based model’s somewhat skinny and anomaly-prone MBA alone - to
accommodate fully the Joshuan Conquest in an archaeological context.
Similarly, regarding the
Exodus, the Courvillean realignment of early Egyptian history serves to solve
some major problems and to harmonise some great insights. Apart from - as we
shall see - enabling for a full identification of Moses, and of Joseph before
him, it serves to reconcile the seemingly divergent views of two giants of
Sinai/Palestinian desert archaeology, Professor Emmanuel Anati - for whom
Egypt’s Old Kingdom provides the appropriate backdrop for the era of
Moses and the Exodus, and the EBA era for the Conquest (The
Mountain of God, Rizzoli, NY., 1986, and Har Karkom in the Light of New
Discoveries, Edizioni del Centro, 1993) - and Dr. Rudolph Cohen - for whom
the Middle Kingdom's 12th dynasty of Egypt is the likely setting for
Israel's Oppression in Egypt and the Exodus, and for whom the MB I people are
clearly the Israelites (“The
Mysterious Middle Bronze I People. Does the Exodus Tradition in the Middle East
Preserve the Memory of their Entry into Canaan?”, Biblical Archaeology Review,
July/August 1983).
In that same year of 1983,
Vaninger (op. cit., p. 79) wrote this about Cohen’s
classical identification of the MBI people with the Israelites:
One of the arguments Cohen
uses to defend his “new hypothesis” concerns the migration pattern of the new
people from Sinai into Transjordan and from Transjordan into Southern and then
Northern Cis-jordan. Thus Cohen is able to say that “the similarity between the
course of the MBI migration and the route of the Exodus seems too close to be
coincidental”.
[End
of quote]
I recall that Dr. John
Osgood had provided maps in an earlier Techical Journal showing almost
identical occupation patterns in the Negev/Palestine/Transjordan between the
MBI people and the Israelites according to the Book of Joshua. And Dr. David
Down, regular visitor to the Middle East, mentioned in a 2002 issue of Archaeological
Diggings that other Israeli archaeologists digging in southern Palestine
and the Negev were now in agreement with his view that MBI were the Israelites
(as opposed to archaeologists in the north, who were not of that opinion).
On the down side, at least
as I see it, Courville made some miscalculations (to be expected from a
pioneering work) that has served to undermine his very purpose. He:
(a)
to
obscure the Egyptian identity of Moses, and
(b)
to
throw Joseph right out of place.
At the beginning of my
“Moses” article (above), relevant to (a) and (b) here, I made the following
statement:
I f
any revisionist historian had placed himself in a good position,
chronologically, to identify in the Egyptian records the patriarch Joseph, then
it was Dr. Donovan Courville, who had, in The Exodus Problem and its
Ramifications, I and II (1971), proposed that Egypt’s Old
and Middle Kingdoms were contemporaneous. That radical move on his
part might have enabled Courville to bring the likeliest candidate for
Joseph, the Vizier Imhotep of the Third Dynasty, into close proximity with the Twelfth
Dynasty - the dynasty that revisionists most favour for the era of Moses.
Courville, however, who did not consider
Imhotep for Joseph, selected instead for his identification of this great biblical
Patriarch another significant official, Mentuhotep,
vizier to pharaoh Sesostris I, the second king of Egypt’s Twelfth
Dynasty.
And very good revisionists have followed
Courville in his choice of Mentuhotep for Joseph.
With my own system, though, favouring (i) Imhotep
for Joseph; (ii) Amenemes [Amenemhet] I for the “new king” of Exodus
1:8; and (iii) Amenemes I’s successor, Sesostris I, for the pharaoh from
whom Moses fled (as recalled in the semi-legendary “The Story of Sinuhe”), then
Mentuhotep of this era must now loom large as a candidate for the Egyptianised Moses.
The Exodus/Conquest Era
Everything
changes (by way of contrast with the conventional scenario) when the Conquest
is located earlier, to the Canaanite EBIII stage, with the conquerors being the
MBI people whom, according to Down, more and more experts archaeological experts
are calling the ‘Israelites’. Even conventional scholar, Stiebing, who rejects
an MBI conquest of EBIII as the time of Joshua, admits that this version of the
Conquest does have arguments in its favour. Let us firstly,
then, read about Stiebing’s important distinctions between EBIII and MBI (“New Archaeological Dates for the Israelite
Conquest”, C and AH, Vol. X, pt.1, Jan., 1988, pp. 5-7):
Several scholars believe that
agreement between archaeology and the Bible can be achieved if the conquest is
placed at the end of the Early Bronze Age. The latter part of the Early Bronze
Age was an era of widespread urbanization in Palestine (including the Negev)
and Transjordan. But almost every one of the flourishing Palestinian cities was
destroyed at the end of the … EB III period. The succeeding era ... MBI was
characterized by a non-urban pastoral society. The change from EB III to MB I
has often been seen as a total cultural break. The urban culture of EB III was
succeeded by an era in which there were no true cities in Palestine, only small
villages consisting of a few flimsy, poorly built structures. Pottery types and
other artifacts were very different in the two periods.
The Early Bronze
practice of multiple burials in large caves was replaced by single or double
burials in smaller tombs, and the differences between the tomb styles and
burial practices during the MB I period might indicate that they belonged to
non-sedentary groups with a tribal social structure. This view that the EB III
culture was almost totally destroyed and replaced by that of invading
semi-nomadic tribes has led some scholars to place the Israelite conquest of
Canaan at this point in the archaeological history of Palestine.
[End
of quote]
Stiebing now
points to what he considers to be certain advantages of this interpretation:
An EB III exodus
and conquest would solve some problems. Both Ai and Jericho were large, walled
cities during EB III and were destroyed at the end of that era. And the
widespread destruction of cities and the changes in material culture which took
place at the end of EB III could be credited to the invading Israelites. The
almost total cultural break between EB III and MB I could indicate that the
Israelites conquered virtually all of Palestine and massacred most of the
Canaanite population, just as the Bible says.
[End
of quote]
Such a
scenario, Stiebing goes on to tell, has recently been strengthened by the
testimony of experts.
Firstly by Dr.
Cohen:
This view has been bolstered in recent
years by Israeli archaeologist Rudolph Cohen's claim that the spread of the MB
I culture into Palestine follows the pattern which the Bible gives for the
invading Israelites. Cohen argues that the MB I culture first appeared in
northern Sinai and the southern Negev, spread through Transjordan, then across
the Jordan into the southern hill country, and finally into northern Palestine.
....
Secondly, by
Professor Anati:
Emmanuel Anati, professor of
paleo-ethnology at the University of Lecce, in Italy, furthermore has found an
EB III/MB I holy mountain which he claims is Mount Sinai. Anati discovered a
great concentration of rock art (much of it with what seem to be religious
themes) at Har Karkom, a mountain in the southern Negev of Israel. He also
found standing stones and altars, suggesting that this mountain had been a
place of religious pilgrimage. All in all, he feels it fits the Bible's
description of Mount Sinai quite well. The largest number of habitation sites near
Har Karkom and the greatest volume of rock art there belong to the Early Bronze
Age and Middle Bronze Age I. There seems
to have been little activity at this site during the Middle Bronze II, Late
Bronze, and Iron Ages.
.... So, if Har
Karkom was Mount Sinai (as Anati believes), then the Exodus must have begun
during the Early Bronze Age and the conquest must have taken place at the end
of EB III.
[End
of quotes]
Dr. Cohen,
known as ‘the King of the South’, is highly qualified to speak about the
discoveries in this part of the world where he has been excavating for the last
25 or so years. He thus roughly approximates that era of Israeli archaeologists
of the 60's-80's who, according to Broshi, “didn't find a single piece of evidence backing the Israelites' supposed
40-year sojourn in the desert”. Anyway, as we have seen, things have
changed since the 60's and 80's, with now third millennium archaeologists in
the region concluding quite differently from those earlier excavators.
Uniquely
qualified, too, is professor Anati, who has been labouring in the Sinai/Paran
wilderness for as long as the wandering Israelites were said to have: 40 years
(Numbers 14:33).
Dr. Cohen (op. cit., ibid) has provided an
interesting account of the archaeological situation at Kadesh Barnea - a place
of great familiarity to the Israelites during their sojourn in the desert (cf.
Num 32:8; Deut. 9:23; Josh 14:7). Prior to the irruption of the MBI people into
the Negev, Cohen writes, that region had been occupied by a Canaanite people of
the EBIII era, as indicated by the Kadesh pottery styles. The end of EBIII came
about with destruction and ruin. No more occupation after that. But,
interestingly, there were numerous MBI settlements in the surrounding area. The
pottery styles and way of life of this new people were sharply different from
those of the Canaanites; e.g., the MBI people preferred to settle on hills
rather than in the valleys as the Canaanites had done.
Importantly,
the MBI culture showed a definite Egyptian influence. Albright (The
Archaeology of Palestine, Penguin Books, 1960, p. 87) referred to “the preponderance of weapons and ornaments made in Egypt, or made after
Egyptian models”. Albright, of course, was not intending to identify the
MBI people with the Israelites. And Cohen himself noted that these MBI people
carried with them grinding stones made of Aswan granite, conch shells from the
Red Sea and even fragments of ostrich egg shells (ostriches being native to
Africa).
Thus I insisted,
as at the beginning of this paper:
The fundamental starting point for any biblically-conscious
reconstruction of the history of the ancient Near East has to be with the
identification of the Middle Bronze I (MBI) nomadic people with the Israelites
under Moses and Joshua!
A purely MBII based model
(a) completely
misses out on the crucial MBI = Israelites scenario; and
(b) can propose no occupancy of the important Kadesh-Barnea (lacking evidence for MBII), or
(c) of sojourning in the vicinity of Mount Karkom (for same reason).
(b) can propose no occupancy of the important Kadesh-Barnea (lacking evidence for MBII), or
(c) of sojourning in the vicinity of Mount Karkom (for same reason).
For this
section I shall be sticking to the simple idea, as discussed above, that the
MBI people were the Israelites who destroyed the major EBIII Canaanite sites.
The situation is actually more complex than this, as we should expect from our
previous comments that stratigraphy does not follow a neat, linear pattern. Of
necessity, too, would the MBI Israelites, because of their abrupt departure
from Egypt and their nomadic circumstances, reflect quite a rudimentary form of
MB culture; more basic than the stable, urban civilisations that they
conquered.
These latter
should largely reflect a sophisticated Middle Kingdom/MBA culture.
In fact, to
arrive at a full archaeological picture of the Conquest and early Judges period
is quite a daunting task, because we might expect these variations:
- Some Canaanite EB III sites where inhabitants had
not updated early towns or forts, continuing as such where the MB I people
had not chosen to settle. Others would have given way to MB I culture, or
mixed. (E.g. Kadesh-Barnea and Karkom).
- EB IV in Transjordan perhaps corresponding to a
Moabite (as opposed to Canaanite) culture.
- MB II (often 12th dynasty inspired) additions,
enlargements to EB III (as I shall argue was the case at Jericho),
superior to - though perhaps earlier than in some cases - the necessarily
poorer nomadic MB I culture.
- MB II forts or cities built anew by the MB I people
as they settled in the land and prospered (perhaps e.g. at Shechem, whose
mighty MB II level could not have been what the Israelites encountered on
entering the land, since they occupied Shechem almost immediately).
- A continuing nomadic style MB I culture (also
called Middle Canaanite I) well into Judges period, when many lived in
booths. Thus Vaninger (op. cit., p.
77):
… tribal
organization and feeling was at its peak during the period of the Judges and
should be evident in the archaeological remains from the EBIV/MBI strata. …the
book of Judges indicates that throughout the era the people of Israel lived in
tents or booths - temporary dwellings more suitable to a non-sedentary life
style (Judges 4:11-22, 5:24-26, 7:8, 13, 20:8) - although Judges 5:7 may be an
indication that town life began to revive during the latter part of the period:
"Village life in Israel ceased, ceased until I, Deborah, arose, arose a
mother of Israel" (NIV).
Vaninger, in
the same place, goes on to quote Aharoni in regard to this Judges era situation
of booth dwelling (emphasis added): “The
[MBI] settlements [Aharoni
calls them Middle Canaanite I] were
poor and temporary, and their houses are more reminiscent of sheds and booths
than real buildings”.
So, the
situation is extremely complex.
However,
much of the archaeological data and the Bible can be correlated by this simple
application of MBI = Israelite conquest.
Now, Vaninger,
who accepts the MBI = Israelite scenario is a useful guide here with the
following ten points of his (ibid.):
....
There is an abundance of positive archaeological evidence for synchronizing the
conquest with the end of the Early Bronze III period. ....
- Almost every major site in Palestine was destroyed
and/or abandoned at the end of the Early Bronze III period.... This agrees
with the general statement in Joshua 11:23 that "Joshua took the
whole land".
- Both Jericho and et-Tell [Ai] were prosperous and
fortified cities during EBIII and both were violently destroyed at the end
of that period. The last EBIII walls of Jericho fell flat outward from the
city and show the effects of intense burning. These facts are uncontested
and agree perfectly with the biblical narrative of the conquest of Jericho
and Ai recorded in Joshua 6:1-8:29. ....
- Shechem was at most a small unfortified village
during EBIII and would not have been capable of resisting the Israelites.
This explains why the Bible gives no account of a confrontation with
Canaanite forces when the Israelites went there to recite the blessings
and curses of the law (Deuteronomy 27; Joshua 8:30-35). Arad and Hormah,
on the other hand, were both occupied during EBIII and both experienced a
discontinuity at the end of that period. Arad was abandoned altogether
until the Iron Age, while Hormah was taken over by a new people (see
below). This agrees with the conquest account found in Scripture (Numbers
21:1-3; Judges 1:17).
- Excavations have shown that Gibeon was one of the
few cities not destroyed or abandoned at the end of EBIII, but that the
site does show evidence of a radically new cultural influence at this
time. This fits perfectly with the Joshua 9 narrative where Gibeonites
deceitfully entered into a covenant with Israel in order to avoid conquest
- and subsequently became subject to the invaders anyway.
- The people of the Early Bronze Age were for the
most part displaced by newcomers having an entirely different culture
(this EBIV/MBI transitional society was later superseded by the greatly
superior MBII culture with no destruction levels separating the two ...).
- The new culture introduced at the beginning of the
Middle Bronze Age proper (MBII) continued through the Late Bronze and even
into the Iron Age, and it is the only culture in Palestine that could
possibly correspond to a distinctive Israelite society.
- The people who destroyed the Early Bronze
civilization and introduced cultural innovations initially occupied
northern Transjordan and the Negev in addition to northern and southern
Cisjordan - the very same regions that were given to Israel as an
inheritance in Numbers 34 and later conquered under the leadership of
Moses and Joshua.
- According to William Dever the geographical
progression of the EBIV/MBI transitional culture can actually be traced
archaeologically; it appeared first in northern Transjordan, entered
Cisjordan by crossing the river at Jericho, spread first to the southern
hill country and the Negev, and finally to northern Cisjordan. This
corresponds exactly with the advance of the Hebrew conquest recorded in
Deuteronomy 2, 3; Joshua 3, 10, and 11.
- The new people had a tribal organization, as
evidenced by burial practices.
- The abundance of copper weapons in many of the MBI burials
suggests that the newcomers were warriors and took the land by force.
From an
Egyptian perspective, the Israelites of the Exodus would correspond well with
those ‘Egyptianised’ Asiatics who left Egypt in a hurry, en masse. A
biblically stratigraphic model which discusses these is right on top of this
point. In terms of Palestinian archaeology these were the MBI people, carrying
Egyptian artefacts, who can be traced through the northern Sinai, at the oasis
of Kadesh-barnea, who were at Har Karkom, and who destroyed the Midianite
cities at Babh-Ed Dhra (these not being the cities of Pentapolis (Genesis 19)
as is sometimes thought), Numeira etc. in the western portion of Moab, east of
the Dead Sea, and perhaps at its southern end (cf. Numbers 31).
The Israelites
destroyed the inhabitants of Jericho and burned the city to the ground (v. 24).
Joshua placed Jericho at that time under a curse; so that whoever rebuilt its
wall would do so at the cost of the lives of his two sons (v.26). This
prediction was fulfilled more than half a millennium later, at the time of king
Ahab (I Kings 16:34).
Taking as our
guide the biblical scenario, we should expect that the archaeologists would
find at the appropriate stratum on the mound of ancient Jericho (modern Tell es
Sultan), a mighty Canaanite city, well fortified with strong walls. We should
further expect them to find that these walls had collapsed, apparently as the
result of an earthquake.
Quite a unique
set of circumstances!
In 1930 the
British researcher, John Garstang, undertook an investigation of the site of
Jericho that lasted for six years. Among Garstang's finds was the discovery of
the double line of walls around the city that had been thrown down violently,
apparently by an earthquake. Garstang positively regarded these as the walls
destroyed by Joshua. The bricks of the walls had been thrown down the sides of
the slope of the mound, and the outer wall base had been tilted outward, giving
further indication that the destruction had been a violent one by natural causes.
We should furthermore expect archaeologists to find that there occurred the
destruction by fire of the city inside these walls. Kenyon, describing the
ferocity with which the destruction of the EBIII city at Jericho came about,
wrote (op. cit., p. 134;
Kenyon referred to the MBI people as Early Bronze-Middle Bronze (Emphasis
added)):
The final end of
the Early Bronze Age civilization came with catastrophic completeness. The last
of the Early Bronze walls of Jericho was built in a great hurry, using old and
broken bricks, and was probably not completed when it was destroyed by fire.
Little or none of the town inside the walls has survived subsequent denudation,
but it was probably completely destroyed for all the finds show an absolute
break, and that a new people took the place of the earlier
inhabitants. Every town in Palestine that has so far been investigated shows
this same break.
[End
of quote]
Courville (op.
cit., I, p. 88) had
suggested that the evident haste in erecting the last of these protective walls
“reflects in an amazing manner the
fear of the people of Jericho at the rumors of the approach of the armies of
Israel”. As formidable as were the defenses already prepared, there was
a hasty effort to strengthen these fortifications (cf. Joshua 2:9-11). But
there is even more correspondence. According to an intriguing detail of
supporting evidence as gleaned by Anati from the Book of Joshua, EBIII
Jericho alone qualifies for the city destroyed by the Israelites (Mountain
of God, p. 280, emphasis added):
With regard to the correspondence
between archaeology and biblical descriptions, if the latter is reliable in
terms of historical reconstruction, then the following passage may prove to be
particularly significant:
'Rahab let them down from the window
by a rope, for her house was against the city wall itself' (Jos 2:15). Which of
the archaeological layers that have been excavated might correspond to this description?
...
This ... description can only refer to
a form of urban planning and surrounding wall from the Early Bronze Age....
There were no windows that looked
towards the outside of the walls, during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages,
either at Jericho or at any other site in the Syro-palestinian region.
[End
of quote]
Once more, a
biblical stratigraphic model set entirely in MBII, would not be able to account
for this testimony by Professor Anati that only the EBIII Jericho has this
particular biblical feature?
An EB III
overtaken by MB I scenario is all well and good as far as it goes. But it, like
any other purely linear approach, cannot accommodate all of the data. We
should expect - from what has already been argued - for an MBA civilisation
already to have been established in Canaan before the arrival of the MBI
people. Recognition of this complexity will, I believe, help to solve the
stratigraphical problems now to be considered.
There are some
glaring anomalies associated with the simple proposal of an MBI Israelite
conquest of EBIII Canaanite, which some MBII based models have also recognized.
It is undoubtedly these that are keeping certain archaeologists from fully
embracing the seemingly obvious MBI = Israelites equation. First of all I shall
give Stiebing's general points that are unfavorable to this simple
equation; and, after that, his more specific points in relation to
certain problematical sites. We shall now find that even Jericho has its
anomalies.
The general
stratigraphical problem of the Courville/Vaninger model - and indeed the
complexities of stratigraphy - is/are well explained by Stiebing (op.
cit., pp. 11-12), who had
previously noted this model's strong points:
This theory,
however, contains a major inconsistency in dealing with cultural breaks in
Palestinian archaeology. On the one hand, the break between EB III and MB I is
seen as evidence for the invasion of a new population group. But the equally
complete and dramatic change from MB I to MB IIA .... is supposedly due only to
the Israelites' settling down and becoming more urbane.
Vaninger tries
to remove this inconsistency by minimizing the cultural discontinuity between
MB I and MB IIA and by arguing that population growth, climatic change, new
pottery-making techniques, and influence from the north through trade account
for the differences between the two periods.
.... But he
rejects the opinion of archaeologists who have argued for continuity between EB
III and MB I on much the same grounds - that the changes reflect socio-cultural
fluctuations between periods of urban settlement and eras of pastoralism and
small villages, rather than invasions by new groups of people. .... Vaninger
justifies his different treatment of the two periods of cultural change by
noting that major destructions mark the end of EB III towns while no
destruction levels delineate the end off MB I.... However, climatic changes and
internal strife can lead to widespread destruction, abandonment and
urbanization, and a reversion to pastoral life.
The EB III
destructions do not necessarily prove that an invasion took place.
On the other
hand, since during the MB I period there were only small semi-nomadic
encampments or villages in Palestine, rather than cities, destruction levels
should not be expected. If invaders had arrived in strength at the end of MB I
they would have had little reason to burn and destroy the undefended villages
they found, especially since most of the MB I settlements were in the Negev, an
area in which the MB IIA population chose not to settle. So destruction layers
at the end of EB III do not prove that an invasion occurred then, nor does the
lack of destruction levels at the end of MB I prove there was no invasion at that
time. The changes between MB I and MB IIA are comparable to those between EB
III and MB I. If such changes signal the appearance of new population groups at
the end of EB III, then the abrupt change from MB I pastoralism to the new
urban culture of MB IIA should also be credited to invaders.
Stiebing continues:
... excavations have shown that
Beth-shean, Dor, and Beth-shemesh were not occupied in EB III ..., and thus
could not have survived the Israelite conquest as the Book of Judges claims.
... Shiloh and
Gaza present major problems for theories of an EB III conquest. Shiloh was one
of the centers of Israelite activity during the period of the Judges (Joshua
18:1-10; Judges 21:12,19; etc.) and Gaza was a Philistine city which plays an
important role in the stories about Samson (Judges 13-16). Yet Shiloh (Khirbet
Seilun) was occupied for the first time in MB IIB (which begins just before the
time of Saul, according to the Courville/Vaninger chronology), while Gaza (Tell
Harube) was not occupied until the Late Bronze Age (which equals the Divided
Monarchy in their system)....
[End of quote]
It should be
noted immediately though, with regard to Shiloh, that scholars are not
unanimous as to its true location (see e.g. T. Lawrence, “Shiloh”, SIS Workshop, Vol.
6, No.3, Feb., 1986, p. 9). As
for Gaza, its emergence in LBA is exactly what one would expect from the
stratigraphical pattern that I shall now begin to trace, following John J.
Bimson.
Bimson’s Stratigraphical Model
Bimson has
shown how the archaeological data for the end of MBA Jericho corresponds
strikingly well with the conquest scenario (“The Conquest of Canaan and the Revised Chronology”, SIS
Review, Vol. I, No. 3, Summer 1976, pp. 5-6):
In analysing the Biblical account, we
must go back to Numbers, 25. Here, just a few weeks or months before the attack
on Jericho, we find the Israelites living in a camp which extends along the
eastern side of the Jordan just opposite the city.... During this time the area
was affected by a severe plague. Numbers 25:9 reports that 24,000 Israelites
died of this plague. In due course the Jordan was crossed (Josh. 3) and a new
camp established at Gilgal. From here the campaign against Jericho was
launched. The Israelite victory was assured when an earthquake broke down the
city's walls. The inhabitants were slaughtered and the whole city burned to the
ground.
Precisely the same sequence of events is evidenced by archaeological finds from the final phase of MBA Jericho. Late in the series of MBA tombs at Jericho, several multiple burials are evidenced. Kenyon has concluded from these that "some catastrophe caused high mortality on an occasion very late in the history of Middle Bronze Age Jericho".... All the evidence points to the conclusion that MBA Jericho "suffered a plague" shortly before the greater catastrophe of the city's destruction.... It is logical to identify this plague with the one which struck the Israelite camp at Shittim in Numbers 25. Shittim was not very far from Jericho. It was from there that spies were sent out to the city (Joshua 2:1) ....
Precisely the same sequence of events is evidenced by archaeological finds from the final phase of MBA Jericho. Late in the series of MBA tombs at Jericho, several multiple burials are evidenced. Kenyon has concluded from these that "some catastrophe caused high mortality on an occasion very late in the history of Middle Bronze Age Jericho".... All the evidence points to the conclusion that MBA Jericho "suffered a plague" shortly before the greater catastrophe of the city's destruction.... It is logical to identify this plague with the one which struck the Israelite camp at Shittim in Numbers 25. Shittim was not very far from Jericho. It was from there that spies were sent out to the city (Joshua 2:1) ....
Evidence for an earthquake at the end
of MBA Jericho comes from the tombs containing the multiple burials. Organic
material contained in these tombs was found to be unusually well preserved. F. E.
Zeuner, who carried out tests in some of these tombs when they were first
opened, concluded that the material was preserved because a short while after
the burials were made, natural gas containing methane and carbon dioxide
entered the tombs and brought the process of biological destruction to an
end.... Earth movement and resultant fissuring are suggested as the best
explanation of how this gas was suddenly released into the tombs.
[End of quote]
The MBA city, he
continues, was destroyed in a terrible conflagration: “"All the Middle
Bronze Age buildings were violently destroyed by fire .... There is no doubt
from the scorched surfaces of the walls and floors of the violence of the
conflagration”.... Dame Kathleen Kenyon, who wrote these words, concluded from
the violence of the destruction that this burning was the result of an enemy
attack on the city....
Further in
favour of Bimson’s revision, against Courville/Vaninger's, is the following (ibid., p. 3):
According to the Biblical tradition,
there was no city at Jericho between the Conquest and the reign of Ahab. We
have seen that in the scheme offered above, the archaeological evidence
confirms this picture. In Courville's scheme, however, the archaeological findings
do not correspond with the Biblical tradition at all, since the strongly
fortified and populous MB II city fills the period which ought to have been one
of abandonment or, at the most, sporadic temporary habitation....
Moreover, that Bimson's synchronism
between the MBA phase at Jericho and Egypt's Middle Kingdom is accurate is
apparent from the nature of the scarabs there (ibid., pp. 6-7):
... only four of the MBA scarabs bear
royal names. Three of these definitely come from the Twelfth and Thirteenth
(pre-Hyksos) Dynasties.... The date of the fourth, which bears the obscure name
“Sheshi”, is debated. In Gardiner's view, however, scarabs bearing this name
date from immediately prior to the rise of the Hyksos. The Sheshi scarab from
Jericho was found in one of the multiple burials which date from very near the
end of the MBA city's history.
The question for Courville and
Vaninger, but not for a MBII based model, becomes: If the Israelites had
previously left an Egypt that had seen the demise of all the 12th dynasty
pharaohs, how come it is the MBA city at Jericho (which Courville would
presumably maintain was built some time after the era of Joshua) that contains
the scarabs of the 12th dynasty kings?
More precisely, Bimson has noted that
scarabs of Sesostris I of the 12th dynasty begin to occur in MBII A contexts in
Western Asia. But Egyptian Middle Kingdom objects are far more numerous in MBII
B-C, which - according to convention - was the Hyksos period [3900. Bimson has thus rejected MBII as the Hyksos
period. Instead he has concluded that, since MBII was contemporaneous with
Egypt's Middle Kingdom, then LBI was, at least partially, contemporaneous with
the Hyksos period (J. Bimson, “The
Hyksos and the Archaeology of Palestine”, SIS Review, Vol. II,
1977, p.60).
It seems to me
that the EB III city of Jericho and the MB II one, similarly collapsed by
earthquake and fiercely burned by invaders, must be one and the same
complex. It is unlikely that the exact same, very unique set of
circumstances would have been repeated centuries later. With this in mind,
Vaninger's comments about MB II Jericho (op.
cit., p. 76, emphasis added) are extremely interesting:
First, to suppose that the MB II city of
Jericho was a large and important site as required by conquest narratives
(Joshua 2;6) is largely a matter of conjecture.
Excavations of Jericho have uncovered
an MBII occupation in only a small area on the center of the east side of the
tell. While it is true that a thick layer of MB II wash at the foot of the tell
indicates that at least part of the MB II city was eroded away, this evidence
does not prove that the MB II city covered the entire tell, as is usually
assumed. It seems best to take the available evidence at face value - that MB
II Jericho may not have been more than a relatively small settlement.
Second, the excavators reported that the
earliest MB II walls and buildings closely resemble those of the EBIII period.
Finally, Bethel and Ai are also problems for
the purely MB II model, forcing a proposed re-location of the site of Ai from
the traditional et-Tell, which location fits the Conquest details for Ai
down to the last detail (e.g. the pile of rocks as recorded in the Bible
can be found there), to Khirbet Nisya.
While the
conventional view of a conquest during LBA is quite inadequate, strong
arguments can be made for either the EBIII and MBA scenarios. But both of these
latter also have their shortcomings. It is only when EBA and MBA are properly
integrated - the logical result of Courvill’s revision of pre-New Kingdom Egypt
- that the full picture emerges and the anomalies disappear. The EBIII city
whose walls fell outward, that was burned to the ground, must be recognised as
the same as the MBA city that suffered earthquake and was burned. This was the
city contemporaneous with Egypt's 6th and 12th dynasties - and with the Exodus - that the Joshuan
forces attacked and destroyed.
Any
one-dimensional stratigraphy for the Exodus/Conquest is unable to account for
much of the scriptural data.
