Archaeological Views: Biblical Archaeology’s Architectural Bias

055

The dramatic results of recent research in the copper mines of the ‘Arabah Valley call into question the way biblical-era nomadic societies have been treated in biblical archaeology.¹

Since the early days of the discipline, the prevailing perception of nomads has been of people who could not form strong political entities and whose influence on the course of history was marginal. Biblical scholars and archaeologists alike have constantly equated the biblical-era nomads to the modern Bedouin of the southern Levant, furthering the interpretation of these groups as simple tribal societies that existed in the geographical and historical periphery of the settled land. Similarly, almost any discussion on the formation of the southern Levantine Iron Age kingdoms, including the United Monarchy of ancient Israel, has assumed that such political organizations could not have developed prior to the entire population’s sedentarization.

Consequently, the identification of these kingdoms in the archaeological record and the assessment of their political organization have been dependent on the existence of substantial stone-built architectural remains. This is exemplified by the most contentious debates in biblical archaeology today, such as the question of Jerusalem’s monumentality in the 10th century B.C.E. or the absolute chronology of the early Iron Age (“High” vs. “Low” Chronologies). In both cases, stone structures are at the core of arguments about the United Monarchy’s size, historical impact, and mere historicity.

To put this simply, archaeologists have focused too much on stone architecture, assuming that if a people hadn’t any, they could not possibly establish a kingdom of any substance.

However, we now have convincing evidence for a strong and centralized biblical-era nomadic kingdom—the biblical Edom, which was centered in the ‘Arabah Valley and achieved a high level of social complexity as early as the 11th century B.C.E.² The evidence comes from the local copper exploitation that scholars formerly attributed to empires: the Neo-Assyrian in the case of Faynan and the Egyptian in the case of Timna. Radiocarbon dates from excavations in Faynan (headed by Thomas E. Levy and Mohammad Najjar) and Timna (headed by me) demonstrate that the local copper industry thrived during the 11th–9th centuries B.C.E. It was the most intense exploitation of copper in the history of the region (surpassing the intensity of the Roman imperial metallum in Faynan).

Several lines of evidence indicate that it was the local (semi-)nomadic (agro-)pastoralist tribes that operated the mines. They established a powerful tribal polity (following the Egyptian withdrawal from the region in the late 12th century B.C.E.), while maintaining their nomadic way of life for several centuries. This polity controlled the most lucrative industry of the time and was in the center of long-distance trade systems. Early Iron Age ‘Arabah copper was identified recently in places as remote as Greece.

Yet the most striking insight gained from these data is that the reconstruction of a powerful kingdom was possible only because of the engagement of the ‘Arabah’s nomads in an archaeologically visible activity, which left thousands of mines and more than 100,000 tons of production waste (“slag mounds”). Had their economy been based on any other practice (including agriculture and trade), this early Iron Age society would have been archaeologically inconspicuous, regardless of its social structure and historical significance because it lacks any substantial stone-built features. Were it not for the copper production, simple forms of nomadic society or even an occupational gap would have dominated historical reconstructions of the ‘Arabah in the early Iron Age, resulting in a completely different understanding of early Edom.

The main reason for misinterpreting the social structure of ancient nomadic societies is the fact that the archaeology of nomadism is intrinsically difficult. Specifically designed surveys (not commonly practiced in biblical archaeology) may identify ancient camp sites, but those are extremely hard to date, and it is impossible to extract from them any meaningful insights on the occupants’ social organization. The latter is the main reason for the prevailing “default” resort to the ethnography of the simple modern-era Bedouin societies. Since this parallelism is so deeply entrenched in biblical scholarship (so much so that the word “Bedouins” is freely used as a substitute for “nomads” or “mobile people”), it obscures the possibility of considering the existence of strong, centralized nomadic polities.

Admittedly, documented cases of highly complex nomadic societies are rare in human history. But the time following the collapse of the Late Bronze Age civilizations was one of the most exceptional periods of history, one that offered a fertile ground for typically marginal groups to accumulate geopolitical power, witnessing also the rise of the tribal kingdoms of Israel and its neighbors.

Since the simplistic view of nomads in biblical archaeology (and biblical scholarship in general) is rooted so deeply, basic components of the biblical narrative itself, in which nomadic populations are depicted as substantial constituents of the emerging local kingdoms (including the United Monarchy), are often overlooked or misinterpreted. There is no textual evidence that the population of the Hill Country was fully sedentarized by the 10th century B.C.E., yet it is the underlying assumption of most scholars and the reason behind the prevailing conviction that archaeology can serve as ground truth for the relevant biblical narratives.

063

This situation is evidently a manifestation of the common perception that nomads (or, for that matter, a mixed nomadic/sedentary population) could not have achieved a monarchy.³ However, the new understanding that biblical-era nomads could have developed complex societies (“kingdoms,” in the biblical sense)—and that these societies would be largely inconspicuous in the archaeological record—calls into question the archaeology-based and ethnography-supported historical reconstructions of this period that are evidently skewed toward minimalistic interpretations.

More broadly, it raises concerns about the role that archaeology has purported to play in biblical scholarship, especially in the assessment of the historicity of the biblical narratives related to nomads.

Ardent promotion of a positivist approach by biblical archaeologists, which has been propelled recently with the ostensible promise offered by the integration of advanced research methods from the natural and exact sciences, has further cemented the notion that archaeology is the key to revealing the reality of the biblical period. However, when treating nomadic and semi-nomadic societies, a positivist approach is not conducive, as it creates the false impression that the information is in the ground; in reality, its lion’s share is simply lost and could not be retrieved even with advanced scientific methods.

This realization is dispiriting to anyone who regards archaeology as a means to reconstruct history, but it is an important step forward in the arduous quest for the realities of the biblical world, adjusting the role of nomads within it. I don’t mean to suggest that we ought to uncritically accept the historicity of biblical narratives related to nomads, but I would argue that archaeology cannot provide the answer.

The dramatic results of recent research in the copper mines of the ‘Arabah Valley call into question the way biblical-era nomadic societies have been treated in biblical archaeology.1