Archaeological Views: Let the Evidence Speak

026

In a recent “Archaeological Views” column (“Question Authority,” 32:03), Michael Coogan said we should “beware of an argument based on ‘authority.’” While I heartily agree with Coogan, I believe there are other examples of unscientific methodology being practiced in the fields of Palestinian archaeology and Biblical studies that are just as insidious. As one schooled in the scientific method, it disturbs me that, in addition to the say-so of esteemed authority figures, many times opinions are driven by preconceived notions,¹ received knowledge, arguments from silence or majority opinion. In an objective, scientific inquiry, conclusions must be based on evidence and evidence alone.

Take the matter of the historical accuracy of the Hebrew Bible. Most scholars are of the opinion that Biblical history prior to the monarchy is myth and fable. This attitude is reflected in some of BAR’s columns. Ronald Hendel stated, “Archaeological research has … secured the non-historicity of much of the Bible before the era of the kings” (“Biblical Views,” 32:04). William Dever remarked, “There was no military conquest of Canaan” (“Archaeological Views,” 32:02). Coogan expressed a similar view with regard to the conquest of Jericho, which I shall comment on below.

How can we check the veracity of these suppositions? If we are honest researchers using sound methodological principles, we need to examine the evidence, much of it documented in the pages of BAR, to see if it agrees or disagrees with the proposed hypothesis. We can consider here but a few examples pertaining to Joshua and Judges, proceeding from the end of the period of the Judges backward in time.²

According to the Biblical narrative, the Israelites established a religious center at Shiloh during the period of the Judges that was destroyed and abandoned around the middle of the 11th century B.C.³ Excavations at Shiloh have revealed public buildings from that time (Iron I period) and a destruction dating to the mid-11th century.^a

Judges 9 documents a furtive attempt by Abimelech, son of Gideon, to take over leadership of the Israelite tribes in the mid-12th century B.C. This text mentions a temple, city gate and destruction at Shechem. What was found at Shechem from this time period? A temple, city gate and destruction!^b

Judges 18 describes the migration of the tribe of Dan from their allotment west of Benjamin to Laish, which they renamed Dan. The time of this event can be bracketed to sometime in the 12th century B.C., most likely shortly after the arrival of the Philistines in 1177 B.C. The Israelites burned the city, whose previous inhabitants had a relationship with the coastal town of Sidon. Stratum VII at Tel Dan/Laish was destroyed by fire in the early 12th century. A tomb from Stratum VII contained imported Mycenaean pottery and local pottery made in the area of Sidon. The next phase of occupation was by squatters who used collared-rim store jars, typically associated with Israelite settlement, made from clay foreign to the Tel Dan area.

Judges 4 gives an account of a confrontation between the Israelite tribes, led by Deborah and Barak, and Jabin king of Hazor in the late 13th century B.C. The Israelites defeated Sisera, the commander of Jabin’s army, “who lived in Harosheth Haggoyim” (Judges 4:2) at the Kishon River. Following the neutralizing of Jabin’s (apparently mercenary) force, “the Israelites grew stronger and stronger against Jabin the Canaanite king, until they destroyed him” (Judges 4:24). Excavations at Hazor have determined that a massive destruction of the city in c. 1230 B.C. was most likely caused by Israelites.^c In addition, Adam Zertal believes he has found Harosheth Haggoyim at el-Ahwat. The site was occupied briefly in the late 13th to early 12th centuries, thus correlating with the time frame of the Deborah-Barak conquest of Hazor.^d

Judges 3 tells of Eglon, king of Moab, establishing a residency at Jericho and exacting tribute from the Israelite tribes for 18 years in the late 14th century B.C. When John Garstang excavated Jericho in the 1930s, he found a large palace-like structure that he identified as Eglon’s palace. An abundance of 078imported pottery and an inscribed clay tablet attest to a well-to-do occupant involved in administrative activities. Yet there was no town to rule over. The site was occupied only a short time in the late 14th century and then abandoned.⁴

When we come to the Conquest, we are in the era of Biblical history in which scholars claim there is definitive evidence showing the Bible to be wrong. In assessing this so-called “evidence,” however, it is clear that it is the interpretations of various researchers over the years that are in error, not the Bible. During the course of the Conquest, the Israelites burned three places by fire: Hazor, Ai and Jericho. Since there is nothing like a good fire to link archaeology and written history, we will examine the evidence from those three sites.

We have already suggested that the c. 1230 B.C. destruction of Hazor should be assigned to the events of Judges 4. Is there an earlier destruction that could be associated with Joshua? As a matter of fact, there is. Evidence was found in both the upper and lower cities that the site was destroyed by fire in the 15th century B.C. Significantly, cultic centers seemed to have been singled out for especially harsh treatment by the conquerors in the 15th century.

Excavations at et-Tell have presumably “wiped out the historical credibility of the conquest of Ai.”^e The identification of et-Tell as Joshua’s Ai, however, was the result of a series of scholarly blunders that have been uncritically accepted to this day.⁵ It simply does not meet the Biblical requirements. From 1995 to 2000, I directed an excavation at Khirbet El-Maqatir, just a little less than a mile west of et-Tell, which does meet all of the requirements to be Joshua’s Ai. We found a small border fortress dating to the 15th century B.C. that had been destroyed by fire.

The account of Jericho in the Book Joshua is another Biblical narrative whose reputation has been sullied by the incompetent scholarship of earlier researchers. Garstang and Kenyon were the major excavators of Jericho. Coogan states that Garstang’s dating of the destruction there to c. 1400 B.C. was in error since his “knowledge of stratigraphic excavation and ceramic chronology … was not very advanced” and “Kenyon redug at Tell es-Sultan and corrected Garstang’s dates.” Nothing could be further from the truth. In actual fact, Kenyon never published an analysis of her pottery to support her claims. Sadly, her impromptu dating has been blindly accepted without question.^f Garstang, on the other hand, published a detailed study of his destruction-level pottery that is useful even today.⁶ While it is true that Garstang misunderstood the fortification system, his date of the destruction was right on the money.^g

This brief survey demonstrates that the notion that the Biblical narrative for the pre-monarchy period is unhistorical does not stand up to the scrutiny of impartial data. The hard evidence favors a model in which the Bible should be treated as a valid historical source for this time period.

In a recent “Archaeological Views” column (“Question Authority,” 32:03), Michael Coogan said we should “beware of an argument based on ‘authority.’” While I heartily agree with Coogan, I believe there are other examples of unscientific methodology being practiced in the fields of Palestinian archaeology and Biblical studies that are just as insidious. As one schooled in the scientific method, it disturbs me that, in addition to the say-so of esteemed authority figures, many times opinions are driven by preconceived notions,1 received knowledge, arguments from silence or majority opinion. In an objective, scientific inquiry, conclusions must be based on evidence […]