Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
CHAPTER 2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDS
Introduction
Archaeology is ‘the study of the material remains of man’s past’.1 This includes all tangible manmade matter, such as texts written in ancient languages and iconography on, inter alia, stone, clay and papyrus, as well as buildings, sculpture, weapons, household items, religious artefacts and other.2 The word means the analysis of everything ancient. In classical Greece it meant the study of ancient history. Chronicles of history on written records often need more specialised research to supplement the documentary evidence. Archaeology, covering a vast area of exploration, could be an auxiliary of history.3
Scholarly curiosity and the search for knowledge is a motivation for excavation.4 Archae-ology establishes the possibility for new images and a new concept of history. During the past century it furthermore contributed to a new Jewish tradition whereby its old sacred texts are interpreted and reinterpreted. Biblical and post-biblical archaeology is accepted by the Jewish public in Israel as a sanctioned and valuable discipline. Ancient excavated sites even became ‘objects of secular-national pilgrimage’.5 Israel itself has one of the longest excava-tion and subsequent scholarly research traditions. Apart from the critical analysis of research data, some of the basic questions regarding the interaction between material culture and his-torical texts have to be addressed. Clear correlations in this regard should be established be-tween ethnicity and material-culture features. Scholars have observed that many artefacts, initially typified with the Israelites, could likewise be linked to neighbouring societies, dem-onstrating that the same items could have been used in different communities. Discussions on the methodology of effectively integrating textual and archaeological data have recently raised interest amongst concerned scholars.6 William Dever,7 however, is of the opinion that many biblical scholars refrain from referring to archaeological data. He takes a brief look at relatively recent publications of, inter alia, Gerstenberger,8 Van der Toorn9 and Ackerman.
Dever11 observes that although Gerstenberger ‘focuses admirably on family, clan, tribe … and on common social structure … he makes only minimum use of actual archaeological data’. Likewise, Van der Toorn ‘adduces almost none of the rich archaeological data that we now possess’, in contrast to ‘Ackerman’s treatment of both the textual and the archaeological evi-dence’. Dever thus comes to the conclusion that biblical scholars generally do not realise the « revolutionary potential » of archaeology. Similarly, not so many scholars are probably famil-iar with less sensational – but nevertheless significant – discoveries during the nineteenth cen-tury.12
Striking analogies between archaeological data and folklore13 in the biblical texts indicate that the actual remains of early Israel have been revealed, disclosing a completely different picture to that which is generally accepted of the origins and early development of Israel.14 The his-toricity of biblical accounts depends to a great extent on the aims of the compilers and edi-tors.15 In the reconstruction of biblical history the relation between text and artefact should be determined.16 Yet, at the same time, it should be borne in mind that archaeology cannot « prove » the Hebrew Bible.17 The first task of a biblical scholar in his or her research should be to focus on the primary data.18 As a « legitimate component » of history, archaeological data are often all we have for understanding textual remains.19 However, according to Zertal,20 although archaeology uses modern technologies, ‘many of its conclusions are drawn on the basis of intuition, rather than on objective measure’. In addition hereto, Halpern21 indicates that text and artefact « encode intention ». The contents of history can only be conjectured. Textual scholars have less access to the technologies for analysing ceramics than the archae-ologists have for analysing text. They often rely on text to interpret their excavated data.
Dever22 points out that it is an illusion to infer that the explicit meaning of a text can be de-termined since, in archaeology, everything ultimately depends on context.
Serious biblical scholars acknowledge the late post-exilic final redaction of the Hebrew Bible. Israelite historiography is currently in a crisis, the question being whether, in principle, bibli-cal sources are of secondary value and what role archaeology plays in writing a history of an-cient Israel. It is important that the relation between text and artefact be redetermined. 23 Jamieson-Drake24 indicates that, due to an unwarranted backlog, excavation data are either unreported or inadequately reported. Financial constraints are one of the key issues in the present situation. It is essential that excavation results be systematically researched. For bib-lical scholars and scholars of Ancient Near Eastern studies, decipherment of Egyptian and cu-neiform inscriptions was one of the most significant developments in the apposite field. 25 Apart from inscriptions and artefacts, Ancient Near Eastern iconography is of paramount im-portance as pictures (symbols) are « more evocative of the past » than texts. An image would be the gateway to some « invisible, abstract reality ».26
Unless a positive correlation can be established between biblical and archaeological descrip-tions of Iron Age Palestine, Davies27 regards biblical Israel as a literary creation and he pro-poses that, until such a correlation is evident, archaeological data be accepted as primary. Carter28 is concerned that Syro-Palestinian archaeologists commit themselves to the uncover-ing of textual and artefactual data primarily concerning monarchical and prophetic Israel, whereas the Persian Period has been grossly neglected. Ehrlich29 points out that, although minimal sources from the Persian and Hellenistic periods are available, minimalists30 recon-struct an « ideological history » of that period on the basis of some biblical texts. In contrast, the maximalists31 endeavour to coalesce the biblical and extra-biblical material without duly considering the respective components individually. Contrary to the majority of the preced-ing arguments, Holladay32 rather explicitly contends that ‘ninety-nine percent of archaeology deals with the interpretation of shreds and tatters of ancient garbage and destructive episodes’.
On the whole it is evident that archaeology contributes extensively to the comprehension of biblical and Ancient Near Eastern history and culture. The excavation of numerous texts and ensuing recovery of Ancient Near Eastern languages has major consequences for biblical re-search. Apart from the biblical text being more lucid, previously obscure social customs, re-ligious practices and laws, and their significance in ancient times have been clarified to a large extent. In some instances, extra-biblical material corroborates biblical textual details. This research acknowledges the intrinsic value of archaeological data; however, considering the particular emphasis herein, a detailed deliberation of archaeological material cannot be justified. Nonetheless, a number of relevant archaeological finds are briefly discussed.
Radiocarbon dating, palynology and remote sensing
Radiocarbon dating
‘Radiocarbon33 (carbon 14)34 dating is a method of estimating the absolute age of a carbon-bearing material by comparing its radioactivity with that of a modern sample.’35 Substances up to seventy thousand years old can currently be dated. This science has revolutionised the research on prehistory and furnishes important information on archaeological remains. Ra-diocarbon dating has been invaluable to establish the absolute chronology of Palestine as from the period ca 50 000 BC up to the end of the fourth millennium BC. Most carbon-containing substances are acceptable for dating purposes. A piece of linen cloth – presumably used as a wrapping for one of the Qumran scrolls – was the first Palestinian carbon-14 sample dated, while the first of a series of carbon-14 datings was from a group of nine radiocarbon results from excavations at Jericho. Since the 1970s a large amount of radiocarbon materials from the southern Levant were processed and the results published. If archaeological or historical methods cannot give a precise date of an event, it is worthwhile to collect and process a car-bon-14 sample. However, most cultural remains and stratigraphic phases later than ca 2000 BC are more accurately dated by archaeological and historical evidence than through carbon-14 dating.36
Walls, floors, roads and aqueducts were constructed of mortar and plaster37 in the Ancient Near East. Plaster technology appeared since the seventh millennium BC with the establish-ment of large towns. Recently some component materials in lime plasters have been success-fully radiocarbon dated.38 This technique has a great potential to determine the age of par-tially exposed structures. One of the main limitations of this process is the cost involved. 39 It is more commonly cited for prehistoric than for historic periods.40
Palynology
Palynology41 is a science that has only relatively recently been applied to archaeology. The discipline mainly involves pollen grains, as well as ‘some other microscopic fossils and organ-isms that remain in an analyzed sample after the extraction of the pollen’.42 Palynology is di-vided into three categories.43 Regarding the field of archaeology, palynological techniques can yield useful information on aspects of the natural environment.44 The interpretation of pollen-analysis results in excavations is, however, a serious problem that archaeologists and palynologists encounter. Due to human activities – such as fire or deforestation – the excava-tion site can hardly yield a complete « continuous sequence », crucial for the examination of the natural environment. Nevertheless, pollen analysis could also be applied to other excavated materials, such as the contents of containers.45
Although the process is not so « new » anymore, palynology is often referred to as « new ar chaeology ». Human activity is dynamic and in a continual process of evolution. Proponents of the « new archaeology » attempt to ‘explain why, rather than simply to describe the ways that human activity has taken particular forms’.46 Palynology facilitates the appreciation by ar-chaeologists for the response of human activity to the environment and the subsequent modi-fication thereof. It has become one of the most significant techniques in the reconstruction of the palaeo-environment. However, due to the soils and sediments in Israel which are mainly procured from the natural limestone bedrock, palynology is a complex venture in this coun-try.47 Dever48 indicates that the newer approaches of the « new archaeology » are regarded by some scholars as revolutionary. As such, Syro-Palestinian archaeology has visibly undergone changes that ‘constitute at least a revolution in the making’,49 and has become an independent discipline of biblical archaeology. Dever50 furthermore states that, although there ‘is a con-sensus on the major emphases’ of this intellectual movement in American archaeology, it is ‘too diverse and still too controversial to be readily characterized.’
The authenticity of the Shroud of Turin51 has been debated for decades on end. Some devo-tees believe the shroud to be genuine and results from any attempt to examine it scientifically are either accepted – when in the affirmative – or met with scepticism, as when it was radio-carbon dated as from the Medieval Age. During the 1980s small portions of the shroud were sent to different independent laboratories for radiocarbon dating. Three of these laboratories dated it between AD 1322 and AD 1340, with a tolerance of fifty to sixty-five years. These test results were immediately challenged. Pollen grains gathered from the shroud were also examined.52
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Motivation for research
1.2 Research problem
1.3 Hypothesis
1.4 Purpose of research
1.5 Methodology
1.6 Abbreviations
1.7 Archaeological periods in Palestine BC
2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDS
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Radiocarbon dating, palynology and remote sensing
2.3 Ebla archives
2.4 Mari documents
2.5 Amarna Letters and the habiru
2.6 Egyptian records
2.7 Merenptah’s inscriptions and reliefs
2.8 Ras Shamra tablets: Ugarit
2.9 Kuntillet ‛Ajrud
2.10 Khirbet ’el-Qom
2.11 Khirbet Beit Lei
2.12 Ketef Hinnom
2.13 Relevant archaeological artefacts
2.14 Cult sites
2.15 Résumé and conclusion
3 MYTHOLOGY, ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN PANTHEONS AND THE ISRAELITE RELIGION
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Asherah / Athirat and synonymous female deities
3.3 Relevant female deities
3.4 Queen of Heaven
3.5 Storm gods and warrior gods
3.6 Astral deities
3.7 Canaanite El
3.8 Divine attributes in the Masoretic Text
3.9 Influence of myths and legends on the Masoretic Text
3.10 Résumé and conclusion
4 NAME YHWH AND RELATED FORMS
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Name YHWH: origin, analysis and interpretation of the designation YHWH
4.3 Extra-biblical sources concerning the name YHWH or related forms
4.4 Phenomenon of theophoric names
5 THEORIES REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF YAHWISM
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Origin and characteristics of the Kenites
5.3 Kenite hypothesis
5.4 Moses figure and traditions
5.5 Evaluation of the Kenite hypothesis
5.6 Adoption of the El-figure by Yahweh
5.7 Yahweh-El: an ancestral god
5.8 Adoption of the El-figure by Yahweh: an evaluation of hypotheses
5.9 Résumé and conclusion
6 RECHABITES AND ANALOGOUS MARGINAL GROUPS
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Origin and interrelationships of marginal groups
6.3 Occurrence in the Masoretic Text
6.4 Religion, traditions and role in the Israelite cult
6.5 Influence during the Monarchical Period
6.6 Résumé and conclusion
7 ORIGIN OF THE ISRAELITE NATION: SYNOPTIC SURVEY
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Phenomenon of interaction among nations
7.3 Influence of co-regional Ancient Near Eastern nations
7.4 Proto-Israelites, exodus and settlement in Palestine
7.5 Masoretic Text narratives
7.6 Israelite Monarchy
7.7 Résumé and conclusion
8 ORIGIN OF THE MASORETIC TEXT AND MONOTHEISM: SYNOPTIC SURVEY
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Hypotheses on the Pentateuch
8.3 Deuteronomistic historiography
8.4 Chronistic historiography
8.5 Prophets and prophecy
8.6 Documentation of Israel’s traditions during the monarchical era
8.7 Exilic and post-exilic documentation, redactional adaptations and finalisation of the Masoretic Text
8.8 Monotheism
8.9 Minimalistic or revisionistic views on the historicity of the Masoretic Text and an Israelite nation
8.10 Résumé and conclusion
9 SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ABSTRACT
OPSOMMING
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
