A PROPOSAL FOR EXPLAINING THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD
IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL INDEPENDENTLY OF EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY
[1984, revised 2000]
by
YEHOSHUA ETZION

Translated from Hebrew by
RALPH AMELAN

CONTENTS

The Foundations of the Stratigraphy and Typology in the Land of Israel
The Authenticity of Egyptian Chronology
The Construction of an Alternative Dating Model Independent of Egyptian Chronology
Comparison of the Alternative Model with Albright’s Model
The Problem of Gaps and Lack of Stratigraphic Continuity
Artifacts That are not in their Stratigraphic Context
The Problem of the Little Correspondence Between the Archaeological Record and the Biblical Historical Account
The Chalcolithic Period
The Early Bronze Age
The End of the Early Bronze Age and the Intermediate Bronze Age(M.B.I)
The Middle Bronze Age (M.B. IIa,b)
The Late Bronze Age
Iron Age I
Iron Age II
The Persian Age
The interpretation of the Archaeological Record in the Land of Israel According to the Alternative Model
Summary and Conclusions
Notes
 

The Foundations of the Stratigraphy and Typology in the Land of Israel

The foundations of the stratigraphy and typology in the Land of Israel were laid in the early twentieth century by the scholars Petrie, Bliss, Macalister, Reisner and Fisher. In 1932 and 1938 W.F. Albright published the results of his excavations at Tell Beit Mirsim. The pattern of strata that Albright built as a result of these excavations rapidly became a model that served archaeologists in determining the relative alignment of strata in the Land of Israel. This alignment was absolutely dated with the aid of Egyptian artifacts that were found at various excavation sites. The model proposed by Albright has been accepted by archaeologists down to the present day, save for a few changes. Current archaeological methods developed by Israeli scholars as well as the Weiler - Kenyon method use this absolute dating almost exclusively as their basis in analyzing excavations.
 
Doubts that have been cast on the authenticity of the accepted Egyptian chronology have brought me to re-examine and reinterpret the archaeological record in the Land of Israel without depending on this chronology. I shall present in this article an alternative dating model arrived at as a result of this inquiry. I shall explain its principles and demonstrate the way it was formulated. I will compare the currently accepted Albright model and the Alternative model, and I will make a preliminary attempt to reinterpret the archaeological record in the Land of Israel in the light of the chronological implications of the Alternative model.
 

The Authenticity of Egyptian Chronology

Relative Egyptian chronology chiefly rests on a comparison of Egyptian monumental inscriptions and ancient documents with Manetho’s dynasty list. An absolute chronology was determined by astronomical calculations based on the Sothic dating theory. There are a number of weak points in this system.
 
1. Manetho’s historical reliability has been doubted by such well-known experts as Breasted1, Gardiner2, and Hall3.
 
2. The validity of the Sothic dating theory depends on the correctness of several determinations:
 
                    (A) The precise dating of one of the Sothic cycles.
 
                    (B) The identification of the star Sothis (SPDT) with Sirius.
(C) The determination of the Egyptian calendar for the duration of each Sothic cycle, with regard to the length of the year and the placement of the months.
 
(D) The correctness of the calculations determining the Sothic cycle.
 
(E) The unambiguous interpretation of the ancient sources on which the Sothic theory relies.
Doubts exist on the accuracy of each of these points. For example, historians claim that astronomical calculations contradict the date of 140 AC as the start of a Sothic cycle; that there is an error in the calculation of the length of the Sothic cycle; that there are ancient documents (in particular, the Ebers papyrus) testifying to an Egyptian year 360 days long; that there are disputes over the identity of Menophres - the Egyptian king mentioned in the writings of Theon and through whom the Sothic theory and the comparative chronology were linked, and so on4. The doubts as to reliability of Egyptian chronology raise the need to reexamine, independent of it, the archaeological record in the Land of Israel.
 
Because sherds found in the Land of Israel have been dated according to Egyptian artifacts found with them in the same stratum, separating the archaeological record from Egyptian chronology means that pottery finds lose their value as providers of absolute dates. They can only serve as means of relative dating. Consequently all alignments of material culture dated by ceramic remains are “left in the air”. Types of buildings, writing and seal impressions, the bases for characterizing periods, lose the chronological significance attributed to them.
 
In my opinion we can devise, with the aid of an Alternative model and independently of Egyptian chronology, a new dating scheme for pottery finds and a new alignment of material culture in accordance with it. The model will be constructed by a new interpretation of all the information and archaeological finds that have accrued throughout the years. This interpretation is supported by the fundamental tenets of archaeology.
 

The Construction of an Alternative Dating Model Independent of Egyptian Chronology

The construction of the alternative dating model will proceed on the basis of the following assumptions:
 
1. The ancient history of the Land of Israel is divided into the following periods: The Pre-historic (and the Proto-historic), the Canaanite, the Israelite, the conquest and foreign rule by Assyria, Babylon and Persia, and the Hellenistic period.
 
2. The order of strata matches the course of history, as a rule.
 
The historical and the archaeological frameworks will be synchronized by comparing and linking prominent archaeological phenomena with the main historical events that have left their impression on the archaeological record, mostly in the form of destruction and burning layers, and sometimes in monumental building.
 
The Hellenistic stratum in the Land of Israel can be absolutely dated with the help of coins. Among the layers of destruction prior to that period, two particular layers, each accompanied by a significant change in the material culture and demography, stand out in some sites. These layers have caught the attention of excavators almost from the very beginning of excavations in the Land of Israel. Archaeologists see them as the sign of a boundary between different ages. The first of two destruction layers lies between the Early Bronze and Middle Bronze ages, and the second separates the Late Bronze and the Iron ages. Between these layers there is unbroken sequence of material culture. Y. Aharoni stated that it lasted “for about 800 years... amounting from the historical and cultural point of view to a single historical sequence... this is Canaan in its rise, its flowering and its decline”5.
In the Land of Israel two instances of general conquest accompanied by severe destruction and cultural and demographic change are known to history. The first is the conquest of Canaan by the Israelite tribes, and the second is the taking of most of the region by Assyrian forces followed by the Babylonian army’s conquest of the kingdom of Judah. The historical sources say that between the Israelite settlement and the Assyro-Babylonian conquests there was an unbroken continuity of Israelite life and culture.
 
Drawing a parallel between the archaeological record and the historical events mentioned above leads to the conclusion that the destruction layer that closes the Early Bronze age represents the Settlement of the Israelite tribes in the Land of Israel, and the destruction layer at the end of the Late Bronze age represents the annihilation of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Accordingly the Middle Bronze and the Late Bronze ages correspond to the Israelite period, from the Settlement and the time of the Judges to the fall of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. The stratum (often called the Iron Age) between the destruction layer at the end of the Late Bronze and between the Hellenistic stratum represents the Babylonian conquest, the Persian period (Return to Zion) and the beginning of the Hellenistic period.
 
The reader who is rooted in the currently accepted theories of the archaeology and the history of ancient times will find it hard to accept these conclusions. The synchronization proposed here goes against the orthodox archaeological interpretation of artifacts such as Mycenean ceramics, Philistine sherds, casemate walls, Lamelech jars etc., and the view of the Settlement as having been a prolonged and gradual occurrence. I would like to repeat and stress the fact that the accepted archaeological and historical conceptual framework is founded mostly on Egyptian chronology. Casting ourselves free from this chronology leads to a revolution in our comprehension of these records. I will further endeavor to show that the new interpretatand meaning given to the above mentioned records in the light of their dating in accordance with the Alternative model make possible their complete integration in this model. The Alternative model will affirm the rule that the date of a stratum is determined according to the archaeological remains embedded in it.
 
As I have stated, it follows from the proposed synchronization that the Middle Bronze and the Late Bronze ages represent the Israelite period from the Settlement to the destruction of the First Temple. Relying on stratigraphic considerations, we may perhaps assign the Middle Bronze IIb stratum to the early Israelite monarchy of Saul, David and Solomon, and the Middle Bronze IIa to the time of the Judges. In line with similar considerations the Early Bronze II-III is the Canaanite period, and the Early Bronze I or the late Chalcolithic period represents the time of the Patriarchs.
 
Table no. 1 represents the Alternative model resulting from my proposal.


Table 1
Alternative Dating of Strata in the Land of Israel

Stratum
Historical period
Iron
Between the Babylonian conquest and the Hasmonean period
Upper destruction layer
Destruction of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah
Late Bronze
Period of the Divided Monarchy
 
Middle Bronze
Period of the Judges and United Monarchy
 
Lower destruction layer
Exodus and conquest of Canaan
Early Bronze
Canaanite period
 

 

Comparison of the Alternative Model with Albright’s Model

The Alternative model matches the archaeological record with the accepted view of the historical sequence of events in the Land of Israel. Albright’s model relies basically on Egyptian chronology for its dating.
 
Theoretical models are compared and preferred, as a rule, on their ability to provide a simple and parsimonious solution to existing problems, and on the possibility of deriving from them predictions which are capable of being verified or disproved. In accordance with these criteria, especially the first of them, I will try to compare the models.
 
I shall analyze three phenomena that have occupied archaeologists in their research into ancient periods in the Land of Israel since the adoption of the Albright Model:
 
1. Nowhere in the Land of Israel was a complete representation of the Albright Model from the Middle Bronze to the start of the Hellenistic period represented in one single cross section. In order to obtain the sequence of the model, archaeologists are dependent on finding chronological parallels for artifacts which are often discovered in different areas of the excavations. In many instances no explanation can be found for the lack of continuity in the stratigraphic sequence in spite of the horizontal interpretation of the findings. In such cases scholars assume the existence of a settlement gap. Particularly prominent is the almost total absence of the Persian and the Early Hellenistic strata at the majority of important archaeological sites in the Land of Israel, despite the presence of artifacts from these periods at the same sites.
 
2. Objects belonging to a certain period turn up in layers that do not match the time assigned to them (“migration of artifacts”).
 
3. There is little correlation between the archaeological record in the Land of Israel and the historical course of events as found in the Old Testament.
 
The Alternative model provides a simple and parsimonious explanation for this problems, and as we shall see later, its use does away with them.
 
The Late Bronze stratum is among the richest in terms of Egyptian artifacts. Many of these finds bear the names of rulers identified with the Pharaohs of the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties in Egypt. Likewise Mycenean ceramics are found in this stratum. The dating of this stratum according to the Albright Model mainly relies on these artifacts and consequently the Late Bronze destruction was placed at the end of the thirteenth century B.C. It is accepted today that Exodus occurred at about the same time, and most researchers are inclined to assume that the Late Bronze destruction is evidence of the penetration of the Israelite tribes into the Land of Canaan, or that it is linked to the invasion of the “Peoples of the Sea” and other military campaigns that took place at this period. The Iron age stratum was dated as a result of its stratigraphic placement above the Late Bronze stratum. Accordingly the Iron age represents the whole Israelite period from the Settlement to the destruction of the First Temple.
 
According to the Alternative model, the Iron age stratum represents the period of the conquests of Babylon and Persia, and the Early Hellenistic period. Previous periods are therefore represented by strata completely different from those ascribed to them by the Albright Model.
 
Table 2 presents a comparison which stresses the great difference in historical implications of the different strata in the two models.

 
Table 2
A Comparative Table between Traditional and Alternative Dating of Strata
Alternative Dating of Strata
  
Traditional Dating of Strata
Absolute dating
(B.C.)
Parallel historical period
Stratification
Parallel historical period
Abdating
(B.C.)
150
Hasmonean period
Persian (?)
Return to Zion
600

 
 
 
 

600
Ptolemaic period
Persian period (Return to Zion)
Babylonian conquest
 
 

Iron
Destruction of Judah
Destruction of Israel
Divided Monarchy
United Monarchy 
Judges
Israelite settlement
 
 
 
 

1200

 
 
 

1000
Destruction of Judah
Destruction of Israel
Divided Monarchy
 
 

Late Bronze
Israelite conquest of Canaan
Late Canaanite
 
 
 

1500
 
United Monarchy
Judges
Israelite settlement
Middle Bronze II
 
Middle Canaanite
Age of the Patriarchs
 
 

2000
1500
Israelite conquest of Canaan
Middle Bronze I
Conquest by Amorites\Egyptians\
Indo-European tribes
2200

 
 
 

2000
Canaanite period
Age of the Patriarchs
Early Bronze
 

Early Canaanite
 
 
 

3200
   
Chalcolithic
Proto-historical
 
  

The attempt to assign the entire period from the Exodus to the Hasmonean revolt to the intermediary stratum between the Late Bronze and the Hellenistic period is the cause of the problems mentioned above.
 

The Problem of Gaps and Lack of Stratigraphic Continuity

As has been stated, according to the Alternative model part of the Iron age stratum represents the Persian period. If this stratum is assigned, as is usual, to the Israelite kingdom, the Persian stratum loses its place in the stratigraphic alignment. To the researchers relying on the Albright Model, it is as if the Persian stratum is “missing”. In fact, the meager representation of one of the most important periods of the Land of Israel in the stratigraphic record has not left researchers indifferent to the problem. In their efforts to explain why there is stratigraphic gap in the Persian period at many sites in the Land of Israel they have come with various suggestions. Severe erosion and the building activities of the later periods that destroyed the remains of the period are put forward as explanations6. Persian artifacts that turn up in the Iron Age level are looked on as sherds found in “pits” of an obscure type7, and there are even theories that rubbish in the Persian period was collected in “refuse pits”8. Another explanation for the discovery of Persian artifacts out of place is that there was indeed a Persian stratum between the Iron and Hellenistic strata, but it was “overlooked” by the excavators9.
 
According to the Alternative model there is no need for such explanations. Persian (and Hellenistic) artifacts discovered in the Iron Age stratum are in their rightful stratigraphic place, and the strata in which they are found may be dated accordingly.
 
Hellenistic strata, in number of places, lie directly above the Iron Age stratum10, and they are often found at the same level side by side11. In endeavoring to explain this, researchers assume that in such cases there was a settlement gap of 300 years or more. But the need to assume the existence of such a gap is the direct consequence of assigning the stratum above the Late Bronze to the First Temple period, as the Albright Model obliges them to do. The Alternative model, as has already been noted, maintains that the Iron Age stratum mainly reprthe Persian period, and the rest represents the Early Hellenistic period. Therefore in this case also there is no need to postulate a “settlement gap”.
 
The result of assigning artifacts above the Late Bronze to the Philistine period is that the Israelite period is greatly under-represented12. Researchers find it difficult to assign 800 years of Israelite history to the layer sandwiched between the Philistine and the Hellenistic strata. The source of the difficulty is that this layer actually represents the Early Hellenistic period which lasted for about 200 years. Under present state of affairs, Persian finds have been assigned to the Philistine period13. Under the Alternative model the so-called Philistine finds, like most Iron Age artifacts, belong to the Persian and Early Hellenistic period. As in previous examples, the stratigraphic gap problem disappears.
 
Even the success of Israeli scholars in identifying Persian ceramics and consequently locating the Persian stratum at number of sites has not solved the problem of gaps in the stratigraphic record. At places with a Persian stratum, it has been difficult to find adequate representation for the hundreds of years of Israelite history that preceded this stratum14. Even the Hellenistic period, up to the time of the Hasmonean revolt, is under-represented, and Persian artifacts are left to appear in “pits”15. The Alternative model assign the various sub-strata of the Iron Age to the Babylonian, Persian, and Greek conquests, and therefore most sites in the Land of Israel display a complete and continuous record of settlement for the period between the destruction of the First Temple and the foundation of the Hasmonean state.
 
If I am correct in my hypothesis that the stratum above the Late Bronze does indeed represent the Babylonian, Persian and Early Hellenistic periods, its assignment, according to the Albright Model, to the Israelite period will cause the “disappearance” of strata from the period after the destruction of the First Temple, while its assignment to the period after the destruction of the First Temple will lead to a “settlement gap” during the Israelite period. In no case will there be a complete sequence of strata between the Late Bronze and Hellenistic periods, since the assignment of a stratum to a given period will always cause the “disappearance of the parallel strata according to the Alternative model.
 
The Alternative model, therefore, explains why stratigraphic gaps are so common in the archaeology of the Land of Israel. Moreover, the new chronological interpretation given to the strata enables us to find a full and continuous representation of Israelite history from the Settlement to the emergence of the Hasmonaens in most of the stratigraphic cross-sections that have been carried out in the Land of Israel.
 

Artifacts that are not in their Stratigraphic Context

Artifacts that have turned up out of their proper stratigraphic place have placed excavators in a dilemma. Do they date the stratum in which they are found according to the artifacts, as is customary at most archaeological sites, or do they date the stratum according to the Albright Model and try to explain as best as possible the anomalous appearance of the finds? Because of the almost complete reliance of archaeological research in the Land of Israel on the Albright Model, most archaeologists tend to take the second option. In attempts to solve this problem researchers have put forward various proposals. Some have surmised that in ancient times it was usual to make extensive use of earth fills16 and spoil heaps17. Excavators have often assumed that the anomalous appearance of sherds and coins was caused by later building works18 or deep ploughing. In cases where these solutions have been of no avail, researchers have been compelled to assign the finds to the stratum in which they are found, and in consequence push back the dating ofthe artifacts, noting the word “proto” before the artifact usual name (such as Proto-Aeolic capitals or Proto-Canaanite script).
 
The Alternative model holds that the various strata have to be dated according to the artifacts buried in them. The strata in which Persian artifacts are found are Persian. The Proto-Aeolic capitals are Aeolic capitals appearing in the Land of Israel for the first time after the destruction of the First Temple and the Proto-Canaanite script is Hebrew writing from the Israelite period. So there is practically no need to make use of such explanations as “migration of artifacts”. In the archaeological record of the Land of Israel, according to my view, artifacts appear in their proper place and, save for a few exceptional cases, the strata can be dated in reliance on them. The Alternative model obeys the archaeological rule that strata should be dated in accordance with the artifacts found in them.
 

The Problem of the Little Correspondence Between the Archaeological Record and the Biblical Historical Account

The lack of correspondence between biblical history and the archaeological record is a problem well-known in the archaeology of the Land of Israel. Its appearance coincides in time with the adoption of the Albright Model by archaeologists. Excavators interpreting their findings according to the Albright Model have met with difficulties in trying to find agreement between the results of their excavation and the biblical record. Such instances of agreement that had been found prior to Albright were rejected as erroneous by the new generation of archaeologists in the light of findings from new excavations. As time passed, and practically no correspondence was found between the Old Testament and archaeology, doubts grew among scientists as to the historical authenticity of the Bible. These doubts were already aroused in the nineteenth century with the emergence of the High Criticism of the Bible and they were strengthened in the twentieth century by the works of the biblical scholars Alt and Noth. These works received momentum and encouragement from the conclusions of archaeologists in the Land of Israel. It seems that most scholars today have reconciled themselves to the diminished historical authenticity of the Old Testament. The problem of the divergence between the Bible and archaeology has practically ceased to trouble them.
 
The interpretation of the archaeological record in according to the Alternative model indicates a great congruence between it and the biblical history. In examining this statement I shall cite below descriptions of the basic characteristics of the various archaeological periods as they appear in the works of researchers of these periods. I have endeavored to follow the original words used and to include those characteristics on which most scholars agree. Because the term “congruence” is not susceptible of objective measurement, I will let the reader judge how well the Alternative model matches the biblical picture.
 

The Chalcolithic Period19 - According to the Alternative model, the end of this period coincides with the time of the Patriarchs.

 
The Chalcolithic period is characterized by a material culture of a developed agricultural society where the raising of sheep was the cornerstone of its economy. In this period a substantial wave of farmers and shepherds settled in the valleys of the Land of Israel and its borders. It appears that these settlers did not come across a rival population, and they were able to base themselves at scattered sites in the areas suitable for dwelling and pasture. Apparently even at this time the ass was serving as a beast of burden. The bones of deer found at several settlement sites showed that the inhabitants also engaged in hunting. Wheat, barley, and pulses are among the crops cultivated during this period. R. Ghophna writes about the close of this time: “A crisis that occurred in the land... lead to the abandonment of the villages...”20, and elsewhere he writes: “Apparently the destruction of the Ghassulian culture was caused by years of continuous famine that ravaged the land”21.
 
The Chalcolithic period is dated by Carbon 14 tests to the middle of the fourth millennium B.C.
 

The Early Bronze Age22 - According to the alternative model, it is the period of Israelite captivity in Egypt. The end of this period depicts the Land of Canaan on the eve of The Settlement.

 
In this period most of the large and important cities of the Land of Israel were built. These fortified cities left their mark on the landscape of the land and even today their ruins are scattered around in various regions. In the Early Bronze the might of these fortified cities reached its peak. Y. Aharoni writes: “The density of great walled cities has no parallel in any other period”23. Some scholars are of the opinion that the patterns of settlement at this time are evidence for the existence of small city-kingdoms. Settlements from this period are found in the Jordan valley, the Jezreel valley, the coastal plain, the Shephelah and the central hills. The economy of this period is characterized by the development of agriculture with its base in the Mediterranean cultivation of the olive and the vine.
 
Carbon 14 tests date the period to the beginning of the third millennium B.C.
 

The End of the Early Bronze Age and the Intermediate Bronze Age(M.B.I)24 - According to the Alternative Model: The period of the Conquest of Canaan by the Israelite tribes and the period of the Settlement.

 
The urban culture that flourished in the Land of Israel, was destroyed for reasons that are still not thoroughly clear. Most scholars take the view that this destruction was caused by a wave of invaders coming from the north. Y. Aharoni describes the destruction thus: “The destruction of the cities of Canaan was general and absolute, and not one city which has been examined up until now escaped its fate... The culture of the Early Canaanite period was wiped out and never rose again”25. A new period, the Middle Bronze age, began. This period is entirely different in every component from its predecessor. This change is expressed in every physical manifestation of its material culture: ceramics, arms and method of burial. The new settlements are found in all parts of the Land of Israel: In the valleys, the hills, the other side of the Jordan and also in the Galilee and the Negev. The new settlers penetrated into interior and border regions most of which had never been settled before. In the Negev mountains scores of settlements were found. Most of them being small sites composed of stone circles. K. Kenyon assumes from the burial customs of the new inhabitants that they were organized on tribal lines26.
 
Carbon 14 tests date this period to the end of the third millennium and the start of the second millennium B.C.
 

The Middle Bronze Age (M.B. IIa,b)27 - According to the Alternative Model: The period of the Judges and the United Kingdom (until the campaign of Shishak, king of Egypt).

 
B. Mazar describes the beginning of this period as follows: “This period is characterized by the complex, adventurous and unstable process of settling down on the part of the population of Canaan. An attractive picture of energetic development unfolds, exemplified in the building of cities and fortified towns throughout the land”28. An important component of these new fortifications is the strongly fortified gate. This type of new gate perhaps indicates that the military mobility made use of cavalry and chariots. Y. Aharoni writes about the social structure thus: “Large houses wefound which surely served the authorities or the local nobility... The composition of the population did not change significantly, and it seems that in the main the noble families were displaced with the help of troops of warriors attached”29. “Bamoth” or high places were used for worship. They were set up in scared areas. There was a widespread custom of erecting stelae in their vicinity and performing votive offerings on them. At the end of this period there was a wave of fortress construction in the hills and in the Shephelah, and these activities appear to suggest a feudal-type authority in the land30. Y. Aharoni describes the end of this period as follows: “The Canaanite period (M.B. IIb) is one of a flourishing population and economy all over the land that has only few parallels”31.
 
According to the Albright Model, this period is that of the biblical Patriarchs.
 

The Late Bronze Age32 - According to the Alternative Model: The period of the Divided Kingdom ending in the destruction of the Kingdom of Israel and the overthrow of the Kingdom of Judah.

 
More than any other period, this period is measured by reference to Egyptian history. It encompasses the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties, the days of the Egyptian empire, when Egypt ruled the Land of Israel. The Late Bronze age began with military conquest. At various Tells that have been excavated there is substantial destruction layer sometimes assigned to the military campaign of Thutmosis III. The destruction of various cities was accompanied by a considerable population and economic decline. Despite the continuation of settlement in most cities, no evidence has been found of public building enterprises during the first stage of this period. Various indications point to a reduction in the foreign trade that had enriched the cities. It appears that the decline and abandonment of various cities led to a fundamental change in the relative standing of the Canaanite cities. It cannot be assumed that a basic change took place in the status of the different kings of Canaan, but apparently the power of the central cities now grew. Their kings imposed their authority over wider area, and in addition to the capital city they also exercised control over provincial towns in its neighborhood. According to Albright33 this was a period of frequent revolts which did not last long.
 
Y. Aharoni writes as follows on the religion of the Late Bronze: “Although everything indicates that the Egyptians built the holy places, they were not dedicated to the Egyptian gods but to local Canaanite gods”34. Wright describes the pantheon in existence at that time: “The general Canaanite word for ‘God’ or ‘Divinity’ was ‘El’... The chief of all gods, or head of the divine family, was called ‘El’... El’s wife seems to have been Ashera, as her name is spelled in the Old Testament... While she was originally the mother-goddess, in practical worship her functions in the world are frequently mixed with those of the goddess of fertility... Chief among the offspring of El and Ashera, either as a son or grandson, was Baal, the most colorful and important of all gods... Baal was thought to be a great god who controlled the rain, and therefore the vegetation... Baal’s wife was Anath, a goddess of love and war...”35.
 
The end of the period is characterized by universal destruction in every city in the Land of Israel. Y. Aharoni writes: “In fact the cities of Canaan were destined for declined annihilation, after their brief final flowering in the El-Amarna period. This decline lasted for over 200 years. Not one city escaped its fate, and after the end of the 12th century, practically no city of refuge was left”36.
 
According to the Albright Model, this period covers the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan by the Israelite tribes.
 

Iron Age I37 - According to the Alternative Model, this is the period of the Babylonian and Persian conquests and the Return to Zion.

 
Intensive investigations into this period are presently being conducted by the new generation of archaeologists in Israel. Y. Finkelstein describes the process of settlement that took place at this time as follows38: The Settlement began on the backbone of the central hills between Jerusalem and the Jezreel valley. The new population that reached the land was mostly concentrated in territories of Ephraim and Manasseh. A few sites were also founded in Benjamin, Judah, the upper Shephelah, the Sharon and lower Galilee. Apparently settlement in the western hills, the Beer-Sheba valley, the northern Galille and the eastern lower Galilee only got under way at later stages of the period. There are various indications that in Manasseh, in the Iron I age, there was a strong authochthonous (local) population. Not all of the Iron age sites in Manasseh can be considered “Is”. It seems that additional non-Israelite settlement occurred in many areas of such as certain regions of the Galilee. There is doubt over the ethnic identity of these settlers, save for one element which may readily be identified from cultural point of view as Philistine. The poverty of the Settlement in Judah, as opposed to its great density in the hilly areas to the north, suggests that the new population entered the land on a narrow front from the east, not the south, and that most of the groups settling in Judah came from the north. This is not a military conquest, but the clear picture of an occupation of unpopulated areas39. With the strengthening of the Settlement on the backbone of the central hills, the Settlement process was extended. However, under pressure from the Philistines and other elements dwelling to their north, the Israelite population in the upper Shephelah and to the west of the Sharon withdrew. The number of settlers at Israelite sites is estimated at around 38,500, and the total population of the land of Israel at around 55,000.
 
According to the Albright Model, Iron age I represents the Settlement, the period of the Judges, and the start of the Monarchy.
 

Iron Age II40 - According to the Alternative Model: The Persian and the Early Hellenistic age.

 
At this stage the last Canaanite enclaves in the valleys were mopped up, and the Philistines were forced out of certain parts of the Shephela and the southern coast. The Jewish population extended to areas closed to them in the first part of the period. Judah became a lively center. Towards the end of the period there are signs of a great expansion of Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel. A chain of military fortresses spread over the land, apparently to safeguard the settlements and the roads. Some of the larger settlements and bases were without any proper fortification, and Y. Aharoni believes that this points out to a period of around 200 years during which no real force threatened security. At many places around half of the urban areas were devoted to public building, in particular blocks of store houses. Apparently, state administrative cites served as food depots. Various letters of the period detail the contents of the storehouses and instructions for their management. They mention the storage of wheat, wine and oil, issued to army troops and travelers in order of the central authorities. Another administrative innovation belongs to this period: jar handles were found at a number of Tells in Judah, bearing seal impressions which have a symbol at their center. Above it, there is the word “Lamelech” and below it, one of four names - Hebron, Ziph, Socho and Mamsheth. Clear indications of town planning appear in the Land of Israel. Y. Aharoni writes: “We are surprised by the conspicuous attainment of town planning... rapidity and consistency of town planning in the young kingdom is remarkable”41. City structures were erected in accordance with the principles of the “Four Room House” with two rows of pillars at the center. Prominent architectural features of this period are building with shaped stones and Proto-Aeolic capitals.
 
According to the Albright Model, Iron II represents the later Israelite monarchy culminating in the destruction of the First Temple.
 

The Persian Age42 - According to the Alternative Model : The Iron II stratum.

 
This period is one of the most unclear in the history of the Land of Israel. For all that, I believe it to be of great importance in testing the validity of the Alternative Model. Therefore, I will go also into matters that do not directly touch on the problem of a lack of connection between the archaeological record and the Old Testament. The studies of E. Stern have led to much development in the inquiry of this period, and what follows below is based on his works and publications.
Our knowledge of the material culture of the Persian period is not orderly, and is remarkably inferior to our knowledge of previous periods. This situation was caused by several reasons, connected both with the period itself and with the history of the actual research. The first researchers contributed to this position by mistakenly assigning artifacts from the Israelite period to the Persian period, and finds from the Persian period were assigned to the Hellenistic and other periods (such as assignment of a group of Persian graves at Gezer to the Philistine period). A certain degree of progress in researching the period started only at the second stage of archaeological investigation in the Land of Israel, namely, the period between the two world wars. At the excavations at Megido, the excavators failed to separate successfully the Persian settlement layer from its predecessors, although there was a Persian settlement at the site. Likewise, excavators at Beit-Shean also missed completely the Persian stratum. But at Athlit and Tell Abu Hawwam rich finds from the Persian period were found for the first time. Dating these finds was simple, since most were found in pits or tombs that included imported Attic ware and coins. Further progress was made thanks to excavations at several sites where no artifacts from this period were turned up. With the help of finds from this places Albright and Wright were able to distinguish between material from the end of the Israelite period and later material discovered at other sites. Despite this, scholars at that time did not have the means of distinguishing between artifacts from the Persian and Hellenistic periods. For all that, as this period of exploration wore on, the first attempts at coming to conclusions were made by Watzinger (1935) and Albright (1949). Albright concluded that there was a considerable continuity between the Israelite and Persian periods. The discoveries at level I of Megido, where Persian artifacts were mixed with a fair number of vessels from the Israelite period, prominently contributed to this conclusion.
 
The main progress in the study of this period has occurred in the most recent period of excavations in the Land of Israel, since the founding of the state of Israel. Settlement strata from the Persian period were discovered at a number of places, and the great quantity of material recovered from them enabled for the first time the making of proper typological comparison and the investigation of well-defined strata. Of special importance were the excavations at Hazor, Shikmona, Tell Megadim and Ein-Gedi. Important collections of statues and figurines were uncovered at Tell Michal, Tell Airani, and Tell Zippor. Excavations at Ramat-Rachel enriched our knowledge of seal impressions. Settlements of the Persian period were uncovered in the Shephelah and on the coast, and almost unbroken line of Persian ports was discovered in the south of the country. Relying upon the present state of research we can already conclude that there is clear evidence from the archaeological finds from the Persian period of an attempt to create continuity and links with preceding Judean kingdom. For example, there are seal impressions in which the name of the state Yehud appears together with the symbol of the Ayin which is found on Shekel weights of the kingdom of Judah. On other seal impressions of the Persian period there is the symbol for the lily, the last and the latest symbol of the kingdom of Judah. A weight turned up that had inscribed on it, in Aramic letters characteristic of the Persian period, the word Pim, an accepted name for a weight in the First Temple period. Some of the Persian pottery utensils clearly continue the tradition of utensils in the Israelite period. There is also a certain similarity between the style current in the Iron age period and between the Persian period in terms of the structure of city walls, town planning, some graves and the form of figurines. But we can say that the most striking excerption of the attempt to bridge the gap between the kingdom of Judah and the state of Yehud is the revival of the ancient Hebrew writing.
 
Many important questions about this period still remain open and pending. One conspicuous question is how, apparently, there is no proper archaeorepresentation at most of the prominent sites in the Land of Israel, especially Jerusalem, of one of the most important periods in this land, a period in which one of the greatest empires of the ancient world ruled the land, in which some of the toughest battles in its history were fought, in which major cities were captured and their inhabitants deported, in which the foundations of the Second Temple were laid and from which the Hasmonean state would grow. These are still unanswered questions for archaeologists and researchers of the period.
 
According to the Alternative Model, the Late Bronze age destruction stratum represents the destruction of the First Temple period. The reason why the archaeological record and the Old Testament’s historical account hardly match at all, has its roots in the attempt to assign to the stratum between the Late Bronze and Hellenistic layers the whole of Israelite history, from the settlement to the foundation of the Hasmonean state. Such points of congruence as have been found are in doubt and in dispute. The archaeologist who looks for the Settlement at the time of the Return to Zion will find it very difficult to find in signs of a widespread military conquest. The archaeological record will suggest a drawn-out settlement that consisted of a number of waves. By the same token, archaeologists will be hard pressed to find indications of flourishing economy and monumental building in those strata which belong to the renewal of Jewish settlement in the land after the destruction of the First Temple and assigned by them to the time of David and Solomon. They will also find it difficult to fit the Philistine artifacts, which belongs according to the Alternative Model to the start of Hellenistic settlement in the Land of Israel, into any kind of historical framework. Archaeologists searching at Tell Lachish in the Persian stratum for the destruction wrought by Sennacherib and Nebuchadnezzar will almost certainly run into serious chronological problems.
 
The correspondence between the archaeological record in the Land of Israel and the Old Testament account obtained by the adoption of the Alternative Model supports my hypothesis of the different dating of the strata.
 

The Interpretation of the Archaeological Record in the Land of Israel According to the Alternative Model

The Albright Model is a comprehensive system which functions well but which is not totally devoid of problems. In this article an alternative model has been put forward which proposes a solution to these problems, but the test of the new model is its ato explain the archaeological record in the Land of Israel in such a way that a comprehensive system is set up parallel to the existing system and able to function like it. To this end, a renewed and extensive examination of finds in the Land of Israel in the light of the Alternative Model has to be undertaken. An attempt to carry out such an examination was made in relation to the recent excavations at Tell Lachish43. The different dating of various strata at the Tell solved a host of problems that had occupied archaeologists since the time of Starkey’s expedition to the present day. The finds took entirely different meaning from that presently assigned to them, and several predictions derived from the new interpretation were proposed. This small-scale example reveals that adopting the Alternative Model indeed undermines the existing framework, but at the same time opens up new horizons for archaeological research in the Land of Israel. For all that, without extensive scientific research, all these matters will remain in the realm of hypothesis alone. Below are several examples which are likely to suggest possibilities inherent in a different interpretation of archaeological finds in the Land of Israel.
 
As a result of assigning the artifacts of the Iron age to the Persian period, we can reconstruct one of the most important periods in the history of the Land of Israel - the period of the Return to Zion and the beginning of the Second Temple period. At this time forts that served the Persian army spread over the land. Apparently the Jewish settlement in the land was responsible for some of the army’s supplies: Jews even attained commanding posts in it. After Alexander of Macedon won a number of decisive victories in the coastal strip, it seems that the withdrawing Persian army abandoned a substantial part of their chain of forts without a struggle44. The so-called Philistine ceramics and the Proto-Aeolian capitals are among the first signs of Greek settlement in the Land of Israel. “Lamelech” jars testify to the administrative division of the land in the Early Hellenistic period. The “calm” settlement set up inconspicuously in several waves and the poverty of the Israelite settlement in its early stages reveal the many difficulties in the path of the returnees in their endeavor to reassert their hold on the land. Around the end of the Iron age there was an expansion of the Jewish settlement, and against this background we are able to understand the Hasmonean revolt and their success in their military campaign.
 
An additional example relates to the strata preceding the Iron age. According to the Alternative Model we might have expected many more artifacts bearing on them Jewish indications, and especially Hebrew writing from the Late Bronze period. The paucity of such finds shows that perhaps we will have to change our views on the distribution of Hebrew writing during the First Temple period. However, this could be archaeological ill-fortune. On this subject Y. Aharoni writes: “It seems that it is only by chance that we have not discovered hitherto an archive in one of the Tells in the Land of Israel”45. On the same subject Albright wrote: “There can be no doubt that there is much historically significant material buried in the mounds of Palestine”46. Further excavations in the Late Bronze stratum are capable of throwing new light on this question. In my opinion, this stratum conceals monumental Hebrew stelae and the royal archives of the kings of Judah and Israel. This problem aside, the Alternative Model has helped us to restore the historical authenticity of the Old Testament, the most comprehensive ancient document, the most accessible and best preserved of all other ancient records. In consequence, a mutual support system between the archaeological record and the Bible is created, whereby archaeological finds shed new light on many biblical records and the Old Testament helps to solve complex archaeological problems. One can put forward, relying on the Alternative Model, a number of hypotheses likely to appear as utter fantasies to the researchers anchored to the accepted framework of concepts. For example, the Chalcolithic hoard found at Nahal Mishmar could well be connected to the religious ceremonies of the people of Sodom and Gomorra, and its hiders perished in the disaster that befell these cities47. The ancient Canaanite artifacts discovered in Sinai and the finds from the Middle Bronze I in the Negev mountains are possible archaeological evidence for the wanderings of the Israelites in the wilderness after the Exodus. The walls of Jericho from the Early Bronze period are indeed, as Garstang thought, the walls that fell before the Israelites entering the land at the start of the Settlement period. The underground tunnel complex at Hazor is a hideaway from the period of the Judges. Likewise, we may understand and interpret the Biblical description of Jerusalem at the time of the first temple in a new way. Concepts such as Ha’mishneh, Ha’milo, Ha’saviv, Mezudat David, and the course of the city walls take on a meaning different from that assigned to them today. These examples suggest many possibilities hidden in the wider excavation of Bronze age strata. Such excavations will enable the confirmation or the refutation of the Alternative Model proposed here.
 

Summary and Conclusions

The Alternative Model which has been presented here is independent of Egyptian chronology, and relies essentially on matching archaeological finds from the Land of Israel with the outline of the thistorical process accepted by most scholars. I have tried to show that the use of this model solves a number of problems with which the science of archaeology has grappled for the past fifty years. But this model does not fit in with the accepted history of the Near East in the second millennium B.C. The historical concepts connected with ancient Greece, the Hittite kingdom, the Ugaritic writings, the El-Amarna letters and indeed the entire history of Egypt in the second millennium B.C. do not match the historical conclusions that must follow from the Alternative Model. However, we have to remember that much of the historical framework of the Near East in the second millennium B.C. was reconstructed with the aid of Egyptian artifacts discovered in different lands, and in reliance on Egyptian chronology. The casting doubt on the authenticity of the accepted Egyptian chronology undermines the fundamental basis on which it is built. The rule is that archaeological works are determining factor in any historical reconstruction, and historical conclusions derive from the record of the excavations, not the other way round. If so, the archaeological record in the Land of Israel must serve as fixed point for the construction of comprehensive historical framework. We must redate Egyptian artifacts in the Land of Israel according to their stratigraphical placement. As a result of the chronological and historical implications that will be given to Egyptian artifacts in the Land of Israel we may try to reconstruct Egyptian chronology and afterwards build according to it a historical framework encompassing the Near East. This road obliges a change in concepts and attitudes accepted by historians for the last 150 years. But the readiness to change attitudes and shatter accepted concepts was always and always be the inheritance of scientists persevering in uncompromising search for truth.
 


Notes

1. Breasted, A., History of Egypt (2nd editon. 1961) p. 23.
2. Gardiner, A., Egypt of the Pharaohs, Oxford University Press, London (1961), pp. 46-47.
3. Hall, H.R., “Egyptian chronology”, Cambridge Ancient History I, p.167.
4. For a detailed discussion of this subject see:

Courville, D.A., The Exodus Problem, Challenge Books, California (1971), volume II, pp. 48-89.
Velikovsky, I., Astronomy and Chronology, in Peoples othe Sea, Doubleday (1977), pp. 215-245.
  1. Aharoni, Y., The Archaeology of The Land of Israel, Shikmona (1978), p. 84 [Hebrew].
  2. Stern, E., The Material Culture of Eretz Israel in the Persian Period, Mossad Bialik (1973), preface. [Hebrew].
  3. “...None of these pits can positively be defined as an installation of any sort, and their purpose therefore remains unclear.”
Ben-Tor, A., Portugaly, Y., Avissar, M., Excavations at Tell Yoqneam, IEJ vol. 33, (1983), p. 33.
  1. Mazar, A., Tell Qasile, Haarez Museum, Tel-Aviv (1983).
  2. Stern, E., The Material Culture of Eretz Israel in the Persian Period (note 6), p.9.
  3. Avigad, N,. The Upper City of Jerusalem, Shikmona (1980), p. 49. [Hebrew].
  4. Ibid. p.71.
  5. See for example the stratigraphic alignment at Tel Qasile, Beit-Shemesh, Beit-Shean, Tell Mor, etc.
  6. For a discussion of the subject see: Stern, E., The Material Culture of Eretz Israel in the Persian Period (note 6), p. 77.
  7. Herzog, Z,. Tell Michal, Trading Post for the Shore, Qadmoniot 14, parts 3-4, p. 99. [Hebrew].
  8. See note 9.
  9. Ben-Dov, M,. Excavations at the Temple Mount, Keter (1982), p. 52. [Hebrew].
  10. See for example: Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in Eretz Israel (1970), Ashdod, p. 20. [Hebrew].
  11. Aharoni, Y,. Beth-Haccherem, in: Archaeology and Old Testament Study, D. Winton Thomas (Ed.), Oxford (1967), p. 174.
  12. According to:
1. Aharoni, Y., The Chalcolithic period , in: The Archaeology of Erez Israel (note 5), pp. 38-48.
2. Gophna, R., The Chalcolithic period, in: The History of Erez Israel, Keter (1982), volume I, pp. 76-94. [Hebrew].
  1. Gophna, R., The Chalcolithic period, in: The History of Erez Israel (note 19), p. 76.
  2. Ibid. p. 98.
  3. According to:
1. Aharoni, Y,. The Early Canaanite Period, in: The Archaeology of Erez Israel (note 5), pp. 50-76.
2. Gophna R., Erez Israel at the Dawn of History, in: The History of Erez Israel, Keter (1982), volume I, pp. 97-120.
  1. Aharoni, Y., The Archaeology of Erez Israel (note 5), p. 59.
  2. According to:
1. Aharoni, Y., The Middle Canaanite Period I, in: The Archaeology of Erez Israel (note 5), pp. 76-83.
2. Gophna, R., The Middle Bronze I Age, in: The History of Erez Israel, Keter (1982), volume I, pp. 119-127.
3. Kenyon, K., Archaeology in the Holy Land, Norton N.Y. (1979), The Arrival of the Amorites, pp. 119-147.
  1. Aharoni, Y., The Archaeology of Erez Israel (note 5), p. 76.
  2. Kenyon, K., Archaeology in the Holy Land (note 24), p. 121.
  3. According to:
1. Aharoni, Y., The Middle Canaanite Period, in: The Archaeology of Erez Israel (note 5), pp. 84-102.
2. Mazar, B,. Canaan and Israel, Mossad Bialik (1980), The Middle Bronze age in Erez Israel, pp. 48-83. [Hebrew].
  1. Mazar, B., Canaan and Israel (note 27), p. 52.
  2. Aharoni, Y., The Archaeology of Erez Israel (note 5), pp. 99-101.
  3. Mazar, B., Canaan and Israel (note 27), p. 76.
  4. Aharoni, Y., The Archaeology of Erez Israel (note 5), p. 97.
  5. According to:
1. Aharoni, Y., The Late Canaanite Period, in: The Archaeology of Erez Israel (note 5), pp. 103-136.
2. Albright, W.F., The Archaeology of Palestine, Penguin (1949), pp. 96-109.
3. Wright, G.E., Biblical Archaeology, The Westminister Press (1957), The Gods of Canaan, pp. 106-111.
  1. Albright, W.F., The Archaeology of Palestine (note 32), p. 99.
  2. Aharoni, Y., The Archaeology of Erez Israel (note 5), p. 110.
  3. Wright, E.G., Biblical Archaeology (note 32), p. 106.
  4. Aharoni, Y., The Archaeology of Erez Israel (note 5), p. 135.
  5. According to: Finkelstein, Y,. The Extent of the Israelite Population in the Period of the Settlement, Cathedra 32 (July 1984), pp. 3-22. [Hebrew].
  6. See: Finkelstein, Y,. Ibid.
  7. Aharoni, Y., The Archaeology of Erez Israel (note 5), p. 149.
  8. According to:
1. Aharoni, Y., The United Monarchy, The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, The Archaeology of Erez Israel (note 5), pp. 169-241.
2. Finkelstein, Y,. The Extent of the Israelite Population in the Period of the Settlement (note 37), pp. 3-22.
  1. Aharoni, Y., The Archaeology of Erez Israel (note 5), p. 135.
  2. According to Stern, E,.:
1. The Material Culture of Erez Israel in the Persian Period (note 6).
2. The State of ‘Yehud’ in Prophecy and Reality, Cathedra 4 (July 1976). [Hebrew].
  1. Etzion, Y., Tell Lachish, Facts and Interpretations, working paper (July, 1984).
  2. Meshel, Z,. Who Built the “Israelite Forts” in the Negev Mountains, Cathedra 11, p. 27.
  3. Aharoni, Y., The Archaeology of Erez Israel (note 5), p. 109.
  4. Albright, W.F., The Archaeology of Palestine (note 32), p. 103.
  5. I heard this idea from J. T. Hantke in a personal conversation.
Back to the home page