Archaeologica.org

Yeah yeah yeah blah blah blah. I was being facetious. It was kind of a dig at you and at Bob. Ya'll both sound silly at this point. It's like two monkeys in neghboring cages flinging shit at each other. Its fun to watch for a while, but after a while it just freaking stinks.

Alright. I'm not sure what you are trying to show here, arch. #'s 1, 4, 6 and 7 post-date the period of interest of Finkelstein's book as they date from the first century AD. The Dead Sea scrolls are of importance to scholars but for the purposes of this discussion somewhat irrelevant. It would be like finding the manuscript of Gone With The Wind and saying "Eureka! This proves that the copies are based on the manuscript." I don't know that this was ever seriously in doubt. The boat, while an interesting artifact proves only that they had boats in the first century AD, again, not a big dispute about that. The ossuary of Caiaphas (Qafa) proves only that there was a family named Qafa. They have already found a house attributed to Caiaphas and that proves nothing more than the family existed....not what any member of the family did or did not do. As far as Pilate goes, there was no doubt about his existence either, as the author admits from coins and the writings of Roman and non-Roman authors. Thus, the inclusion of this particular monument as one of the "Top Ten" merely serves to show the relative paucity of such finds during the 20th century. Had the author been willing to expand his scope just slightly he could have added in the Merneptah stele (found in 1896) by Flinders Petrie and bearing the earliest reference to "Israelites" but, it's his list and he is free to pick and choose as he wishes.

Before dealing with the remainder let me refresh the discussion. There are essentially 3 schools of thought.

The fundamentalist (christian, jewish and islamic) school which just knows that every word written was written by god and DEATH to anyone who disagrees!

The Revisionist (or Minimalist) School which claims that the entire thing is a fiction written during the Hellenistic Period (4th-3'd centuries BC).

and,

The Current Archaeological School which finds that artifacts and ground surveys show that there was some semblance of history included in biblical accounts for periods beginning in the early Iron Age (Iron Age I) and, in so doing, have managed to piss off the fanatics on both sides of the question to no end.

So, with that in mind, let's begin:

#2 - The Tel Dan stele: Finkelstein uses this to demonstrate the fallacy of the Revisionist point of view.

The fact that Judah (or perhaps its capital, Jerusalem) is referred to with only a mention of its ruling house is clear evidence that the reputation of David was not a literary invention of a much later period.

Thus, Finkelstein is clearly of the opinion that while a Davidic dynasty did exist it was the deeds and accomplishments of this dynasty which were expanded by subsequent biblical authors for their own reasons.

#3 - Finkelstein does not make a big deal of this one (Dever does in his book on Early Israelite religion, I think, but I don't feel like looking it up right now.) HOwever, Finkelstein would have no problem with this assertion.

The tomb dates to the end of the Davidic dynasty, approximately the seventh century BC. The silver amulet thus dates to the end of the seventh or early sixth century.

A sixth century date, or even a century earlier, is consistent with his findings of literacy beginning as the state of Judah grew up after the obliteration of the Northern Kingdom at the hands of the Assyrians.

#5 - While being technically correct your author is either being deliberately dishonest or, at best, really putting a fine edge on what he includes and excludes from this category of artifact. Finkelstein, in an appendix, mentions the use of seals and seal impressions peaking in the late 6th century BC, i.e. the time of Josiah. Where Finkelstein and Schoville part company (not really a good choice of words since Finkelstein merely elects to go farther) is that Finkelstein also shows that there are associated artifacts in the form of limstone weights and measures with the seals. He posits that this marks the beginning of commerce and the seals mark the need for the record-keeping which goes hand in hand with commerce. Primitive economies, such as Judah was prior to the collapse of Israel, have no need of such items. Now, Finkelstein goes further in that he also notes that figurines of a woman supporting her breasts with her hands are also found throughout the territory of Judah at this time. He doesn't make a big deal out of it but Dever cites these figurines as proof of the continued existence of the Asherah cult, side by side with the Yahweh cult and when the bible writers bitch and moan about idol worshippers they are really talking about their own people who have not been won over to the Yahweh-alone state cult. By inference, the King lacked the power or will to enforce the desires of the priests...but again, that's Dever not Finkelstein and he wrote a whole book on the subject which cannot be covered in sufficient depth here.

#8 - I don't see why this is such a vital inclusion. Ekron has been well established as a Canaanite city which was taken over by the Philistines after their defeat by Rameses III. It is a stretch to say that the fact that two of the rulers being named on the stone 'prove' the bible and I don't think Schoville is saying that. Again, those two rulers are well into what Finkelstein would consider the historical period of the bible, where literacy in the kingdom of Judah as well as full statehood had been achieved. There is simply no argument here from a scholarly point of view.

#9 - As Schoville himself states, "This is a controversial pick, because the interpretation of the discovery is far from settled" , however, he also points out

he had found a great quantity of pottery sherds lying around the large pile of stones. The sherds dated to Iron Age I, ca. 1220-1000 BC, the period in which Israelites apparently settled in Canaan,

Which is, A) consistent with the Merneptah stele carved around 1207 BC, and equally consistent with Finkelstein's Iron Age I date for the rise of the Israelites in Canaan.

Finkelstein does not reference the altar, as Schoville says, it is far from acceptance, however he does cite Zertal as a pottery expert in another section of the book dealing with the the arrival of Assyrian settlers after the Israelites were deported from the Bethel area.

#10 - Finkelstein makes several references to Ugarit...notably that they were first warned about the Sea Peoples by the Hittites and then overrun by them and the city burned to the ground. They are in full agreement on the date of the destruction of the city. While a significant find archaeologically, all that the city proves is that there were Canaanites in Canaan which I don't think was ever seriously in dispute.

Again, the findings of a whole century of archaeology in Schoville's opinion do not show any significant disagreement with Finkelstein's work.

But, again, I applaud the fact that you made an effort to use archaeology to support your position and it makes for a much more civil debate.

Yeah yeah yeah blah blah blah. I was being facetious

and here i thought you were mellowing, frank.

i will get to minimalists post later

Take your time.

I'm not sure what you are trying to show here, arch. #'s 1, 4, 6 and 7 post-date the period of interest of Finkelstein's book as they date from the first century AD

i just found the list on a random search. unfortunately,i don't get the kind of time you have to put enough research into these posts

it is nice to see the mention of someone else other than finkelstein and dever though you quote finkelsteinlike he is the final authority on the matter.

Had the author been willing to expand his scope just slightly he could have added in the Merneptah stele (found in 1896) by Flinders

it was onlya top ten list and i am sure he missed some good discoveries. i will see what i can come up with in the next day or two, i have a couple of lax days at school, no classes, soi might get time then.

it is nice to see the mention of someone else other than finkelstein and dever though you quote finkelsteinlike he is the final authority on the matter.

Well, I did start the thread to discuss "Current Archaeology" and the two most prolific authors on that score at the moment are Finkelstein and Dever. Again, as I have mentioned before, Finkelstein (and his colleague, Silbermann) are writing for laymen to explain the latest findings of field archaeologists. How many of us would be able (or willing) to wade through the actual primary source material in professional journals?

it was onlya top ten list and i am sure he missed some good discoveries

He limited himself to the Top 10 discoveries of the Biblical World in the 20th century and 1896 misses it by 4 years. Still, were it my list, I would have included the 1906 discovery of the Hittite archives but, WTH, it's not my list.

Still, were it my list, I would have included the 1906 discovery of the Hittite archives but, WTH, it's not my list.

yes that would have been a better addition

In Archaeologyof the Land and the Bible; 10,000-586 b.c.e., amihai mazar states this about the united kingdom, (pg. 369)

"The Bible is the only written source conserning the united monarchy,and it is therefore the basis of any historical presentation of the period..."

then he says...

"The tribal structure and leadership of the Israelites during the period of the judges did not withstand the test of time. The greater the pressure fromneighboring states, the greater was the need for a centralized form of government."

plus..(on pg. 371)

"Unfortunately, the archaeological evidence for the period of the united monarchy is sparse, often controversial, and it does not provide unequivical answers to these questions."

so if you are waiting for me to place in your lap any evidence to convinv\ce you the Bible is true for that period then you have a long wait. a wait you may not be able to afford.

on page 371 & 374 he mentions...

"The time of saul hardly finds any expression in the archaeological record...a corner of an extensive fortress which was discovered there may have been part of of saul's headquarters."

now of course due to the arbitrary means of dating it is possible that other archaeologists attribute this fortress to another time period. they may be right and they may be wrong. needless to say, the arch. record is sketchy at best.

then lateron on page 374 we find...

"Excavations onthe steep eastern slope of this hill...have revealed an imposing edifice, known as the 'stepped structure', which may be tentatively be attributed to the 10th century b.c.e.. it is a huge retaining wall, preserved to a heightof 16.5 m, which apparantly supported a monumental building of which no remians were found. The identification of this construction with David's fortress of zion (1 chron. 11:5) is tempting. The wall's location, on the summit of the hill above the Gihon spring, would be more appropriate for david than for soloman, whose acropolis was constructed further north. Later during the period of the Monarchy, when the city expanded to the eastern slopes of the hill, this enormous structure became obselete."

i think the evidence isthere, but there is not enough of it to stop skeptics from wrongfully dating the discoveries to fit their own belief about what took place during that time period.

i have yet to finish the book and may do so soon. it is quite an interesting read, one that seems more fair and balanced in comparison to finkelstein.

YOu were doing so well there until you lapsed back into Faith with your next to the last sentence. I'll let you finish, though.

One thing you may need to keep in mind is that Mazar and Finkelstein are not that far apart in the chronologies they support. Check out this link about a conference at Oxford University.


http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/issu ... php?page=4

In the fall of 2004, Mazar and Finkelstein each presented their contradictory theses at a conference at Oxford, England, and each brought in a physicist to analyze the radiocarbon dating of the objects from Megiddo. But since the margin of error for radiocarbon dating is about 50 years—within the difference between the competing chronologies—both could claim validation for their theories. The discrepancy of 50 years might seem like splitting hairs, but the implications reverberate into the present day.

Dever and Finkelstein differ by about 120 years so the 50 between Mazar and Finkelstein is really minor.


BTW, after this conference the C14 gang was apparently stung into action. I found this report on a study from 2005.

The paper also 'takes a stab' at dating the Iron I/II transition which comes
> out around 910-875 BC (using distribution peaks rather than the more appropriate 1 or
> 2-sigma range which would cover roughly mid 10th to mid 9th century), thus apparently very much in favour of
> Finkelstein's 'low chronology'. I say 'takes a stab' because this is only a rough estimate of the transition, as the
> authors admit at the end of their conclusions - in the previously published Dor results, the Iron I/II transition was
> fixed closely by stratigraphy and then carbon dated (BASOR 332 [2003], p.55) whereas the present results are
> stratigraphically much looser than those at Dor and seem to be giving a point somewhere between destructions late in
> Iron I and destructions part way through Iron IIA, and thus could be giving a date somewhat into Iron IIA rather than
> at the beginning of Iron IIA.
>
> It is difficult to imagine that these results will force Mazar to alter his
> 'Modified Conventional Chronology' by very much (Iron IIA c.980-830 BC).
> However, the article says that many more results are in preparation.

I'll take a crack at finding the actual study later today...assuming it has been published online.

arch,

Still no luck on finding the actual C14 study however, I did come across this tidbit.

Before you have your lips surgically attached to Mazar's ass you might want to see exactly what he is saying.


http://www.britac.ac.uk/events/2005/anc ... -mazar.htm

Demography, urbanization, the archaeology of certain key sites, and literacy have been used in the past as arguments against the existence of a strong United Monarchy. A renewed survey of these subjects leads to a more balanced evaluation of the United Monarchy, and of the emergence of the independent states of Israel and Judah. The kingdom of David and Solomon should not be described as a magnificent empire, yet there is enough evidence to interpret them as polities of regional importance, based on local charismatic leadership. Changes in the material culture during the 10th century might be related to the geo-political changes that took place then.

Underlining added.

Before you have your lips surgically attached to Mazar's ass you might want to see exactly what he is saying.

there is no worries about that.

The kingdom of David and Solomon should not be described as a magnificent empire, yet there is enough evidence to interpret them as polities of regional importance, based on local charismatic leadership.

the word 'magnificent' could be refering to emoires like the asyrians or thepersians or even the minoans but doesn't discount the levels reached as described inthe Biblical account.

i wouldn't be surprised if mazar was hedging a bit as his book is written in more of a looking at the issues style than being definitive about the discoveries. you will see that in the quotes i posted. i will get tothe book sometime today or tomorrow. just finished schoch's book which spent too much time on trying to link everything to pyramids and not enough time studying them.

Mazar has to prove his "Modified Conventional Chronology" to get even that far....and those results appear to be going against him, at least insofar as the snippets of data I've been able to find dealing with C14 testing.

Still unable to find the entire article but here is an abstract of a review from Radiocarbon, a professional journal.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/a ... 1/art00007

Archaeometry is becoming an increasingly important tool in chronological research related to events in the Ancient Near East during the 2nd millennium BCE. This paper is a review of recently published radiometric results in an attempt to establish the probable dating range for one particular event that occurred during the last quarter of that millennium, the end of the Late Bronze Age. The conclusion is that in spite of significant improvements in methodology in recent years, the quantity and quality of radiocarbon data are still insufficient to define the range of that date to much better than a century. It is concluded that the most likely date of the Late Bronze/Iron Age transition (here defined by the arrival of Mycenaean LH IIIC:1b pottery in the Levant) is somewhere in the 8-decade range between ∼1170 to 1100 BCE. A comparative study of archaeological and historical evidence would appear to favor the lower value.

Note that the date range specified includes the year 1155 when Rameses III defeated the Sea People. Nonetheless, this cannot be good news for Mazar.

[/quote]

Mazar has to prove his "Modified Conventional Chronology" to get even that far....and those results appear to be going against him, at least insofar as the snippets of data I've been able to find dealing with C14 testing

i don't know, i think it boils down to what i have said in the past and here are some quotes to back me up:

mazar's book pg. 107:
"Some scholars interpret the egyptian finds in southern palestine as merely representing trade relations, others argue for active egyptian colonization in southern canaan, still others claim that the egyptians invaded the region."

then. pg. 175
"this term is maintianed by many and will be used in this book, though other scholars (such as K.M. Kenyon, W.G.Dever, E.D. Oren...) call the same period 'Middle Bronze I' as a result of the renaming of the previous period."

so , again it boils down to how one interprets the evidence, who you are going to believe and so on. i don't think Dever and kenyon had/have much motivation to agree with the Bible and can be easily sawyed to alternative interpretations.

on another note, i think there is too much hair splitting on the naming of each period. i remember when it was so simple, now they have divisions, sub-divisions and sub-sub-divisions. i think people are making it too complicated and i think they are doing it for a reason.

mazar's book pg. 107:
"Some scholars interpret the egyptian finds in southern palestine as merely representing trade relations, others argue for active egyptian colonization in southern canaan, still others claim that the egyptians invaded the region."

You don't indicate which time period Mazar is speaking about. AT various times, each of those options was true because Egypt waxed and waned as a world power. There are Egyptian sources which fill in the blanks...depending on which blanks need to be filled in.

then. pg. 175
"this term is maintianed by many and will be used in this book, though other scholars (such as K.M. Kenyon, W.G.Dever, E.D. Oren...) call the same period 'Middle Bronze I' as a result of the renaming of the previous period."

so , again it boils down to how one interprets the evidence, who you are going to believe and so on. i don't think Dever and kenyon had/have much motivation to agree with the Bible and can be easily sawyed to alternative interpretations.

Now you're getting into anti-bible conspiracy theories, again. Kenyon blew the lid off the Jericho/Joshua nonsense in 1957 when Dever was still an undergraduate student so you are really pushing the conspiracy theory off the deep end, there.

on another note, i think there is too much hair splitting on the naming of each period. i remember when it was so simple, now they have divisions, sub-divisions and sub-sub-divisions. i think people are making it too complicated and i think they are doing it for a reason.

Possibly but things tend to get complicated when they are studied in depth. Be honest, arch, you want everyone to fall on their knees for your precious bible and let it go at that. That just isn't good enough for me.

You don't indicate which time period Mazar is speaking about

sorry, i will double check it.

Kenyon blew the lid off the Jericho/Joshua nonsense in 1957

that is just the point, she was wrong. her dating was very arbitrary and one of her major errors. i kinow of others who disagree with her as well.

Be honest, arch, you want everyone to fall on their knees for your precious bible and let it go at that.

you can only do that if God leads you to it, i canonly present and thenlive it up to God to work. ideally, you are correct but in reality i know that many will not. but i have to be true to the message of the Bible regardless.