The discipline of archaeology is still relatively new compared to other subjects. Every year, new discoveries are shaping the way scholars view the history, people and religion of the Ancient Near East (henceforth ANE). Admittedly to most, their approach to these topics began with religious presuppositions tied to either a Christian or Jewish background. The Western/Modern desire to “prove” the Bible with archaeology is unique to the Judeo/Christian religions who has used it apologetically in response to scientific work done in the Middle East. When addressing these two very different fields of archaeology and biblical studies, scholars have been placed on a spectrum in which they have been labeled as “maximalists” and “minimalists,” referring to the integration of the comparative biblical data with the historical, archaeological data.
A minimalist perspective assigns little to no historical value in the biblical text, more specifically the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible. These texts are considered late (6th - 5th centuries BCE) and do not contain solid, historical context to the archaeological data. Therefore, any attempt to integrate biblical data with archaeological data is useless and hurtful to the discipline. Proponents of this view are Neils Peter Lemche, Thomas Thompson, Philip Davis, and Israel Finkelstein along with others from Tel Aviv University.
The complete opposite side of the spectrum, which is the maximalist prospective, is held by many “conservative” scholars who have embraced the archaeological finds and employ them apologetically and polemically. However, this typically leads to a surface-level reading of the biblical text and also results in archaeology used as an evangelism tool in order to combat skeptics. An extreme maximalist view is just as dangerous as the minimalist view, in that it limits the text according to its historical value rather than what it has to say theologically. Toward the end of this study, I will attempt to give a healthy view of both the Bible and archaeology, addressing weaknesses and strengths to linking both ideologies.
Pioneers of Biblical Archaeology
Prior to the Enlightenment (17th and 18th Centuries CE) the Bible was the authority on most scientific and biological issues. The characters and events in the narrative were assumed to be historical and most universities and centers for higher education where, first and foremost, places of theology and training grounds for clergymen. Early in the 17th Century, a skepticism formed around the Church and a desire for philosophical rationalism fell upon the major scholars of the world. The miracle narratives of the Bible were in question as were its divinely inspired nature. Perhaps the subject of the most critique was that of Mosaic authorship and the composition of the Pentateuch (or Torah, Genesis – Deuteronomy). German scholar Johan Eichhorn, influenced by French scholar Jean Astruc, were of the first to formulate the “older documentary hypothesis” suggesting that the book of Genesis was composed by two identifiable source, the “J” source (called the Yahwist) and the “E” source (the Elohists), referring to places in Genesis where the author subscribes to the name of God either as his covenant tetragrammaton, “YHWH,” or the generic name for God, “Elohim.” Later scholars eventually identified two other sources, “P” (the Priestly source) and “D” (the Deuteronomist) respectively.
This eventually led to the German school of thought led by Julius Wellhausen in 1878 and his revolutionary work, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels in 1883. Thus the “JEPD” Theory (otherwise known as the Documentary Hypothesis, “DH”) was born and became standard in biblical scholarship as the way to correctly interpret the Pentateuch in the 19th century continuing into the 20th century. This period of modernism along with Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species ushered in a century of apologetics and polemics in biblical studies by conservative scholars’ frontline attempts to “dig up” proof of the Bible by means of archaeology in the Middle East.
Prior to work in the Palestine under the British Mandate, convergences with archaeological data and the Bible were already underway in Mesopotamia and Egypt. Discoveries such as the Rosetta Stone in Egypt, and the Behistun Inscription in Iran, unlocked the language of hieroglyphics and cuneiform in such a way that allowed orientalists and scholars to study ancient empires lost by time. Continued work by the British in the late 19th century resulted in the excavations of Nimrud and Nineveh, and successfully brought in a new discipline of “Assyriology.” This quickly introduced connections to the Patriarchal period and texts contemporaneous to the Mesopotamian Empires.
After growing support from the Western world in data collected from the Middle East, organizations such as the Palestinian Exploration Fund (PEF) and the Society for Biblical Archaeology were created, and efforts were made to explore and excavate in Palestine. Pioneers in archaeological work in the Levant include names like Charles Warren, William Flinders Petrie, Earnest Sellin and George Reisner began excavations in Palestine under the authority of the British Mandate. Their successes ushered in the “Golden Age of Archaeology” which attracted mass attention to Europe and America. William Foxwell Albright, G. Ernest Wright and Yigael Yadin began a scientific standard which addressed the historical reliability of the Old Testament.
The Death and Resurrection of "Biblical" Archaeology
William G. Dever, a disciple of G. Ernest Wright, and former director of the Program for Ancient Near Eastern Archaeology and Anthropology at the University of Arizona, has been at the forefront in the discussion of “biblical archaeology.” He entered the field as a Protestant clergyman but became enamored with archaeology while studying under Wright and working at the Shechem excavations. He eventually tried to breath new life into archaeology by divorcing it entirely from biblical studies, instead allowing it to function under the subject of anthropology. He argued that the Hebrew Bible only deals with a specific time frame in Israel’s history, the Middle Bronze age (2000-1550 BCE) to the Persian Period (538-400 BCE) in the Old Testament, a span of approximately 1500 years. The questions asked of archaeology relating to the Bible are only limiting the discipline in its scope. Archaeology can also answer questions to the Neolithic Period/Stone Age (8,500 BCE) through the Early Bronze Age (2400-2000 BCE) in Palestine (a span of 6,500 years).
Dever even championed for a name change from “biblical archaeology” to “Syro-Palestinian Archaeology” to include more dialogue from archaeologists who specialize in different time periods and locations in the Levant which include Anatolia, Syria and Lebanon. This would also expand the discipline by introducing experts in different fields such as anthropology, metallurgy, chemistry, botany, GIS (global information systems), etc.
This name change was not received ceremoniously. He was accused of killing a discipline which his predecessors had established and mastered. However, there came another problem with the name change. The mass media attention in the early and mid 1900s was gathered on the assumption that archeology was discovering new and exciting data which illuminated the Bible. Although it ushered in new scientific studies on archaeological work in Palestine, there was a divorce from dialogue with those in biblical studies. On a separate note, archaeologists, whose funding for excavation and publishing depended on benefactors, immediately saw that philanthropists (especially religious) were less inclined to fund Syro-Palestinian archaeology rather than the more intriguing “biblical archaeology.” Dever later revised and even accepted the era of “New Biblical Archaeology” as the methods of the discipline had been established scientifically as well as benefited from the interested gathered by those involved in biblical studies.
Unfortunately for some, the change went from a divorce, to complete mistreatment of the biblical text as an ancient document. Mainly from the Copenhagen School and those from the Tel Aviv School, a minimalistic view was the only correct to way to perform archaeology in the Levant and address the theology and nature of the Hebrew Bible. The prevailing view of those whom fall into this camp, believe the Hebrew Bible to be a product of the Persian Period (5th Century BCE) or even to the Hellenistic Period (3rd to 2nd Centuries BCE). Most conservative scholars typically do not have a problem dating some of the biblical texts to a Hellenistic or Persian redactor/compiler, however the minimalist school believe most of the Hebrew Bible to be propaganda created to establish a national identity to the Jews and give them claim to the land from their Hellenistic/Persian rulers and Arab neighbors.
Finkelstein and co. have adjusted their chronology of the many occupations in Israel and have questioned the evidence (or lack thereof) of major biblical periods such as the patriarchal period, the Exodus, the Conquest, and the Judean Monarchy. The remainder of this paper will address these three subjects which have been argued on the basis of archaeology providing both sides along with the data.
The Patriarchal Model
Albright had been one the first to attribute the patriarchal period to the Middle Bronze Age I and began his chronology with the text. He assumed that sites with an EBIV/MB I and II (19th and 18th Centuries BCE) occupations showed signs of migration from Mesopotamia into Palestine. However, Dever, Thomas Thompson and Van Seters attacked Alrbight’s models based on the evidence of nomadism and pastoralism. Rather, it appeared that the MBII was an already flourishing occupation at many sites, such as Gezer, Shechem and Bethel (Davis 2004, 155).
The minimalist position of the Patriarch Narratives have been challenged by several conservative scholars, namely John Bimson, Alfred Hoerth and Kenneth Kitchen. They have argued that archaeology cannot prove the existence of Abraham and the Patriarchs, but rather it suggests that a nomadic family could have existed and migrated in the time from of EBIV or in the MBII periods. Additionally, most sites have continual occupation in the EBIV or MBII periods with the exception of perhaps Beer-Sheba however Kitchen notes that the town “Beer-Sheba” may be a later editorial referring to a settlement (Kitchen 2006, 336). Kitchen also addresses a popular argument of the use of camels in the patriarchal narratives in which claims that the domestication of such animals happen much later. He argues however, that there is quite a number of archaeological finds referring to the domestication of camels found in the Egyptian Fayum (Pottery A), a MB tomb at Tell el-Far’ah along with others (Kitchen 2006, 339).
The Patriarchal model has mainly come under attack as a result of textual studies along with the Documentary Hypothesis (DH). It seems that as conservative scholars are scrutinized for their presuppositions and bias towards the Hebrew Bible, the same can be said by those whom hold to the DH while evaluating archaeological data.
 Gen 24:10-64, 30:43, 31:17, 32:7, 34, 37:25.
The Conquest Model
When archaeology began in Palestine, one of the main sites of interest was Jericho. Excavated in the 1930s by a British archaeologist by the name John Garstang, he claimed to have discovered the 13th century walls (Late Bronze Age) based on early methods of excavation and ceramic analysis. In the 1950s, Dame Kathleen Keyon further excavated the site revealing two walls from different periods. The first, an impressive MB fortification which surrounded the site with massive stones (megaliths). The second wall was the one discovered by Garstang which he dated to the LB period. However, after revaluation, Kenyon proposed that Garstang had misdated the wall based on ceramics and instead dated Garstang’s LB period to the Early Bronze Age. She claims that if there was a LB period at Jericho, it was a minor occupation and an unwalled settlement. This would, of course, bring to question the formidable city by which was destroyed by the Israelites in the Joshua account. The read more about Jericho's excavations see my previous post here.
This revaluation of Jericho brought into question the Conquest Model proposed by Albright and E. G. Wright. Several sites have clear destruction layers in the LB period (the time of Joshua 14th or 13th Centuries BCE) such as Lachish, Bethel, and Hazor. However, some sites have yet to show any destruction or no occupation at all in the LB period. This has led to some scholars to revaluate the Conquest Model and propose different models of their own. The prevailing model amongst secular scholarship is the “Peasant Revolt Model” proposed by G. E. Mendenhall. This theory explains that the emergence of the Israelites are not from an external group of people moving into the land of Canaan, but rather and internal uprising of lower-class peasants who overthrow their Canaanite overlords (Mendenhall 1962, 66-87). This theory has clear Marxists tones to it and is based more off of social theory and literary evidence in the Amarna correspondence rather than archaeological data. The archaeological data he eluded to in his research is that Israelite and Judahite sites reflect architectural and ceramic traditions based off of the MB and LB Canaanite settlements. However, Finkelstein’s own regional survey in the Judean hill country show a massive population increase in the Early Iron I in this area (Finkelstein 1993). There are some similar Canaanite traditions but for the most part, scholars agree that this is evidence of a migration of a new ethnic group into the Levant (Stager 1998, 123-175). They would even go as far as to consider them “Israelite” since these traditions continue through the remainder of the Iron age in Palestine.
 Other models include the Peaceful Infiltration Model, Symbiotic Model and more popularly, the Peasant Revolt Model.
 G. E. Mendenhall, 'The Hebrew Conquest of Palestine', BA XXV/3 (1962), pp. 66-87.
The Search for King David
Perhaps the loudest of these arguments has been the ongoing debate between Finkelstein and Yosef Garfinkel, chair of archaeology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, on the subject of the historical David along with the status and significance of the Judean Monarchy. Finkelstein in his controversial book The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of the Sacred Text brought some of the skepticisms of biblical history to the mainstream public that had been researched for the past two decades. It received both praise and criticism from archaeologists and scholars from either side.
A quick summary of the book will show that although Finkelstein and others have an appreciation of the biblical text as a piece of literature, they rather abandon it completely for archaeology as the primary and secondary source of their research. They argue for a late date composition of the Hebrew Bible (Persian or Hellenistic Periods) and give no historical merit to the kingdoms of Saul, David and Solomon. Finkelstein also attempted to push his chronology lower than others have suggested it, almost a full century. He leaves room for the Northern Kingdom of Israel on account of the overwhelming archaeological evidence and inscriptions dating to or alluding to the period of the Omride kings. However, he argues for the kingdom of Judah to be a minor chiefdom, if anything at all. He echoes what some other scholars such as Philip Davis has said in the past that “the biblical ‘empire’ of David and Solomon has not the faintest echo in the archaeological record-as yet” (Davis 1992, 67).
This of course is an “argument from silence” which is a dangerous presupposition in archaeology. The published work of this book came out in 1992 when the skepticism of David was at its highest. The very next year, the Tel Dan Inscription was discovered bringing the debate back and giving conservative scholars new life. The artifact is a victory stele supposedly written by an Aramean king, Haz’el of Aram Damascus. Hazael is mentioned several times in the Bible as the King of Aram (1 Kngs 19:15-17, 2 Kngs 8:8-29, 9:14-15, 10:32, 12:17-18, 13:3-25, 2 Chron 22:5-6, Amos 1:4). Haz’el described his campaign against the Israelite kingdom and mentions, by name, the “House of David.” This shows that David was not simply a myth but existed and was remembered as a founder of a dynasty by an extrabiblical source 140 years after his life from a kingdom outside of Israel (Biran 1993).
Excavations at Khirbet Qieyafa have also reinvigorated the historicity of the Judean kingdom. Located in the Elah Valley, it is fitting that the location of this site is the place of his legendary battle against the Philistine giant, Goliath. Michael Hasel and Yosef Garfinkel believe near the site of Qeiyafa was the Israelite “encampment” with the valley between described in 1 Samuel 17. Only one Iron Age II phase was found in almost every area of the khirbet, A – F with large quantities of restorable pottery. Their result showed a fortified city with a casemate city wall and two gates to the west and south. It has been suggested that the city is the biblical “Sha’arayim” mentioned is several places in the Bible as it is listed in the vicinity of Azekah and Soccoh (Josh 15:36, 1 Sam 17:52, 1 Chr 4:31). Their contribution to the Judean Kingdom debate show a chronology and transition from Iron I and IIA, a pottery repertoire of the 11th-10th centuries, as well as answer questions to other subjects like: settlement pattern in Judah, social organization, city planning in the Iron Age, early writing with the Qeiyafa Ostracon, early administration and cultic activities (Garfinkel, Ganor and Hasel 2014). This material culture gives evidence to a larger administration and government than that of a small chiefdom in the Judean Hill country in the 10th Century.
Conclusions and a Healthy Alternative
This has been a very brief summary of the current debates in archaeology along with an evaluation of the maximalist and minimalists views of the biblical data. As mentioned before, it is best to treat these issues along a spectrum and not necessarily as polarizing labels as they are typically used. No true scholar or academic can be wholly a maximalist or a minimalist because the nature of archaeology is in constant flux. New discoveries are uncovered every year which sometimes radically change the way we view chronology, history, and literature. It is somewhat useless to label certain scholars as maximalists or minimalists because they find themselves sliding up and down the spectrum in order to keep up with research and hold to their academic integrity.
Additionally, if one has indeed labeled themselves as one of these polarizing identities, they have admitted to abandoning the pursuit of knowledge and have closed themselves off from any dialogue which may be challenging to their presuppositions. This is not how good scholarship is performed. We do not purse a question with the conclusion already answered in our minds. A healthy alternative to this debate is to keep searching and remain open to new and exciting discoveries that give us a better understanding of daily life in the ancient Near East which may ultimately help us to better interpret the Bible.
Abright, W. F.
1939 The Israelite Conquest in the Light of Archaeology. BASOR 74: 11-22.
Biran, A. and Naveh, J.
1993 An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Dan. IEJ 43:81-98
2004 Shifting Sans: The Rise and Fall of Biblical Archaeology. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
1992 The Search of Ancient Israel: A study in Biblical Origins. Bloomsbury T&T Clark.
1992 Archaeology and the Israelite ‘Conquest.’ ABD ed. David Noel Freedman vol 3. 545-58. New York: Doubleday.
1988 The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem: IES.
1993 Archaeological Survey of the Hill Country of Benjamin. Jerusalem: IAA.
Finkelstein, I. and Silberman, N.
2002 The Bible Unearthed. Touchstone: New York.
Garfinkel, Y. et all.
2014 Khirbet Qeiyafa: Vol 2: Excavation Report 2009-2013 Stratigraphy and Architecture (Areas B C D E). IES.
Mendenhall, G. E.
1962 The Hebrew Conquest of Palestine. BA XXV/3: 66-87.
1991 A Century of Biblical Archaeology. Westminster/John Knox Press: Louisville.
1985 Israelite Settlement in Canaan. Biblical Archaeology Today. Ed. Janet Amitai, 83-87. Jerusalem: IED.
1998 Forging and Identity: The Emergence of Ancient Israel. Pp 123-175. The Oxford History of the Biblical World. Ed. Michael D. Coogan. Oxford University Press: New York.
The battle of Jericho is one of the more popular events that take place in the Old Testament. In the Book of Joshua, it also takes place within a series of events which culminate into the complete entrance and settlement of the Israelites within the land of Canaan, also known as “the Promised Land.” If the Israelites indeed enter the land from Transjordan, they would have come into contact with the inhabitants of this major city/fort residing in the oasis of the Jordan River valley.
Geographically, Jericho falls along a major ancient road in the valley. The imposing mound, Tel Es-Sultan has been identified as ancient “Jericho” even though there has been other identifications of a “Jericho” at Tell Abu el’ Alayiq which contains a large Hasmonean palace, Tell El-Hassan in the byzantine period, and one of Herod the Great’s Roman Period palaces discovered at Khirbet en-Nitla. It is not uncommon for sites to move over time which can make some identification of ancient towns and cities difficult.
For the purpose of this article we will focus on Tel Es-Sultan and assume its location, since it is the largest tel (the Hebrew for “ruin; manmade mound created from centuries of occupations built on top of each other) in the area. It also has evidence of occupations from the Epipaleolithic Period approximately 9000 BC to the Late Bronze II age, using standard archaeological dating methods (not focusing on biblical chronology).* According to this dating, it would make Jericho the oldest city discovered in the archaeological record! One of the more impressive structures from the excavations are a round stone tower from the Neolithic Period (8.5m in diameter and stands to this day, preserved 7.75m tall) built against the inner-city wall. The society living there suggests a transition from hunter-gathers to one of the first, budding sedentary civilizations.
The city flourished in the Early and Middle Bronze ages (3250-1550 BC) as there was monumental architecture (palaces, buildings and wall fortifications) built on the site as well as several cave burials and family graves on and around the tel.
Now, to answer the question: “What about Joshua and the Israelites, is there any evidence of them or a battle at Jericho?” There is a short answer and a long answer. The short answer is: it’s complicated. The reason of this complication lies in methodology and interpretation. Which results in my long answer. For those of you still with me and would like an explanation, here it is:
When referring the Biblical time period, the emergence of the ancient Israelites would have taken place during the Late Bronze Age (1550 – 1200 BC). Whichever way you look at biblical chronology (which usually has something to do with where you date the Exodus: 15th Century or 13th Century BC), the emergence of Israel into Canaan has to take place shortly after this episode, i.e. one generation after the bondage of the Israelites in Egypt.
Jericho was one of the first sites excavated when scholars rushed to the Holy Land in order to excavate and find the hidden secrets of an ancient Israelite culture to battle skeptics of the Bible. The first excavations took place between 1907-1909 in which an Austro-German team under the direction of E. Sellin and C. Watzinger. Before scientific methodology and modern methods of excavation became standardized, someone thought it would be a good idea to dig a series of trenches into these delicate tels in order to evaluate the stratigraphy. This accomplished the goal of reading the occupations, but at what cost? Archaeology is already destruction of that which has been buried by time. Once it is uncovered, it cannot be put back again. It was discovered later in the discipline’s infancy, that this tactic was not sustainable and the loss of data was incalculable. Even so, the data collected during this work for subsequent excavations, was and is useless to this day.
Methodology improved with the excavations of J. Garstang in 1930-1936 who excavated the Late Bronze portion of the tel. He believed his findings were the remains of the Canaanite fortress in which was destroyed by Joshua and the Israelites. However, when an up-and-coming archaeologist by the name of Kathleen Kenyon later excavated the site in 1952 and 1958, she declared Garstang’s pottery chronology wrong and instead claimed that the city was destroyed much earlier in the Middle Bronze Age. Therefore, according to Kenyon, Joshua and the Israelites would have come upon an already empty town; leaving the event of Joshua at Jericho, fictitious.
There are archaeologist and historians who still feel this way concerning the absence of a Late Bronze civilization and destruction at Jericho. But there is also a considerable number of archaeologists who view who Kenyon to be wrong in her evaluation of the site and the destruction of the outer walls and subsequent destruction by fire. They would believe that Garstang’s assumption does indeed fall correctly in line with biblical chronology and the Late Bronze Age II (13th Century BC). There is also a period of little to no occupation of the Iron Ages and Persian Periods which is also verified by the Biblical Text after Joshua places a curse upon anyone who rebuilds Jericho (Josh 6:26).
There is a battle being fought when it comes Ancient Jericho and it is not the one fought in Joshua 6. Ultimately because of these two things, methodology and interpretation, that the battle rages onward between Biblicists and secular archaeologists. The fact remains that it is probably futile to make any claims as to an Israelite presence at Jericho because there was barely any presence if there ever was one. The text claims that the Israelites were in and out in 7 days and on account of extensive erosion and poor excavation methods, it is a miracle anything survives at the site at all.
In the Bible, the destruction Jericho is yet another sign from God that he fights the battles for His people. In this God’s desire for his people is their faith, rather than their military prowess. The salvation of Rehab and her family (Josh 6:25) is also telling as to the extension of Yahweh’s promise to the Israelites and also to the Canaanites if they were willing to accept it. It is an important story, yet the main points of the narrative are not driven by archaeology (although supplemented), but by are implied theologically and exegetically.
Let me know what you think in the comments!
For further reading on Jericho excavations please see the following:
The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Jericho. Pg 674-697.
On the Reliability of the Old Testament. K. A. Kitchen. pg 187-188.
*One day I will do a post concerning numbers and dating in the Bible compared to modern dating systems, absolute/relative chronology. For the moment I am using the standard dating systems we have available to us based on ceramic typology and radiocarbon dating.
So You Want to be an Archaeologist?
This year I had the opportunity to attend two conferences in San Diego (where I am writing this). One being the American Schools of Oriental Research (or ASOR, which I attend every year) and the Society for Biblical Literature (SBL, first time). These conferences can seem intimidating to some, especially if you are new to the field of archaeology and considering it for a career. It is important however, to stay up to date on excavations, new finds and new interpretations discussed in the ever growing field of archaeology in the Middle East. On top of this, you may even get to rub shoulders with some of the “rockstars” of archaeology, pun intended.
I believe this is the perfect time to start a dialogue with those who may be interested in a career in archaeology. I have received questions on how one would get into this gig, so I will briefly tell my own story of how I got involved in archaeology as well perhaps give some advice to those who are considering this as a vocation.
In the Beginning
There was something romantic about archaeology when I was younger. Naturally, anyone would be enticed by the life of adventure brought on by Indiana Jones and Laura Croft. However, the reality of our craft comes crashing down upon you in your first anthropology/archaeology 101 class. From what I observed most people had trouble staying awake in these classes. I was a lost freshman at the University of North Florida, trying to find my way amongst the thousands of other students taking their Gen Eds. Finding myself was harder than it should have been considering that I was not even a great student in my own right, as I rarely went to class or even prepared for exams. I simply floated by. Nothing interested me. All I knew is that I did not want pursue a generic degree, and I did not aspire to making a lot of money to live comfortably. I wanted to do something that was different.
I also grew up in a conservative Christian background and I had a desire to investigate the Bible on a deeper level. I felt that if I were to understand this book, that was the source for my faith, then how best to investigate it then to study the periods and people in which it was about? After almost two full years of floating, I did something that was very uncharacteristic of me. I wanted to try out this archaeology thing, so I picked up a phone and called the University of Chicago. Why the University of Chicago? Because that was where Indiana Jones taught in his movies of course! I called and I asked the admissions councilor what it took for me to do my PhD in archaeology there. They were very helpful in telling me exactly what I needed to know. They gave me a list of things to keep in mind and I want to share that list with you.
I will be upfront with this however, to be a professional archaeologist, it will require a considerable amount to schooling, almost 10+ years. But there are other ways to be involved in archaeology without all of that and I will address career choices at the end of this post for those that may still want to be involved indirectly in archaeology. For those interested in becoming a professional archaeologist, take note and read below.
I. Learn the Languages
I wanted to investigate that people and places of the Bible. In order to do that I had to put myself in a position where I could learn the language(s) of the book and ancient people. That meant going to a school where I could learn Hebrew and Greek. The reason for this should be simple: how can one claim to know the culture or people in question if one cannot bother to learn the language? Language reveals much about a particular culture and it should be the first step to really understanding other people. What we read in a book such as the English Bible or even in a history textbook about a culture that is not from our western world is an interpretation of the actual thing.
Based on this revelation I found a school, Harding University, which met my needs and offered a major in Biblical Languages. I studied Greek and Hebrew as well as doing some advance study in backgrounds of the Biblical text. These are good starting points to build off of if you are interested specifically in the world of the Bible. If your interest is in another part of the world, then go to a school that offers that. For example, if you are interested in archaeology in Central America, you can find a school that will prepare you for that. If you are interested in Japanese archaeology, you can find a school in that. All it really takes is a quick Google search. If you need help finding a school I would be happy to give assistance. Messaging me in the comments section below.
2. Go on a Dig
Perhaps this should be number one, but this also should be a no-brainer. How will you know if you like archaeology if you have never been on a dig? Here’s the good news, you can go on a dig and not be an archaeologist. There are excavations going on all over the world and at all different times of the year. Most excavations offer “field schools” in which they will actually teach you the methods and practices of an on-going excavation.
My very first dig was during my undergrad was with Khirbet Qeiyafa excavations (2013) in Israel. I was simply just happy to be there. I had no experience and had only been told what life on an excavation was like. The first week was hard only because I had no idea what to expect. It was actually quite laborious for me and I did not enjoy waking up at 4am in order to go do physical labor. The question always comes to mind to every beginner-- "Did I actually pay for this?"
However, it became all worth it the first time I uncovered pieces of a storage jar from the 10th Century Iron Age. The longer I stayed with it, the more I began to wrap my mind around the methods and cadence of a dig. It was rewarding and not only did I enjoy it, I realized I was good at it. Since then, I excavated other sites such as Abel Beth Ma’acah (2015) while I was working on my MA, and am currently at Khribet Safra (2018, 2019) while on my PhD. I have even done some CRM (cultural resource management) work with the military cataloging Post Civil War cemeteries and surface surveys at major military bases.
So naturally I would recommend you go on a dig. However, I have good news and bad news. The good news is, you don’t even have to consider being a professional archaeologist in order to be involved in a dig. I know scores of people who simply love to do field work, and they also have other jobs they do back home. For them, it becomes a hobby and they have found out that you can still be involved in archaeology without all of the school.
But, here’s the crux, going on a dig is typically not cheap, especially if it is overseas. Most digs will offer packages that include room and board, food and weekend tours. Take advantage of these because nothing beats traveling in a foreign land with an archaeologist who has been excavating there 20+ years. At Safra we do something similar in which we travel to exotic sites in Jordan on the weekends and will cap off the remainder of the trip in Israel the final week. To see what the daily life of an archaeologist in the Middle East looks like, see my Youtube video here.
3. Consider your career options
Jobs in archaeology are few and far between. It is no secret that everyone wants the cushy teaching job, teaching in the Fall and Spring while excavating in the summers. However, this is not realistic for most. Consider all of the schools in the United States, then think about all of the schools that have archaeology programs. I will go ahead and tell you that there are not many. At the conferences I attend, there are many young PhDs looking for a teaching jobs and the sad part is that most of them will never find one. They will have to learn to contribute to our craft in another way.
Luckily we are in a day-in-age where our government is becoming conscious of its ecological footprint as well as its culture footprint. I have mentioned before my experience with CRM, in that there has developed this entire industry that seeks to help private landowners and even the government navigate preserving America’s culturally sensitive heritage. I have done quite a bit of work in this area and there is a real need for archaeologists to commit themselves to preserving America’s intellectual history.
As I mentioned before there are many ways one can be involved with archaeology and not be a professional archaeologist. Gone are the days where the archaeologist needs to be a jack-of-all-trades in educating themselves in every facet of ancient culture. We need ceramic experts, biologists, chemists, linguists, historians, economists, metallurgists, zoologists, botanists, geologists, medical professionals, database analysts, coders, GIS specialists, cartographers, fund raisers, and the list goes on. All of these disciplines and specialists can be archaeologists in their own right and help in the ultimate goal for uncovering and preserving the past.
4. Stay humble
I did not end up at the University of Chicago, but I found an institution that met my needs and is willing to support me and my research. Every day, I learn something new about myself and about history that adds another puzzle piece into my ever-growing view of the world we live in. At ASOR this year, I met with the great William G. Dever, a world renown archaeologist and was incidentally the professor to two of my professors (guess that would make him my grand-professor). He had this advice to say to me. He told me to always be willing to learn and do not ever think that you know everything. When you get to the point where you stop learning then you have failed as an academic. I understood what he was saying, and I was grateful for his wisdom. I have seen how fluid our discipline can be in that new finds and new methods are being discovered every day that can be applied to how we view the ancient world. Humility play a large role with every academic because when you have stopped learning, then you cease to be a scholar.
Archaeology is an immensely rewarding discipline that can take you to places you never dreamed you would go. Understanding the past has immediate relevance to our own issues in the present. Find your niche and get involved.
Thanks for reading! If archaeology is something you are interested in, feel free to reach out. I can recommend some schools for you and of course help you in your search to find a dig.
For some, the summer means school is out for students. Growing up in Florida, it meant going to the beach daily, barbecues, bon-fires and fishing. When one is in academic discipline of archaeology, summer means: “dig season.”
It is true that there are other excavations, which operate outside of the months of May – July, but in the Middle East, summer is the most convenient for students. Field schools are in full swing and archaeological projects either begin or pick right up where they left off last year.
In this case, Khirbet Safra kicked off its second season in Jordan for 6 weeks (end of may to mid-July). Andrews University has been involved with excavating major sites in Jordan since 1968 led by the renowned archaeologist Sigfried H. Horn. In fact, Tall Hesban Excavations just celebrated its 50th year anniversary of continuous work as apart of the Madaba Plains Project. Two additional excavations at Tall El-Umayri (1984) and Tall Jalul (1992) have also been excavated by Andrews.
:::Warning::: Technical, but not too technical, archaeology jargon coming henceforth. All pictures I use in this post are my own (unless specified) and are, by no means, publishable quality. I do this intentionally to protect the integrity of the publications.
To answer more questions regarding the Iron Age in Transjordan (the politically correct term for the land in modern-day, Jordan) excavators moved their focus southwest to Khirbet Safra. Some sites in archaeology are called Tells/Talls or Khirbets. A Tell is a mound created over time with layers of ruins and occupations beginning with the most recent occupation on the top and the earliest material culture at the lowest levels. (For a better description of Tell structures check out my blog post here.)
A khirbet is the designation for a site where its ruins or architecture are exposed prior to any excavation or disturbance to the site. From aerial photographs, the khirbet has a clear outer-wall surrounding the circumference along with an inner wall also running along the interior forming what is known as a “casemate” – a double reinforced wall structure commonly seen in the Levant.
Initial surveys of the site found several different time periods of pottery on the surface ranging from Iron IIA (10th-8th Century BC) to the Byzantine periods (AD 3rd century). Four fields were opened on the four areas of the city -- A, B, C, and D. These fields were strategically placed in order to 1) delineate the casemate (in all fields); 2) expose any remaining gate structure in the north and east on site (fields C and D); and 3) expose any large, assumed administrative structures in logical locations (Fields A and B).
The first season (2018) yielded fine results of pottery and helped establish a better chronology of the site. Two squares were opened in each Field and majority of the squares were finished and closed by the end of the season on account of bedrock laying a meter to a meter and a half under the surface. In most areas, upon the exposed bedrock was a sealed locus of Iron I pottery dating to the 13th Century BC, which was earlier than what the excavators expected since Iron II pottery sherds were collected in the initial 2017 ground survey.
The second season in 2019 was focused primarily on Fields B and D respectively. Field B opened four new squares where a monumental building was discovered abutting the casemate wall to the south. Field D also opened four more squares and discovered several rooms connected to a 13th century BC gate complex to the city, complete with a threshold stone and stone benches. The gate finding is significant for several reasons since it is a high traffic area for entrancing and exiting the city. Many administrative and legislative processes occur at city gates. For ancient and biblical parallels, see texts dealing with events where the elders meet at the city gates to make judgements and form contracts. (Gen 19:1, 34:20; Exod 32:26; Deut 25:7; Josh 20:4; Ruth 4:1, 4:11; Prov 31:23; etc. ).
A better picture of phasing is appearing and tells us that the first settlers to Khirbet Safra built a walled town/city upon bedrock, filling in holes and depressions in the bedrock with a red-bricky material in order to make it flat. The site was most likely destroyed at one time as there is a thin ash layer in Fields A and B most likely caused by an earthquake on account of tectonic/seismic activity frequent along the Jordan River Valley which is a known fault line. There is also a possiblity that that destruction could have occured by the growing Moabite presence in the Iron Age II seen at other sites in the surrounding areas like Dibon and Ataruz. Some settlers during the Byzantine period reused the abandoned/destroyed walls in Fields A and B but only had a short period of occupation.
For copyright and publication reasons, I will leave any more details about the findings of Khirbet Safra for now. It is a fascinating site which will help answer questions we may have concerning the Transjordan in the Iron Age I. For those interested in biblical chronology and archaeology, this is most likely the time period of the books of Joshua and Judges. If geographic information and boundaries in the Bible are accurate then the city of Khirbet Safra lies within ancient Reubenite territory.
Next Season we hope to reopen all 4 fields and continue with excavation. Although some questions were answered, more questions are raised. We have yet to find any inscriptional evidence or material culture which shows what kind of people lived at Khirbet Safra, whether they were Moabite, Ammonite or -- dare we say, Israelite? Only time will tell as we press onwards and downwards. Consider joining us next year as we dig into history and uncover the secrets of Khirbet Safra.
I realize a lot of this text can appear as technical, archaeology “mombo-jumbo.” However, these are valuable results that we uncover which help us understand the world that came before us and ultimately tell us something about ourselves. Archaeology is about discovering our intellectual heritage. It is not all working in the hot sun every day. You can see my video in what a typical day in the life of an archaeologist looks like here. When we are not working, we tour exotic sites, eat wonderful Jordanian cuisine and more importantly, form relationships with people who are not much more different that ourselves. Archaeology is an opportunity for building a bond between people of different cultures. It brings together people from all walks of life in different age, ethnicity, language, religion and politics. We coexist and work towards a better understanding of humanity. See my video of our wonderful volunteers and students from last year here. Come join in on the adventure with us next year. You will not regret it.
Video Blogging from Jordan
Since I am in the field this summer I will have to put my Genesis project on hold until the Fall. In the meantime, you will be able to follow me on my travels to Jordan. I am excavating with Andrews University at Khirbet Safra and I will use the resources at my disposal to document our efforts and show you what it looks like to be an archaeologist in the Middle East. I will also vlog from some key sites in Jordan that are referenced in the biblical text or subject to "Biblical Archaeology" such as Mt. Nebo, Jerash, Tel Dhiban, the Dead Sea and others. Stay tuned all of the month of June as I will attempt to put out as many videos as I can.
There will also be a portion of the vlog where I will answer questions from you guys! So, be sure to either comment below or ask questions to my twitter handle accessed by the button below. This is a great opportunity to ask an archaeologist your questions!
Additionally, while you are waiting for more content, enjoy my blog and subscribe to my YouTube channel in order to get updates for when I post new videos. I hope this may be a rewarding experience for myself and for you as you get an inside look into the Bible and Archaeology.
November for academics is perhaps one of the most stressful months of the year. Project deadlines are due, professional meetings take place (SBL, ASOR, ETS) and preparing for finals is on the horizon. Contrary to what you may believe, I have always said that finals week and the week before is actually quite pleasant. By this time I have typically wrapped up all of my projects and papers and I only have to focus on finals. For this semester, I have gotten the chance to try my hand at teaching some courses in Andrews University's seminary. One course in particular is called "Egypt and the Bible." Next semester, I will most likely post something that pertains to material and research I have been doing for this class, but for this month, I wanted to address a popular subject in Biblical Studies: the Dead Sea Scrolls
Working with the Horn Archaeological Museum, I get the opportunity to work aside great scholars and archaeologists. One of my earlier posts this year was on the subject of Zoroastrianism and Critical Scholarship, in which I was able to present at our Horn Lectureship Series (see post below). This Fall we were able to invite Dr. James VanderKam from the University of Notre Dame. He is an expert on the Dead Sea Scrolls (from now on DSS) and has been involved with DSS studies for the past few decades. Many people no doubt have heard of the discovery of these ancient texts, and know that they have some relationship to the Bible we have today, but how exactly are the two connected? How do they give us any reliability in the Bibles we have on our shelves and on our coffee tables? In this post I would like to introduce the subject of the DSS, and its influence on the Bible and Biblical studies. Then I will let Dr. VanderKam (who is indeed the expert) do the rest of the talking as I am linking his lecture at Andrews to this post.
In 1946, along the hilly West Bank of the Dead Sea, a Bedouin shepherd boy was throwing rocks into random caves, as no doubt any child would do at that age, passing the time while his sheep grazed in a nearby field. He did this until he heard one of the rocks collide with something (perhaps ceramic) in one of the caves. Afterwards, the shepherd boy alerted his family and they inspected the cave, discovering seven scrolls and fragments in jars near the site of Qumran. As fantastic of a story this is, one would be surprised to know that most great archaeological finds begin in a similar fashion. This is the story of the discovery of Cave I. Since then eleven caves have been located in which the scribal community at Qumran hid their precious documents during the time of the Jewish Revolt in 68/69 CE.
Who were these people? Why did they do such a thing? Dr. VanderKam has some interesting theories as to these people (so be sure to click the link to watch his lecture). Regardless of who or why, this archaeological discovery is no doubt perhaps one of the greatest in the history of "Biblical Archaeology" and Biblical studies. Before the discovery of the scrolls, the oldest Hebrew Text was the Masoretic Text (known as the MT in Biblical Studies) dating to the 10th Century CE. There were questions as to the reliability and transmission of such a text that has ancient claims when the earliest documents which survived are significantly late.
Some would like to compare the transmission of the Bible to a game of "Telephone." An entertaining children's game where one child whispers a word or phrase and waits as it is whispered around the room, waiting to see the product of the transmission. Usually the end result is nothing compared to the word or phrase which began the game. In the same way, questions were raised concerning the continuous copying of the biblical text and over time, one would expect what we have in our Bibles to be different to what was originally written.
However, after the discovery of the scrolls, the biblical texts found in the caves date as early as the 2nd Century BCE, almost a thousand years older than the MT! Scholars jumped at the possibility to examine the text to see if there were discrepancies and were baffled at the unusual accuracy of the texts compared to the Old Testament text we have today. One of the pioneers of Biblical Archaeology, William F. Arbright stated "We may rest assured that the consonantal text of the Hebrew Bible, though not infallible has been preserved with an accuracy perhaps unparalleled in any other Ancient Near Eastern literature."
Of the scrolls, over 225 Biblical texts were found in the caves of Qumran. Other deuterocanical books recognized by the Catholic and Orthodox faiths were discovered such as the books of Tobit, Ben Sirach, Baruch 6 and Psalm 151. An entire Isaiah scroll (known as the Great Isaiah Scroll) was among the first seven scrolls discovered in Cave 1 and remains the only complete Biblical text and is on display at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem (shown above). This however is only the tip of the iceberg as this great discovery is still making waves today in Biblical Studies.
Many books and articles have been published as to the results of intense analysis of these great scrolls and the community that may have preserved them. Why were they preserved? What purpose did they serve to their creators? Now is the time for me to step down and let Dr. VanderKam do the talking. Please watch his lecture and feel free to post comments and questions!
There are few accounts that take place within the Bible that can be cross-referenced by other ancient cultures in such a way such as the Battle of Lachish. In the early 8th century BC Assyria with its king, Sennacherib, campaigned throughout the Levant (that ancient land strip from modern day Lebanon and Syria south all the way to Gaza and Sinai) on a mission to expand his empire and while collecting tribute.
These events are well recorded in Sennacherib's annuls and in wall reliefs at his palace in Nineveh. For those that are familiar with their Old Testament Bible, they should recognize the name Sennacherib and Lachish in passages such as 2 Chronicles 32:9 and Isaiah 36:1-2. However, the event spoken of in the text and what is represented in reliefs and in the famous "Sennacherib Prism" speak of the same event, but it plays out much differently.
In the Sennacherib Prism, also known as the Taylor Prism (one of them kept right here in Chicago at the Oriental Institute of Research Museum), reads:
"As for the king of Judah, Hezekiah, who had not submitted to my authority, I besieged and captured forty-six of his fortified cities, along with many smaller towns, taken in battle with my battering rams. ... I took as plunder 200,150 people both small and great, male and female, along with a great number of animals including horses, mules, donkeys, camels, oxen, and sheep. As for Hezekiah, I shut him up like a caged bird in his royal city of Jerusalem. I then constructed a series of fortresses around him, and I did not allow anyone to come out of the city gates. His towns which I captured I gave to the kings of Ashdod, Ekron, and Gaza" (translation provided by Oriental Institute).
It is intriguing how the two stories conflict considering the Biblical Text claims that the Assyrian army was unsuccessful in taking the city of Jerusalem. What is far more interesting is that in Sennacherib's palace wall reliefs, he is depicted taking the city of Lachish in 701 BC. However, there is no relief showing him conquering Jerusalem, which he even admits is "a royal city." Why does he focus on Lachish and not Jerusalem? A colleague from Andrews University, Bruno Barros, writes a publication for ASOR (American Schools of Oriental Research) this month that perhaps Sennacherib focuses on the victory of Lachish because he was perhaps, as the Bible accounts, unsuccessful in his assault on Jerusalem.
Assyria was well known for its "psychological terrorism" by employing fear upon smaller nations, bullying them to pay tribute to their mighty empire. Much of this imagery is depicted of the Assyrian assaults show how brutal they were in warfare and in maintaining their empire. In the reliefs, one can see people impaled on large stakes, which was one of the fear-tactics that made Assyria infamous. Also, what appears to be a siege ramp for their "battering rams" is shown in the relief.
At Tell Lachish in Israel, remains of the Assyrian siege ramp are still present (see above). For a view of the Siege of Lachish, search "Lachish Reliefs" and online you will find pictures taken at British Museum where they are currently held (below). To see the Taylor Prism, do the same or visit the Oriental Institute museum at the University of Chicago, it's a free museum!
Let me know what you think in the comments!
Achaemenid Religion: Zoroastrianism, A Problem in Critical Scholarship and the Hebrew Bible
As part of the Persia Symposium back in February of 2018, three students and myself researched topics of interest and presented our research to the university and community. My paper was on Achaemenid Religion and Zoroastrianism.
I remember in my younger undergraduate days, someone out of the blue asked me if I knew that Zoroastrianism was the world oldest Monotheism and in turn, heavily influenced the writers of the Bible. Coincidently, there are quite a few scholars who follow this line of thinking. As I have often questioned, I asked, "where does this tradition/assumption come from?" I discovered that much of what is assumed about this religion is based off of what we know in modern dayZoroastrianism. In my lecture, I explore Archaeological evidence to determine if there is enough data to exhibit that Zoroastrianism was the state religion of the ancient Achaemenid Persian Empire (550-330 BC). I also explore what critical scholarship considers as "influence" upon another religion. I approach the subject logically and come to several conclusions. One of these conclusions is that we know very little about ancient Zoroastrianism, if it was at all practiced in Ancient Persia. What appears to be happening is a problem of propinquity (something being associated within time and space). Critical Scholars whom believe this, impose modern day Zoroastrian theology and themes upon ancient Judaism. Please watch my lecture and let me know what you think in the comments.
Before watching, if you are not familiar with the arguments, let it be known that Critical Scholarship typically places the composition of the Bible during or after the Persian period (550-330 BC). The assumptions of Zoroastrian ideas imposed on the Bible are made by those that believe in a late composition of the text.
Also, let me know if you would like me to upload the full paper or send a pdf to you personally.
Hope you enjoy! Click the button below to watch the lecture.
The Purpose of this Blog
There is an abundance of information available to us. In a world of subjective truth, fake news, and where everyone is entitled to their opinions, how can one find answers to difficult questions or simply find information which pertains to their interests? I attend a local congregation where I often am given the opportunity to teach and I find more and more, people are ill-informed and settle for information that was found in an instant rather than taking the time to process data and information while considering the source. Technology has come a long way and it has benefited us a culture, however post-modernity has given everyone a voice and unfortunately, not every voice is informed on the subject by which they may be discussing. Sadly, the most uninformed are, in some cases, the loudest. This is one reason why I created this site. I want to make it perfectly clear how archaeology is applied within the realm of Biblical Studies.
Originally, archaeology became popular in the late 19th Century until the mid 20th century on account of evangelicals whom walked through the Holy Land with a shovel in one hand and a Bible in the other. Archaeology as a discipline is ever evolving and becoming more scientific with its methodology. Motivations have changed in the discipline and archaeology has melded in with other humanitarian disciplines such as Anthropology. This, however, is not a bad thing. Those within archaeology have developed ways in order to keep themselves and their colleagues accountable, and more importantly, being able to publish discoveries that help mankind preserve its cultural and intellectual heritage. This makes the finds and discoveries more credible to every party, not just religious or ideological groups.
With that said, I will say this, archaeology is not going prove the Bible and it is safer to simply let the Bible be the Bible and let archaeology be archaeology. This blog was created to simply make information available to those that are interested in Biblical studies and archaeology. There are some that believe that the Bible should not be considered to have historical merit because it does not fall in line with the ways in which we ourselves write history. However, who is to say that we are masters of history? Winston Churchill famously quotes that history in this day and age is often "written by the victors." Does this not imply that there is a bias and lens by which all of history is viewed through? Therefore, the writers of the Biblical Text were writing their form of history in the way they knew how. With research, you will find other cultures, propinquitious with those as the culture of Ancient Israel, writing in a very similar literary function. Archaeologist and historians use king's lists/annuls from Egypt and Mesopotamia (also written with content which contained mythology and the supernatural) and correspond these with their political histories with little to no scrutiny, so why cannot the Bible be used in the same manner?
I believe this is enough for my first blog post. I have brought up several topics that I am sure can each be a discussion and further blog posts on their own. I will however keep philosophical discussions to a minimum and post more about new discoveries and archaeology that illuminate the culture and history of the narratives and events of the Bible. Additionally I will also upload any papers, topics of interest and streamed or videoed lectures that come up as I am working on my PhD. Please let me know what you think and we can start a conversation. I do ask that all comments and discussions stay appropriate and respectful. Thank you for visiting my site!