Two major monuments lie south of the Temple Mount in the City of David: the Large Stone Structure and Stepped Stone Structure. Building on previous suggestions, Nadav Na’aman uses textual and archaeological evidence to identify these monuments as, respectively, the remains of King David’s palace and the Millo.

The Large Stone Structure is identified as King David’s Palace by its excavator, Eilat Mazar, as well as by author Nadav Na’aman. Photo: Eilat Mazar.

The Large Stone Structure, located on a rocky spur in the City of David, is a large public building comprised of impressive ashlar blocks. Its excavator, Eilat Mazar, dated the building to the 11th–10th centuries B.C.E. That King David’s palace is prominent and prominently located is referenced in the Book of Samuel (2 Samuel 5:11; 2 Samuel 11; 2 Samuel 16:22). When Nehemiah returned from Babylonian exile half a millennium after the reign of David, he repaired the city wall and organized a dedication procession. One group on the east side of the city was described as having gone “up the steps of the City of David, on the ascent to the wall, past the House of David, and up to the Water Gate on the east” (Nehemiah 12:37). Nadav Na’aman suggests that King David’s Palace must be found at the top of the city’s northeastern slope, just above the Stepped Stone Structure that would have provided an ascent to the summit on the east. The location, date and scale of the Large Stone Structure, Nadav Na’aman believes, matches the biblical descriptions of King David’s Palace.

FREE ebook: Jerusalem Archaeology: Exposing the Biblical City Read about some of the city’s most groundbreaking excavations.

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

After David conquered the Jebusite “stronghold of Zion,” he is said to have renamed the area the City of David and fortified it “from the Millo inward” (2 Samuel 5:7–9). The etymology of the Hebrew word “millo” may be derived from the verb ml’, to “fill up.” Nadav Na’aman suggests that the Stepped Stone Structure, which extends down the slope from the Large Stone Structure and is built of a fill of stones and earth, may be the Millo referenced in the Book of Samuel.

The Stepped Stone Structure sits on the eastern slope of the City of David. Could it be the Millo referenced in the Bible? Nadav Na’aman believes so. Photo: Zev Radovan.

Two bullae, or seal impressions, of Judahite officials were found in excavations near the Large Stone Structure. One bulla bears the name Gedaliah son of Pashhur, the other the name Jehucal son of Shelemiah son of Shobai. These two men are mentioned together as officials of King Zedekiah in the Bible (Jeremiah 37:3, 38:1). The discovery of these bullae near the Large Stone Structure suggests to Nadav Na’aman that this is where the two officials officiated and that this building was still in use in the early sixth century B.C.E.

The combination of biblical and archaeological evidence offers intriguing—though still tentative—support for the identification of King David’s Palace and the Millo on the northeastern crest of the City of David.

BAS Library Members: Read the full article on King David’s Palace and the Millo by Nadav Na’aman in “The Interchange Between Bible and Archaeology: The Case of David’s Palace and the Millo” as it appeared in the January/February 2014 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.

This Bible History Daily feature was originally published on January 17, 2014.

Related reading in Bible History Daily

Did I Find King David’s Palace?

The Interrupted Search for King David’s Palace

Jeremiah, Prophet of the Bible, Brought Back to Life

The Tel Dan Inscription: The First Historical Evidence of King David from the Bible

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library

The Interchange Between Bible and Archaeology

The Millo: Jerusalem’s Lost Monument

Scholars’ Corner: Has Jerusalem’s Millo Been Found?

The Wall That Nehemiah Built

Did Eilat Mazar Find David’s Palace?

Did I Find King David’s Palace?

The post King David’s Palace and the Millo appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

Although he ruled as tetrarch over Galilee in Jesus’ time, we hear relatively little about Herod Antipas in the Bible and other ancient sources of the period. Was Herod Antipas (depicted in a painting above) an aggressive tyrant like his father, Herod the Great, or was he simply a perplexed ruler who didn’t know what to do about Jesus and his followers? Photo: SEF/Art Resource, NY.

Herod Antipas is known mostly as the Herod for whom Salome danced and who ordered John the Baptist to be beheaded.

Herod Antipas ruled Galilee in Jesus’ time. He succeeded his father, Herod the Great, and served as tetrarch (appointed by the emperor Augustus to rule over one quarter of his father’s kingdom) from 4 B.C. until 39 A.D., almost exactly the lifetime of Jesus. Yet there is relatively little about Antipas in the Bible.

According to Biblical scholar Morten Hørning Jensen in “Antipas—The Herod Jesus Knew” in the September/October 2012 issue of BAR, in the three synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke), Herod Antipas’s attitude toward Jesus is somewhat vague and indecisive:

In Matthew and Mark, Herod Antipas is ambivalent with regard to Jesus. Both gospels quote Herod Antipas as saying, after he has had John the Baptist executed, that Jesus is actually John resurrected (Matthew 14:1–2; Mark 6:14–16). Both gospels state that Antipas was actually saddened by Salome’s request to have John beheaded (Matthew 14:9; Mark 6:26), and they seem to blame Salome and her mother, Herodias, for John’s execution. Bound by his own oath, Antipas is nevertheless forced to fulfill his promise to Salome.

At the same time, however, we get the feeling in Matthew and Mark that Antipas is a shadow of death over Jesus. When Jesus hears that John has been killed, “he withdrew from there in a boat to a lonely place,” apparently fearful of Antipas (Matthew 14:13). In Mark 3:6, the Herodians counsel about how to kill Jesus, just as Jesus in Mark 8:15 warns against “the leaven of Herod.”

Luke’s account differs from Matthew’s and Mark’s by concentrating mostly on the trial of Jesus, for which Luke skillfully prepares his reader by references to Antipas along the way that build up an intense question in the reader’s mind: Is Antipas interested in Jesus or is he trying to kill him? (See Luke 3:19–20, 9:7–10, 13:31–33.)

FREE ebook: The Galilee Jesus Knew

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

So what can archaeology tell us about this not-so-great Herod?

Unlike his father, Antipas was not much of a builder. Although he founded cities and may have built theaters at Sepphoris and Tiberias, the building projects were relatively small compared to the later Roman-period structures that can be seen there today.

Although poverty was a fact of life for some in this period, Galilee in general was thriving economically. This can be seen especially at Yodfat, where elite houses featured high-quality frescoes. Photo: Shai Levi, Hecht Museum, University of Haifa.

Even the coins that Herod Antipas minted were relatively few and simple—especially compared with those of his co-tetrarch brother Herod Philip. Unlike his brother, he took care not to offend the religious sensibilities of his Jewish subjects with graven images and pagan temples.

Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!

Read Biblical Archaeology Review online, explore 50 years of BAR, watch videos, attend talks, and more

And even while poverty was a fact of life for some in first-century Galilee, archaeological surveys and excavations show that the region in general was thriving economically under Antipas, even in the rural areas. As Jensen explains, this does not match earlier proposals of a devastating urban elite’s exploitation of a uniformly poor peasant population. Despite his enigmatic and sometimes inimical depiction in the New Testament, Antipas seems to have been a fairly passive but successful ruler of Galilee.

For more about what we know of Herod Antipas in the Bible and archaeological finds indicating how he ruled Galilee in Jesus’ time, see “Antipas—The Herod Jesus Knew” by Morten Hørning Jensen in the September/October 2012 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

All-Access subscribers: Read the full article “Antipas—The Herod Jesus Knew” by Morten Hørning Jensen as it appears in the September/October 2012 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.

Related reading in Bible History Daily

30 People in the New Testament Confirmed

Herod the Great and the Herodian Family Tree

Machaerus: Beyond the Beheading of John the Baptist

King Herod’s Ritual Bath at Machaerus

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library

New Testament Political Figures Confirmed

Antipas—The Herod Jesus Knew

Machaerus: Where Salome Danced and John the Baptist Was Beheaded

The post Herod Antipas in the Bible and Beyond appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

And he burnt the finest parts of the city, and pulling down the walls, built the Akra (citadel) in the Lower City; for it was high enough to overlook the temple, and it was for this reason that he fortified it with high walls and towers, and stationed a Macedonian garrison therein.
—Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 12.252

Ancient walls and a tower were excavated in the Givati Parking Lot in Jerusalem. Has the 2,200-year-old Seleucid Akra finally been located? Photo: Assaf Peretz, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority.

Where is the Hellenistic-period Seleucid Akra in Jerusalem? Both the Book of Maccabees and Jewish historian Josephus reference an akra (Greek for “citadel” or “fortress”) that Seleucid King Antiochus IV Epiphanes constructed following his conquest of Jerusalem around 167 B.C.E. to keep order in the city. In late 142–early 141 B.C.E., Simon, the Jewish leader of the Maccabean revolt against the Seleucids at that point, captured and, according to Josephus, completely demolished the Akra.¹

The precise location of this Seleucid stronghold said to have overlooked the Temple has long been a matter of debate among archaeologists and historians, but, as Biblical archaeologist Eric Cline has said, “it is certain that it stood for some two decades as a symbol of Seleucid power over the Jews.”² In 2015, archaeologists excavating in the Givati Parking Lot south of the Temple Mount in the City of David believe they have found the Seleucid Akra.

The excavations in the Givati Parking Lot have been led by Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) archaeologists Doron Ben-Ami, Yana Tchekhanovets and Salome Cohen. According to a recent IAA press release, the archaeologists exposed a portion of a massive wall, a large tower base measuring 13 x 66 feet and a glacis–an artificial slope built for defensive purposes. The excavations also uncovered remnants of battle dating to the Hellenistic period: lead sling shots, bronze arrowheads and ballista stones. The finds were stamped with images of a trident, the mark of King Antiochus.

FREE ebook: Jerusalem Archaeology: Exposing the Biblical City Read about some of the city’s most groundbreaking excavations.

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

In the IAA press release of November, 2015, the excavation codirectors commented on how the finds in the Givati Parking Lot offer evidence of the historical battle between the Seleucids and the Jewish rebels in the second century B.C.E.:

This sensational discovery allows us for the first time to reconstruct the layout of the settlement in the city, on the eve of the Maccabean uprising in 167 B.C.E. The new archaeological finds indicate the establishment of a well-fortified stronghold that was constructed on the high bedrock cliff overlooking the steep slopes of the City of David hill. This stronghold controlled all means of approach to the Temple atop the Temple Mount, and cut the Temple off from the southern parts of the city. The numerous coins ranging in date from the reign of Antiochus IV to that of Antiochus VII and the large number of wine jars (amphorae) that were imported from the Aegean region to Jerusalem, which were discovered at the site, provide evidence of the citadel’s chronology, as well as the non-Jewish identity of its inhabitants.

Bronze arrowheads stamped with tridents, symbolizing King Antiochus IV Epiphanes’s reign, were found in the Givati Parking Lot excavations. Photo: Clara Amit, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority.

The debate on the location of the Seleucid Akra, however, is likely far from over. For instance, archaeological architect Leen Ritmeyer has cast doubt on the latest proposal from the IAA on his blog:

The quote from 1 Maccabees tells us that the whole of the City of David was fortified with a wall. The Hellenistic walls found [in the Givati Parking Lot] may indeed be part of these fortifications. Josephus, however, is speaking of a separate citadel—the Seleucid Akra. This fortress, we are told, “overlooked the temple.” In order for the Givati remains to belong to this citadel and also overlook the Temple, it must have been over 400 feet high at least … What hill is there to be seen in the Givati Parking Lot?

Read Ritmeyer’s examination of the Seleucid Akra, which includes schematic drawings of the Hellenistic-period Temple Mount, at Ritmeyer Archaeological Design.

Notes:

1. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 13.6.213–14.

2. Eric H. Cline, Jerusalem Besieged (Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press, 2004), p. 79.

This post originally appeared in Bible History Daily in November, 2015.

Related reading in Bible History Daily:

Hasmonean Jerusalem Exposed in Time for Hanukkah

Modi’in: Where the Maccabees Lived

Where the Heroes of the Maccabean Revolt Lie

Rome and the Maccabees: A Friendship Set in Bronze?

The Stones of Herod’s Temple Reveal Temple Mount History

Contested Temple Mount History?

The post The Seleucid Akra: 2,200-Year-Old Jerusalem Fortress Uncovered? appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

by Yizhar Hirschfeld

Peabody, MA: Henrickson, 2004, 304 pp., with 136 figures (17 color)
$34.95 (hard cover)

Reviewed by Rami Arav

The answer should be clear. Why isn’t it?

On the face of it, there should be no problem with this holy triad: the archaeology of Qumran, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Essenes. First, Qumran is in an arid desert; thus there is a good chance it is in a fine state of preservation. Indeed, the excavation of Qumran yielded an enormous amount of material (but no scrolls or scroll fragments). The site was thoroughly excavated by one of the best excavators of his time, Father Roland de Vaux. Second, a fabulous and unique collection of scrolls has been found in caves near the site. By now, the scrolls have all been read and published. No more secrets remain hidden in the scrolls. There is good reason to believe that at one time, the entire collection (or a part of it) belonged to a Jewish sect perhaps called Yahad (Hebrew “togetherness”), to which the scrolls make reference. Third, all the evidence demonstrates that the scrolls and the Hellenistic/Early Roman phases of occupation of Qumran are contemporaneous. And the Essenes, according to our sources, resided in this area at this particular time. Putting all these considerations together was a rational notion suggested at the onset of the excavation, and was accepted almost unequivocally by scholars; that is, Qumran was a center for the Essenes, who composed, copied and possessed most of the scrolls, finally hiding them in the nearby caves.

Yizhar Hirschfeld follows a small number of scholars who challenge this conclusion. He suggests that Qumran has lived through three totally different strata of occupation, each with a different function. The first stratum, dating from the Iron Age (c. 800 B.C.E), consisted of a water reservoir connected to a plantation at Ein Feshkha (a few miles south of Qumran). In the second phase, Qumran was a military fort built by one of the Hasmonean (Jewish) kings in the first century B.C.E. In the third (Herodian) stratum, it was a highly structured manor house.

How, then, did the scrolls, which Hirschfeld posits came from Jerusalem, end up in the caves around Qumran? Here the author injects an amazing hypothesis. The Jerusalem librarian of the scrolls, anticipating the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, asked the owner of the manor house, who happened to be his friend, to hide the scrolls in the area near the house. The owner of the house then replaced the original containers with his own specially prepared jars. He knew the caves around the manor house and guided the loaded caravan of scrolls into a safe haven where the treasure was left for us to discover some 1870 years later.

Is this possible? Perhaps, but most probably not. It is a hypothesis built upon hypothesis. Hypotheses have limits. The more you add the less likely it actually happened. The probability that Hirschfeld’s set of hypotheses was historical is close to zero. Yet, the main question remains: Why is it that, despite what seems to be the best information possible, coming from the three main branches of scholarship—history (Josephus, Philo and Pliny), epigraphy (the Dead Sea Scrolls) and archaeology (Qumran)—we cannot arrive at some seemingly elementary conclusions?

What is going wrong? What are we missing? The next best thing to a plaque stating: “The Essenes slept here” would be an interview with a Qumran resident in the first century C.E. We could then ask him: “Are you an Essene?” We should not be surprised, however, if he raised an eyebrow and replied: “What is an Essene?” This enigmatic group is described by three different authors, two in Greek and one in Latin, and there are some serious differences. But none discloses the name of the group in Hebrew, the language of most of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The name “Essenes,” on the other hand, is totally absent from the scrolls. Unless more information becomes available, we will never know for sure if the “Yahad” mentioned in the scrolls were Essenes or if the Essenes mentioned by ancient historians are the “Yahad” or if Qumranites were familiar with the Essenes or what the Qumranites call the Essenes.

Although these questions interest us, it seems that they were hardly relevant in antiquity. Identity problems were indeed a major concern, but unfortunately they were not occupied with these kind of questions and apparently never attempted to answer them.

In order to answer the questions that interest us, we interpret the past and mostly speculate about it. We analyze texts and archaeological finds, and finally we turn everything into a textual discourse. The name of the game is to present a narrative that solves more problems than it creates: If this is your theory, show your evidence. Yet in order to understand the past, should we be asking the questions that interest us today, or the questions that bothered the ancients? Undoubtedly, if understanding the past is our primary goal, and not how the past is relevant to us today, the latter is more important.

The bottom line in the Hirschfeld debate is that it does not really make any difference whether Qumran was a manor house or a sectarian settlement. We should first know whether it made any difference to Qumranites in the past, and, to the best of my knowledge, no one has dug up the answer yet.

This Bible History Daily feature was originally published in December, 2011

Rami Arav is professor of religion and philosophy at the University of Nebraska at Omaha and co-director of the excavation at Bethsaida.

The post Qumran in Context appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

So reads a tweet sent out by the Museum of the Bible (MOTB) on August 4, 2018, announcing the opening of Jerusalem and Rome: Cultures in Context in the First Century CE—a temporary exhibit highlighting archaeological objects on loan from and curated by the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem that aspires to tell a complicated story of Jewish life in Palestine in the first century CE.

The basement-level exhibit gives the viewer a sense of daily life in first-century Roman Palestine by showcasing fine ware ceramics, lamps, makeup, ossuaries, and amphorae, as well as finds from Masada and the Roman legionary camp outside the stronghold. The arrangement of material moves from domestic life to burial practices and then takes up the Jewish War, from Josephus’ narrative account to the imagery of the Arch of Titus in Rome, ending with brief mentions of the rise of Christianity, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and a small catalogue of first-century coins. Each section of the exhibit is accompanied by wall art that attempts to place the objects within a larger historical context and narrative.

The Hebrew University exhibit’s signage is well written. It conveys clearly how archaeological objects are used and interpreted, noting specific ways in which archaeology often provides alternative accounts of historical events to those found in our literary sources—including the Biblical texts and the works of Josephus—while making careful connections to daily life in ancient Palestine. And yet, although the exhibit boasts 195 objects, it still feels sparse, particularly after the viewer has passed through the objects found in and around Masada. A single bronze lamp illustrates the destruction of the Temple. An inkwell represents the Qumran community and the Dead Sea Scrolls. A handful of coins, with numismatic and historical summaries, close the exhibit. The sparseness of the exhibit is partially due to the arrangement of the space, which is perhaps too big for the exhibit. While the MOTB advertises the exhibit as its “largest temporary exhibit,” it could have benefited from the inclusion of objects related to farming, village life, or civic life. In addition, the inclusion of a single inkwell to stand for Qumran is a missed opportunity to include more evidence for daily life in this community beyond its production of written texts. These concerns aside, the exhibit is well-curated with nuanced and careful signage and it stands out from the permanent exhibits at the MOTB by the fact that it presents authentic artifacts and does not rely on facsimiles to fill out its story.

While the exhibit is responsibly curated, it suffers because of its association with the MOTB, both because of the museum’s problematic reputation, and because of issues compromising the exhibit outside of the control of the Hebrew University’s curatorial team. For example, as part of my visit to the exhibit, I participated in two guided tours led by MOTB staff, one of which was given by a coordinator of the “living history” program at the Museum. Most visitors to the exhibit are guided by MOTB tour guides, meaning that the narrative these guides offer is what knits together the collection on display and is the story that visitors take home with them, often trumping the carefully-worded signage on the walls.

On one tour, my guide used the fine ware pottery section of the exhibit to construct a binary opposition between Roman and Jewish identities. “Roman” pottery, which the guide incorrectly referred to as sigliatta, was described as expensive and luxurious—items only available to the wealthiest of the wealthy. “Jewish” pottery, on the other hand, was described as simple, affordable, and “pious.” Its lack of ornament was naively taken as an indication that it was produced according to halakhic standards. This is, of course, purely speculative and stereotypical.

Such incorrect uses of religious and ethnic stereotypes to interpret archaeological finds were likewise evident in my second tour guide’s answer to a question about Jewish burial practices: “The Jews have too many religious differences to have integrated with other ethnic groups.” I was taken aback to say the least. Anyone who has visited Jerusalem and walked through the Kidron Valley knows this is obviously false. The ceramics and ossuaries on display in the exhibit, in front of which the tour guide stood, show the integration of imagery drawn from the broader Greco-Roman world. It is too much to expect the MOTB’s guides to be experts in the arcane field of ancient ceramics; however, by constructing religious and ethnic distinctions to frame what are really just imported and locally-produced ceramic wares—distinctions not present in the carefully-crafted and researched signage produced by the Hebrew University curators—the guides created a narrative of religious and ethnic conflict around the objects.

Another example of this problem of the MOTB’s guides contradicting the curated information occurred when both guides introduced an ossuary that held the remains of “Alexander, son of Simon.” Since its discovery in the Kidron Valley in 1941 by E. Sukenik and N. Avigad, some scholars argue that this ossuary is connected to Simon of Cyrene, the character who carried Jesus’s cross in the Gospels of Mark (15:21), Matthew (27:32), and Luke (23:26). In the exhibit, the ossuary is set off from nine other ossuaries that offer different examples of burial practice during this period. A small placard on the side of the case says that this ossuary “may” be connected to the Simon of Cyrene mentioned in the New Testament. In contrast to this understated and careful framing, each of the Museum’s guides focused their viewers’ attention on the ossuary, asserting that the ossuary was “likely” or simply “was” that of Simon of Cyrene’s son and was therefore of immense historical importance as a result.

These two examples, to which could be added numerous instances where the guides gave factually inaccurate or Evangelically-biased interpretations (such as my first tour guide’s assertion that all of the texts in the Christian New Testament, with the exception of the Epistle to the Hebrews, were written before 70 C.E.), illustrate the potential problems for academic institutions inherent in partnering with the Museum of the Bible. In both cases, the tour guides I observed offered problematic interpretations that were in keeping with the conservative Evangelical narrative of the Bible and its history that shapes the Museum’s permanent collection and exhibits, which has so ably been catalogued by Candida Moss, Joel Baden, and Jill Hicks-Keeton, amongst others. On a guided tour, visitors listen to the tour guides more so than they read the signage. Thus, no matter how responsibly the curators at partnering institutions work to offer nuanced, historically-accurate exhibits, the experience of viewers is ultimately conditioned by the interests of the Museum itself.

This brings us back to the tweet sent out by the Museum that I mentioned at the beginning of this review. Nowhere in the Hebrew University’s exhibit are claims made about the Jewish War as the “greatest struggle for autonomy” in Roman history, but this is the gloss imposed on the exhibit by the MOTB and its staff—a gloss that frames the Jewish War in ways that are similar to the American Revolution and the Christian nationalism that the Museum associates with this event. (My second guide called the outbreak of the Jewish War a “Boston Tea Party event”!) Thus, while the Hebrew University in Jerusalem’s exhibit curation shows a high quality of scholarly work, it ultimately suffers by its association with the Museum of the Bible. This should stand as a warning to other academic institutions looking to partner with this organization. It also should be yet another wakeup call for the Museum of the Bible’s administrators, who need to put responsible scholarship ahead of the evangelical theology of their donors and the interests of their marketing department.

The post A Review of Jerusalem and Rome: Cultures in Context in the First Century CE appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

Discovered at Olympia in Greece, this third-century C.E. tablet inscribed with lines from Homer’s Odyssey poses many interesting questions about its context. Photo: Greek Ministry of Culture and Sports.

Preliminarily dated to the third century C.E., the tablet contains the portion of The Odyssey in which the cunning Greek warrior Odysseus, having spent 10 years journeying home to Ithaca after the Trojan War (with several obstacles and detours along the way), has come to the hut of his slave Eumaeus, a swineherd.

This passage, from Book 14, is “an account of how Eumaeus, whose job is to take care of the pigs, constructed his own yard and a neatly arranged set of pigsties during the 20 years that Odysseus was away from home, with no help from his owners,” explains Emily Wilson, Professor of Classical Studies at the University of Pennsylvania, in a London Review of Books article discussing the discovery at Olympia. Wilson recently published a translation of The Odyssey (Norton, 2017)—the first woman to do so in English.

Tracing the enigmatic, mystical genesis of the Greek Olympiad, The Olympic Games: How They All Began takes you on a journey to ancient Greece with some of the finest scholars of the ancient world. Ranging from the original religious significance of the games to the brutal athletic competitions, this free eBook paints a picture of the ancient sports world and its devoted fans.

The 12,000-line Odyssey and the preceding epic The Iliad, which recounts the final year of the 10-year war between the Greeks and Trojans, are regarded as the earliest-surviving and most important works of Greek literature. These epic poems are attributed to a bard named Homer who may have lived in the eighth century B.C.E., although some scholars have questioned whether Homer was one person or a name ascribed to a collection of oral poems.

Although media reports have erroneously described the discovery at Olympia as the oldest attestation of The Odyssey, several archaeological finds pre-date this third-century C.E. tablet, including the oldest known example: a broken pottery piece (ostracon) dating to the fifth century B.C.E. from the ancient Greek city of Olbia in Ukraine containing line 9.39 of The Odyssey.

In the London Review of Books, Wilson cautions readers to view news stories with a critical eye:

“The bright side to this inaccurately reported story is that it reveals a hunger among the general public for news about the ancient world. […] Maybe this fake news story will inspire more people to investigate the ancient world for themselves, and also to realize that the stories told about the Odyssey are—like the poem’s wily, scheming, deceitful protagonist himself—not always to be taken at face value.”

Despite the misleading spin, the tablet from Olympia is interesting in its own right.

“This extraordinary and unique discovery raises so many new questions,” said Diane H. Cline, Associate Professor in the history department at The George Washington University, in an email to Bible History Daily. “Is this a gift to the gods, and if so, who would choose to dedicate a plaque with 13 lines of The Odyssey to Zeus? Why would someone inscribe these particular lines, which aren’t really that pithy or significant? A large zone in the archaeological site at Olympia is an area used by athletes, the gymnasium and palaestra. There they exercised but also took lessons, and this text may be related. Was this part of a set of tablets used for study and teaching?”

On his blog, Classicist Peter Gainsford of the Victoria University of Wellington, who made a preliminary examination of the inscription based on pictures provided by the Greek Ministry, described the unusual medium on which the inscription was written: “It isn’t written on papyrus, like most literary texts. It isn’t a verse inscription on stone, of which we have many. It’s a clay tablet. This was never a common writing medium in the Greco-Roman world. Its use for this tablet, and for this text, is something quite unique.”

“[While the] artifact is extraordinary, it is important to remember that the text is at least a thousand years later than the date of Homer’s composition,” explained Cline. “What did these verses of Homer mean to people living in the time of the later Roman Empire? The meaning of this artifact in its physical and temporal contexts will be debated in the years to come. Scholars like myself are eager to learn more about its find-spot and how the text compares to other versions of The Odyssey.”

Tracing the enigmatic, mystical genesis of the Greek Olympiad, The Olympic Games: How They All Began takes you on a journey to ancient Greece with some of the finest scholars of the ancient world. Ranging from the original religious significance of the games to the brutal athletic competitions, this free eBook paints a picture of the ancient sports world and its devoted fans.

Related reading in Bible History Daily:

What Were the Ancient Olympics Like?

The Oracle of Delphi—Was She Really Stoned?

Ancient Greek Human Sacrifice at Mountaintop Altar? by Dan Diffendale

Amphipolis Excavation: Discoveries in Alexander the Great-Era Tomb Dazzle the World

The Greeks Go to Washington

Related reading in the BAS Library:

Carol G. Thomas, “Searching for the Historical Homer,” Archaeology Odyssey, Winter 1998.

Jasper Griffin, “Reading Homer After 2,800 Years,” Archaeology Odyssey, Winter 1998.
Why the Iliad and the Odyssey fascinate us today

“Is Homer Historical? An Archaeology Odyssey Interview,” Archaeology Odyssey, May/June 2004.
To Harvard classicist Gregory Nagy, the man we call “Homer” is a myth

Not a BAS Library subscriber yet? Join today.

The post Fragment of Homer’s Odyssey Unearthed at Olympia appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

Kathryn Marklein articulates a 10th–9th century B.C.E. burial in Ashkelon’s Philistine cemetery, the first ever to be discovered by archaeologists. Photo: Megan Sauter.

Now Ashkelon has yielded the Philistines themselves.

Directed by Lawrence E. Stager, Dorot Professor of the Archaeology of Israel, Emeritus, at Harvard University, and Daniel M. Master, Professor of Archaeology at Wheaton College, the Leon Levy Expedition to Ashkelon discovered the Iron Age cemetery in 2013 and began excavating it extensively in 2014. Three seasons of significant investigation have revealed previously unknown details of the Philistines in death—and life. First of all, the cemetery provides a window into Philistine burial practices.

“Ninety-nine percent of the chapters and articles written about Philistine burial customs should be revised or ignored now that we have the first and only Philistine cemetery found just outside the city walls of Tel Ashkelon, one of the five primary cities of the Philistines,” said Lawrence E. Stager.

FREE ebook: Ten Top Biblical Archaeology Discoveries. Finds like the Pool of Siloam in Israel, where the Gospel of John says Jesus miraculously restored sight to a blind man.

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

Various theories have been proposed about Philistine burial practices: Some thought that the Philistines were burned at death, like Patroclus and other figures in Homer’s Iliad. Others connected late 13th-century B.C.E. Egyptian anthropoid ceramic coffins with the Philistines. While a cemetery has been found at Azor (dated to the Iron Age 1), located at the northern boundary of Philistia, Ashkelon’s cemetery is the first to be found in the heartland of Philistia—and the first to be indisputably Philistine. As such, it is the standard for measuring all other burials claimed to be Philistine, such as the tombs found at Tel Farah (South) and near Tel Eitun, which were found beyond the limits of Philistia but argued by some to be Philistine. All of these “Philistine” burials and practices must be reevaluated in light of Ashkelon’s cemetery—as should perhaps the cemeteries found at Ruqeish (dated to the Iron Age 2) and Erani (Iron Ages 1–2), located at Philistia’s southern and eastern boundaries, respectively.

Senior staff Adam Aja, Sherry Fox and Daniel Master discuss a 10th–9th century B.C.E. burial from Ashkelon’s cemetery. Photo: ©Tsafrir Abayov/Leon Levy Expedition.

More than 210 individuals have been excavated from Ashkelon’s cemetery. Their burials have varied from simple pit interments and cremations in jars to interments in ashlar-built tombs—with the most frequent being pit interments. Grave goods dated from the 11th–8th centuries B.C.E. accompanied some of the Philistine burials. The most common items included in Philistine burials are small juglets. Storage jars, bowls and juglets have been found next to many individuals; these installations consist of a storage jar standing upright with a bowl sitting on its top opening and a juglet resting inside the bowl.

Ashlar-built tomb chambers from Ashkelon’s cemetery. Photo: Megan Sauter.

Many of the decorated juglets from the cemetery were imported from Phoenicia. This is not surprising since the Philistines had close ties with Phoenician cities of the central Lebanese coast, such as Tyre, Sidon and Byblos. This close relationship is reflected in the Hebrew Bible (see, e.g., Jeremiah 47:4). From other excavated areas at Tel Ashkelon dated to the 12th–7th centuries B.C.E. (the Iron Age), we see that the largest portion of Ashkelon’s imports came from Phoenicia.

Which finds made our top 10 Biblical archaeology discoveries of 2016? Find out >>

In addition to the many ceramic vessels from Ashkelon’s cemetery, jewelry, amulets and weapons have also been discovered. Individuals were found wearing delicate silver earrings, as well as bronze necklaces, bracelets, earrings and rings. A few bracelets with alternating bronze and carnelian beads and necklaces with alternating carnelian beads and cowrie shells were found; although the strings that originally connected these beads had long deteriorated, the beads themselves stayed in their original positions.

Cemetery excavation supervisor Adam Aja examines a 10th–9th century B.C.E.burial during the excavation of the Philistine cemetery by the Leon Levy Expedition to Ashkelon. A small juglet rests on the Philistine’s cheek. Photo: ©Tsafrir Abayov/Leon Levy Expedition.

The difference between Philistine burials and other burials in the region is compelling. The earlier Canaanites, as well as the Israelites and Judahites of the Iron Age, buried their dead in two steps. They first laid out their dead—usually on a bench in a tomb—and waited for the corpses to deflesh. Then about a year later, they gathered the deceased’s bones into niches in the tomb—repositories—where the bones were mixed with those of their ancestors. This process is not seen in Ashkelon’s Philistine cemetery, which has instead yielded many fully articulated skeletons. Sometimes burial pits would be dug again, and new individuals would be laid on top of previous burials—with their own grave goods—but the earlier burials were not intentionally disturbed. Relationships between those buried in the same pits and tombs are currently being investigated.

Not only does Ashkelon’s cemetery shed light on Philistine burial practices, but it also illuminates the Philistines as a people group.

“After decades of studying what the Philistines left behind, we have finally come face to face with the people themselves,” said Daniel M. Master, Co-Director of the Leon Levy Expedition to Ashkelon. “With this discovery we are close to unlocking the secrets of their origins.”

The Bible records that the Philistines, Israel’s archenemy, came from Caphtor (see, e.g., Amos 9:7). Many correlate Caphtor with the island of Crete. An Aegean heritage for the Philistines lines up well with the archaeological finds from Philistia. Modern excavations at the Philistine sites of Ashdod, Ekron, Ashkelon, and Gath (Tell es-Safi)—four city-states of the Philistine Pentapolis—have demonstrated that the Philistines brought their own distinctive types of pottery, building styles, weapons, jewelry and weaving with them when they settled on the southern coast of Israel around the 12th century B.C.E.

Ashkelon’s cemetery supports the Philistines’ distinctness from their neighbors and may be able to connect the Philistines to related populations in the Aegean world. Bone samples of the cemetery’s population are undergoing DNA testing, radiocarbon dating and biological distance studies (the degree of genetic relatedness). The results of these investigations may give us a better picture of the Philistines’ heritage, when Ashkelon’s cemetery was in use, and how the population of the cemetery was related to one another.

Skull from a Philistine burial from Ashkelon’s cemetery dated to the 10th–9th century B.C.E. Photo: ©Tsafrir Abayov/Leon Levy Expedition.

The discovery of Ashkelon’s cemetery was announced on July 10, 2016, at a press conference in Jerusalem and coincided with the opening of Ashkelon: A Retrospective, 30 Years of the Leon Levy Expedition, an Israel Museum exhibition at the Rockefeller Archaeological Museum in Jerusalem. The exhibit features discoveries from the Philistine cemetery, as well as artifacts uncovered from recent excavations at Tel Ashkelon that are representative of the site’s long, diverse occupational history from the Chalcolithic period through the Crusades. Highlights include the famous Canaanite silver calf (dated to the 16th century B.C.E.) that was found in a shrine on Ashkelon’s ramparts and beautiful imported Greek pottery from Ashkelon’s Philistine marketplace that was well-preserved due to Nebuchadnezzar’s destruction of the city in 604 B.C.E.

2016 marked the final season of the Leon Levy Expedition to Ashkelon, which began excavating the site in 1985. The discovery of the Philistine cemetery is a nice addition to 30 years of extraordinary finds at Ashkelon.

FREE ebook: Ten Top Biblical Archaeology Discoveries. Finds like the Pool of Siloam in Israel, where the Gospel of John says Jesus miraculously restored sight to a blind man.

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

Related reading in Bible History Daily:

The Philistine Marketplace at Ashkelon

Where Did the Philistines Come From?

Adornment in the Southern Levant by Josephine Verduci

Iron Age Gate and Fortifications Uncovered at Philistine Gath

The “Philistines” to the North

This Bible History Daily feature was originally published on July 10, 2016.

The post Philistine Cemetery Unearthed at Ashkelon appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

The Exodus

By Richard Elliott Friedman
(New York: HarperOne, 2017), 304 pp., $27.99 (hardcover)
Reviewed by Eric H. Cline

Richard Elliott Friedman—author of Who Wrote the Bible?—has done it again. Already by the end of the brief introduction, I was hooked—he had me at “Did the Exodus happen, and does it matter?” Never mind that I have been discussing the same questions with my students in class for a couple of decades now and have written about it myself; I wanted to know what Friedman was going to say.

A gifted writer, Friedman speaks directly to the reader—at times literally. “Let me ask you a question,” he says right at the beginning. “What does your intuition say: that something happened in Egypt, or that nothing happened?” Anticipating the answer given by some, he adds, “And if your answer was, ‘Why should I care?’ then the objective of this book has to be to show you what probably happened and also to show you why it matters.” He then proceeds to do exactly that, presenting the material in a series of chapters as “a work of detective non-fiction,” as he calls it. I kept expecting Sam Spade and the Maltese Falcon to appear on the next page. They never did, but they could have.

The book is full of fascinating facts, intriguing hypotheses, and interesting conundrums. Some are common knowledge, including the problem of two million people leaving Egypt all at once. Others were new to me, including the fact that only eight Israelites in the Biblical account of the Exodus have Egyptian names, and all eight are Levites, including Moses himself, which is an intriguing observation.

Above all, the material is presented with an emphasis on common sense, accompanied by Friedman’s wonderful sense of humor—or perhaps I should say, his rather gleeful levity throughout (pun intended): “People say that the Bible is the only book ever successfully written by a committee, but we also know that this is probably because the committee never held a meeting.”

There are also a number of interesting asides and discussions found throughout the book, to the extent that the reader should be prepared to enjoy the journey rather than be in a hurry to get to the destination, as the Greek poet Constantine P. Cavafy once wrote. A number of these had also never occurred to me to wonder about, as I am an archaeologist rather than a Biblical scholar, but I found them to be intriguing. For instance, Friedman devotes a section of one chapter to answering the query, “Why does God speak in the plural?” and, a few pages later, discusses the equally fascinating question, “How do gods die?”

He also describes a thought experiment that was more up my alley: What if we had first discovered all of the archaeological finds and only later found a copy of the Bible (rather than already having the Bible in hand before the archaeological discoveries were made)?

Thus we would have had Sennacherib’s inscription describing his siege of Hezekiah and Jerusalem before reading the Judean report of the same event, written from their perspective (in 2 Kings and Isaiah). Similarly, we would have had the fragmentary Tel Dan inscription, which mentions the House of David, well before learning of the Biblical accounts which “give us long, detailed accounts of King David and his descendants on the throne of Judah” (in 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Chronicles).

What would be the reaction to the discovery of such a book? Friedman suspects that some would undoubtedly claim it to be a forgery, while others would hail it as a revelation. All other things aside, it “would put flesh on the archaeological bones,” as Friedman correctly concludes.

With his engaging style, supported by superb scholarship and straightforward thinking, Friedman has succeeded in making his way through the morass of previous publications and presenting his take on how the Exodus happened and why it matters.

For those so inclined, the detailed endnotes contain additional asides and discussions, although the book can also be read without ever consulting these. Even the appendices are interesting.

Friedman has succeeded in writing one of the most enjoyable books that I have read in a long time. I won’t be alone in this opinion, for this is a book that will be a pleasure to read for anyone who picks it up, from beginner to the undergraduate student to the most erudite scholar.
 

 
Eric H. Cline is Professor of Classics and Anthropology and Director of the Capitol Archaeological Institute at The George Washington University. Dr. Cline is also the Co-director of the Kabri Archaeological Project at Tel Kabri, Israel. His many books include Three Stones Make a Wall: The Story of Archaeology (Princeton, 2017).

The post The Exodus appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

In the May/June 2015 issue of BAR, Lawrence H. Schiffman describes the Dead Sea Scrolls’ history, from their discovery in the Qumran caves to the state of present-day scroll research. Pictured is the War Scroll, popularly called “The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness.” The War Scroll was one of the first seven Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in the Qumran caves. Photo: Israel Museum.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are considered one of the greatest archaeological finds of all time. Discovered in 11 caves near the Dead Sea site of Khirbet Qumran, the scrolls date between 250 B.C.E. and 68 C.E. and comprise some 800 Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts in tens of thousands of fragments. Two types of works can be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls: books from the Hebrew Bible and religious writings that—most scholars contend—describe the beliefs and practices of a group of Jews living in a settlement at Qumran.

What do the Dead Sea Scrolls say? What can the scrolls tell us about the history of Judaism and Christianity and the people who lived at Qumran? In “A Short History of the Dead Sea Scrolls and What They Tell Us” in the May/June 2015 issue of BAR, Lawrence H. Schiffman recounts the scrolls’ journey from the Qumran caves to their publication and digitization.

FREE ebook: The Dead Sea Scrolls: Discovery and Meaning. What the Dead Sea Scrolls teach about Judaism and Christianity.

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

Tens of thousands of Dead Sea Scroll fragments were discovered in the Qumran caves near the Dead Sea. Seen here is Qumran Cave 4, where the majority of the Dead Sea Scrolls were found.

The Dead Sea Scrolls’ history—how they were found, how they were initially available to only a select few for study, and how they were eventually freed to the wider scholarly community—spans nearly seven decades of controversy and intrigue—and includes a 1993 lawsuit against BAR editor Hershel Shanks. Now, there is an entire field of research dedicated to the Dead Sea Scrolls.

So what do the Dead Sea Scrolls say?

What have we learned from the decades of scroll research? Scroll scholar Lawrence H. Schiffman, the Judge Abraham Lieberman Professor of Hebrew and Judaic Studies at New York University, provides an important example:

Disagreements about Jewish law were the main factors that separated Jewish groups and movements in Second Temple times. Yes, many theological differences also existed. These, however, were manifested most clearly in the differing opinions about Jewish practice and ritual. The impact of the scrolls on our understanding of the history of halakhah (Jewish law) has been enormous.

Purchase your copy of Freeing the Dead Sea Scrolls, author and BAR editor Hershel Shanks’s fascinating account of his scrapes with governments, nomads and scoundrels in a quest to make these vital tools of academic study available to the wider world.

Learn more about how the Dead Sea Scrolls’ history captivated the world and what we’ve learned from the scrolls by reading “A Short History of the Dead Sea Scrolls and What They Tell Us” by Lawrence H. Schiffman in the May/June 2015 issue of BAR.

Not a BAS Library member yet? Join the BAS Library today.

This Bible History Daily feature was originally published on May 11, 2015.

The post Lawrence H. Schiffman on the Dead Sea Scrolls’ History appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

The imposing Judahite fortress of Khirbet Qeiyafa has been securely dated by pottery and radiocarbon analysis to the early tenth century B.C.E. and the reign of King David. Faced with a date for Qeiyafa that confirms the traditional high Bible chronology, the low chronology “minimalists” now desperately argue that Qeiyafa was a Philistine fort tied to the kingdom of Gath, not a border fortress of the early Judahite state. But archaeology says otherwise.

There’s been a lot of debate around the issue of Bible chronology, which more specifically relates to the era of the reigns of David and Solomon. Did they live in the archaeological period known as Iron Age I, which is archaeologically poorly documented, or in Iron Age IIa, for which more evidence is available. Proponents of low Bible chronology, called minimalists, claim the transition occurred around 920 to 900 B.C. Proponents of a high Bible chronology put the date around 1000 to 980 B.C. Some scholars have asked if radiocarbon dating accuracy will help settle the question.

What is radiocarbon dating? Radioactive carbon-14 is used to analyze an organic material, such as wood, seeds, or bones, to determine a date of the material’s growth. Is radiocarbon dating accuracy indeed more reliable to determine Bible chronology than traditional dating methods that rely on archaeological evidence that looks at strata context? In the following article, “Carbon 14—The Solution to Dating David and Solomon?” Lily Singer-Avitz attempts to answer these questions.

In answering “What is radiocarbon dating?” she enumerates some of its deficiencies. Radiocarbon dating accuracy has its limits. The material’s period of growth might be many decades from the era in which it was used or reused, say, in building construction. Calibration procedures are complex and periodically revised as new information comes to light, skewing the radiocarbon dating accuracy. And statistical models also vary from researcher to researcher. Ultimately, radiocarbon dating accuracy for calculating Iron Age dates, and consequentially Bible chronology, has varied from researcher to researcher. When it comes to Bible chronology, the difference between a “high” and “low” chronology is a matter of mere decades, not centuries.

Singer-Avitz claims the material evidence of archaeological stratigraphy, including pottery finds, should not take second place. What is radiocarbon dating? A useful tool but only one and not the only when it comes to determining Bible chronology.

Archaeological Views: Carbon 14—The Solution to Dating David and Solomon?

by Lily Singer-Avitz

The date of the transition from the archaeological period known as Iron Age I to Iron Age IIa is a particularly hotly disputed topic, especially because the date of the transition is crucial for elucidating the history and material culture of the reigns of David and Solomon.

According to the so-called high chronology, the transition occurred around 1000 or 980 B.C.E. It is generally recognized that David conquered Jerusalem in about 1000 B.C.E. According to the low chronology, the transition to Iron Age IIa occurred around 920–900 B.C.E. Other opinions place the transition somewhere between the two—in about 950 B.C.

The date is important because the date you choose will determine whether David and Solomon reigned in the archaeologically poor and archaeologically poorly documented Iron I or in the comparatively rich and richly documented Iron IIa.

However, the differences in data between the various schools are not dramatically far apart. They range between 30 and 80 years.

In an attempt to solve this chronological problem and to achieve a more accurate date for the transition period, many scholars have resorted to carbon-14 (or radiocarbon) analysis, which can be performed on any organic substance, like wood or grain. Radio-carbon dating is regarded by many scholars as accurate, precise and scientific, in contrast to the old cultural-historical methods of dating archaeological strata, which the devotees of radiocarbon regard as inaccurate and intuitive. The hope of many scholars who feel that this science-based radiocarbon research will bring the debate to its longed-for solution is, in my view, difficult to adopt.

The question I would like to raise is whether radiocarbon dating is really more precise, objective and reliable than the traditional way of dating when applied to the problem of the date of the transition from Iron I to Iron IIa. This question is sharpened in light of the fact that the uncertainty in the usual radiocarbon readings (plus or minus 25 years or so) may be as large as the difference in dates in the debate.

Interested in the latest archaeological technology? Researchers at the UCSD’s Calit2 laboratory released the free BAS eBook Cyber-Archaeology in the Holy Land — The Future of the Past, featuring the latest research on GPS, Light Detection and Ranging Laser Scanning, unmanned aerial drones, 3D artifact scans, CAVE visualization environments and much more.

The radiocarbon dating has several serious difficulties:

(1) Sample selection. Measuring the remaining carbon-14 content in “long-term” organic samples, such as wood, will provide the date of growth of the tree, rather than the date of the archaeological stratum in which the sample was found. Furthermore, wooden beams were reused in later strata, which can result in even greater differences in date. Since these “long-term” samples may introduce the “old wood” effect, any calculation of precise absolute dates based on “long-term” samples is unreliable and may easily lead to errors of up to several decades or even more. For this reason, researchers prefer to use “short-life” samples, such as seeds, grain or olive pits.

(2) Outliers. In many studies, particular radio-carbon dates are not considered valid because they do not match the majority of dated samples from the site in question. In other words the particular sample is either too late or too early No doubt the rejection of certain dates as “outliers” and their exclusion from the model may lead to different dates. Omitting outliers would be acceptable only so long as it is being done in a consistent, transparent way.

(3) Calibration. Radiocarbon years differ from calendar years because the former are dependent on the varying content of carbon-14 in the atmosphere. Therefore a complex procedure known as calibration has been developed, which converts radiocarbon test results to calendar years by relating these results to dendrochronologically dated tree-ring samples. The calibration curve is revised periodically as more data are continuously accumulated. But the absolute date after calibration depends on which calibration formula is used. The results, depending on the calibration, can be quite different.

(4) Standard deviation. Radiocarbon dates come with a given uncertainty. This uncertainty ranges from 20 years (for high-precision dating) through intermediate values of 50–100 years, and in some cases up to 100–150 years.

(5) Statistics. For interpreting the results, different statistical models are used by different researchers. Naturally, different statistical models for interpretation of the same data will produce different results.

(6) Other considerations. After processing the data with all these scientific tools, most archaeologists “improve” the given dates in accordance with broader archaeological and historical considerations.

For all these reasons, contrasting dates have been reached in the ongoing chronological debate concerning the Iron Age. A decisive solution is far from being accomplished. Based on the very same data, but employing different statistical methods, the various schools have reached quite diverse conclusions.

I do not mean to reject radiocarbon methodology for archaeological dating. But it is much more useful regarding broader archaeological periods. The differences in the various dates for the transition from Iron I to Iron IIa are too small to be helped much by radiocarbon dating.

Hopefully, as radiocarbon dating continues to develop, it will eventually be more useful in solving the problems of Iron Age chronology. But at present the use of this method for elucidating the problems of this period, in which the differences between the theories are so small, investment of this huge effort (hundreds of samples must be tested) does not contribute to our understanding of the chronological problems any more than the traditional cultural-historical methods, based on pottery chronology, etc. Moreover, as so much emphasis is put on questions of different calibration methods and different statistical manipulations, sometimes the archaeological evidence is neglected and the data are not properly presented.

The first stage in every discussion should be the proper presentation of the main archaeological finds—that is, stratigraphy and pottery. Based on the material finds it is possible to compare sites and regions and create a cultural-chronological horizon. In some cases today scholars are comparing radiocarbon dates, even before publishing the finds. The archaeological evidence is often not mentioned. Moreover, this archaeological evidence is not available and cannot be examined.

In short, radiocarbon is not the be-all and end-all of the problem. Let’s not ignore traditional archaeological dating methods.

“Archaeological Views: Carbon 14—The Solution to Dating David and Solomon?” by Lily Singer-Avitz originally appeared in Biblical Archaeology Review, May/June 2009. It was first republished in Bible History Daily on July 17, 2011.

Related reading in Bible History Daily:

How Old Is That? Dating in the Ancient World

Biblical Studies in the Digital Age

Digital Humanities and the Ancient World

Archaeological Views: New Eyeballs on Ancient Texts

Archaeological Views: Pottery in the Computer Age

The post Does Radiocarbon Dating Accuracy Help Us Determine Bible Chronology? appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.