Posted on 01/26/2005 8:44:58 PM PST by blam
Archeologist unearths biblical controversy
Artifacts from Iron Age fortress confirm Old Testament dates of Edomite kingdom
By MICHAEL VALPY
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
Canadian archeologist Russell Adams's interest is in Bronze Age and Iron Age copper production. He never intended to walk into archeology's vicious debate over the historical accuracy of the Old Testament -- a conflict likened by one historian to a pack of feral canines at each other's throats.
Yet by coincidence, Prof. Adams of Hamilton's McMaster University says, he and an international team of colleagues fit into place a significant piece of the puzzle of human history in the Middle East -- unearthing information that points to the existence of the Bible's vilified Kingdom of Edom at precisely the time the Bible says it existed, and contradicting widespread academic belief that it did not come into being until 200 years later.
Their findings mean that those scholars convinced that the Hebrew Old Testament is at best a compendium of revisionist, fragmented history, mixed with folklore and theology, and at worst a piece of outright propaganda, likely will have to apply the brakes to their thinking.
Because, if the little bit of the Old Testament's narrative that Prof. Adams and his colleagues have looked at is true, other bits could be true as well.
References to the Kingdom of Edom -- almost none of them complimentary -- are woven through the Old Testament. It existed in what is today southern Jordan, next door to Israel, and the relationship between the biblical Edomites and Israelites was one of unrelenting hostility and warfare.
The team led by Prof. Adams, Thomas Levy of the University of California at San Diego and Mohammad Najjar of the Jordanian Department of Antiquities was investigating copper mining and smelting at a site called Khirbat en-Nahas, by far the largest copper-production site in the region.
They applied high-precision radiocarbon-dating methods to some of their finds, and as they say in the British journal Antiquities, "The results were spectacular."
They firmly established that occupation of the site began in the 11th century BC and a monumental fortress was built in the 10th century BC, supporting the argument for existence of an Edomite state at least 200 years earlier than had been assumed.
What is particularly exciting about their find is that it implies the existence of an Edomite state at the time the Bible says King David and his son Solomon ruled over a powerful united kingdom of Israel and Judah.
It is the historical accuracy -- the very existence of this united kingdom and the might and splendour of David and Solomon, as well as the existence of surrounding kingdoms -- that lies at the heart of the archeological dispute.
Those scholars known as minimalists argue that what is known as "state formation" -- the emergence of regional governments and kings -- did not take place in the area until the imperialistic expansion of the Assyrian empire in the 8th century BC, so David and Solomon, rather than being mighty monarchs, were mere petty chieftains.
And because everything that takes place in the Middle East inevitably is political, the minimalist argument is seen as weakening modern Israel's claim to Palestine.
In the biblical narrative, the Edomites are the descendents of Esau, whose blessing from his father, Isaac, was stolen by his younger brother, Jacob, ancestor of the Israelites. (Fans of the British satirical-comedy group Beyond the Fringe will recall how Jacob pulled off the theft by presenting himself as the hirsute Esau to their blind father, saying in an aside: "My brother Esau is an hairy man, but I am a smooth man.")
The Edomites are lambasted in the Bible for refusing to let the Israelites rest on their land as they flee Egypt. God declares obscurely: "Over Edom will I cast out my shoe." The Israelites grumble enviously that there were kings of Edom before there were kings of Israel -- a highly significant passage because it implies that state formation occurred in Edom before it happened in Israel.
Finally, there is the biblical account of David's war against the Edomites, in which David and his general, Joab, kill 18,000 Edomites and establish military control over them by "putting garrisons throughout all Edom."
Irish scholar John Bartlett, one of the world's great experts on the Edomites, dates the battle at 990 to 980 BC, precisely when Prof. Adams and his colleagues date the fortress.
Says Prof. Adams: "This battle between the Israelites and the Edomites, although not possible to document, is typical of the sort of border conflicts between Iron Age states. And the evidence of our new dates at least proves that it may, in fact, be possible to place the Edomites in the 10th century [BC] or earlier, which now supports the chronology of the biblical accounts.
"It is intriguing that at Khirbat en-Nahas, our large Iron Age fort is dated to just this period, suggesting conflict as a central concern even at a remote copper-production site."
He concludes: "We're not out to prove the Bible right or wrong. We're not trying to be controversial. We're just trying to be good anthropologists and scientists, and tell the story of our archeological site."
"unearthing information that points to the existence of the Bible's vilified Kingdom of Edom at precisely the time the Bible says it existed, and contradicting widespread academic belief that it did not come into being until 200 years later."
No surprise there. :')
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on, off, or alter the "Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list --
Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
The GGG Digest -- Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
... Numbers 12 through 15 were illegible, but #11 said, oddly enough, "Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican."
Thanks for the ping!
Interesting. I don't think that most people doubt that much of the Old Testament is based on actual historical events. For example, there's Pitman and Ryan's hypothesis that the Flood story originated in the breaching of the Bosphorus by the Mediterranean Sea to form the Black Sea. I also recently saw a very interesting programme that correlated the flight from Egypt with events surrounding the explosion and collapse of the volcanic island of Santorini (falling ash, a tsunami causing an ebbing of the sea and subsequent drowning the Egyptian army - they accounted for all the plagues with natural explanations). All very plausible in my opinion, unlike a global flood or literal one-week creation within the last ten thousand years.
I don't like this kind of writing. It is not the correct way to present a new discovery.
Thanks!
Beat me to it.
I believe the dating, and the accuracy of the bible here - but then again I seek truth and am consistent.
Interesting find.
"Their findings mean that those scholars convinced that the Hebrew Old Testament is at best a compendium of revisionist, fragmented history, mixed with folklore and theology, and at worst a piece of outright propaganda, likely will have to apply the brakes to their thinking.
Because, if the little bit of the Old Testament's narrative that Prof. Adams and his colleagues have looked at is true, other bits could be true as well."
"I don't like this kind of writing. It is not the correct way to present a new discovery."
What??? This is a complete accurate description of what is.
That is not the scientific objective way to present the information.
It reveals an agenda that is easily noted and disdained by the very people who would benefit from taking a close look at the evidence. They are turned off immediately and justified in ignoring the report because it clearly is deliberately antagonistic and smug instead of matter-of-fact.
Biblical history must be shown to be matter-of-fact first. Then the other conclusions may be reached by the people who have been blind and resistant to the possibility that Biblical truth exists and can be proven.
"That is not the scientific objective way to present the information. "
Most people of the "science" have done just about everything they can to disprove the BIBLE. So I won't be shedding any tears over their supposed hurt feelings.
All my life in science nothing about the Bible was relevant, and 99% of anything religious has always ignored Esau. This is very curious considering that Jacob/Israel's and Esau's mother was told that in her womb were two nations. So I ask you where is Esau?
My point has nothing to do with hurt feelings.
It has to do with revealing the truth to eyes that have previously been blind.
It has to do with revising the wrong standards already in place and gaining acceptance of a new standard that, incidentally, does not contradict the Biblical accounts.
That's the purpose of the research and reports, isn't it? To discover and teach the truth about history and renew interest in reliable records that have been falsely discredited.
Let the students reach their own conclusions without insulting them before they sit down in class. Draw them in with fascinating evidence, don't push them away with a personal, political or religious vendetta.
Hmmm. Frustrated archaeologist ping.
Very interesting...
I don't believe that science has tried to disprove the bible. As a matter of fact, the Bible has been found to be extremely accurate, historically speaking.
The rulers and tribes, the places and names, have in most cases been confirmed.
But everyone knows Radiocarbon dating is flawed!
/sarcasm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.