Home  ›  Archaeological Evidence Of David And Solomon

Archaeological Evidence Of David And Solomon

Archaeological data on the time of David and Solomon , which are the subject of this article, consist only of what is, at present, as evidenced archaeological, there is a very broad agreement among archaeologists, regardless of their own ideas, while at the interpretation and construction history, we find them very different visions of historical or totally contradictory. An archaeological data, as attested, is refutable in the sense of Karl Popper , then an interpretation is not, since it contains an opinion. Some opinions are listed below for illustrative purposes, they are representative, quoted accurately and placed in the mouth of the author. The scientific exegesis of the Bible is not part of Archaeology: An archaeological data on the Bible is the discovery of a manuscript in excavations and dating of this copy. Amihai Mazar writes :

"To collect, process, integrate, interpret these data are not many simple tasks ... Introduction
The main roads that cross the Palestine in the early tenth century BC. AD. Connecting different cultures, they are used for trade and military expeditions.

It is away from main roads of Palestine show delivery of the first Jews in the twelfth century BC. AD and organize themselves in the eleventh century BC. BC and the time of David and Solomon. The transition from the Bronze Age Late to the Iron Age I, then to the Iron Age II, is accompanied by significant technological change and transformation of social organization. The invasions of the Sea Peoples are accompanied by a general collapse in the XIII centuryBC. BC , Ugarit disappears, Megiddo , Beit Shean , Lachish , Hazor destroyed and Egypt , weakened, withdrew from Palestine to -1250. A new, more fragmented, with city-states less strong, is growing . At the time of David and Solomon, the ancient Canaanite culture, with its powerful city-states near major transportation routes, will gradually give way to Jewish culture. The large neighboring countries of Egypt , Aram-Damascus , then the Assyrians , exert their influence, leaving their mark, particularly on those pillars. These changes are evidenced by the archaeological data from the field: the campaign of Shishak I. the tenth century BC. BC, around -925 , is one example.

The problem of dating own at the time of David and Solomon

Archaeology found nowhere own problem dating to the tenth century BC. BC, except in Palestine on subjects concerning David and Solomon: The controversy between "low chronology" and "modified conventional chronology (see Story of David and Solomon: interpretations of archaeological data ) is not just a technical debate between archaeologists, it is blurred by interpretations of the biblical narrative. In archeology, dating is with the methods of the archeology , that is to say from the stratigraphic analysis of the typology of pottery , Technology and other radiocabone methods. The layers of destruction that releases the stratigraphy, or steles and inscriptions that can be discovered, refer to the history of the powers involved in Palestine by the main axes of communication that traverse: Egyptian Empire , Hittite Empire , Aram-Damascus , Moab , the Assyrians etc.. Few written records dating from the tenth century BC. BC have been found in Palestine, the collapse related systemic invasions of the Sea Peoples , who did not write, having upset the dominant powers, who wrote.

Dating traditional style pottery continues to require some subjective evaluation of the style of pottery and the production life of this type of pottery. Dendrology in principle perfect, that determines a date to the year, is unfortunately rarely used for practical reasons (it requires a perfect state of preservation of a piece of wood). The technique of radiocarbon dating , in principle insensitive to subjective assessments , underwent a revolution with the introduction of mass spectrometry accelerator (we can now date objects as small as an olive pit or a grain of wheat, since it is sufficient to prepare approximately 1 mg of carbon properly insulated), with the introduction of registration (which can take into account variations in initial percentage of 14 C over time and by geographic location ) and finally with the development of sophisticated statistical methods ( Bayesian statistics ), which take account of known events and also to calculate the probability that a date assigned by the calculation is accurate. Depending on the choice made known events that are introduced in Bayesian statistics, it follows some variation in dates obtained: the method is not totally insensitive to subjective assessments, but differences remain, however weak or very low.

Headed by Thomas E. Levy and Thomas Higham, an international conference convened to carry out this company and dates of data collection. In their introduction to the report published in 2005 , Thomas E. Levy and Thomas Higham strongly emphasized that this company brings together leading archaeologists, anthropologists, Egyptologists, historians and scholars of the Bible radiocarbon dating . Thomas E. Levy and Thomas Higham believe that this account is now a reference on the subject . It contains, essentially, archaeological data (refutable in the sense of Popper ) and the prominence given to historical interpretations (not rebuttable) of these data is extremely limited. In conclusion of their introduction, Thomas E. Levy and Thomas Higham stress that:

"... This broad confrontation, emerges finally a guideline: A. Sherrat is indeed noted that towards the end of the meeting of Yarnton Manor, after long discussions on radiocarbon dates on archeology and history, both sides seemed about to agree. The "two sides" to which he refers are those scholars who argue that their data are in line of David and Solomon a more historical, based on the Hebrew Bible , and those who argue that their data indicate that these figures were more mythical than real. We leave to the reader, having read and weighed the evidence presented here, to decide which side has prevailed scholars . "

The controversy is not completely settled on dating is complicated by the fact that a large number of strata are present and a small error in stratum involves a big mistake to date. The datings are made from pottery style, and now by the technique of carbon-14 dating by accelerator with spectrometry, calibration and statistical treatment. The extreme precision required is why we can not always perfectly clear conclusions because a small error in the date (70 years), which is only a small error at the archaeological data, radically alters the conclusions level of historical interpretation that can be constructed from the data. The current precision of radiocarbon dating, for a 95% accuracy (2 statistical) is typically 35 years . The difference in dates between the "side I. Finkelstein "and" Side A. Mazar is typically a maximum of 70 years . It is at the interpretation that "both sides" that the building is passionate controversy, while at archaeological data differences have become smaller now.

William G. Dever wrote in this book:

"Historians - particularly biblical scholars, most of them have a training philologists, theologians and sometimes - have been slow or reluctant to see the impact of the" archaeological revolution "recently. But it appears with sufficient evidence that all the histories of ancient Israel are now obsolete ... In my case, my next book will be a story of ancient Israel written largely without recourse to the Hebrew Bible , based mostly on the rich archaeological data we now have . "

He adds:

"Personally I am still committed to the conventional chronology (not the" high chronology "), for reasons which I have dwelt at length in several recent publications, none of them" ideological. " But if it happens that the evidence mounts in favor of a lower chronology, I will be among the first to switch. This is not to "save" the Hebrew Bible , or to defend "Solomon in all his glory, nor to argue about who was there first, Canaanites or Israelites, Palestinians or Israelis . "

Amihai Mazar , in the same book, rejects both the conventional chronology introduced by Yigael Yadin and low chronology proposed by Israel Finkelstein. Criticizing what he believes to be a priori, he writes:

"If the answer to this question is positive, the new paradigm is not better than the traditional thinking in biblical archeology. "

He proposes a modified conventional chronology, intermediate between the chronology of high Yigael Yadin and low chronology of Israel Finkelstein. It states:

"In historical terms, the modified conventional chronology used here keeps most of the archaeological image on the X century and the united monarchy, although skepticism arising, even under this system. Yet even if we accept the X century and traditional dates of strata such as Megiddo VA-IVB, Hazor X, and so on, and buildings such as the structure of stone stairs in Jerusalem, the picture emerging archaeological does not indicate necessarily a unified monarchy in size and importance. ... "

While the space for interpretations is extremely small in the book edited by Thomas E. Levy and Thomas Higham, the controversy over the interpretations is presented in another book, this time: The Quest for the Historical Israel. Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel, signed with Israel Finkelstein and Amihai Mazar , in a form accessible to a wider audience.

Archaeological Data on the time of David

Tel Dan Stele

Concerning the person of King David, the only document is the explicit archaeological Tel Dan stele , discovered in 1993. Technically, there is no way to date a stele or stone ostracon date as a piece of organic material - olive pit or cereal grain - at 14C (see Methods of scientific archeology ). The only direct means of dating are epigraphy and paleography, but they give an order of magnitude. Sometimes you can have a precise dating indirectly, by reference to an event that is commensurate with the inscription and the date of which is known elsewhere. The clay tablets used for cuneiform writing can be dated by thermoluminescence when they suffered a cooking fire. The Tel Dan stele , found out clear stratigraphic context (reused as construction material ), is not dated exactly, but archaeologists date from the ninth or eighth century. A king of Aram-Damascus, probably Hazael , was engraved in Aramaic (Syria is Aram):

"I killed , whereas neighboring kingdoms are known by their records and the list of Shishak mentioned many towns and villages, cast serious doubt on the size of David's kingdom (as well as that of Solomon). This stele proves also that at the time of registration the kingdom of Israel ("the house of Omri" Assyrian archives) is different from the realm of "the house of David." Archaeology does not provide that data on David to it later and there is no archaeological data to date the reign of David, we can only estimate based on the biblical text ( -1010 , -970 ) Dates to be taken as orders of magnitude plausible, not numbers established by archaeological sources .
Implementation of the Israelites in the early tenth century BC. AD (dense housing to the north, south habitat diluted) Canaanites (valleys), Philistines (coast)

Regarding the Jewish tribes mentioned in the Bible , nor their names or their location are verified by archeology, or in any archive, nor any registration. Only the appearance of the tribal organization, a very general way, with the passage of the Bronze Age to the Iron Age , which is attested by archeology. At the time of the Amarna Letters , Canaan is organized into city-states in the valleys and "dimorphic chiefdoms" (that is to say, mid-mid-sedentary nomads) in the highlands. This organization continues with the development of the early Israelites, and continues until the tenth century. Mario Liverani written :

"The central highlands, because of their geographical layout, did not include a significant number of city-states. They were collected in two cities with a palace, Shechem in the north and south Jerusalem. , most archaeologists believe Jerusalem was the tenth century BC. BC, a small village without fortifications, limited to the location known as the "City of David," unrelated to the biblical description. Not until the seventh century BC. AD to see a phenomenal growth of Jerusalem , see below the paragraph on Jerusalem.

In the early tenth century BC. AD (c. -1000 ), the population living in the southern highlands (geographical area corresponding to Judah ) is estimated at 5,000 inhabitants. This is a small rural population. It is unlikely that this population may have contributed to the formation of a large army under David. At the same time, on the northern highlands (geographical area corresponding to Israel ), the population is estimated at 40,000 inhabitants. The difference is explained by the geographic basis: the northern part is watered and situated on the lines of communication, the southern part is drier and more easily accessible . By comparison, the Egyptian population is estimated at 2.8 million people to -1250.

According Amihai Mazar :

"You can see in David a ruler like Labayu, except that he conducted a time when neither the Egyptians nor any other foreign power intervened more, and where the Canaanite cities were in decline. Archaeological Data on the time of Solomon

Concerning the person of King Solomon, although the Bible talks a lot about him, but - his name was not found, nor on the particular stele of Mesha , or on the stele from Tel Dan , nor on the list of Shishak I. to Karnak , or on the stele of Shishak I. to Megiddo - it is not so far attested by archeology. The "house of David" is confirmed, the existence of Solomon is not questioned by archaeologists . The archaeologists are unanimous in recognizing that the very name of Solomon appears nowhere in its close neighbors, or in the archives or on any entry in Egypt as in Lebanon ( Byblos ) in Aram-Damascus or Assyria. And this, even Abdi-Heba, king of the small Jerusalem , and Labayu, the little king of Shechem , have left traces well known in the Amarna letters , and the scribes of Ugarit , to Mari , then those of Byblos , never cease to influence the scribes in Canaan (see below "The lack of writing in the reign of Solomon"). For dates from the reign of Solomon, we can make an estimate from the biblical text ( -970 , -930 , with the same reservations as for David).

On the geographic extent corresponding to Israel (north), we find traces of very important buildings on several sites, including Samaria , Megiddo , Gezer , Hazor. A passionate controversy, which is not yet fully resolved, concerns the exact dating of these buildings. The stele of Mesha , discovered outside its stratigraphic context (dated ninth century BC.) brings in his text, however important details, including the passage about the king Omri :

Omri was king of Israel and oppressed Moab for many days, because Chemosh was angry against his country. His son succeeded him and he also said: "I will oppress Moab." In my days, he spoke (thus), but I was pleased against him and against his house. Israel has been ruined forever. Omri had taken possession of countries and Madaba (Israel) lived there during his reign and part of the reign of his son, namely forty years, but Chemosh of my time was inhabited. "

According to Assyrian records, the battle of Qarqar in -853 , Shalmaneser III is facing a powerful coalition in which Ahab , king of Israel , provides a very strong contingent (2,000 tanks, 700 riders, 20,000 soldiers). Assyrian archives use the term "house of Omri." The military power of Omri as evidenced by the king of Moab , Mesha , that of the "house of Omri and Ahab attested by the King of Aram-Damascus , Hazael most likely, and the king of Assyria , Shalmaneser III , which also mentions Ahab and Jehu , constructions of Samaria , the capital base that Omri , can not be attributed to Solomon. Including Samaria the magnificent carved stone palace (Building Period I) clearly belongs to King Omri . While "Samaria Building Period I" belongs to the era of Omrides and a small part in the time of Jehu , "Samaria Building Period II, with the house of ostraca and casemate wall, posterior to Omrides belongs the eighth century BC. AD. According to Norma Franklin , the joint presence of masons marks and use the same standard length of 0.45 m, "Samaria Building Period I and Megiddo Stratum V, lead to date the" 1723 Building "of Megiddo to the time of Omri as well. Stratum "Megiddo VA-IVB, which owns the palace has recently been radiocarbon dated, these dates confirming his membership at the time of Omri . According to Norma Franklin , the great stone palace of Samaria uses lengths of 12, 16, 48, 60 and 100 times the standard length of 0.45 m, the palace 1723 Megiddo uses lengths of 2, 6, 8 , 10 and 16 times 0.45 m. Home ostraca and casemate wall of Samaria use lengths of 2, 4, 25, 30 and 50 times the standard length of 0.495 m. Assyrian At Megiddo , the great courtyard of the stable courtyard and the second measure 120x120 standard Assyrian times the length of 0.495 m. The stable, the door to his triple clamps and wall use lengths of 8, 10, 12.36, 40, 60 and 120 times the standard length of 0.495 m. Assyrian "Samaria Building Period II" and "Megiddo Stratum IVA, which use the standard Assyrian length of 0.495 m, are dated to the eighth century. The site of Megiddo has 25 archaeological layers and covers 7,000 years of history. To -1800 , Megiddo is a city-state of 2,000 inhabitants with important buildings, fortifications and temples. At Megiddo , the door to triple squeezed and the city wall, which is connected, and the great team belong to the stratum "Megiddo IVA" and are dated -800. The palace beneath the wall and one located in the stable are necessarily past: the remains of the most important palaces and temples carved in stone, are dated -900 . These tests are confirmed by the excavations at Jezreel , the site was occupied some time in the late omrides and is, therefore, dated -850 with certainty .

Tel Rehov has no impressive palace nor impressive doors, carved stone is not used, but the stratigraphy is rich and clear. Coldstream and Mazar recognize that it is not without problems, however : "Whether the pile of wheat found in" Locus 2425 "should be attributed to the destruction of Stratum V or reuse of this cavity in Stratum IV is still an open question. to distinguish old 8 periods (Bronze Age, Bronze Intermediate, Middle Bronze, Late Bronze Age, Iron IA, IB Iron, Iron IIA, IIB Iron), characterized by any Abundant pottery typology which has been presented in great detail, and whose stratigraphy has been radiocarbon dated carefully .

On the geographic extent corresponding to Judah (southern part), after -900 , imposing citadels are built Lachish and Bet Shemesh , the latter comprising a hydraulic system. A fortress was built at Tel Beersheba , another in Arad , the latter including an administrative center. There is consensus, by Jessica N. Whisenant , among archaeologists to recognize the significant development of Lachish , Bet Shemesh , Tel Beersheba and Arad in the ninth century, and "the appearance of a central government with an investment at a high level of resources Planning and construction of military and administrative structures. . There is also agreement on the allocation of "stratum Arad XII " , with its destruction at the time of Shishak I.. The two fortresses, the first built across the territory of Judah , date from the ninth century BC. AD. To -800 , the total population of the kingdom of Judah is estimated at 35,000 inhabitants, that of the kingdom of Israel 350 000. The development of Jerusalem is posterior development of the valley of Beersheba : even to -800 , Jerusalem is limited to six hectares of the City of David and will not be fortified before the late eighth century, see below.

In summary, four points, which does not depend on the controversy of dating, emerging from the archaeological data above (and those on the expedition of Shishak I. below):

  • There are no data indicating that a major archaeological structures found on the geographic extent corresponding to Israel was actually built by Solomon.
  • If Solomon had really been at the head of a huge kingdom as described in the biblical account, registration and records of neighboring countries, where the power of Omri , of Ahab and Jehu is proven, would not failed to say and it is unthinkable that none of the many documents retrieved does not contain the slightest allusion to the kingdom.
  • The absence of any mention of the kingdom of Solomon is particularly striking in the military expedition of Shishak I.. Stele of Karnak is very detailed, nor Jerusalem nor Judah city is among the 180 names engraved and if, as the Bible says Jerusalem was submitted with a precious treasure, it is unthinkable to Shishak I. refrained from telling the feat.
  • Comments on specific Jewish tribe in the reign of Solomon are constructs based on interpretations of the Bible , not raw archaeological data.

For Amihai Mazar :

"You can describe the Unified Monarchy as a state at a first stage of development, away from the rich state and a growth industry that depicts the biblical account. Its capital, during the period of David can be likened to a medieval village surrounded by a medium sized city, yet it could well have been the center of a scheme that included most of the West Bank. "

Archaeological Data on Jerusalem at the time of David and Solomon

The actual status of Jerusalem , at the time of David and Solomon, of paramount importance as it is described in the Bible (the capital of a large and successful big "unified Kingdom) or, conversely, if archaeological data contradict such a radical vision. According to Israel Finkelstein :

"The idea that the modest Jerusalem of the tenth century, with its hinterland to the sparse habitat, had reigned on the rich and prosperous city-states of the distant valleys of the North is quite absurd. "

According to Mario Liverani , this "unified Kingdom" is a late construction of the drafters of the Bible, written return from exile in Babylon, and whose ideological content meets the need of the moment (the Judean n is a province of the Persian Empire , there are over Judah at all). Conversely, without a professional journal published in peer-and without making radiocarbon dating, Eilat Mazar claims to have found the palace of King David and a wall of the tenth century BC. AD .

Archaeological data on the Palestine of that time are very numerous, those on Jerusalem are much less rich. Ussishkin David showed that the Jerusalem of Solomon is a small poor village without fortif ication. Ronny Reich, who told Israel Autority Association Branch excavations of the City of David . The construction of this most important time is the staircase structure . Yet, as pointed out Ronny Reich imposing fortifications dated to -1700 were found, showing that when structures are very important they do not disappear without a trace, showing that at that earlier time Jerusalem was a city of significant size . This phenomenon of sharp decline is not unique to Jerusalem , it is related to the systemic collapse, which marks the transition from Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age (see: Archaeological Data on the conquest of Canaan and archaeological data on the Philistines ).

Jessica N. Whisenant in his detailed work of synthesis , after numerous studies, archeology does not support the vision of a state centered on Jerusalem in the tenth century (see Ussishkin , Na'aman Steiner , Whitelam and Franken , Killebrew ), the Jerusalem of the tenth and ninth century is a poor city, consisting mainly of public buildings, with - a situation typical of city-states - little room or no room at all for residential areas, and finally, it has only few fortifications (Reich and Shukron , Steiner , Killebrew ). Only Cahill argues, however, that the "City of David" is an important city in the tenth centuryBC. BC, however, by Jessica N. Whisenant , "Cahill has argued that the fortification system of the Bronze Age have been recycled through the Iron Ages , including the tenth century, but this suggestion lack of evidence supporting Archaeological whatsoever. . Jessica N. Whisenant wrote:

"It is therefore highly unlikely that Jerusalem has served as the capital of a state of great dimension. "

This prevents the Department of Foreign Affairs of Israel to submit its official website map of the kingdom of David and Solomon, raised largely on what is now Jordan and Syria on the present, linking with the limits of Israel today (the phrase used) .

It will take -700 to see a phenomenal growth of Jerusalem , whose range goes from six to seventy-five hectares in a few decades, the population of 1 000 to 12 000 inhabitants. These are the positions of graves outside the inhabited area, which provide estimates of the population most direct: the population will grow significantly until two centuries later. The kingdom of Israel will be occupied by the Assyrians and many Jews took refuge in the south, in the kingdom of Judah.

In the Jerusalem area, the archaeological evidence of a centralized state as described in the biblical story, spotted in the management of agricultural production and practice of writing, appear as two centuries later: c ' what is shown a series of studies. For the start of mass production of pottery, see Zimhoni , for the industrialization of agricultural production, see Eitan-Katz , for early use of marked weight (weighing) see Kletter , for the introduction of writing see Jamieson-Drake , to see the writing on ostraca Sass and Renz for the printing of the stamps see Avigad and Sass . None of this is two centuries earlier in the Jerusalem of Solomon. Lehmann showed that at this period the rural population of Judah , collected in a dozen villages , does not exceed a few thousand at most, and the people of Jerusalem alone is estimated at several hundred residents.

This population is rural and lives modestly. Towards -1000 , on the northern highlands (geographical area corresponding to Israel ), the population is estimated at 40,000 inhabitants. It is unlikely that a population of 40,000 inhabitants has been able to form a large army. In What Did The Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?, William G. Dever , cites a figure of 100,000 people advanced by Israel Finkelstein as a high estimate of the total population of Israel and Judah in the late tenth century .

Mario Liverani says:

"Between the tenth century, with Jerusalem in a tiny Judah sparsely populated, and the vigorous development that occurred in the second half of the eighth century, a very modest development has taken place between the mid-ninth century and the mid-eighth century, besides stagnation rather than growth itself. The entire population of Judah was estimated at 110,000 inhabitants, half of the Shephelah. Jerusalem was still confined to the "city of David" (the temple was close), on a stretch of 4 or 5 acres, surrounded by a wall . "
"It is likely that after the conquest of Samaria few Jewish groups have sought refuge north of Judah , supporting growth, administrative efficiency and religious development. . "

In summary, two points, which does not depend on the controversy of dating, emerging from the archaeological data on Jerusalem:

  • no archaeological findings suggest that Jerusalem would have had a very significant growth not detected at the time of Solomon is identified very well, however, a splendor to -1700 and an explosive growth to -700 ;
  • compared to towns in the northern part, the modest size of the capital of the kingdom - the Jerusalem of Solomon's time - makes it difficult to believe the claim that Solomon was the head of a huge kingdom as described in the biblical narrative.

For Amihai Mazar :

"The huge fortifications could also continue to be used for centuries, including during the period of David and Solomon, although there is no direct evidence to support this proposal and it remains only an indirect argument. , who found a nice copy from the hills of the north, "the bull is the symbol of Baal , the principal Canaanite god, and El , the father of the gods in the Canaanite pantheon. The earliest archaeological evidence of the cult of YHWH appear with writing much later (see below).

The military campaign of Shishak I.

Itinerary Shishak I. Canaan. Blue: cities on the relief of Karnak

The military campaign of Shishak I. Canaan provides two types of useful information on the archaeological record of David and Solomon, the date of a share, for the second route.

The date of this campaign, which is fairly well known, can be used to recalibrate the radiocarbon dating. Traces of destruction in some cities such as Megiddo and Tel Rehov help identify the relevant archaeological stratum, eliminating all quiet periods and leaving the choice between a few violent episodes possible. Without being absolutely certain, the date of -925 is fairly well supported . Amihai Mazar and her team have taken advantage of this archaeological data, using Bayesian statistics, to specify the abundant radiocarbon dates that They have performed at Tel Rehov.

Other types of information are provided by the examination of the route itself , also quite well known thanks to the relief of Karnak : no fewer than 180 names of towns or villages are given. Shishak I sent a detachment on Arad , which housed a garrison of the Egyptian army at the time of the splendor of the Empire: The second part of the list, 85 names, for the region from Gaza to Arad , great communication channel to traditional the Saudi via Masos Tel. The first list, for a first hand, the northern highlands, to Gibeon and Zemarayim in the mountainous north of Jerusalem (this part of the registration of Karnak is in good condition, Jerusalem there appears not as a conquered city, and even less as the capital city conquered), which can be demonstrated that the habitats of the early Israelites were the most numerous, from the beginning , among all of these habitats Highlands West Bank. The excavations showed severe destruction of the villages which have never surrendered, the habitats were therefore abandoned. For the second part, this first list is of cities and villages in Ammon ( Transjordan ), whose excavations also confirmed a series of destruction. Shishak I regained the northern cities ( Jezreel Valley , Megiddo ), in which the Egypt was established in the Canaanite period. Shishak I left at Megiddo a stele commemorating his visit. She was found late in the middle of old excavation waste: deprived of its stratigraphic context, it has lost, tragically, the greater part of his interest.

This route, entirely in the northern part of the Negev and in other, mainly located in the plains does not name any cities in the southern highlands: by Mario Liverani , it shows that Judah and Israel are not only separate kingdoms, but also very small. But according to Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman , the most remarkable in this connection is that it does not go to Jerusalem and do not touch the southern highlands. The Bible gives this situation the following version:

"In year five of the reign of Rehoboam, Shishak, king of Egypt, attacked Jerusalem. He took the treasures of the Temple and royal palace, he took everything, even the gold shields Solomon had made. (1 Kgs 14.25-26) "

For Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman , if the episode was true, Shishak I would not have failed to do so to sculpt Karnak , "centuries of Egyptian tradition :

"If the name of Jerusalem (or other villages and towns of Judah) does not appear on the entry of Karnak, it must be because the Southern Highlands was not sufficiently prosperous and developed to be amongst the goals Shishak's military. "

For Amihai Mazar:

"The fact that Jerusalem is not mentioned in the registration does not mean much - if the city has made, perhaps there would be no reason he had to mention it, or, another alternative is that his reference was made to place the broken part of the inscription . "
"The invasion by Shishak of the Jerusalem area probably came in response to the growing importance of this state and, at Karnak, the list of conquered cities and territories may reflect the principal territories ruled by David and Solomon . "

The absence of writing in the reign of Solomon

Dissemination of the alphabet in Syro-Palestine between the thirteenth and the eighth century BC. AD

This paragraph is intended to locate, from the time of David and Solomon, the practice of the scribes and literacy of the population of Israel.

By the main axes of communication have exchanged commemorative scarabs from the Hyksos , correspondence between Thutmose IV and Mittani , those between Amenhotep III and Mittani and Babylon , the 382 letters Amarna , correspondence between Ramses II and the Emperor of the Hittites , letters from Ugarit , of Byblos , from Aram-Damascus , of Assyria , of Babylonia. While at the time of the Amarna letters , Abdi-Heba, the little King of Jerusalem , wrote to the administration of Akhenaten ( -1355 , -1338 ), no trace of writing of any kind was found to be Jerusalem dating from David or Solomon. The few examples of writing found have not been in the central part of Judah , but close to major roads.

Among the innovations that accompany the transition from the Bronze Age Late to the Iron Age I and Iron II - innovations in metallurgy, agriculture (introduction of terracing and irrigation techniques), transport (introduction of dromedary camel and as animal care, animal like the horse saddle until the horse was used in harness now, messengers will ride) - a major innovation is the emergence of alphabetic writing , which will gradually replace the previous systems ( cuneiform Mesopotamian , hieratic Egyptian ). The archives of Ugarit , in the twelfth centuryBC. BC already using the script from the Phoenician alphabet and the scribes are those schools and Tanak Aphek in Canaan . Tanaka is a communication node to Ugarit , to Damascus and from the Egypt , is on the axis Aphek Tanak- Gezer leading to Gaza and then in Egypt and Arabia (see map above). Seventeen texts Late Bronze were found Tanak. The inscriptions Serabit el-Khadem , mining Egyptian Sinai ( -1850 , -1700 ), indicate use of the alphabet even older (proto-Canaanite alphabetic writing under Egyptian influence). The Canaanite alphabetic writing is linear, the Iron I, the very places where were the scribes of the late Bronze .

The linear Phoenician alphabetic writing continues throughout the tenth and ninth centuries, with royal texts and official texts on stone, ceramic cones and bronze spatulas. The form of letters referring to the art of writing in ink on believe several epigraphists practice on papyrus documents disappeared without a trace, which could have been administrative and financial texts (trade in Byblos was very active) . In the late ninth century and during the eighth century, the influence of Phoenician widely spread to Syria and became a literary language . In Canaan, the influence of culture Phoenician Byblos - the "Phoenician character" of material culture - is evident by the tenth century in all city-states such as Megiddo , Hazor , Gezer , Lachish etc.. But the trail is rare, twenty-two only in the work of Renz are clearly dated from the tenth and ninth century, only four in the territory of Israel and Judah. Jessica N. Whisenant stated :

"It should be noted that not a single inscription from the tenth century is derived from the central highlands ... "

This scribal activity, without political or economic dimension is that of a tiny elite that does not communicate with other states and kingdoms: the linear alphabet is not standardized nor consistently intelligible .

The ostracon of Bet Shemesh , discovered in 1930, dating from the thirteenth ortwelfth century, is proto-Canaanite Phoenician influence. The ostracon of Izbet Sartah , discovered in 1976 in a silo, is a proto-Phoenician alphabet which seems a bit later, the twelfth century, perhaps the eleventh century. According to Andre Lemaire , it would be the exercise of a Jewish scribe in training, influenced by the school of Canaanite-Philistine Aphek, very close. Three short inscriptions on the jars were found at Tel Rehov by Amihai Mazar , one of the Model: S-X , the other two from the ninth century. The ostrakon Khirbet Qeiyafa (the site of Khirbet Qeiyafa is located in the Shflah (Low Country "), near Bet Shemesh and close Aphek too), discovered in 2008 , dated tenth century , seems be proto-Hebrew. The Tel Dan stele , dating from the mid-ninth century , is in Aramaic. In the tenth century, linguistic affinities and palaeography are many different between West Semitic inscriptions and between different alphabets: one can distinguish the Phoenician, Aramaic and Hebrew in their alphabets. Not until the late ninth century that ethnicization States becomes clear that the national dialects and separate entries .

In the century disappeared from David and Solomon, Andre Lemaire wrote :

"The state of the epigraphic documentation is quite clear: the Hebrew inscriptions from the tenth century has provided a few small fragments of registration, mostly proper names, and the longest text of this period, the timing of Gezer, is probably rather philistien (that is to say, attached to the writing and the Canaanite language used in Philistia) that palohbreu. If some fragments survived to attest to the job of writing at that time, their historical contribution is virtually zero. "

In the kingdom of Israel in Samaria , the capital, they found many ostraca showing that there is, from the mid-ninth centuryBC. AD, in the late Omrides a bureaucratic organization with a solid large-scale use of writing. The jars of wine and olive oil provide information concerning the origin of products, designed to be read by all those who use them. This is the eighth century BC. AD as the number of ostraca found in Judah increases considerably, so sudden: it is the sudden growth that attests unambiguously that the people of Judah learns to read Hebrew after -800. Although, according to the Bible , we should write to his court of abundance, the population of Jerusalem was thus in fact not yet literate in the reign of Solomon . According to Jamieson-Drake , no conclusive evidence of the existence of a state structure (locations and demographics, public works, luxury goods, writing) can be found in Judah before the eighth century BC. AD. At the time of Omrides (ninth century BC.) is the house of Omri and not the house of David, whose power is attested by its neighbors (archives and stelae). In his synthesis work, Jessica N. Whisenant wrote :

"Israel, greater power and stronger than Moab, Aram equal to Phoenicia and early Iron II (late tenth century BC. Until about -800 ), most probably functioned as a gateway between the main centers of Phoenician scribes Similarly, north-west of scribes and schools of Syria, east, and Judah and Transjordan in the south. Notes
  1. lexical CNRTL Portal (ATILF CNRS): "To be certified, be tested."
  2. lexical CNRTL Portal (ATILF CNRS): "What is known and accepted, and is the basis for an argument, a review or research. "
  3. The texts which Amihai Mazar are talking about the biblical texts. The English "data" was translated by data and "archaeological find" by archaeological findings. Amihai Mazar , The Search for David and Solomon: An Archaeological Perspective, p. 26 and p. 31, in Israel Finkelstein and Amihai Mazar , edited by Brian B. Schmidt, The Quest for the Historical Israel. Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel, 232 pages, Society of Biblical Literature, No. 17, Atlanta (October 24, 2007). ( ISBN 1589832779 and 9781589832770 )
  4. During the Iron Age I, by Israel Finkelstein as by Amihai Mazar , the agropastoral villages of the highlands grow and get organized: storage silos appear. Israel Finkelstein The emergence of Israel: A Phase Of The Cyclic History of Canaan in the Third and Second Millennia BCE, p. 150-178, in "From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects", edited I. Finkelstein and N. Na'man, Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi (1994). Amihai Mazar , The 11th Century BC in the Land of Israel, in Cyprus In The 11th Century, edited by V. Karageorghis, Nicosia: AG Leventis, pp. 39-57 (1994).
  5. See p. 127, summarizing work done by Jessica N. Whisenant, Writing, Literacy, and Textual Transmission: The Production of Literary Documents in Iron Age Judah And The Composition of the Hebrew Bible, PhD thesis, University of Michigan (2008). View linens external sources.
  6. See for example the beautiful work of pottery typology presented in Amihai Mazar, J. Hendrick Bruins, Nava Panitz-Cohen and Johannes van der Plicht, Ladder of Time at Tel Rehov. Stratigraphy, archaeological context, pottery and rdiocarbon dates} {p. 193-255, in The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating, Archaeology and Science Text, edited by Thomas E. Levy and Thomas Higham, op. cit.
  7. The old radiocarbon assay, was counting the disintegrations. The mass spectrometry permits, count, measure directly the ratio of atoms of carbon 14 and carbon 12 atoms.
  8. Different curves are resetting, see Hendrik J; Bruins, Johannes van der Plicht, Hamihai Mazar, Christopher Bronk Ramsey, and W. Sturt Mannings, The Groningen radiocarbon Series from Tel Rehov. OxCal Bayesian computation for the Iron IB-IIA Boundary and Iron IIA destruction events, p. 270-283, in The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating, Archaeology and Science Text, edited by Thomas E. Levy and Thomas Higham, Edited by Equinox, London (2005). ( ISBN 184553056X and 1845530578 )
  9. The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating, Archaeology and Science Text, edited by Thomas E. Levy and Thomas Higham, op. cit.
  10. signatories are featured in the book: Celeste Barlow, Elisabetta Boaretto, Hendrick J. Bruins, Nava Panitz-Cohen, William G. Dever, Israel Finkelstein, Norma Franklin, Michael Friedrich, Ayelet Gilboa, Baruch Halpern, Timothy P. Harrison, Tomas Higham, AJ Timothy Jull, Bernd Kromer, Peter Jan Kuniholm, Tomas E. Levy, Sturt W. Manning, Daniel M. Master, Amihai Mazar, Stephen Munger, Mohammad Najjar, Maryanne W. Newton, Anabel Zarzecki-Peleg, Eli Piasetzky, Johannes van der Plicht, Christopher Bronk Ramsey, Mark Robinson, William M. Schniedewind, Ilan Sharon, Andrew Sherratt, Sue Sherratt, AJ Shortland, Sahra Talamo, Kenneth A. Wardle and Ella Werker.
  11. Christopher Bronk Ramsey, Improving the Resolution of Radiocarbon Dating by Statistical Analysis, p. 63, in The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: The author, after submitting all the dates in the record to statistical tests, concludes that their Internal consistency is generally excellent. The choice of a calibration curve or another introduced, however, a certain vagueness.
  12. Thomas E. Levy and Thomas Higham, Introduction, p. 12-13, op. cit. The "Side A. Mazar "probably outweighs the number of signatories, but the" side I. Finkelstein "probably outweighs the number of measurements (Team Tel Rehov has a sixty measures, the team of the Early Iron Age Dating Project in this 400, p. 65-92, which is much more than other teams, and concludes very clearly in favor of the "low chronology"). The "side biblical archeology "of the time of Albright and Yadin , supporting a David and Solomon in the Bible history totally, disappeared, like the "minimalist side" supporting a David and Solomon totally invented.
  13. The Groningen Radiocarbon Series from Tel Rehov, team Amihai Mazar , P. 292, The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating, op. cit.
  14. "Ct I. Finkelstein 'C14 Results from Megiddo, Tel Dor, Tel Hadar and Tel Rehov, p. 297, The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating, op. cit. "As far as Mazar 'Iron Ages 14C Dates from Tel Dan. A high chronology, p. 334, The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating, op. cit.
  15. William G. Dever , Some Methodological Reflections on Writing and History Chronology, p. 415 in The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating, op. cit.
  16. ibid, p. 420. "Purpose" should mount if evidence to support a lower chronology, I Shall Be Among the First to shift. "
  17. Amihai Mazar , The Debate Over the chronology of the Iron Age, p. 25-26 in The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating, op. cit.
  18. Israel Finkelstein and Amihai Mazar , The Quest for the Historical Israel. Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel, 232 pages, edited by Brian B. Schmidt, Society of Biblical Literature, No. 17, Atlanta (October 24, 2007). ( ISBN 1589832779 and 9781589832770 )
  19. Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman , The Bible Unearthed, p. 155, op. cit.
  20. According to Andre Lemaire , by adding two letters, we get "And the house of Bibliography
    • (In) Thomas E. Levy and Thomas Higham, editors, The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating. Archaeology, Text and Science, Equinox Publishing (December 31, 2005). (27 chapters, written by 36 authors, 448 pages). See external link to the presentation of the book and the table of contents. The reference book (Awarded Best Scholarly Book on Archaeology, 2007, Pub DOWN Award for books published in 2005-2006), very technical, focusing on archaeological data and very brief on the historical interpretations that can be drawn about the Bible. ( ISBN 184553056X and 9781845530563 )
    • (En) Israel Finkelstein and Amihai Mazar , edited by Brian B. Schmidt, The Quest for the Historical Israel. Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel, 232 pages, Society of Biblical Literature, No. 17, Atlanta (October 24, 2007). A book with the interpretations of archaeological data, written by Israel Finkelstein , one hand, and Amihai Mazar , on the other. Each chapter is introduced by a short text summary of Brian B. Schmidt and the book is accessible to a wider audience. ( ISBN 1589832779 and 9781589832770 )
    • (In) Mario Liverani, Israel's History and the History of Israel, The Royal Option: The Invention of the United Monarchy, p. 83, published UK: Equinox Publishing Ltd., London, translated from the original 2003 Italian, 2005. A book by a historian use very detailed archaeological data, illustrated with numerous maps (all removed from the French edition in hand, depriving this edition of any interest in making the book unreadable). ( ISBN 9781845533410 )
    • "The Search" No. 391 of 01-11-2005, Special issue entitled "Archaeologists rewrite the Bible." The magazine's goal is to report the news of Sciences. A brief review article written by Peter Miroschedji and Amihai Mazar (scholars recognized that no one can accuse of bias minimalist).
    • The Bible Unearthed. The revelations of archeology, movie in 4 parts in 2005 by Thierry Ragobert written by Isy Morgensztern Ragobert and Thierry, on the work of Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman , with the participation of Jacques Briend , Professor Emeritus of ' Catholic Institute of Paris , Thomas Rmer , professor of Old Testament at the University of Lausanne , Dominique Charpin , professor of history from Mesopotamia to the Sorbonne (Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes), Jean-Pierre Corteggiani relations director scientific and technical IFAO until 2007. Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman play their own role. The film was broadcast several times on Arte and France 5 , the 2 DVD was released in February 2006 by Editions Montparnasse. A documentary film of good scientific standard and accessible to all.
    • Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman , The Bible Unearthed: new revelations of archeology, 431 pages, Bayard (April 11, 2002). Available in paperback. ( ISBN 8441513732 and 9788441513730 )
    • Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman , The Bible's sacred kings: in search of David and Solomon, 277 pages, Bayard (March 23, 2006). Available in paperback. ( ISBN 2227472243 and 9782227472242 )
    • Israel Finkelstein , an archaeologist at the Bible Lands, 217 pages, Bayard (February 21, 2008). ( ISBN 2227475218 and 978-2227475212 )
    • (In) Jessica N. Whisenant, Writing, Literacy, and Textual Transmission: The Production of Literary Documents in Iron Age Judah And The Composition of the Hebrew Bible, University of Michigan (2008). A manuscript, which has a very detailed summary of the topic. The work was performed under the direction of Brian B. Schmidt, who is also the publisher of the book spouse of Israel Finkelstein and Amihai Mazar. The manuscript is freely available on the Internet (see links on external sources).

    Related articles

    External Links

    Links on the sources of the article

    Other external links

    • King David and Jerusalem: Myth and Reality The Bible is not a historical document. It does contain a wealth of historical information. But to appreciate this information, we must consider when, how and why the Bible has been compiled.

Leave a Reply

0 vote, average: 0.00 out of 50 vote, average: 0.00 out of 50 vote, average: 0.00 out of 51 vote, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5, rated)
Loading ... Loading ...
Help us improve the wiki Send Your Comments