ABR
AND THE SEARCH FOR AI
Gary A. Byers
This evidence [at et-Tell] shows that the narrative in Joshua is not to be taken literally, but is an example of the process by which all the Israelite conquests of several centuries were referred to the time of Joshua” (Cohen 1962: 72, emphasis added).
“Since the writer has scoured the district in question in all directions, hunting for ancient sites, he can attest the fact that there is no other possible candidate for Ai than et-Tell” (Albright 1963: 29, emphasis added).
“ʿAi is simply an embarrassment to every view of the conquest that takes the biblical and archaeological evidence seriously (Callaway 1968:312, emphasis added).
“…archaeology has wiped out the historical credibility of the conquest of Ai as reported in Joshua 7–8 “(Callaway 1985: 68, emphasis added).
“The Joint Expedition to Ai worked nine seasons between 1964 and 1976 and spent nearly $200,000, only to eliminate the historical underpinning of the Ai account in the Bible” (Callaway 1985: 68, emphasis added).
“In short, the evidence shows that there was no city at Ai [i.e., et-Tell]for the Israelites to conquer “(Zevit 1985: 58, emphasis added).
“Years of excavation and tens of thousands of dollars spent on research have systematically eliminated historical reconstructions of the conquest of Ai that various scholars tried to relate to the biblical account in Joshua 7–8 (Callaway 1987: 92, emphasis added).
“This lack of any Late Bronze Canaanite city at the site [of et-Tell] or in the vicinity contradicts the narrative in Joshua 8 and shows that it was not based on historical reality despite its topographical and tactical plausibility” (Mazar 1990: 331, emphasis added).
“There is no evidence of a second-millennium Canaanite city at this spot [i.e., et-Tell] or at any other site in the region. This constitutes unequivocal archaeological evidence for the lack of correlation between the story in Joshua 8, with all its topographic details, and a historical reality corresponding to the period of the conquest. (Mazar 1992: 283, emphasis added).
“…the narratives of the capture of Jericho and Ai and the conquest of the six cities of the Shephelah and the hill country of Judah are devoid of historical reality” (Naʿaman 1994: 280, emphasis added).
These quotations convey the consensus of archaeological insight on the ancient city of Ai today. The argument can be
BSP 12:1 (Winter 1999) p. 6
The modern town of Beitin is generally accepted by archaeologists as the site of ancient Bethel. ABR’s David Livingston has demonstrated that Beitin does not fit the historical evidence for Bethel.
summarized like this. Archaeological evidence for Ai does not fit the Biblical description of the site. Archaeologists have identified the correct site. The Bible is wrong in its description.
In 1969, the Associates for Biblical Research was founded in the heart of David Livingston over the apparent discrepancies between the Bible and archaeological evidence for Joshua’s conquest of Ai. A student at the Institute of Holy Land Studies (known today as Jerusalem University College), Livingston was disturbed when his professor simply accepted that the Bible and archaeological evidence did not match up, and the Bible was the one that was out. A veteran Christian missionary, Livingston had no doubt the Bible was accurate in its description of both the battle and the city. He made a personal commitment to study the evidence for himself.
Some suggest Livingston’s methodology was flawed; he started with the presupposition that the Bible was historically accurate. Yet, the very basis of scientific inquiry is the scientific method and scientists always begins their tests with an hypothesis of what they expect to find.
Furthermore, the inquiry into the ancient city of Ai in archaeology and the Bible is fraught with bias. Every textual scholar and archaeologist takes on the task with one of two presuppositions—either the Bible is true or it is not. Those who accept the Bible as historical are not the only scholars who approach the task with a bias. Every scholar starts with a position on the Bible—some rule it in, the others rule it out. Who is biased? Both are; unfortunately, only one side will admit it.
Armed with his beliefs, Livingston spent years researching ancient texts and walking the West Bank hills of Benjamin. His efforts led to the establishment of a new organization to deal with the Ai problem, as well as other issues related to the historicity of the Bible. Thus was born the Associates for Biblical Research.
In the process, Livingston realized that identifying the correct location of Ai was dependent on the correct location of Bethel. His research led him to conclude that ancient Bethel had also been misidentified. The initial accomplishment of Livingston’s work was to demonstrate that ancient Bethel was not located at the modern village of Beitin, but at modem El Bireh (see Bible and Spade, Vol. 11, No. 4, Fall 1998, pp. 77–84).
Now Livingston was prepared to focus on identifying ancient Ai in particular, and studying the Conquest in general. In 1978, he began excavating Kh. Nisya (“forgotten ruins”) 1 km east of El Bireh/Bethel. Under the sponsorship and direction of the Associates for Biblical Research, he will direct the 20th season of excavation at the site in 1999. See Livingston’s article in this issue on the results of his work at Kh. Nisya and why he thinks the site may be Biblical Ai.
As part of ABR’s continuing effort to identify ancient Ai, Bryant Wood began excavating a second site nearby in 1995. Kh. el-Maqatir (“ruin of the place of sacrificial smoke”) is located 2.7 km northeast of Kh. Nisya, and Wood will direct the fourth full season of excavation in 1999. Also under the sponsorship and direction of the Associates for Biblical Research, the dig is conducted in consortium with Berkshire Institute for Christian Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary. IBEX/Master’s College, Lancaster Bible College, Trinity College and Seminary Southwest Campus, and YWAM School for Biblical Studies; and endorsed by the Near East Archaeological Society. See Wood’s article in this issue on the result of his Kh. el-Maqatir excavation and why he believes it is the
BSP 12:1 (Winter 1999) p. 7
site of the Ai of Joshua.
Assuming the Bible does present an accurate historical portrayal of Joshua’s battle for Ai, it is instructive to consider what archaeologists might expect to find based on the Biblical text. Whether Kh. Nisya, Kh. el-Maqatir or somewhere else, the text suggests several possibilities for what might be recovered in excavation.
The Biblical text indicates the ancient city of Ai was located in a specific region. It was “up” in the mountains west of Jericho and situated in direct relation to Bethel and Beth-Aven (Jos 7:2), cities on the southern border of the tribal inheritance of Benjamin (Jos 18:12–13). With some certainty, archaeologists can pinpoint the region where Ai was located.
The city of Ai was apparently not very large. The spies suggested it was not necessary for the whole army to go up to battle (Jos 7:3). They even proposed to Joshua that only a minimal force was needed to go up in the attack on Ai (elsewhere we read that Ai was smaller than Gibeon—Jos 10:2). Archaeologists would expect the city of Joshua’s time to be diminutive.
The text says all the inhabitants of Ai were destroyed (Jos 8:25–26; four times as many as were sent in Joshua’s first attack force). Possibly archaeologists could find either human remains or graves where the dead were buried near the site. Additional evidence for a battle at the site would include finding weaponry, such as sling-stones or arrowheads.
The text also notes that the Israelites spoiled the city and took away much of the inhabitants’ possessions before the city was completely destroyed (Jos 8:27). So, while archaeologists should expect to find a destroyed and burned city from Joshua’s time (Jos 8:28), many combustible items were first taken. This suggests to the archaeologist that many items were not burned, like most of the foodstuffs, household equipment, tools and weapons. What was left to be burned was mostly roof thatching and wooden beams for roof, and maybe doorway, construction.
(article continued on page 10)
The story of Joshua’s attack and conquest of Ai is found in Joshua 7 and 8. The pertinent passages are Joshua 7:2–3 and 8:25–29.
2 And Joshua sent men from Jericho to Ai which is beside Beth-Aven, on the east side of Bethel, and spake unto them, saying, “Go up and view the country.” And the men went up and viewed Ai. 3 And they returned to Joshua, and said unto him, Let not all the people go up, but let about two or three thousand men go up and smite Ai; and make not all the people to labor thither, for they are but few. (Joshua 7:2–3, KJV)
25 and so it was, that all that fell that day, both of men and women, were twelve thousand, even all the men of Ai. 26 For Joshua drew not his hand back, wherewith he stretched out the spear, until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai. 27 Only the cattle and the spoil of that city Israel took for a prey unto themselves, according unto the word of the LORD which He commanded Joshua. 28 And Joshua burnt Ai, and made it a heap for ever, even a desolation unto this day. 29 And the king of Ai he hanged on a tree until eventide; and as soon as the sun was down, Joshua commanded that they should take his carcass down from the tree, and cast it at the entering of the gate of the city, and raise thereon a great heap of stones, that remaineth unto this day. (Jos 8:25–29, KJV)
THE “AI’S” HAVE IT!
Currently there are three sites in the running for the Biblical city of Ai:
1. Et-Tell (Arabic: “the ruin-mound”)
Known for its massive ruins dating to the Early Bronze Age (3100-2400 BC). There was apparently no walled city here in Joshua’s day. Excavated by Joseph Callaway in the 1960’s, this is the site accepted by most scholars as Biblical Ai.
Aerial view of et-Tell, view south-southwest.
2. Kh. Nisya (Arabic: Kh. is the abbreviation for Khirbet, “low ruin,” and Nisya means “forgotten,” thus “forgotten ruin”.)
With remains running from the Middle Bronze Age through the Arabic period, ABR’s David Livingston has conducted excavations here since 1979.
Aerial view of Kh. Nisya, with north to the right.
3. Kh. el-Maqatir (Arabic: “ruin of the place of sacrificial smoke”)
This site had three main periods of occupation; Late Bronze I (15th century BC), Hasmonean (second-first century BC), and Byzantine (sixth century AD). ABR’s Bryant Wood has directed excavations here since 1995.
Aerial view of Kh. el-Maqatir, view west.
BSP 12:1 (Winter 1999) p. 8
Sites relating to the Ai story in the Book of Joshua.
BSP 12:1 (Winter 1999) p. 9
THE AI EXPEDITION AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
While it is valid to suggest that the scientific method is not applicable for examining historical events (because these events can not be reproduced), the principles of scientific inquiry still govern archaeological excavation. Here is an example of the process by which archaeologists approach a historical problem and excavation.
OBSERVATION—The Biblical account of Joshua’s conquest of Ai (Jos 7–8).
HYPOTHESIS—The site of the Biblical story can be identified and it may be Kh. Nisya or Kh. el-Maqatir.
EXPERIMENTATION—Each excavation square becomes an experimental test of the hypothesis.
FORMATION OF A THEORY—Geography, topography, excavated structures, artifacts and pottery fit the hypothesis.
STATEMENT—Results of excavation confirm or disprove the site as the location of the Biblical city of Ai.
BSP 12:1 (Winter 1999) p. 10
The modern town of El Bireh, although never systematically excavated, is the best candidate for Biblical Bethel based on historical evidence.
The city had a gate (Jos 8:29), and that implies a wall around the site. There was possibly only one gate, and if identified, archaeologists may expect to find a lone body within the gateway, beneath a pile of stones (Jos 8:29).
Yet, archaeologists often do not find what they expect. Possibly other events during Joshua’s Conquest not mentioned in the text may affect what the archaeologist will find. Subsequent geological, human, and even animal activity at the site can drastically alter remains. Even excavation techniques (or lack thereof) of modern archaeologists, or their 19th century predecessors, can dramatically impact excavation results.
It is, of course, possible that actual evidence from Joshua’s conquest of Ai may not be recoverable by modem archaeologists. Furthermore, archaeologists may or may not be excavating the correct site. Even if at the correct site, they may not be excavating in the specific location where remains are still recoverable.
We at the Associates for Biblical Research accept the Biblical story of Joshua’s conquest of Ai as historical. We assume evidence of that event is recoverable and, as scientists, we are excavating in what we think are the best places to find ancient Ai. We believe we are closing in on that evidence. In this issue we share with you the latest results of our search for the ancient city of Ai.
Bibliography
Albright, W.F.
1963 The Biblical Period From Abraham to Ezra. New York: Harper & Row.
Callaway, J.A.
1968 New Evidence on the Conquest of Ai. Journal of Biblical Literature 87: 312–20.
1985 Was My Excavation of ʿAi Worthwhile? Biblical Archaeology Review 11.2: 68–69.
1987 Ai (Et-Tell): Problem Site for Biblical Archaeologists. Pp. 87–99 in Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation, ed. L.G. Perdue, L.E. Toombs, G.L. Johnson. Atlanta: John Knox.
Cohen, S.
1962 Ai. Pp. 72–73 in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible 1, ed. G.A. Buttrick. Nashville: Abingdon.
Mazar, A.
1990 Archaeology of the Land of the Bible. New York: Doubleday.
1992 The Iron Age 1. Pp. 258–301 in The Archaeology of Ancient Israel, ed. A. Ben-Tor. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Naʿaman, N.
1994 The ‘Conquest of Canaan’ in the Book of Joshua and in History. Pp. 218–81 in From Nomadism to Monarchy, ed. I. Finkelstein and N. Na aman. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
Zevit, Z.
1985 The Problem of Ai. Biblical Archaeology Review 11.2: 58–69.