RECENT
DISCOVERIES AND RESEARCH ON THE CONQUEST
Bryant G. Wood
New Findings from Ramesses
One of the most important excavations in recent times is that of Tell el-Dabʿa in the eastern delta of Egypt. The site has been identified as Biblical Ramesses, one of the “store cities” built with Israelite slave labor during the Sojourn (Ex 1:11). In the Hyksos period, ca. 1640–1532 BC, the Hyksos capital of Avaris was located here. The excavation is being carried out by the Austrian Archaeological Institute under the direction of Manfred Bietak. A recent summary article discussed the chronology of the site and the significance of Tell el-Dabʿa to Palestinian archaeology (Bietak 1991).
Thanks to the findings at Tell el-Dabʿa, we now have more evidence that the mysterious Hyksos, or “foreign rulers,” who dominated Egypt for a little over 100 years, originated in Canaan. Bietak believes they were mainly from the southern and coastal regions. The central inland area, on the other hand, seems to have been a kind of federation, with no close ties to the Hyksos. This may explain the tremendous fortification systems found at Middle Bronze Age sites in central Canaan.
Tell el-Dabʿa has produced an abundance of datable material making it possible to assign more accurate dates to the Canaanite culture found there. This has resulted in the lowering of commonly accepted dates for the Middle Bronze Age period by about 100 years.
This has considerable impact on our understanding of Biblical history. At the end of the Middle Bronze Age many cities in Canaan were destroyed. The pat answer has been that the Egyptians destroyed these cities after they drove the Hyksos out of Egypt. The commonly accepted date for the expulsion of the Hyksos is ca. 1530 BC. Since Bietak is advocating lowering the date of the destructions at the end of the MB period to about 1450 BC, those destructions now appear to be unrelated to the expulsion of the Hyksos. If the Egyptians did not destroy these cities, who did?
Bietak admits that our knowledge of this time period in Palestine is incomplete. John Bimson has suggested that it
BSP 4:4 (Autumn 1991) p. 105
Eighteenth-century Bc Hyksos palace at Tell el-Dabʿa.
was the Israelites who destroyed many of the sites (Bimson 1978; 1981 [available from ABR]). My own research has shown quite conclusively that it was the Israelites who caused the destruction of Jericho at about this time(Wood 1987; 1990a; 1990b). Bietak admits that some of the destructions may have been caused by the Israelites, although he prefers the term “Shosu” instead of Israelites. (The Shosu were desert nomads who occasionally attacked settled areas).
Much research still needs to be done on the Middle Bronze – Late Bronze transitional period (15th century BC), and possible connections with the Israelite Conquest. ABR will be at the forefront of this research. Fresh data, now coming from Tell el- Dabʿa and other sites, are shedding new light on this
BSP 4:4 (Autumn 1991) p. 106
period. These data demonstrate that present theories are inadequate and new explanations must be sought. A new synthesis, we believe, will show that many of the destructions of this period were caused by the Israelites.
Gezer Tomb Yields Its Secrets
During the Conquest, the Israelites defeated the army of Gezer (Jos 10:33). Even though the city itself was not taken (Jos 16:10; Jgs 1:29), it was assigned to the tribe of Ephraim and designated as a Levitical city (Jos 16:10; 21:21). A tomb at Gezer dating to the time of the Conquest has provided some fascinating insights into the culture of the Canaanites who lived there. The tomb, labeled Cave 10A, was excavated between 1969 and 1971 under the direction of Joe D. Seger and his report has recently been published (Seger 1988).
Pottery found in Cave 10A can be closely dated to the late 15th and early 14th centuries BC and will prove to be very useful in comparative studies of other sites from this time period. More interesting to most people, however, will be the skeletal remains.
At least 88 individuals were buried in Cave 10A. From their age and sex, and biological resemblances, it appears that they were members of an extended family group. The most striking aspect of the group is that it represents a population whose average life span did not exceed 30 years of age! The average age at death was just 27.5 years. Only seven individuals survived beyond 35 years of age and of these, only one reached the age of 55. Infant mortality was high; 35% of the population buried in the cave were children under 12 years of age.
It is clear that the people buried in Cave 10A were farmers. The majority of adults, both male and female, suffered from osteoarthritis. Many cases were severe, especially in the lower back. This suggests that the individuals spent much of their time in a stooped-over position. It seems that the Gezerites continued to work until they were completely
Minoan-type clay sarcophagus found in Gezer Cave 10A, late 15th century BC.
BSP 4:4 (Autumn 1991) p. 107
disabled by advanced arthritis. At that point, they probably were in a highly weakened condition so that they easily would have succumbed to tuberculosis or other communicable diseases. The individuals in Cave 10A can be compared with the British Anglo-Saxons, a medieval population who also engaged in intensive agriculture. The average age at death in this population was about 32.
Other than osteoarthritis, the Gezerites appear to have been in good health. There is no evidence of malnutrition and teeth were generally in excellent condition. They were surprisingly tall: the adult women averaged 5 ft-5 in and the men 5 ft-6 in. One female was 5 ft-6 3/4 in tall.
How do we explain the discrepancy between the lifespan of the Gezerites and the much longer life spans of Biblical figures from the same time period? Moses, for example, lived to be 120 (Dt 34:7). Since we are lacking good data on this question, we can only offer an opinion. The answer probably lies in the occupation of the two groups. The early Israelites were pastoralists, not farmers; it was a much easier life to be a shepherd than a farmer. Later on, after the Israelites settled, they too became farmers and their life spans decreased. Although the average lifespan of the kings of Judah was 54, the kings, of course, were not subject to hard physical labor. Thus the lifespan of the average person could have been much less.
Migration of the Danites
The tribe of Dan was given an allotment west of Benjamin, sandwiched between Ephraim to the north and Judah to the south (Jos 19:40–48). It extended from 8 mi west of Jerusalem to the coast in the vicinity of Joppa (modern Tel Aviv). Judges 18 records the migration of the Danites from this area to the north, to a city named Laish, which they renamed Dan. Excavations have been going on at Dan since 1966 under the direction of Avraham Biran on behalf of the Department of Antiquities. A recent report on the results of the work there indicates that evidence for the migration of the Danites has now been found (Biran 1989).
Dan is a large site, being some 50 acres in size. In Area B, on the south side, remains from the end of the Late Bronze Age and beginning of the Iron Age (l3th-l2th centuries) have been uncovered. The Late Bronze Age city was prosperous, as evidenced by a very rich tomb dubbed the “Mycenaean Tomb” because of the fine imported Mycenaean pottery it contained. This city, Stratum VII, was destroyed by fire in the late 13th or early 12th century BC according to the excavator. Squatters then settled in the ruins, digging many pits, some of which were stone-lined (Stratum VI).
An unusual feature of the pottery found in these pits is the abundance of collared-rim store jars. Such jars are not normally found in the north, but rather further south in the small villages thought to have been inhabited by Israelites. Eleven of the Stratum VI collared-rim store jars were tested by neutron activation analysis to determine the origin of the clay used to make the vessels. Of the 11, ten were made made of clay that is not native to Dan (Yellin
BSP 4:4 (Autumn 1991) p. 108
and Gunneweg 1989). The precise source of the clay, however, could not be determined. Were these jars brought to Laish by the Danites?
The first question that comes to mind with regard to the migration is when did it take place? Fortunately, the Bible gives us two clues that enable us to bracket the time within a narrow range.
Immediately following the Conquest, the Danites were unable to occupy the coastal area of their allotment. They were confined to the hill country because of the presence of Amorites on the coast (Jgs 1:34). By the time of Deborah, however, the Danites had moved into the coastal region since they were now involved in maritime activity. This is borne out by the Song of Deborah, where the tribe of Dan is chided for not taking part in the fight against the king of Hazor: “and Dan, why did he linger by the ships?” (Jgs 5:17). The battle against the king of Hazor took place in the second half of the 13th century, in ca. 1230 BC. Since the Danites were still in their original tribal area at this time, the migration must have occurred after ca. 1230 BC.
Collared-rim store jar from Tell Dan, Stratum VI.
The second clue is found in Judges 18:31. Here it states that the Danites used the idols of Micah (the Levite they forced to join them as priest when they migrated) throughout the time the House of God (the Tabernacle) was at Shiloh. Shiloh was destroyed by the Philistines in the first half of the 11th century, in about 1085 BC. The Danites made their way to Dan, then, before 1085 BC.
There is one other important piece of information that will help us in correlating Judges 18 with the archaeological findings. That is, that the Danites destroyed Laish with fire (Jgs 18:27). Only two destructions in this time frome have so far been found at Dan: the one between the Late Bronze and Iron Age settlements, and a later one in ca. 1050 BC. Since the later destruction falls outside the Biblical bracket, it can be ruled out as having been caused by the Danites. The Str. VII destruction, therefore, is the one most likely to have been caused by the Danites.
The evidence found at Tell Dan thus fits the Biblical requirements: (1) Stratum VII was destroyed by fire in the late 13th-early 12th century BC; (2) the succeeding Stratum VI was characterized by pits and collared-rim store jars brought from elsewhere. It seems that we do indeed have archaeological evidence of the Danite migration recorded in Judges 18. This is what has been suggested by the excavator Avraham Biran and we would endorse that interpretation.
In fact we would go one step further and suggest a more precise date for the event. In looking at the historical situation, the most logical time for the Danites to have undertaken this migration would have been shortly after the invasion
BSP 4:4 (Autumn 1991) p. 109
of the Philistines. The Philistines themselves had been forced to migrate from somewhere in the Aegean, perhaps from Crete. They eventually settled on the southwest coast of Canaan in ca. 1177 BC, taking over the coastal area assigned to the Danites. Very likely, it was this incursion that forced the Danites to migrate to Laish.
If this assumption is correct, then the destruction of Laish and the consequent squatter settlement must have taken place in ca. 1175, shortly after the Philistine incursion. The pottery of Stratum VI does not allow us to date the destruction of Stratum VII after this time and we know of no reason for the Danites to migrate before the Philistine invasion. Therefore, 1175 BC is the most reasonable time for the migration to have taken place.
The Merenptah Stela, which records the presence of Israel in Canaan in about 1210 BC.
The evidence for the migration of the Danites has larger implications for the question of the emergence of Israel. If the migration took place in 1175 BC, then the 12th century villages, all of which date after 1175, could hardly be evidence for the first appearance of the Israelites as most scholars now maintain. The Israelites were already organized into tribes and had a prior history before the founding of the 12th century villages.
The Merenptah Stela and the Emergence of Israel
In a recent article, John Bimson discussed the significance of the Merenptah Stela in relation to recent theories concerning Israel’s origins (Bimson 1991). Most Biblical scholars today favor the idea that Israel came into being in the 12th century BC as evidenced by many small agricultural villages that suddenly come into existence at that time. This concept, of course, ignores the Biblical record that states that Israel left Egypt as a nation already in ca. 1450 BC and made a forced entry into Canaan in about 1400 BC, over 200 years prior to the appearance of the 12th-century villages.
BSP 4:4 (Autumn 1991) p. 110
Bimson points out that the earliest of the village settlements came into being well into the 12th century. The Merenptah Stela, on the other hand, records the fact that Israel already was well established in Canaan and a force with which to be reckoned by ca. 1210 BC (Wood 1989). Therefore, Israel’s origins are much earlier than the 12th century BC. Bimson further points out that the 12th-century villages are evidence for the sedentarization of Israel; i.e., the transition from semi-nomadic pastoralists to agriculturalists, not the origin of Israel.
Bimson has done an effective job of pointing out the fallacies in the 12th-century emergence theory. As with all other theories that are contrary to Scripture, it will eventually be discarded as new evidence is brought to light.
As this short survey has shown, the archaeological evidence, when properly interpreted, and recent research, when properly done, agrees with and confirms the Biblical account of events that occurred during the Exodus, Conquest and Settlement of the tribes of Israel.
Bibliography
Bietak, Manfred. 1991. Egypt and Canaan During the Middle Bronze Age. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 281:27–72.
Bimson, John J.
1978 Redating the Exodus and Conquest. Supplement to Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 5. Sheffield, England: The Almond Press.
1981 Redating the Exodus and Conquest. 2d ed. Sheffield, England: The Almond Press.
1991 Merenptah’s Israel and Recent Theories of Israelite Origins. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 49:3–29.
Biran, Avraham. 1989. The Collared-rim Jars and the Settlement of the Tribe of Dan. In Recent Excavations in Israel: Studies in Iron Age Archaeology, ed. Seymour Gitin and William G. Dever, 71–96. The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 49. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns.
Seger, Joe D. 1988. Gezer 5: The Field I Caves. Ed. Joe D. Seger and H. Darrell Lance, Annual of the Hebrew Union College/Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College/Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology.
Wood, Bryant G.
1987 Uncovering the Truth at Jericho. Archaeology and Biblical Research 1:6–16.
1989 Merneptah and the Israelites. Archaeology and Biblical Research 2:82.
1990a Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho? Biblical Archaeology Review 16/2:44–58.
1990b Dating Jericho’s Destruction: Bienkowski is Wrong on All Counts. Biblical Archaeology Review 16/5:45, 47–49, 68–69.
Yellin, Joseph, and Jan Gunneweg. 1989. Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis and the Origin of Iron Age I Collared-rim Jars and Pithoi from Tel Dan. In Recent Excavations in Israel: Studies in Iron Age Archaeology, ed. Seymour Gitin and William G. Dever, 133–41. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 49. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns.