« Friday Loanword: šubû
Main
The Kuttamuwa Stele: Another Preliminary Translation »
November 29, 2008
Increasingly Improbable or Somewhat Less Probable?
Khirbet-Qeiyafa has produced some abnormally interesting archaeological evidence including a potentially important ostracon in paleo-something or other. Aside from a few tantalizing hints, the ostracon has not been published and much of the archaeological evidence is not available. But this hasn't stopped some from seeing this evidence as marking "The End of Minimalism as We Know It" and others from strongly disagreeing.
And all this leaves me more than a little baffled. Why? Because the discoveries at Khirbet-Qeiyafa have almost nothing to say about minimalism or maximalism even in their softer forms and they may or may not have anything to do with the discussion of the beginning of the Iron II age in the southern Levant. That some minimalists have adopted a low chronology that on the surface leaves little room for David or Solomon as significant leaders is really beside the point. High or low, most minimalists really care little about Iron I - early Iron II chronology except as it reinforces positions based on quite other reasons. I happen to think that those reasons are theological, but that too is beside the point.
Let's look at one of the more interesting claims concerning the radio carbon analysis of seeds from this single occupation site. I will work from a quotation from John Hobbins, who, whatever he may be or claim to be, is not a minimalism. He's not a maximalist either. I use John's quotation mostly because in this case it is an easy target. Here is the quotation that brought about my current rant.
It has to be admitted however that Finkelstein’s low chronology (and Sharon's ultra-low chronology) looks increasingly improbable.
Well, does the new evidence really make Finkelstein’s low chronology (and Sharon's ultra-low chronology) look increasingly improbable or does it make Finkelstein’s low chronology (and Sharon's ultra-low chronology) somewhat less probable? There is a difference and a significant one.
Let's start answering this question by looking again at Sharon, et al's 2007 paper. Based on short lived samples, seeds and pits, from Hazor Stratum Xa, Aphek Stratum X8 and 19 other sites, their highest Iron Age I to Iron Age II transition date was 950 BCE, their lowest, 850 BCE. The results centered in the 900-850 BCE range. I wrote on this back in June of last year and showed one of their many graphs. If we accept the 900-850 BCE range, they offer a very low chronology indeed. But the higher range of their spread fits well with Finkelstein's low chronology of ~920 BCE as opposed to that of the more conventional high chronology, ~1000 BCE. There's actually a lot more to this study but what I've just said lays the groundwork for the point I want to make.
If we now look at Garfinkel and Ganor's very recent paper on Khirbet Qeiyafa where they say of the radiocarbon dating results of four short lived samples,
As the radiometric dates from Khirbet Qeiyafa are as early as 1026 BCE (59.6%) or 1051 BCE (77.8%), one is left to wonder if the city was not constructed in the late 11th century BCE. The combination of the biblical text and the radiometric dates supports an “ultra high” chronology for the transition from Iron I to Iron II, ca. 1015–1010 BCE.
Hmmm. But without the Biblical evidence, the radiocarbon data from Khirbet Qeiyafa says nothing about the Iron I/Iron II transition. And the Sharon study doesn't rely on the Biblical evidence at all. While there might be exceptions, the archaeological evidence informs the Biblical evidence and not the other way around. That doesn't mean that there aren't usable historical allusions in the Hebrew Bible. It does mean that the archaeological evidence trumps the Biblical evidence where they may conflict.
What both the Sharon study and the radiocarbon evidence from Khirbet Qeiyafa do is associate date ranges with ceramic horizons and strata. And therefore, they associate these date ranges with related architectural features. In so far as those ceramic horizons, strata and architectural features can be further associated with Biblical traditions they inform those traditions. Even if we assume that Garfinkel and Ganor are correct in identifying Khirbet Qeiyafa with Biblical Sha‛arayim, it says little or nothing about the Sharon study unless one wants to integrate the Khirbet Qeiyafa results through some Bayesian methodology into the Sharon results. If this were possible, and I'm not at all sure it is, it is possible that certainty points would broaden and the center of the distribution would move to a somewhat earlier date. The complexities of such an analysis would be a subject of criticism themselves. But if one were to successfully integrate the Khirbet Qeiyafa evidence into the Sharon evidence one would then need to be apply the combined results to Khirbet Qeiyafa as well as the 21 sites Sharon studied.
Is it possible that the Sharon study is in error? Sure. As I said in my post on their study, "There are at least two areas where one might attack the study: the calibration perimeters and the models themselves." To which I would add that one might want to reconsider certain associated ceramic horizons that define the IronI/Iron II boundary.
All I'm arguing for here is an openness to all the evidence and a consideration of its proper weight and priority. My own personal belief is that Finkelstein’s low chronology is a little too low and Sharon et al's lowest chronology is way too low. But that personal belief is not currently supported by important parts of the archaeological evidence. So I suppose I should either say nothing or say that the situation is unclear at this time. For all I know some guy named David may well have killed some other guy named Goliath near Khirbet Qeiyafa at about the time that Khirbet Qeiyafa flourished (± 5% with a 63.8% confidence
).
For another abnormally interesting use of radiocarbon evidence in the context of Biblical traditions, see Levy, et. al. I may do a post on this paper at some time but I will whet your appetite with these words from the abstract,
Recent excavations and high-precision radiocarbon dating from the largest Iron Age (IA, ca. 1200–500 BCE) copper production center in the southern Levant demonstrate major smelting activities in the region of biblical Edom (southern Jordan) during the 10th and 9th centuries BCE. Stratified radiocarbon samples and artifacts were recorded with precise digital surveying tools linked to a geographic information system developed to control on-site spatial analyses of archaeological finds and model data with innovative visualization tools. The new radiocarbon dates push back by 2 centuries the accepted IA chronology of Edom. Data from Khirbat en-Nahas, and the nearby site of Rujm Hamra Ifdan, demonstrate the centrality of industrial-scale metal production during those centuries traditionally linked closely to political events in Edom’s 10th century BCE neighbor ancient Israel.
The maximalists may like this and the minimalists may shake their heads, but you can't love Levy and dislike Sharon, or the other way around, uncritically.
References:
Levy, Thomas, Thomas Higham, Christopher Bronk Ramsey, Neil G. Smith, Erez Ben-Yosef, Mark Robinson, Stefan Münger, Kyle Knabb, Jürgen P. Schulze, Mohammad Najjar, and Lisa Tauxe, "High-precision radiocarbon dating and historical biblical archaeology in southern Jordan," PNAS, 2008, 105 (43), p. 16460-16465
Mazar, Amihai, "The Debate over the Chronology of the Iron Age in the Southern Levant: Its history, the current situation, and a suggested resolution," in Levy, Thomas E. and Thomas Higham eds, The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science, London: Equinox Publishing Ltd, 2005
Sharon, Ilan, Ayelet Gilboa, A. J. Timothy Jull, and Elisabetta Boaretto, "Report on the First Stage of the Iron Age Dating Project in Israel: Supporting a Low Chronology," Radiocarbon, 2007 49(1): 1–46
Posted by Duane Smith at November 29, 2008 10:23 AM | Read more on Archaeology |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2714
Comments
Duane,
What a carefully written and helpful post! You are exactly right that the new data, in and of themselves, only make the low and ultra-low chronologies "somewhat less probable."
However, I view the low and ultra-low chronologies in light of other data which, before the new data came in, tilted the scales in favor of considering said chronologies as relatively "improbable." Thus my wording.
For an introduction to some of the data, archaeological and textual, that I have in mind, I encourage you to take a look at:
(1) Jeffrey A. Blakely, “Reconciling Two Maps: Archaeological Evidence for the Kingdoms of David and Solomon,” BASOR 327 (2002) 49-54
(2) Avraham Faust, Israel’s Ethnogenesis: Settlement, Interaction, Expansion and Resistance (London: Equinox, 2006
It is certainly true - and here I go beyond your remarks - that at some point, a synthesis of all C-14 data new and old across the southern Levant, from Philistia and Judah-Israel to Moab and Edom, has to be attempted. As far as Sharon et al's study is concerned, I think there are more potential problems to it than you imagined in your previous post. I will make a few queries among colleagues and see what I come up with.
For the rest, it is true that for many Jews and Christians, something is at stake in these debates. It really would change things if it could be shown that the period of David and Solomon is a rank invention (per Thompson 1999).
The solution for minimalists like Jim West - he is after all a fideist after the image of Rudolf Bultmann: save the faith by putting it beyond the realm of verification - falsification altogether. You already know that I have problems with this.
I submit that miminalists are guilty of reading certain genres found in the Bible in a way that has no parallel outside of the study of the Bible. It's fine and dandy to understand a text like the David and Goliath narrative as legend. After all, that is what it is. But, for example, take a look at 1 Kings 4:7-19. Consider its genre. No wonder it has been a linchpin in efforts to reconstruct the historical geography of the region since Albrecht Alt. No wonder Blakely compared that text with the distribution of tripartite pillared buildings detailed by Kochavi and about blew a gasket when he superimposed the two resultant maps.
It is almost unheard of to take a minimalist approach to a text like 1 Kgs 4:7-19 in any field of study outside of biblical studies. There really is a sense in which minimalism turns everything upside down on principle. All in the name of an admirable (theological/political) cause, mind you.
Just saying.
Posted by: John Hobbins at November 30, 2008 3:34 PM
John,
Thanks for the extended comment. And thanks for telling me about Israel's book. Somehow, it never hit my radar. I am aware of Blakely's paper. You may not think I covered but I did cover it and several other more traditional items when I said, "But that personal belief is not currently supported by important parts of the archaeological evidence." I intended the words "important parts" to imply that there were other important parts also. Perhaps I should have said, "But that personal belief is not currently supported by several important parts of the archaeological evidence."
Please let me know what you find from your contacts concerning Sharon's study. I've discussed this with a couple of archaeologists myself and they tend to fall into too categories: those relative few who agree with it and see no reason to be critical and those who disagree with it on other grounds and largely ignore the study. Some worry about the sampling methods. This doesn't bother me too much because of the scope of the study. Errors in sampling might effect the results one way or the other, but in so far as they are random, they tend to be cancelled out in the mathematics. If all or most were skewed in the same general direction then that could be a problem. But I haven't heard such a claim. I do worry about the models themselves. I guess I need to put on my old engineering hat and look more closely at the math. This area is non-trivial and there could be a devil or two in there.
I also have a heretical thought on this subject. 70 years isn't all that great a time. What if the Iron I/Iron II transition happen over a 100 year period affecting the pottery horizons of differing sites at differing times? Right now I see this whole area as a rather large quagmire. I think averyone who must cross it should gross it with great care and humility.
Posted by: Duane at November 30, 2008 10:03 PM
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.
Send me an email if it is important.