The Fight for History
In the Holy Land, archaeology itself is a battleground. Will the Bible win out?
But Finkelstein, who recently excavated at Megiddo, argues that Yadin leaned too heavily on the Bible. Citing "renewed analysis of the architectural styles and pottery forms" found at the site, Finkelstein concludes that the structures date to the early ninth century B.C., decades after the death of Solomon. "The whole idea . . . of Solomon's architects and of the grandeur of the Solomonic palaces," says Finkelstein, rests not on archaeology but "on the interpretation of a single biblical verse."
Finkelstein's revisionist views are hotly contested by other leading archaeologists. The current excavator at Hazor, Amnon Ben Tor of Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and the University of Arizona's Dever, who excavated Gezer, remain convinced that pottery and other evidence point to 10th-century B.C., and presumably Solomonic, construction at all three cities. That judgment, says Dever, is based "on commonly accepted ceramic grounds--not on naive acceptance of the Bible's stories." Even one of Finkelstein's colleagues at Megiddo, Penn State's Halpern, disagrees with the revised dating. "In history, the issue is probability, not absolute proof," says Halpern, "and probability is overwhelmingly on the side of the traditional dating."
Even the dramatic discovery in 1993 of a ninth-century B.C. Aramaic inscription bearing David's name (the first ancient reference to David outside the Bible) has not convinced the most determined minimalists. Some, like Thompson and Niels Peter Lemche, also of the University of Copenhagen, have suggested that the plaque, found in an ancient ruin in upper Galilee and currently on display at the Bowers Museum of Cultural Art in Santa Ana, Calif., was mistranslated, or may even be a modern forgery. "King David," insists Philip R. Davies, a Bible professor at the University of Sheffield, in England, "is about as historical as King Arthur." Few mainstream scholars agree, however.
While archaeology alone is unlikely to resolve all debates over Israel's past, many scholars are convinced it still has more to contribute. At many important sites--even some, like Jericho, that have been excavated for decades--only a fraction of the ground has been explored. At others, like Jerusalem, work is hampered by dense population and religious restrictions, and more recently by violence. Who can say what biblical bombshells lie buried in the sands of Egypt or the hills of the West Bank and Israel? Despite the dramatic discoveries of recent decades, Holy Land archaeology has still only scratched the surface.
Whose homeland is it?
Archaeologists are trying to determine how much of the Bible can be corroborated by physical evidence.
1. DAMASCUS
The 1993 discovery here of a 9th-century B.C. inscription bearing David's name still has not convinced some skeptics that he existed.
2. HAZOR, MEGIDDO, and GEZER
Ancient city gates of nearly identical design are believed to be Solomon's handiwork, but some scholars now argue that they were built a century after his time.
3. GAZA, ASHDOD, EKRON, and ASHKELON
Archaeologists have located ruins of key Philistine cities mentioned in the Bible and have found artifacts clearly associated with the militaristic "Sea Peoples."
4. JERICHO and AI
advertisement
