Ancient scarab discovered dating back to the Thirteenth Pharaonic Dynasty

An ancient scarab dating as far back as 18th century BCE, and belonging to a senior Egyptian official of the Thirteenth Pharaonic Dynasty,  has been discovered by an Israeli amateur birdwatcher.

Alexander Ternopolsky was birdwatching near the Tel Dor archaeological site on Israel’s Carmel Coast, where an ongoing excavation of the ancient port city of Dor is taking place, when he happened upon the incredible find. Ternopolsky immediately handed it over to the archaeological team working at the site.

An ancient Egyptian Sacrab Seal dating back to the 18th century BCE, discovered in Israel in the Tel  Dor archaeological site.
Credit: Tel Dor Excavations. (Photo: Courtesy / TPS)

According to Haifa University, the coastal city of Dor at the foot of Mt. Carmel was a key port city for thousands of years. Until the Romans built Caesarea, Dor was the most important commercial center in area and a trading base for spices, resin, and other commodities that were highly valued by the ancient Egyptians. The city was even mentioned in several ancient Egyptian documents dating back 3,500 years.

A preliminary study concluded that the stone scarab is engraved with the name of its owner as well as his position. The description of the scarab owner’s position includes such phrases such as “overseer of the treasury,” “bearer of the seal,” and more, but the owner’s name has not yet been deciphered.

“The scarab must have belonged to a very senior figure in the kingdom, probably the viceroy responsible for the royal treasury,” explains Prof. Ayelet Gilboa from the Department of Archaeology at Haifa University, who is heading the excavations at Tel Dor together with Prof. Ilan Sharon from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

The excavators suggest several theories explaining how the scarab might have reached Tel Dor. The first is that either a representative of the viceroy or the viceroy himself may have come to Dor.

Another option is that the scarab arrived at Dor at a much later stage, perhaps even during the Roman period, when there was demand for such Egyptian “antiques”.

“Since the scarab rolled down from the mound and was not found in its archaeological context, we will probably never really know when and how it got here and where it has been,” said Prof. Gilboa.

Source: Breaking Israel News

Also check out:

The History And Meaning Of Ancient Egyptian Jewelry – Ancient Egyptian jewelry represents a long history of divine craftsmanship by a people we continue to be intrigued by. Egyptian art and jewelry was never just art, but represented a deeper meaning, which even today baffles archaeologists.

Uruk Period Kings –The Uruk Period lasted from 4100-3000 B.C. (time frame not set in stone) and exemplified the dawn of civilization and city-state growth. New cities emerged; arts and crafts became more advanced; social hierarchies were created and molded by system administrators; writing and documenting trade transactions took place on cuneiform; and warfare stretched the Mesopotamian landscapes as city states popped up around the Euphrates and Tigris rivers.

Ancient Temple Discovered in Israel from 1100 BC

Tel Beth-Shemesh is an important biblical site located near the modern town of Beth-Shemesh about 20 km west of Jerusalem. According to archaeologists, the name Tel Beth-Shemesh (House of the Sun) is suggestive of the deity that was worshipped by the Canaanite inhabitants of the town. The Bible mentions the settlement in the description of the northern border of the Tribe of Judah and as a Levitical city. The town is also listed in Solomon’s second administrative district.

The newly discovered temple complex is comprised of an elevated, massive circular stone structure and an intricately constructed building characterized by a row of three flat, large round stones.

“This temple complex is unparalleled, possibly connected to an early Israelite cult – and provides remarkable new evidence of the deliberate desecration of a sacred site,” explained co-directors of the dig Prof Shlomo Bunimovitz and Dr Zvi Lederman of the Tel Aviv University’s Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology.

This image shows ruins of a 3,100-year-old
temple found at the site of Tel Beth-Shemesh
 (Tel Aviv University)

“The village of Beth-Shemesh frequently changed hands between the ambitious Philistines and the Canaanite and Israelite populations that resisted them. The temple and its history reflect the power struggles that defined the region in the 12th-11th centuries BC,” said the archaeologists, who will report their discoveries on November 15, 2012, at the annual meeting of the American Schools of Oriental Research in Chicago.

“In the archaeological record, there are no parallels to this Canaanite or Israelite sacred compound of the period,” they said.

The archaeologists revealed that the temple has a rich history steeped in conflict. They determined that the complex was not only destroyed, but also desecrated – invading Philistines possibly used the temple ruins as animal pens.

Excavations revealed almost only shards of painted chalices and goblets found spread on the floor but no traces of domestic use. One of the three flat stones was surrounded by animal bone remnants, and the two other stones were seemingly designed to direct liquids. These clues convinced the scientists that they had uncovered a likely place of sacred worship.


“This discovery also serves to illuminate the recent discovery of a number of round clay ovens, called ‘tabuns,’ in the layer excavated above the temple. Typically, such ovens were located in a domestic building for food preparation. But these particular ovens were not part of a neighborhood or living quarter,” Prof Bunimovitz said.

“We believe that ancestors of those who had built the original complex came back to rebuild the site,” Dr Lederman said.

The team suggests that the ovens were used to cook celebration feasts held in veneration of the old temple. Thus, despite the desecration of the temple by the Philistines, the memory of the sacred site survived. Once the Philistines withdrew from the area, the descendents of the original worshippers returned to commemorate this sacred place.

Source: Sci-News

3,000-year-old Cistern Discovered in Jerusalem

A discovery near the Western Wall has changed archaeologists’ understanding of Jerusalem’s water supply during the First Temple Period.

A large public water cistern, dating back to the period of the First Temple, was recently discovered in archaeological excavations conducted in Jerusalem. The cistern is the first of its kind to be uncovered in Jerusalem.

The excavations, conducted at a site in the Jerusalem Archaeological Garden not far from the Western Wall, are being carried out by the Israel Antiquities Authority in cooperation with the Nature and Parks Authority and funded by the Elad foundation.

In recent years, archaeologists with the Antiquities Authority have been excavating a large channel running from the Temple Mount area to around the Siloam Pool. Today, visitors can already tour a part of the channel which is located near the Western Wall.

The excavation revealed a number of earlier structures, which were demolished in order to construct the channel, along with the street above the channel, and what appears to be parts of the Western Wall.
Over the last few weeks, the excavators discovered that construction of the channel closed up the 250 cubic meter cistern, which was carved out of the stone during the First Temple period, roughly 3,000 years ago.

Discoveries from the First Temple period in Jerusalem are relatively rare, compared to findings from later periods. Despite the fact that archaeological digs have been going on in Jerusalem since the 19th century, this is the first large cistern to be found within the city.

The cistern walls were found to be thoroughly plastered, in the same fashion as other cisterns from the same period found in different areas throughout Israel, including Bet Shemesh and Be'er Sheva. The discovery of the cistern changes current perceptions held by archaeologists, regarding Jerusalem's water supply during the First Temple Period.

Until now, researchers believed that most of Jerusalem's water during that period reached the city directly from the Gihon Spring, which runs from lower Silwan.

According to Eli Shukron, the excavation director on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority,"The exposure of the current reservoir, as well as smaller cisterns that were revealed along the Tyropoeon Valley, unequivocally indicates that Jerusalem’s water consumption in the First Temple period was not solely based on the output of the Gihon Spring water-works, but also on more available water resources, such as the one we have just discovered.

According to Dr. Tvika Tsuk, chief archaeologist of the Nature and Parks Authority and an expert on ancient water systems “Presumably the large water reservoir, which is situated near the Temple Mount, was used for the everyday activities of the Temple Mount itself and also by the pilgrims who went up to the Temple and required water for bathing and drinking”.

Left-leaning archaeologists attacked the Israel Antiquities Authority in light of the findings, claiming that the organization conducted the dig for political purposes, and in contrast with proper archaeological methods.

“Ancient structers cannot be dated properly when the excavation is not conducted using the stratigraphic method – from ground level, [straight] down,” said Yoni Mizrahi, an archaeologist from the organiation “Emek Shaveh,” which unites archaeoogists critical of the Israel Antiquities Authority and the Elad foundation.

“The tunnel digging method is a process from the 19th century, before archaeology was recnogzied as an academic discipline. This dig is meant to create a series of tunnels from the Palestinian village of Silwan, to the Western Wall Plaza, through to the Muslim Quarter.

From what we understand, the antiquities authority has once again been harnest with political objectives by right wing organizations, under the guise of archaeological activities,” continued Mizrahi.

Source: Haaretz

Gold Trove Discovered at Israel Castle

Gold coins discovered last month in an ancient crusader castle that lies in what is now Israel provide surprising information on how economic transactions were made about 1,000 years ago.

“The scientific value is unprecedented,” Oren Tal, director of the excavation and chairman of Tel Aviv University’s Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures, said in an e-mailed statement. Crusaders “were not afraid to use older coins to complete large transactions and run large- scale businesses,” he added.

The hoard, which contains mostly dinars dating back to the Fatimid Period that predated the crusaders, was discovered in an excavation of the Arsur castle, also known as Apollonia. The site was a stronghold between the ancient ports of Jaffa and Caesarea and served as a trading center for industrial and agricultural goods from 1241 until its destruction in 1265, when it was attacked by Egyptian Sultan Baybars and conquered after a 40-day siege.

The crusaders’ use of older coins minted by Egyptians in the 10th and 11th centuries is surprising, given the importance societies placed at the time on making their own coins for economic, marketing and public-relations value, Tal said.

The discovery shows that crusaders, who in Europe used thin, partially silver coins, chose to quickly adapt to the currency of the Middle East, said Robert Kool, curator of coins at the Israel Antiquities Authority. The hoard found at Apollonia is a “massive, wonderful example that for the first time showed the use of gold by crusaders,” said Kool, whose area of expertise is the medieval and crusader periods. “What we see here is that when it comes to economics there are no walls, no ideological or political differences.”

The actual value of the coins, which bear blessings and the names of sultans, can be extrapolated from a document found in the Cairo Genizah collection of Jewish texts that suggests that two gold dinars, the face value on the 108 coins found, can provide sufficiently for an extended family for one month. “This isn’t a piggy bank with insignificant coins, but quite a lot of gold,” said Haim Gitler, curator of the Israel Museum exhibition “White Gold: Revealing the World’s Earliest Coins,” which runs through March 30, 2013. Source: Bloomberg News (Gwen Ackerman)

Akko’s Ancient harbor Discovered

In archaeological excavations the Israel Antiquities Authority is conducting at the foot of Akko’s southern seawall, installations were exposed that belong to a harbor that was operating in the city already in the Hellenistic period (third-second centuries BCE) and was the most important port in Israel at that time.

The finds were discovered during the course of archaeological excavations being carried out as part of the seawall conservation project undertaken by the Old Akko Development Company and underwritten by the Israel Lands Administration.

The first evidence indicating the possible existence of this quay was in 2009 when a section of pavement was discovered comprised of large kurkar flagstones dressed in a technique reminiscent of the Phoenician style that is characteristic of installations found in a marine environment. This pavement, which was discovered underwater, raised many questions amongst archaeologists. Besides the theory that this is a quay, some suggested this was the floor of a large building.

Marine Archaeology Unit , “Among the finds we’ve discovered now are large mooring stones that were incorporated in the quay and were used to secure sailing vessels that anchored in the harbor c. 2,300 years ago. This unique and important find finally provides an unequivocal answer to the question of whether we are dealing with port installations or the floor of a building. In addition, we exposed collapse comprised of large dressed stones that apparently belonged to large buildings or installations, which was spread of a distance of dozens of meters. What emerges from these finds is a clear picture of systematic and deliberate destruction of the port facilities that occurred in antiquity”. Sharvit adds, “Recently a find was uncovered that suggests we are excavating part of the military port of Akko. We are talking about an impressive section of stone pavement c. 8 meters long by c. 5 meters wide that was partially exposed. The floor is delimited on both sides by two impressive stone walls that are also built in the Phoenician manner. It seems that the floor between the walls slopes slightly toward the south, and there was a small amount of stone collapse in its center. Presumably this is a slipway, an installation that was used for lifting boats onto the shore, probably warships in this case”. According to Sharvit, “Only further archaeological excavations will corroborate or invalidate this theory”.

The bottom of the ancient harbor was exposed at the foot of the installations. There the mooring stones were found as well as thousands of fragments of pottery vessels, among which are dozens of intact vessels and metallic objects. The preliminary identification of the pottery vessels indicates that many of them come from islands in the Aegean Sea, including Knidos, Rhodes, Kos and others, as well as other port cities located along the Mediterranean coast.

These finds constitute solid archaeological evidence regarding the location of the Hellenistic harbor and perhaps the military port. According to Sharvit, “It should be understood that until these excavations the location of this important harbor was not clear. Remains of it were found at the base of the Tower of Flies and in the region of the new marina in excavations conducted in the early 1980s by the late Dr. Elisha Linder and the late Professor Avner Raban. But now, for the first time, parts of the harbor are being discovered that are adjacent to the ancient shoreline and the Hellenistic city. Unfortunately, parts of the quay continue beneath the Ottoman city wall – parts that we will probably not be able to excavate in the future.

Nevertheless, in those sections of the harbor that extend in the direction of the sea and the modern harbor the excavation will continue in an attempt to learn about the extent of the ancient harbor, and to try and clarify if there is a connection between the destruction in the harbor and the destruction wrought by Ptolemy in 312 BCE, the destruction that was caused by the Hasmonean uprising in 167 BCE or by some other event.

Source: Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Walls of Jericho: The Archaeology that Demolishes the Bible?

The infamous tale of the Israelites marching into Jericho, bringing forth fire to destroy the "City of Palm Trees”, as the Hebrew Bible professed, has wreaked havoc on the minds of biblical scholars alike. Did it happen? Is there archaeological evidence to prove the walls of Jericho did in fact succumb to the mighty tribes? Or did the city of Jericho actually exist when the Israelites attempted to conquer Canaan? It’s not a question of whether biblical sites have been discovered, because many in fact have. There’s an issue with chronology. The dates just don’t add up, but the stories do reflect political and social establishments of a century that has been documented. Ernest Wright explains, “There are many people both here and abroad who honestly think and frequently assert that Palestinian and biblical archaeology was conceived and reared by conservative Christians who wished to find support for their faith in the accuracy of the Bible” . This would certainly explain the missing pieces. Could it be that the site of Jericho wasn’t dated to the Biblical account because it just didn’t exist back then? Dr. Israel Finkelstein and his student Nelson Glueck , Professor John Garstang, Kathleen Kenyon, Kay Prag, Albright and many other scholars lend their own insights into the argument as to whether Jericho was present to destroy, times of occupation, when the destruction of Jericho may have occurred and what archaeological evidence has been found to lend credence to their argument.

The Bible states,

Then the LORD said to Joshua, See, I have delivered Jericho into your hands, along with its king and its fighting men. March around the city once with all the armed men. Do this for six days. Have seven priests carry trumpets of rams’ horns in front of the ark. On the seventh day, march around the city seven times, with the priests blowing the trumpets.When you hear them sound a long blast on the trumpets, have the whole army give a loud shout; then the wall of the city will collapse and the army will go up, everyone straight in.”

So what’s the problem? The archaeological evidence for the destruction of Jericho is dated to the Early Bronze Period, which is usually associated with the date 1405 B.C., which is consistent with the Bible record. This means, then, that the Middle Bronze Age Israelites destroyed Jericho at the end of the Early Bronze Age, and thus conquered the Promised Land. I ask again, what’s the problem? The problem is that basing archaeological evidence off of the Bible, which many scholars, myself included believe, is grossly erroneous and scarcely the right approach to substantiating the existence of Jericho, its destruction, or even the time frame it did exist, if it in fact did. However, I do believe the Jericho is an archaeologist’s paradise. The fallen walls, destructions layers, and a city destroyed by fire, is enough archaeological evidence to keep you digging for years. I believe the evidence is present, but the layers of occupation don’t add up to an actual concrete date and time of Jericho’s destruction. In my opinion there’s a chronological issue here. On one end of the spectrum are radicals who date the destruction of Jericho based upon the biblical record. The other alternative belief is that the destruction happened much later. So who’s right? Can there really be a winner when religion is involved?

We have clear textual opinions and biases based on excavations of Jericho concerning chronology, but the evidence which scholars have dissected, wouldn’t be possible without the excavations of Watzinger, Sellin, Garstang and Kenyon. Ernst Sellin and Carl Watzinger conducted the first excavation of Jericho from 1907 to 1909 and again in 1911 . At this time, there was no developed pottery chronology, so their dating of the vessels found was inaccurate. Watzinger later revised the chronology, however, and their carefully drawn plans and sections can still provide valuable information. For example, Ernst Sellin and Carl Watzinger traced the Middle Bronze revetment wall around three-quarters of the base of the tel, although at the time they did not fully understand the complexities of the Middle Bronze fortification system. It was only when Kathleen Kenyon excavated the site in the 1950’s that the nature of the revetment wall was clarified, as we will soon see. After his redating, Watzinger concluded that Jericho was unoccupied (and therefore obviously unfortified) during the Late Bronze period (c. 1550–1200 B.C.E.), the time when the Israelites first appeared in Canaan .

In the 1930’s archaeologist John Garstang concluded that he had matched evidence at Jericho to the stories in the Bible. Like the story of the Pompeii, Garstang described Jericho as a city frozen in the process of life.

“The main defenses of Jericho at the time of the Late Bronze Period followed the upper brink of the city mound and comprised two parallel walls, the outer six feet and the inner twelve feet thick. Investigations along the west side show signs of destruction and conflagration. The outer wall suffered the most, its remains falling down the slope, and the inner wall remains where it abuts the citadel, to the height of eighteen feet; elseware it is found largely to have fallen, together with the remains of the buildings upon it, into the space between the walls which was filled with ruins and debris.”

Unbaked bread had been left out to serve as leaven for next day’s baking. Provisions of oats, barley, dates, olives, onions and peppercorns were discovered, all charred but unmistakable, in the corner of a house. All evidence that human activity was cut off instantly. “The layers of ash were so thick and the signs of heat so vivid, that it gave the impression of having been contrived, that fuel had been added to the fire.” The archaeological evidence found was, according to Garstang, relevant to the Bible account. However, he then attributed his findings to the Late Bronze Period where Biblical Scholars expected it to be. Here lays the problem once again. The findings are suited to meet the explanation in the Bible and the text has never been substantiated. Therefore, Garstang has taken the facts to suit the theory instead of theory to the facts. Garstang has discovered walls and layers of burned stratigraphy. That’s an archaeological fact, but I contest that the dating is not factual, and he hardly allows for a degree of error in the dating.

Archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon challenged Garstang’s conclusions. Kenyon explained that when the Israelites attacked Jericho as described in the Bible there were no walls and no city. In fact, Kenyon attested that “we have nowhere been able to prove the survival of walls of the Late Bronze Age, that is to say of the period of Joshua”. Everywhere along the line of walls that Kenyon and her team examined was concluded to be from the Early Bronze Age. “They had just been buried underneath a massive scarp belonging to the Middle Bronze Age.” Kenyon’s evidence, chronologically, was exactly where it ought to be according to Rudolph Cohen. Oddly enough, Kenyon’s later remarks about the site of Jericho fit the biblical record exactly.

In Archaeology in the Holy Land, Kenyon writes:

“The final end of the Early Bronze Age civilization came with catastrophic completeness. The last of the Early Bronze Age walls of Jericho was built in a great hurry, using old and broken bricks, and was probably not completed when it was destroyed by fire. Little or none of the town inside the walls has survived subsequent denudation, but it was probably completely destroyed, for all the finds show that there was an absolute break, and that a new people took the place of the earlier inhabitants. Every town in Palestine that has so far been investigated shows the same break. The newcomers were nomads, not interested in town life, and they so completely drove out or absorbed the old population, perhaps already weakened and decadent, that all traces of the Early Bronze Age civilization disappeared."

In Notes on the Fortifications of the Middle Bronze II Period at Jericho and Shechem, David Ussishkin explains that Kenyon clearly disregarded Middle Bronze domestic structures inside the brick city wall, discovered initially by Sellin and Watzinger. Those buildings are well dated and resemble the contemporary buildings that Kenyon uncovered. Garstang indirectly corroborated those findings in light of his discovery of a Middle Bronze Age "un-disturbed deposit" inside the brick wall. Those buildings prove the impossibility of Kenyon's concept of the fortifications . This oversight is just one of several found in Kenyon’s research. If you remember, Kenyon failed to look for pottery of the Canaanites, looking only for vessels, which represented peoples of higher standing. In my opinion, this is hardly a correct representation of the social organization at Jericho during the supposed destruction.

Kay Prag discusses the occupational remains at Jericho and the three areas with stratified remains, which were examined by Kenyon, Garstang and their students. It seems evident in her assessment that, what one archaeologist may have ignored, one paid more mind to. This essentially means that several layers of strata were completely ignored. Now, seeing as how we are discussing destruction layer evidence along with the occurrences of pottery, this is an enormous blunder.

Prag further discusses the Jericho Tel stating:

“Three Early Bronze-Middle Bronze period occupation areas on the tell are described, although there is some disparity between Kenyon's summaries in earlier works as the final published evidence. Kenyon stressed that a squatter occupation was present on the tell and on the slopes surrounding it at the beginning of the Early Bronze-Middle Bronze period, but she actually published no evidence for it.”

This may have been because Kenyon died too early to report further findings. This is all well and good, but I still need to know what the occupation has to do with the destruction? We can date the charcoal deposits, that’s easy, but we have to determine the layers in which they came. If the cartography has shifted, and the archaeologists have not used 10cm arbitrary levels to examine the burn layers, then how could we possibly arrive at a conclusive date? Those burned levels of occupation hold the clues to the puzzle. This is where the examination of the trenches aids us in this complex mystery. Specifically Trench I examined by Kathleen Kenyon.

Kenyon noted that the destruction of the final Early Bronze III wall and town was succeeded by squatter occupation and a 2.50 m fill in defensive Ditch VI . The ditch fill contained quantities of Early Bronze-Middle Bronze sherds. The Early Bronze level contained a significant amount of sherds compared to the brown pebbly layer overlying this ditch fill, which had only two Early Bronze sherds. The nature of the lower fill suggests tumble and erosion of uncertain duration following the destruction of the town; but, apart from an uncertain length of time, there seems no other evidence for squatter occupation .

Kay Prag further explains the evidence from Trench I and what the occupation levels tell us:

“The sequence in Trench I might have been: a) the destruction of the walled Early Bronze III town; b) a period of erosion of uncertain duration with fill deposited in the lower part of Ditch VI, and unverified squatter occupation; c) terracing under wet conditions for Early Bronze-Middle Bronze houses which may have been sporadically distributed over the tell and its slopes; d) three to four phases of building and repairs of the houses, each separated by erosion and collapse phases, as shown by the; e) final gullying of the houses, which Kenyon suggested was expedited by earthquake; f) abandonment; g) long and heavy erosion right up to the time of construction of the Middle Bronze II ramparts, which contained and protected what remained of the earlier deposits.”

The stratigraphy can tell us a great deal about supposed environmental activities during occupation, but it doesn’t appease the views of many biblical scholars, who have disqualified such complicated findings, which question the validity of the biblical account of Jericho’s destruction. Scholars like Albright, however, never questioned the validity of the Bible, describing vividly the destruction of Jericho and the Israelite conquest. Furthermore, Albright never questioned the supportive evidence from the Jericho defense system, although the dating was founded on very flimsy grounds. Professor Albright believes that the problem of Jericho remains very confounding; owing to the often-emphasized fact that the excavation of the site has been too fragmentary to permit great confidence in any detailed reconstruction of its history . However, after all the work accomplished by Watzinger and Garstang, it can now be regarded as certain that the latest pre-Israelite town on the site is represented by the contents of the "Middle Palace" excavated by Garstang in 1933 .

Albright also explains that:

“The pottery of the Middle Palace at Jericho bears very close affinity to that of the " Thothmes " and " Pre-Amenophis " strata at Beth-shan, as correctly stated by Garstang and Rowe, in their joint statement of 1936. It is also closely related, to that of the middle shrine at Lachish. In other words, it belongs in the main to the fourteenth century B. C., and cannot be pushed backward into the fifteenth century nor forward into the thirteenth.”


This problem of substantiating the existence of Jericho led many scholars, including Israel Finkelstein, to write in opposition of the Biblical narrative. Finkelstein looked at new peoples coming into the country. The same people, who supposedly occupied Canaan at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age, were still occupying the area at the end of this period. In The Bible Unearthed Finkelstein writes, “It is now evident that the many events of biblical history did not take place in either the particular era or the manner described. Some of the most famous events in the Bible clearly never happened at all” . As bold of a statement this is, I have to respectively agree with Finkelstein’s argument. The archaeological evidence, or lack there of, has not only hindered and degraded the field of Biblical Archaeology, but the approach seems to be the subject of mass scrutiny.

Finkelstein also states that Jericho had no trace of settlement during the thirteenth century B.C.E., and the earlier Late Bronze settlement, dating to the fourteenth century B.C.E., was small and poor, almost insignificant, and unfortified . Thus, the question is whether there were walls at Jericho, or a fortification in place, to destroy during the fourteenth century B.C.E., as described in the biblical account and according to biblical scholars like Garstang. I don’t believe so. Fortifications are created as military strongholds designed for defense in warfare. If this is the case at Jericho, whom were they trying to keep out, and would evidence of a military be present? Furthermore, what was the primary function of the fortification if it was in fact present?

All three expeditions studied the Middle Bronze Age fortifications and each excavator understood the same fortifications in an entirely different manner. The questions of concern in the current analysis are first, how those differences in understanding could have happened, and second, what seems to be the most acceptable interpretation of the fortifications in question . Finkelstein goes on to say that there were “no signs of destruction”, and thus, the Israelites who marched across the walled town with the Ark of the Covenant in toe, causing Jericho’s mighty walls to come tumbling down, was a “romantic mirage” . Why you may ask? The fortification wasn’t there to destroy.

Finkelstein’s student, Nelson Glueck, posited that such a center and stronghold as Jericho was definitely occupied during the entire Middle Bronze II period, as were other important sites in the Jordan Valley during all or parts of that period and of the subsequent Late Bronze period . This, of course, would be consistent with the Middle Bronze Age Israelites, whom destroyed Jericho at the end of the Early Bronze Age, and thus conquered the Promised Land, according to the Bible. I agree, there is an alarming amount of evidence, which lends credence to the fact that Jericho was occupied in the Middle Bronze Age. I don’t, however, believe that any such fortification existed. I also believe that a foundation for a structure is present, as we’ve seen from Kenyon’s excavation of the revetment at Jericho, but I don’t believe it was part of a stronghold.

Surprisingly, Wright defends, or rather tries to explain the viewpoint of Glueck, in his journal article Is Glueck's Aim to Prove That the Bible Is True?. Wright explains that Glueck affirms that no one can essentially prove the Bible, for it is a theological manuscript. “Those people are essentially of little faith who seek through archaeological corroboration of historical source materials in the Bible to validate its religious teachings and spiritual insights." So how does this pertain to Jericho? In Glueck’s case, his treatment of Jericho was based on archaeological evidence and empirical practices. It’s true. Glueck loved and respected the Bible, but in scientific writings this side of him is restrained.

Consequently, this is similar with some of Kenyon’s findings at Jericho. She describes the fills she excavated in front of the stone revetment, dating them to the Middle Bronze Age. Kenyon admitted that at least the lower layers of the fills were contemporary with the period of use of the revetment. They include "an accumulation of primary silt" at the bottom, a "kerb wall” about 90 cm high, and an accumulation of "stone chips" and the stone revetment. Above them was a fill of fallen red bricks, which Kenyon believed represented the debris of the disused Middle Bronze brick city wall, and above it a layer of "gravelly wash".

G. Ernest Wright explains that not only is it now difficult to interpret the biblical narrative of the fall of Jericho, but it is impossible to trace the history of the tradition. The main reason for this, as Wright explains in his book Biblical Archaeology, is because “virtually nothing remains at the site between 1500 and 1200 B.C." This is a strong statement and I have to argue the that the word “nothing” is much too strong, as it deduces the significance of any burned stratigraphy layers, pottery, burned food stuffs and tools. There is something present, albeit it may fall into an entirely different range of dates. G. Ernest Wright addresses his statement concerning Jericho, which was, I believe, prompted by Finkelstein’s opinion of him as a scholar. Finkelstein states that, “the dictates of the new trend, which requires that every contradiction between archaeological evidence and the Biblical text be harmonized to uphold the veracity of Scripture, has apparently driven Dr. Wright-in this case at least-beyond the reach of common sense."

 Wright later explains:

“The statement that there was "virtually" no Late Bronze Age occupation recovered means this: in the Early and Middle Bronze Ages Jericho was a fortified city of considerable significance. About 1550 B.C. the Egyptians destroyed it violently along with most other major Palestinian cities, and it was never again a significant city. As far as the evidence goes, it was not even fortified. However, there was indeed subsequent occupation. During the 14th century, at least three Middle Bronze Age tombs were opened and new burials inserted, and some very fragmentary remains of buildings and floors of the same general age were found above the spring. An unfortified Israelite village with what appears to have been a government granary also existed there, beginning about the 10th century. The evidence suggests that the Late Bronze Age occupation was slight, but most of what there was of it was eroded away in the unoccupied centuries which followed, just as happened there much earlier to the villages at the end of the Neolithic period (Kenyon's Neolithic Pottery A) and in the early Chalcolithic period (Kenyon's Neolithic B and Garstang's Jericho VIII), both of which were followed by long periods when the mound was unoccupied.”

Simply put, there is an enormous range of error in the C14 dates pertaining to Jericho in my opinion. Dr. Bryant Woods published C14 dates of 1410 +/- 40 B.C. for charcoal from the destruction level of Jericho. This was later found to be in error and corrected to 1590 or 1527 +/- 110 B.C., depending on how one reads the calibration curve . Additional tests were done on six grain samples resulting in dates between 1640 and 1520 B.C. and 12 charcoal samples resulting in dates between 1690 and 1610 B.C. Woods’ dating of Jericho to ca. 1400 B.C. is primarily based on pottery, which, in turn, is based on Egyptian chronology. “Jericho is just one example of the discrepancy between historical and C14 dates for the second millennium B.C. C14 dates are consistently 100–150 years earlier than historical dates.”

Bryant Woods also explains in the March/April 1990 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review that Garstang was right all along. Woods proposed that the termination of City IV Jericho be redated from ca. 1550 B.C. to ca. 1400 B.C. He argued that a reanalysis of pottery sherds excavated from City IV, stratigraphic considerations, scarab evidence, and a single radiocarbon date all converged "to demonstrate that City IV was destroyed in about 1400 B.C.E., not 1550 B.C.E. as Kenyon maintained.”
Similar with Wood’s assessment, in The Quest For The Historical Israel, it’s explained that at many sites, The Late Bronze Age II cities were destroyed in large conflagrations and were dated to the late thirteenth century B.C.E and associated with the invading Israelites. The dating is associated with conventional chronology of Aegean pottery. This in turn was influenced by Canaan conquest stories in the Bible; another clear case of circular reasoning . Furthermore, archaeological excavations have shown that Jericho was not inhabited in the Late Bronze Age, and even it was, it was far less significant than explained in the Bible .

My principal observation and argument about the chronological dating of Jericho is the fact that every archaeologist involved in the excavations, has approached the site in different ways. This approach had yielded degrees of variation, which is to be expected when differing archaeological methods are used to assess a site. David Ussishkin noted that, recent excavators of Jericho and Shechem, including Kenyon, G. E. Wright, Dever, and their colleagues, have followed the "debris/layer excavation method”, and have tended to interpret constructional differences in monumental structures and different layers of debris associated with them as representing chronologically different phases of construction, settlement, and use . The problem is, this is not always the case. Some construction and debris layers are representative of one continual phase of one structure. It depends on the data collected. Stratigraphy layers can shift, and with that modification of layers, artifacts and building structures move as well. Therefore, dating the site to one particular year or range of years is virtually impossible, since environmental changes yield varying evidence overtime. For example, some individuals might interpret a wall, whose lower part is wider and built in a different style, than the top as having been built and used during two phases of settlement. Subsequently, they might see two overlaid debris surfaces covering the floor space of a building as two separate floors indicating two phases of use .

In conclusion, radicals date Jericho to 15th century and minimalists date it to 13th century. Kenyon dates it to 1550 B.C.E. based on the fact there were no walls at that time. Kathleen Kenyon never found pottery from Cyprus, but she failed to look for pottery of the Canaanites. This is an enormous issue considering she didn’t take into the account the social organization of Jericho at the time of the destruction. Therefore, she would have never found pottery from Cyprus, which represented a richer class of people. Garstang dated the site to 1400 B.C.E. according to biblical accounts and he then attributed his findings to the Late Bronze Period where biblical scholars expected it to be.

Kay Prag posits “both Trench I and Trench II suggest that the end of the occupation may have been brought about by earthquake and subsequent fire; but the massive and prolonged erosion that followed may have removed evidence for some later phases, and even for earlier phases”.

 Wright decidedly believed that no such occupation was observed at Jericho from 1200 to 1500 B.C.E. and Finkelstein is an entirely new discussion. The problem seems to lie in the chronology and the reliability of the biblical narrative. It’s not a question as to whether Jericho existed, because it did. It’s also not a question as to whether people ever occupied the site of Jericho, because they could have, even as far back as the tenth century B.C.E, according to stratigraphic layers and common foodstuffs discovered. The issue seems to be that it’s “virtually” impossible to assess the site of Jericho because the biases of scholars alike cloud the actual archaeological evidence. Furthermore, the chronological dating of specific samples, as Bryant explained prior, gives us too many dates to pinpoint an actual point of destruction at Jericho. Consequently, stratigraphic layers are not always contemporaneous with each other. Sometimes strata in cultural layers are not obvious and sometimes they’re uniform. When you get a shift in cartography, you have to start a new layer. Subsequently, when you get to a cultural level you break it down into 10 cm arbitrary levels. I wonder if archaeologists like Kenyon and Garstang thought to do so?

Sources

1. Albright, William F. "The Israelite Conquest of Canaan in the Light of Archaeology." The American Schools of Oriental Research. 74. (1939): 11-23.
2. Finkelstein, Israel. The Bible Unearthed. New York: Free Press, 2001.
3. Finkelstein, Israel, and AmiHai Mazar. The Quest for the Historical Israel. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007.
4. Glueck, Nelson. "Go, View the Land." The American Schools of Oriental Research. No. 122 (1951): 14-18.
5. Kenyon, Kathleen. Digging Up Jericho. London: Praeger Ernest Benn, 1957.
6. Kenyon, Kathleen, Archaeology in the Holy Land. London: Ernest Benn Limited, 1965.
7. Prag, Kay. "The Intermediate Early Bronze-Middle Bronze Age Sequences at Jericho and Tell Iktanu." The American Schools of Oriental Research. No. 264 (1986): 61-72.
8. Ussishkin, David. "Notes on the Fortifications of the Middle Bronze II Period at Jericho and Shechem." The American Schools of Oriental Research. 276. (1989): 29-53.
9. Wright, G. Ernest. Biblical Archaeology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1962.
10. Wright, G. Ernest. "Is Glueck's Aim to Prove That the Bible Is True?" The American Schools of Oriental Research. 22. No. 4 (1959): 101-108.
11. Wood, Bryant G. Associates for Biblical Research, "Carbon 14 Dating at Jericho." Last modified Aug 07, 2008. Accessed November 1, 2011. http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/08/07/Carbon-14-Dating-at-Jericho.aspx.
12. Wood, Bryant G. "Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho? A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence." Biblical Archaeology Review. 16. No. 2 (1990): 44-58.
13. Sellin, Ernst, and Carl Watzinger. Jericho: Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen . Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1913.

Church Discovered By Archaeologists in Acre, Israel

JUNE 13, 2011--The Israel Antiquities Authority has had a breakthrough discovery, unearthing a public structure from the time of the Byzantine Empire in the northern Israeli city of Acre.

Old City of Acre UNESCO World Heritage Site

The structure is about 1,500 years-old and it is believed to have served as a church. The structure was uncovered during a rescue excavation by the Israel Antiquities Authority following an unauthorized dig in the area that uncovered the structure.

The excavation was done approximately 100 meters west of a mound located in the eastern part of Acre, close to the area in which the future Azrieli shopping mall is being built.

"This is an important discovery for the study of Acre," Page said, adding that it is of particular significance "considering no remnants from the Byzantine Period had been found other than living quarters near the [Mediterranean] sea." Nurit Page, head of the excavations in the area.

Read More: Archaeologists unearth Acre church from the Byzantine Period

Out of the Ethnocentric: No Child Is Born A Terrorist

On Monday, I discussed the non western view of religion based upon an article I read by Victor Turner. It's easy to jump to conclusions and not embrace cultures representing the reverse of what we've grown up with. When it comes to the sensitive subject of terrorism, it's easy to place blame. You have to remember culture is relative, and what one may accept as a way of life, you might view as out of the ordinary.

Explore.org dives deep into the world of terrorism. Archetypes and human drama are molded by media, feeding our obsession. This video entitled "No Child is Born a Terrorist" helps us understand the man behind the terrorist mask.

Holocaust Cartoon On Iranian Site

I'm not accustomed to putting politically incorrect text on the Ancient Digger, but this made me very angry, especially considering my personal heritage.

Over the course of one year, I have attended several Jewish Heritage Festivals and I've also done in depth studies on the History of the Holocaust, several times throughout my schooling. I appreciate my family history and I certainly know enough about it to to view this story as a complete fallacy.

One Iranian website has taken it too far, once again calling the Holocaust a complete fabrication. I thought we were past this and I though there was enough evidence to prove that the Holocaust actually happened. Am I naive in thinking this?

The version of the slaughter of six million Jews by their Nazi persecutors during World War II is called "the great lie" by the site, which recounts its version of events in cartoon form.

Displaying images of bearded large-nosed figures, the site aims to denounce the Holocaust as a "lie with which the Palestine occupier Zionists have justified their occupying of Palestine and lots of other crimes for years." In one image, A Jew is tied to a chair on a movie set as a canister of Zyklone-B is dropped through the roof of the gas chamber.

The site is sponsored by the Khakriz Cultural Institute, and is "dedicated to those killed under the pretext of the Holocaust." The imagery is like taking a trip back to Nazi occupied Germany and seeing the hundreds upon thousands of propaganda. It's unsettling and unnecessary!

I refuse to link to the site, as I can not and will not agree with their approach on the matter.

I want to hear from you? What are your opinions about this?

Sited Info (adnkronosinternational) This is not the Iranian Site

Iran's Ahmadinejad Interview With Peter Jennings on Holocaust

 

This is an interview between Peter Jennings and Ahmadinejad about whether the Palestines believe the Holocaust actually happened. It's about anger, jealousy, self determination, safety, and women's rights. It's about recognizing an event that meant so much to so many Jews and so little to Palestinians.

Breaking Archaeology News: Rare Crusader Fresco at Israel Museum

A rare Crusader-era fresco from Jerusalem's Garden of Gethsemane has been unveiled to the public for the first time. The fresco depicts the Deisis, a famous Biblical scene featuring Jesus, Mary and John the Baptist praying. It was discovered by chance in 1999 as officials worked to preserve sites affected by winter flooding.

Curators at the Israel Museum believe the full 12th-century fresco was about 30 feet tall. Only the bottom section, showing feet, now remains. The fresco went on display Monday when the museum reopened after a renovation. Only two similar frescoes have been found near Jerusalem. Archaeologists say all others were destroyed by Saladin when his troops captured Jerusalem in the name of Islam in 1187.

Other exhibitions include:

Zvi Goldstein: Haunted by Objects
Susan Hiller: A Work in Progress
Yinka Shonibare: Earth, Wind, Fire, and Water
A Rare Gift: The Noel and Harriette Levine Collection of Photographs


For more archaeological exhibitions, check out the Israel Museum.

Monday Ground Up: The Masada Palace in Israel

Masada in Israel was built by Herod the Great in 37BC overlooking the Dead Sea. Masada, which is actually a fortified palace, was occupied by a Roman garrison following the death of Herod the Great. It became a refuge for zealots, or Sicarii, who revolted against the Romans and returned to Jerusalem around 66 CE.