Leen Ritmeyer mentions that the current (December) issue of National Geographic includes a poster supplement of the Temple Mount. He includes a picture of the poster and tells a little bit about his role in its creation. He links to the NG website, but I cannot find a way to buy just a single issue. My guess is that a newstand copy would not include the poster, and that a subscription ($15/year) ordered now would not include this issue. But if you already have a subscription, don’t discard the poster insert before realizing what a resource you have.
I have more to say about Khirbet Qeiyafa, but time is tight right now and a more careful presentation will have to wait. But there are a few developments I can note and a few comments I can respond to, all in brief fashion.
First, G. M. Grena posted on the comments here this morning that the PowerPoint presentation that excavator Y. Garfinkel gave at the ASOR meeting last week is now available in pdf format. This is a great resource for those who want to know more but couldn’t be there.
Second, if you’re interested in following the ostracon on its tour of the most expensive cameras in the world, you can do that here. Thanks again to G. M. Grena for alerting us.
Now, to an article by Bloomberg about Qeiyafa which includes two quotations from scholars. The first is from N. A. Silberman, known for his extreme views that much of the Old Testament was written very late by priestly propagandists.
“To find an apple tree in some town in the Midwest doesn’t mean the Johnny Appleseed legend is exactly correct,” said Silberman, co-writer with Israel Finkelstein of “The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts.”
This is really quite an apt analogy. Except for the fact that the site was found precisely in the exact area where the battle of David and Goliath was fought. And it dates precisely to the time period when the Bible says that David lived. Sorry, sir, you can’t wish this away so easily.
The excavator of Qeiyafa, unfortunately, doesn’t do much better.
Garfinkel, gesturing toward a nearby hill where he said the Philistine city of Gath once stood, said he believes his find brings to life the tale of David killing the Philistine giant Goliath with just two stones.
He said he would have agreed with Silberman’s views on David before the dig: “Once it was excavated, it changed the whole situation.”
So until this summer Garfinkel apparently held to the view that Silberman espouses, which is that Judah was a sparsely populated hinterland during the time of David (and for the next several hundred years). But he finds a small walled city and a potsherd with writing on it, and suddenly, everything has changed? This tells me either that he has a super-high estimation of the value of what he found, or he is ignorant of some important data. How does Qeiyafa revolutionize things when decades ago, a much more impressive fortification from the 10th century was found at Gezer (11 miles to the north)? What about Azekah about 1 mile to the west? True, it hasn’t been excavated (by someone other than Robert Alexander Stewart Macalister 100 years ago), but shouldn’t that very fact give someone (both Silberman and Garfinkel) pause before concluding that Judah was weak and impoverished in the “time of David”? Who knows what you’ll find at Azekah! Just down the road is Gath, which is proving to look quite similar to what we would expect from the biblical account.
Now, perhaps Garfinkel was speaking not of the (lack of unique) fortifications, but rather of the ostracon. Surely, this is an important discovery. Just how important we may not know until the text is recovered by photography and it is published. But, is it really accurate to say that on the basis of this one as-yet-undeciphered ostracon that “it changes the whole situation”? It’s not like we don’t have other 10th century inscriptions from the area–the Gezer Calendar has been known for 100 years, and the Tel Zayit inscription was discovered a few years ago. So we have known that ancient Judah was literate and had fortified cities in the Shephelah for a long time now. But Garfinkel (apparently) denied these realities meant anything because he would have agreed with Silberman’s views. But now, on the basis of his finds, everything has changed in his mind. This all suggests to me that some scholars come to conclusions without carefully considering all of the evidence.
Chris Heard at Higgaion has posted a few comments that I want to note. The first point is outstanding and in sharp contrast to the two quotes above:
Reports of the “low chronology’s” death may be greatly exaggerated, or premature, but Khirbet Qeiyafa must surely influence our picture of 10th-century Judah. Let us not overstate the case: what we (the interested public) know of Khirbet Qeiyafa at this point hardly “proves that David killed Goliath” or anything of that sort. However, Khirbet Qeiyafa does counterbalance the increasingly common portrayal of 10th-century Judah as a cultural backwater.
Yes, indeed. Overstatements are far too common among scholars talking to journalists. But this part I cannot agree with:
The identification of the site as Sha‘arayim seems quite likely now, completely independent of anything learned from the ostracon.
This conclusion is unwarranted on the basis of the current evidence. It seems to rely on the excavator’s word, and not the data. But I urge caution. 1) Last year the excavator said the site was Azekah. Frankly, that’s most unlikely on many accounts. It comes from the urge to have your site be something important. It demonstrates that the excavator did not properly consider the data from history and geography in making the identification. 2) Historical geography seems to have been ignored in this identification of Qeiyafa as Shaaraim as well. I have discussed this before and will be saying more about it. 3) The sole basis for identifying Qeiyafa as Shaaraim is this: Shaaraim means “two gates.” (The three reasons listed on slide 33 all argue against identifying Qeiyafa as Shaaraim, which I will demonstrate in the future.) The excavator has excavated one and eyeballed what he believes is another one from the same time period. No excavations have been done of the second gate. The meaning of the name is significant, but my question is: does it override other evidence?
Again, I simply suggest that more study occur before we decide that the identification as Shaaraim “seems quite likely now.”
If all of this is too basic for you and you’d prefer to read about some analysis about radiocarbon dating related to Qeiyafa, see this post by Abnormal Interests. John Hobbins also has some more thoughts about the site identification, to which I’ll respond in the future aforementioned post.
Update (12/5): I have removed reference to the Ephes-dammim credit line in the pdf file as that has
now been updated (see comment below).
Globes is reporting a record year for tourism in Israel, surpassing the record set in 2000.
Minister of Tourism Ruhama Avraham-Balila today announced that three million tourists visited Israel in 2008, 30% more than in 2007. She made the announcement at a press conference summarizing the year in tourism. Ministry of Tourism figures show that the tourism industry generated NIS 25 billion in 2008, 9% more than in 2007. Indirect output from the tourism industry is estimated at NIS 40 billion. The increase in tourists boosted employment by the industry by 10% compared with last year, to about 90,000 people. Avraham-Balila said that she has approached her Jordanian and Palestinian counterparts to convene a regional tourism conference. "I’m aware of the bureaucratic hurdles involved in investing in Israel, which is why we’re now setting up an assistance office for investors, which will advise them from the moment they buy land or win a tender, through the inauguration of a hotel. In the coming weeks, the ministry will convene tourism industry business leaders to examine preparations for 2009. The goal is to retain the number of incoming tourists." The Ministry of Tourism said that it expects 3,000 hotel rooms to be built by 2012.
The LA Times has a good article on the recent photographing of the 5-line early Hebrew ostracon found at Khirbet Qeiyafa. One portion:
The result is hundreds of high-resolution images shot with different light filters. Using a process called spectral imaging, Boydston and Bill Christens-Barry, another imaging expert, aimed to maximize the contrast of the ink, made of charcoal and animal fat, against the terra-cotta piece.
Although they didn’t find any hidden text, the images will be sent back to Israel. Other high-tech images were produced — using slightly different imaging techniques — at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles and two other technical shops on the East Cost. [sic]
Once the shard’s message is fully scrutinized and decoded, findings will be published in scholarly journals by Yosef Garfinkel of Hebrew University, who led the dig. A few words already deciphered — “slave,” “king,” “land” and “judge” — indicate that it may be a legal text, lending weight to some scholars’ belief that King David wielded considerable power over the Israelites.
The article gives much background about the firm that took the photographs, including mention of an early digital camera that they created – that weighed 300 pounds (136 kg)!
HT: Paleojudaica (who also notes some speculation about the contents of the ostracon)
- Tagged Shephelah, Technology
Visitors to Israel may remember the Biblical Gardens located at Tantur, founded by Jim Fleming (Biblical Resources). That wonderful center lost its lease in the late 1990s, and moved to a smaller facility in Ein Karem. The location was more off the beaten track and the steep decline in tourists that started in late 2000 bode ill for the center. Several years ago I read that all of its large archaeological replicas were going to be purchased by Bridges for Peace. The center then “moved” to Georgia (about 70 miles sw of Atlanta), where it provides similar instruction about biblical life and times those who may not be able to travel to Israel.
The facility at Ein Karem has a new tenant carrying out a similar work as its predecessor. Haaretz reports on the Bible Times Center and Heritage Garden.
Before she moved to Israel, Hannah Trasher used to be a professional fashion designer. Today, she spends most of her days dressed up as an ancient Israelite, sporting sandals, a robe and a turban-like head wrap worn by upper class Jewish women during the Second Temple period.
Two years ago, Thrasher, 57, came from the United States to Ein Kerem, the picturesque village in southwest Jerusalem, to become the executive director of the Bible Times Center and Heritage Garden, which she founded and built largely with her own savings. Nestled in the green hills surrounding the capital and tucked away between small streets and rustic churches, the center allows groups of tourists and curious Israelis, tourists and school children to travel back in time to experience how Jews – and non-Jews – lived in the land of Israel in biblical times…
The center, which is housed in a ten-room multistory building from the days of the Ottoman empire, also includes a threshing floor, a stone quarry, a stable with mangers, a wine press, a watch tower, a wedding canopy and a replica of an ancient gravesite.
Trasher, who was born in Louisiana but lived in Massachusetts, Oklahoma and Texas before settling in Jerusalem, started learning about Jewish history about 30 years ago, and has since led many study groups from the U.S. to Israel. On her tours, she often stopped by at the World of the Bible Archaeological Museum and Pilgrim Center, which until 2006 operated in the same house where she later built the Bible Times Center. But when the director of the old center, biblical archaeology and history scholar Jim Fleming, was given an enormous grant to build a similar project in Atlanta, Thrasher suddenly found the site abandoned.
“I was just crushed, as were many people, that this place wasn’t available anymore,” she said about her decision to move to Israel to establish her own bible center. Although she had always appreciated her predecessor’s work, she found that he approached the topic too intellectually. “It was a place that attracted many scholars from all around the world,” she said, “but that was not my vision for the place.”
The rest of the story is here.
HT: Joe Lauer
UPDATE: The current issue of Biblical Archaeology Review arrived in my mailbox today and it includes an article on the new “Explorations in Antiquity Center” of Jim Fleming/Biblical Resources. Based on the write-up and what I remember from the center in Israel, it sounds like a worthwhile visit for any interested in the biblical world and passing through Georgia. One strange thing: the BAR article starts in the first-person, but I cannot find the author’s name listed. It begins, “I have never been to Israel,” so that rules out Shanks. The online version includes the first three paragraphs of the article and the author’s name: Dorothy Resig (a BAR editor).
- Tagged New Exhibits, Resources
The Book and the Spade radio program just posted the first of two interviews with Qeiyafa excavator Yosef Garfinkel (the link there is updated every week for the current program).
National Geographic reports on the Qeiyafa excavation. Much of the story reports what has been covered elsewhere, but there are some problems with the article. (Does mentioning these help to prevent their perpetuation by journalists or others?)
The article begins:
The remains of an ancient gate has pinpointed the location of the biblical city Sha’arayim, say archaeologists working in Israel.
In the Bible, young King David is described as battling Goliath in the city, before eventually killing him in the Elah Valley.
Ahem. Is it really that hard for the NG journalist (Mati Milstein) to open the Bible (1 Samuel 17) and read the story of David and Goliath? The battle did not occur in a city, and Shaaraim is mentioned only as a point on a road that the Philistines used to flee. It’s quite a creative re-telling that puts the battle in the city, but Goliath’s eventual death in the valley. Even if the writer couldn’t find a Bible (or locate one on the Internet), couldn’t he have asked the archaeologist he was interviewing? Since this is the entire reason why anyone cares about this excavation as opposed to the hundreds of others in Israel (and this is evidenced by its placement in the first two paragraphs), shouldn’t NG try to get at least this right? If they can’t, can you trust anything in the article?
Later in the article, archaeologist Amos Kloner comments on the site identification:
“This is an initial idea, all aspects of which must be examined,” he said. “[But] it doesn’t matter if there is a second gate … This provides no indication of a Judean population there.”
Apparently Garfinkel hasn’t convinced everyone that the mere presence of a second gate absolutely and infallibly confirms that Qeiyafa is Shaaraim. I think, however, that Kloner is wrong if he follows Garfinkel in the idea that Qeiyafa must be a Judean site in order to be Shaaraim. In fact, as I argued before, I think a better case can be made from the only source that we have that at the time of the
battle, Shaaraim was in Philistine hands.
The article closes with this quote from Garfinkel:
Garfinkel said he will continue to explore the Elah site in search of further evidence.
“Maybe we’ll find an inscription on the gate indicating who built the city: ‘I David, son of Yishai, built this city,'” he said with a laugh.
That’s a typical archaeologist kind of joke, and it wouldn’t be worth a response, except that Garfinkel has suggested elsewhere that he is serious about the possibility that David built the Qeiyafa fortress.
I think it is entirely possible that David built the Qeiyafa fortress, but if he did, Qeiyafa is not Shaaraim. You can have one, but not the other, unless you believe the biblical account is completely confused. This is the big problem with those scholars who want to claim the “middle ground” between maximalists and minimalists: they claim validation for their results based upon data which they believe is faulty. In other words, the scholar says, our evidence that Qeiyafa is Shaaraim is the biblical text which mentions this site (Shaaraim) in this area (Elah Valley). The Bible says that Shaaraim existed before David became king. We can believe the Bible that Shaaraim was a city in this area, but we can’t believe the same biblical story that Shaaraim existed before David. This is very typical scholarly logic, but it is usually dressed up in fancy language, and supported by one questionable hypothesis built upon another dubious theory.
UPDATE (10 p.m.): The initial paragraphs of the NG article have been changed:
The remains of an ancient gate have pinpointed the location of the biblical city Sha’arayim, say archaeologists working in Israel.
In the Bible young David, a future king, is described as battling Goliath in the Elah Valley near Sha’arayim.
Search
About the BiblePlaces Blog
The BiblePlaces Blog provides updates and analysis of the latest in biblical archaeology, history, and geography. Unless otherwise noted, the posts are written by Todd Bolen, PhD, Professor of Biblical Studies at The Master’s University.
Subscribe
Tags
10th Century
American Colony Photos
Analysis
Antiquities Trade
Dead Sea
Dead Sea Scrolls
Discoveries
Egypt
Excavations
Forgery
Galilee
Greece
Holidays
Israel's Coast
Italy
Jerusalem
Jezreel Valley
Jordan
Jordan Rift
Judah
Lebanon
Lectures
Mediterranean Islands
Mesopotamia
Museums
Negev
New Exhibits
Persia
Philistines
Photo Resources
Picture of the Week
Pseudo-Archaeology
Resources
Sad News
Samaria
Shephelah
Syria
Technology
Temple Mount
Tomb of Jesus
Tourism
Travels
Turkey
Weather
Weekend Roundup
Links
Notice
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. In any case, we will provide honest advice.