4. Archaeology and the period of the judges
4. Archaeology and the period of the judges
Archaeological research has underlined the disparity between the Canaanite culture and the Israelite occupation which succeeded it. ‘The contrast between the well-constructed Canaanite foundations and drainage systems of the thirteenth century and the crude piles of stones, without benefit of drainage, which replace them in the twelfth century, especially at Bethel, can scarcely be exaggerated.’10 But whilst this fact is admitted, another fact of greater importance must also be noted: it is that the Israelites settled down immediately in the territory which they occupied without any transition period, which suggests strongly that they were not typical nomads. It is clear that the Israelites could not break the power of the Canaanite city-states in the valleys and coastal plains, as noted in the biblical records. However, the development of a waterproof lime-plaster made possible an efficient water storage in large underground cisterns and this in turn facilitated the opening up of the hitherto sparsely populated, central hill-country. Thus, archaeological evidence tends to confirm the Israelite dominance of the mountainous region, with a continuation of the Canaanite occupation of the low-lying areas, where chariots could be effectively employed.
No Israelite sanctuary of the period has yet been discovered. This may be due to the inferior constructional techniques of the Israelites, resulting in a lack of archaeological evidence. Or it could witness to the divine prohibition against the indiscriminate erection of sanctuaries (Exod. 20:24–26; Deut. 12:1–7). Similarly, Israel’s religion was an imageless faith (Exod. 20:4–6) and it is a remarkable fact that no representation of a male deity dating from this period of Israelite occupation has been found, although many clay figurines, akin to the Canaanite goddess of fertility but without the insignia of a goddess, have been discovered, witnessing to the attraction which the Baal cult exercised in Israel.
Of major importance are the archaeological discoveries at Megiddo which make it possible to pinpoint Deborah’s crushing victory over the Canaanites ‘at Taanach, by the waters of Megiddo’ (5:19) about 1125 BC.11 So also is the light thrown upon the Philistine culture and their influence upon their Israelite neighbours. Philistine pottery was so distinctive that the degree of its distribution in sites which have been excavated gives a reasonably clear picture of the extent of their influence, either by trade or through conquest. This is particularly marked in the Shephelah (a term used to designate the range of lower hills rising to the east of the coastal plain, including part of the territory of Dan, Simeon and Judah), which is precisely what we would expect from the traditions recorded in Judges. Finally, archaeology bears its mute but eloquent testimony to the destruction of Shiloh about 1050 BC. This fact is not noted in 1 Samuel but it is attested elsewhere in Scripture (Ps. 78:60; Jer. 7:12; 26:6) and undoubtedly followed the double defeat inflicted on the Israelites at Aphek and the capture of the ark (1 Sam. 4). The destruction of other towns in Judah at the same time shows the extent of the Philistine domination over Israel towards the end of the period of the judges.