Plants and Animals
"Archaeology" is "the study of ancient things" All cultures leave behind material remains - the debris of our living processes: pottery, clothing, houses. These physical remains are called "material culture" Archaeology is the discipline devoted to the study of the "material culture" of the ancients. By studying their material culture, archaeologists try to reconstruct the nature of the societies that produced it.
What Is Biblical Archaeology?
Over the last century, archaeology has become one of the major tools available to illuminate the peoples and cultures of the biblical world. The work of those archaeologists that focus on the world of the Bible has been termed "biblical archaeology," though this term has generated a great deal of discussion and debate.
The primary concern has been to clarify what excavators do in their fieldwork. Excavators should not focus only on the biblical era material. They should be careful to treat all remains, whether Byzantine, Crusader, Islamic, or Stone Age, with the same thoroughness and attention. In the excavation trenches, the excavator acts not as a "biblical archaeologist," but as an archaeologist of the "Syro-Palestinian" region interested in all remains from all eras.
Biblical archaeology is the work done after the excavation ends. It is the "armchair" work performed by the biblical scholar in his or her study in examining the results of Syro-Palestinian excavations. Biblical archaeology is the examination of the field reports and excavation summaries in order to discover what they say about the world of the Bible.
Does Archaeology "Prove the Bible"?
The most common question asked of biblical archaeologists is: "Does archaeology prove the Bible?" The short answer is: "archaeology cannot prove the Bible" All the major and most important assertions in the Bible are theological; they are not concerned with material culture. Archaeology, on the other hand, focuses only on material culture. It can tell us who the Israelites were, how they built their houses, what their farms were like. It cannot provide for the Christian proof that Jesus was the Son of God, or that his death has redemptive power. Archaeology can show that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Judah in 586 B.c.; it cannot show that this destruction was the punishment for breaking a divine covenant. Archaeology does not prove the Bible; it illuminates the Bible.
History of Biblical Archaeology
Archaeology has an ancient pedigree. Already in the time of the biblical prophets, Assyrian emperors knew that primeval kings had ruled a thousand years earlier. We know also that Babylonian monarchs were "excavating" and then restoring ancient, abandoned temples in order to connect themselves to rulers of old.
In postbiblical times, pilgrims and crusaders alike traveled to the Holy Land to find relics of the world of the Bible. Queen Helena, mother of the Byzantine emperor Constantine, claimed to have found the "true cross;' the site of Jesus' burial (now the Church of the Holy Sepulchre), the site of Jesus' birth (Church of the Nativity), as well as Mount Sinai (at the foot of which today stands St. Catherine's Monastery). The whole medieval trade in relics was an attempt to locate and identify "material cultural," remains, from biblical times.
This "treasure hunt" mentality began to change at the start of the 19th century. Napoleon's 1798 expedition to Egypt must first be noted, for along with his soldiers the French emperor brought a band of scholars to the Near East. The expedition's most important result was Jean Francois Champollion's deciphering of the Rosetta Stone's Egyptian hieroglyphics. The Egyptians were meticulous record keepers, but knowledge of their ancient writing system had been intentionally eradicated by Christian rulers. With hieroglyphics deciphered, the history of Egypt could now be read by modern scholars. In 1851, a British scholar, Charles Creswicke Rawlinson, accomplished a similar feat with cuneiform, the writing system used in Mesopotamia. He deciphered the cuneiform Behustin inscription, thus providing scholars the key to understanding Akkadian, the official language of both the Babylonian and Assyrian Empires. Now the records of Mesopotamia were open for examination.
Heinrich Schliemann is most famous for his discovery of ancient Troy. But equally important was his realization of the fundamental nature of a "tell" (see "Chronology" below). For biblical archaeology, few developments have been more important than the work of the American scholar Edward Robinson. Using a compass, his Bible, and his knowledge of Semitic languages, Robinson traveled throughout Palestine identifying a vast roster of long-lost sites mentioned in the Bible. At the start of the aoth century, Egyptologist Sir Flinders Petrie laid the theoretical background for establishing an archaeological dating system: ceramic dating. William F. Albright took up Petrie's theory and developed the basic ceramic chronology that, with minor adjustments, is still used today.
The last half of the aoth century witnessed several new developments in archaeology, including a refinement of field methodology. More important was the emergence of the so-called "new archaeology," which shifts its focus away from the traditional emphases on the great battles, large cities, important events, and dominant political characters of antiquity. Instead, the new archaeology concentrates on reconstructing the ancient "life-ways" of the biblical peoples. Instead of excavating the great tells and palaces, new archaeology focuses on farmsteads, domestic architecture, agricultural remains, and the means for acquiring the very necessities of life. It is a "social archaeology" that makes the daily life of the average ancient Israelite the object of study.
The new archaeology has also broadened the requirements for professional expertise. While Petrie and Schliemann could do their excavations without any support staff, current excavation teams include a broad range of specialists: geologists to study water supplies, paleo-botanists to study ancient ecology, biologists to study bones and reconstruct ancient diets, physicists to develop and monitor remote sensing techniques such as underground radar, and more.
Chronology
Two key issues face the archaeologist of the biblical world: establishing a basic chronology and correlating the biblical and archaeological material to that chronology.
Chronology (the establishment of a basic time frame) is the most fundamental concern of any archaeologist. There are two types of chronology: relative and absolute. Relative chronology is the placing of artifacts in chronological order "relative" to each other (e.g., stratum III at Lachish is older than Gezer V). Absolute chronology pins an artifact, event, or archaeological stratum to an absolute date (e.g., Lachish stratum III dates to 701 B.c.).
Establishing a relative chronology is the first and most basic step of the two. It is also the easier one due to the most common type of Near Eastern archaeological deposition, the "tell" A tell is a "layer cake" of archaeological remains. The establishment of a settlement, town, or city always requires certain geographic criteria: a reliable water source, agricultural land to produce food, and a defensible location. Whenever an ancient city or town was destroyed or captured, the newly arrived conquerors would look for suitable places to settle. Noting that the recently vanquished city had the necessary elements for settlement, the new conquerors would typically either rebuild and reoccupy the conquered city or they would simply level off the exposed rubble and build directly on top. Over the millennia, this produced the phenomenon of the tell, a "stack" of superimposed archaeological remains.
Unexcavated tell, north of Mount Sartaba and the Alexandrium fortress in the Jericho Valley. (Phoenix Data Systems, Neal and Joel Bierling)
Naturally, this configuration enables the establishment of a relative chronology. The lower strata of a tell are older than the upper strata. Correlation between tells also becomes possible. If the artifacts in the stratum of one tell are similar to artifacts from a stratum in another tell, we can assume these two strata are contemporary. If there is an occupational gap at one tell, it can be "filled-in" by examining the stratification at other tells. As archaeologists excavate more and more tells, the relative chronology becomes more and more precise. Comparisons can even be made across international boundaries. Because of trade and military activity, archaeologists can discover Egyptian jewelry or Babylonian weapons in strata at Palestinian sites. These sites can then be dated by correlating them to Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, or Persian sites.
The Bible itself provides a framework for relative chronology. Various biblical books contain occasional references to chronology. For example, in 1-2 Kings the kings of Israel and the kings of Judah are listed in chronological order with the lengths of their reigns. These references are not without problems, however; for example, the years given for the reigns of the kings of Israel do not exactly correspond to, or "add up" to, the years given to the reigns of their Judean counterparts. Nevertheless, beginning with the reign of David, biblical references provide a reasonably detailed, "relative" chronological scaffold.
A more difficult task is establishing an absolute chronology. Ultimately all biblical chronology is derived from the Mesopotamian empires of Assyria and Babylon - and, to a lesser degree, Egypt. Fortunately for chronology, these Mesopotamian societies were both good record keepers and immersed in astral religions. As a result, their military and political records contain occasional references to astronomical phenomena. For example, the annals of the Assyrian emperor Ashur-dan refer to a solar eclipse in the summer of the ninth year of his reign. Because eclipses occur with predictable regularity, we can now date that eclipse to the morning of 15 June 763. From this starting point, we can date not only Ashur-dan, but also all the Assyrian emperors. Since these Assyrian emperors were constantly interacting with Babylonians, Egyptians, and Israelites (usually by military campaigns), we can derive dates for these events as well. For example, we have an Assyrian account of Emperor Sennacherib's destruction of the Judean city of Lachish in the summer of 701. 2 Kings 18 describes the same event and dates it to the 14th year of King Hezekiah of Judah. Thus we can date Hezekiah's reign and, by extension, the other kings of Judah and Israel. Lachish has also been excavated, and its stratum III can be confidently correlated with the destruction of 701. In other words, from Lachish III we now have a "snapshot" of what the material culture of Judah looked like in the summer of 701. We can then relate the Lachish excavations with other sites and can thus begin to construct an absolute chronology from our relative chronology.
In summary, our archaeological and biblical chronology is fairly precise back to the reign of David (ca. iooo). Earlier dates are more tenuous.
Ceramic Dating
Certainly for archaeologists of the biblical periods the most helpful tool in establishing a chronology is ceramic or pottery dating. All societies are concerned with "fashion," and the ancients were no different. No 18th-dynasty pharaoh wanted to be seen riding in a 15th-dynasty chariot. No 8th-century Israelite woman wanted to use 9th-century pottery. While the stylistic changes in music, art, and even clothing are not well preserved in the archaeological record, changes in pottery styles are. Petrie had noted in his work in Egypt that tombs from different eras contained different pottery forms; tombs from the same period contained the same forms. Moreover, pottery is virtually indestructible; it may break into smaller pieces (sherds), but unlike clothing and other organic material, it does not disintegrate; therefore, pottery sherds are found throughout ancient tells.
Since we now know, for example, how 8th-century storage jars differ from 9th- or 7th-century types, an archaeologist can use this knowledge to date a stratum. Moreover, archaeologists do not need to have intact or complete pots. A trained archaeologist, even from a broken sherd of pottery, can "reconstruct" mentally the whole pottery form and thereby date the associated archaeological material.
Chronological Terminology
One of the most difficult problems for the nonarchaeologist is the mastering of the relevant chronological terminology. Two different systems of nomenclature are often used: "biblical" and "archaeological" The "biblical" terminology references the relevant biblical period: e.g., the period of the conquest, the united monarchy, the Babylonian exile.
"Archaeological" terminology, in contrast, labels eras based on the dominant technology in use. Thus the earliest era of stone tools is called the Stone Age - subdivided into the Paleolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic eras (the Old, Middle, and New Stone ages). The earliest metal to be widely worked was copper (Gk. chalkos), so the next era is labeled the Chalcolithic. Next, bronze was mastered (the Early, Middle, and Late Bronze ages). Next emerge the Iron ages (Iron I, II, and III). Within these periods, various changes occur in material culture, so that a variety of subdivisions has been introduced (the Middle Bronze [MB] era is often subdivided into MB I, IIA, and IIB). A great deal of scholarly debate occurs over the demarcation of these various periods, as well as the precise absolute dating assigned to them. Following the Iron Age, we have such complete historical sources that we begin to label by culture: the Hellenistic era, the Roman era, etc.
When Does "History" Begin?
Perhaps the most vexing problem facing archaeologists of the biblical world is the correlation of the Bible to the archaeological record. There is a broad consensus among biblical scholars that the Bible's "Primary History" (Genesis to 2 Kings) reached its final written form around the 6th or 5th century B.c. But the events it claims to describe often occurred centuries, even millennia, before the final editing. This raises the question about historiographic accuracy: to what extent do texts from the 6th century reflect precise knowledge of events a thousand years earlier? And how can this knowledge be connected with the archaeological material? In other words, at what point do the biblical narratives begin to reflect, in some sense, actual historical events; when does biblical "history" begin?
The proposed answer to this question has exercised scholars ever since the rise of modern biblical scholarship. At one end of the spectrum is the naive assumption that all the texts are written with the same attention to historical detail that a modern historian would exercise. At the other extreme, some biblical scholars (not archaeologists) have argued that the Primary History is a Persian or even Hellenistic era "novel"
Contemporary archaeologists have rejected both extremes. Among professional archaeologists is a broad consensus that the first ii chapters of Genesis (the Creation and Flood accounts) are not historiographic in the modern sense. They view these accounts as theological narratives parallel in form (and sometimes in content) with narratives found in other ancient Near Eastern cultures. Stories of paradisaical gardens, talking snakes, tree-fruit that gives immortality, peoples whose lives spanned hundreds of years, and accounts of great floods and half-divine giants are similar to stories from other Semitic cultures. So archaeologists are not in the quest to find these magic gardens or half-human giants; rather, they seek similar narratives in other cultures and study these stories in the context of ancient parallels.
A much more serious debate has revolved around the historicity of the patriarchal material. Albright and his followers argued that the patriarchal era could be tied to the Middle Bronze era (ca. 2100-1550). A significant debate has ensued concerning whether, or to what extent, these narratives should be considered historical at all.
In recent decades, the focus of the historical debate has shifted toward the exodus and whether it can be linked with the archaeological record. While it is clear that no specific Egyptian archaeological datum can be conclusively connected with the biblical accounts, many scholars have argued that the exodus account fits in reasonably well with the archaeology of the end of the Late Bronze era (1550-1200). While few archaeologists would accept a Cecil B. DeMille-type exodus with millions of former slaves leaving Egypt, many scholars feel comfortable with a more modest exodus measured in thousands rather than millions. But many scholars question even this more limited reconstruction.
As to the conquest and settlement/judges era, archaeologists are much more comfortable connecting these biblical narratives with the archaeological record of Iron Age I (1200-1000). It is clear that something was happening in Palestine in this era. New settlements were emerging in areas that would in later centuries be the heartland of the Israelite kingdoms; new housing forms (the four-room or Israelite house) were beginning to dominate; new pottery forms (the collar-rim store jar) were beginning to appear; the old Canaanite city-state system of the Late Bronze Age was collapsing; and a new Philistine population was beginning to take hold along the Mediterranean coast. These developments can all be correlated quite nicely with the biblical narratives of Joshua and Judges. Problems with this correlation do remain, however. For example, the two cities featured most prominently in the conquest narratives, Jericho and Ai, were not destroyed in this era (nor is it clear that they even existed as walled cities at this time).
As for the period of the Israelite and Judean monarchy, archaeologists agree that this can be dated with complete confidence to the Iron II era (1000-586). The connections between the biblical narratives and the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian records are solid, and for the most part these can be firmly associated with archaeological remains. The question of the extent of the Davidic and Solomonic kingdoms continues to be debated, for very little in the archaeological record can be firmly attributed to these kings. But this archaeological "uncertainty" can largely be attributed to two factors. First, Jerusalem, the center of David and Solomon's activities, has been destroyed and rebuilt numerous times and thus its archaeological history is extremely muddled. Second, the ceramic chronology of the Davidic era (and the demarcation between Iron I and Iron II) is still somewhat confused and uncertain.
Excavation Methodology
How do archaeologists do archaeology? There are two commonly used procedures: excavation and survey. The most commonly used method of excavation today is the baulk/debris method. A site (often, a tell) is selected. The site is then surveyed into a grid (usually 5x5 m.). The excavation crew moves inside these grid lines one-half meter. The crew then begins to excavate the remaining 4x4-m. square. As the crews in adjoining squares "go down," this procedure leaves a i m.-wide baulk of unexcavated material standing between the squares. By going straight downward, the team encounters the successive layers of the tell; by leaving the standing baulk, they can see in the side of the baulk the record of the layers they have already encountered. Pottery and other artifacts (animal bones, jewelry, organic materials) are collected, dated, and analyzed. Careful records, including photographs, survey drawings, architectural plans, baulk drawings, pottery analyses, and excavation notes, are kept. Ultimately, often after several seasons of excavations, a final report is issued describing the stratification, special finds, architectural remains, animal bones, metal finds, burials, ceramics, and any other items of interest.
A second, widely used procedure is the survey. Here a team of archaeologists grid off an entire geographical area. (Depending on the size of the team, it can be several hundreds of square miles.) Members of the team then either "walk" over the entire survey area or "sample" a predetermined subset of the survey area. They note any archaeological remains, gather sherds from the surface (thus determining the date of the remains), map the location of any sites, and try to determine the general nature of the sites (e.g., farmstead, fortress, threshing floor). Surveys are particularly helpful in determining the general settlement pattern in an area, what eras show population increase or decrease, and the forms of ancient political organization.
Excavation of adjacent squares at the iron-age site at Khirbet Qeiyafa, Israel. (Khirbet Qeiyafa excavations, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem)
Both methods provide valuable information for the archaeologist. Excavations are obviously more site-specific; surveys reveal more regional, intersite relations.
Conclusion
Archaeology has emerged in the last century as one of the primary methods scholars can use to understand the Bible more fully. It can provide information about ancient life-ways, settlement patterns, and social organization. It can tell us about the different peoples present on the biblical stage and how they interacted. It can occasionally provide the discovery of ancient texts so that we can see what the biblical peoples said about themselves (e.g., the Dead Sea Scrolls). While archaeology does not and cannot "prove" the theological assertions of the Bible, it does illuminate and elucidate the lives of those who bequeathed to us the Scriptures.
FOR FURTHER READING
LYNN TATUM