Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jayhawker Soule · 06-02-2003, 04:02 AM

I found the following over at the EvC Forum where one Coragyps cites H.J.Bruins et al, Science, vol 300, pp 315-318, (2003):

Quote:

Stratified radiocarbon dates provide an independent chronological link between archaeological layers and historical data. The invasion by Pharaoh Shoshenq I (Shishak) is a key historical synchronism, ~925 B.C.E., mentioned in both Egyptian inscriptions and the Hebrew Bible. The list of places raided by Shoshenq, mentioned at Karnak (Egypt), includes Rehov (Israel). The site yielded a consistent series of radiocarbon dates from the 12th to 9th century B.C.E. Our results (i) suggest a revised Iron-Age chronology; (ii) date an archaeological stratum to Shoshenq's campaign; (iii) indicate the similarity of "Solomonic" and "Omride" pottery; and (iv) provide correlation with Greece and Cyprus.

< ... >

There is only one known historical candidate that fits the destruction date of Tel Rehov Stratum V, 940 to 900 B.C.E., based on 12 high-quality 14C dates: the invasion of Pharaoh Shoshenq I.
Our research negates an important argument of the low chronology theory, namely, that Iron Age IIA ceramic assemblages should be confined exclusively to the 9th century B.C.E. The 14C dating results imply that it is difficult to distinguish between "Solomonic" and "Omride" pottery. The site of Ta'anach (27), about 8 km southeast of Megiddo (Fig. 1), is also mentioned on the Karnak list of places destroyed by Shoshenq. Period II-B pottery at Ta'anach, assigned to 960 to 918 B.C.E. (27) and to the 9th century in the low chronology (28), is identical to that found in Tel Rehov Stratum V. Period II-B ended in a fierce destruction, which can be related to Shoshenq's campaign in view of our results.

Because Shishak (Shoshenq I) is mentioned as a contemporary of Solomon in biblical texts, we find it plausible to retain the linkage of specified archaeological assemblages (Rehov Stratum V, Ta'anach II-B, Hazor X, Megiddo VB, and perhaps also VA-IVB, etc.) to the United Hebrew Monarchy.

This, in turn, led me to the Tel Rehov site.

Has anyone seen a response to this work by Finklestein or the minimalists?

Celsus · 06-02-2003, 04:20 AM

Coragyps was the one who also gave me the full text of that article. I believe Finkelstein will be publishing his own data soon. It's not really a big surprise: arguments about high and low chronology happen all the time and are complicated, technical, and rarely earthshattering or conclusive or satisfactory to everyone. The only problem is, just about everyone seems to have interpreted Mazar et al's findings as supporting a historical Solomon (and tendentially, it's mainly that it's a rebuttal to Finkelstein's theory that a recognisable united monarchy never existed around the 10th century). We've just had a minor discussion on this topic in this thread

Joel

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-02-2003, 04:20 AM	#2
Celsus Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Singapore Posts: 2,875	Coragyps was the one who also gave me the full text of that article. I believe Finkelstein will be publishing his own data soon. It's not really a big surprise: arguments about high and low chronology happen all the time and are complicated, technical, and rarely earthshattering or conclusive or satisfactory to everyone. The only problem is, just about everyone seems to have interpreted Mazar et al's findings as supporting a historical Solomon (and tendentially, it's mainly that it's a rebuttal to Finkelstein's theory that a recognisable united monarchy never existed around the 10th century). We've just had a minor discussion on this topic in this thread Joel

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.