Sven

Let me start by saying that I'm an absolute layman concerning (biblical) archeology; apart from "The Bible Unearthed", I've read virtually nothing on the subject.

IIRC, in this book, Finkelstein and Silverman made a quite convincing case that the state of Edom did not exist prior about 700 BC.

But a recent post by Paul Brand made me doubt this to an extent.

He linked to an article (apparently originally from a newspaper) which described the work of Russell Adams, who claims to have found a fortress in the region of Edom and dated it to the 10th century BC (C14). Since I don't trust popularizations of science that much, I went out and got the original article; it's here:
Thomas E. Levy, Russell B. Adams, Mohammad Najjar, Andreas Hauptmann, James D. Anderson, Baruch Brandl, Mark A. Robinson and Thomas Higham: "Reassessing the chronology of Biblical Edom: new excavations and 14C dates from Khirbat en-Nahas (Jordan)", Antiquity, Vol. 78 (302), December 2004, p. 865

The work they did looked quite solid to me.

I think the existence of one fortress is probably not enough to conclude that an Edomite state existed, and that we can not even know if the people who build it indeed were Edomites, but both of these objections appear a bit lame.

I also tried to find a thread on this here, but failed. There's 15th Century Exodus in which Edom is discussed a bit, but without reference to the new evidence, and this thread, in which Tytummest makes the following claim:

"Israelites (as a people) along with Edom and Moab are mentioned in Egyptian records before 1200."

Most of his statements were apparently rebutted, but this one was not addressed.

Thus I wonder how this evidence fits into Finkelstein's et al. views of the history of the region. Most here either don't seem to know about it, or have already thought about it and rejected it, since the consensus here still seems to be that Edom did not exist until about 700 BC.

Jayhawker Soule

See How old is the Kingdom of Edom?

The ‘datable artefacts’, according to the authors, corroborate the Early Iron Age (c. 1200-1000 BC) date of the first occupation. However, a closer look at these artefacts, notably the pottery, shows that all these ‘early dates’ are problematic. The dating of both Negbite pottery and Midianite pottery is problematic, as the authors readily admit: both types of pottery have been found in contexts dating from the very end of the Late Bronze Age, c. 1200 BC, to Iron Age II, dated between the 9th and 7th centuries BC. Nevertheless the authors use the presence of these types of pottery as an argument for a date in the 12th century.

At each step, it seems, the authors are attempting to push the dates as early as possible, on average about a hundred years or so earlier than the calibrated radiocarbon evidence allows for. The irony is that the authors claim that their ‘high-precision radiocarbon dating is liberating us from chronological assumptions based on Biblical research’, but their paper clearly manipulates the dates according to chronological assumptions that are not articulated. This lack of transparency is unacceptable.

The second claim that the authors make is that of the rise of secondary state formation (implicitly: a kingdom) in Edom in the 10th century, on the basis of the presence of the copper industry and the ‘fortress’. Unfortunately, one ‘fortress’ does not make a kingdom. Or, to put it differently, most kingdoms may have fortresses, but not every fortress belongs to a kingdom (and, of course, the interpretation of the structure as a fortress is no more than a hypothesis). Neither does industrial production require a state structure. Recent research suggests that local corporate groups are very capable of conducting and maintaining large-scale industrial activities, and building up the infrastructure, such as fortified buildings and housing, that comes with it. So far nothing else has been found in southern Transjordan to justify the incorporation of the Khirbet en-Nahas ‘fortress’ in a larger polity. The presence of a 10th-century ‘fortress’ at Khirbet en-Nahas is no indication, let alone proof, of the early rise of the Edomite kingdom. In fact, if, as the authors claim, the copper industry-cum-fortress of Khirbet en-Nahas would be evidence of an Edomite kingdom, we may wonder why it ceased to exist exactly at the time when the other features of that kingdom make their appearance, the 8th and 7th centuries.

We do not underestimate the importance of the excavations at Khirbet en-Nahas. It is one of the most important sites in the region, and can give us much information about the technology and economy of copper production, and the social organization of the region in a period of which little is known. However, the evidence published in the Antiquity paper is confused and misleading, leading to claims that cannot at present be substantiated.

Dean Anderson

I don't think such things appear lame at all. After all, the area was a contentious one that was often on Egypt's border as the Egyptian empire expanded and contracted.

That we would find a fortress there does not surprise me at all.

Before jumping to conclusions that it either was or wasn't Edomite, what was found there?

The article linked is very apologetic in style, but short on actual facts.

What was the architectural style of the fortress? Is it similar to later Edomite architecture? Is it similar to Egyptian architecture?

Was any pottery found? If so, what style is it? Where is the clay from?

Are there any inscriptions there? If so, what do they say?

As far as the linked article goes. It says there is a fortress that is definitely 10th century, but goves no other information. I would not want to hazard a guess based on just this.

What other information is in the original paper that isn't in the article?

Sven

Thanks alot! I read the entire article. Essentially, they make two points:

(1) That the datings are not "pure" C14, but include other factors, which are not transparent; they get much younger dates using the same software.

Problem: The C14-datings still point to this cite being occupied much earler than 700 BC (about 800-900 BC).

(2) My point: A fortress does not make a kingdom.

But the original authors still seem to be in a heated argument with those guys; perhaps we have to wait until the dust settles before reaching a final conclusion.

Sven

Essentially my thoughts - although I had not idea that it was that close to
Egypt's border.

Indeed. That's why I looked up the original paper.

There was not much information in the paper. They excavated only the western gate complex (the entire complex is 73 m * 73 m) in 2002. Here are some quotes:
"[...] the outline of the whole structure can be discerned on the surface, as well as through comparison with other known Iron Age desert fortifications. [snip] The perimeter of the gate structure measures 16.5 [m] * 10 m and follows the plan of the four-chamber gate that is well known from numerous contemporary Iron Age sites in Israel/Palestine (Ref. Mazar 1990), including the known desert forts in the Araba/Arava region, such as Hatzeva (Ref. Cohen&Yisrael 1995) and Tell el-Kheleifeh (Ref. Glueck 1965). The gate is somewhat smaller than four chamber gates found in Israel (Ref. Herzog 1992), but this can be expected since Khirbat en-Nahas is an industrial site, while the Israelite gates belong to towns."

I can not judge from this if the fortress may have been Egyptian.

They apparently found much pottery. They claim that most of it can be dated to the 10th-9th century, some of it even to the 12th century. Some of it is of the kind referred to in other reports as "Negebite Ware". Then there's the following: "In the context of Khirbat en-Nahas, they are clearly associated with local production since they have slag temper, and are not a useful tool for dating." I have no idea what they are saying here.

Then there are a number of imported wares ("'Midianite' monochrome and bichrome painted vessels and Cypro-Phoenician Black on Red ware"). They go on: "The datin of the Midianite ware is still problematic since although it starts as early as the 14th century, the evidence for the end of production of this pottery is not yet well defined. The technological study of the Midianite pottery is in progress and may add further clarificiation to provenience."

The article says nothing about inscriptions, but they found two scarabs (there is a color figure in the article). One ("body of a royal sphinx on top of a nb sign") supposedly has its closest parallel in the New Kingdom and would thus fit in the first half of the 12th century. "The second scarab belongs to a well-known abbreviated sub-group of Iron I scarabs with a chariot scence. [...] Although its parallels are generally dated to the Iron I period, a more accurate time span would be between the mid 12th and mid 10th centuries BC. [...] we are more cautios and suggest that the [scarabs] found at Khirbat en-Nahas simply provide a terminus post quem for an early Iron Age occupation."

How about looking it up for yourself? There's much more in the original paper, but I neither can judge what's important, nor can copy most of the paper here.

Boro Nut

No. The Dutch didn't start making Edom until the breeding of the Fresian cow, circa 1683. You're obviously thinking of Gouda.

Boro Nut

GakuseiDon

Don't be silly. Only God is Gouda.

Sven

No more serious responses? I'm a bit disappointed, I would have expected more from you. :huh:

Huon

The potteries have been heated in furnaces after their making. Their surface contain carbon which is more recent than the potteries themselves. So the dating will give too recent dates...

Sven

Thanks a lot!
But I thought pottery was dated according to its style, and maybe by its chemical make-up, and not by C14-dating?