From Ramesses to Shiloh: Archaeological Discoveries Bearing on the Exodus-Judges Period

¹⁵



Fig. 12.1. Excavating the Hyksos phase at Tell el-Maskhuta, Egypt, thought to be biblical Pithom, 1983. (Credit: Bryant G. Wood)

Since the writer has scoured the district in question in all directions, hunting for ancient sites, he can attest the fact that there is no other possible site for Ai than et-Tell.⁵¹

⁵⁷



Fig. 12.2. The LBI Fortress at KH. El-Maqatir, 2000.


Joshua 7 and 8 contain many geographic and archaeological requirements that a candidate for the Ai of Joshua must meet. Kh. el-Maqatir meets these requirements as follows:

[T]hey were...semi-nomads in the process of sedentarization, who came from the semi-desert zone and entered civilized regions as strangers....they were members of tightly knit tribal units whose allegiance was determined by kinship and who had their own system of law.⁶⁹

The (foreign) chieftains lie prostrate, saying "Peace." Not one lifts his head among the Nine Bows. Libya is captured, while Hatti is pacified. Canaan is plundered, Ashkelon is carried off, and Gezer is captured. Yenoam is made into non-existence; Israel is wasted, its seed is not; and Hurru is become a widow because of Egypt. All lands united themselves in peace. Those who went about are subdued by the king of Upper and Lower Egypt...Merneptah.⁹¹

 Merenptah's Canaanite campaign can be dated to the first few years of his reign, ca. 1210 B.C.⁹² The record of the campaign is written in a poetic style and many analysts agree that it has a chiastic format, although there is lack of agreement as to the exact structure.⁹³ Apart from the format, however, there are a number of significant aspects of the poem on which most scholars agree. The word for Israel has the determinative for a people-group, as opposed to the other named nations and city-states that have the deter­minative for a political entity. This indicates that Israel was a tribal com­munity at this time, with no fixed boundaries,⁹⁴ perfectly in keeping with the biblical depiction of Israel in the Judges period. It must be recognized that the Merenptah Stele is a eulogy and, as such, extols the great accom­plishments of the Pharaoh. The fact that Israel is mentioned at all indicates that, by the end of the thirteenth century B.C., the Israelite tribes had achieved sufficient status to be deemed worthy of being defeated by the king of one of the most powerful nations on earth. Perhaps Deborah and Barak's defeat of Hazor about this time (see above) brought Israel onto the stage of international politics. Israel had progressed from being referred to as generic ^capiru in the Amarna Letters (see above) in the previous century, to being known by their correct biblical name in Merenptah's day.

Perhaps the most important feature of the stela is that Israel is presented in parallel with Hurru, the Egyptian term for Palestine. The implication is that since Egypt (theoretically) did away with Israel ("its seed is not"), all of Palestine was devastated ("Hurru is become a widow"). This indicates that Israel was the most powerful people group in Canaan at the end of the thirteenth century B.C.,⁹⁵ which has implications for the integrity of the biblical model. The idea that Israel emerged from the indigenous Canaanite population in the twelfth century B.C. has gained favor in recent years, However, since the Merenptah Stele testifies that Israel was well established and recognized by Egypt by the end of the previous century, such cannot be the case.⁹⁶

Migration of the Danites (Judg. 17-18)

Judges 18 describes the migration of the tribe of Dan, or a portion of it, from their assigned allotment west of Benjamin to Laish, which they re­named Dan. The time of the migration can be bracketed within a narrow range. In the days of Deborah in the late thirteenth century, the Danites were still living in their coastal allotment as indicated by the reference to Dan staying in ships (Judg. 5:17). Judges 18:31 states that Micah's images were in use at Dan throughout the time the Tabernacle was at Shiloh. Since Shiloh fell to the Philistines ca. 1100 B.C. or a little later (see below), the migration must have taken place between the late thirteenth century and 1100 B.C. The most likely event that would have occasioned the displacement of Danites was the incursion of the Philistines into the southwest coastal plain in the eighth year of Ramesses III, ca. 1177 B.C.⁹⁷

Laish/Dan has been identified as Tell el-Qadi, now called Tell Dan, at the foot of Mount Hermon, ca. 40 km north of the Sea of Galilee. Excavations since 1966 under the direction of Avraham Biran have revealed a prosperous Late Bronze Age culture, Str. VII, destroyed by fire early in the twelfth century B.C. This appears to be the city burned by the Danites (Judg. 18:27).⁹⁸ Laish had a connection, perhaps commercial, with the coastal city of Sidon, ca. 45 km to the northwest (Judg. 18:7, 28)⁹⁹ The most impressive discovery in Str. VII was a tomb containing imported Mycenaean pottery from Greece, including a unique "charioteer vase." Anthropological examination revealed that the individuals buried in the tomb did not belong to the local Canaanite population.¹⁰⁰ Moreover, neutron activation testing of plain ware vessels in the tomb indicates they came from the Phoenician coast.¹⁰¹. It is possible that the inhabitants of Str. VII Laish were involved in an import trade business with Sidon.

A nomadic, or seminomadic, culture characterized by pits, some of which were stone-lined, next occupied the site in Str. VI.¹⁰² Large pithoi called "collared-rim store jars," well known from the highlands where they are associated with Israelite settlement, were found in the pits.¹⁰³ Ten of 11 of the pithoi tested by neutron activation analysis were made from clay not native to the Tell Dan area, indicating the new settlers brought them from elsewhere.¹⁰⁴ The newcomers soon became urbanized, as Str. V was a dense array of domestic and industrial architecture across the tell.¹⁰⁵ This stratum was destroyed in a fierce conflagration in the mid-eleventh century B.C., possibly at the hands of the Philistines at the same time Shiloh was destroyed (Judg. 18:31, see below).¹⁰⁶

This evidence once again counters the twelfth century emergence theory. Clearly, the tribe of Dan was a preexisting entity with a prior history when it arrived at Laish early in the twelfth century. It was in existence well be­fore the appearance of the twelfth century Iron I villages that presumably mark the beginning of Israelite culture according to the emergence theory.¹⁰⁷

Abimelech at Shechem (Judg. 9)

For some eight hundred years, from the Middle Bronze through the Iron Age I periods, Shechem was an important highland urban center con­trolling the area from Megiddo to Jerusalem.¹⁰⁸ It is no surprise, then, that Gideon's son Abimelech went to the leaders of Shechem to gain support for his failed attempt to become king of the Israelite tribes.¹⁰⁹ Three ar­chaeological discoveries at Shechem relate to the narrative of Judg. 9.

Temple of Baal-Berith

References to the "house of Baal-berith" (v. 4), "Beth-millo" (vv. 6, 20), "house of their god" (v. 27), "tower of Shechem" (vv. 46, 47, 49), and "temple of El-berith" (v. 46), all appear to be the same structure at Shechem.¹¹⁰ Berit is the Hebrew word for covenant, so the temple was for "Baal of the covenant." A large fortress (or migdal) temple discovered on the acropolis of Shechem has been identified as the temple of Judges 9.¹¹¹ It was constructed in the seventeenth century B.C. and lasted until the destruction of the city by Abimelech in the twelfth century B.C. (see below). The largest temple yet found in Canaan, it measures 21.2 x 26.3 m, and has foundations 5.1 m thick that supported a multistoried superstructure of mud bricks and timber. On the east, two towers containing stairwells to the upper stories flanked the entrance. Inside, two rows of columns, three in each row, divided the span into a nave and two side aisles (cf.vv. 46-49).¹¹²



Fig. 12.3. The "Migdol" fortress-temple at Shechem, with a courtyard and sacred stone in front. The largest temple found in Canaan, it was most likely here that Joshua erected a sacred stone as a reminder of the covenant between Yahweh and the people of Israel (Josh. 24:26-7), and Abimelech became the self-appointed king of Israel (Judg. 9:6). (Credit: Bryant G. Wood)


In front of the temple was a courtyard with a large earthen and stone altar, 2.2 x 1.65 m and 35 cm high, 6.5 m from the temple entrance. An enormous limestone stela, or masseba, stood 2 m further to the southeast. It is 1.48 m wide, 42 cm thick, and, although broken, 1.45 m high. Since the temple existed in Joshua's day, it is possible this was the "large stone" which he set up "under the oak that was by the sanctuary of the Lord" at Shechem (Josh. 24:26).¹¹³ The stela is undoubtedly the "pillar" where Abimelech was made king (v. 6).¹¹⁴

East Gate

The city gate from the time of Abimelech (vv. 35­40) was excavated on the east side of the site,¹¹⁵ where it faced the agricultural fields of the Plain of Askar. It is a two-entryway gate, with an 8.0 x 6.55 m paved courtyard between the two entryways. On either side of the courtyard are guard­rooms with stairways leading to upper stories. To enter, one approached from the south along a cobbled street, turned left, and passed through the two entryways 3.4 m wide, ca. 6.5 m apart.

Destruction Level

Abimelech "razed the city and sowed it with salt" (v. 45). Abundant evidence was found throughout the site that a violent destruction had oc­curred at the time of Abimelech.¹¹⁶ Lawrence Toombs, one of the excavators of Shechem, described the devastation as follows:

The Iron I city underwent violent destruction, which obliterated its buildings and left the site a wilderness of ruins. At the time of its destruction, the culture of the city was fully-developed Iron I. The end of the Iron I city is almost certainly to be attributed to its cap­ture by Abimelek (Judges 9).¹¹⁷

These buildings were destroyed in a fierce conflagration. Burnt floors were found all over. Collapsed burnt bricks accumulated on these floors to a height of more than three feet. Some of the bricks had been baked by the blaze that had raged here. Roof collapse was discernible in many places. All this dramatic evidence of fire must be associated with the destruction of Shiloh by the Philistines after they defeated the Israelites near Ebenezer in the mid-eleventh century B.C.¹²⁶

The published date for the destruction, ca. 1050 B.C., is based on pottery chronology, which is very imprecise, particularly for the Iron Age I period. A date anywhere from ca. 1104 B.C., Merrill's estimated date for the battle of Ebenezer,¹²⁷ to ca. 1050 B.C. would accommodate the pottery types found in the destruction level.

Conclusion

Scholars many times raise the issue of the lack of extra biblical literary evidence to support this or that person or event in Israel's early history. Complete verification of every biblical text will never be achieved. Documentary evidence relating to early Israel is rare, so the expectation of finding epigraphic evidence to substantiate the activities of specific individuals, families, or tribes prior to the monarchy is unrealistic.¹²⁸ However, when we examine the archaeological evidence that we do have that bears on events in the early history of Israel, and utilize the internally self-consistent chronology of the Old Testament, the findings of archaeology and the biblical record harmonize extremely well.

Editorial Note: This article was originally published in the book: Giving the Sense: Understanding and Using Old Testament Historical Texts. This book can be purchased in the ABR bookstore. Posted with permission.

Giving the Sense	Bible and Spade CD ROM	Archaeology and the Old Testament

References

1. Biblical references to the king of Egypt follow Egyptian scribal practice. Prior to the tenth century B.C. the title "Pharaoh" was used alone without a proper name. After the tenth century B.C. "Pharaoh" plus a proper name became common usage. K. A. Kitchen, "Pharaoh," in ISBE, 3:821.
2. James M. Weinstein, "Hyksos," in OEANE, 3:133.
3. Neutron activation analyses of pottery from Tell el-Dab^ca (= Avaris, the Hyksos capital) indi­cate that the Hyksos came from southern Palestine. Patrick E. McGovern, The Foreign Relations of the "Hyksos": A Neutron Activation Study of Middle Bronze Age Pottery from the Eastern Mediterra­nean (Oxford, England: Archaeopress, 2000).
4. John Rea, "The Time of the Oppression and the Exodus," Grace Journal 2 (1961): 7-8. All biblical quotations in this chapter are from the NASB.
5. Weinstein, "Hyksos," 3:133.
6. The use of the title "Pharaoh" for a Hyksos king (Exod. 1:11) is perfectly in keeping with the Hyksos practice of adopting Egyptian royal titularies (Weinstein, "Hyksos," 3:133).
7. John S. Holladay Jr., "The Eastern Nile Delta During the Hyksos and Pre-Hyksos Periods: Toward a Systemic/Socioeconomic Understanding," in The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeo­logical Perspectives, ed. Eliezer Oren (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1997), 198-209.
8. This was a known practice, as can be observed with such names as Bethel (named by Jacob in Gen. 28:19, but used retrospectively in Gen. 12:8 and 13:3), Dan (named by the Danites in Judg. 18:29, but used retrospectively in Gen. 14:14), and Samaria (named by Omri in 1 Kings 16:24, but used retrospectively in 1 Kings 13:32).
9. John Van Seters, "The Geography of the Exodus," in The Land That I Will Show You: Essays on the History and Archaeology of the Ancient Near East in Honour of J. Maxwell Miller, ed. David J. A. Clines and Philip R. Davies (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 256-64; John S. Holladay Jr., "Maskhuta, Tell el-," in ABD, 4:588; idem, "Maskhuta, Tell el-," in OEANE, 3:432; Donald B. Redford, "Exodus I 11," VT 13 (1963): 403-8; idem, "Pithom," in Lexikon derAgyptologie, ed. Wolfgang Helck and Eberhard Otto (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1982), 4:1054-58; and idem, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1992), 451 n. 92. Hans Goedicke ("Papyrus Anastasi VI 51-61," Studien ztn Altagyptischen Kultur 14 [1987]: 93), and James Hoffmeier (Israel in Egypt [New York: Oxford University Press, 1997], 119-21), however, prefer Tell el-Retabeh (14 km. west of Tell el-Maskhuta) as Pithom.
10. See Holladay, "Maskhuta, Tell el-," and Redford, "Exodus I 11," in previous note.
11. John S. Holladay Jr., "Pithom," in OEAE, 3:50.
12. John S. Holladay Jr., Cities of the Delta, Part III: Tell el-Maskhuta, American Research Center in Egypt Reports (Malibu, Calif: Undena, 1982), 44-47; Patricia Paice, John S. Holladay Jr., and Edwin C. Brock, "The Middle Bronze Age/Second Intermediate Period Houses at Tell el-Maskhuta," in Hous und Palast im Alton Agypten, ed. Manfred Bietak (Vienna: Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1996), 159-73; and Holladay, "Eastern Nile Delta," 188-94. For summary reports, see Holladay, "Pithom," in ABD, 4:588-92; and idem, "Pithom," in OEANE, 3:432-37.
13. The author was a staff member of the Tell el-Maskhuta excavation during the 1979, 1981, and 1983 seasons. During the 1983 season he supervised the excavation of the major portion of a large 11 x 13.6 m Hyksos workshop in Square R7 in which industrial activities involving high-temperature hearths and grinding stones were carried out.
14. Holladay, "Eastern Nile Delta," 190.
15. Holladay, "Eastern Nile Delta," 209; and idem, "Pithom," in OEAE, 51.
16. Van Seters, "Geography of the Exodus," 264-67; and Manfred Bietak, Avaris and Piramesse Archaeological Exploration in the Eastern Nile Delta (London: British Academy, 1986), 278-83.
17. Manfred Bietak, Avaris, the Capital of the Hyksos: Recent Excavations at Tell el-Dab^ca (London British Museum, 1996) 9, 19.
18. Ibid., 40.
19. Ibid., 82.
20. Edgar B. Pusch, "Piramesse," in OEAE, 3:48-50.
21. Eugene H. Merrill, Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 70-71.
22. Bietak, Avaris and Piramesse, 237-38; idem, "Egypt and Canaan During the Middle Bronze Age," BASOR 281 (1991): 27-72; idem, Avaris, the Capital, 10-21; idem, "The Center of Hyksos Rule: Avaris (Tell el-Dab^ca)," in The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, 97-100; and idem, "Dab^ca, Tell el-," in OEANE, 1:351. The absolute dates of the Tell el-Dab^ca phases are somewhat controversial since Bietak has adopted an ultralow Egyptian chronology that is being challenged by a number of scholars. See James M. Weinstein, "Reflections on the Chronology of Tell el-Dab^ca," in Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant, ed. W. V. Davies and L. Schofield (London: British Museum Press, 1995), 84-90.
23. Bietak, "Center of Hyksos Rule," 97.
24. Bietak, "Egypt and Canaan During the Middle Bronze Age," 32.
25. Bietak, Avaris and Piramesse, 237; and idem, "Egypt and Canaan During the Middle Bronze Age," 32.
26. Bietak, "Center of Hyksos Rule," 98-99.
27. Bryant G. Wood, "The Sons of Jacob: New Evidence for the Presence of the Israelites in Egypt," Bible and Spade 10 (1997): 55-56.
28. John S. Holladay Jr., "House, Israelite," in ABD, 3:308-18.
29. Wood, "Sons of Jacob," 56-58. David Rohl was the first to make this association in his book Pharaohs and Kings: A Biblical Quest (New York: Crown, 1995), 360-67. Although I do not agree with his revised Egyptian chronology (see my "David Rohl's Revised Egyptian Chronology: A View from Palestine," NEASB 45 [2000]: 41-47), his arguments relating the tomb to Joseph have merit.
30. Bietak, Avaris, the Capital, 67-83; idem, "Center of Hyksos Rule," 115-24; idem, OKAE 1:353; Manfred Bietak, Josef Dorner, and Peter Janosi, "Ausgrabungen in dem Palastbezirk von Avaris. Vorbericht Tell el-Dab^ca/^cEzbet Helmi 1993-2000," Egypt and the Levant 11 (2001): 36-101; and Josef Dorner, "A Late Hyksos Water-Supply System at Ezbet Hilme," Egyptian Archaeology 16 (2000): 12-13.
31. Bietak, Avaris, the Capital, 72; idem, "Center of Hyksos Rule," 124; idem, OEAE, 1: 353; and Bietak, Dorner, and Janosi, "Ausgrabungen," 38.
32. Kathleen M. Kenyon, Digging Up Jericho (London: Ernest Benn, 1957), 261-62; and Thomas A. Holland, "Jericho," in OEANE, 3:223.
33. Kenyon, Digging Up Jericho, 262; idem, "Jericho," in Archaeology and Old Testament Study, ed. D. Winton Thomas (Oxford: Clarendon, 1967) 265-67; idem, "Jericho: Tell es-Sultan," in NEAEHL, 2:680; idem, The Bible in Recent Archaeology (Atlanta: John Knox, 1978) 33-37; and idem, Archaeology in the Holy Land, 4th ed. (London: Ernest Benn, 1979) 182.
34. John Garstang, "Jericho and the Biblical Story," in Wonders of the Past, ed. J. A. Hammerton (New York: Wise, 1937), 1222.
35. John Garstang, "Jericho: City and Necropolis, Fourth Report," Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 21 (1934): 118-30, plates 13-44.
36. Bryant G. Wood, "Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho? A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence," BAR 16, No. 2 (1990): 50.
37. Ibid., 51-52.
38. Kenyon, Archaeology and Old Testament Study, 162-64; and Ernst Sellin and Carl Watzinger, Jericho: Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen (Leipzig, Germany: J. C. Hinrichs, 1913; reprint, Osnabruck, Germany: Otto Zeller, 1973), 58.
39. John Garstang, "The Walls of Jericho: The Marston-Melchett Expedition of 1931," PEFQS 63 (1931): 193-94; idem, "Fourth Report," 123, 128, 129; idem, "The Fall of Bronze Age Jericho."' PEFQS 67 (1935): 61-68; idem, "Jericho and the Biblical Story," 1218; Kenyon, Archaeology and Old Testament Study, 171; idem, Excavations at Jericho, vol. 3, The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the-Tell (London: British School of Archaeology, 1981), 369-70; and idem, Digging Up Jericho, 230.
40. The word describing how the city wall fell, tahtêh in Joshua 6:5, 20, is more accurately trans­lated "beneath itself" rather than "flat."
41. Kenyon, Excavations at Jericho, 3:110.
42. Sellin and Watzinger, Jericho, Blatt 13, Tafel III; the situation of Rahab's house, beqir hahômâ in Joshua 2:15 is better translated "against the vertical surface of the (city) wall," rather than the variety of renderings found in modern translations.
43. Garstang, "Walls of Jericho," 192; idem, "Fourth Report," 122-23; idem, "Fall of Bronze Age Jericho," 68; idem "Jericho and the Biblical Story," 1218; Kenyon, Excavations at Jericho, 3:369-70; idem, Archaeology and Old Testament Study, 171.
44. Kenyon, Excavations at Jericho, 3:370.
45. John Wilkinson, Jerusalem Pilgrims Before the Crusades (Warminster, England: Aris & Phillips, 1977), table: Units of Measurement, v.
46. G.S.P. Freeman-Grenville, Palestine in the Fourth Century a.d.: The Onomasticon by Eusebius of Caesarea (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2003) 4:27.
47. Edward Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine and the Adjacent Regions: A Journal of Travels in the Years 1838 and 1852, 3d ed. (London: John Murray, 1867; reprint, Jerusalem: Universitas Book­sellers, 1970), 1:449.
48. Edward Robinson, Later Biblical Researches in Palestine, and in the Adjacent Regions: A Journal of Travels in the Year 1852 (Boston: Crocker and Brewster, 1856), 635.
49. Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine and the Adjacent Regions, 449.
50. W. F. Albright, "Ai and Beth-Aven," in Excavations and Results at Tell el-Ful (Gibeah of Saul), AASOR 4, ed. Benjamin W. Bacon (New Haven, Conn.: American Schools of Oriental Re­search, 1924), 141-49.
51. W. F. Albright, The Biblical Period from Abraham to Ezra (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), 29.
52. Robert E. Cooley, "Ai," in OEANE, 1:32-33.
53. David P. Livingston, "Further Considerations on the Location of Bethel at El-Bireh," PEQ 126 (1994): 154-59, and further references there.
54. Beitin is more likely Beth Aven. See Bryant G. Wood, "Beth Aven: A Scholarly Conundrum." Bible and Spade 12 (1999): 101-8.
55. Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine and the Adjacent Regions, 448.
56. E. Sellin, "Mittheilungen von meiner Palastinareise 1899," Mittheilungen und Nachrichtai des Deutschen Palaestina-Vereins 6 (1900): 1.
57. The large Early Bronze Age ruin at et-Tell, on the other hand, should be identified as the landmark site of Ai in Abraham's day (Gen. 12:8). It is east of El-Bireh (Bethel) and the modern Arabic name "et-Tell" means "the ruin," as does the Hebrew rendering of the name, h cay, which always includes the definite article. The name could have later migrated to Kh. el-Maqatir only 1 km to the west and then, following the destruction by the Israelites, been changed to Kh. el-Maqatir which means "the ruin of the place of the rising of sacrificial smoke." The rising of the smoke from the signal fire set by the ambush force was the signal for Joshua to begin the h ram: the offering up of the people of Ai as a sacrifice to Yahweh (Josh. 8:21-26). After Ai was plundered, there was further sacrificial smoke when Joshua set fire to the fortress (Josh. 8: 27 28).

58. For further details, see Bryant G. Wood, "The Search for Joshua's Ai: Excavations at Kh. el-Maqatir," Bible and Spade 12 (1999): 21-30; idem, "Kh. el-Maqatir 1999 Dig Report," Bible and Spade 12 (1999): 109-14; idem, "Khirbet el-Maqatir, 1995-1998," IEJ 50 (2000): 123-30; idem, "Khirbet el-Maqatir, 1999," IEJ 50 (2000): 249-54; idem, "Kh. el-Maqatir 2000 Dig Report," Bible and Spade 13 (2000): 67-72; and idem, "Khirbet el-Maqatir, 2000," IEJ 51 (2001): 246-52.