THE EXODUS-CONQUEST AND THE
ARCHAEOLOGY OF
NEW LIGHT ON AN OLD PROBLEM
GERALD L.
MATTINGLY
One of the major arguments used to
support a 13th-century date
for the
exodus-conquest is the alleged Late Bronze Age occupational
gap in central
and southern
investigations
indicate that this gap hypothesis, which was originally
advocated by
Nelson Glueck, needs to be modified. Although the
historical/archaeological
picture is still coming into focus, it now
appears that Ammon,
Bronze Age. The
density of this occupation remains an open question.
Nevertheless, it
appears that the archaeological data from Late Bronze
Age
the
exodus-conquest.
* * *
In the opening pages of Redating the Exodus and Conquest,1
John
J. Bimson identifies two major assumptions of his
study.
First,
he maintains that "the biblical traditions of the bondage in
Bimson insists that
these historical events must be and can be con-
nected to an absolute
chronology.2 This emphasis demonstrates that
Redating is important
reading for anyone who takes the biblical
narratives
and their historical/archaeological context seriously. Al-
though
many readers will have some reservations, Bimson's
study is
now
the most comprehensive and up-to-date examination of the
historical
and archaeological data pertaining to the OT accounts of
the
exodus-conquest.
Since its publication in 1978, Redating has
received mixed
reviews.3
For example, Miller suggests that Bimson's theory of
a mid-
15th
century exodus-conquest, which calls for the lowering of the end
1 John J. Bimson, Redating the Exodus
and Conquest (Sheffield: Almond, 1978).
2 Bimson,
Redating,
10-13.
3 See, e.g., A. G. Auld, ExpTim 90 (1979)
152; A. H. W. Curtis, EvQ
52 (1980)
54-55;
H. Engel, Bib 61 (1980) 437-40; J. D.
Martin, SJT 33 (1980) 183-85; E. H.
Merrill,
BSac 136
(1980) 184; J. M. Miller, JBL 99
(1980) 133-35; P. R. S. Moorey,
of
MB IIC, is plausible, but the number of secondary explanations
needed
to support this daring theory neutralize its advantage over the
Albrightian hypothesis for
a 13th-century date. Miller says that the
most
significant contribution of Bimson's book is its
demonstration
"that
those who hold to a thirteenth century exodus-conquest have no
monopoly
on the archaeological evidence.”4 In other words, Redating
re-examines
an old problem from a fresh perspective and shows that
the
questions concerning the date of the exodus-conquest have not
been
resolved. Not only are there new ways of looking at old data, as
Bimson proves, but
there is also new evidence that must be considered.
The
main purpose of this article is to review the ways in which the
archaeological
evidence from
conquest
and to present some new data that bear upon this issue.
ARGUMENTS
FOR THE LATE DATE EXODUS-CONQUEST
There are four major arguments used to
support the late date for
the
exodus-conquest: (1) the identification of Pithom and
Raamses,
(2)
the 13th-century destruction of Palestinian towns mentioned in
the
conquest narratives, (3) the archaeological evidence from Middle
Bronze
and Late Bronze Age Transjordan, and (4) the military cam-
paigns of Seti I and Ramses II.5 While Bimson
refers to the first two
arguments
as the "main pillars" of the late date, he also regards the
third
and fourth points as key elements. However, all four of these
arguments
are still open to further deliberation. The Egyptian evi-
dence, which forms
the basis of arguments (1) and (4), is still being
reworked
and interpreted in different ways.6 And, although it is a
favorite
of many OT scholars, Miller recently delivered a critical blow
to
the second argument by showing that the "destruction layers" at
certain
Palestinian tells represent, at best, an ambiguous form of
evidence.7
I focus here on the third argument, the lack of Middle
JTS 31 (1980)
111-13; W. H. Shea, CBQ 42 (1980)
88-90; P. Wernberg-Meller, JJS 31
(1980)
135; A. F. Rainey, IEJ 30 (1980)
249-51; J. A. Soggin, VT 31 (1981) 98-99; and
D.
M. Beegle, TSF
Bulletin 5.5 (1982) 16-17.
4
Miller, 133, 135.
5 Bimson, Redating, 330-73; cf. K. A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament
(London:
Tyndale, 1966) 57-69; C. F. Aling,
Times to 1000
B.C.
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981) 77-96.
6 See, for
example, Aling, Egypt
and Bible History, 77-110; idem, "The Biblical
City
of
the
related
to Goedicke's theory; B. MacDonald, "Excavations
at Tell el-Maskhuta," BA
43
(1980) 49-58.
7 J. M. Miller,
"Archaeology and the Israelite Conquest of
logical
Observations," PEQ 109 (1977)
87-93.
MATTINGLY:
THE EXODUS-CONQUEST AND
Bronze
and late Bronze settlements in central and southern Trans-
Assumptions
Behind the Third Argument
The archaeological evidence from
this
debate because Numbers 20ff. and Judges 11 indicate that the
Hebrews,
while en route to the
kings
of
their
territories at the time of the conquest should be found, regardless
of
the date assigned to this event. Because Glueck's
surface survey
indicated
that there was a gap in the sedentary occupation of
and
dates
fluctuated), the archaeological material from
seemed
to support the late date. Recognizing that the reconstruction
of
occupational history in this region is crucial to this whole discus-
sion, Bimson observes:
This argument for the 13th century date only holds if the following
three assumptions are correct: (a) that
the accounts in Num 20ff are
historical, (b) that those accounts, if
historical, require the existence of
a sedentary population settled in
permanent towns at the time of the
Israelite migration, and (c) that Glueck's interpretation of the archaeo-
logical material is correct.8
Before
proceeding to a more detailed treatment of the third assump-
tion, including a
report on some archaeological data recently recovered
in
Bimson.
With regard to the first point, Bimson says that he does not
doubt the "basic historicity"
of Numbers 20ff. He does, however, in
agreement with
these accounts could be late accretions
to the earlier traditions. Many
conservative scholars will not approve
of such concessions, but there
is nothing to fear in admitting that
such a possibility exists. Indeed,
when compared with the negative
conclusions reached by Van Seters
in his ongoing debate with
Following a thorough discussion of the
second assumption listed
above, Bimson
concludes that the OT does not demand that the
8 Bimson, Redating, 61, 62.
9 J. R. Bartlett,
"Sihon and Og, Kings
of the Amorites," VT 20 (1970)
257-77;
J.
Van Seters, "The Conquest of Sihon's
Kingdom: A Literary Examination," JBL
91
(1972)
182-.97; J. R. Bartlett, "The Conquest of Sihon's
Kingdom: A Literary Re-
examination,"
JBL 97 (1978) 347-51; J. Van Seters, "Once Again-The Conquest of
Sihon's Kingdom," JBL 99 (1980) 117-19.
248 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
Transjordanian opponents
encountered by the Hebrews were part of
an
urbanized sedentary population. In agreement with the earlier
studies
of de Vaux and Rea, Bimson suggests that "it is
therefore
possible
that the kings we read of in Num 20ff were chieftains of
semi-nomadic
groups who refused to let another nomadic group, the
Israelites,
pass through their areas of pasturage.”10 This conclusion is
plausible,
especially if we follow Wenham's theory which calls for a
significant
reduction in the Hebrew population and its fighting force.11
Otherwise,
it would have taken sizeable armies, perhaps from orga-
nized kingdoms, to
restrict the movement of such a large number of
Hebrews.
GLUECK'S SURVEY OF
In the Glueck
festschrift, Wright provides a valuable assessment
of
Glueck's exploration of
Glueck was not the first man by any means who
had searched
these lands, but he was the first to do
as complete a survey as possible
with a small budget and few helpers, and
he was the first to use the
pottery-dating tool as a basic
scientific aid. Between 1932 and 1947,
he spent nearly all his exploration time
in
Glueck's work in
Refusing elaborate equipment, the
explorer lived for days at a time as a
Bedu, drinking what
water was available from any source, living as a
guest of the bedouin,
and so well known and trusted that he was
always protected, needed no foreign
guards, and was never harmed.12
Having
worked for two summers on an archaeological survey in the
region
of ancient
wise
(indeed, necessary!) to preface a critique of Glueck
with an
acknowledgment
of his remarkable accomplishments.
As several scholars have already
suggested and as the recent
Moab
Survey clearly demonstrates, Glueck's surface
exploration of
10 Bimson, Redating, 63; cf. R. de Vaux, "La Palestine et la Transjordanie au IIe
millenaire et les origines israelites," ZAW 56 (1938) 225-38; J. Rea, "New
Light on the
Wilderness
Journey and Conquest," GJ 2
(1961) 5-13.
11 J. W. Wenham,
"Large Numbers in the Old Testament," TynBul 18 (1967)
19-53.
12 G. E. Wright,
"Thc Phenomenon of American Archaeology in the
Near Eastern
Archaeology in the Twentieth Century, ed. J. A. Sanders (Garden City:
Doubleday,
1970) 29, 30.
13 For further
discussion of the weaknesses in Glueck's
archaeological survey, see
G.
L. Mattingly, "A Reconstruction of Early Bronze Age Cultural Patterns in
Central
MATTINGLY:
THE EXODUS-CONQUEST AND
however,
that Glueck's work should be jettisoned in toto. Glueck's
four-volume
Explorations in Eastern Palestine
(1934, 1935, 1939,
1951)
and The Other Side of the Jordan
(1940; 2nd ed., 1970) serve
as
benchmarks in the history of research on ancient
Glueck's publications
also provide valuable information on the con-
dition of
illuminate
the nature and rate of the present-day resettlement of the
plateau.
These factors alone justify the continued use of Glueck's
works
as the starting point for all future archaeological investigations
in
as
conclusive, any attempt to disparage Glueck's
intentions or abilities
must
be accompanied by words of praise for his herculean achieve-
ment.14
Glueck's "Gap Hypothesis"
In his first major report on the survey
of
focused
primarily on
first
three read, in part, as follows:
1. There was a strong Bronze Age
civilization in ancient
the twenty-third and the eighteenth
centuries B.C., when it completely
disappeared.
2. Between the eighteenth and the
thirteenth centuries B.C. there is an
almost complete gap in the history of settled communities in the
region visited.
3. There was a highly developed Moabite
civilization, which seems to
have flourished especially between the middle of the thirteenth and
end of the ninth centuries B.C.15
Similar
conclusions were reiterated in Glueck's subsequent
reports on
this
region, although several modifications are apparent in the later
publications.
Glueck's second statement has probably attracted more
attention
than all the others. Although the second conclusion is
directly
related to the first and third statements, the Middle and Late
Bronze
occupational gap is at the heart of the argument over the date
of
the exodus-conquest. Since this is the focal point of this article,
Glueck's 1934 statement,
which constitutes his original gap hypothesis,
is
quoted in entirety:
74,
75.
14 For discussion
of Glueck's contribution to archaeology, see
Mattingly, "Recon-
struction," 242,
243.
15 N. Glueck, "Explorations in
Between the eighteenth and the
thirteenth centuries B.C. there is an
almost complete gap in the history of
settled communities in the region
visited. With the exception of Jalul and of el-Misnac
and el-Medeiyineh
above Lejjun,
at both of which last two mentioned places a few scraps
of Middle Bronze II pottery were found,
not a single site was found
with pottery remains between the end of
Middle Bronze I and the
beginning of Early Iron I. The Egyptian
lists of towns and the Tell el-
Amarna tablets are
silent with regard to this period in
In
spite of the exceptional sites that yielded "a few scraps of Middle
Bronze
II pottery," Glueck restated his hypothesis in
the first edition
of The Other Side of the
There was at about ± 1900 B.C. such a thoroughgoing destruction
visited upon all the great fortresses
and settlements of the land, within
the limits we have examined, that the
particular civilization they
represented never again recovered. The
blow it received was so crushing
as to be utterly destructive. Its cities
were never rebuilt, and much of
containers perishable skins and not
enduring pottery. Permanent vil-
lages and fortresses
were no longer to rise upon the face of the earth in
this region till the beginning of the
Iron Age.17
In
this same volume Glueck used the term
"Bedouins" to explain his
gap:
"The Semites who took possession of
end
of the 14th or the beginning of the 13th century B.C., probably
partly
absorbed and partly drove out the Bedouins who since about
1900
B.C. had been the masters of the land.”18
Glueck held firmly to
his original gap hypothesis right up to a
well-known
1967 essay on
accumulating
that seemed to challenge his position. There were two
reasons
for Glueck's tenacity. First, he viewed the few sites
that had
Middle
Bronze or Late Bronze sherds as
"exceptions" to the rule.
Glueck even allowed
for the possibility that additional sites might be
found
in
his
survey. On the other hand, Glueck's discussion of
such omissions
concludes
with this comment: "On the whole, however, the writer is
confident
that not very many ancient sites in
16 Glueck, "Explorations, 1," 82. The literary
evidence that relates to this issue will
be
examined in a separate article.
17 N. Glueck, The Other
Side of the
Oriental
Research, 1940) 114.
18 Glueck, Other Side,
127.
19 N. Glueck, "
Thomas
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1967) 443-45.
MATTINGLY:
THE EXODUS- CONQUEST AND
ruins
have not been completely obliterated, remain undiscovered.”20
In
light of the hundreds of new sites that have been discovered in
Second, Glueck
was convinced that the literary tradition of
Genesis
14 (the invasion of
be
reflected in "archaeological facts.”21 Thus, Glueck's certainty about
an
occupational gap in
convictions
about the historical trustworthiness of the Bible.22
Along with his other famous hypotheses
(i.e., the "King's High-
way"
and Solomon's "smelting and refining plant" at Ezion-geber),
Glueck's theory of a
Middle and Late Bronze Age occupational gap
in
central and southern
archaeologists
until recently. Without attempting to provide an ex-
haustive list of the
countless scholars who were influenced by Glueck
on
this point, perhaps McGovern's observation is sufficient: "In one
form
or another, Glueck's theory found its way into most
of the
standard
biblical and archaeological handbooks.”23
General
Criticisms of Glueck's Survey Methodology
Although the general reliability of much
of Glueck's work has
stood
the test of time, various kinds of errors are now known to have
entered
into his analyses of the ceramic evidence from
As
a result, his interpretation of the history of this region, which was
based
largely on the pottery data, has also become suspect. Specifi-
cally, the gap
hypothesis has been challenged at four levels.
First, it is now known that surface
survey, by its very nature,
does
not recover all the data at any site. Although the value of
archaeological
reconnaissance has been adequately demonstrated,24
any
historical reconstruction that is heavily dependent on survey data
must
be viewed as partial and tentative. The pottery collected from
the
surface of a site may be
representative of the site's accumulated
debris,
but the surface of an archaeological site is not always a
20 N. Glueck, Explorations
in Eastern Palestine III (
of
Oriental Research, 1939) xxiii.
21 Glueck, Other Side,
114.
22 See G. E.
Wright, "Is Glueck's Aim to Prove that the Bible
Is True?" BA 22
(1959)
101-8.
23 P. E. McGovern,
"Exploring the
Archaeology 35 (1982) 47.
24 See, for
example, R. J. Ruppe, "The Archaeological
Survey: A Defense,"
American
Antiquity,
31 (1966) 313-33; R. McC. Adams, "The Study of
Ancient
Mesopotamian
Settlement Patterns and the Problem of Urban Origins,"
(1969)
1111-24; Y. Aharoni, The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography (Phila-
delphia:
252 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
microcosm
of its subsurface contents. The distribution of sherds
over
the
surface of a site is dependent upon too many natural and cultural
variables
to provide anything but a rough estimate of the site's actual
contents.
Second, it is now recognized that Glueck's survey was superficial.
Quite
simply, Glueck overlooked hundreds of archaeological sites in
his
survey of
Glueck's accomplishment,
but it is clear that his superficial treatment
of
the regions involved skewed some of his conclusions. If failure to
recover
sherds from a particular period at any one site is
detrimental
to
the interpretive process, the omission of a number of important
sites
in a region can be disastrous.
Third, Glueck's
results have been challenged because some
scholars
believe that his knowledge of ceramics was wholly inadequate.
for
the task to which he applied himself. After a word of praise for
Glueck's Explorations in Eastern Palestine,
Franken and Power make
these
criticisms:
It is now, however, becoming increasingly clear that the other part
of Glueck's
work, that is to say the pottery study, and the conclusions
drawn from that study are in many ways
both defective and misleading.
There are two reasons for making these
judgments. In the first instance
his work is defective because Glueck assumed that the culture of Iron
Age Transjordan was so similar to that
of
known Palestinian repertoire. And in the
second instance the work is
misleading because Glueck
published only those shapes that were
familiar to him even in cases where he
picked up unknown shapes in
the areas immediately adjacent to
and in Ammon.
Those shapes that he did not recognize he omitted
from publication, which is a curious
procedure, for a survey of a
largely unknown area ought to reveal and
indeed to stress the new and
the unknown rather than to emphasize the
known. But apparently
Glueck did not
anticipate a differing Transjordanian cultural
develop-
ment.25
In
order to show that these criticisms are related to Glueck's
gap
hypothesis,
Franken and Power continue by saying that
it is clear that Glueck
assumed that he would have recognized Trans-
jordanian Middle Bronze
IIB, IIC, and Late Bronze shapes had he
found them. From what has already been
said it is no longer clear that
this assumption can be accepted without
question.... Theoretically it
25 H. J. Franken
and W. J. A. Power, "Glueck's Explorations in
in
the light of recent evidence," VT
21 (1971) 119.
MATTINGLY:
THE EXODUS-CONQUEST AND
is now quite possible that what Glueck called early Iron Age is in part
fourteenth century B.C. Transjordanian pottery.26
Furthermore,
the pottery typology of Albright, upon whose work
Glueck's pottery
analyses were based, has been refined in recent
years,
and the future will bring a better understanding of the develop-
ment of ancient
changes
that Glueck made in the second edition of The Other Side of
the
Transjordanian pottery.
Fourth, Glueck's
work has been criticized because some scholars
believe
that his survey of
convictions.
In other words, Glueck is accused of attempting to
"fit"
his
survey results into his preconceived assumptions about a histori-
cally trustworthy
Bible. For example, Franken wonders whether "a
biblical
date for Chedorlaomer or an archaeological date for
the end
of
M.B. I civilization" came first.27 Franken makes many other
caustic
remarks in his attempt to discredit Glueck's
reconstruction of
these
criticisms of Glueck's methodology and motives
deserve further
consideration,
I move on to a summary of the archaeological evidence
that
relates to the gap theory.
A
SUMMARY OF THE MIDDLE BRONZE AND LATE BRONZE EVIDENCE
FROM
CENTRAL AND
Ever since Glueck's
gap hypothesis became popular, archaeol-
ogists and historians
have eagerly reported any discovery that held
promise
of disproving Glueck's theory. Occasionally, this
enthusiasm
caused
scholars to force the evidence to say more than is warranted.
In
an attempt to provide a sober evaluation of Glueck's
position, I list
the
places where Middle and Late Bronze data have been recovered in
central
and southern
material.
I do not claim that the list of sites or the accompanying
bibliographical
references are exhaustive, but the major reported
finds
from the period and region in question are mentioned.
General
discussions of the archaeological data that are thought
to
fill in Glueck's hypothetical gap can be found in
Harding,29
26 Franken and
Power, "Glueck's Explorations," 122, 123.
27 H. J. Franken,
"The Other Side of the
28 Franken,
"Other Side," 7.
29 G. L. Harding,
"Recent Discoveries in
Antiquities of
254 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
Dornemann,30
Ward,31 Sapin,32 and Bimson.33 Today, most of
the
objections
to Glueck's historical reconstruction are based upon
the
Middle
and Late Bronze finds from ‘
Nacur,37
Madeba,38 Khirbet el-Mekhayyat,39 and Qlac
et-Twal.40 More
recently
recovered artifacts from the Hesban region41
and the Baq’ah
30 R. H. Dornemann, "The Cultural and Archaeological History of
the
in
the Bronze and Iron Age" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
1970);
see especially pp. 39-63. A revised edition of Dornemann's
study will be
published
in the near future.
31 W. A. Ward,
"The Shasu ‘Bedouin’: Notes on a Recent
Publication," JESHO 15
(1972)
54, 55.
32 J. Sapin, "25 ans d'Archeologie en Syrie-Palestine
(1946-1971): Recherches et
Perspectives
(seconde partie)," ETR 49 (1974) 558-65.
33 Bimson, Redating, 61-68.
34 On the
Qal`a)
Harding
and B. S. J. Isserlin, "A Middle Bronze Age Tomb
at
(1953)
14-22; R. W. Dajani, "Jabal
Nuzha Tomb at
W.
A. Ward, "Scarabs, Seals and Cylinders from Two Tombs in
(1966)
5-18. On the so-called
Scarabs
from a Late
Wright,
"The
"Excavation
of a
"Supplementary
Note," ZAW 78 (1966) 357-59; V. Hankey, "A Late Bronze Age
Excavations,"
ADAJ 21 (1976) 109-12; see Herr's
"The Amman Airport Excavations,
1976,"
forthcoming in AASOR.
35 Most attention
is given to an alleged Middle Bronze Age glacis at Tell Safut;
see
F.
S. Ma'ayeh, "Recent Archaeological Discoveries
in
Recent
salvage excavations should lead to additional reports on this site and clarifica-
tion of the function
and date of this installation.
36 See R. W. Dajani, "A Late Bronze-Iron Age Tomb Excavated at Sahab, 1968,"
ADAJ 15 (1970)
29-34; S. H. Horn, "Three Seals from Sahab Tomb ‘C’,"
ADAJ 16
(1971)
103-6; M. M. Ibrahim, "Archaeological Excavations at Sahab,
1972," ADAJ 17
(1972)
23-36; idem, "Second Season of Excavation at Sahab,
1973," ADAJ 19 (1974)
55-62.
37 Reference is
made to the Middle Bronze Age tomb objects from Na’ur,
but I
have
not located the primary source on this material; cf. Harding, Antiquities, 32, 33.
38 See G. L.
Harding, "An Early Iron Age Tomb at Madeba,"
PEFA 6 (1953) 27-
33;
M. Avi-Yonah, "Medeba,"
Encyclopedia of Archaeological
Excavations in the
Holy Land, III, ed. M. Avi-Yonah and E. Stern (
and
Massada Press, 1977) 820.
39 See S. J. Saller
and B. Bagatti, The
Town of Nebo (Khirbet el-Mekhayyat)
(Jerusalem:
Franciscan, 1949) 24-29.
40 See W. A. Ward,
"A Possible New Link between
Reign
of Amenhotep III," ADAJ 18 (1973) 45, 46.
41 See especially
S. D. Waterhouse and R. Ibach, Jr., "The
Topographical Survey,"
AUSS 13 (1975)
217-33; R. Ibach, Jr., "Archaeological Survey of
the Hesban Region,"
AUSS 14 (1976)
119-26; idem, "Expanded Archaeological Survey of the Hesban
MATTINGLY:
THE EXODUS-CONQUEST AND
Valley42
will undoubtedly enter into future discussions of central
sites
mentioned above are primarily surface sherds and tomb
deposits
(some
of the latter are quite rich), but there is some stratified material
and
a small amount of architectural evidence. The outstanding
example
of the latter is the so-called "
substantial
LB II structure that contained a wealth of imported
Mycenaean,
Cypriot, and Egyptian pottery and other objects.43
In addition to the sites already
mentioned, significant results
were
obtained from two archaeological surveys that were completed
in
1982. The 1979, 1981, and 1982 seasons of the "Wadi
el-Hasa
Survey,"
which investigated a small portion of biblical
nessed the recovery of
surface remains from over 1,000 sites, only a
handful
of which yielded any sherds from the Middle and Late
Bronze
Ages.44 Much work still needs to be done in the territory to
the
south of Wadi Hesa, the
boundary between ancient
The 1978, 1979, and 1982 seasons of
logical
Survey of Central and
nation
of 585 sites between Wadi Mujib
and Wadi Hesa (the biblical
rivers
Arnon and Zered). Although
the Middle and Late Bronze Ages
Region,"
AUSS 16 (1978) 201-13; idem, "An
Intensive Surface Survey at Jalul," AUSS
16
(1978) 215-22. For a full bibliography on the Hesban
excavations, see R. S. Boraas
and
L. T. Geraty, Heshbon 1976: The
Fifth Campaign at Tell Hesban (Berrien Springs,
MI:
Age
material at Tell Hesban, see. D. M. Beegle, Review of Nelson Glueck, The Other
Side of the
Jordan,
CBQ 33 (1971) 579-81 and L. T. Geraty, "The 1976 Season of
Excavations
at Tell Hesban," ADAJ 21 (1976) 42.
42 For the
unusually thorough reports on the recent work in the Baq`ah
Valley (just
northwest
of
Magnetometer
Survey," MASCA Journal 1 (1979)
39-41; idem, "Baq’ah Valley
Project
1980," BA 44 (1981) 126-28; idem, "The Baq’ah
Valley, Jordan: Test Soundings
of
Cesium Magnetometer Anomalies," MASCA
Journal 1 (1981) 214-17; idem,
"Baqah Valley Project 1981," BA 45 (1982) 122-24; idem, "Exploring the
of
the Baq’ah Valley in
G.
Harbottle, and C. Wnuk,
"Late Bronze Age Pottery Fabrics from the Baq’ah
Baq’ah Valley is as
far north as this article covers. Middle and Late Bronze materials
from
such sites as Irbid,
but
these sites fall outside of the geographical scope of this article and beyond
the
limits
of Glueck's gap hypothesis.
43 The debate over
this structure concerns its function and its apparent isolation
from
any settlement. For more on this discovery, see below and an interesting
footnote
in
Y. Aharoni, The
Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography (rev. ed.,
44 See B.
MacDonald, "The Wadi El Hasa
Survey 1979: A Preliminary Report,"
ADAJ 24 (1980)
166-83; idem, "The Wadi el-Hasa
Survey 1981," BA 45 (1982) 58,
59.
256 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
were
well represented at these sites, the number of sherds
from these
periods
was not as large as that from other historical eras. Since the
overall
results of this project have not yet been officially reported,"
this
brief summary of the ceramic data that relate to this period is
preliminary:
Middle Bronze Age Pottery from Central and
9 sites yielded sherds
that are either Middle or Late Bronze (MB/ LB),
each site having between 1 and 42 sherds with this designation.
26 sites yielded sherds
that are possibly Middle Bronze (MB?), each site
having between 1 and 8 sherds with this designation.
31 sites yielded sherds
that are definitely Middle Bronze (MB), each
site having between 1 and 46 sherds with this designation.
1 site yielded 1 sherd
that is possibly Middle Bronze I (MB I?).
2 sites yielded sherds
that are definitely Middle Bronze I (MB I), one
site having 3 sherds
and the other site 4 sherds with this designation.
1 site yielded 6 sherds
that are possibly Middle Bronze II (MB II?).
Late Bronze Age Pottery from Central and
6 sites yielded sherds
that are either Late Bronze or Iron Age I
(LB/Iron I), each site having between 1
and 63 sherds with this
designation.
47 sites yielded sherds
that are possibly Late Bronze (LB?), each site
having between 1 and 37 sherds with this designation.
75 sites yielded sherds
that are definitely Late Bronze (LB), each site
having between 1 and 30 sherds with this designation.
1 site yielded 2 sherds
that are possibly Late Bronze I (LB I?).
1 site yielded 1 sherd
that is definitely Late Bronze I (LB I).
1 site yielded 8 sherds
that are either Late Bronze II or Iron Age I
(LB II/Iron I).
6 sites yielded sherds
that are definitely Late Bronze II (LB II), each
site having between 1 and 46 sherds with this designation.
RECENT ASSESSMENTS OF GLUECK'S HYPOTHESIS
Even before the survey of
archaeological
finds from
45 For preliminary
reports on the
(1979)
43-52; idem, "Archaeological Survey South of Wadi
Mujib," ADAJ
23 (1979)
79-92;
idem, "Recent Archaeological Developments Relevant to Ancient Moab,"
Studies in the
History and Archaeology of Jordan I, ed. Adrian Hadidi
(
Department
of Antiquities. 1982) 169-73; J. M. Pinkerton, "An Examination of
Glueck's Conclusions
Concerning
1978
Archaeological Survey of Central Moab" (unpublished M.T.S. thesis, Candler
Kautz, "Tracking
the Ancient Moabites," BA 44
(1981) 27-35.
MATTINGLY:
THE EXODUS-CONQUEST AND
Glueck's reconstruction.
Three stances have emerged in the post-1934
evaluations
of Glueck's gap hypothesis: (1) those who hold that
Glueck's theory is
incorrect; (2) those who hold that Glueck's theory
is
still correct; and (3) those who hold that Glueck's
theory is in need
of
slight modification. It may appear that the difference between (1)
and
(3) is a matter of the degree of change that is sought, but there is,
in
fact, a significant difference in the tone that is used to criticize
Glueck.
Representatives of each of these positions are easily found;
with
no attempt to be exhaustive, some of their arguments are
presented
below. Since the dates of these evaluations are related to
the
weight of the argument put forth, publication dates are enclosed
in
parentheses following the scholars' names.
As expected, many scholars insist that Glueck's hypothesis is
wrong,
including Harding (1953, 1958, 1967),46 Ma’ayeh
(1960),47
Dajani (1964, 1966),48
Ward and Martin (1964)49 Kenyon (1966),50
Dornemann (1970),51
Franken (1970),52 Mittmann (1970),53
Franken
and
Power (1971),54 Zayadine (1973),55
Thompson (1974a; 1974b),56
Dever and Clark
(1977),57 and Bimson (1981).58
46 For Harding's
objections to Glueck's theory, see G. L. Harding,
"A Middle
Bronze
Age Tomb at
Jordan,"
PEQ 90 (1958) II, 12; idem, Antiquities, 32-34, 63.
47 F. S. Ma’ayeh, "Recent Archaeological Discoveries in
(1960)
115.
48 R. Dajani, "Iron Age Tombs from Irbed,"
ADAJ 8-9 (1964) 101; idem, "Jabal
Nuzha Tomb at
49 W. A. Ward and
M. F. Martin, "The Balu’a Stele: A New
Transcription with
Palaeographical and Historical
Notes," ADAJ 8-9 (1964) 19-20.
50 K. Kenyon,
Amorites and Canaanites (London: British Academy, 1966) 64.
51 R. H. Dornemann, "The Cultural and Archaeological History of
the
in
the Bronze and Iron Ages" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
1970)
8, 48, 49.
52 H. J. Franken,
"The Other Side of the
53 S. Mittmann, Beitrage zur Siedlungs- and Territorialgeschichte des nordlichen
Ostjordanlandes (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1970) 221, n. 32.
54 H. J. Franken
and W. J. A. Power, "Glueck's Explorations in
in
the light of recent evidence," VT
21 (1971) 119-23.
55 F. Zayadine, "The Middle Bronze Age (c. 1900 to 1500
ax.)" and "The Late
Bronze
Age (c. 1500 to 1200
Archaeological
Periods and Sites (East Bank), Moawiyah
Ibrahim, et al. (
Department
of Antiquities, 1973) 18-21. Cf. A. Hadidi, "The
Archaeology of
Achievements
and Objectives," Studies in the
History and Archaeology of
A.
Hadidi (Amman: Department of Antiquities, 1982) 16,
17.
56 T. L. Thompson,
The Historicity of the Patriarchal
Narrative (
Gruyter, 1974) 192-94;
idem "Observations on the Bronze Age in
(1974)
63-70.
57 W. G. Dever and W. M. Clark, "The Patriarchal
Traditions," Israelite and
Judaean History, ed. J. H. Hayes and J. M. Miller (OTL;
1977)
90.
58 Bimson, Redating, 64-68.
258 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
Beginning as early as 1953, Harding
questioned the accuracy of
Glueck's hypothesis.
While Harding had objections to the method-
ology that Glueck used in his survey, especially where Glueck's
methods
influenced his pottery analyses, Harding's real objection to
the
gap theory was based on the presence of Middle and Late Bronze
tomb
deposits and other archaeological evidence in
vicinity.
Harding could not believe that these tombs, along with the
tent-dwellers.59
Furthermore, since Harding assumed a 13th-century
date
for the exodus-conquest, he contended that the biblical account
"requires
a fully occupied
happen
in a generation.”60
On the basis of their study of the Balu’a stele, Ward and Martin
concluded
that there had to be a well-established sedentary population.
in
hypothetical
"cultural hiatus" is being filled in with newly discovered
Middle
and Late Bronze sites, and thus "our concept of this area
during
this period will have to undergo a radical change.”61 In a later
publication,
Ward softened his critique of Glueck and suggested
that
"the
scanty knowledge we now possess may require a reassessment, or
at
least a modification, of the current view.”62
Thompson postulated a cultural
continuity for
Late
Chalcolithic through Late Bronze Age, a continuity
perpetuated
by
the "typical Bronze Age settlement," the small agricultural village.
Following
his treatment of the theories related to Bronze Age popula-
tion shifts, Thomson
concluded that "the real curiosity is that Glueck's
hypothesis
was ever taken so seriously-as literally true-in the first
place."63
After listing a few examples of Middle
Bronze finds from the
area
around
Glueck about a nomadic
life in the Middle Bronze Age in East
reached
with regard to the Late Bronze Age. In place of Glueck's
gap
hypothesis,
Zayadine made the reasonable suggestion that Trans-
exists
today with nomadism juxtaposed alongside urbanism.65
59 Harding,
"A Middle Bronze Age Tomb from
60 Harding,
Antiquities, 35.
61 Ward and
Martin, "Balu’a Stele," 19, 20.
62 Ward, "Shasu ‘Bedouin’," 55.
63 Thompson,
"Other Side," 66.
64 Zayadine, "Middle Bronze Age," 19.
65 Zayadine, "Late Bronze Age," 20.
MATTINGLY:
THE EXODUS-CONQUEST AND
Although it is difficult to find
scholars who still adhere to
Glueck's original gap
hypothesis, it is interesting to observe that the
early
discoveries of Middle and Late Bronze evidence in central
Glueck's historical
reconstruction. While accepting the dates and
importance
of the more recently recovered data, Albright (1937, 1957,
1960),66
Landes (1961),67 and Campbell and Wright
(1969)68 continued
to
hold the view that this period and region witnessed a decline in
sedentary
occupation. They reasoned that the Middle and Late
Bronze
tombs from the vicinity of
of
nomadic or seminomadic tribes who lived in the area.
Even the
discovery
and excavation of the
shake
their confidence in Glueck, since it was proposed
that this
sanctuary
could have served as the focal point of a regional tribal
league.
Following this same line of reasoning, Glueck
reaffirmed a
strong
belief in his gap hypothesis in 1967.69
Aside from the cautious statement of
suggested
that "it is as yet an open question how far these finds
modify
Glueck's view,"70 there is still a
third stance that can be taken
in
evaluating Glueck's hypothesis and in reappraising
the archaeo-
logical
evidence from
for
only a slight modification of Glueck's theory, is
best represented
by
Glueck himself (1970),71 Kafafi (1977),72 and Aharoni
(1979).73 In
66 For examples of
Albright's continued support for Glueck's theory, see
"Explorations
in the
From the Stone
Age to Christianity: Monotheism and the Historical Process (2d ed.;
Garden
City: Doubleday, 1957) 61, 62; idem, The
Archaeology of Palestine (rev. ed.;
(3d
ed.;
67 G. M. Landes, "The Material Civilization of the
Ammonites," BA 24 (1961)
67,
68.
68 E. F. Campbell,
Jr. and G. E. Wright, "Tribal League Shrines in
Shechem," BA 32 (1969) 116.
69 N. Glueck, "
Thomas
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1967) 443-45.
70 J. R. Bartlett,
"The Moabites and Edomites," Peoples of Old Testament Times,
ed.
D. J. Wiseman (Oxford: Clarendon, 1973) 231, 232.
71 N. Glueck, The Other
Side of the
Schools
of Oriental Research, 1970) 139-42, 157.
72 Zeidan Abd El-Kafi
Kafafi, "Late Bronze Age Pottery in Jordan (East
Bank)
1575-1200 B.C." (unpublished M.A.
thesis,
73 Aharoni,
Land of the Bible, 102. With regard
to his assessment of Glueck's gap
hypothesis, it is difficult to discern Ahaoni's viewpoint. For example, on p. 102
Aharoni praises Glueck's survey and supports his reconstruction. On the
other hand,
Aharoni suggested that
Late Bronze Age Midian boasted a sophisticated
culture, and
he suggested that "the
establishment of well organized kingdoms in these areas [
and
260 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
addition
to these three, Pinkerton (1979),74 Miller (1979, 1982),75
and
Kautz (1981),76
all staff members of the
Survey,
agree that there was a decline in the sedentary population of
central
new
data from
hypothesis.
I hold this same position.
Many scholars will be surprised to learn
that Glueck himself
revised
his original gap hypothesis in the second edition of The Other
Side of the
much
of the current criticism of Glueck's reconstruction
of Trans-
statement
in this revision reads as follows:
In much of
south of the south side of the Wadi Zerqa (Biblical River Jabboq), the
Middle Bronze I period of the Age of
Abraham seems to have been
followed by a considerable decline in
sedentary settlement during the
Middle Bronze II and Late Bronze I-II
periods, although not as
radically as we had once assumed.77
In presenting his revised hypothesis, Glueck not only listed the
recent Middle and Late Bronze finds from
central
he reminded his readers that he had also
found some sites from this
period in his own survey. Glueck insisted, however, that such materials
were not found in sufficient quantities
to prove the existence of
widespread urbanism.78 As
always, Glueck made provision in his
reconstruction for sedentary occupation,
a fact that is often overlooked.79
If we examine Kafafi's
comments on this issue, we notice that he
had two distinct advantages over Glueck: (1) Kafafi's study came
out
seven years after the revised edition of
The Other Side of the Jordan,
thus allowing time for additional
archaeological reports to be pub-
lished; and (2) Kafafi did not have a vested interest in this subject, as
did
Glueck. Nevertheless, Kafafi
holds that attempts to alter Glueck's
hypothesis
are unsuccessful, since most of these attempts are based on
tomb
deposits, not the excavation of walled towns. Kafafi
concludes
(pp.
204-6). D. Baly, (Review of Y. Aharoni,
The Land of the Bible: A Historical
Geography, BA 44 [1981] 251) points out that such a
statement is incorrect. To make
matters
worse, Rainey (as, was pointed out in n. 24 above) points to the
74 Pinkerton,
"Examination of Glueck's Conclusions,"
70-73.
75 Miller,
"Archaeological Survey of Central Moab," 51; idem, "Recent Archaeo-
logical
Developments," 172.
76 Kautz, "Ancient Moabites," 31-34.
77 Glueck, Other Side
(2d ed.), 140, 141.
78 Glueck, Other Side (2d ed.), 141-42.
79 Glueck (Other Side
[2d ed.], 142) speaks about a "decline in sedentary settlement."
MATTINGLY:
THE EXODUS-CONQUEST AND
by
saying that much archaeological work must be done before the
issue
is settled, but the available data do not compel a major revision
of
Glueck's theory.80
Miller's observations provide a summary
of how the
Survey
data, which were presented above, bear upon the modification
of
the gap hypothesis:
In short, while our findings agree with Glueck's findings in that we also
notice a sudden decline in the abundance
of surface pottery representing
the Middle Bronze Age, ours do not
confirm his conclusion that there
was a virtually complete occupational
gap which extended throughout
the Late Bronze Age and ended
specifically during the thirteenth
century. There is the prior question, of
course, as to whether the
relative abundance of surface pottery
from a given period is a safe
indicator of its degree of sedentary
occupation. To the extent that it is,
our findings seems to indicate at least
a scattering of settlements even
during the Middle Bronze Age which
gradually increased in number
during the Late Bronze and Iron Ages.81
CONCLUSIONS
The presentation of the archaeological
data from
and
the accompanying survey of scholarly opinions lead to at least
three
conclusions.
First, it is obvious that there are
Middle and Late Bronze Age
artifacts
in central and southern
finds
from these periods are still not plentiful. For example, in
Middle
and Late Bronze sherds are not found at as many sites
or in
as
great a quantity as pottery from other periods (e.g., Early Bronze
and
Iron Ages and the Nabataean, Roman, and Byzantine
periods).
In
spite of the accelerated pace of archaeological research in central
and
southern
In
other words, it still appears that social, political, or economic
factors
led to a genuine population decline in Middle and Late
Bronze
Age
Second, the recently recovered
archaeological remains from Trans-
original
gap hypothesis must be abandoned. Glueck's 1934
theory is
still
cited as an object of attack, even though Glueck
himself revised
his
position thirteen years ago. Glueck's new historical
reconstruction
in
the 1970 edition of The Other Side of the Jordan seems to be in
harmony
with the archaeological picture that is now emerging.
80 Kafafi, "Late Bronze Age Pottery," x.
81 Miller,
"Recent Archaeological Developments," 172.
262 GRACE; THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
Third, while archaeologists have not
recovered evidence of exten-
sive kingdoms in
Late Bronze Age
no
longer be said that these regions were devoid of a population that
could
oppose the migrating Hebrews. This means that one of the four
main
arguments used to support the late date of the exodus-conquest
is
no longer valid. Those who appeal to an occupational gap in Late
Bronze
Age Transjordan prove that they are unaware of the recently
recovered
archaeological evidence, since the archaeological data from
this
time and region appear to be neutral in the debate on the date of
the
exodus-conquest. It should be noted, however, that the Late
Bronze
material recovered in the territory to the north of Jalul
displays
a continuity with the Canaanite culture on the west side of
the
Jordan River.82
82 I am indebted
to Dr. James Sauer for this final observation.
:
Grace
Theological Seminary
www.grace.edu
|| Pope Shenouda || Father Matta || Bishop Mattaous || Fr. Tadros Malaty || Bishop Moussa || Bishop Alexander || Habib Gerguis || Bishop Angealos || Metropolitan Bishoy ||
|| The Orthodox Faith (Dogma) || Family and Youth || Sermons || Bible Study || Devotional || Spirituals || Fasts & Feasts || Coptics || Religious Education || Monasticism || Seasons || Missiology || Ethics || Ecumenical Relations || Church Music || Pentecost || Miscellaneous || Saints || Church History || Pope Shenouda || Patrology || Canon Law || Lent || Pastoral Theology || Father Matta || Bibles || Iconography || Liturgics || Orthodox Biblical topics || Orthodox articles || St Chrysostom ||
|| Bible Study || Biblical topics || Bibles || Orthodox Bible Study || Coptic Bible Study || King James Version || New King James Version || Scripture Nuggets || Index of the Parables and Metaphors of Jesus || Index of the Miracles of Jesus || Index of Doctrines || Index of Charts || Index of Maps || Index of Topical Essays || Index of Word Studies || Colored Maps || Index of Biblical names Notes || Old Testament activities for Sunday School kids || New Testament activities for Sunday School kids || Bible Illustrations || Bible short notes|| Pope Shenouda || Father Matta || Bishop Mattaous || Fr. Tadros Malaty || Bishop Moussa || Bishop Alexander || Habib Gerguis || Bishop Angealos || Metropolitan Bishoy ||
|| Prayer of the First Hour || Third Hour || Sixth Hour || Ninth Hour || Vespers (Eleventh Hour) || Compline (Twelfth Hour) || The First Watch of the midnight prayers || The Second Watch of the midnight prayers || The Third Watch of the midnight prayers || The Prayer of the Veil || Various Prayers from the Agbia || Synaxarium