OLD TESTAMENT JERUSALEM: EVOLUTION OR REVOLUTION?

The following ASOR blog post derives from Jane Cahill West, one of several Jerusalem archaeologists making presentations at the fifth annual Archaeology Discovery Weekend at La Sierra University in Riverside, California on November 16-17. West is previewing her lecture on “Jerusalem in the Bronze and Iron Ages.” The entire program, co-sponsored by ASOR, can be seen here. All are welcome to attend.

By: Jane Cahill West

. . . by far the most famous city of the ancient Orient. Pliny the Elder, Natural History V: 14

Late Bronze Age Jerusalem is renowned as the source of six letters written by its king, Abdi-hepa, found in the archive of international correspondence preserved at Tell el-Amarna in Egypt. Iron Age Jerusalem is renowned as the capital of Israel’s United Monarchy described in the Old Testament’s accounts of David’s capture of Jerusalem from the Jebusites and Solomon’s construction of a temple on Mt. Moriah, and as the capital of Judah destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, in the early 6th c. B.C.E. Evidence provided by the Amarna letters and the Old Testament have informed all modern histories of Jerusalem. Recently, however, some studies have concluded that neither the Amarna letters nor the Old Testament provide reliable evidence for reconstructing Jerusalem’s historical development.

Moreover, in contrast to archaeologists like R. A. S. Macalister and J. Garrow Duncan, Kathleen M. Kenyon, and Yigal Shiloh — all of whom concluded on the basis of their own excavations in the City of David that Jerusalem was not only occupied but fortified from at least as early as the Middle Bronze Age — authors of these recent studies have concluded that Jerusalem was an impoverished, sparsely occupied village throughout most of the Old Testament period. Such studies generally assert that Jerusalem developed urban characteristics abruptly late in the 8th c. B.C.E. following the Assyrian destruction of the northern kingdom of Israel and its capital city, Samaria.

Studies concluding that Jerusalem was at most an impoverished, sparsely occupied village during most of the Old Testament period are based primarily on negative evidence and on assumptions that paucity of remains signifies paucity of settlement. Although some authors have challenged the cogency of such conclusions based on consideration of both long term historical and site formation processes, the archaeological data from Jerusalem has never been systematically analyzed for evidence of long term developmental processes. The need for systematic analysis of “the fundamental nature of the archaeological record” has been raised by William G. Dever, who suggests that archaeologists’ failure to consider “the depositional history of representative sites over long time spans” negatively impacts their ability to draw conclusions about the historical-cultural development of individual sites and historical periods (Dever 1996:37).

The presentation “Jerusalem in the Bronze and Iron Ages,” which I am giving as part of La Sierra University’s fifth annual Archaeology Discovery Weekend on Jerusalem this November 16-17 (www.lasierra.edu/archaeology), will address the depositional history of Jerusalem over a long time span in an effort to draw conclusions about the city’s historical-cultural development throughout the Old Testament period. The presentation will survey stratigraphic, architectural, and chronological evidence, and offer a synthetic analysis of that evidence that reaches beyond the question of whether Jerusalem was urban or non-urban during various periods to questions such as: (1) How was Jerusalem’s archaeological record formed? (2) What significance, if any, did previous development activity have on later development activity in Jerusalem? (3) When did Jerusalem first exhibit characteristics of urbanism and what were those characteristics? (4) Did Jerusalem’s development into an urban center evolve slowly over time or occur abruptly at the end of the 8th c. B.C.E.?

Since the earliest evidence of settlement in Jerusalem is ascribed to the Chalcolithic Age, Jerusalem’s development during the following six periods will be surveyed and analyzed: Chalcolithic Age; Early Bronze Age, Intermediate Bronze Age, Middle Bronze Age, Late Bronze Age, and the Iron Age. Innovation in areas such as technology, subsistence strategies, and trade will be addressed, but discussion of these topics will necessarily be limited in scope and focused on evidence of permanent versus seasonal occupation, and technologies used for purposes of defense, water management, and housing. The presentation will emphasize issues about which there is scholarly consensus or controversy, and will identify gaps in the archaeological record where additional research is needed and may prove most fruitful. The presentation will end with a brief discussion of analytical skills that can usefully be applied by archaeologists and non-archaeologists alike, to judge the reliability of conflicting interpretations.

Dever, William G.

1996  The Tell: Microcosm of the Cultural Process. Pp. 37-45 in: Joe D. Seger (ed.). Retrieving the Past: Essays on Archaeological Research and Methodology in Honor of Bus W. Van Beek. Winnona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

All content provided on this blog is for informational purposes only. The American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR) makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this blog or found by following any link on this blog. ASOR will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information. ASOR will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or use of this information. The opinions expressed by Bloggers and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of ASOR or any employee thereof.