ABSTRACT
This study discusses some of the archaeological and historical implications of the latest suite of high precision radiocarbon dates obtained from the Oxford and Groningen radiocarbon laboratories from the recent excavations at the Iron Age metal production center at Khirbat en-Nahas in Jordan. To appreciate the impact of these new radiometric dates on the Iron Age archaeology of southern Jordan, and radiometric dating on historical archaeology in general, some discussion of the role of text and archaeology must be discussed in order to attain some of the goals of a ‘New Biblical Archaeology’ outlined at the beginning of this volume (see Chapter 1). In the 19th century, systematic archaeological research in the southern Levant-the Holy Land-was born with the aim of exploring the relationship between text (the Hebrew Bible) and the newly understood field of archaeology. In 1865, the Palestine Exploration Fund-the first research organization devoted to the scientific investigation of the history of the land-was founded in London by a group of distinguished scholars and clergymen, with the express purpose of providing ‘for the accurate and
systematic investigation of the archaeology, topography, geology and physical geography, natural history, manner, and customs of the Holy Land, for biblical illustration’ (cf. Moorey 1991). The unique historical relationship between the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and the landscape of Palestine created what might be called the ‘tyranny of the text’. Accordingly, in approaching the archaeological record of the southern Levant, from its 19th-century beginnings until the mid1970s, archaeologists consistently approached the archaeological record of the Holy Land by first examining biblical text and then searching for material culture proof to support the text as historical fact (Albright 1971; Glueck 1940a; Wright 1965). Following the discovery of inconsistencies between text and the archaeological record at key sites such as Jericho, which was supposed to have been destroyed by Joshua and the Israelite tribes at the end of the Late Bronze Age, cracks developed in the paradigm known as ‘Biblical Archaeology’. By the 1970s, a growing number of researchers accepted that there were limitations on the role of archaeology in establishing the historicity of the Hebrew Bible along the lines that Albright (1932) and others had proposed. William Dever called for a more ‘secular’ archaeology in the Holy Land (Israel, Palestine, Jordan) that should redefine itself as secular ‘Syro-Palestinian’ Archaeology. This was an effort to shed the weight of the tyranny of the biblical text (Dever 1974, 1982) on the archaeological record of the southern Levant. Dever (1988) argued that freedom from the biblical text could be achieved by adopting the rapidly developing paradigm spearheaded by Louis Binford (1968) and known as the ‘New Archaeology’ with its emphasis on culture process-an approach that was specifically ‘anti-historical.’ While the achievements of the New Archaeology are many and include the adoption of the scientific method, quantification, investigative optimism, the importance of research design over simple data collection and other features that have become a mainstay of world archaeology today, by the early 1980s critics such as Ian Hodder (1982, 1987) showed many of the failings of the New or Processual Archaeology. Self-appointing themselves as the new ‘Post-Processual’ paradigm, Hodder, and others (Preucel and Hodder [eds.] 1996) pointed out that there was no single way to undertake archaeological inference as argued by the Processual archaeologists, that all interpretations were driven by the subjective views of the researchers, that even data is ‘theory laden’—that is, many ‘readings’ are possible. The most significant Post-Processual critique, and most applicable to Levantine Archaeology, was the fact that Processual archaeology had an antihistorical bias that assumed a kind of ‘universal humanism’ making it possible to construct ‘laws’ of human behavior. While Dever argued repeatedly for a ‘secular’ archaeology for the Holy Land that could be brought forth through the New/Processual Archaeology, this paradigm never really took off in Levantine Archaeology except in research embedded in the prehistoric and protohistoric periods (Levy 1996). Perhaps the notion that the Bible represents a kind of ‘tyranny of the text’ for archaeologists is simply inappropriate for the archaeology of the southern Levant where so much of the Hebrew Bible takes place. The leading historical archaeologists working in the southern Levant were primarily secular (Ben-Tor [ed.] 1992; Finkelstein 1988; Mazar 1990; Stager 1988); however, they could not ignore the centrality of the Hebrew Bible as a foundation-an ethnohistorical source-for examining the archaeological record of the region. Historical archaeology (i.e. Middle Bronze-Iron Age) in the southern Levant did adopt many of the methodologies proposed by the New Archaeology, such as interdisciplinary research and a real interest in the application of new technologies for archaeological research. However, the question remainedhow best to bring together text and archaeology. The emergence of the so-called Biblical Minimalist paradigm (cf. Davies 1992; Thompson 1999; Whitelam 1996) argued that the Hebrew Bible lacks any historical data whatsoever so it is a totally unreliable source. As discussed earlier (Levy and Higham [Chapter 1, this volume]), given the large number of interconnections between biblical and extra-biblical ancient sources (cf. Dever 2001, 2003), the Biblical Minimalist paradigm is untenable today. In some cases, adherents of this approach (Lemche 1998; Van Seters 1997) argue
for the centrality of ancient texts for historical reconstruction-but give precedence to any written text outside of the Hebrew Bible. When researchers grasp on to any historical piece of data uncritically, whether it is the Hebrew Bible or extra-biblical textual data from media such as monumental inscriptions, ostraca (ink on pottery), engraved silver, inscribed stone seals or a seal impression, to interpret the archaeological record they run the risk of simplification and finding what their preconceived views want to find (Schniedewind 2004). For the past ca. 30 years, this is precisely what has characterized the Iron Age archaeology of southern Jordan, and in particular the region known from biblical and other sources (Bartlett 1989, 1992) as Edom. In what follows, we will illustrate how an over-reliance on extra-biblical textual data for ancient Edom has led to major chronological problems and consequently, problems with historical and anthropological interpretation. We argue that only with the enthusiastic adoption of radiocarbon dating for the Iron Age archaeology of the southern Levant will it be possible to objectively investigate the relationship between the historical texts and archaeology for this period. Research Area: Highland-Lowland Dichotomy
The region of Edom in southern Jordan extends roughly from the Wadi al-Hasa in the north to the Wadi Hisma and Jabal Ram in the south, the Wadi Arabah on the west and Transjordanian desert plateau to the east (Bartlett 1992; Glueck 1940a). The two most important physiographic attributes of Edom include: (a) the presence of one of the richest copper ore deposits in the southern Levant (Hauptmann 2000) and (b) the marked geographic and environmental diversity between the ‘lowlands’ and ‘highlands’ of Edom. The differences between these two geomorphic zones are pronounced. For example, the edge of the highlands, overlooking the Wadi Arabah that separates modern Israel and Jordan, is characterized by elevations that reach over 1500 masl, a semi-arid landscape and pockets of Mediterranean rainfall zones with over 600 mm of average annual rainfall (Centre 2001). In contrast, the lowlands of Edom, with elevations reaching ca. –80 masl, is typical of the Saharo-Arabian desert phytogeographic zone with pockets of Sudanian flora (Danin 1983), with mean annual rainfall at less than 70 mm. This contrast in rainfall patterns between the highlands and the lowlands has made rainfed agriculture possible in the highlands and more limited agriculture (primarily with the aid of irrigation technologies) possible in the lowlands. More important, this environmental dichotomy had a profound effect on the need for herd animals such as sheep and goats and their annual movements in search of grazing land. For the most part, since at least the Early Bronze Age (Adams 2003; Levy et al. 2002) human occupation in Edom has been characterized by nomadic or semi-nomadic populations who have searched for ways to integrate the exploitation of seasonal resources available in both the highland and lowland regions. Thus, it is impossible to understand human settlement and the history of Edom without conceptualizing and integrating these two physiographic regions. However, over the past three decades, archaeologists interested in the Iron Age of Edom have overlooked the significance of the ‘lowland’–‘highland’ dichotomy. Prior to the Jabal Hamrat Fidan Project (Levy 2002; Levy, Adams, and Najjar 1999, 2001), all the major Iron Age excavations in Edom took place in the highland zone (Bennett 1966b, 1977; Bennett and Bienkowski 1995a; Bienkowski 1990; Bienkowski and Adams 1999; Bienkowski and Bennett 2003). The lack of systematic archaeological exploration in the lowland zone also meant that the role of Iron Age copper production that took place in the lowlands was not fully investigated. As part of the deep-time study of early metallurgy and ore procurement from the Neolithic to the Iron Age (Levy et al. 2001a), one of the goals of the Jabal Hamrat Fidan (JHF) Project, made up of a team of international researchers under the auspices of the UCSD-DOAJ, has been to help fill in the Iron Age research gaps that have developed due to the ‘highland bias’ in the Iron Age
archaeology of Edom. The Jabal Hamrat Fidan is a narrow mountain range made up of Monzogranite (Rabb’a 1994) that stretches for ca. 8 km north/south along the eastern edge of the Wadi Araba and represents the ‘gateway’ to the copper ore rich district of Faynan. The research area includes some 280 km2 and is west of the main Faynan valley where various archaeology teams from the Council for British Research in the Levant have carried out mostly surveys and some excavations (Barker et al. 1997, 1999, 2000). The main seasonal drainages in the JHF research area that have been intensively and systematically surveyed for archaeological sites include the Wadi Fidan (Levy et al. 2001a), Wadi al-Jariyeh, and Wadi al-Guwayb (Levy et al. 2003). In this study, we discuss the ramifications of the stratigraphic excavations and high precision radiocarbon dating for the largest Iron Age site in the Jabal Hamrat Fidan area, Khirbat en-Nahas. First, however, it is necessary to briefly review the chronological bias in the Iron Age archaeology of Edom and how that has affected interpretation of the evolution and history of the emergence of Edomite kingdom known primarily from the Hebrew Bible and some extra-biblical texts. The Chronological Bias in the Iron Age Archaeology of Edom
Until quite recently, the Iron Age chronology of Edom rested on the discovery of a single clay seal impression discovered at the highland site of Umm el-Biyara during Crystal Bennett’s excavations in the 1960s (Bennett 1966a, 1966b). The seal contains the name of Qos-Gabr and is known from the 7th-century BCE Assyrian annals of Esarhaddon (Prism B, ca. 673-672 BCE; Pritchard 1969: 291) and in the first campaign of Ashurbanipal (Cylinder C, ca. 667 BCE; Bienkowski 1992b; Pritchard 1969: 294). Using the concept of relative dating, scholars have taken the discovery of this extra-biblical text fragment to date the Iron Age pottery found in association with it at the Iron Age site of Umm el-Biyara. As Bienkowski (1992b: 99) pointed out some years ago, the seal impression of Qos-Gabr provides a terminus post quem1 for dating the Iron Age pottery at Umm alBiyara but did not indicate just how early the Iron Age pottery found in that assemblage dated back to in time. In fact, Bienkowski (1992b: 110) also alerted readers that unpublished radiocarbon dates from the German Mining Museum’s soundings at Khirbat en-Nahas and radiocarbon dates that indicated much earlier dates for the Iron Age in Edom (ca. calibrated dates of ca. 1200-900 BCE with ‘Midianite’ pottery; see Levy et al. 2004). However, Bienkowski’s caution and the later publication of the report of the soundings at Khirbat en-Nahas in German which included radiocarbon dates (Engel 1993; Fritz 1996) fell on deaf ears. Bennett’s dating of the Iron Age in Edom to the 7th and 6th centuries BCE became the accepted standard for the Iron Age archaeology of this part of Jordan. A host of studies concerning Iron Age Edom were produced based on the assumptions established by the relative dating of Umm el-Biyara (Bennett and Bienkowski [eds.] 1995b; Bienkowski 1995; Hart 1989; Oakshott 1978, 1983; Pratico 1985, 1993b) and even more recent studies continue to work under the late 7th-6th-centuries BCE assumption for the emergence of the Edomite kingdom (Bienkowski and Bennett 2003; Crowell 2004; Porter 2004). The enthusiasm that Bennett’s late dating of Iron Age Edom received from scholars in the late 1970s to the 1990s, was in part against the views of the American archaeologist Nelson Glueck who pioneered archaeological surveys in Jordan and Iron Age excavations in Edom (Glueck 1938, 1939a, 1940a). Glueck took a more traditional view of Levantine archaeology and tended to accept extensive texts in the Hebrew Bible as historical fact in a way that many researchers believed to be biased (Dever 2000). Working in Edom, Glueck firmly believed that the majority of Iron Age mining activities in the Faynan district that he documented could be dated to the 10th century BCE
(1940a: 69) and 9th century BCE (1940a: 86) and directly related to biblical texts such as 2 Samuel 8.13-15, 1 Kings 22.45, 48-50, 2 Chronicles 20.1ff., and many more. In the early 1990s, working with published Iron Age ceramic drawings, Israel Finkelstein (1992a, 1992b) suggested that indeed there was ceramic evidence (collared rim jars) of an early Iron Age occupation in Edom that pushed back this occupation considerably earlier than the view of Bienkowski (Bienkowski 1992a) and others. To help solve this chronological debate, which has profound implications for understanding the history and socio-economic processes that led to the rise of the Edomite kingdomsuch as core-periphery relationships between Edom and the Assyrian empire on the one hand and Edom and neighboring small polities such as Israel and Judah-it was decided that as part of the JHF Project, large scale stratigraphic excavations would be carried out at the Iron Age copper production site of Khirbat en-Nahas. Previous Fieldwork at Khirbat en-Nahas Nelson Glueck’s (1939a, 1940a) surveys in Edom were the first systematic investigation of the network of Iron Age metal production sites in the lowlands of Edom and recognized the centrality of the site of Khirbat en-Nahas (KEN) in that system.
