Jonathan Burke (2012)

The ‘Low Chronology’ in Syro-Palestinian Archaeology

The ‘Low Chronology’ is a proposed redating of the Iron Age, placing the reigns of David

and Solomon in an era during which there is no archaeological evidence supporting them.

‘This suggested “Low Chronology” supposedly supports the replacement of this

paradigm by a new one (in fact, similar to one presented earlier by David Jamieson

Drake and others), according to which the kingdom of David and Solomon either did

not exist or comprised at best a small local entity.’1

Proposed at least as early as the 1980s,2 the redating received almost no support and

was resisted strongly by the archaeological consensus.

‘The Tel Aviv group’s idiosyncratic "low chronology," however, was not accepted by the

Jerusalem school, or by any European or American archaeologist (it still is not widely

accepted, even by all Tel Aviv archaeologists).’ 3

Objections were raised by archaeologists including Dever (1997), Mazar (1997, 1999),

Zarzeki-Peleg (1997), Ben-Tor (1998), and Ben Ami (1998).

‘The most significant studies, all opposed to Finkelstein’s "low chronology," are those

of Zarzeki-Peleg, 1997; Ben-Tor and Ben-Ami, 1998; and Mazar, 19991.’4

Finkelstein responded, but criticism was renewed in 2000 by Na’aman and Ben-Tor.5

Over the next five years Finkelstein was virtually the only promoter of the theory.

1‘This suggested “Low Chronology” supposedly supports the replacement of this paradigm by a new one (in

fact, similar to one presented earlier by David Jamieson Drake and others), according to which the kingdom of

David and Solomon either did not exist or comprised at best a small local entity.’, Mazar, ‘The Search for David

and Solomon: An Archaeological Perspective’, in Schmidt (ed.), ‘The Quest For the Historical Israel: debating

archaeology and the history of Early Israel’, p. 119 (2007).

2 Dever, ‘Biblical and Syro-Palestinian Archaeology’, in Perdue (ed.), ‘The Blackwell companion to the Hebrew

Bible’, p. 137 (2001).

3 Dever, ‘Biblical and Syro-Palestinian Archaeology’, in Perdue (ed.), ‘The Blackwell companion to the Hebrew

Bible’, pp. 137-138 (2001).

4 Dever, ‘Biblical and Syro-Palestinian Archaeology’, in Perdue (ed.), ‘The Blackwell companion to the Hebrew

Bible’, p. 202 (2001).

5 Ortiz, ‘Deconstructing and Reconstructing the United Monarch’ , in Hoffmeier & Millard (eds.), ‘The Future of

Biblical Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions’, p. 129 (2004).

Jonathan Burke (2012)

‘Currently, Finkelstein is the only outspoken proponent of the Low Chronology’.6

‘In the meantime, his views are opposed by such leading archaeologists as

Amihai Mazar of Hebrew University, excavator of Tel Rehov;* Amnon Ben-Tor of

Hebrew University, excavator of Hazor;* Lawrence Stager of Harvard University,

excavator of Ashkelon; and William Dever of the University of Arizona, excavator

of Gezer. More to the point, Finkelstein’s low chronology has not been accepted

even by his codirector at Megiddo, David Ussishkin.’7

‘It should not go unnoticed that not a single other ranking Syro-Palestinian

archaeologist in the world has come out in print in support of Finkelstein’s ‘low

chronology’.’8

Mazar and Dever note evidence agreeing with the Bible’s description of Jerusalem

under David and Solomon.

‘However, the “Stepped Stone Structure” in Area G in the City of David is a huge

retaining wall that must have supported one of the largest buildings (perhaps the

largest) of the 12th-10th centuries B.C.E. in the entire land of Israel. The pottery

evidence indicates that it was founded during the Iron Age I (12th-11th centuries B.C.E.)

and went out of use at some time after the tenth century. This fits the Biblical

description of “The Citadel of Zion” (Metsudat Zion) as a Jebusite citadel captured by

David and used as his stronghold (2 Samuel 5:7).’9

‘If the biblical Solomon had not constructed the Gezer gate and city walls, then we

would have to invent a similar king by another name.’10

6 Ortiz, ‘Deconstructing and Reconstructing the United Monarch’ , in Hoffmeier & Millard (eds.), ‘The Future of

Biblical Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions’, p. 128 (2004).

7 Shanks, ‘Reviews: Megiddo III—The 1992–1996 Seasons, Israel Finkelstein, David Ussishkin and Baruch

Halpern, Editors’, Biblical Archaeology Review (6.06), November/December 2000.

8 Dever, ‘Histories and Non-Histories of Ancient Israel: The Question of the United Monarchy’, in Day (ed.), ‘In

Search of Pre-exilic Israel: proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar’, p. 73 (2003).

9 Mazar, ‘Does Amihai Mazar Agree with Finkelstein’s “Low Chronology”?’, Biblical Archaeology Review (29.02),

March/April 2003.

10 Dever, ‘What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know it?’, p. 133 (2002).

Jonathan Burke (2012)

Garfinkel likewise says evidence supports the description of the Israelite battles with

the Philistines; 11 he cites architecture at Khirbet Qeiyafa indicating David ruled an

established state (as in the Biblical narrative),12 and Carbon 14 dated olive pits at the site

with an age within the traditional date for the reign of David.

‘As Khirbet Qeiyafa is an Iron Age IIA site, we are left with a dating post-1000 BCE, that

is, 1000–975 BCE (59.6%) or 1000–969 BCE (77.8%). These dates fit the time of King

David (ca. 1000–965 BCE) and are too early for King Solomon (ca. 965–930 BCE).’13

Garfinkel believes the evidence from Khirbet Qeiyafa to be conclusive, and has declared

‘Low chronology is now officially dead and buried’.14

‘The four new C14 results from Khirbet Qeiyafa clearly indicate that the “low

chronology” and the “ultra-low chronology” are unacceptable.’15

‘The biblical text, the single-phase city at Khirbet Qeiyafa, and the radiometric dates

each stands alone as significant evidence clearly indicating that the biblical tradition

does bear authentic geographical memories from the 10th century BCE Elah Valley.

There is no ground for the assumption that these traditions were fabricated in the late

7th century BCE or in the Hellenistic period.’16

11

Garfinkel, ‘Khirbet Qeiyafa: Sha’arayim’, Journal of Hebrew Scriptures (8.22.6). 2008.

12 Garfinkel, ‘Khirbet Qeiyafa: Sha’arayim’, Journal of Hebrew Scriptures (8.22.5). 2008.

13 Garfinkel, ‘Khirbet Qeiyafa: Sha’arayim’, Journal of Hebrew Scriptures (8.22.13). 2008.

14 Garfinkel & Ganor, ‘Khirbet Qeiyafa: An Early Iron IIa Fortified City in Judah’, presentation to the American

Schools of Oriental Research, slide 24 (2010).

15 Garfinkel, ‘Khirbet Qeiyafa: Sha’arayim’, Journal of Hebrew Scriptures (8.22.4-5). 2008.

16 Garfinkel, ‘Khirbet Qeiyafa: Sha’arayim’, Journal of Hebrew Scriptures (8.22.5-6). 2008.