Is the Old Testament Historically Accurate? | History | Smithsonian Magazine
This is really interesting and significant stuff that's creating a firestorm in ancient Near Eastern archaeology. At first you may wonder why a bunch of old copper mines are interesting. The answer is that this young Israeli scholar who is examining them has concluded that they rebut a whole lot of assumptions in ancient Near East archaeology. The assumptions are that nomadic societies weren't powerful, centrally organized and couldn't maintain long-term major projects like these copper mines.
These copper mines aren't simply a few holes in the ground. Rather, there are thousands of pits, some with extensive underground tunnels. Ben-Yosef estimates that it required hundreds if not thousands of miners working at a given time in order to work these mines. And the culture that undertook this effort had to also guard the mines, bring in food and water for all those miners, transport the copper, and guard the ore shipments. It was an effort that required a powerful, well organized society.
When the mines were first discovered, they were immediately pronounced as Solomon's lost mines. However, skepticism over that pronouncement grew and was replaced with the pronouncement that these were Egyptian mines from around 1400 BC. However, carbon 14 dating of materials found at the site shows that they should actually be dated to around 1000 BC when Egypt had no involvement in the Levant. Ben Yosef asserts that the mines were run and managed by the semi-nomadic nation of Edom. Prior to Ben Yosef's work, most scholars would have said that it would have been impossible for a nomadic or semi-nomadic nation like Edom to work mines of this magnitude and extent.
Ben-Yosef draws conclusions far greater than simply who worked the mines. His point is that archaeologists have been too quick to dismiss the power and capabilities of semi-nomadic societies, including Israel itself during that time period. That time period is the time of the United Monarchy, i.e., the time of Kings David and Solomon. Ben-Yosef's mentor, Israel Finkelstein, made his career by arguing that there was no United Monarchy because of the lack of archaeological evidence of such a powerful nation state. Ben-Yosef concludes that Finkelstein is wrong, and calls him out specifically in other scholarly articles he's written, contending that Finkelstein and most other archaeologists have what he calls an "architectural bias", i.e., that if they can't find significant architectural remains, then it didn't happen. Ben-Yosef points out that, but for these copper mines, we'd never have known how powerful, centralized and capable Edom was.
Ben-Yosef's conclusions, if correct, go even further. Many of the arguments against the Exodus and the Conquest boil down to the argument that the archaeological evidence is lacking. Ben-Yosef has shown (interestingly using some of Finkelstein's own arguments against him) that there shouldn't necessarily be any archaeological evidence.
This is really interesting and significant stuff that's creating a firestorm in ancient Near Eastern archaeology. At first you may wonder why a bunch of old copper mines are interesting. The answer is that this young Israeli scholar who is examining them has concluded that they rebut a whole lot of assumptions in ancient Near East archaeology. The assumptions are that nomadic societies weren't powerful, centrally organized and couldn't maintain long-term major projects like these copper mines.
These copper mines aren't simply a few holes in the ground. Rather, there are thousands of pits, some with extensive underground tunnels. Ben-Yosef estimates that it required hundreds if not thousands of miners working at a given time in order to work these mines. And the culture that undertook this effort had to also guard the mines, bring in food and water for all those miners, transport the copper, and guard the ore shipments. It was an effort that required a powerful, well organized society.
When the mines were first discovered, they were immediately pronounced as Solomon's lost mines. However, skepticism over that pronouncement grew and was replaced with the pronouncement that these were Egyptian mines from around 1400 BC. However, carbon 14 dating of materials found at the site shows that they should actually be dated to around 1000 BC when Egypt had no involvement in the Levant. Ben Yosef asserts that the mines were run and managed by the semi-nomadic nation of Edom. Prior to Ben Yosef's work, most scholars would have said that it would have been impossible for a nomadic or semi-nomadic nation like Edom to work mines of this magnitude and extent.
Ben-Yosef draws conclusions far greater than simply who worked the mines. His point is that archaeologists have been too quick to dismiss the power and capabilities of semi-nomadic societies, including Israel itself during that time period. That time period is the time of the United Monarchy, i.e., the time of Kings David and Solomon. Ben-Yosef's mentor, Israel Finkelstein, made his career by arguing that there was no United Monarchy because of the lack of archaeological evidence of such a powerful nation state. Ben-Yosef concludes that Finkelstein is wrong, and calls him out specifically in other scholarly articles he's written, contending that Finkelstein and most other archaeologists have what he calls an "architectural bias", i.e., that if they can't find significant architectural remains, then it didn't happen. Ben-Yosef points out that, but for these copper mines, we'd never have known how powerful, centralized and capable Edom was.
Ben-Yosef's conclusions, if correct, go even further. Many of the arguments against the Exodus and the Conquest boil down to the argument that the archaeological evidence is lacking. Ben-Yosef has shown (interestingly using some of Finkelstein's own arguments against him) that there shouldn't necessarily be any archaeological evidence.