by Damien Mackey

November 7th, 2004

The fundamental starting point for any biblically-conscious reconstruction of the history of the ancient Near East has to be with the identification of the Middle Bronze I (MBI) nomadic people with the Israelites under Moses and Joshua!

I now intend to elaborate upon this.

Introductory: A Full Dimensional Archaeology

The typical archaeological views about the Conquest tend to dismiss it as mythological. Thus M. Lemonick wrote [0100]:

Unlike the Exodus, the story of Joshua and the conquest of Canaan can be tested against a rich archaeological record.[120] The scientific consensus: bad news for the biblical account. According to the Book of Joshua, the Israelite leader and his armies swept into Canaan, destroying cities including Jericho, Hazor and Ai…. Archaeology tells a more complicated tale.... Joshua's conquest would have taken place in the 13th century B.C. But British researcher Kathleen Kenyon, who excavated at Jericho for six years, found no evidence of destruction at that time. Indeed, says Dead Sea Scrolls curator emeritus Broshi, "the city was destroyed from the beginning of the 15th century until the 11th century B.C." So was Ai.... And so, according to archaeological surveys, was most of the land surrounding the cities. Says Broshi: "The central hill regions of Judea and Samaria were practically uninhabited. The Israelites didn't have to kill and burn to settle".

In other words, the conventional LBA scenario for the Conquest is an extremely poor fit at major points for the detailed account of the Conquest as given in the Book of Joshua. An MBII based model may expose the inadequacies of the conventional model, be it an 18^th or a 19^th dynasty (i.e. Egypt's New Kingdom) placement of the Exodus, is very good. This subject has already been adequately dealt with anyway by other revisionists (Velikovsky, Courville, Bimson, James, Rohl, Zwick, etc.). S. Vaninger, for instance, has written [0200]:

At none of the points [in LBA] is a cultural break indicated in the archaeological strata that would suggest the arrival of a new people. At none of these points has there been found any evidence of fortified cities at Jericho and Ai, much less of a destruction level. At none has there been found a previous occupation at Arad and Hormah that is required by Numbers 21:1-3 and Judges 1:17. In short, at none of these points has there been any real success in matching the archaeological evidence with biblical conquest narratives.

Vaninger could also have included here, for example, the absence in LBA of Hebron and Gibeon [0300]. This lack of harmony has led even certain conventional scholars, like Stiebing (see here) cautiously to admit that an earlier archaeological placement of the Conquest "would solve some problems".

For revisionists now, Broshi's assertion above, with regard to a/an LBA Conquest, is of no significance, as the Conquest is of necessity to be placed earlier than LBA; some revisionists opting for the Early Bronze Age (EBA), and others, like BSM, for the Middle Bronze Age (MBA).

And perhaps here is where the problem lies for the revisionists, in that, whilst the EBA and MBA models, pure and simple, are immensely superior from a biblical perspective to the conventional LBA model, they do create certain serious anomalies of their own at major points.

Why?

Because, as I see it, they are yet too one-dimensional, too linear; so typical of modern dating methods. Let me explain this by means of an extremely telling quote from a book by Dame Kathleen Kenyon, who nevertheless - as we saw above - was in large part responsible for the negative view about a destruction of Jericho by Joshua and his forces. Kenyon has been rightly critical of the purely linear approach in regard to the Stone Ages in Palestine, strongly recommending an overlap of several of these phases [0400]:

Dr. John Osgood had shown, in a clinching piece of archaeological evidence, in an earlier T.J, [0600] that the Amorite-held Hazezon-Tamar (that is, En-gedi, 2 Chronicles 20:2) that the coalition of four sacked, on its way to fight against the kings of Pentapolis (Sodom, Gomorrah, etc.), can only be that of the Chalcolithic period (the other major settlements, Roman and Israelite, being obviously irrelevant here).

So I think that, from what has been discussed so far, 2 major points need to be rigorously applied when determining upon a reconstruction of the Exodus/Conquest:

(1) Does the newly-proposed revision provide us with a well-integrated stratigraphy and history for that era?

And:

(2) Does it allow for an appropriate time for the patriarchs (such as Abraham)?

But more immediately, in regard to the Exodus,

(3) Does it enable for an appropriate setting for Moses (and Joseph before him)?

No longer can revised reconstructions justifiably deal with one particular biblical locus, without also being able to show convincingly how this effects, and can accommodate, what comes before and after it. It is therefore important to not just be confined to the Exodus/Conquest in an MBII model, but to look beyond, backwards and forwards. Why this may be so I shall now enlarge upon.

Courville's Contribution

Surprisingly to me - though it seems to be quite fashionable amongst revisionists - is the ready dismissal of Dr. D. Courville's stratigraphical suggestions. Courville's revision was more systematic, and more stratigraphically-based, than was Velikovsky's; though perhaps a bit stodgy as opposed to Velikovsky's exciting and eminently readable publications. Unfortunately, Courville does not appear to have appreciated the full stratigraphical implications of his pre-Egyptian New Kingdom realignment. Easier of course to recognize these things after years of hindsight advantage. To my way of thinking, Courville's quite revolutionary reconstruction of Egypt's Old and Middle kingdoms, cutting right against the Indian file, linear approach, by

(i) situating the Middle kingdom "side by side" (to use Kenyon's phrase) with the Old, and
(ii) setting the Second Intermediate following the Middle kingdom "side by side" with the First Intermediate Period following the Old Kingdom - and thereby lopping off about 7 centuries of useless conventional history - is the key to Abraham, Joseph, Moses, the Pyramids, the Exodus and the Conquest!

Ignore Courville at your peril, I would like to suggest to revisionists. Unhappily, most do. Courville's realignment of the Middle Kingdom against the Old Kingdom is perhaps the most important Kenyon type, necessary "link" that the revision has identified. A purely MBII based stratigraphic model therefore may want to consider D. Courville's contribution(s) on this issue.

Why is Courville's realignment so important?

Well, it solves significant historico-archaeological problems, such as the problem Egyptologists have expressed as to how the Giza pyramids could have been created in the Old Kingdom when the technology for this was not available until the Middle Kingdom. Not to mention how there can be so little documentary evidence, so little known, for/about pharaoh Khufu (Cheops) who was apparently powerful enough nonetheless to have overseen the construction of one of the Seven Wonders of the ancient world: the great Giza Pyramid. As I read in today "Cheops' final resting place has never been found despite decades of investigation at the [Great Pyramid] site …" [0800].

Also there is the problem of who caused Breasted's "carnival of destruction" at the end of the Old Kingdom, in the anarchic First Intermediate Period? [0900] The answer: the Hyksos invaders of the anarchic so-called Second Intermediate Period. And, most especially relevant for this analysis, Courville's Old-Middle kingdom "link" enables for that more full-bodied stratigraphy, a combination of EBA & MBA - instead of a purely MBII based model's somewhat skinny and anomaly-prone MBA alone - to accommodate fully the Joshuan Conquest in an archaeological context.

Similarly, regarding the Exodus, the Courvillean realignment of early Egyptian history serves to solve some major problems and to harmonise some great insights. Apart from - as we shall see - enabling for a full identification of Moses, and of Joseph before him, it serves to reconcile the seemingly divergent views of two giants of Sinai/Palestinian desert archaeology, Professor Emmanuel Anati - for whom Egypt's Old Kingdom provides the appropriate backdrop for the era of Moses and the Exodus, and the EBA era for the Conquest [1000] - and Dr. Rudolph Cohen - for whom the Middle Kingdom's 12^th dynasty of Egypt is the likely setting for Israel's Oppression in Egypt and the Exodus, and for whom the MB I people are clearly the Israelites [1100] In that same year of 1983, Vaninger [1200] wrote this about Cohen's classical identification of the MBI people with the Israelites:

One of the arguments Cohen uses to defend his "new hypothesis" concerns the migration pattern of the new people from Sinai into Transjordan and from Transjordan into Southern and then Northern Cis-jordan. Thus Cohen is able to say that "the similarity between the course of the MBI migration and the route of the Exodus seems too close to be coincidental".

I recall that Dr. John Osgood provided maps in an earlier T.J. showing almost identical occupation patterns in the Negev/Palestine/Transjordan between the MBI people and the Israelites according to the Book of Joshua. And Dr. David Down, regular visitor to the Middle East, mentioned in a 2002 issue of Archaeological Diggings that other Israeli archaeologists digging in southern Palestine and the Negev were now in agreement with his view that MBI were the Israelites (as opposed to archaeologists in the north, who were not of that opinion).

Unhappily, on the only occasion that BSM does borrow from Courville, it is where the latter had made a miscalculation that has served

(a) to obscure the Egyptian identity of Moses and
(b) to throw Joseph right out of place.

I shall now explain this.

The Pre-Exodus Eras

Joseph (and Abram)

Courville had discerned a very Joseph-like vizier in the highly-honoured, even pharaoh-like, Mentuhotep whom he considered to have been the vizier of Sesostris I of the 12^th dynasty. And he followed F. Griffiths in his associating of this Sesostris I with a great famine. [1300] Seemingly all the ingredients were here for the biblical Joseph. BSM, quoting from Courville the immense privileges of Mentuhotep, appears to accept the entire Courvillean package here. But Gammon [1400] has shown that this same famine was located by Vandier to the beginning of the 11^th dynasty. I, whilst concurring with both Courville and some other biblically based interpreters that Mentuhotep was indeed Joseph, would like to propose, following Vandier, that this Mentuhotep belonged to the 11^th, not 12^th dynasty. I do this for many strong reasons. E.g:

[I have shown in other articles how both the Egyptian name 'Moses', and the name Sinuhe, can be boiled down to 2 common linguistic elements (i) Sa ('Son', 'Child') and (ii) Mu or Nu ('Water'); hence 'Child of the Water', plus the inevitable theophoric, Re or Hat: thus 'Child Drawn from the Water by Hathor', as personified by pharaoh's daughter].

The scenario that I am proposing here stacks up very well with a combination of the biblical data and Josephus that there was (a) "a new king" (Amenemes I), that is, the founder of a new dynasty, who oppressed Israel for many years (during Moses' birth to age 40); (b) his successor (Sesostris I) from whom Moses fled, and returned to Egypt only after this pharaoh had died, forty years later; and finally (c) the brief reigning, about 1 year, pharaoh of the Exodus (Amenemes IV?), who drowned. Again, other biblically based models also note, as had Courville, that the mummy of Amenemes IV has never been found.

My revision demands that there be an amalgamation of Amenemes I-III and of Sesostris I-III, so that it is all the one Amenemes, and all the one Sesostris. The dictatorial Amenemes III, so-called, can then also be the "new king" of Exodus 1:8 whom he well matches. This Amenemes completely reorganized Egypt, his reign being "one of the summits of state absolutism" [1700].

The brutal expressions on the faces of Amenemes and Sesostris have been noted by conventionalists and revisionists alike.

If a stratigraphic model, on the other had, has to make Sesostris III - who did not found the 12^th dynasty - the biblical "new king", it is not surprising that such a model can offer no candidate for Moses himself.

Old and Middle Kingdom Integration

But the 12^th dynasty is only one face, the Middle Kingdom face, to these mighty characters of Moses' era. Each one must also have an Old Kingdom I.D. or I.D's. They have that, for one, I suggest, in the Old Kingdom's 4^th dynasty, and again in the 6^th dynasty.

In the 4^th dynasty, for example we have again the succession of

(a) the founder, oppressor king, Khufu/Cheops (= Amenemes I-III);

(b) his successor, Kheper-ka-re/Chephren (= Sesostris I-III).

In the 6^th dynasty we have

(a) the founder, Teti (who has great likenesses to Amenemes I as we shall soon see on the next page); and

(b) the long-reigning, Pepi I/II, plus, in this case

(c) the one-year reigning Merenre (= Amenemes IV?), who thus becomes a very good candidate for the Pharaoh of the Exodus.

And, fittingly, both the 6^th and 12^th dynasty's end with a woman ruler (Nitocris, Sebeknoferure), quite rare in Egyptian history - presumably the same person - having of necessity to rule with all the male candidates dead from either drowning or plague.

Moses/Sinuhe would be, in the case of the 4^th dynasty, Mycerinus. Jewish (Talmudic) tradition says that Moses was "a king". (Petrie claimed that Sinuhe held a very high rank, being "either the son of the king or of a very great noble") [1800]. The name Mycerinus also appears to have those same Moses name elements of Mu and Sa, plus the theophoric, Re (plus a Greco-Latin ending -nus). Herodotus contrasted the oppressive and much-hated Cheops and Chephren (who each reigned for nearly half a century), with the goodly successor, Mycerinus [1900].

With Moses also situated to the Old Kingdom's 4^th dynasty, then we can also positively identify his predecessor Joseph's Old Kingdom face, as the versatile Imhotep of the 3^rd dynasty, famous even down to Ptolemaïc times; and especially famous for his association with a famine at the time of pharaoh Zoser (Djoser).

T. Chetwynd [2000] has drawn up a series of interesting parallels between Joseph and Imhotep (a name that blends well with Mentuhotep, given that the hotep part would be expected to carry a different theophoric conotation given the location - e.g. Imhotep with reference to northern Egypt and Mentuhotep with reference to the south. Whilst Courville failed to connect Imhotep with Joseph; his paralleling of the 3^rd dynasty with the 1^st, using "eight lines of evidence" [Here], including a famine, could enable for a further filling out of Joseph and his era. The 1^st dynasty has at this time a ruler called Usaphais, the first part of whose name, Usaph, has a close phonetic resemblance Yusef, Joseph's Hebrew name.

Further Integration (4^th and 12^th dynasties)

The links between Chephren of the Old Kingdom and Sesostris I of the Middle Kingdom are found in

(a) the Egyptian name common to both, Kha-kheper-re of (the Greek version) Chephren, and, for Sesostris I (similarly for Sesostris II/III), Kheper-ka-re; a name containing the exact same elements as the Egyptian name;

(b) perhaps in the name Sesonchosis that Courville found common to Chephren and Sesostris I; and

(c) in their fanatical sphinx building (Chephren being of course the builder of the Great Sphinx, and see Grimal on Sesotris I and his sphinxes).

Moreover, Sesostris I married Cheops' daughter Meres-ankh, in which name can clearly be seen the traditional name Merris for the pharaoh's daughter who drew the baby Moses from the river. Chephren himself has a name that comes close to the Chenephres of tradition from whom Moses is said to have fled.

(6^th and 12^th dynasties)

Further links between the Old and Middle Kingdom for these famous characters may be found in the stunning likenesses that Grimal has noted between 12^th dynasty founder Amenemes I and the 6th dynasty founder, Teti,

(a) in their names;
(b) in the growing civil disorder, and
(c) possibility of reign ending in assassination [2100].

Our composite new founder king (Cheops/Amenemes/Teti), who in his guise of Amenemes is thought to have hailed from the south, is probably the same as the 6^th dynasty's wealthy Khui (hence Khufu, Khnum-khefui) of Abydos, whose daughter Ankhenesmerire (same name as Meres-ankh) married Teti's long-reigning successor Pepi (hence Chephren).

The harem conspiracy at the time (6^th dynasty) may find its resonance in the Story of Sinuhe (12^th dynasty).

Some may claim that Courville must be dismissed because EB artifacts cannot be found in MB levels, or vice versa. Certainly Courville did not go very far in integrating the Old and Middle kingdoms, or in showing how they could be fitted together archaeologically. He had thought that the 12^th dynasty was concurrent only with the 6th, without his having any notion that it was also concurrent with - was in fact the same as - the 4^th. Dr. John Osgood though took matters further when he pointed out, with reference to Edwards, the great similarity in mortuary temple styles between the 6^th dynasty and the 12^th; an unlikely coincidence, he thought, if these dynasties were, as convention has them, 300 years apart [2200]:

Edwards certainly opens the possibility unconsciously when referring to the pyramid of Sesostris the First:

"... and the extent to which its Mortuary Temple was copied from the Mortuary Temples of the VIth dynasty, as illustrated by that of Pepi II [with whom I have identified Sesostris I], is clearly evident."

The return of a culture to what it was before ... after some three hundred years must be an uncommon event. The theoretical possibility that the two cultures, the Twelfth and the Sixth Dynasties were in fact contemporary and followed a common pattern of Mortuary Temple must be borne in mind as real.

Obviously, there is yet much more work to be done on the archaeological integration of the Old and Middle Kingdoms of Egypt.

The Exodus/Conquest Era

Everything changes (by way of contrast with the conventional scenario) when the Conquest is located earlier, to the Canaanite EBIII stage, with the conquerors being the MBI people whom, according to Down, more and more experts archaeological experts are calling the 'Israelites'. Even conventional scholar Stiebing, who rejects an MBI conquest of EBIII as the time of Joshua, admits that the Conquest's has arguments in its favour. Let us then firstly listen to Stiebing's important distinctions between EBIII and MBI [2300]:

Several scholars believe that agreement between archaeology and the Bible can be achieved if the conquest is placed at the end of the Early Bronze Age. The latter part of the Early Bronze Age was an era of widespread urbanization in Palestine (including the Negev) and Transjordan. But almost every one of the flourishing Palestinian cities was destroyed at the end of the … EB III period. The succeeding era ... MBI was characterized by a non-urban pastoral society. The change from EB III to MB I has often been seen as a total cultural break. The urban culture of EB III was succeeded by an era in which there were no true cities in Palestine, only small villages consisting of a few flimsy, poorly built structures. Pottery types and other artifacts were very different in the two periods.

The Early Bronze practice of multiple burials in large caves was replaced by single or double burials in smaller tombs, and the differences between the tomb styles and burial practices during the MB I period might indicate that they belonged to non-sedentary groups with a tribal social structure. This view that the EB III culture was almost totally destroyed and replaced by that of invading semi-nomadic tribes has led some scholars to place the Israelite conquest of Canaan at this point in the archaeological history of Palestine.

Stiebing now points to what he considers to be certain advantages of this interpretation:

An EB III exodus and conquest would solve some problems. Both Ai and Jericho were large, walled cities during EB III and were destroyed at the end of that era. And the widespread destruction of cities and the changes in material culture which took place at the end of EB III could be credited to the invading Israelites. The almost total cultural break between EB III and MB I could indicate that the Israelites conquered virtually all of Palestine and massacred most of the Canaanite population, just as the Bible says.

Such a scenario, Stiebing goes on to tell, has recently been strengthened by the testimony of experts.

Firstly by Dr. Cohen:

This view has been bolstered in recent years by Israeli archaeologist Rudolph Cohen's claim that the spread of the MB I culture into Palestine follows the pattern which the Bible gives for the invading Israelites. Cohen argues that the MB I culture first appeared in northern Sinai and the southern Negev, spread through Transjordan, then across the Jordan into the southern hill country, and finally into northern Palestine. ....

Secondly, by Professor Anati:

Emmanuel Anati, professor of paleo-ethnology at the University of Lecce, in Italy, furthermore has found an EB III/MB I holy mountain which he claims is Mount Sinai. Anati discovered a great concentration of rock art (much of it with what seem to be religious themes) at Har Karkom, a mountain in the southern Negev of Israel. He also found standing stones and altars, suggesting that this mountain had been a place of religious pilgrimage. All in all, he feels it fits the Bible's description of Mount Sinai quite well. The largest number of habitation sites near Har Karkom and the greatest volume of rock art there belong to the Early Bronze Age and Middle Bronze Age I. There seems to have been little activity at this site during the Middle Bronze II, Late Bronze, and Iron Ages.

.... So, if Har Karkom was Mount Sinai (as Anati believes), then the Exodus must have begun during the Early Bronze Age and the conquest must have taken place at the end of EB III.

Dr. Cohen, known as 'the King of the South', is highly qualified to speak about the discoveries in this part of the world where he has been excavating for the last 25 or so years. He thus roughly approximates that era of Israeli archaeologists of the 60's-80's who, according to Broshi, "didn't find a single piece of evidence backing the Israelites' supposed 40-year sojourn in the desert". Anyway, as we have seen, things have changed since the 60's and 80's, with now third millennium archaeologists in the region concluding quite differently from those earlier excavators.

Uniquely qualified, too, is professor Anati, who has been labouring in the Sinai/Paran wilderness for as long as the wandering Israelites were said to have: 40 years (Numbers 14:33).

Kadesh Barnea

Dr. Cohen [2400] has provided an interesting account of the archaeological situation at Kadesh Barnea - a place of great familiarity to the Israelites during their sojourn in the desert (cf. Num 32:8; Deut. 9:23; Josh 14:7). Prior to the irruption of the MBI people into the Negev, Cohen writes, that region had been occupied by a Canaanite people of the EBIII era, as indicated by the Kadesh pottery styles. The end of EBIII came about with destruction and ruin. No more occupation after that. But, interestingly, there were numerous MBI settlements in the surrounding area. The pottery styles and way of life of this new people were sharply different from those of the Canaanites; e.g., the MBI people preferred to settle on hills rather than in the valleys as the Canaanites had done.

Importantly, the MBI culture showed a definite Egyptian influence. Albright [2500] referred to "the preponderance of weapons and ornaments made in Egypt, or made after Egyptian models". Albright, of course, was not intending to identify the MBI people with the Israelites. And Cohen himself noted that these MBI people carried with them grinding stones made of Aswan granite, conch shells from the Red Sea and even fragments of ostrich egg shells (ostriches being native to Africa).

Thus I insist, as at the beginning of this paper:

A purely MBII based model

(i) completely misses out on the crucial MBI = Israelites scenario; and
(b) can propose no occupancy of the important Kadesh-Barnea (lacking evidence for MBII), or
(c) of sojourning in the vicinity of Mount Karkom (for same reason).

The MBI Conquest

For this section I shall be sticking to the simple idea, as discussed above, that the MBI people were the Israelites who destroyed the major EBIII Canaanite sites. The situation is actually more complex than this, as we should expect from our previous comments that stratigraphy does not follow a neat, linear pattern. Of necessity too would the MBI Israelites, because of their abrupt departure from Egypt and their nomadic circumstances, reflect quite a rudimentary form of MB culture; more basic than the stable, urban civilisations that they conquered. These latter should largely reflect a sophisticated Middle Kingdom/MBA culture.

In fact, to arrive at a full archaeological picture of the Conquest and early Judges period is quite a daunting task, because we might expect these variations:

Vaninger [2700] goes on to quote Aharoni in regard to this Judges era situation of booth dwelling (emphasis added):

"The [MBI] settlements [Aharoni calls them Middle Canaanite I] were poor and temporary, and their houses are more reminiscent of sheds and booths than real buildings".

So, the situation is extremely complex.

However, much of the archaeological data and the Bible can be correlated by this simple application of MBI = Israelite conquest.

Now, Vaninger, who accepts the MBI = Israelite scenario is a useful guide here with the following ten points of his [2800]:

Another Conquest

.... There is an abundance of positive archaeological evidence for synchronizing the conquest with the end of the Early Bronze III period. ....

Jericho (at first glance)

The Israelites destroyed the inhabitants of Jericho and burned the city to the ground (v.24). Joshua placed Jericho at that time under a curse; so that whoever rebuilt its wall would do so at the cost of the lives of his two sons (v.26). This prediction was fulfilled more than half a millennium later, at the time of king Ahab (I Kings 16:34).

Taking as our guide the biblical scenario, we should expect that the archaeologists would find at the appropriate stratum on the mound of ancient Jericho (modern Tell es Sultan), a mighty Canaanite city, well fortified with strong walls. We should further expect them to find that these walls had collapsed, apparently as the result of an earthquake.

Quite a unique set of circumstances!

In 1930 the British researcher, John Garstang, undertook an investigation of the site of Jericho that lasted for six years. Among Garstang's finds was the discovery of the double line of walls around the city that had been thrown down violently, apparently by an earthquake. Garstang positively regarded these as the walls destroyed by Joshua. The bricks of the walls had been thrown down the sides of the slope of the mound, and the outer wall base had been tilted outward, giving further indication that the destruction had been a violent one by natural causes. We should furthermore expect archaeologists to find that there occurred the destruction by fire of the city inside these walls. Kenyon, describing the ferocity with which the destruction of the EBIII city at Jericho came about, wrote [2900]:

The final end of the Early Bronze Age civilization came with catastrophic completeness. The last of the Early Bronze walls of Jericho was built in a great hurry, using old and broken bricks, and was probably not completed when it was destroyed by fire. Little or none of the town inside the walls has survived subsequent denudation, but it was probably completely destroyed for all the finds show an absolute break, and that a new people took the place of the earlier inhabitants. Every town in Palestine that has so far been investigated shows this same break. [2950]

Courville [3000] has suggested that the evident haste in erecting the last of these protective walls "reflects in an amazing manner the fear of the people of Jericho at the rumors of the approach of the armies of Israel". As formidable as were the defenses already prepared, there was a hasty effort to strengthen these fortifications (cf. Joshua 2:9-11). But there is even more correspondence. According to an intriguing detail of supporting evidence as gleaned by Anati from the Book of Joshua, EBIII Jericho alone qualifies for the city destroyed by the Israelites [3100]:

With regard to the correspondence between archaeology and biblical descriptions, if the latter is reliable in terms of historical reconstruction, then the following passage may prove to be particularly significant:

'Rahab let them down from the window by a rope, for her house was against the city wall itself' (Jos 2:15). Which of the archaeological layers that have been excavated might correspond to this description? ...

This ... description can only refer to a form of urban planning and surrounding wall from the Early Bronze Age....

There were no windows that looked towards the outside of the walls, during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages, either at Jericho or at any other site in the Syro-palestinian region.

Once more, a biblical stratigraphic model set entirely in MBII, would not be able to account for this testimony by Professor Anati that only the EBIII Jericho has this particular biblical feature?

Stiebing's Criticism of the MBI - Israelites Scenario

An EB III overtaken by MB I scenario is all well and good as far as it goes. But it, like any other purely linear approach, cannot accommodate all of the data. We should expect - from what has already been argued - for an MBA civilisation already to have been established in Canaan before the arrival of the MBI people. Recognition of this complexity will, I believe, help to solve the stratigraphical problems now to be considered.

There are some glaring anomalies associated with the simple proposal of an MBI Israelite conquest of EBIII Canaanite, which some MBII based models have also recognized. It is undoubtedly these that are keeping certain archaeologists from fully embracing the seemingly obvious MBI = Israelites equation. First of all I shall give Stiebing's general points that are unfavorable to this simple equation; and, after that, his more specific points in relation to certain problematical sites. We shall now find that even Jericho has its anomalies.

(i) General

The general stratigraphical problem of the Courville/Vaninger model - and indeed the complexities of stratigraphy - is/are well explained by Stiebing [3200], who had previously noted this model's strong points:

This theory, however, contains a major inconsistency in dealing with cultural breaks in Palestinian archaeology. On the one hand, the break between EB III and MB I is seen as evidence for the invasion of a new population group. But the equally complete and dramatic change from MB I to MB IIA .... is supposedly due only to the Israelites' settling down and becoming more urbane.

Vaninger tries to remove this inconsistency by minimizing the cultural discontinuity between MB I and MB IIA and by arguing that population growth, climatic change, new pottery-making techniques, and influence from the north through trade account for the differences between the two periods.

.... But he rejects the opinion of archaeologists who have argued for continuity between EB III and MB I on much the same grounds - that the changes reflect socio-cultural fluctuations between periods of urban settlement and eras of pastoralism and small villages, rather than invasions by new groups of people. .... Vaninger justifies his different treatment of the two periods of cultural change by noting that major destructions mark the end of EB III towns while no destruction levels delineate the end off MB I.... However, climatic changes and internal strife can lead to widespread destruction, abandonment and urbanization, and a reversion to pastoral life. The EB III destructions do not necessarily prove that an invasion took place.

On the other hand, since during the MB I period there were only small semi-nomadic encampments or villages in Palestine, rather than cities, destruction levels should not be expected. If invaders had arrived in strength at the end of MB I they would have had little reason to burn and destroy the undefended villages they found, especially since most of the MB I settlements were in the Negev, an area in which the MB IIA population chose not to settle. So destruction layers at the end of EB III do not prove that an invasion occurred then, nor does the lack of destruction levels at the end of MB I prove there was no invasion at that time. The changes between MB I and MB IIA are comparable to those between EB III and MB I. If such changes signal the appearance of new population groups at the end of EB III, then the abrupt change from MB I pastoralism to the new urban culture of MB IIA should also be credited to invaders.

(ii) Specific Sites

Stiebing continues [3300]:

... excavations have shown that Beth-shean, Dor, and Beth-shemesh were not occupied in EB III ..., and thus could not have survived the Israelite conquest as the Book of Judges claims.
... Shiloh and Gaza present major problems for theories of an EB III conquest. Shiloh was one of the centers of Israelite activity during the period of the Judges (Joshua 18:1-10; Judges 21:12,19; etc.) and Gaza was a Philistine city which plays an important role in the stories about Samson (Judges 13-16). Yet Shiloh (Khirbet Seilun) was occupied for the first time in MB IIB (which begins just before the time of Saul, according to the Courville/Vaninger chronology), while Gaza (Tell Harube) was not occupied until the Late Bronze Age (which equals the Divided Monarchy in their system)....

It should be noted immediately though, with regard to Shiloh, that scholars are not unanimous as to its true location [3400]. As for Gaza, its emergence in LBA is exactly what one would expect from the stratigraphical pattern that I shall now begin to trace, following Bimson.

Jericho (at second glance)

Bimson's Stratigraphical Model

Bimson has shown how the archaeological data for the end of MBA Jericho corresponds strikingly well with the conquest scenario [3500]:

In analysing the Biblical account, we must go back to Numbers, 25. Here, just a few weeks or months before the attack on Jericho, we find the Israelites living in a camp which extends along the eastern side of the Jordan just opposite the city.... During this time the area was affected by a severe plague. Numbers 25:9 reports that 24,000 Israelites died of this plague. In due course the Jordan was crossed (Josh. 3) and a new camp established at Gilgal. From here the campaign against Jericho was launched. The Israelite victory was assured when an earthquake broke down the city's walls. The inhabitants were slaughtered and the whole city burned to the ground.
Precisely the same sequence of events is evidenced by archaeological finds from the final phase of MBA Jericho. Late in the series of MBA tombs at Jericho, several multiple burials are evidenced. Kenyon has concluded from these that "some catastrophe caused high mortality on an occasion very late in the history of Middle Bronze Age Jericho".... All the evidence points to the conclusion that MBA Jericho "suffered a plague" shortly before the greater catastrophe of the city's destruction.... It is logical to identify this plague with the one which struck the Israelite camp at Shittim in Numbers 25. Shittim was not very far from Jericho. It was from there that spies were sent out to the city (Joshua 2:1)....
Evidence for an earthquake at the end of MBA Jericho comes from the tombs containing the multiple burials. Organic material contained in these tombs was found to be unusually well preserved. F.E. Zeuner, who carried out tests in some of these tombs when they were first opened, concluded that the material was preserved because a short while after the burials were made, natural gas containing methane and carbon dioxide entered the tombs and brought the process of biological destruction to an end.... Earth movement and resultant fissuring are suggested as the best explanation of how this gas was suddenly released into the tombs.

The MBA city was destroyed in a terrible conflagration [3600]:

"All the Middle Bronze Age buildings were violently destroyed by fire .... There is no doubt from the scorched surfaces of the walls and floors of the violence of the conflagration".... Dame Kathleen Kenyon, who wrote these words, concluded from the violence of the destruction that this burning was the result of an enemy attack on the city....

Further in favour of Bimson's revision, against Courville/Vaninger's, is the following [3700]:

According to the Biblical tradition, there was no city at Jericho between the Conquest and the reign of Ahab. We have seen that in the scheme offered above, the archaeological evidence confirms this picture. In Courville's scheme, however, the archaeological findings do not correspond with the Biblical tradition at all, since the strongly fortified and populous MB II city fills the period which ought to have been one of abandonment or, at the most, sporadic temporary habitation....

Moreover, that Bimson's synchronism between the MBA phase at Jericho and Egypt's Middle Kingdom is accurate is apparent from the nature of the scarabs there [3800]:

... only four of the MBA scarabs bear royal names. Three of these definitely come from the Twelfth and Thirteenth (pre-Hyksos) Dynasties.... The date of the fourth, which bears the obscure name "Sheshi", is debated. In Gardiner's view, however, scarabs bearing this name date from immediately prior to the rise of the Hyksos. The Sheshi scarab from Jericho was found in one of the multiple burials which date from very near the end of the MBA city's history.

The question for Courville and Vaninger, but not for a MBII based model, becomes: If the Israelites had previously left an Egypt that had seen the demise of all the 12th dynasty pharaohs, how come it is the MBA city at Jericho (which Courville would presumably maintain was built some time after the era of Joshua) that contains the scarabs of the 12th dynasty kings?

More precisely, Bimson has noted that scarabs of Sesostris I of the 12th dynasty begin to occur in MBII A contexts in Western Asia. But Egyptian Middle Kingdom objects are far more numerous in MBII B-C, which - according to convention - was the Hyksos period [3900. Bimson has thus rejected MBII as the Hyksos period. Instead he has concluded that, since MBII was contemporaneous with Egypt's Middle Kingdom, then LBI was, at least partially, contemporaneous with the Hyksos period [4000].

Summation of Jericho

It seems to me that the EB III city of Jericho and the MB II one, similarly collapsed by earthquake and fiercely burned by invaders, must be one and the same complex. It is unlikely that the exact same, very unique set of circumstances would have been repeated centuries later. With this in mind, Vaninger's comments about MB II Jericho [4100] are extremely interesting:

First, to suppose that the MB II city of Jericho was a large and important site as required by conquest narratives (Joshua 2;6) is largely a matter of conjecture.

Excavations of Jericho have uncovered an MBII occupation in only a small area on the center of the east side of the tell. While it is true that a thick layer of MB II wash at the foot of the tell indicates that at least part of the MB II city was eroded away, this evidence does not prove that the MB II city covered the entire tell, as is usually assumed. It seems best to take the available evidence at face value - that MB II Jericho may not have been more than a relatively small settlement.

Second, the excavators reported that the earliest MB II walls and buildings closely resemble those of the EBIII period.

Finally, Bethel and Ai are also problems for the purely MB II model, forcing a proposed re-location of the site of Ai from the traditional et-Tell, which location fits the Conquest details for Ai down to the last detail (e.g. the pile of rocks as recorded in the Bible can be found there), to Khirbet Nisya.

Concluding remarks

While the conventional view of a conquest during LBA is quite inadequate, strong arguments can be made for either the EBIII and MBA scenarios. But both of these latter also have their shortcomings. It is only when EBA and MBA are properly integrated - the logical result of Courville's revision of pre-New Kingdom Egypt - that the full picture emerges and the anomalies disappear. The EBIII city whose walls fell outward, that was burned to the ground, must be recognised as the same as the MBA city that suffered earthquake and was burned. This was the city contemporaneous with Egypt's 6^th and 12^th dynasties - and with the Exodus - that the Joshuan forces attacked and destroyed.

Any one-dimensional stratigraphy for the Exodus/Conquest is unable to account for much of the scriptural data.

Khufu's Queen was Hetepheres II

Khufu's mother was Hetepheres I

There was a Princess Henutsen

He built pyramids for his wives

He did not build pyramids for his wives.

His Queens were Iput and Kawit/Khuit
Kawit was the mother of Pepi

The pyramids are small but have substantial chapels.

The unproven story is that Teti was murdered by his bodyguard.

He built his once finely cased pyramid at the northern edge of the Saqqara plateau. The entrance was from the north side.

His Queen Weret-Imtes conspired against him and was punished.

His nobles showed rising influence and wealth.

He built his pyramid at South Saqqara.

He built pyramids for his wives

We are not certain if there was a Teti II.

A wife of Pepi II was Ankhenespepy III

He built pyramids for his wives

Father = Senusret
Mother = Nefert
Had a son with same name as his father, Senusret
King was murdered
Took new title, "Repeator-of-Births"
Introduced coreign

Constructed a smaller pyramid with the inner core being small lime stone blocks from older monuments at Giza and Abusir. The exterior was made of Tura limestone. We know little about the interior design since access is denied by ground water seepage. The once finely relief-decorated mortuary temple has been largely destroyed.

Father was Amenemhet I
Chief wife was Queen Nefru
Had a son Amenemhet (II?)
Had at least 4 daughters: Itekuyet, Nefru-Sobek, Nefru-Ptah and Nenseddjedet.

Sensuret I is said to feature in the `Story of Sinuhe'. During his time 13 forts are said to have been built down to the 2nd cataract. He created two 66 foot, 120 ton red granite obelisks.

His son coreigned with him for the last two years.

He built his pyramid 1 mile south of that of his father at Lisht. His ladies had 9 pyramids within the same complex.

Parents unknown

Construction of the Fayum irrigation canal system attributed to his time.

Records exist which tell of a military(?) expeditions to the Red Sea and to Punt. There is ample evidence for the exchanging of gifts between the Levant and Egypt. In Egypt, a great treasure was discovered in the foundations of the temple of Montu at Tod, just south of Luxor (Thebes), consisting of 4 bronze boxes inscribed on the lid in hieroglyphics with Amenemhet II name. The boxes contained silver cups of Levantine/Aegean origin, Babylonian cylinder seals and lapis lazuli amulets from Mesopotamia. There was also an increase in Levantine names recorded at this time presumably belonging to those brought in as domestic servants.

Amenemhet built his pyramid with a core of mud brick at Dashur to the east of the pyramid of the 4th dynasty Snefru.

Father was Amenemhet II
Had a daughter, Sit-Hathor-Yunet

He coreigned with his father for at least 3 years. Had good, cordial relations with his nomarchs at Bani-Hassan.

He built his essentially mud brick pyramid at Lahun. He built the entrance to the pyramid in the pavement to the south rather then the usual north. Petrie found a marvelous ureaus inside in 1889. His daughters shaft tombs yielded a vast collection of personal jewelry and cosmetic items, two finely inlaid pectorals and a gold diadem with tall, thin gold plumes and inlaid rosettes in the head band. Compare also a small shell shaped, granulated pendant [20000] bearing the cartouche of Senwosret II (location of discovery not stated) with one bearing the name ring of Senwosret III (from Lisht)(Both items now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art), both of which are nearly alike.

Parents unknown

Daughter's name is Neferu-Ptah

Amenemhet III exploited the quarries and turquoise mines in Sinai. Over 50 rock inscriptions were found from his time. These represent over 90% of all his inscriptions meaning that very few were found in Egypt itself.

Amenemhet built 2 mud brick pyramids faced with limestone, at Dashur and Hawara. At Hawara was his large mortuary temple. The interior design was extraordinary in that it featured dead-end-passages, concealed trapdoors and sliding panels in passage roofs. A complicated series of 3 quartzite blocks topped by two relieving chambers of limestone blocks and a huge brick arch overall completed the constructions.

His Queen was Mereret
His princess/daughter(?) was Sit-Hathor

He divided the country into 3 administrative departments, the north, south and the Head of the South. He campaigned against Nubia and maintained the trade routes for the mineral wealth of Nubia. He broadened an Old Kingdom bypass canal around the 1st cataract at Aswan.

He built his limestone encased mud brick pyramid at Dahshur. He also attempted to conceal the entrance by putting it under the pavement of the surrounding court on the west side.

[0100] M. Lemonick, "Are the Bible's Stories True?" in TIME, 18 Dec., 1995, No.50, p.54.
[0120] If this "rich archaeological record" is based on the archaeology of the Sinai Peninsula it may be completely misplaced research for the Exodus occured at Nuweiba Beach and Mt. Sinai / Horeb is located in Saudi Arabia (Jebel al Lawz). Therefore the Israelites spent much of their 40 years sojourn on soil belonging today to Saudi Arabia.
[0200] S. Vaninger, "Abraham to Hezekiah: An Archaeological Revision", C&AH, Vol.V, pt.2, CA, July, 1983, p.71.
[0300] Numbers 13:22; Joshua 14:15 & 15:13; Judges 1:10,20 and Gibeon in Joshua 9-10.
[0400] Ernest Benn, Archaeology in the Holy Land, London, 1960, pp. 69-70, 273 (Emphasis added).
[0500] D. Rohl, The Lost Testament, Century, 2002.
[0600] John Osgood, "Times of Abraham", EN Tech J., Vol. 2, 1987, 181. See also his elaboration on this in Vol. 3, 1988, "Techlets", pp. 124-125.
[0700] N. Grimal, A History of Ancient Egypt, trans. I. Shaw, Oxford, Blackwell, 1994, Appendix.
[0800] Daily Telegraph, Sydney, August 31, 2004, "Pyramid puzzle may be solved", p. 29.
[0900] Donovan Courville, The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications, Vol. I, 1971, p. 97.
[1000] Emmanuel Anati, The Mountain of God, Rizzoli, NY., 1986, and Har Karkom in the Light of New Discoveries, Edizioni del Centro, 1993.
[1100] Rudolph Cohen, "The Mysterious Middle Bronze I People. Does the Exodus Tradition in the Middle East Preserve the Memory of their Entry into Canaan?", Biblical Archaeology Review, July/August 1983.
[1200] Vaninger, op. cit., 1983, p. 79.
[1300] G. Gammon, "Famines in the Early History of Egypt and Syro-Palestine", SIS Workshop, No. 1, 1986), 32.
[1400] Ibid.
[1500] See Genesis 41:46 & 50:26.
[1600] E. Anati, Mountain of God, p. 158.
[1700] Grimal, op. cit., p. 170.
[1800] Petrie, Egyptian Tales.
[1900] Herodotus, The Histories, Bk. II.
[2000] T. Chetwynd, "A Seven Year Famine in the Reign of King Djoser with Other Parallels between Imhotep and Joseph", C&AH, Vol. IX, pt.1, Jan., 1987, p. 49-56.
[2100] Grimal, op. cit., p. 80-81.
[2200] JOhn Osgood, "The Time of the Judges - The Archaeology: (a) Exodus to Conquest", EN Tech J., Vol. 2, 1986, p.76.
[2300] Stiebing, "New Archaeological Dates for the Israelite Conquest", C&AH, Vol. X, pt.1 (CA, Jan., 1988, pp. 5-7.
[2400] R. Cohen, op. cit..
[2500] Albright, The Archaeology of Palestine, Penguin Books, 1960, p. 87.
[2600] Vaninger, Ibid., p. 77.
[2700] [2800] Vaninger, Ibid., p. 77.
[2900] Kenyon, op. cit., p. 134.; Kenyon referred to the MBI people as Early Bronze-Middle Bronze. (Emphasis added).
[2950] Interestingly enough Biblical Archaeology Review paid the young student Richard Chute of Pomona, California a $1,500 award for his article on how the EBA ended which defended apparently that bad weather, famines etc. led to it. A host of well known names in archaeology circles judged his paper. The price of mistaken chronology is substantial.
[3000] Courville, op. cit.,Vol. I, p. 88.
[3100] Anati, Mountain of God, p. 280. (Emphasis added).
[3200] Stiebing, op. cit., pp. 11-12.
[3400] T. Lawrence, "Shiloh", SIS Workshop, Vol. 6, No.3, Feb., 1986, p. 9.
[3500] Bimson, "The Conquest of Canaan & the Revised Chronology", SIS Review, Vol. I, No.3, Summer 1976, pp. 5-6.
[3600] Ibid.
[3700] Ibid., p. 3.
[3800] Ibid., pp. 6-7.
[3900] Bimson, "The Hyksos and the Archaeology of Palestine", SIS Review, Vol. II, 1977, p.60.
[4000] Bimson, "Conquest, p. 6.
[4100] Vaninger, op. cit., p. 76. (Emphasis added)
[4200] The numbers cited come from P. Clayton's table. The years presented in Alan Gardiners `Egypt of the Pharaohs' are differrent. He credits for instance Piopi/Pepi I with 20 years and Piopi/Pepi II with 99 years. Some authors present only one king by the name of Teti. Comparing the regnal years we get for king #1, 23+12+31?+29+34+45=174/ Average=29 years, for king #2, 26+49+94+45+19+37=270/ Average=45 years.
We may conclude that the 94 years attributed to Pepi I seem suspect. We do not attach much confidence in the reliability of these numbers and they should not deter us from looking for other parallels of these various kings in the context of the above paper.
[4300] See Peter Clayton, Chronicle of the Pharaohs' and Aidan Dodson, `Tombs of the Royal Families of Egypt', KMT, Vol 14, Summer 2004, p. 47-55.