The Architectural Bias in Current Biblical Archaeology

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

This paper aims at highlighting a methodological flaw in current biblical archaeology, which became apparent as a result of recent research in the Aravah’s Iron Age copper production centers. In essence, this flaw, which cuts across all schools of biblical archaeology, is the prevailing, overly simplistic approach applied to the identification and interpretation of nomadic elements in biblical-era societies. These elements have typically been described as representing only one form of social organization, which is simple and almost negligible in historical reconstructions. However, the unique case of the Aravah demonstrates that the role of nomads in shaping the history of the southern Levant has been underestimated and downplayed in the research of the region, and that the total reliance on stone-built archaeological features in the identification of social complexity in the vast majority of recent studies has resulted in skewed historical reconstructions. Recognizing this “architectural bias” and understanding its sources have important implications on core issues in biblical archaeology today, as both “minimalists” and “maximalists” have been using stone-built architectural remains as the key to solving debated issues related to the geneses of Ancient Israel and neighboring polities (e.g., “high” vs. “low” Iron Age chronologies), in which—according to both biblical accounts and external sources—nomadic elements played a major role.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)361-387
Number of pages27
JournalVetus Testamentum
Volume69
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 2019

Keywords

  • Ancient Israel
  • Aravah Valley
  • Biblical archaeology
  • Copper production
  • Edom
  • Faynan (Punon)
  • Genesis 36
  • Iron Age
  • Nomadism
  • State formation
  • Timna
  • Tribal kingdoms
  • United Monarchy

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The Architectural Bias in Current Biblical Archaeology'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this