Nadav Na’aman shows how the Amarna letters challenge archaeology. He acknowledges that archaeology illuminates not only the material culture of the site concerned, but also its economy, social relations, trade, religion and cult. However, he points out:
…in regard to political relations in a broader territory, the relative status of cities vis-a-vis their neighbors, as well as the cities’ relationship to the dominant political power (in this case, Egypt) archaeology is severely limited. Exclusive reliance on archaeology can give a distorted picture of ancient reality (71).
Na’aman not only shows this to be the case for the Amarna period, but argues it is equally true for the period of the United Monarchy and the Babylonian and Persian periods in the highlands.
The Amarna tablets (around 300) were accidentally discovered by a Bedouin woman in 1887 at the site that once was the capital of Pharoah Akhenaten (Amenophis IV, 1353-1337 BCE), the uniquely monotheistic pharaoh who worshiped only one deity, the Egyptian sun god, Aten. The tablets were part of the royal archive and were written in Akkadian cuneiform, the diplomatic lingua franca of the 14th century BCE. They involve letters sent to the pharaoh by rulers of great powers and by local vassal rulers in the land of Canaan and central Syria, plus some letters sent from the pharaoh to vassals in Canaan. Well-known place names crop up such as Urusalim (Jerusalem), Shakmu (Shechem), Asqaluna (Ashkelon), Magidda (Megiddo), Hasura (Hazor), Hazati (Gaza), Yapu (Jaffa) and Bitsani (Beth-shean)
These letters reveal, among other things, that many Canaanite city-states existed in close proximity. This accords with biblical testimony. Excavations at such sites as Shechem, Megiddo, Taanach, Beth-shean, Gezer and Lachish supported the view of a thriving urban culture in the Late Bronze Age (1500/1450-1150 BCE), as portrayed in the Amarna letters. But in the late 1960s extensive Israeli archaeological surveys demonstrated that large parts of the country were very sparsely populated or altogether uninhabited during the Late Bronze Age. This seemed at variance with the picture portrayed in the Amarna letters. Na’aman cites from a letter to the pharaoh from Shuwardata, king of Gath: “May the king, my lord, be informed that 30 cities have waged war against me. I remained alone.”
The Amarna archive also includes seven long, detailed letters sent to the pharaoh by ‘Abdi-Heba, king of Jerusalem, which suggest “a kingdom of substantial strength, with Jerusalem as its capital city, enjoying a solid economy and dominating a territory that spread east of the foot of the central mountain range” (54). Yet excavations in Jerusalem failed to unearth any evidence of a large, thriving city in the Late Bronze Age, just some unimpressive walls and a modest amount of pottery.
Given the clear evidence of the Amarna letters we are in a better understanding to understand the archaeology of Jerusalem:
The discrepancy between the documents and the archaeological findings can largely be explained by the state of preservation of the settlement strata from the Amarna period, as Jerusalem was inhabited continuously through thousands of years. Given that the bedrock at the site is very high and there is little accumulation of strata on top of it, every new settlement damaged the previous strata, especially those from the city’s periods of decline. Many of the ancient structures at the site, especially those that were skimpy and fragile to begin with (big, robust structures are naturally better preserved), had disappeared entirely, and only a few poor remains survived from the Canaanite city that stood there during the Late Bronze Age (54).
Na’aman sees the same pattern represented at Shechem, with the picture presented in the Amarna letters of two highly influential rulers of city-states (Jerusalem and Shechem), finding little support in archaeological excavations. The same pattern is again repeated with respect to Lachish, Gezer and Megiddo. Further, though the Amarna letters clearly show how the Egyptians ran the lands they conquered there is little by way of archaeological evidence to show this, save for a single stela, erected by Thutmose III at Chinnereth (Tel Kinrot).
A proper and true evaluation of the Amarna letters can only be made when it is appreciated that the country was undergoing one of the major declines in history. However, the picture obtained from archaeology is likewise limited, it being too easy to draw negative conclusions. This is a warning not to rely too heavily on archaeological evidence, in the absence of documentation like the Amarna letters that can be used as an external test.
Source: “The Trowel vs. the Text. How the Amarna Letters Challenge Archaeology” in Biblical Archaeology Review (January/February 2009) 52-56, 70-71.
Posted April 10, 2009
Upon clicking 'Buy now' you will be redirected to paypal.com where you can securely and quickly complete your purchase with a few clicks.
Immediately after payment at PayPal you will be redirected to a download page which
provides you instant access to your purchase.
