The ‘Low Chronology’ is a proposed re-dating 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 re-dating 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]
Finkelstein responded, but criticism was renewed in 2000 by Na’aman and Ben-Tor.[4] Over the next five years Finkelstein was virtually the only promoter of the theory.
Currently, Finkelstein is the only outspoken proponent of the Low Chronology.[5]
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.[6]
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’.[7]
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).[8]
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.[9]
Garfinkel likewise says evidence supports the description of the Israelite battles with the Philistines;[10] he cites architecture at Khirbet Qeiyafa indicating David ruled an established state (as in the Biblical narrative),[11] 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).[12]
Garfinkel believes the evidence from Khirbet Qeiyafa to be conclusive, and has declared “Low chronology is now officially dead and buried”.[13]
The four new C14 results from Khirbet Qeiyafa clearly indicate that the “low chronology” and the “ultra-low chronology” are unacceptable.[14]
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 [My Emph.].[15]
[1] A. Mazar, “The Search for David and Solomon: An Archaeological Perspective” in A. Mazar and I. Finkelstein, The Quest for the Historical Israel: debating archaeology and the history of Early Israel (ed. B. Schmidt; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007), 117-138 (119).
[2] W. G. Dever, “Biblical and Syro-Palestinian Archaeology” in The Blackwell Companion to the Hebrew Bible (ed. L. G. Perdue; Oxford: Blackwell, 2001), 127-148 (137).
[3] Dever, “Biblical and Syro-Palestinian Archaeology”, 137-138.
[4] S. M. Ortiz, “Deconstructing and Reconstructing the United Monarch” in The Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions (eds. J. K. Hoffmeier & A. R. Millard; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 121-147 (129).
[5] Ortiz, “Deconstructing and Reconstructing the United Monarch”, 128.
[6] H. Shanks in a review of I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin and B. Halpern, (eds.), “Megiddo III—The 1992–1996 Seasons” BAR Nov/Dec (2000): 64-71 (66).
[7] W. G. Dever, “Histories and Non-Histories of Ancient Israel: The Question of the United Monarchy” in J. Day (ed.), In Search of Pre-exilic Israel (JSOTSup 406; London: T&T Clark, 2003), 65-94 (73).
[8] A. Mazar, “Does Amihai Mazar Agree with Finkelstein’s ‘Low Chronology’?” BAR Mar/Apr (2003): 60-61.
[9] W. G. Dever, ‘What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know it?’, p. 133 (2002).
[10] Y. Garfinkel and S. Ganor, “Khirbet Qeiyafa: Sha’arayim”, Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 8/22. (2008): 2-10 (6).
[11] Garfinkel and Ganor, “Khirbet Qeiyafa: Sha’arayim”, 5.
[12] Garfinkel and Ganor, “Khirbet Qeiyafa: Sha’arayim”, 3.
[13] Y. Garfinkel & S. Ganor, ‘Khirbet Qeiyafa: An Early Iron IIa Fortified City in Judah’, presentation to the American Schools of Oriental Research, slide 24 (2010).
[14] Garfinkel and Ganor, “Khirbet Qeiyafa: Sha’arayim”, 4-5.
[15] Garfinkel and Ganor, “Khirbet Qeiyafa: Sha’arayim”, 5-6.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One