A delegation from Tel Aviv University led by Dr. Erez Ben Yosef refuted an almost 50-year-old scientific consensus that attributed King Solomon's mines to the Kingdom of Egypt. Carbon 14 dating of new findings that the expedition excavated in the Timna Valley proves that activity in the copper mines reached its peak in the 10th century BC, that is, during the days of the United Kingdom of Israel of David and Solomon.
A Tel Aviv University delegation led by Dr. Erez Ben Yosef refuted an almost 50-year-old scientific consensus that attributed King Solomon's mines to the Kingdom of Egypt. Carbon 14 dating of new findings that the expedition excavated in the Timna valley proves that activity in the copper mines reached its peak in the 10th century BC, that is, during the days of the United Kingdom of Israel of David and Solomon. In doing so, Dr. Ben Yosef's expedition returned Atra to its former glory - and King Solomon's mines back to King Solomon.
"Those who visit Timna Park today are visiting an Egyptian park, with two statues of ancient Egyptians at the entrance," laughs Dr. Ben Yosef. "But you have to remember that until the 60s all of Timna was called 'King Solomon's Mines', as the mythological archaeologist Nelson Glick stated back in the 30s. This perception suddenly changed after his son Rothenberg revealed a temple to the Egyptian goddess Hathor. Rothenberg was an excellent archaeologist, but he did not have the technology to date finds with carbon 14, so he automatically attributed all the other sites and activity in Timna to the days of the New Kingdom in Egypt - from the end of the 14th century to the first half of the 12th century BC. Our new findings date the massive copper factory, with its hundreds of furnaces and thousands of mines, to the days of King David and King Solomon in the 10th century BC."
The new results are based on carbon 14 dating of 11 short-lived samples - 10 date kernels and one olive pit - among the many hundreds of seeds and bones excavated at the "Slave Hill" site. The hill, which is in the center of the valley and near the temple of Hathor and the "pillars of Solomon", was first surveyed by Nelson Glick. Glick called the site "Slave Hill" based on the assumption that the wall surrounding the hill was intended to imprison the slaves who did the hard work. After the discovery of the Hathor temple, the Arava expedition led by his son Rothenberg extended the Hill of Slaves to the days of the New Kingdom in Egypt - but did not excavate the site itself. It so happened that the Givat al-Ebadi remained as a stone unturned until the new excavations of Tel Aviv University, which began in 2012.
The 11 seeds excavated from Givat al-Ebad were sent to the radiometric dating laboratory of the University of Oxford, where it was determined that most of the activity at the site occurred in the 10th century BC - without any evidence of activity during the days of the New Kingdom in Egypt. This discovery joins an earlier discovery by Ben Yosef and his team, who showed that Site 30 - one of the largest copper smelting camps in the Timna Valley - was not inhabited before the end of the 12th century BCE, and that the peak of activity in the camp was in the 10th and 9th centuries BCE. s, and especially in the decades that coincide with the days of the United Kingdom of Jerusalem.
"Of course, there is no evidence that David or Shlomo were present at the site," clarifies Dr. Ben Yosef. "We also didn't find pottery from Jerusalem on the site, and that's fine too. However, even if you accept the biblical story as it is, the Israelis are not the ones operating the mines. In this case, the biblical story is in line with the material culture found in Givat Abed, a culture that points to a local society - most likely an ancient core of the Edomite kingdom - that was subordinate to Jerusalem after King David's campaign of conquest. I estimate that there was a guard force on behalf of Jerusalem that monitored, protected and collected taxes from the Reds."
Dr. Ben Yosef says that most of the sites in the Timna Valley stopped operating towards the end of the 10th century BC, that is, during the military campaign of Shushank I, King of Egypt, who is identified with the biblical Pharaoh Shishak. "Five years after Solomon's death, Shishak goes to Jerusalem and imposes a tax on it, and suddenly we see a dramatic change in Solomon's mines. While many sites are being abandoned, those who have added work have started working with new, advanced and much more efficient technology. It seems, then, that the pharaohs did not want the destruction of the copper industry in the Arabah, but on the contrary - the effective utilization of the local minerals and the transformation of Egypt into a preferred trading destination."
12 תגובות
A bunch of commenters with minimal knowledge on the subject write here in the comments. So for your information:
a) If they found a copper factory developed during the 10th century BC, this definitely indicates a centralized government (kingdom) that ruled there, no group of "Bedouins" could ever in human history have built such a factory, and since it is quite clear that this is not the Kingdom of Israel, nor There was even a powerful kingdom in the region at that time except for David's kingdom, so it is the immediate suspect.
b) Two inscriptions found about a hundred years after David's death mention the "House of David" Even Finkelstein does not say that David and Solomon did not exist, but there are some people here who do think so, who were probably qualified on Facebook for a doctorate.
c) Ramses III lived 150 years before the reign of David and Solomon, what is the connection? No Egyptologist thinks he was still in the area in the 10th century BC (this is for the commenter who wrote about him).
d) There are many other findings that this is not the place to detail that contradict Finkelstein's thesis, and the research of Ben Yosef and Levy among them.
What is the connection between the dating of the place and the question of whether there was a common kingdom that reached there. Sometimes it is hard to believe what hasty conclusions archaeologists jump to
So Ramses III built the temple for his personal use when he comes to vacation in Eilat?
Saul was the first king of Israel, and at a certain point he and David reigned together (each in his own kingdom) also according to the Tanach.
According to what is described in the Book of Samuel, the two kingdoms in the Land of Israel (the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah) are consolidated into one kingdom over which King David is in charge, while according to what is written in the Book of Kings and in the Chronicles, after Solomon's death the united Kingdom of Israel splits again into two kingdoms: The Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah. The kingdom of Israel included the ten tribes and the first king was Jeroboam while the kingdom of Judah, which included the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, was ruled by Rehoboam son of Solomon. The kingdom of Israel consisted of several dynasties, while the dynasty of the House of David did not stop until the loss of independence and the exile in Babylon.
That is, during the days of the united kingdom of Israel of David and Solomon. there is no facts that say that ever there was house of david.
Tomer
The mine in Tympe did not supply copper specifically to the temple, this is just your speculation.
There is a lot of evidence that the Reds specialized in copper mining and probably also in supplying raw copper for any purpose. Probably in the period of 1000 BC, they were the ones who operated the Timpa mine, since there are no findings on the presence of Jews or Egyptians or any other nationality in the said period. The question regarding the ownership of the mine in Timana remains open.
The dominant approach until now was actually the minimalist approach and it was based on a lack of findings, but little by little findings are being added that can be dated and that are difficult to argue with. It is possible to debate whether Solomon was there or not, but one cannot ignore the fact that in the period attributed to his time (the 10th century BC) there was a large copper factory for the construction, probably of a temple.
More recent findings, from the ruins of Kaifa and also from the City of David that date to the 10th century BC, undermine this approach.
The argument that it is political is ridiculous, after all, any meddling with the Israeli or Jewish past is political meddling, even when it comes to Finkelstein's minimalist approach and the fact is that it has been the dominant approach in recent decades.
It seems that the minimalistic approach can no longer ignore the new and dated findings and it seems that it must make a new assessment.
And suppose there were David and Shlomo, what are you so afraid of? Does this mean that we have an automatic right to the land and the non-Jewish residents do not? What world do you live in? You're not racist, are you?
As long as the research approach is compatible with your political world, it is legitimate, and as soon as it is not, then it is a conspiracy, poor research and fraud? It's not like someone comes and invents a reality based on a lack of findings. The reference in the article is only to the findings and it is emphasized that there is no evidence of the existence of Solomon or David, so what exactly worries you?
All this, of course, assuming that there was a united kingdom at all... According to Prof. Finelstein, the "united kingdom" never existed and Solomon's stories, which by the way are represented in 3 completely contradictory descriptions, actually describe an Assyrian king.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIgTvsrYqoM
Since Israel is a country where everything is political, there are no real scientists except in the exact sciences. Only there there is almost no way to introduce lies aimed at influencing political opinions.
Why not? If the workers started working with new technology after the conquest of Shishak, it means that they were under a different regime until that time and it is known that the Jews were the main rulers at that time in the area.
...all in all, this news as it was published in the written and electronic press is mainly political and its purpose is to burn another tangle in the collective memory about the supposed real existence of King Solomon de-facto, there is no archaeological trace of his existence. What the archaeologists found was that the previous dating was wrong. that's it. There is no scientific evidence for the existence of the ancient kingdom of David and Solomon.