SOLOMON'S EMPIRE: ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

Among the magazines to which I subscribe, The Smithsonian is my favorite. That is mainly due to the wide variety of subjects it covers. As a recent example, the December 2021 contained featured articles on the caribou in Alaska, footbow distance contests, Roquefort cheese, and “Quest for Copper.” It is this last article, by Matti Friedman, that I would like to highlight because it is a good illustration of the difference between two philosophical approaches to biblical archeology: Minimalism and Maximalism. Those in the first group start out with a skeptical attitude regarding the historicity of biblical accounts and only change their minds when the evidence overwhelmingly supports the Bible. But those in the second group begin with an attitude of faith in what the Bible states and only reluctantly admit that maybe their particular interpretation of the Bible has been faulty if the data indicate it. In Israel today, these respective schools of thought are represented by Tel Aviv University and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

The article on copper mining concerned excavations in the ancient land of the Edomites. These have direct implications on biblical history since Edom, south of Judah, was under the economic and political control of Israel during the reigns of David and Solomon, and only ceased at the end of Solomon's reign when Hadad rebelled. Below is a brief summary of archeological findings in that area that illustrate the shifting opinion over the years regarding Solomon's reign, vacillating between minimalism and maximalism.

Max: In 1934, Nelson Glueck found ample evidence of copper mining in the area in the form of extensive slag deposits on the surface of the earth. This is not at all surprising since Deuteronomy 8:9 mentions that copper can be found in that general region. At the same time, he uncovered pottery sherds he dated to around 1000 BC, exactly the time of the United Kingdom under Solomon. Glueck thus proposed that this was the source of Solomon's massive copper reserves, obviously needed for the furnishing of the temple described in passages such as I Kings 7.

Max: During the 1950's, Yigael Yadin discovered Solomonic building projects at cities such as Gezer and Hazor.

Min: In the 1960's, Rothenberg made further excavations at Timna, in Edomite territory and uncovered the underground copper mines themselves. But associated with these remains were numerous Egyptian artifacts pre-dating Solomon's supposed reign by centuries. Based on these findings, Rothenberg deduced that it was an Egyptian mining site abandoned around 1200 BC and not used again until well into the Roman rule. He stated, “There is no factual and, as a matter of fact, no ancient written literary evidence of the existence of 'King Solomon's Mines.'”

Min: The prevailing skeptical opinion during the late 1990's and early 2000's regarding the historicity of Solomon's vast empire took Rothenberg's findings as yet another example that the biblical account was largely fictional. Minimalists similarly dismissed many of Yadin's earlier claims.

Max: It was only in 2009 that Erez Ben-Yosef (now of Tel Aviv University) re-investigated the Timna site and approached it with few preconceived notions in mind. Author Friedman calls him a man with “no religious affiliation [who] who describes himself as indifferent to the historical accuracy of the Bible.” Surprisingly, Ben-Yosef and his team found through C-13 dating that the organic remains at the mining site (from scraps of fabric to dates to donkey droppings) were from about 1000 BC, the time of the Solomonic Kingdom.

Min: However, there were no camel bones at the site dating any earlier than 900 BC. This appeared to contradict the biblical account of the Patriarchs riding camels centuries earlier. (But see my post on the subject of camels titled “Genesis 24:10-11; 31:24 Camels in the Bible”).

Max: So the next most logical theory was that extensive mining operations had been carried on by the Edomites during the time of Solomon's reign long after the Egyptians had abandoned the mines. This was confirmed by excavations carried out by other archeologists in different parts of Edom. Remains showed “evidence for an organized Edomite kingdom, such as advanced metallurgical tools and debris.”

Max: Additional evidence was uncovered at Temna of an advanced culture engaged in extensive economic trade with countries to the north. This included remains of fish, pistachios, lentils, almonds and grapes, all of which needed to be imported from other lands.

Max: Looking to other countries for confirmation of the above picture, elemental analysis of figurines from 11^th century Egypt and a cauldron from ancient Greece showed that the metal had come from those same Edomite mines.

Max: Also uncovered at the mines were scraps of cloth shown to have been colored with purple dye, which could have only come from certain snails found in the Mediterranean waters. Purple dye was highly prized in ancient days and was only available to the very wealthy. That indicated a highly organized society which included elite members.

Neutral: Since all of the above findings tended to contradict the conventional wisdom of the liberal scholars at Tel Aviv University where he taught (but not the findings of a few large Solomonic cities, according to the Hebrew University in Jerusalem), Ben-Yosef held off on publishing them until he had gotten tenure.

Friedman summarizes the situation at that point of time as follows: “The rival schools of biblical archaeologists were split over whether the United Israelite kingdom was fact or fiction, arguing vehemently about whether certain ruins should be dated close to 1000 B.C. Or later. But they agreed that the primary point was the existence or non-existence of buildings. They differed on the answer, in other words, but shared a faith in their ability to settle the question.”

Max: Ben-Yosef's findings may have helped break the tie since they had amply demonstrated that a sophisticated and wealthy culture such as at Edom could be around at 1,000 BC and yet leave not a trace of major buildings to indicate its existence. In fact, the common supposition that an ancient nomadic culture must have been totally resistant to any form of centralized government and cooperative efforts (held by both maximalists and minimalists) may have been false from the very start.

Max: But is there any indication that the inhabitants of the United Kingdom of Israel could have maintained a somewhat nomadic existence during that period, as did the Edomites? There is one strong biblical hint that they could have indeed, and that is found in I Kings 8 describing the dedication of the temple taking place at the very height of Solomon's reign. The king summoned all the people of Israel” including their tribal leaders (vv. 1-2) together for the ceremony. And after it was complete, we learn in v. 66 that “he sent the people away; and they blessed the king, and went to their tents.” So, of course, there would be little trace of their dwellings left today, just as the only evidence attesting to the elaborate nature of the Edomites is through artifacts found at the sites that had more regular occupancy during the year.

By the way, there is also no trace left of Solomon's grand temple either. As R.J. McKelvey explains, “Indeed, it is likely that the work of levelling the rock and building up the great retaining walls for the courtyard of Herod's Temple obliterated any earlier constructions.”

Neutral: In 2019, Ben-Yosef published his findings and conclusions, which were met with expected results. While there was no real dispute regarding the accuracy of his results, some remained to be convinced of the applicability of his thesis to the question of the United Israelite kingdom. Thomas Levy, an archaeologist from UCSD also working in Edom, says that what Ben-Yosef has proved is that “archaeology has overstated its authority. Entire kingdoms could exist under our noses, and archaeologists would never find a trace.”