Nahas Tel Aviv 2005

8/6/2019 Nahas Tel Aviv 2005

1/8

KHIRBET EN-NAHAS, EDOM AND BIBLICAL HISTORY

Israel Finkelstein

Abstract

This paper deals with a recent publication of the finds from the copper production

centre of Khirbet en-Nahas (Levy et al. 2004). It argues that the site should be

associated with the late Iron I and early Iron II sites of the Beersheba Valley and the

Negev Highlands and thus has no bearing on the history of early Edom. It also casts

doubt on the dating of the Khirbet en-Nahas fort to the 10th century BCE.

Levy et al. (2004) recently reported the results of their excavation in the copper

production centre of Khirbet en-Nahas in southern Jordan. They date the industrial

activity at the site to the 12th9th centuries and the construction of a great fort visible

on the surface there to the 10th century BCE. In their view the finds at Khirbet en-

Nahas indicate that Edom emerged as a state in the 10th century, while under Assyrian

domination, earlier than the broadly accepted date of the 8th century BCE.

The finds at Khirbet en-Nahas are important for understanding the history of the

southern steppe regions of the Levant in the Iron I and Iron IIA, but as far as I can

judge they do not shed new light on the question of state formation in Edom.1 In fact,

they seem to support the commonly held notion that Edom became a developed state

not earlier than the late 8th century BCE.

Two issues are central for evaluating the historical role of the site: the period of

activity and its location vis--vis neighbouring regions.

Khirbet en-Nahas was active in the Iron I and the Iron IIA. The pottery found at

the site is apparently limited in quantity and in any event has not been presented yet.

Levy et al. have dated the site according to 14C measurements of charcoal samples.

Three comments are in place regarding their dates:

1. In measuring charcoal, especially in an arid zone where wood is not easily come

by, the old wood effect must usually be taken into consideration. This is the

reason why measurements of charcoal samples have not been included in most

recent studies on the chronology of the Levant in the Iron Age. Yet, the quantity

of fresh wood needed in an industrial site such as Khirbet en-Nahas must have

called for an on-going supply. Therefore, in the case of Khirbet en-Nahas, where

short-life samples are not available and the pottery is limited in quantity, charcoal

is an important tool for the purpose of dating.

1 The author is grateful to Alexander Fantalkin, Eli Piasetzky and Lily Singer-Avitz for their

valuable comments on the manuscript of this article.

119


2/8


3/8

Finkelstein: Khirbet en-Nahas, Edom and Biblical History

been found for activity in the Iron IIA (late 10th and 9th centuries BCE; for the date

of the Iron I/IIA transition according to recent 14C dates see Boaretto et al. 2005),

when Khirbet en-Nahas reached its peak activity. The Edomite highlands come to

life againand on a much larger scalein the late 8th and 7th century BCE (e.g.,

Hart 1986; Bienkowski 1995).2

The Beersheba Valley was inhabited in the Iron I (e.g., Stratum III at Tel Masos

and Strata IXVIII at Beersheba) with activity booming in the early Iron IIA.

The latter phase is best attested at the large (six hectares in area) and prosperous

settlement of Stratum II at Tel Masos in the heart of the valley, as well as at smaller

sites such as Tel Esdar, Stratum XII at Arad and Stratum VII at Beersheba (Herzog

and Singer-Avitz 2004). A wave of sedentarization of pastoral nomads took place at

that time in the improved ecological niche of the Negev Highlands to the south andin the Besor region to the west of Beersheba. All these sites seem to represent the rise

of a late Iron I and early Iron IIA desert chiefdom, the centre of which was located at

Tel Masos (Finkelstein 1995: 103126). This desert entity was important enough to

attract the attention of Pharaoh Shoshenq I, who campaigned in Canaan in the second

half of the 10th century BCE. The southern sites are the only realistic possibility

on the ground for the group of southern toponyms mentioned in Shoshenqs list

of places captured in the course of the campaigna list which was engraved on a

wall in the temple of Amun in Karnak, Upper Egypt (Naaman 1992; Finkelstein2002). The Shoshenq I campaign brought about the gradual decline of the Tel Masos

desert chiefdom in the late 10th or early 9th century. It was then replaced by the first

Judahite administrative centres of the 9th centurythe Stratum V fortified town at

Beersheba and the Stratum XI fort at Tel Arad (Herzog 2002: 9496).

To sum up this issue, the few (late?) Iron I sites of the Edomite highlands represent

only half of the Khirbet en-Nahas sequence (the Iron I), while the much stronger, and

longer late Iron IIron IIA activity in the Beersheba Valley, mainly at Tel Masos, fits

perfectly the period of occupation at Khirbet en-Nahas.

The finds at the sites discussed above support this conclusion. First and foremost,

there is no evidence for copper production in the Iron I sites of the Edomite highlands.

In contrast, Tel Masos provided evidence for a copper industry (Kempinski et

al. 1983: 21) and yielded an exceptionally large number of copper/bronze items

(Crsemann 1983; Lupu 1983: 202203). Other finds connect Khirbet en-Nahas to

2 Levy et al.s assertion that the dating of pottery sequences from the Edomite plateau are tied

to the seventh and sixth centuries BC largely by a single bulla (2004: 867) is confusing. Edom

is not located a world apart from the rest of the southern Levant and the pottery assemblagesfrom sites such as Umm el-Biyara are dated according to comparison to the assemblages from

more central sites to the west of the Jordan. Therefore, with or without the Qsgabr, King of

Edom bulla, the main phase of settlement activity there is safely placed in the late Iron II.

121


4/8

TEL AVIV 32 (2005)

the Beersheba Valley sites, especially to Tel Masos: Negebite potterytypical of the

early Iron IIA Negev Highlands siteswas found at both sites; Midianite pottery

was also found at both. To the best of my knowledge these forms have not been

uncovered in the Iron I sites of the Edomite highlands.3

More supportive evidence for the Khirbet en-NahasTel Masos connection can

be found in the nature of the sites. The Iron I villages of the Edomite highlands are

sparse and small, and feature basic material culture, with no evidence of inter-regional

trade. Not a single one of them can be described as an urban centre. In contrast, Tel

Masos features relatively rich finds, and the Midianite, Philistine and Phoenician

pottery found there attest to strong connections, through the southern trade routes,

with the Arabah Valley in the east and the coastal cities of the Mediterranean in the

west.To sum up this point, the Tel Masos chiefdom prospered as an intermediary of

southern goods to the Philistine coast. A major component of this southern trade was

probably copper from Khirbet en-Nahas (Knauf 1995: 112113).4 The importance of

the Arabah copper in the late Iron I and early Iron IIA is attested in many sites in the

southern Levant, including northern sites such as Tel Dan and Megiddo (Ilan 1999:

220230; Knauf 2000: 232233). Tel Masos served as the gateway of the desert

trade to the settled lands. Though one cannot brush aside the possibility of trade

in northern Arabah copper as early as the 12th century BCE, it seems that Khirbeten-Nahas and neighbouring sites (e.g., Fritz 1994) emerged as important copper

production centres afterthe breakdown of the maritime trade connections with the

great copper mines of Cyprus in the 12th century BCE (Knauf 1995: 112113).

This leaves me with the Khirbet en-Nahas fort, which Levy et al. dated to the

10th century BCE according to 14C samples taken from their limited excavation in

the gatehouse (2004: 871872).

Dating the construction of the fort is difficult, as no floors with in situ finds have

been found. It is clear that the fort was built on top of industrial wastes (Stratum

A4a). Very little from the original construction of the fort remained. The 14C sample

representing this phase came from the reddish-brown surface between metallurgical

industrial waste and an ashy deposit (ibid.). The next layer up (A2b) represents the

main layer associated with copper production in this area and also coincides with the

3 Another clue for the orientation of Khirbet en-Nahas comes from the botanical remains. The

site yielded a large quantity of charcoal. Most of it was identified as wood collected from its

immediate vicinity. No remains ofJeniperus phoenicea orQuercus calliprinos, trees typical

of the Edomite highlands were found (Engel 1993).4 Other periods of copper production in Wadi Feinan are also represented by gateway

communities in the Beersheba Valley or the southern coast, Early Bronze III Arad being the

best example.

122


5/8


period when the gate went out of use (ibid.). The radiocarbon sample came from

a locus which represents a thick and dense layer containing a very large volume

of copper industrial waste (ibid.). It seems that the entire description relates to the

industrial waste under the fort and to a fill laid as a podium below the floors of the

fort, which have not been preserved. This is apparently the case at the large, similar-

in-layout fort of Ein Hazeva, located ca. 20 km. to the northwest, on the western

margin of the Arabah Valley (Naaman 1997), where only the constructional podium

was preserved, while the floors disappeared long ago. This means that the fort was

constructed later than the copper production activity at the site, that is, after the 9th

century BCEthe date of the latest 14C dates from the fill and the industrial wastes.

This should not come as a surprise. First, a close look at the aerial photo and plan

of Khirbet en-Nahas (Levy et al. 2004: 868869) seems to show that the fort was builton top of the site, cutting into the piles of copper industry waste.5 Second and more

important, the Khirbet en-Nahas fort is almost identical in layout and plan of the gate

to two other forts in the southEin Hazeva, which has already been mentioned, and

Tell el-Kheleifeh. But these forts date to the late 8th and 7th century BCE (Naaman

1997; Pratico 1993 respectively); they seem to have been built by the Assyrians to

protect their interests along the main Arabian trade routes in the desert. Moreover,

there is no evidence for a similar fort in the Negev, in Transjordan or west of the

Jordanin fact, in the entire Levantprior to the Assyrian takeover. The fort of Tellel-Kheleifeh was built at the head of the Gulf of Aqaba, controlling both the land

and maritime routes; the fort of Ein Hazeva dominated the main Arabian trade route

whichsimilar to the later, Roman Via Novapassed along the Edomite plateau,

crossed the Arabah Valley near Ein Hazeva, and ascended into the Beersheba Valley

in the northwest. The fort of Khirbet en-Nahas was controlled, or was planned to

control the approach to the important copper production area (see map in Fritz 1994:

126). It seems that at the time that the fort was constructed Khirbet en-Nahas was no

longer active and the main production effort shifted to neighbouring sites.

To conclude, the excavations at Khirbet en-Nahas supply important information

on the history of copper production in the northeastern Arabah. They also contribute

to a better understanding of the Tel Masos chiefdom of the late Iron I and early Iron

IIA. They do not provide evidence for early, 10th century BCE state formation in

Edom. The main phase of activity in the Edomite highlands dates from the late 8th

5 The walls of the fort seem to cut sort of foundation trenches into the industrial waste (picture

in Levy et al. 2004: 868). The fact that the inside of the structure is packed with heaps of

industrial waste may provide a clue that the fort was never completed. It is possible that onlythe contour of the walls and a fill for a gate were laid; this may be hinted at in Levyet al. 2004:

872: very little remained from that stage apart from the actual architectural frame and some

associated surfaces.

123


6/8

TEL AVIV 32 (2005)

and the first half of the 7th centuries BCE, after the Assyrian conquest of the southern

Coastal Plain (for the former date see Singer-Avitz 1999). At that time Edom profited

from both the Arabian trade and copper productiontwo ventures that were closely

controlled by the Assyrian empire (Bienkowski and van der Steen 2001: 2324).

The late Iron II forts of Tell el-Khuleifeh and Khirbet en-Nahas, the contemporary

Assyrian palace compound at Buseirah and the wave of settlement in the Edomite

highlands represent the first tight connection between the Edomite heartland and

the rift valley. In that sense, Khirbet en-Nahas supports the commonly-held view on

the emergence of Edom under Assyrian domination in the 8th century BCE. Indeed,

an Edomite political entity is first mentioned in extra-biblical historical records

by Adad-nirari III, king of Assyria (810783 BCE). Earlier biblical references

to Edom, such as the description of Davids campaign there (2 Samuel 8: 1314),should be seen as anachronisms, reflecting the realities and goals of the time of the

compilation of the relevant texts (e.g., Naaman 2002: 214).

REFERENCES

Bartlett, J.R. 1989.Edom and Edomites. Sheffield.

Bienkowski, P. 1995. The Edomites: The Archaeological Evidence from Transjordan.In: Edelman Vikander, D., ed. You Shall Not Abhor an Edomite for He Is Your

Brother: Edom and Seir in History and Tradition. Atlanta: 4192.

Bienkowski, P. and van der Steen, E. 2001.Tribes, Trade, and Towns: New Frameworkfor the Late Iron Age in Southern Jordan and the Negev.BASOR 323: 2147.

Boaretto, E., Jull, A.J.T., Gilboa, A. and Sharon, I. 2005. Dating the Iron Age I/II

Transition in Israel: First Intercomparison Results.Radiocarbon 47: 3955.

Crsemann, F. 1983. Die Kleinfunde. In: Fritz, V. and Kempinski, A.Ergebnisse der

Ausgrabungen auf derirbet el-Ma (Tl Mo) 19721975 I: Textband.

Wiesbaden: 91102.

Engel, T. 1993. Charcoal Remains from an Iron Age Copper Smelting Slag Heap at

Feinan, Wadi Arabah (Jordan). Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 2/4:

205211.

Finkelstein, I. 1992. Edom in the Iron I.Levant24: 159166.

Finkelstein, I. 1995.Living on the Fringe: The Archaeology and History of the Negev,

Sinai and Neighbouring Regions in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Sheffield.

Finkelstein, I. 2002. The Campaign of Shoshenq I to Palestine: A Guide to the 10th

Century BCE Polity.ZDPV118: 109135.Fritz, V. 1994. Vorbericht ber die Grabungen in Barqa el-Hetiye im Gebiet von

Fenan, Wadi el-Araba.ZDPV110: 125150.

124


7/8


Hart, S. 1986. Some Preliminary Thoughts on Settlement in Southern Edom.Levant

18: 5158.

Herzog, Z. 2002. The Fortress Mound at Tel Arad: An Interim Report. Tel Aviv 29:

3109.

Herzog, Z. and Singer-Avitz, L. 2004. Redefining the Centre: The Emergence of

State in Judah. Tel Aviv 31: 209244.

Ilan, D. 1999. Northeastern Israel in the Iron Age I: Cultural, Socioeconomic and

Political Perspectives. (Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University). Tel Aviv.

Kempinski, A., Rsel, H., Gilboa, E. and Stahlheber, Th. 1983. Area A. In: Fritz, V.

and Kempinski, A.Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen auf derirbet el-Ma (Tl

Mo) 19721975 I: Textband. Wiesbaden: 734.

Knauf, E.A. 1995. Edom: The Social and Economic History. In: Edelman Vikander,D., ed. You Shall Not Abhor an Edomite for He Is Your Brother: Edom and

Seir in History and Tradition. Atlanta: 93117.

Knauf, E.A. 2000. Kinneret and Naphtali. In: Lemaire, A. and Sb, M., eds.

Congress Volume Oslo 1998 (Supplements to VT80). Leiden: 219233.

Knauf, E.A. and Lenzen, C.J. 1987. Edomite Copper Industry. Studies in the History

and Archaeology of Jordan 3: 8388.

Levy, T.E., Adams, R.B., Najjar, M., Hauptmann, A., Anderson, J.D., Brandl, B.,

Robinson, M.A. and Higham T. 2004. Reassessing the Chronology of BiblicalEdom: New Excavations and 14C Dates from Khirbet en-Nahas (Jordan).

Antiquity 78: 865879.

Lupu, A. 1983. Analysentabellen. In: Fritz, V. and Kempinski, A. Ergebnisse der

Ausgrabungen auf derirbet el-Ma (Tl Mo ) 19721975 I: Textband.

Wiesbaden: 202208.

Naaman, N. 1992. Israel, Edom and Egypt in the 10th Century B.C.E. Tel Aviv

19:7193.

Naaman, N. 1997. Notes on the Excavations at Ein Hazeva. Qadmoniot113: 60

(Hebrew).

Naaman, N. 2002. In Search of Reality behind the Account of Davids Wars with

Israels Neighbours.IEJ52: 200224.

Pratico, G.D. 1993.Nelson Gluecks 19381940 Excavations at Tell el-Kheleifeh: A

Reappraisal. Atlanta.

Singer-Avitz, L. 1999. BeershebaA Gateway Community in Southern ArabianLong-Distance Trade in the Eighth Century B.C.E. Tel Aviv 26: 375.

125


8/8

Documents

Nahas Tel Aviv 2005