Finkelstein on Khirbet Qeiyafa

Literally. That is, Israel Finkelstein went to visit Khirbet Qeiyafa on July 20^th before the excavation season concluded, the guest of his colleague Yosef Garfinkel (HT Luke Chandler). It is difficult to imagine two scholars farther apart in their understanding of Iron Age I-II Israel. Yet the rule of hospitality is sacred.

One has to wonder how Finkelstein will interpret the astounding finds Garfinkel and his team continue to unearth. As is well-known, Garfinkel laid down the gauntlet early on (go here: “the Low Chronology is officially dead and buried” - the presentation dates to 2008).

Finkelstein serves the field well by presenting one challenge after another to commonly held but far from self-evident positions. In this series of posts, I return the favor by offering a challenge to his dismissal of the basic outline of events presented in 1 Sam – 1 Kgs 11. The cutting style I employ is my way of going native in what is often a debate among Israeli scholars.

No matter how you slice and dice it, Iron Age Khirbet Qeiyafa poses a challenge to the notion, propounded by Finkelstein among others, that David and Solomon’s realm was a minute territorial domain limited to a swath of the central highlands with a population of a few thousand and a cow town for a capital (Jerusalem). The fortified site of KQ in the Judean Shephelah, in view of pottery assemblage and other material indices to be construed as a perimeter site of a territorial domain whose epicenter lay on higher ground to the east, casts a pall over that thesis. In the absence of credible alternatives, the epicenter of the polity in question is identifiable with Jerusalem – more precisely, the “fortress of Zion” David seized partway through his reign, and the larger area of Jerusalem David fortified, per 2 Sam 5:6-12.

Jerusalem is 25 miles east of KQ over mountain roads. If and only if the narrative sequence of 1 Sam to 1 Kgs 11 is treated as a rank invention, is one in a position to propose alternatives thereto. Nonetheless, from the standpoint of political geography, there are no credible alternatives to the default hypothesis that Jerusalem was the epicenter of a terminal Iron I/ early IIA territorial domain on whose perimeter KQ was situated adducible from the archaeological and textual materials in hand.

To be continued.

 

Comments

[G. Kyle Essary]

Good to have you back John. Are you getting settled into the new place?

I look forward to the series.

[JohnFH]

Hi Kyle,

It is good to be back. I'm settling in fine, with a lot of adjustments still under way.