Ancient texts and archaeology revisited--radiocarbon and Biblical dating in the southern Levant.

Levy, Thomas E. ; Najjar, Mohammad ; Higham, Thomas 等

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Introduction

During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, ancient texts such as the Homeric epics in the Aegean, and the ancient Vedic literatures in south Asia, often served as the catalyst for archaeological research. One of the world's 'hot spots' for this kind of historically-led archaeology is still the southern Levant--the region that includes Israel, the Palestinian territories, Jordan, Lebanon, southern Syria and the Sinai Desert. The archaeology of this region, often referred to as the 'Holy Land', has been steeped in debate because of its ties with ancient and sacred texts. Ever since the establishment of the Palestine Exploration Fund by British researchers in 1865, the reconciliation of archaeology and text was a driving force:

'the accurate and systematic investigation of the archaeology, topography, geology and physical geography, natural history, manners and customs of the Holy Land, for biblical illustration' (Moorey 1991: 4).

This mission statement with its stress on the importance of the ancient (in this case, sacred) Biblical text still characterises much of the archaeology of the region. The fact that sacred texts (the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament) are linked to the Iron Age archaeology of the southern Levant has made it an especially acrimonious academic field. There are researchers who minimise the historical reliability of the ancient texts (Davies 1992; Whitelam 1996; Thompson 1999), those who make the most of these texts (Kitchen 2003; Hoffmeier & Millard 2004; Hoffmeier 2008) and others who find themselves somewhere in the middle (Dever 2001; Halpern 2001; Stager 2003).

Debate about the relationship between ancient texts and the archaeological record in the southern Levantine is especially important now, because of the large scale of archaeological research and many publication projects that are currently carried out there. Here we present a case for the independent application of rigorous scientific procedures, in the field and in the laboratory. Exercising our belief that a better framework for the way ahead lies in radiocarbon dating drawn from precisely excavated stratigraphic contexts, we hope to encourage a transformative process in the way that historical archaeology is carried out in this region that may serve as a model for historical archaeologies in other parts of the world.

The application of science-based methods in historical Biblical archaeology research has been a feature of recent years, and reflects a maturity of the field. Our own approach has been influenced by three key factors. First, we have to confront the very high concentrations of material and structures encountered in Levantine Iron Age sites. This means moving to sophisticated digital data handling systems. Second, a radiocarbon date is only as good as its context, so all efforts must be mobilised to provide securely provenanced samples.

And third, we need high precision dates, because, if radiocarbon is to truly complement traditional methods based on pottery typology, it must attempt to match the chronological period intervals--of less than a century--that those traditional methods claim. After a brief review of how these relatively well-known procedures have been introduced and applied in the Levant, we offer a new radiocarbon sequence for southern Jordan (Edom) and show how it alters the perceptions of other recently published chronologies, in particular the 'Low Chronology' espoused by Israel Finkelstein.

Data handling procedures and context definition

As part of an effort to establish a more pragmatic and science-based approach to the Iron Age archaeology of the southern Levant (Levy & Higham 2005a & b; Levy & Smith 2007; Levy in press) our UC San Diego-Department of Antiquities of Jordan Edom Lowlands Regional Archaeology Project (ELRAP) team, and its predecessor the Jabal Hamrat Fidan project, have introduced on-site digital archaeology rooted in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to provide spatial control and data processing over the collection of all archaeological data in the field. The reasons for such a digital-based recording system are to deal effectively with the 'avalanche' of digital data faced by field scientists working in our region and to increase the precision of recording the context of archaeological samples and subsequent analyses.

The latest (3.0) version of the ELRAP digital archaeology system used in the field in Jordan over the past decade involves recording each artefact with a Total Station or differential GPS unit so that accurate x, y and z (elevation) coordinates are recorded not only for artefacts but for all contexts. 3.0 also includes the use of a helium balloon-based platform of daily on-site stereo digital photography system, for geo-referenced photographs or oblique views (Figure 1), LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) laser scanning coupled with GIS and the use of portable data collectors such as XRF (X-ray florescence) for elemental analyses of artefacts. All of these contribute to the digital 'data avalanche' (Levy et al. in press). Other projects in Israel, such as Tel Dor and Tel Beth Shemesh (Bubel 2009; Bunimovitz & Lederman 2009) are now moving towards fully digital systems. The Ashkelon system (D. Master, pets. comm.), is fully digital, and uses an online, integrated recording system known as OCHRE (Online Cultural Heritage Research Environment) adopted by a consortium of mostly North American research projects in the eastern Mediterranean (http://ochre.lib.uchicago.edu/index.htm).

While GIS is used by many researchers post hoc to analyse archaeological datasets, including the Megiddo project (Zapassky & Beneson 2006), GIS and Total Station/GPS are now part of the actual daily in-field artefact location process. Three-dimensional onsite digital recording also 'pre-adapts' archaeological datasets for scientific visualisation and analysis in virtual reality environments--another new development that archaeologists will use to examine their data (Cargill 2008). Recently, the world's largest scientific visualisation lab was established at the new King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) in Saudi Arabia by researchers from the California Institute of Telecommunications and Information Technology (Calit2) at UC San Diego (see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGBWWHjpVSQ). For the new KAUST Visualisation lab, 3D archaeological data collected from our excavations at Khirbat en-Nahas (KEN) were used to model Iron Age historical archaeology in Jordan, which is now at the centre of scholarly debate (Piasetzky & Finkelstein 2005; Finkelstein & Piasetzky 2008, 2009; Levy et al. 2008). To highlight the 'data avalanche' experienced by our own project, Table 1 illustrates the exponential increase in digital data acquired by the ELRAP team from the 2007 excavation season to the 2009 season, due to the adoption of new portable instruments such as a LIDAR scanner, 3D NextEngine scanners, digital aerial photography and more.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Precise dates

The traditional method of dating Iron Age deposits was first established in the early 1930s by Albright (1932) at his excavations at Tell Beit Mirsim south of Jerusalem and fine tuned by other ceramic typologists such as Amiran and others (Amiran 1970; Oakshott 1978; Sauer 1994; Zimhoni 1997). This involves intricate cross-dating, linking archaeological strata from across the southern Levant. Some Levantine Iron Age archaeologists are still convinced that ancient pottery is the most useful dating tool for achieving sub-century dating accuracy for this time period (Singer-Avitz 2009). However, the use-life of pottery vessels cannot be determined with accuracy, and the recognition of stylistic differences across time and space can be highly subjective, although this is improving with the application of quantitative methods for studying variability in ancient ceramics using new visualisation tools (Karasik et al. 2004; Karasik 2008).

Our preference is to apply high precision radiocarbon dating and Bayesian analysis. The excitement in applying these methods to ancient historical archaeology is its potential to achieve sub-century dating--crucial for testing the relationship between text and archaeology. The tipping point for historical Biblical archaeology in terms of the general acceptance of using high precision radiocarbon dating as an integral part of its 'tool box' was a series of papers published by Israeli researchers over the past decade (Bruins et al. 2003a; Boaretto et al. 2005; Sharon et al. 2005, 2007; Finkelstein & Piasetzky 2006a & b; Finkelstein et al. 2008). While a number of papers concerning radiocarbon dating and the south Levantine Iron Age had appeared before this (Gilboa & Sharon 2001; Mazar 2001), the paper published in Science (Bruins et al. 2003a; Finkelstein & Piasetzky 2003) concerning excavations at Tel Rehov in northern Israel marked a watershed: the scholarly community beyond the 'Holy Land' grew interested in the methodological and historical implications of the new research.

The results from the Tel Rehov radiocarbon dating project spurred ELRAP to begin a similar high precision dating project at the copper production centre at KEN (Figure 1). In 2004, we published the first study, summarising 19 AMS radiocarbon dates from the site (Levy et al. 2004b). In 2006, a second major excavation campaign was carried out at KEN, one of the main goals being to excavate a profile through one of the ancient industrial slag mounds at the site that reach depths of over 6m (Figure 2). A suite of 20 new radiocarbon dates was processed and reported on (Levy et al. 2008) from the slag mound in Area M. Most recently, we obtained 36 additional radiocarbon dates from four other areas at the site (Area A--the fortress gatehouse, Area F--a building inside the fortress, Area R--a large building complex, and Area T--another large building and courtyard complex; Levy et al. forthcoming).

At present, a total of 101 radiocarbon dates have been processed for KEN. Our experience and that of other researchers who have used radiocarbon dating as an integral part of their Iron Age studies, stresses the importance of using Bayesian analysis of the calibrated dates (Bruins & Van der Plicht 2005; Mazar 2005; Mazar et al. 2005; Van der Plicht & Bruins 2005; Gilboa et al. 2009). Here we add the two new unpublished dates from Area M to the Bayesian model to show copper production may have begun at the site as early as the end of the thirteenth century BC and confirm the longevity of the Iron Age occupation of Biblical Edom (Figure 3, Ben-Yosef et al. 2010). Thus, the application of AMS radiocarbon dating and Bayesian analyses at Iron Age KEN, coupled with on-site GIS-based digital archaeology methods, provides the most promising approach to solving historical Biblical archaeology field research problems for the twenty-first century.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

Discussion

A major characteristic of Finkelstein's much-cited interpretation of the Iron Age sequence for the southern Levant has been his commitment to the 'Low Chronology' that he first formulated in the mid 1990s (Finkelstein 1996, 2002b, 2005b). This chronological framework re-dates a wide range of archaeological deposits from key Biblical sites in Israel and the Palestinian territories that earlier researchers had linked to monumental building activities of the United Monarchy under the early Hebrew kings, David and Solomon. A great deal of scholarly debate has surrounded, and continues to surround, the issue of whether this 'Low' chronology or the traditional 'High' chronology is correct (Mazar 1997, 2001, 2005; Bunimovitz & Faust 2001, in press; Levy et al. 2006; van der Steen & Bienkowski 2006). What is disconcerting is Professor Finkelstein's presentation of this dating controversy as having been resolved especially since this assertion was made prior to his use of Bayesian modelling.

'. .... in the last few years, radiocarbon dating has hammered the final nail in the coffin of the Solomonic mirage. Carbon 14 samples from major sites involved in the united monarchy debates (including Dor on the coast, Tel Rehov in the Jordan Valley south of Beth-shean, Tel Hadar on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee, and Rosh Zayit near Akko, Hazor, and Megiddo) have been submitted for testing and analysis. The samples came from numerous grain seeds and olive stones found in levels that were traditionally linked with the Davidic conquests and the Solomonic kingdom of the tenth century BCE.... The results were stunning. Almost all the samples produced dates lower, that is, later than the widely accepted dates of the conquests of David and the united monarchy of King Solomon. Destruction layers that had previously been dated to around 1000 BCE and linked to the conquest of King David provided dates in the mid-tenth century BCE--the supposed time of King Solomon if not a bit later. And the destruction layers that had traditionally been dated to the late tenth century and linked to the campaign of Pharaoh Shishak after the breakdown of the united monarchy provided dates in the mid-ninth century BCE---almost a century later' (Finkelstein & Silberman 2006:280-81).

While there seems to be acknowledgment that some lowering (perhaps as much as 20 years) may be needed, what Mazar refers to as the MCC ('Modified Conventional Chronology'), the debate is in fact far from over (Finkelstein 2002a; Bruins et al. 2003a & b; Gilboa & Sharon 2003; Bruins & Van der Plicht 2005; Levy & Higham 2005b; Mazar et al. 2005; Sharon et al. 2005; Van der Plicht & Bruins 2005; Finkelstein & Piasetzky 2006b; Finkelstein et al. 2008; Gilboa et al. 2009).

Underlying Finkelstein's strong adherence to the Low Chronology is his interpretation of Iron Age history, which as summarised in the quotation above, discards any evidence that there had been a significant United Monarchy under Kings David and Solomon responsible for the construction of monumental buildings such as gatehouses, fortresses, palaces and other features linked to complex societies. According to this interpretive model (cf. Finkelstein & Silberman 2006:280-81) there were no local south Levantine complex polities during the first three quarters of the tenth century BC capable of these activities.

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

This is where our research in Jordan's Faynan copper ore district comes into play, producing new data retrieved with state-of-the-art digital methods coupled with a strong high precision radiocarbon dating program. As Jordan's Faynan copper ore district is located in the northern portion of the region known as Edom from ancient Egyptian texts and the Hebrew Bible, it is an important data source for Iron Age research in the southern Levant. Professor Finkelstein's adherence to the 'Low' chronology colours his interpretation of what happened in history:

'Another important source of copper is the area of Wadi Feinan, on the eastern margin of the Arabah Valley.... Recent studies by German, American, and Jordanian scholars have revealed evidence for continuous activity in the Iron Age, with one of the intense periods of mining and production dated to the late eighth and seventh centuries BCE. Like all other lucrative economic activities in the region, this industry was carried out under Assyrian auspices' (Finkelstein & Silberman 2006: 174-5).

The urge to force a 'core civilisation model' that sees Assyria as responsible for the rise of the late eighth-seventh century BC Edomite kingdom has characterised south Levantine scholarly discourse since Crystal Bennett carried out the first large-scale excavations in the region from the late 1960s to the 1980s (Bennett 1992; Bienkowski & van der Steen 2001). According to this model, there was no significant Iron Age occupation in Edom prior to the eighth century BC and consequently, any allusions in the Hebrew Bible to Edom prior to that time were patently 'myth'.

Finkelstein's 2006 book was published when the main suite of radiocarbon dates from our work in Faynan had already been published (Levy et al. 2004b, 2005b; Higham et al. 2005), as were the results of the German Mining Museum work in Faynan carried out under Hauptmann who published around 17 Iron Age radiocarbon dates related to Iron Age copper production in Faynan (Hauptmann 2007). It is simply incorrect to say that the late eighth-seventh century BC was "one of the intense periods of mining and production activities in the region' (Finkelstein & Silberman 2006: 174-5) and that it was carried out under Assyrian auspices. In 2006, and still more with the new fieldwork and radiocarbon dating discussed above, there is no question that the peak in Iron Age metal production occurred much earlier, during the tenth and ninth centuries BC. There is only limited evidence for eighth-seventh century BC copper production in Faynan and for that period, there is no definitive evidence that the Assyrians controlled mining and metallurgy at that time.

Using another angle, Finkelstein and Piasetzky (2008: 85) claim that at Khirbat en-Nahas (KEN) there is a: 'Lack of stratigraphy and clean loci ... Therefore we consider most of the [sup.14]C samples from KEN as representing unstratified industrial refuse ...' This conclusion is entirely unsupported by the evidence. There are actually very well-developed stratigraphic sequences in each of the six excavation areas at the site, including the fortress gatehouse (Area A, Levy et al. 2004b, 2005b), a slag processing building (Area S, Levy et al. 2004b, 2005b; Smith & Levy 2008), an industrial slag mound (Area M, Levy et al. 2008) and other non-domestic buildings (Areas T, R & F). For the intricate stratigraphy related to the industrial slag mound in Area M see Figure 2 which is dated with both radiocarbon dating and paleomagnetic intensity (Ben-Yosef et al. 2008a & b, 2009, 2010).

Finkelstein and Piasetzky recruited Bayesian analysis to the cause in 2009 and in their most recent paper in this journal (2010: 381) state: 'these results are in line with the Low Chronology ... for the Iron Age ... in the Levant ... clearly negating all other theories'. We would urge some degree of circumspection on Professor Finkelstein's part. For example at Arar Horoa, they simply used a mean for all of the determinations to include in their model (2010, Data Table 5 in supplementary data). Methodologically, this is flawed, since the dated material comes from different loci with different ages. The model also still uses imprecise dates published in earlier papers (Finkelstein & Piasetzky 2006a & b, 2008).

In summary, our research since 2002 (Levy et al. 2004a & b, 2005a & b, 2008; Higham et al. 2005; Levy 2009) has definitively added some 400-500 additional years to the Iron Age and Late Bronze Age archaeological record in Edom, with the peak of settlement and industrial activity during the tenth-ninth century BC. Over 100 AMS radiocarbon dates have been processed from Khirbat en-Nahas--more than any other Iron Age site in the southern Levant and all come from solid archaeological contexts from stratified excavations. None of the calibrated dates from Khirbat en-Nahas, a copper-producing area of 10ha, is later than the ninth century BC. Thus, the new research at Khirbat en-Nahas and other Faynan Iron Age sites highlights the need to re-address the issue of control of industrial copper production in Faynan, as well as explore the possibility of late tenth-century BC Egyptian or indigenous Edomite control.

Conclusion

These considerations have a greater import than simply putting the record straight. As Megiddo is one of the most important anchors for Iron Age Biblical archaeology, it is essential that new excavations there (directed by Finkelstein and David Ussishkin) use onsite GIS-based digital recording methods and apply high precision radiocarbon dating and Bayesian analysis, to achieve parity with other major Iron Age excavations being carried out today. The exact number of dates needed for this project will be strongly influenced by age-depth data and availability of short-life dating samples, but one would expect a range from 60 to 100 as opposed to the 22 radiocarbon dates so far published (Boaretto 2006). Strengthening and refining the Iron Age dating framework for Megiddo in the context of new work (Finkelstein 2008) would serve to frame the chronology at one of its most important sites and provide an objective chronological benchmark for comparative studies concerning both CisoJordan and Trans-Jordan. In this sense, the new Biblical Israel project also has the potential to help transform ancient historical archaeology on the world scene.

Received: 21 September 2009; Revised: 26 March 2010; Accepted: 20 May 2010

References

ALBRIGHT, W.F. 1932. The excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim I: the pottery of the first three campaigns, Volume 12. New Haven (CT): Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research.

AMIRAN, R. 1970. Ancient pottery of the Holy Land: from its beginnings in the Neolithic period to the end of the Iron Age. New Brunswick (NJ): Rutgers University Press.

BEN-YOSEF, E., H. RON, L. TAUXE, A. AGNON, A. GENEVEY, T.E. LEVY, U. AVNER & M. NAJJAR. 2008a. Application of copper slag in geomagnetic archaeointensity research. Journal of Geophysical Research 113: 1-26.

BEN-YOSEF, E., L. TAUXE, H. RON, A. AGNON, U. AVNER, M. NAJJAR & T.E. Levy. 2008b. A new approach for geomagnetic archaeointensity research: insights on ancient metallurgy in the Southern Levant. Journal of Archaeological Science 35: 2863-79.

BEN-YOSEF, E., L. TAUXE, T.E. LEVY, R. SHAAR, H. RON & M. NAJJAR. 2009. Archaeomagnetic intensity spike recorded in high resolution slag deposit from historical biblical archaeology site in southern Jordan. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 287: 529-39.

BEN-YOSEF, E., T.E. LEVY, M. NAJJAR, N.G. SMITH, T. HIGHAM, C. BRONK RAMSEY, M. ROBINSON & L. TAUXE. 2010. The beginning of Iron Age copper production in the southern Levant: new evidence from Khirbat al-Jariya, Faynan, Jordan. Antiquity 84: 724-46.

BENNETT, C.M. 1992. Neo-Assyrian influence in Transjordan, in A. Haddidi (ed.) Studies in the history and archaeology o f Jordan, Volume 1:181-7. Amman: Department of Antiquities of Jordan.

BIENKOWSKI, P. & E. VAN DER STEEN. 2001. Tribes, trade, and towns: a new framework for the Late Iron Age in southern Jordan and the Negev. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 323: 21-47.

BOARETTO, E. 2006. Radiocarbon dates, in I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin & B. Halpern (ed.) Megiddo IV--the 1998-2002 seasons: 550-57. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology.

BOARETTO, E., A.J.T. JULL, A. GILBOA & I. SHARON. 2005. Dating the Iron Age I/II transition in Israel: first intercomparison results. Radiocarbon 47: 39-55.

BRONK RAMSEY, C. 2001. Development of the radiocarbon calibration program OxCal. Radiocarbon 43: 355-63.

--2009a. Dealing with outliers and offsets in radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon 51:1023-45.

--2009b. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51(1): 337-60.

BRUINS, H.J. & J. VAN DER PLICHT. 2005. Desert settlement through the Iron Age: radiocarbon dates from Sinai and the Negev in T.E. Levy & T. Higham (ed.) The Bible and radiocarbon dating archaeology, text and science: 349-66. London: Equinox.

BRUINS, H.J., J. VAN DER PLICHT & A. MAZAR. 2003a. [sup.14]C dates from Tel Rehov: Iron Age chronology, pharaohs and Hebrew kings. Science 300: 315-18.

--2003b. Response to comment on [sip.'14]C dates from Tel Rehov: Iron Age chronology, Pharaohs and Hebrew Kings'. Science 302: 568c-d.

BUBEL, S. 2009. GIS analysis at Tel Beth-Shemesh. Near Eastern Archaeology 72: 125-6.

BUNIMOVITZ, S. & A. FAUST. 2001. Chronological separation, geographical segregation, or ethnic demarcation? Ethnography and the Iron Age low chronology. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 322: 1-10.

--In press. Re-constructing Biblical archaeology: toward an integration of archaeology and the Bible in T.E. Levy (ed.) Historical Biblical archaeology and the future--the new pragmatism: 45-56. London: Equinox.

BUNIMOVITZ, S. & Z. LEDERMAN. 2009. The archaeology of border communities--renewed excavations at Tel Beth-Shemesh, Part 1: the Iron Age. Near Eastern Archaeology 72:114-42.

CARGILL, R.R. 2008. The Qumran digital model--an argument for archaeological reconstruction in virtual reality. Near Eastern Archaeology 71:28-41.

DAVIES, P.R. 1992. In search of ancient Israel (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament supplement series 148). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.

DEVER, W.G. 2001. What did the Biblical writers know and when did they know it? Grand Rapids (MI): William B. Eerdmans.

FINKELSTE1N, I. 1996. The archaeology of the United Monarchy: an alternative view. Levant 28: 177-87.

--2002a. The campaign of Shoshenq I to Palestine--a guide to the 10th-century-BCE polity (Examining the territorial-political systems of Iron-Age-II Canaan). Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina-Vereins 118: 109-135.

--2002b. Chronological rejoinders. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 134:118-29.

--2005a. Khirbet en-Nahas, Edom and Biblical history. Tel Aviv 32:119-25.

--2005b. A low chronology update: archaeology, history and the Bible, in T.E. Levy & T. Higham (ed.) The Bible and radiocarbon dating: archaeology, text and science: 31-42. London: Equinox.

--2008. Reconstructing ancient (Biblical) Israel: the exact and life sciences perspective, in The Agade mailing list (a source of news run by Jack Sasson on a regular listserver).

FINKELSTEIN, I. & E. PIASETZKY. 2003. Comment on [sup.'14]C dates from Tel Rehov: Iron Age chronology, Pharoahs and Hebrew Kings'. Science 302: 568b.

--2006a. [sup.14]C and the Iron Age chronology debate: Rehov, Khirbet en-Nahas, Dan and Megiddo. Radiocarbon 48: 373-86.

--2006b. The Iron I-IIA in the highlands and beyond: [sup.14]C anchors, pottery phases and the Shoshenq I Campaign. Levant 38: 45-61.

--2008. Radiocarbon and the history of copper production at Khirbet en-Nahas. Tel Aviv 35: 82-95.

--2009. Radiocarbon-dated destruction layers: a skeleton for Iron Age chronology in the Levant. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 28: 255-74.

--2010. Radiocarbon dating the Iron Age in the Levant: a Bayesian model for six ceramic phases and six transitions. Antiquity 84: 374-85. Supplementary data available at: http://www.antiquity.ac.ukl projgall/finkelstein324/(accessed 18 June 2010).

FINKELSTEIN, I., A. FANTALKIN & E. PIASETZKY. 2008. Three snapshots of the Iron IIA: the Northern Valleys, the Southern Steppe and Jerusalem, in L.L.

Grabbe (ed.) Israel in transition: from Late Bronze II to Iron IIa (c. 1250-850 BCE): 32-44. London: Continuum International.

GILBOA, A. & I. SHARON. 2001. Early Iron Age radiometric dates from Tel Dor: preliminary implications for Phoenicia and beyond. Radiocarbon 43: 1343-51.

--2003. An archaeological contribution to the Early Iron Age chronological debate: alternative chronologies for Phoenicia and their effects on the Levant, Cyprus and Greece. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 332: 7-80.

GILBOA, A., A.J.T. JULL, I. SHARON & E. BOARETTO. 2009. Notes on Iron IIA [sup.14]C dates from Tell el-Qudeirat (Kadesh Barnea). Tel Aviv 36: 82-94.

HALPERN, B. 2001. David's secret demons--messiah, murderer, traitor, king. Grand Rapids (MI): William B. Eerdmans.

HAUPTMANN, A. 2007. The archaeo-metallurgy of copper--evidence from Faynan, Jordan. New York: Springer.

HIGHAM, T., J. VAN DER PLICHT, C. BRONK RAMSEY, H.J. BRUINS, M. ROBINSON & T.E. LEVY. 2005.

Radiocarbon dating of the Khirbat-en Nahas site (Jordan) and Bayesian modelling of the results, in T.E. Levy & T. Higham (ed.) The Bible and radiocarbon sating--archaeology, text and science: 164-78. London: Equinox.

HOFFMEIER, J.K. 2008. The archaeology of the Bible. Oxford: Lion.

HOFFMEIER, J. K. & A.R. MILLARD (ed.). 2004. The future of Biblical archaeology: reassessing methodologies and assumptions: the proceedings of a symposium August 12-14, 2001 at Trinity International University. Grand Rapids (MI): William B. Eerdmans.

KARASIK, A. 2008. Applications of 3D technology as a research tool in archaeological ceramic analysis, in B. Frischer &. A. Dakouri-Hild (ed.) Beyond illustration: 2D and 3D digital technology as tools for discovery in archaeology (British Archaeological Reports International series 1805). Oxford: Archaeopress.

KARASIK, A., I. SHARON, U. SMILANSKY & A. GILBOA. 2004. Typology and classification of ceramics based on curvature analysis. Computers Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology 2004: 472-5.

KITCHEN, K.A. 2003. On the reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids (MI): William B. Eerdmans.

LEVY, T.E. 2009. Pastoral nomads and Iron Age metal production in ancient Edom, in J. Szuchman (ed.) Nomads, tribes, and the state in the Ancient Near East: 147-76. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.

--In press. The new pragmatism: integrating anthropological, digital and historical Biblical archaeologies, in T.E. Levy (ed.) Historical Biblical archaeology and the future--the new pragmatism. London: Equinox.

LEVY, T.E. & T. HIGHAM (ed.). 2005a. The Bible and radiocarbon dating--archaeology, text and science. London: Equinox.

--2005b. Radiocarbon dating and the Iron Age of the southern Levant: problems and potentials for the Oxford conference, in T.E. Levy & T. Higham (ed.) The Bible and radiocarbon dating--archaeology, text and science: 3-14. London: Equinox.

LEVY, T.E. & N.G. SMITH. 2007. On-site digital archaeology: GIS-based excavation recording in southern Jordan, in T.E. Levy, M. Daviau, R.

Younker & M.M. Shaer (ed.) Crossing Jordan-North American contributions to the archaeology of Jordan: 47-58. London: Equinox.

LEVY, T.E., R.B. ADAMS & A. MUNIZ. 2004a. Archaeology and the Shasu Nomads--recent excavations in the Jabal Hamrat Fidan, Jordan, in W.H.C. Propp & R.E. Friedman (ed.) Le-David Maskil: a birthday tribute for David Noel Freedman: 63-89. Winona Lake (IN): Eisenbrauns.

LEVY, T.E., R.B. ADAMS, M. NAJJAR, A. HAUPTMANN, J.A. ANDERSON, B. BRANDL, M. ROBINSON & T. HIGHAM. 2004b. Reassessing the chronology of Biblical Edom: new excavations and [sup.14]C dates from Khirbat en-Nahas (Jordan). Antiquity 78: 865-79.

LEVY, T.E., M. NAJJAR, A. MUNIZ, S. MALENA, E. MONROE, M. BEHEREC, N.G. SMITH, T. HIGHAM, S. MUNGER & K. MAES. 2005a. Iron Age burial in the Lowlands of Edom: the 2004 excavations at Wadi Fidan 40, Jordan. Annual of the Department of Antiquities Jordan 49: 443-87.

LEVY, T.E., M. NAJJAR, J. VAN DER PLICHT, N.G. SMITH, H.J. BRUINS & T. HIGHAM. 2005b. Lowland Edom and the high and low chronologies: Edomite state formation, the Bible and recent archaeological research in southern Jordan, in T.E.

LEVY & T. HIGHAM (ed.) The Bible and radiocarbon dating--archaeology, text and science: 129-63. London: Equinox.

LEVY, T.E., T. HIGHAM & M. NAJJAR. 2006. Response to van der Steen & Bienkowski. Antiquity 80: 3-5.

LEVY, T.E., T. HIGHAM, C. BRONK RAMSEY, N.G. SMITH, E. BEN-YOSEF, M. ROBINSON, S. MONGER, K. KNABB, J.P. SCHULZE, M. NAJJAR & L. TAUXE. 2008. High-precision radiocarbon dating and historical biblical archaeology in southern Jordan. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105: 16460-65.

LEVY, T.E., V. PETROVIC, T. WYPYCH, A. GIDDING, K. KNABB, D. HERNANDEZ, N.G. SMITH, J. P.

SCHLULZ, S.H. SAVAGE, F. KUESTER, E. BEN-YOSEF, C. BUITENHUYS, C.J. BARRETT, M. NAJJAR & T. DEFANTI. In press. On-site digital archaeology 3.0 and cyber-archaeology: into the future of the past--new developments, delivery and the creation of a data avalanche, in M. Forte (ed.) Introduction to cyber-archaeolagy. Oxford: Archaeopress.

MAZAR, A. 1997. Iron Age chronology: a reply to I. Finkelstein. Levant 29:157-67.

--2001. Radiocarbon dates from Iron Age strata at Tel Beth Shean and Tel Rehov. Radiocarbon 43: 1333-42.

--2005. The debate over the chronology of the Iron Age in the southern Levant: its history, the current situation, and a suggested resolution, in T.E. Levy & T. Higham (ed.) The Bible and radiocarbon dating--archaeology, text and science: 15-30. London: Equinox.

MAZAR, A., H.J. BRUINS, N. PANITZ-COHEN & J. VAN DER PLICHT. 2005. Ladder of time at Tel Rehov stratigraphy, archaeological context, pottery and radiocarbon dates, in T.E. Levy & T. Higham (ed.) The Bible and radiocarbon dating--archaeology, text and science: 193-255. London: Equinox.

MOOREY, P.R.S. 1991. A century of Biblical archaeology. Louisville (ICY): Westminster/John Knox Press.

OAKSHOTT, M.E 1978. A study of the Iron Age II pottery of East Jordan with special reference to unpublished material from Edom. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of London.

PIASETZKY, E. & I. FINKELSTEIN. 2005. [sup.14]C Results from Megiddo, Tel Dor, Tel Rehov and Tel Hadar: where do they lead us?, in T.E. Levy & T. Higham (ed.) The Bible and radiocarbon dating--archaeology, text and science: 294-301. London: Equinox.

SAUER, J.A. 1994. The pottery at Hesban and its relationships to the history of Jordan: an interim Hesban pottery report, 1993, in D. Merling & L.T. Geraty (ed.) Hesban after 25 years: 225-81. Berrien Springs (MI): Institute of Archaeology/Siegfried H. Horn Archaeological Museum.

SHARON, I., A. GILBOA, E. BOARETTO & A.J.T. JULL. 2005. The Early Iron Age dating project introduction, methodology, progress report and an update on the Tel Dor radiometric dates, T.E. Levy & T. Higham (ed.) The Bible and radiocarbon dating--archaeology, text and science: 65-92. London: Equinox.

--2007. Report on the first stage of the Iron Age dating project in Israel: supporting a low chronology. Radiocarbon 49: 1-45.

SINGER-AVITZ, L. 2009. Carbon 14--the solution to dating David and Solomon? Biblical Archaeology Review 35: 28, 71.

SMITH, N.G. & T.E. LEVY. 2008. The Iron Age pottery from Khirbat en-Nahas, Jordan: a preliminary study. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 352:1-51.

STAGER, L.E. 2003. The patrimonial kingdom of Solomon, in W.G. Dever & S. Gitin (ed.) Symbiosis, symbolism, and the power of the pastCanaan, ancient Israel, and their neighbors from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina: 63-74. Winona Lake (IN): Eisenbrauns.

THOMPSON, T.L. 1999. The mythic past: Biblical archaeology and the myth of Israel. New York: Basic Books.

VAN DER PLICHT, J. & H.J. BRUINS. 2005. Quality control of Groningen [sup.14]C Results from Tel Rehov-repeatability and intercomparison of proportional gas counting and AMS, in T.E. Levy & T. Higham (ed.) The Bible and radiocarbon dating--archaeology, text and science: 256-70. London: Equinox.

VAN DER STEEN, E. & P. BIENKOWSKI. 2006. Radiocarbon dates from Khirbat en-Nahas: a methodological critique. Antiquity 80: 1-3.

WHITELAM, K.W. 1996. The invention of ancient Israel." the silencing of Palestinian history. New York: Routledge.

ZAPASSKY, E. & I. BENENSON. 2006. Megiddo database update: the geographic information system (GIS), in I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin & B. Halpern (ed.) Megiddo IV--the 1998-2002 seasons: 19-26. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology.

ZIMHONI, O. 1997. Studies in the Iron Age pottery of Israel: typological, archaeological, and chronological aspects (Tel Aviv Occasional Papers 2). Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, Institute of Archaeology.

Thomas E. Levy (1), Mohammad Najjar (2) & Thomas Higham (3)

(1) Department of Anthropology and Center for Interdisciplinary Science for Art, Architecture and Archaeology. California Institute for Telecommunication and Information Technology (Calit2), University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA (Email: tlevy@ucsd.edu)

(2) Levantine Archaeological Laboratory, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA (Email: m.najjar@joscapes.com)

(3) Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, University of Oxford, Dyson Perrins Building, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK

Table 1. The exponential increase in digital data acquired by the
ELRAP team from the 2007 excavation season to the 2009 excavation
season.

                                    2007 excavation   2009 excavation
Data collection instrument              season            season

3D NextEngine scanner (artefacts)          0               168GB

High res digital artefact                70GB              253GB
  photography
High res digital site photography        10GB              52GB
Balloon-based Stereo Digital               0               253GB
  Photography
Gigapan panorama photography               0               15GB
Terrestrial LIDAR scanning                 0               500GB
GIS data                                 20GB              30GB
TOTAL                                    100GB            1271GB