Eglon’s Jericho
by
Damien F. Mackey
“The next mention of Jericho following Joshua's destruction is in Judges
3 where we are told that Eglon, king of Moab, took possession of the "City
of Palms" and built a palace there. The City of Palms, of course, is none
other than Jericho (Dt 34:3; 2 Chr 28:15)”.
Introduction
A very clear demonstration of what I wrote in
my article:
Joshua's Jericho
“The popular model today, as espoused by … David Rohl … arguing instead for
a Middle Bronze Jericho at the time of Joshua, ends up throwing right out of
kilter the biblico-historical correspondences” [,]
is apparent from the part of Dr. Bryant Wood’s critique
(“David Rohl's Revised Egyptian Chronology: A View From Palestine”), in which
Bryant has well pointed out that Rohl’s revised Jericho stratigraphical sequence
“completely
misses Eglon's occupation of Jericho”: http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2007/05/23/David-Rohls-Revised-Egyptian-Chronology-A-View-From-Palestine.aspx
In his book Pharaohs and Kings: A
Biblical Quest (1995a; it was first published in England as A Test of Time: The
Bible - From Myth to History [1995b]), David Rohl purports to have produced a
better correlation between the findings of archaeology and the Bible by revising
Egyptian chronology.
….
The Middle Building at Jericho
Concerning occupation at Jericho
following the Conquest, Rohl makes the following statement:
...the
next time we hear mention of Jericho after Joshua's destruction of the town is
during the reign of David (313).
This is simply incorrect. The next
mention of Jericho following Joshua's destruction is in Judges 3 where we are
told that Eglon, king of Moab, took possession of the "City of Palms"
and built a palace there. The City of Palms, of course, is none other than
Jericho (Dt 34:3; 2 Chr 28:15). Rohl makes a connection between the LB IIA
"Middle Building" at Jericho, excavated by John Garstang in 1933, and
David's seclusion of the Israelite delegation at Jericho recorded in 2 Samuel
10:5.
The Bible does not tell us what, if
anything, was at Jericho in David's day. Garstang's Middle Building, on the
other hand, exactly fits the description of Eglon's palace in Judges 3 using
conventional chronology (Garstang 1941a; 1941b; 1948: 175-80). It was an
isolated palatial structure with no corresponding town. There was evidence of
wealth (expensive imported pottery), and administrative activities (an
inscribed clay tablet). The Middle Building was constructed toward the end of
the 14th century B.C. by conventional chronology, which matches the time period
of the Judges 3 account according to Biblical chronology. It was occupied for
only a short period of time and then abandoned, paralleling the Biblical
description of an 18 year oppression by Eglon and the subsequent rout of the
Moabites by Ehud and the Israelites.
….
The "Middle Building" was
excavated in 1933 by John Garstang on Jericho's southeastern slope. A palace
like structure (28 x 47 ft.), it was an isolated building with evidence of
wealth and administrative activity. It date and finds fit very well with
Moabite king Eglon's palace (Judges 3:12-25). Rohl completely misses Eglon's
occupation of Jericho in his reconstruction and tries to relate the Middle
Building to the time of David.
[End of quote]
Eglon of Moab
Once again it will be Dr. John Osgood who first properly
sorted out the Jericho sequence. Regarding Eglon of Moab’s occupation, Osgood has
written (“The Times of the Judges -The Archaeology: (b) Settlement
and Apostasy”) http://creation.com/the-time-of-the-judges-the-archaeology-b-settlement-and-apostasy
A new alignment begins
The land of Israel rested in peace and freedom from oppression for a
period of 40 years—here equated with the MB IIA period, or the last portion of
it (Judges 3:11).
Again they apostasised into idolatry, and soon a new spectre appeared on
the horizon. A strong king of Moab began a conquest of Israel which brought him
into control of at least the strategic central portion of the land. Eglon of
Moab now rebuilt on the ruins of Jericho, ‘the city of palms’, a fortress
capable of stationing 10,000 troops, and a palace (Judges 3:12-30).
This apparently was not a rebuilding of the old city which had been
cursed by Joshua, later rebuilt by Hiel the Bethelite (1 Kings 16:34), but it
was, nonetheless, the same site geographically.
Assisting him in this conquest naturally was Moab’s old sister nation
Ammon. This is quite easy to accept. However, surprisingly, also in the raiding
force was AMALEK (Judges 3:13).
Now geographically Amalek was in the western Negev (see Genesis) 14:17, Numbers 13:29, Numbers 14:25, 1 Samuel 15:7, 27:8). The
related Edomites were between Moab and Amalek, so the alliance does seem a
little unusual (see Figure 7).
Figure 7. Map showing the
regions/peoples of the Moabite alliance.
However, Amalek has a number of enigmatic statements made about it in
the Scriptures (Numbers 24:20).
Balaam says of Amalek that it was then ‘the first of the nations’ (first =
Hebrew reshith—foremost). This is a truly incredible statement on first glance,
but the same concept is supported by Balaam’s other comment about Agag, the
Amalekite king. He said that Israel’s kingdom would be higher than Agag, and
his kingdom exalted. In other words, the whole idea being conveyed was that
Agag occupied a position of immense power (Numbers 24:7).
The implication of these statements is that Amalek was a power to be
reckoned with, no longer just a fledgling nation, as before. It is with this in
mind that the recent assertions of Velikovsky18 and Courville19 need to be perused. They were united in identifying Amalek with the
‘AMU’( = Hyksos) overlords of Egypt during the Second Intermediate period of
that nation. Such an assertion would give weight to statements of scripture
that imply an Amalekite nation was the foremost of the nations in Moses’ day.
It would also bring meaning into Eglon’s call for help to Amalek for the
subjugation of Israel. In fact, it would almost be a necessity for Moab to
obtain Amalek’s blessing on her
conquest of Israel in order to bear rule over what Amalek (the
Hyksos rulers of Egypt) would regard as their sphere of rule. Eglon then would
be a vassal ruler of the Amalekite/Hyksos over a subjugated Israel.
It is of interest to note that from this point in Israel’s history as
the scriptures record it, Amalek is on the scene more consistently than any
other nation in attack against Israel for the next 300 years, first assisting
Eglon, then in association with Midian (Judges 6:3), and then in
the days of King Saul and David (1 Samuel 15 and 1 Samuel 30).
Such an interval of time adds to the circumstantial weight of the
identification of Amalek with the Amu, and the Hyksos, and this author accepts
fully at least this part of the theses of Velikovsky18 and Courville19 (This is not, however, a blanket
endorsement of other areas of their work.) Hereafter in this work I will assume
the identification of Amalekite/Hyksos to be valid, although further discussion
on this point will undoubtedly ensue. Taking the above premises, we would
expect to find an MB IIB city at Jericho, of larger proportions than the old
city (identified as EB III), evidence of a palace, and evidence of Hyksos rule.
Furthermore, if we were able to differentiate Moabite culture from Israelite,
we would also expect some evidence of Moabite culture in the MB IIB city.
Jericho MB IIB—A new fortress arises
Jericho was definitely rebuilt along different lines in the MB II
period—larger than it was before. A regional similarity was also apparent as
Garstang says:
“This is indeed fairly clear, because the site lay
more or less derelict thereafter for some time, perhaps a century, and when
finally the city revived it is found to have been entirely replanned and
reconstructed upon fresh lines, with a new and improved defensive system; while
an entirely new culture, that of the Middle Bronze Age, replaced the old.
Moreover the change was general, and it affected in similar fashion all the
great cities on the highlands above the Jordan valley, Jericho nearest
surviving neighbours; while many early settlements in and near the southern end
of the Rift never revived at all”20 (emphasis ours)
Garstang continues:
“It was during this period that Jericho, under the
Hyksos regime attained its greatest extension and the height of its prosperity.
The protected area was now about nine acres, which was nearly the size of
contemporary Jerusalem.”21
Jericho gave evidence of being a premium city at this time. It was most
important to have a palace in the heart of the city—and that a most prominent
one. Here in the revised chronology we suggest that this palace was, in fact,
that of the Moabite King Eglon, vice regent to his Hyksos/Amalekite overlords
of Egypt and the Negev.
“In the heart of the City, on a peak of ground
overlooking the spring, rose a royal palace, the most elaborate dwelling
uncovered upon the site. The main block, which was square, crowned the highest
part of the knoll, and it was surrounded at groundfloor level by a sort of
roofed ambulatory, in which would be half-cellar store-rooms, offices, stables,
etc., much as in the arcaded basements of many houses of the East to-day.”22
Certainly the description of this palace fits the details of Judges 3:13 and 20–26, but
Garstang continues:
“The very proportions and solidarity of the palace
building show that the ruler of Jericho at this period had attained both wealth
and power; and the contents of the extensive store-rooms committed to his care
seem to explain the source of his increased prestige.”23
Moreover, it was during this period that Hyksos power was evident and
strong, the many scarabs with the red crown of Lower Egypt pointed out by
Kenyon24 testifying to the
hegemony of Jericho.
Garstang continues with his details of the Ruler of Jericho at this
time:
“He
became in fact the chief of an important unit in the Hyksos organization.
Associated with him as guardian of the Hyksos stores or ‘treasury’ was a
resident official, whose title ‘Scribe of the Vezir’ appears upon
scarab-signets and jar-sealings recovered from the store-rooms; the names of
two persons who held this office were Senb. ef and Se. Ankh, both
characteristic of this period.”25
We emphasise our belief that this ruler was, in fact, Eglon of Moab.
It appears that although Eglon’s presence was removed from Jericho, some
sort of Israelite presence persisted at the site, as witnessed by its
occupation in the days of David’s reign (2 Samuel 10:5).
A new influence
A new influence now affected Palestine, producing the MB IIB culture
(Albright nomenclature). The Khabur influence [Osgood had identified this culture
with the incursion of Cushan-rishathaim, Judges 3:8] had come briefly and then
gone, not being the sort of influence that one attributes to an ethnic movement
of people, but eminently in the style of a conquest introduction. The main item
of that influence was, in fact, a storage jar which would be suitable for grain
or wine.
The new culture was a continuation of the main body of cultural
tradition, but gone was the Khabur influence, and a new pottery tradition came,
known as the Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware.
“A close analysis of MB IIA and B–C pottery shows many
differences between the two periods, but a definite continuity of form and
decoration can undoubtedly be observed.”26
The Tell el-Yahudiyeh pottery was not totally new to the MB IIB but was
present already to a small extent in the MB I. However, its popularity peaked
in MB IIB then continued into MB IIC, finally to leave a remnant in the LB I
(Late Bronze I).27
This ware appears to have been produced in Palestine, some exported to
Cyprus, Egypt and north into Phoenicia, but its centre was in Palestine
(assumed by current thinking to be CANAANITE, but by this revised chronology it
would almost certainly be Israelite).28
Despite the difference that is generally assumed between MB I and the MB
IIA–C pottery, it is not inconceivable that the Tell el-Yahudiyeh decorations
on the juglets which form the distinctive feature, were ultimately conceived
from the very features already inherent in the MB I; viz, incisions and
‘notches’ in the MB I pottery made by a comb or fork,29 and ‘punctured decoration’ and ‘designs delineated by grooves’ also
reminiscent of the use of comb or fork, in MB IIB Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware.30
Considering the general features of the MB I to MB IIA–C sequence, there
is every reason to believe that what we are seeing was the ongoing development
of the early Israelite pottery tradition.
Moreover, the pottery of MB I Palestine shows at least some affinity
with the late 12th Dynasty of Egypt, which is of course, what we would expect
if the MB I to MB IIA to MB IIB–C sequence is postulated as Israelite. As
Kenyon says:
“As a result, the royal tombs at Byblos can be closely
dated by Egyptian objects. In tombs
of the period of Amenemhet III and IV (second half 19th–beginning 18th
centuries BC)
there appears pottery which is very close to this new pottery in Palestine. Moreover, on a number of other sites in coastal Syria we find the same
kind of pottery, and it is clear that part at least of the new population of
Palestine must have come from this area.”31 (emphasis ours)
Mackey’s comment: This corresponds perfectly with my reconstruction according to which the
Egyptian Twelfth Dynasty period of Amenemhet III and IV was that of Moses’s confrontation
with Pharaoh, and the Exodus:
Pharaoh of the Exodus
Dr. Osgood continues with his discussion of Eglon of
Moab, as a governor on behalf of Amalek (= the Hyksos), ruling a Middle Bronze
IIB Jericho:
From the point of discussion of the new influence in Palestine in the MB
IIB, the most significant features are those which point to a significant
Hyksos influence in the land; and this is considerable.
As Amiram has said:
“The correspondence of MB IIB to the Hyksos Dynasties
in Egypt is also established with a fair measure of certainty and is generally
accepted.”32
With this statement I would make no objection, only with the question of
who the Hyksos were would we differ. It follows that if the chronology here
espoused is the correct view, then the generally held view on Hyksos origins
must fall and be replaced by one which conforms to the scriptural details—the
Hyksos would be the biblical Amalekites, found in the area of the Negev, mainly
in the west, south of the Wadi Besor, then extending their influence into
Egypt. Much that has been called Hyksos in Palestine would in fact be
Israelite, but showing evidence of Amalekite hegemony, by scarabs and similar
artifacts. Such intricacies of interpretation do not come freely with the sole
use of archaeological evidence, but demands a basic framework of hypothesis
against which to evaluate the findings. This the biblical record provides.
The major change of influence in Palestine in the MB IIB–C period was to
the Hyksos influence. This influence was found, to judge by the scarab
evidence, mainly in the area of Palestine south of the Carmel Ridge, a
geographic fact worthy of note.
In my earlier discussion on the details of the servitude under the
Midianites and Amalekites and their subsequent deliverance under Gideon,33 particular attention was paid to the evidence that this servitude was confined to Israel south of the
Carmel Ridge. As soon as the northern deliverance from Jabin’s
yoke had been completed, the Midianites and Amalekites moved over the Carmel
range to fill the political vacuum, but were quickly defeated by Gideon.
Likewise, it was pointed out that the song of Deborah testified to a
presence of Amalek in some sort of controlling influence in the area of Ephraim
during the time of Jabin’s rule in the north. The later part of this period,
however, was seen to be contemporary with the Midianite/Amalekite rule in the
south (see Figure 8).
Figure 8. Map showing the
expected distribution of Amalekite artifacts in Palestine compared with the
actual distribution of Hyksos scarabs.
Also, it was reasoned that Eglon’s (Moab) rule was with the influence of
Amalek.
Thus I am suggesting that the Amalekites of the Bible must be seen to be
the same as the Hyksos who ruled over Egypt.
When all the above reasoning is brought together, it becomes apparent that the
distribution of the Hyksos artifacts (as here defined by the scrabs) occupied
exactly this distribution geographically, and no other. And as
this period in the biblical record Eglon and onward corresponds most
particularly to the MB IIB–C period on my revised Archaeological Table, the
possible correctness of the revised chronology is upheld.
“Most interesting is the fact that Hyksos royal-name
scarabs and sealings have not
been discovered at sites in the Galilee, the Huleh Valley, Lebanon, or Syria.”34
And again:
“Only one Hyksos royal-name scarab and but a handful
of contemporary private name-and-title scarabs have been found north of the
Carmel Ridge.”35
Weinstein then argues that the principal centres of Hyksos power in
Palestine were in the southern and inland regions south of the plain of
Esdraelon. He concludes that the Hyksos were in fact simply southern and inland
Palestinian princes.
Against the revised chronology here presented it becomes apparent that
the Hyksos were in fact the Amalekites of the southern and western portion of
Palestine, viz, the Negev, and that during the MB IIB–C period of Palestine
they not only controlled Lower Egypt, but extended their influence up to the
Carmel Ridge with the help of firstly Moab under Eglon, who ruled from Jericho
on their behalf ….
As for the names and order of the Hyksos kings of the 15th and 16th
Dynasties who were so involved, their details are in great confusion still. The
whole question of the Hyksos is a confused question, with hardly any authority
agreeing with the next on details of even the place of the individual kings in
the scheme of the period. We need, however, to remind ourselves of the fate of
the Amalekite nation, Exodus 17:14
records that God said He would “blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under
heaven.”
Comments