E. Moses Departs for Midian

The Book of Exodus recounts Moses' slaying of an Egyptian foreman whom he had seen beating an Israelite; after which Moses had had to flee Egypt because Pharaoh (once he had learned about the incident) had sought Moses' life. Moses fled to the land of Midian, where he found refuge with Jethro, the priest of Midian, whose daughter Moses married. Moses lived in Midian for forty years and reared a family (Cf. Exodus 2:11-22). The Egyptians seem later to have recalled aspects of this story (though in a characteristically distorted fashion) in one of their most popular tales, "The Story of Sinuhe".

 

This Sinuhe, an officer of an early Twelfth Dynasty pharaoh (28), lived in the harem and served the hereditary princess. It seems that he committed a violation of some sort, and when the Pharaoh died Sinuhe feared his successor. He fled into Asia, "in the land of Yaa near the desert", where he was welcomed by the local chieftain. He took the chieftain's eldest daughter as his wife and tended his father-in-law's pastures and flocks. Finally he was called back to Egypt and returned to his homeland from exile. Anati, by way of comment upon this story, wrote:

"The chronicle of Sinuhe contains many elements in common with the biblical account of Moses, who escaped to Midian, and of his father-in-law, Jethro. It is hard to believe that these two similarities are pure coincidence. It seems, instead, quite legitimate to hypothesize that the two accounts have a common matrix ..."⁽²⁹⁾

F. The Ten Plagues

Professor Anati has added his name to the ever-growing list of those who have come to accept that the Ipuwer Papyrus - another very famous Egyptian document - reflects the tragedy for Egypt of the Ten Plagues⁽³⁰⁾; a tragedy that brought about the collapse of the Old Kingdom, simultaneously ushering in Egypt's dark age, known as the First Intermediate Period.⁽³¹⁾

But it was no tragedy for the Middle Bronze I Israelites, whose Exodus from Egypt had set them free from the harsh rule of Pharaoh. Their fate however, due to their lack of faith, was to wander in the desert until their new generation could begin the conquest of the Early Bronze III (32) Canaanite civilisation in the Promised Land. Rohl describes the archaeology at Tell el-Daba (ancient Avaris, in the eastern Nile Delta), which he thinks may be evidence for the Tenth Plague:

"At the end of stratum G/1 ... [Manfred] Bietak and his archaeological team began to uncover a gruesome scene. All over the city of Avaris they found shallow burial pits into which the victims of some terrible disaster had been hurriedly cast. These were no careful internments of the deceased. The bodies were not arranged in the proper burial fashion but rather thrown into the mass graves, one on top of the other. There were no grave goods placed with the corpses as was usually the custom. Bietak is convinced that we have here direct evidence of plague or some other sudden catastrophe at Avaris."⁽³³⁾

According to Rohl, the Asiatics who had dwelt in Egypt during this Middle Kingdom period were thoroughly 'Egyptianised' (just as one would expect the Hebrews to have been on the eve of the Exodus, after having sojourned in Egypt for centuries). It appears (see quote below) that these 'Egyptianised' foreigners fled Avaris at this time of plague, only to be replaced some time afterwards by other Asiatics (stratum level F) who show no evidence of their having been 'Egyptianised'. These latter would therefore be the 'Hyksos' invaders, whom Velikovsky had identified (rightly, I believe) with the Amalekites: the perennial foe of Israel (cf. Exodus 17:14 & 17:16).

Rohl describes this archaeological sequence at Avaris; firstly referring to the Exodus situation (34):

"What is more, analysis of the site archaeology suggests that a large part of the remaining population of the town abandoned their homes and departed from Avaris en masse."

And, secondly, to the 'Hyksos' influx:

"The site was then reoccupied after an interval of unknown duration by Asiatics who were not 'Egyptianised' like the previous population of stratum G. Stratum F marks a new beginning in the settlement of purely Asiatic (Canaanite) people...The inhabitants of stratum G seem to have left the site before the arrival of [this other] wave of Asiatic immigrants, who settled and remained there until the beginning of the New Kingdom."

More than four centuries later, with the simultaneous rise of Egypt's New Kingdom and of the Israelite monarchy of Saul and David, these Hyksos/Amalekites dwelling in Avaris (stratum F), and at other locations, would be driven out of both Egypt and Palestine

G. The Conquest of Canaan

Further to what I have already written about the Conquest of (Early Bronze) Canaan by the (MBI) Israelites - and especially about that most unique of all incidents, the destruction of Jericho - I can now add an intriguing detail of supporting evidence in favour of the Early Bronze stratum, as gleaned by Professor Anati from the Book of Joshua:

"With regard to the correspondence between archaeology and biblical descriptions, if the latter is reliable in terms of historical reconstruction, then the following passage may prove to be particularly significant: 'Rahab let them down from the window by a rope, for her house was against the city wall itself' (Jos 2:15). Which of the archaeological layers that have been excavated might correspond to this description?...This...description can only refer to a form of urban planning and surrounding wall from the Early Bronze Age .... There were no windows that looked towards the outside of the walls, during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages, either at Jericho or at any other site in the Syro-palestinian region."⁽³⁵⁾

The presence of the nomadic MBI people at this Early Bronze site, coincident with the city's destruction, is to be expected from a revisionist point of view, according to which the MBI people were surely the Israelites. We have seen that even Dr. Rudolf Cohen, the Israeli authority in this area, seems to think that the evidence supports this conclusion.⁽³⁶⁾

THE MOUNTAIN OF GOD

In this section, in which we take a look at Professor Anati's findings on and around the sites of Har Karkom, we shall briefly be considering the archaeology of this mountain according to (i) its chronological implications; (ii) its location in relation to the Exodus route; and (iii) its religious and physical characteristics.

(i) Chronological Implications

Anati first laid eyes on Har Karkom back in 1954. However, it was not until 1983 that he ventured the suggestion that it might be Mount Sinai. Thus he explains:

"Although Har Karkom's religious character was quite evident, no connection was made at first between that mountain and Mt. Sinai. Never before had we had to deal with problems concerning the Exodus and Mount Sinai and never did we have reasons for questioning the conventional belief that the Exodus had occurred in the 13th century BC. Indeed, this appeared to be an established 'fact.'"

However, Anati's research led him to a different conclusion:

"There is no evidence of any human occupation at Har Karkom in the 13th century BC, or for centuries before and after. The usually accepted date for the Exodus occurred right in the middle of a long archaeological gap at Har Karkom."⁽³⁷⁾

But not only at Har Karkom, for:

"Now we know that the hiatus concerns most of the Sinai peninsula and the Negev if we leave aside military and trading stations. Thus it is not a peculiarity of Har Karkom. In fact the description of daily life of Midianites, Amalekites, Amorites, Horites and other tribes appearing in the Bible, if nor pure mythology, must refer to either before or after the 2nd millennium BC. According to the archaeological evidence, such dynamic tribal life can hardly belong to the 2nd millennium BC."⁽³⁸⁾

[Please note comments that I made on p.3, as well as in footnotes (6,7 & esp. 11) about the Professor's erroneous dating system; a hangover from his conventional training].

Thus we find that (abstracting for a moment from which mountain ought to be identified with the true Mountain of Moses) the archaeology of the entire Sinai and Negev regions shows us that there is, factually speaking, an irreconcilable disagreement between the conventional view of an Exodus during the Late Bronze Age/New Kingdom Era (Anati's conventional "C13th BC") and the biblical testimony about the tribes (Amalekites, Midianites, etc.) living in these deserts at the time of Moses. Essentially, then, the issue in-volves far more than a mere debate about which mountain is the true Sinai.

(ii) The Location

How did the traditional Jebel Musa come to be accepted as the true Sinai? It seems that Christian explorers of Byzantine times went in search of the highest mountain that they could find in the Sinai Peninsula, in which direction they estimated that the Israelites would have travelled after the Exodus. Some of these explorers selected the impressive Jebel Musa, at the foot of which the monastery of St. Catherine was built; though others preferred Jebel Halal, a little to the west of Kadesh-Barnea.

Today, a visitor to St. Catherine's monastery will be shown what the monks there claim to be "the burning bush" (Exodus 3:2). The science of archaeology, however, has revealed that there is no trace of the MBI people in this southern region. In other words, the Israelite wanderers did not - according to the revised chronology - go anywhere near Jebel Musa. In maps showing the major ancient routes between Asia and Africa, we find that none of these well-trodden routes veers down into the southern Sinai Peninsula.

Professor Anati has come to light with many other compelling reasons as well for why neither Jebel Musa, nor Jebel Halal, can be a suitable candidate for Mount Sinai. For example, he wrote that:

"The presently named "Jebel Musa", at the foot of which the monastery of St. Catherine was built, has not provided any evidence of cult sites previous to Byzantine times. The same applies to...Jebel Halal. The only evident traces of ancient human presence were several Palaeolithic stations, a few clusters of funerary tumuli...and some sites of rock art belonging to Roman-Byzantine and to Islamic times. No traces of BAC [that is, from Early Bronze to Middle Bronze I] cult sites were found."(39)

Anati extends his case to the whole of the so-called "Sinai" region:

"Other mountains which have been proposed by various authors as a possible "Mount Sinai" also lack the same sort of archaeological evidence. Some ... have advocated the possible existence of several mounts Sinai. However, if that is the case, where are they? So far, no other mountain in the Sinai peninsula has provided archaeological evidence of being such a paramount cult high-place in the Bronze Age like Har Karkom."(40)

Professor Anati has actually likened Har Karkom in this, its sacral or cultic aspect, to "a kind of prehistoric Mecca", to whose foothills large groups of people would come and build their camps, so that they could worship in the vicinity of the mountain.⁽⁴¹⁾

A decade of research (1983-1992), following on from his first estimation that Har Karkom might be Mount Sinai, has served to convince Anati that his initial idea was correct. During that decade of further findings, he says, other scholars, "after the first shocked refusal of evidence", have come to agree with him.⁽⁴²⁾

Adding further strength to Anati's thesis is his success in having been able to provide the most plausible identifications of sites along the route of Exodus, and to pinpoint the homes of the various tribes mentioned in the Bible for this period.⁽⁴³⁾

Just to mention some examples that he gives, the "Hill Road of the Amorites" (Numbers 13:29) is likely to be in the territory of the Amorite tribe which, according to the Bible, lived in the vicinity of the Dead Sea. "Hazeroth" (Numbers 11:35), near, or in, the Paran Desert, is described as the place of departure of the twelve scouts who reached Hebron by "the desert [or wilderness] of Zin" (Numbers 13:21). This desert in the biblical narration is likely to include what is presently called Nahal Zin, from the Arabah Valley to present Sde Boker. The site of "Bene Yaakan" (Numbers 33:31) has a Horite name and the Horites lived on the eastern side of the Arabah. "Hattavah" and "Abronah" (Numbers 33:33 & 33:34) are localities in the Artava and "Ezion Geber" (Numbers 33:35) is near Eilat.

On the other hand, as Anati goes on to explain, no such plausible series of identifications as these can be made for any locations in the Sinai Peninsula:

"If one starts the analysis with the preconceived idea that Mount Sinai must be near St. Catherine, or somewhere else in the southern or central ...Sinai peninsula, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to give a geographical sense to the sequence of the exodus stations. In any case, in our view, the itinerary described must have been topographically meaningful to people from the first millennium BC who were acquainted with the region."(44)

Anati goes on to describe some typical criticisms that his discovery has provoked - to which criticisms he replies by drawing support from Cohen's findings:

"...[there] were those who could not agree with our chronology, saying "Since the Exodus took place in the 13th century BC, Mt. Sinai should have at its foot remains of 13th century camping sites." Should the date be as certain as some believe, this rule should apply to any site candidate for Mt. Sinai, not just to Har Karkom. In such a case, it is probable that not a single mountain in the Sinai Peninsula would fit because the 13th century BC is part of a hiatus in settlement....This fact was further confirmed by extensive archaeological research carried on by Rudolf Cohen of the Antiquities Authority. It led him to propose for the "Age of the Exodus" the same dates as those resulting from Har Karkom (R. Cohen, BAR, 1983)."⁽⁴⁵⁾

The Scriptures provide a detailed description of the deserts and tribal areas around Mount Sinai. "One of the main emerging points", writes Anati, "is that Mt. Sinai ... must be located on or near the border between the land of Midian and the land of Amalek"; a scenario that, as he explains, applies only to the Har Karkom region.⁽⁴⁶⁾

The Bible also indicates that the Amalekites occupied the highlands of the Central Negev and the area of Kadesh Barnea, and the Midianites were on both sides of the Arava [Arabah] Valley. Mt. Sinai, according to the biblical narration, should be located between these two regions, meaning in the Har Karkom area. A thorough examination of the topographical details described in the Bible locates Mount Sinai in the Har Karkom region even without the findings at Har Karkom.

I suggest that it is only a matter of time before archaeologists in the Sinai-Negev desert regions will be able to trace for us the entire Exodus route, from at least the vicinity of Egypt's borders to the Arabah, and beyond, by pinpointing all of the stopping stations and camping sites of the MBI Israelites.