First, some pushback from other archaeologists. In The Times of Israel: 3,000-year-old artifacts fuel Biblical archaeology debate (Matti Friedman).
Other scholars have urged caution in reaching conclusions based on the findings from Qeiyafa.From Haaretz: Archaeological find stirs debate on David's kingdom (Asaf Shtull-Trauring).
Model shrines of the type presented Tuesday have been found at many other sites belonging to other local cultures, and their similarity to Temple architecture as described in the Bible has already been noted, said Aren Maeir of Bar-Ilan University, who leads a dig at the ruins of the nearby Philistine city of Gath. And the existence of lions and birds on the clay model undermine the claim that no figures of people or animals have been found at Qeiyafa, he said.
Qeiyafa indeed appears to have been inhabited by Israelites, Maeir said, but the cultural lines among the various peoples of the Land of Israel at that time, he said, were “fuzzier than the way they are often described.”
The new finds do not prove conclusively who residents were or provide dramatic new evidence for any side in the ongoing dispute among biblical archaeologists, he said.
“There’s no question that this is a very important site, but what exactly it was — there is still disagreement about that,” Maeir said.
However, Prof. Nadav Na'aman, a historian and archaeologist at Tel Aviv University, discounts Garfinkel and Ganor's conclusions. "These are beautiful finds but they are not special in that similar ones have been found in various places, and they should therefore not be connected in any way to the ark," nor to the Temple in Jerusalem, says Na'aman.Second, some commentary at the Serving the Word blog: Khirbet Qeiyafa: Possible Unintended Consequences. Notes from a conversation between Seth Sanders, Matthew Suriano and Jacqueline Vayntrub.
He says believers made models of shrines out of various materials as an act of devotion. "There was no such thing as making a model that represented a temple in another place."
He said he found the combination on one of the items of lions and doves very interesting. "The dove is connected to a fertility goddess, and this combination hints that the model belonged to a cultic site of a fertility goddess. I think Qeiyafa was a Canaanite site that had no connection to Jerusalem," he added.
In invoking Canaanites, Na'aman has touched on the heart of the scholarly debate. For Qeiyafa to play a role in disproving the claims of the minimalists about the meager nature of David's kingdom, Garfinkel has to show that it was neither a Canaanite nor Philistine site.
Garfinkel and Ganor say the shrine models they have found differ from those known so far and that their design underscores a Judean connection.
But Garfinkel says he does not need the shrines to prove that Qeiyafa was Judean - other discoveries at the site do it for him. For example, out of thousands of animal bones unearthed there, none were pig bones, and no figurines were found - two elements some see as alluding to biblical prohibitions. An inscribed potsherd was also found there whose writing some archaeologists identify as ancient Hebrew.
Na'aman has a different explanation for the lack of pig bones: "The Canaanites also did not eat pork. Only the Philistines ate a great deal of pork at this time." As for figurines, Na'aman says places elsewhere in Judea "were full of figurines."
Minimalists also discount the inscribed potsherd, saying it is impossible to differentiate its letters from other languages at that time.
This story is on the borderline of my usual interests. I will keep an eye on it, but, unless more epigraphic material turns up, I will not aim for anything like exhaustive coverage.
For more on previous discoveries at Kirbet Qeiyafa and their implications, go here and follow the links.
UPDATE: James McGrath produces one of his thorough roundups in the midst of marking: Khirbet Qeiyafa’s Model Shrines and the Accuracy of the Bible
