By Steven M. Collins
An article in the 1991
edition of the Epigraphic Society Occasional Publications (ESOP) entitled
"The Davenport and Newark Inscriptions," by Charles Moyer asserted that certain
ancient North American artifacts and inscriptions could not be Hebrew because
"the ancient Hebrews feared and hated the sea and have never shown any evidence
of being a sea-faring people..." I do not believe that assertion can be
substantiated, and the word "never" particularly misstates the historical
reality of the ancient Hebrews. This article will document that the ancient
Hebrews (i.e. "Israelites") had well-developed sea-faring skills. It will
also show why historians have failed to recognize this fact.
Concerning ancient Israel's pre-monarchial period, it is stated in Judges 5:17;
"Why did Dan remain in ships?" This comment is made in what is called "Deborah's
song," and is a commentary describing what various tribes of Israel did (or did
not do) in a victorious military battle. This biblical comment indicates that
the tribe of Dan was, at that time, closely identified with a maritime way of
life. Some Bibles offer a date of 1200 B.C. as a guide for dating that battle.
Interestingly, Egyptian and Greek sources record that one of the tribes of the
Sea Peoples, a sea-raiding people in the eastern Mediterranean at that time,
were called the "Danauna" or the "Danaans." The Encyclopedia Britannica (1943
Ed., see Heading "Troy") cites the Egyptian and Greek accounts of these sea
raiders and dates them to being present in the Levant "between 1230 and 1190
B.C." [Other sources render the spelling of these people as Danaouna or Danaoi,
but all spellings cited include the easily recognizable root word "Dan”]. It is
noteworthy that the secular historical dates coincide with the biblical dates
for the tribe of Dan being a maritime tribe. Since one of the traits of the
tribe of Dan was naming things after its tribal name (Joshua 19:47), it is not
surprising that this maritime tribe would have its name recognizable in Egyptian
and Greek accounts about them.
Also, the Hebrew tribes of
Israel developed very strong maritime skills during the reign of King Solomon
via their close alliance with the Phoenicians. Indeed, this alliance was so
close that Solomon's alliance with King Hiram of the Phoenician city-states
(which began under King David) led to many thousands of Israelites working in
Phoenicia and vice-versa as the Hebrews and Phoenicians jointly implemented
Solomon's prodigious building projects (I Kings 5). King Hiram shared the
special maritime skills of the Phoenicians with the Israelite Hebrews (II
Chronicles 8:18 records that Israelite mariners were taught by Phoenicians "who
had knowledge of the sea.") II Chronicles 9:21 notes that the Israelites and
Phoenicians jointly crewed a common navy. II Chronicles 9:10 and 21 mention
Ophir and Tarshish as ports of call for their joint fleet, and the cargo
manifest of "ivory, apes and peacocks" indicates their trading fleet had (at a
minimum) African and Asian ports-of-call. Contained in my pending
four-book set on Israelite history will be information documenting the specific
technologies used by the Israelite/Phoenician mariners to navigate the world’s
oceans. As readers will see when these book are realeased, the Phoenicians
had invented ingenious devices to enable them to navigate planned courses and
headings on the open oceans, even in unfavorable weather! These ingenious
devices were shared with the Israelites as part of the “knowledge of the sea.”
After receiving these technologies, the oceans began navigable highways for the
Israelite mariners.
I Kings 9:26-27 records
that King Solomon built a fleet which was home-ported in Ezion-geber on the Red
Sea, in which Phoenicians also served to teach the Israelites the “knowledge of
the sea.” This indicates that King Solomon's Israelite navy became a
“two-ocean fleet” as his Mediterranean fleet could sail to Atlantic
destinations, and his Red Sea fleet could sail to African, Asian and Pacific
ports. I Kings 10:22 adds that the Israelites had at sea a “navy of Tharshish.”
Does this refer to a trading fleet that sailed to “Tarshish,” or is there
distinct and separate meaning in the word “Tharshish?” Since “Tharshish” was the
proper name of one of the patriarchs of the tribe of Benjamin (I Chronicles
7:10), it is possible the writer of I Kings used an Israelite clan name to
designate a particular group of Israelites who were assigned to naval service.
If so, they would have been readily known to the writer’s contemporaries , but
not to readers in the 20th century.
At any rate, Israelite
mariners learned their “knowledge of the sea” from what are widely-acknowledged
to be the very best maritime teachers available in the ancient world! There is
no indication that the Hebrews "feared and hated the sea.” Indeed, it appears
King Solomon and the tribes of Israel under his rule were eager to learn the
secret maritime skills of the Phoenicians and build their own naval fleets.
Why wouldn’t they be eager to learn such knowledge? There would have been
a tremendous commercial, economic advantage to joining the Phoenicians’ monopoly
of the ancient world’s sea routes.
The
Egyptians were also very skilled mariners at that time, and Solomon's first
father-in-law was the Pharaoh of Egypt (I Kings 9:9-16). This marriage between
the royal houses of Israel and Egypt resulted in a tripartite
Phoenician-Israelite-Egyptian alliance in Solomon's time.
After the Hebrew tribes divided into a northern kingdom (Israel) and a southern
kingdom (Judah), the Bible records that they became perennial enemies, fighting
many wars against each other (albeit with a few interludes of peaceful
relations). Biblical accounts show that while the northern kingdom, Israel
(which was more populous as it contained ten Israelite tribes and Judah retained
only two tribes), remained in alliance with Egypt and Phoenicia, Judah was
afterward excluded from the Phoenician alliance. Indeed, the first ruler of the
northern kingdom of Israel after the Israelite schism was Jeroboam, a prominent
Israelite noble who had previously been a courtier of Egypt's Pharaoh Shishak (I
Kings 12:40). This would have resulted in very favorable relations between Egypt
and the ten-tribed kingdom of Israel. Evidence that Jeroboam retained a very
strong affinity to Egypt is clear in his instituting Egyptian religion
(calf-worship) in the northern kingdom of Israel (I Kings 12:25-30). It is
evident that Israel’s alliance with the Phoenicians was long-lasting as, almost
a century later, we find the royal houses of Israel and the Phoenician city of
Sidon intermarried during the reign of King Ahab of Israel (I Kings 16:31).
Likewise, Israel's long-standing attachment to the fertility practices of the
Phoenicians also argues that the Israelite-Phoenician alliance was quite
durable.
The alliances of Israel,
the northern Hebrew Kingdom, with Phoenicia and Egypt, and their longstanding
fealty to Egyptian and Phoenician religions, would have caused the northern
kingdom of Israel to become culturally more like their allies, and progressively
less like the Jews, their fellow Israelites from whom they were estranged. The
Bible records that the Kingdom of Israel never seriously returned to the worship
of the Bible's God, but remained steadfastly in the cultural and religious camp
of the Egyptians and (especially) the Phoenicians. This would have resulted, as
decades and centuries passed, in the "Hebrew" language of the kingdom of Israel
becoming more like the already similar Semitic tongue of their close allies (the
Phoenicians) and less like the "Hebrew" language of Judah (the Jewish Hebrew
nation). I Kings 12:25-33 records that severing his people’s religious and
cultural ties to Judah was a deliberate, state policy of King Jeroboam of
Israel! Given this fact, the northern kingdom of Israel would have progressively
merged with the culture of their close allies in Tyre and Sidon. Modern
archaeologists, who do not realize this fact, routinely label as “Phoenician”
the artifacts and inscriptions made by Israelites of the northern Kingdom of
Israel. The people of Judah, who retained a more distinctly “Hebrew” culture and
language were much less numerous and were excluded from the Phoenician alliance,
giving the mistaken impression that ancient “Hebrews” were an insignificant and
land-bound people.
Given the historic alliance and affinity between the Phoenicians, Egyptians and
Israelite Hebrews (all of whom were maritime powers during their mutual alliance
in Solomon's reign), it would not be surprising to see them cooperating in
maritime ventures long after Solomon's death. The "Davenport inscriptions" are
evidence of such cooperation, as it has Egyptian as well as Phoenician-Hebrew
characters. In America B.C., Dr. Barry Fell observed on page 263 the
presence [on the Davenport stele] of "some signs resembling Hebrew and others
resembling Phoenician." This is what one would expect to find if Israelite
Hebrews were a part of this ancient exploration fleet which reached central
North America (the modern state of Iowa). The Israelites, having become closely
linked to the Phoenicians (politically, economically, culturally, and
religiously), would also have become linguistically like the Phoenicians as
well! One would expect the written language of the northern kingdom of Israel to
reflect a Phoenician/Hebrew amalgam. Because of the longstanding hostility and
mistrust between Israel and Judah, the language and writing of Israel would
inevitably have become more "Phoenician" in nature and less like the "Hebrew" of
the Kingdom of Judah. For this reason, epigraphic remnants of the Israelites of
the ten-tribed, northern kingdom of Israel will be found in Phoenician (i.e.
Punic) contexts, not in those of the Hebrew language of the kingdom of
Judah. When inscriptions are found that seem to blur the distinction between
Hebrew and Phoenician, it is very possible (indeed, likely) that those
inscriptions are a product of Israelites from the northern Hebrew kingdom of
Israel who had blended their cultural identity with the Phoenicians.
There is an event in King Ahab's reign that also argues for a diffusionist
perspective in biblical historical accounts. In I Kings 17 and 18, it is
recorded that the prophet Elijah was hiding from Israel's King Ahab, and that
Ahab searched in every nation for him. I Kings 18:10 cites the following
incredulous response of one of Ahab's officials when he finally found Elijah "in
his own backyard" in the nation of Israel:
This is one of those biblical passages that biblical critics huff and puff
about, regarding it as an example of hyperbole or outright fabrication,
believing that there was no way that King Ahab of Israel could command enough
respect among the nations to "take oaths" of them or demand that they conduct
national searches for a missing prophet. They also scoff at the idea that Ahab
cou1d have had access to "all nations and kingdoms" on the earth at that time.
However, now that the discoveries and efforts of The Epigraphic Society have
demonstrated the diffusionist nature of the ancient world, a context for a
literal understanding of this episode readily presents itself. King Ahab and
Israel were still closely allied to the Phoenicians, the dominant maritime power
of that time. Indeed, King Ahab was married to a Phoenician princess, Jezebel,
daughter of the king of Sidon. His continuing close alliance with the
Phoenicians meant that Ahab had the ability via the Phoenician (and his own)
fleets to send searchers wherever these fleets sailed and traded in either the
Old or New Worlds. The Davenport stele, with its record of "mixed Hebrew and
Phoenician signs," and the other Phoenician inscriptions found in the New World
argue that the sailors of the allied Phoenicians and Israelites (of the northern
kingdom) were present in the New World as well. Therefore, there was a means,
readily available to King Ahab, to send ships to nations all over the world in
search of Elijah. His ability to demand a national search for Elijah, and exact
oaths from the leaders of those nations indicates considerable influence on the
part of King Ahab of Israel. What was the nature of that power?
The
answer is obvious. The long-standing Phoenician/Israelite alliance on the sea
controlled access to the ancient world’s maritime commercial routes. Any nation
that did not cooperate with Ahab's request could have had their goods and ships
forcibly embargoed from the sea routes by the Phoenician/Israelite navies. If
the Egyptians
were then still cooperating
with the Phoenicians and Israelites (the Davenport stele argues that periods of
such cooperation between their language groupings still did exist), Ahab's
threat would have been backed by not two, but three powerful navies! Ahab was
not an insignificant king on the land either. An alliance of nations (including
King Ahab's Israel) fought the Assyrian Empire under Shalmaneser III to a
stalemate in the battle of Karkar (or "Qarqar") in 854 B.C. Ahab's search
occurred during what the Bible records as a three and one-half year drought
caused by God at the instigation of Elijah. Ahab's period of searching would
have occurred during that drought. There was time enough for Ahab to send
messenger ships to all known nations, have those nations search for Elijah
(basically checking to see if anyone answering to Elijah's description had
arrived on any vessel from Israel's region of the world), and send word back to
Ahab via the same messenger ships.
Regarding Judah, one biblical account shows that the Jews (the Hebrews of Judah)
were also unafraid of sea travel. I Kings 22:44-49 and II Chronicles 20:36-37
record that during one of the rare reapproachments between the estranged Hebrew
kingdoms of
Israel and Judah,
Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah attempted to build a fleet of ships at
Ezion-geber, the home-port of one of Solomon's previous international
fleets. This is hardly the action of a people who "feared and hated the sea."
The project was wrecked by an "act of God," but it is interesting to note that
Israel's king (Ahab's son) offered to let his sailors assist the crews of the
new ships that Judah was building. Since Judah was trying to reestablish itself
as a maritime force, this offer only makes sense in the same vein in which King
Hiram's offer was made to Solomon when Solomon was building his fleets--that
Israel's king was offering to share "the knowledge of the sea" with Judah's
novice sailors. This offer provides biblical confirmation that the Israelites of
the northern kingdom possessed the sophisticated maritime skills of the
Phoenicians during the time of King Ahab and Israel’s subsequent kings. It also
indicates that Judah's intent in building these ships was to create a fleet
capable of long, "open-water" voyages, not mere coastal-hopping trips down the
Red Sea. For such a fleet, Judah would have needed skilled mariners to teach
them such arts as celestial navigation, sailing to take advantage of trade
winds, recognizing predictable oceanic currents, etc. The king of Israel knew
Judah would need such help, and his offer was likely an effort to ingratiate
himself to the Jewish king, Jehoshaphat (who was wealthy and powerful). Such
skills would have been completely unnecessary in small coastal vessels that were
intended for short, land-hugging voyages. Jehoshaphat was clearly attempting to
restore some of Solomon's glory by replicating Solomon's construction of a major
fleet at Ezion-geber, but the effort was abortive.
The
effort of the Jews during Jehoshaphat's reign should not be construed to mean
that they finally worked up the courage to venture forth on the "fearful sea."
Rather, it is a reflection of the role national economic strength played in
determining maritime power in the ancient world. It took a great deal of money
to build a fleet, train sailors, finance its operation over time, etc. As is
clear from the Bible's accounts, the reign of King Jehoshaphat was a time of
restored economic power and national wealth for the kingdom of Judah. Therefore,
Jehoshaphat's effort to build a great fleet was simply a predictable function of
his nation's restored ability to fund and support a large trading fleet.
The
above observations refute any contention that the Hebrews were either afraid of
the sea or insignificant maritime powers. Indeed, during the time that all the
tribes of Israel were united under King Solomon, the Hebrews built large fleets
and became privy to the Phoenicians' “knowledge of the sea." After the Israelite
tribes divided into two nations, the northern kingdom of Israel remained closely
linked to the Phoenicians, sharing the strong maritime tradition of their
allies. Even the smaller Jewish kingdom of Judah, excluded from a Mediterranean
maritime presence by the more powerful Phoenician/Israelite alliance, displayed
an eagerness to build a large fleet of ships on the Red Sea as soon as economic
and political circumstances allowed such a project to be implemented.
Charles Moyer's article, in commenting on the biblical commandment against
graven images, states: "history has shown us that the Jewish people have quite
thoroughly followed this commandment." His line of reasoning was that the Newark
stones [artifacts inscribed in ancient Hebrew which were found in the
Mound-Builder sites in ancient America’s Ohio River Valley] were not likely to
be ancient Hebrew artifacts because of an assumed depiction of a deity. Such an
assertion indicates a lack of awareness that there were two very different
Hebrew nations in the ancient world. It is a common historical misconception
that the terms "Jew" and "Hebrew" were synonymous in the ancient world. That was
not the case. As we have seen, the larger, non-Jewish Hebrew kingdom of Israel
was usually an enemy of the Jewish kingdom of Judah. The northern kingdom of
Israel regularly disregarded the biblical laws of God, including the injunction
against making or depicting a graven image. Therefore, Hebrews from the kingdom
of Israel would rarely have had any qualms about making or depicting a figure of
a deity.
However, Jews from the southern kingdom of Judah also sometimes made or depicted
graven images. There were several periods in Judah's history where fealty to the
laws of God was forgotten (and even scorned) for extended periods of time.
Consider the following examples. King Manasseh of Judah instituted infant
sacrifice, compelled the Jews to worship foreign gods, and was
openly-contemptuous of God and his laws. Judah was also once ruled by Queen
Athaliah, a devotee of Baal and foreign gods. She also caused the Jewish nation
to openly disobey biblical laws (including the one against graven images).
Indeed, by the time Josiah became king of Judah, the Jews had become so lax
about the laws of God that no one even knew what the laws of God were any more!
In Josiah's eighteen year as king (circa 621 BC), the Jews found a forgotten
scroll of the law and had to relearn the laws of god "from scratch." [The above
examples are described in II Kings 11 and II Chronicles 33.] Therefore, one has
to be cautious about asserting that Jews would never make graven images because
there are periods of Jewish history when their making graven images would have
been common! Coupled with the fact that their fellow Israelite tribes in the
northern kingdom of Israel regularly made and served graven images associated
with the gods of Phoenicia (or other lands), there is no basis to reject an
inscription as being Hebrew simply because it depicts a graven image.
While the supposed "graven image" on the Newark stones is actually a
representation of Moses (not a deity), as noted in Bill Rudersdorf's article
"Lost Horizons," ESOP, 1991, it is worth noting the inaccuracy of
asserting that a particular inscription could not be Hebrew merely because it
contained a depiction of a deity. Additionally, the discussion of the Hebrews'
maritime alliance with the Phoenicians and the Phoenicians' willingness to share
"the knowledge of the sea" with the Israelites meant that the ancient kingdom of
Israel would have been a maritime power for much (if not all) of its existence.
On the other hand, the Jews (the kingdom of Judah) were apparently not a
significant maritime power after the division of the Israelites into two
kingdoms. However, they were eager enough to build a large fleet of ships when
their national strength and finances permitted them to do so. Given the above, I
see no evidence that the Hebrews ever "feared the sea." Indeed, the Bible's
historical accounts describe events which make literal sense when considered in
light of the political alliances of that time and a diffusionist view of ancient
mankind's actual abilities and far-flung contacts.