David Livingston
Area 77, view southeast. Behind the meter stick are large megalithic stones, possibly part of a Middle Bronze-Late Bronze I defensive structure or fortification wall. Further work must be done in this area to clarify the date and nature of these stones.
Background
During late July and early August 1990, 19 volunteers and core staff came from nine different states to dig for two weeks at Khirbet Nisya near Ramallah, Israel. Accomodations while digging were provided by the orthodox Jewish settlement Psagot near Ramallah/El-Bireh.
The Associates for Biblical Research teams have been investigating a new site for Biblical Ai for eight seasons of digging since 1979. The necessity for this is that no one had lived at the traditional site for Ai (at Et-Tell) for at least 1000 years before the Israelites arrived. So the battle mentioned in Joshua 7 and 8 could not have taken place there. Unfortunately, the conclusion of most scholars has been that the Biblical account is wrong in this situation, not the archaeology.
ABR does not agree with that conclusion. We approach the problem from the viewpoint that if archaeology and the Bible are in con-
BSP 3:4 (Autumn 1990) p. 114
flict, the archaeology needs to be reexamined and, if necessary, done over. Therefore, when trying to locate Biblical Ai, since no one had been living at Et-Tell for 1000 years before Joshua’s time, the logical conclusion is that it cannot be AI. The site for Ai must be sought somewhere else.
I researched the problem for three years and published an article in The Westminster Theological Journal in 1970 with the conclusion that not only Ai was wrongly located, Bethel was also. Ancient Bethel, I con-eluded, was under modem El-Bireh instead of in the insignificant village of modern Beitin (two miles northeast of El-Bireh). Since Bethel at El-Bireh is buried under a thriving, modern city excavation there was impossible. But about a mile east of El-Bireh, on the other side of a large mountain (see Gn 12:8), was an ancient ruin called Khirbet Nisya. This site was chosen, as was mentioned in the 1970 article, as a potential site for Ai. At this site the topographical layout (hills, valleys, etc.) fits the Biblical account exactly. The geographical relationships of towns in the area of Benjamin and Ephraim also fit. Even before digging, the site seemed hopeful as the actual site for Biblical Ai.
Excavation at Khirbet Nisya was finally begun in 1979. This year’s dig in 1990 was the eighth time ABR research teams have excavated since that beginning.
Previous Discoveries
What has been found over the years? First, it has become obvious that Khirbet Nisya was an agricultural village during all periods. It was never a large town. Agricultural terraces surround the site and may actually have obliterated older structures that originally were built where terraces are today. The terraces were probably originally developed in the Iron Age (the period of Judges and the Kingdom). But they were certainly rebuilt and used during succeeding periods, especially the Persian, Hellenistic, and Byzantine periods. Agricultural installations characteristic of each of those periods cut into the bedrock (wine and olive presses, storage pits, etc.), have been found in abundance.
Because of heavy agricultural use to the present day, as well as the universal use of stones in construction in nearby El- Bireh (barely a half mile away), stone buildings from even the most recent periods have been largely obliterated. At most, one course of stones remain of large buildings which only suggest what originally stood on the site. Furthermore, because the most recent buildings were founded on bedrock, little or nothing of earlier structures remain in most areas dug until this year. Only the soil, left after stones were reused period after period, holds the full story of the many cultures having used this site.
As excavation has progressed over the years, an increasingly clear picture of the occupation has developed from pottery and artifacts found in the soil. More than 160 coins themselves speak of occupation as early as the fourth century BC and continuing (except for the Late Roman period) to as late as the 15th century AD, almost 2000 years. From the coins alone it could be concluded that Khirbet Nisya was not an insignificant site.
However, the broken pieces of pottery (potsherds) remaining in the soil through the millennia tell a fuller story. The earliest pottery is from
BSP 3:4 (Autumn 1990) p. 115
Area 77, view southeast. The foundation of a large pre-Byzantine structure. Probes in deep pits or cuttings in the bedrock between the walls produced pottery from the Middle Bronze, Late Bronze I, Iron Age I and Iron Age II periods.
Area 78, view southwest. Beneath the meter stick is a large stone cut out of bedrock, possibly from the Middle Bronze-Late Bronze I period. The stone walls are part of a large pre-Byzantine structure.
BSP 3:4 (Autumn 1990) p. 116
ca 2000 BC and it continues, with only occasional breaks, down to ca AD 1500 showing that the site was occupied most of the time for 3500 years! Khirbet Nisya has had a significance for existence enjoyed by few sites in the land.
Discoveries in 1990
Although a little architecture from earlier periods has been found here and there – stubs of Iron Age walls, the comer of a Persian building, Hellenistic pits in bedrock, etc. – it has not included anything from the Canaanite periods. We are certain there was Canaanite occupation, evidenced by considerable Middle and Late Bronze pottery right down to the time of the Israelite Conquest (around 1400 BC). But we have felt some Canaanite architecture should remain somewhere on the site.
This year we especially looked for a wall and/or a gate. Biblical Ai, according to Joshua 7 and 8, had a wall and a gate through which the men hiding in ambush ran. Our efforts at trying to find a wall and gate were in vain. Areas E and G had held the most hope for us. But as we dug there, what we hoped for as a wall base did not prove to be so. On the other hand, as we went down we found that the fill in the agricultural terrace covering the area was largely from soft which had been in a Persian Period context. This means that most of the pottery was from the period of the sixth to fourth centuries BC, making it valuable in filling out our repertoire of pottery (from previous excavations) for that period.
Why is this important? Ezra and Nehemiah (exiled in Persia) both mention that the men of Bethel and Ai returned from the Babylonian Capitivity and resettled their communities. So, for any site to be Biblical Ai, there must be occupation during that period. We have it, but the traditional site for Ai at Et-Tell does not have a trace of it.
We were afraid we were going to go through another season failing to find Canaanite architecture. That is, until we were finishing our excavation of 5 x 5 meter square number 77. We had early on found the foundation of what seems to be the base of a tower from the Herodian (Early Roman) Period. This, in turn, had been built on an earlier (Iron Age?) base. Cutting across the comer of the square and outside the tower base were two cyclopean stones. These stones measure about 6 x 5 feet and are about 2 feet thick. Both stones, standing on edge, indicate they were placed there by human effort. As we dug around them the pottery got progressively older and included Canaanite pottery. Finally, just as we were quitting (due to our time running out), a piece of the rim of a Late Bronze I (Canaanite) cooking pot fell out from under the stone most exposed. Obviously, one sherd doesn’t necessarily indicate a period, and two stones do not necessarily indicate a wall, but we are very hopeful in light of all the pottery found and the size of these stones that here, finally, some significant Canaanite structure has come to light.
Unfortunately, to be sure of the full picture, we’ll have to wait for another season of excavation. But, the light seems to shine brighter each year and the evidence progressively more convincing that Khirbet Nisya may truly be Biblical Ai.
One final observation is that Bethel and Ai were twin cities in the Bible. If Khirbet Nisya is to be Ai then
BSP 3:4 (Autumn 1990) p. 117
EI-Bireh must be Bethel. But no one can dig in El-Bireh, barely a half mile from PLO headquarters. I had the opportunity, however, to sample some surface pottery in El-Bireh. Here I found materials from periods as early as the Iron Age. Much more needs to be done, but it seems likely that El-Bireh covers an ancient city, contrary to earlier reports. ABR is planning to return to Kh. Nisya to further clarify this year’s findings.
Area 78, view northwest. Two phases of a wall from the pre-Byzantine structure.
BSP 3:4 (Autumn 1990) p. 118