Good question...
...was the Bible wrong about Abraham having camels that early?
Created Apr 18/98
Someone sent in the following question:
Unfortunately, this is another case of someone using 'old data' and not
keeping up with the information. (A very similar situation occurs with
the old JEDP "Documentary Hypothesis"--many
professors learned this decades ago, and haven't updated their view as
the rest of the scholarly world has increasingly abandoned the whole superstructure.)
Fortunately, in the case of the camel, there is an abundance of data
in ANE studies to show that the camel had been domesticated for a millennium
or two BEFORE Abraham.
But first, let's look at where the 'Genesis as anachronism' view originated
and why. [Several of the below quotes are from Bulliet's definitive work
on the subject The Camel and the Wheel, 1975, HI:TCAW].
"From these references [Genesis] a pattern of camel use can be extrapolated
that seems very much in consonance with later Middle Eastern society: the
camel forming part of a bride price, a small caravan of camels crossing
the desert from Palestine to Iraq, a woman perched atop a camel loaded
with camp goods, merchants carrying incense to Egypt. This entire vision,
however, both original text and extrapolated image, has been categorically
rejected by W.F. Albright, one of the foremost scholars of Biblical history
and Palestinian archaeology and the person whose opinion on camel domestication
is most frequently encountered. According to Albright, any mention of camels
in the period of Abraham is a blatant anachronism, the product of
later priestly tampering with the earlier texts in order to bring more
in line with altered social conditions. The Semites of the time of Abraham,
he maintains, herded sheep, goats, and donkeys but not camels, for the
latter had not yet been domesticated and did not really enter the
orbit of Biblical history until about 1100-1000 BC with the coming
of the Midianites, the camel riding foes of Gideon." [HI:TCAW:35-36]
The basic position of Albright (generally such a strong supporter of biblical
accuracy that he is not taken seriously by the Dever/Redford camp) was
that the archaeological data indicated no widespread use of camels
during this period. From this data, however, he jumped to the position
that camels had not been domesticated at this time. And, although his
basic contention that usage was widespread is quite accurate, his inference
to non-domestication is not.
This distinction is sympathetically discussed by Bulliet, while at the
same time pointing out where the leap is invalid:
"There are no sound grounds for doubting Albright's contention that
camel domestication first became a factor of importance in the Syrian and
north Arabian deserts around the eleventh century B.C., and, as will be
seen, there is much to support the contention besides the absence of camelline
remains in Holy Land archaeological sites of earlier date, which was Albright's
primary datum. On the other hand, this date need not be taken as the beginning
date of camel domestication in an absolute sense. Closer attention to the
process of domestication indicates that the camel was actually domesticated
long before the year 1100 B.C..." [HI:TCAW:36]
Bulliet is carefully skeptical of most ancient artifacts that allegedly
purport to demonstrate the early usage of the camel, as a couple of quotes
will show:
"To be sure, one or two representations of camels from early Mesopotamia
have been alleged, but they are all either doubtfully camelline, as the
horsy looking clay plaque from the third dynasty of Ur (2345-2308 B.C.),
or else not obviously domestic and hence possibly depictions of wild animals,
as in the case with the occasional Ubaid and Uruk period (4000-3000 B.C.)
examples" [HI:TCAW:46]
"These five pieces of evidence, needless to say, may not convince everyone
that the domestic camel was known in Egypt and the Middle East on an occasional
basis between 2500 and 1400 B.C. Other early depictions, alleged to be
of camels, which look to my eyes like dogs, donkeys, horses, dragons or
even pelicans, might be more convincing to some than the examples described
above." [HT:TCAW:64]
So, in light of this careful approach, the pieces of strong evidence that
he advances that he does consider convincing are all the more substantial.
He describes the evidence on pp. 60-64 of his book.
-
A 3.5 ft cord of camel hair from Egypt, dated around 2500 BC. Buillet
believes it is "from the land of Punt, perhaps the possession of a slave
or captive, and from a domestic camel"
-
The bronze figurine from the temple of Byblos in Lebanon. It is in a foundation
with strong Egyptian flavoring, and is dated before the sixth Egyptian
dynasty (before 2182 BC). Although the figure could be taken as a sheep,
the figure is arranged with items that would strongly require it to be
a camel (e.g., a camel saddle, camel muzzle, etc.)
-
Two pots of Egyptian provenance were found in Greece and Crete, both dating
1800-1400 BC, but both in area so far removed from the range of the camel
as to suggest its presence in the intermediate areas (e.g., Syria or Egypt)
during an earlier time. Both have camels represented, and one literally
has humans riding on a camel back.
-
A final piece of strong evidence is textual from Alalakh in Syria, as opposed
to archaeological: a textual ration-list. There is an entry for 'camel fodder'
written in Old Babylonian. "Not only does this attest the existence of
camels in norther Syria at this time, but the animal involved is clearly
domestic." [HI:TCAW:64].
Other ANE/Egyptian expert's advance other/similar evidences
for early domestication as well, such as Cyrus Gordon and Kenneth Kitchen:
"Abraham did not want his son to marry a Canaanite, so he sent his
servant to Paddan Aram (as the Haran region of north Mesopotamia is called)
to secure a bride for Isaac. With ten camels and adequate personnel, the
servant heads the caravan towards his master's Aramean kinsmen. The mention
of camels here and elsewhere in the patriarchal narratives often is
considered anachronistic. However, the correctness of the Bible is supported
by the representation of camel riding on seal cylinders of precisely this
period from northern Mesopotamia" [Gordon/Rendsburg, in BANE:120-12].
(They refer the reader to the illustrations in the journal Iraq 6, 1939,
pl. II, p. And to the general discussion in Journal of Near Eastern Studies
3, 1944, pp. 187-93.)
"It is often asserted that the mention of camels and of their use is
an anachronism in Genesis. This charge is simply not true, as there
is both philological and archaeological evidence for knowledge and use
of this animal in the early second millennium BC and even earlier. While
a possible reference to camels in a fodder-list from Alalakh (c. eighteenth
century BC) has been disputed, the great Mesopotamian lexical lists that
originated in the Old Babylonian period show a knowledge of the camel c.
2000/17000 BC, including its domestication. Furthermore, a Sumerian text
from Nippur from the same early period gives clear evidence of domestication
of the camel by then, by its allusions to camel's milk...For the early
and middle second millennium BC, only limited use is presupposed by
either the biblical or external evidence until the twelfth century
BC. " [Kitchen in HI:AOOT:79-80]
One of the earliest pieces of data comes from Northeast Iran:
"The period [EB, NMG IV, 3000-2500 BC] is marked by technological
advances in pottery production, including the introduction and dominant
utilization of the fast wheel and the appearance of efficient, two-tiered
pottery kilns; metallurgy with deliberate alloying and evidence for
local production in the form of copper smelting furnaces on the outskirts
of Khapuz-depe; stone working; and a development of wheeled vehicles
drawn by Bactrian camels and possible bulls as indicated by terra-cotta
models." [COWA1:186]
Bulliet agrees:
"This conclusion serves to corroborate the inference made by Soviet
archaeologists from their discovery of camel-headed wagons that as early
as the first half of the third millennium B.C. two-humped camels
were used in Turkmenistan for drawing wagons..." [HI:TCAW:155]
"As has already been mentioned, this type of utilization [camels pulling
wagons] goes back to the earliest known period of two-humped camel domestication
in the third millennium B.C." [HI:TCAW:177, 183]
The evidence for the early domestication of the camel is therefore strong,
but sparing. The general consensus today is that domestication
definitely was early.
-
"A bronze figurine of a man on a crouching camel, found at Nineveh, in
Mesopotamia. Camels had been domesticated by the middle of the second
millennium BC, and it is likely that they expanded the possibility
of long-distance trade across the dry regions that border Mesopotamia."
[HI:OWCROCS:,28]
-
"Both the dromedary (the one-humped camel of Arabia) and the
Bactrian camel (the two-humped camel of Central Asia) had been domesticated
since before 2000 BC." [TAW:176]
-
"Just as today the Hadhrami Arab is naturally inclined toward the sea and
tribal groups show no reluctance to pack themselves into dhows and ride
before the northeast monsoon, so 4,000 years ago some camel herding
group must have decided to migrate to a better land that they had heard
about from the dhow masters..." [HI:TCAW:50]
-
"As far as hard dates go, the 2500-1500 B.C. suggested earlier for the
introduction of the camel into Somalia is the best that can be done from
available data. Given the stage domestication had reached by the time the
camels and their owners crossed the sea, some additional time must be allowed
for earlier stages. Taking this into consideration, it is easily conceivable
that the domestication process first got underway between 3000 and 2500
B.C." [HI:TCAW:56]
-
"The practice of using domestic two-humped camels spread in all directions
from its original homeland...to the west there is an abundance of evidence
starting with the second millennium B.C. Mesopotamian cylinder seal mentioned
in chapter three. The Akkadian word udru is first used in the reign
of the Assyrian king Assurbelkala (1074-1057 B.C.) who bought some two-humped
camels from merchants with dealings in the east. " [HI:TCAW:156]
Bulliet confronts this "strong versus sparing" issue and indicates
the most probable historical scenario:
"Yet it is very difficult to explain away all of the evidence pointing
to the camel's presence out side the Arabian peninsula prior to the year
1400B.C. The effort is better spent looking into the reasons why the evidence
from this early period is so very scarce.
"The archaeological record, as Albright affirms, shows no indication
of camel use in the Syrian area during the period in question, 2500-1400B.C.,
and this conclusion is corroborated by a thorough study of nomadism in
Mesopotamia in the eighteenth century B.C. made from the records of the
kings of Mari, a city located on the Euphrates astride what was later to
become the primary caravan route from Iraq to Syria.' If camels were
present, then, as they appear to have been, they must have been present
in very small numbers. Indeed, they must have played little or no part
in the ordinary herding economy of the time.
"The most satisfactory explanation of this circumstance
is that the camel was known because it was brought into the area by
traders carrying goods from southern Arabia but that it was not
bred or herded in the area. It is worthy of note that whereas the
citations from the Bible associating camels with Abraham and his immediate
descendants seem to fit the generalized pattern of later camel use in the
area, they could also fit a pattern in which camels were very uncommon.
The largest number of animals mentioned in those episodes is ten, and those
ten are probably most of what Abraham had since they were sent with his
servant with the apparent intention of creating a sufficiently wealthy
impression to entice the father of a woman of good family into letting
his daughter cross the desert to marry Isaac. No man, incidentally, is
described as riding a camel, only women, who seem to have perched atop
camp goods instead of riding in an enclosed woman's traveling compartment
as was later to be the norm.
"This does not mean, necessarily, that Abraham or his descendants
were mixed up in the Arabian incense trade, although they lived in such
great proximity to the main route from Syria to Arabia that such involvement
might have been possible. It means simply that in the nineteenth and
eighteenth centuries B.C. when Abraham and his immediate descendants appear
to have lived, camels were already known in small numbers in the northwestern
corner of the Arabian desert where the western Arabian trade route branched
out to go to Egypt or further into Syria. Local tribes in the area may
have owned a few of the animals, perhaps as articles of prestige, without
being heavily involved in breeding them. [HI:TCAW:64-65]
His point certainly fits the data: camels SEEMED to be a rarity (and
therefore for the leadership/elite) in the day, but most certainly was
present for such elite/recognition uses. Bulliet goes further and links
the Semitic involvement to the overland incense trade:
"The probable sequence of events seems to have been that by 2000 B.C.
incense was reaching Syria with some regularity along the western Arabian
land route. Some Semitic speaking tribes saw the potential benefits of
this trade and became interested in it at its northern extremity. In Biblical
parlance these would be the Ishmaelites who appear in the story of Joseph
as traders in incense. Other tribes, probably later, undertook to follow
the trade back to its source and thus became the nucleus of Semitic settlement
in southern Arabia. Again, in Biblical parlance these would seem to be
the children of Abraham's son Jokshan (Arabic Yuqtan progenitor
of the south Arabian tribes). When the Semites had arrived in sufficient
numbers, they overwhelmed the indigenous inhabitants of southern Arabia
and became themselves masters of the land and the incense trade.
"This entire process, it has been argued, took place without the
benefit of camel transport, the camels making their appearance only at
a much later date from parts unknown. But it has been demonstrated that
the camel was already in use during the period in question and that
its probable homeland was southern Arabia. It is much more reasonable,
therefore, to assume that the camel was the main carrier on the incense
route from the very beginning, or nearly so, and that the Semitic tribes
of the north came to know the camel in this way in very small numbers.
In other words, the presence of camels in the Abraham story can be defended
and the story treated as primary evidence of camel use without disputing
Albright's contention that camel-breeding nomads did not exist in Syria
and northern Arabia at that time." (HI:TCAW:66-67)
What this would indicate was that the patriarchal narratives AND
Albright's contention of 'low usage' were accurate descriptions.
If wholesale 'production' of camel herds did not occur until the 1st millennium
BC, then both the elite character of the camel's appearance in the Bible
and the paucity of the remaining evidence make perfect sense. And indeed,
camel breeding became an industry right about the time of Albright's observation:
"Camel breeding on a large scale began after the twelfth century B.C.,
when Semites from the north took control of the Arabian frankincense trade."
[HI:AC:301]
Without getting into all the details of where the camel originated,
when it made its appearance in the various cultures, and when the various
aspects of domestication occurred (e.g., milk production, pack carrying,
use as draught animals, riding, food, textiles, etc.), it is very
safe to say that the passages in Genesis are NOT anachronistic, reflect
well the milieu of the period, and are supported by archaeological and
textual data.
As an aside, I find it disappointing that some of the archaeological
minimalists seem to avoid this evidence or be unaware of this data. For
example, Bulliet's exhaustive work was published in 1976 but Redford's
1992 work doesn't even mention it when asserting the late domestication
of the camel! He refers to the dated materials (would this be reverse-anachronism?)
of Lambert and the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary (ECIAT:271,n.63).
Finkelstein, however, cites Bulliet as the 'most thorough treatment to
date' in his 1995 work LOF:121, but omits any reference to early evidence
(although his argument is focused on widespread use of the camel). It is
perhaps understandable that normal college professors with specialties
elsewhere would not necessarily be aware of this data, but the minimalists
need to confront this issue if they intend to continue accusing the bible
of such errors.
[One other comment: Much of the evidence that is mentioned and discussed
in the above works is pictorial/graphic and since I do NOT have permission
to reproduce those images, I simply cannot show you the evidence itself.
Bulliet's work has the most complete set of images, for those who need
to consult those.]
Glenn Miller
April 18, 1998
-------------------------------------------------------
[ .... qnocamel.html ........ ]
The Christian ThinkTank...[https://www.Christian-thinktank.com]
(Reference Abbreviations)