The Faynan district of Jordan is known for its rich copper ore deposits. A three thousand-year-old industrial scale metal production operation in the region is now being touted as "King Solomon's mines." Photograph by Kenneth Garrett.

Have King Solomon's Mines been discovered? Some months ago we had an interesting discussion here about how a layperson can judge whether such fantastic claims concerning biblical archaeology are great stuff or hooey. We applied a sort of litmus test to these claims. The first part of the test is to ask whether the report was presented in a peer-reviewed scientific journal or if it was "published" by press conference. The second part of the test is to ask whether the claimant has a history of other sensational claims. If there was no peer-reviewed scientific publication and the report came from someone who has a habit of making fantastic claims, our little test suggests it should be held with suspicion. Simple as that.

Yet we didn't account for another possibility. That is when the media goes wild with a story. This is what happened this week when National Geographic grantee Tom Levy and colleagues announced new radiocarbon dates for an ancient copper production facility, Khirbat en-Nahas in the Faynan region of Jordan. Levy is a respected scientist and published his findings in a respected journal. He hasn't made other sensational biblically-related claims that I am aware of. So, as far as our existing litmus test goes, Levy's claim should be taken seriously, BUT... if you look carefully at what Levy says in his paper and his media quotes, he never says he found King Solomon's Mines. It has been left for the media to make that connection. And boy, did they!

Now the world thinks that King Solomon's mines have been discovered. Levy's report was quickly picked up and splashed all over the world with headlines like:
Copper mine in Jordan could be King Solomon's—USA Today.com
Solomon's real mine? 3,000 years on, archaeologists uncover fabled site in desert—Daily Mail
King Solomon's Mines Rediscovered?-National Geographic News
King Solomon's mines found south of Dead Sea in Jordan-www.infolive.tv

What's the problem? The problem is that we don't even know if King Solomon is real. So, where does that leave his mines?

How did this happen? Let's look at Levy et al.'s  paper and the press release issued by Levy's institution, UC San Diego.

Levy's paper, which appeared in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, describes how Khirbat en-Nahas, a well known metal production site in Faynan, was carefully redated. The new dates show the site was in use between the 12th century BC and the 9th century BC. King Solomon, if he was indeed a historical figure, probably lived in the 10th century BC. Levy's paper presents several other lines of evidence linking the site to this time period. One revealing line in the paper suggests "the question of whether King Solomon's mines have been discovered in Faynan returns to scholarly discourse."

The UC San Diego press release doesn't say Khirbat en-Nahas is King Solomon's mines, but it mentions Solomon four times and certainly doesn't discourage the connection. Levy is quoted in the press release saying, "we have evidence that complex societies were indeed active in 10th and 9th centuries BCE and that brings us back to the debate about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible narratives related to this period.”

To someone familiar with one of biblical archaeology's most contentious debates, the message in the paper and release is clear. But to the uninitiated, it is easily missed. The message is that Dr. Levy and his colleagues think that Khirbat en-Nahas provides indirect evidence that King Solomon existed. In a way, they are arguing that if all the cultural complexity associated with a big need for copper existed in the 10th century BC, then who needed it? Why not King Solomon? What they don't state explicitly is that there is little or no other evidence that Solomon ever existed as the powerful monarch described in the Hebrew Bible. There are no coins, no buildings, no harbors, no evidence of a powerful kingdom and nothing that says, "Solomon was here."

Levy could have been more clear on this point. Better informed journalists might have questioned how we could have found King Solomon's mines if we can't even find King Solomon?

I think that Dr. Levy is sincere in wanting Khirbat en-Nahas to contribute to the debate about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible regarding the 10th century BC. That's fine and welcome. But should he have taken a bit more care to guide reporters through the complexities of the issues in order to prevent sensationalism? Or is it the journalist's job to figure that out?

Great stuff or hooey? What do you think?

PS. Here's a link to a very informative video about Khirbat en-Nahas provided by UC San Diego. It does not mention King Solomon's mines. ;)

Comments