HAR KARKOM AND MOUNT SINAI: EXEGESIS AND
TOPOGRAPHY
The biblical narration of exodus and of Mount
Sinai described in detail the location of the mountain of Moses. The archaeological finds and the topography
of the territory help us to understand the biblical texts.
by
The biblical story of exodus and
Mount Sinai has a strong ethical message.
The crossing of the desert and the revelation near the Mountain of God
appear as a prototype of a “rite of passage” of universal value, through which
a people becomes adult, free and acquires a new identity. The march towards the “Promised Land” is not
an exclusive feature of Hebrew mythology, it follows
the trend of archetypal myths of origin of various populations in at least four
continents. Indeed, reaching the
“Promised Land” is an ambition of almost everybody; every human being on Earth
is looking for a promised land. Whether
or not based on historical events, in the last 2000 years, a vast literature
came into existence on the story of exodus.
In our opinion, the vision of Mount Sinai near the monastery of Saint Catherine is a groundless myth. Why the knowledge of the original location of
the Mountain of God was lost by the collective memory is not clear. The attempt to localise the Mountain of God
near Saint Catherine goes back to the Byzantine period, more than one millennium since the prophet Elia
is said to have visited the mountain, and since then the doubts remain. The search for the locality has engaged time
and effort on the part of many explorers, archaeologists, geographers and
theologians and there are over 20 candidate mountains
identified with the biblical Mount Sinai by various writers. Several scholars have gone so far as to
conclude that the whole story of exodus was a pure and simple myth. This hypothesis seems to us an easy and
superficial solution.
Other scholars have seen the
wanderings of the children of Israel as casual moving from one well to another,
considering the lists of the stations of exodus as a litany of magic words
without meaning. As we shall see later
on, it can be demonstrated that this hypothesis is simply wrong. Others saw this wandering as an itinerary
from Egypt to the Byzantine “Mountain of Moses”, situated in the south of the
peninsula near Saint Catherine, and from there to Ain Kuderat,
believed to be the biblical Kadesh-Barnea, in the
north of the peninsula. Others again
suggested the possibility that the itinerary of exodus described sites along
the Mediterranean coast, in the north of Sinai.
In the last 50 years various
scholars have advocated that Mount Sinai, on the base of the topographical
descriptions of the Pentateuch, had to be located in the north of the peninsula
and not in the south. There are several
hypotheses of idenfication, but never before had the
area of Har Karkom been proposed.
Whoever considers the narration as a
fairytale has no need to look for a topography of
exodus. Whoever begins the analysis of
the topography of exodus with the preconceived idea that Mount Sinai should be
in the region of Saint Catherine or in any other area in the south of the Sinai
peninsula will find it impossible to give a
geographical sense to the sequence of stations of exodus. In any case, in our opinion, the described
itinerary was topographically acceptable when it was compiled, in the first millenium BC, for the populations that knew the area, and
it is topographically clear still today, for whoever is familiar with the
territory. The biblical descriptions of
the sites are reliable, essential, and precise.
The present writer has carried on
archaeological excavations and explorations in the Sinai peninsula
ever since 1954. In 1989, and again in
1992, departing from the Land of Goshen, in the Nile Delta, the writer has
followed the various hypotheses of exodus on the territory, in the Egyptian
Sinai and the Israeli Negev, visiting wells and sites along ancient
trails. After 40 years of “wanderings in
the desert” in order to carry on archaeological prospections
of other kinds, it was surprising to realise that it was possible to produce
new hypotheses examining data which had been examined before, but with a new
perspective. We went back to areas where
we had been working before. Trails,
mountains and valleys, wells, remains of nomadic campsites that had always been
there, suddenly acquired new dimensions.
In our view the list of stations in the biblical narration has a precise
geographical sense as we have shown in our book Esodo,
tra mito
e storia (1997).
The idea that Har Karkom could be
identified with the biblical Mount Sinai came after four years of fieldwork and
exploration on the mountain and in the area, and 30 years after the first
discovery of rock art in that area by the present writer. We did not look for Mount Sinai. The numerous cult structures had already
demonstrated the role of the mountain as a paramount cult high place. On the basis of topographical and
archaeological evidence, in 1983 we proposed that Har Karkom should be identified
with the sacred mountain of the biblical narrations. Since then, 15 years have elapsed and new
research, prospections and discoveries have
strengthened our hypothesis.
Looking at the biblical accounts,
C.S. Jarvis, B. Mazar and others, had already
established in the ‘30s that Mount Sinai should be located in the north of the
peninsula, but the identification of a specific site relying on archaeological
evidence, was a scandalising new fact.
For not one of the other candidates for Mount Sinai had anyone cared to
look for archaeological documentation.
In the area of Saint Catherine the first cult remains belong to the
Byzantine age. As far as we know, besides the Greek-Orthodox church, which
maintained until recently that Mount Sinai should be in the area of Saint Catherine, no other religious denomination has so far
established a clear position concerning the geographical location of Mount
Sinai.
The main biblical texts which help
identify the area, where according to the compilers the mountain should be
found, are the lists of sites of exodus and the description of the mountain and
its topography, in the books of Exodus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. Having explored the Negev and the Sinai for
forty years, the present writer does not share the idea of those that, studying
the itinerary at a desk, consider that the biblical stations are not
identifiable or that they are canonic litanies
without geographical signifiance. On the contrary, we consider that the
biblical itinerary of exodus, from the land of Goshen to Mount Sinai, and from
there to Kadesh-Barnea, and from there to Jericho,
can be reconstructed. The text, when it
was compiled, was aimed at a public who knew the territory and knew where Elim, or Alush, or Refidim, were located, as well as the Shur
desert, the deserts of Sin, Zin and Paran, and the
territory of the Edomites, Midianites, Amalekites, Horites and Amorites.
New elements have recently been
added to the itinerary of exodus, proposed in my book The Mountain of God
(Anati, 1986). The topography has been
enriched by further geographical and archaeological data. They concern, in particular, the two biblical
stations of Mara and Elim, respectively at El Murra and in the vicinities of Abu Awgeila,
and in the biblical site of Refidim at Beer Karkom
(cf. Esodo- tra mito e storia, Anati
1997). If, as we trust, there are
sufficient elements for identifying the sites, the area in which Mount Sinai
can be located is drastically limited.
Beyond the new data aquired at these stations, a fundamental query
emerges. After the long stay at Mount
Sinai did the biblical itinerary describe far away sites or sites along the
border of the “Promised Land”? One of
the factors which at first excluded any relation betwen
Har Karkom and exodus was the position of this mountain on the border of the
“Promised Land”. Mount Sinai is
frequently seen in the literature as a far away site. Har Karkom is located in the perimeter of the
biblical narration of exodus, half way between Ezion Gaber and Kadesh Barnea at the north extremity of the area called the Paran
desert, but it is far from any itinerary of exodus previously proposed.
In the sea of alternative proposals
on the itinerary of exodus, there are some points which are more or less agreed
upon by most scholars, such as the location of Kadesh-Barnea
in the area of the oasis of Ein Kudeirat
and of Ezion-Gaber on the shores of the Gulf of Akaba, near the present-day town of Eilat. Nevertheless, most interpreters of the
exodus, since Byzantine times, for over 1500 years, have considered the area of
Saint Catherine as that of the mountain of Moses and consequently they see the
biblical itinerary after Mount Sinai as a random wandering in the south and
centre of the peninsula, in “terra incognita”.
However, the name of the stations mentioned in Numbers 10-13 show
a very different reality.
Opening the Bible some examples can
be examined: in Deut. 1,19 is written “…And we departed from Horeb, we went through all the great and terrible
wilderness, which ye saw by the way of the mountain of the Amorites…” this
route indicated by the narration after the Paran desert coming from Mount Sinai
should be located in the Amorite territory. Various passages of the Pentateuch
localise the Amorites to the south of the Dead Sea, not far from the Arava Valley. This
is not the south of the Sinai Peninsula.
The Paran desert, near Hazerot, is described
as the site of the departure of the “explorers” who carried back a huge bunch
of grapes. They reached Hebron departing from the desert of Zin
(Num. 13,1).
The Paran desert is the “great and terrible desert” of the previous
citation and from the biblical narration, it is
located between Mount Sinai, the Arava Valley and the
desert of Zin (which is different from the desert of
Sin, which is found further south). Nahal Zin, from the Arava valley to today’s Sde Boker, north of Har Karkom, is identified with the biblical
desert of Zin where an important caravan route still
passes from the Arava to the Hebron mountains. None of this is located in the south of the Sinai
Peninsula
The site of Bene
Yaakan has a Horite name (Num.
33, 32), and the Horites, according to biblical
descriptions, at that time, were living near the Arava. According to the biblical description, Yotvata and Avrona are localities
in the Arava (Num 33,34),
and Ezion Gaber is near Eilat at the northern end of the Gulf of Akaba (Num. 33, 36).
Following these indications on a geographical map, a biblical vision of
the itinerary will become clear. Departing from Mount Sinai, and crossing the
Paran desert, it reaches the Arava valley near the
desert of Zin, then turns
back towards Yotvata, Avrona
and Ezion Gaber.
The Biblical chronicler knew how to
locate Mount Sinai: “Moses kept the flock of Jethro
his father in law, the priest of Midian, and he led
the flock beyond the desert, and came to the Mountain of God, Horeb” (Ex. 3,1). In the story of Moses in Midian,
Mount Sinai, which is also called Horeb, is described
as a herding territory of the Midianites, beyond the (Paran) desert which
separates it from the habitation site of Jethro, the Midianite, not far from the Arava
valley.
On the way, between Jethro’s village and Egypt, Aaron went to meet Moses who
was coming from the land of Midian, going back to
Egypt, and met him near the Mountain of God (Ex. 4,26). That means that, according to the biblical
view, the way from Midian to Egypt crosses Mount
Sinai. Looking at the geographical map,
with the Bible in one hand, Har Karkom is the only locality among those
proposed for Mount Sinai, which fits without any effort all these
coordinates. It is also the only
mountain that has recorded archaeological evidence of the cult role it had in
the Bronze Age.
According to the biblical story, the
Hebrews went to collect water at Mount Horeb while
staying at Refidim,. The Bible describes Refedim
as very near to Mount Sinai (Ex. 17., 15). It is also presented as the well that caused
dispute. The tribes, of the Amalekites and the Midianites, were present at Refidim, which according to the topographical view of the
biblical narrations, is found on the border between the territories of the two
tribes. The well of Beer Karkom, 7 km
north of Har Karkom, where there are remains of large camping sites from the
BAC period, reflects such topographical indications and seems to correspond to
the biblical site of Refidim. There, near the well, is the end of a major
track coming down from the mountain of the Central Negev; probably it is the
same that the biblical chronicler mentions while describing the arrival of the Amalekites at Refidim.
Other biblical descriptions provide
meaningful topographical data on the territory.
At the beginning of Deutronomy it is written
“there are 11 days’ journey from Horeb
by the way of mount Seir unto Kadesh
Barnea” (Deut. I,2). Also among those that do not agree with the
identification of Har Karkom, Kadesh Barnea can be identified with Ain Kudeirat
or the near by Ain Kadis. Mount Seir (Seir means hairy) is probably Jebel
Arif el-Naqe, which has a
valley with water on the northern side, with grazing areas where the wells of Bir Main and Bir el Beidha are located.
It really is a hairy mountain, in the sense that it is rich in
bushes. There is a good trail between
Har Karkom and Ain Kudeirat, by the way of Jebel Arif el-Naqe. Along this way there are 10 groups of wells
at a distance that varies from 7 to 15 km from one to another. If Har Karkom is Mount Sinai, for a group
that walks on foot, 11 days are indeed needed from Horeb,
by the way of Mount Seir, to reach Kadesh Barnea (AA. VV, 1988, p.10). Who
can be interested in thinking that such biblical passsages
are meaningless nursery rhymes?
The Bible describes deserts and
tribal zones around mount Sinai. One of the main pieces of data emerging is
that Mount Sinai, according to the narration, must be situated in the Midianite territory, near the borders between Midian and Amalek (Ex. 17,
9-20). The Bible further indicates that
the Amalekites occupied the highlands of the Central
Negev and the zone of Kadesh-Barnea, while the
Midianites were located on both sides of the Aravà
Valley (Anati, 1997). Mount Sinai,
according to the biblical narration, is located between these two regions. Therefore, following the topographical
indications, Mount Sinai is located in the area of Har Karkom. This could have
been established even if nothing had been found at Har Karkom.
The archaeological remains seem to
give new life to the biblical accounts.
No other mountain, among all those proposed for identification with
Mount Sinai, and also among all the mountains in the entire Negev and Sinai
area, corresponds so precisely to all these characteristics. We can testify to
the high degree of reliability of biblical topographic descriptions. What has been considered so far seems to
imply that beyond the biblical narration there is history. Archaeological investigation can attempt to
understand how much of the story is real and how much the fruit of myths or
fantasy. The monuments and the
archaeological sites that we find today are on the surface and they have been
visible all the time in the course of the last millenia. Perhaps 3000 years ago they were better
preserved than today. It is likely that people travelling at that time saw them
and attempted to interpret them, to relate them to some historical past, as is
still done by the bedouins of today.
We have examined the discovery in
its context, we have considered the archaeological and topographical evidence, we have seen the identikit of the mountain of God, according
to the biblical text. A large query is
still open, that of chronology. If there
was an exodus, if there was a Moses and the presence of an
Hebrew people at the foot of Mount Sinai, what is the age of this event? This will be the subject of the next article.
Bibliography
ANATI E.
1958 Recherches
Préhistoriques au Sinai, BSPF, vol. 55/3-4,
pp. 201-212.
1979 L’arte rupestre del Negev e del Sinai,
Milan (Jaca Book).
1984b I nomi del monte Sinai e
il problema del Horev alla
luce dell’archeologia, Bibbia e Oriente, vol. 26/3, n. 141, pp. 151-158.
1986a The Mountain of God, Har Karkom, Milan (Jaca Book)
1987c I siti a Plaza di Har Karkom, Capo di Ponte (Edizioni del Centro)
1993 Har Karkom, In
the light of new discoveries, Capo di Ponte
(Edizioni del Centro)
1995 Har Karkom. La montagna di Dio, Archeologia
Viva, vol. 14/50, pp.60-73.
1996 Con E. Anati & F. Mailland, Il santuario piu antico
del mondo, Archeologia Viva, vol. 15/56, pp. 26-38.
1997
Esodo tra mito e storia, SC, vol. 18, Capo di
Ponte (Edizioni del Centro), 1997, 300 pp., 130 ill.
1998
Har Karkom e Monte Sinai: Testimonianze per una identificazione,
in F. Mailland (ed.),
Har Karkom e Monte Sinai: Archeologia e Mito, pp. 59-67, 121-123.
BATTO B.F.
1984
Red Sea or Reed Sea? How the mistake was made and what “Yam Suf” really means, BAR, vol. 10/4, pp. 57-63.
1988 Settlement in the Negev Highlands
from the Fourth Millennium BCE to the Fourth Century BCE, Qadmoniot,
vol. 22, pp. 62-81 (in Hebrew).
GLUECK N.
1965 Ezyon-Geber,
BA, vol. 28, pp. 70-87.
JARVIS C.S.
1938 Yesterday and today in Sinai, London (Blackwood & Sons).
KENYON K.M.
1981 Excavations at Jericho. The Architecture and Stratigraphy
of the Tell, London
(British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem).
MAZAR B.
1981 Yahweh Came out of Sinai, in A. Biran (ed.), Temples and High Places in Biblical Times,
Jerusalem (Hebrew Union College), pp. 5-9.
MESHEL Z.
1989 Yotvata Oasis, Eilot Municipality.