Journal: Westminster Theological Journal
Volume: WTJ 36:2 (Winter 1974)
Article: Intensive, Systematic Surface Collection At Livingston’s Proposed Site For Biblical Ai
Author: Roy B. Blizzard, Jr.

WTJ 36:2 (Winter 1974) p. 221

Intensive, Systematic Surface Collection At Livingston’s Proposed Site For Biblical Ai

Roy B. Blizzard, Jr.

I. Introduction

The chronology of the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan have long posed problems for the biblical scholar in his attempt to reconstruct the history of the Hebrew nation. For a number of years, biblical scholars have been divided into two basic schools of thought regarding the date of the Exodus and conquest of Canaan. Early date advocates espouse a fifteenth century B.C. date while advocates of a later date prefer a date falling somewhere in the mid-thirteenth century B.C.

In November 1970, an article appeared in this journal in which David Livingston proposed a new location for Biblical Bethel and Ai. His proposition, if proved correct, would be an outstanding contribution toward the solution of this most difficult problem. Mr. Livingston’s article met with immediate opposition from Dr. Anson Rainey who offered a rebuttal to which Mr. Livingston then responded.1

II. Historical Backgrounds

I first visited Livingston’s suggested site in July of 1971. The topography added to the impressiveness of the site. The tell is ovular in shape, covering an area of approximately 12–14 dunams (about 3 to 3.5 acres). The tell develops in almost a direct line north to south. A succession of gently tiered terraces with rock walls, running at various angles to separate the cultivated fields, divides the tell into a patchwork quilt pattern which facilitates dividing it into various areas for survey

WTJ 36:2 (Winter 1974) p. 222

or excavation. The tell is not completely artificial in its present state. Many of the terraces are natural, but have been obviously modified. It appeared to be approximately 70% natural and 30% artificial. The site was sufficiently impressive that I felt further investigation was in order.

Dr. James A. Neely, a colleague of mine at the University of Texas, suggested certain new techniques of surface survey which could be successfully utilized in field testing Mr. Livingston’s proposed site.

III. Theoretical Basis

In a recent article Charles L. Redman and Patty Jo Watson stated:

We believe that rigorous specification of the relationship between the surface and subsurface of an archaeological site is practically useful and theoretically significant.

A method of controlled surface collecting will yield data that can make an excavation or regional survey more efficient and productive. At the present time, when excavation expenses are increasing and research designs call for comparative information from more than on...