...was the Bible wrong about Abraham having camels that early?

Created Apr 18/98 

Someone sent in the following question:

I recently had a professor of mine state that the Bible must have made up the
story about Abraham having camels. He said that camels were not domesticated
until much later, and so someone must have made up the whole story.

Is this true? Please help.

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 millenium 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 Alrbight'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 possibley depictions of wild animals, as ins 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 a 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
millenium 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 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, tow-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
millenium 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." [OWC: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 millenium 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 ctiy 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 patriarchial narratives AND Albright's contention of
'low usage' were accurate descriptions. If wholesale 'production' of camel herds did not occur
until the 1st millenium 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
 

The Christian ThinkTank...[http://www.Christian-thinktank.com] (Reference

Abbreviations)