So there was a documentary shown on Channel 4 in the UK last night about an archaeological search for the lost Ark. It certainly didn't seem to be a religiously motivated search, which pleased me. Ultimately I don't know whether to believe this or not, but it was interesting so I want to tell you about it. So, the search begins with finding out when the Ark alledgedly went missing which was supposedly in the sixth century BC when the Babylonians invaded Jerusalem. However no records could be found of it being taken by the Babylonians (whose carvings often depicted processions of treasure carried home from wars. So it appeared to have been moved before the Babylonians sacked the city (note the seige took several years). Archaeologists then found a copper scroll which showed the whereabouts of hidden treasures from the time of the invasion of Jerusalem, but no mention of the Ark.

The documentary then looked at several other theories all of them quickly proved false. The archaeologist/presenter of the documentary presented his own theory, that the ark was not the large golden box described in Exodus but more a wooden box as described in Deuteronomy, as the Jews, coming out of Egypt would not have had the time or resources to make such a box. He also makes the discovery of a tribe called the Lemba in South Africa and Zimbabwe who claim to be a lost Jewish people. Indeed, although they looked pretty much African, genetic evidence proved that they had the genes of the Jewish priestly class, as well as evidence in the culture and music of the tribe. This tribe also had a well preserved oral history which documented their journey from Sena in Yemen to Africa about a thousand years ago, carrying with them a holy object with a name I can neither remember or pronounce. The story also checks out with the writing of an Islamic scholar at the time who also speaks of them. So, our man goes back to Jerusalem to show how these people got to Sena from Jerusalem about the time of the invasion and were forced to move on when Islam became more present more than a thousand years later and from there could in a matter of days sailed down the East African coast.

The trouble is that the Lemba people don't actually have their holy object anymore. But he checks out a rather mediocre archaeological discovery, a wooden drum found in Zimbabwe with handles through which could be passed poles for carrying and speculates how the Ark could have been a drum, as it supposedly led into battle and struck fear in the hearts of the enemy, much like drums do in war. The drum is then carbon dates and the result comes back that it is only 600 years old, which despite obviously not being as old as the original ark, actually fits with the oral tradition of the Lemba people who say that a replacement was made about that time, obviously wood is not a lasting material. But, could the original ark have been a drum? It isn't a very Semitic way of expressing religious belief, but as the Jews had just come out of Egypt, where they had been aware not just of Egyptian culture but various African cultures (through trading up the Nile) it is possible that they might have taken this on board. Indeed the Golden chest described in Exodus (and in the Indiana Jones movie) is actually very alike to many Egyptian chests found from that era, so if not a chest why not a drum.

Now, I don't know enough to know whether or not this is true. It is entirely possible that the Ark of the Covenant was a real artifact, at the same time it's possible it was just fiction and this archaeologist has it wrong. However the argument did make some sense. I'm wondering if any of the scholarly members like Rook could enlighten me on this.