The Biblical Archaeologist - Vol.59, N.4

60 Pages·1996·23.33 MB·English

by  American Schools of Oriental Research

Perspectiveso n the Ancient Worldf rom Mesopotamiat o the Mediterranean Vol.5 9 No.4 December1 996
Tiglatht-o Pthe ilReescsue er
-
411061111111161v
c+1v ?r rrr I
*~i
; ' .
.t
4X
,
ii 1.
? ,\
4:+6' ~
i ?
161
f V; IL
It , ~t/At
4.4
~ ~ Olr?bc?I
Ti ; ' C L
~
ii U 8 .? Y or
Military Intervention
Iron-Age
Style
S. c s
to he ronAge!
SeeRonld .e -dl'
~epirahc nayis pg 23
BiblicaAl rchaeologist
Perspectiveso n the Ancient Worldf rom Mesopotamiat o the Mediterranean Volume 59 Number4
A Publicationo f the American Schools of OrientalR esearch December1 996
194 The Making of The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in
the Near East
Adapted from the Preface by Eric M. Meyers, Editor-in-Chief
The ground-breaking OxfordE ncyclopediao f Archaeologyi n the Near East has just
appeared. ASOR can be justly proud of its role in the making of the OEANE. Eric
M. Meyers, Editor-in-Chief,a nd Section Editors William G. Dever, Carol Meyers,
JamesD . Muhly,D ennis Pardee,a nd JamesA . Sauerc an claim a towering and durable
contribution to Near Easternr esearch.
198 Ethnicity and Origin of the Iron I Settlers in the Highlands of Canaan:
Can the Real Israel Stand Up?
Israel Finkelstein
Who settled in the hundreds of small villages that dotted the hill country of Iron I
Canaan? In last December's issue of BA devoted to ceramics and ethnicity,W illiam
Dever identified these highlanders as a new ethnic entity, as the people Israel. In a
challenge to Dever's identification,I srael Finkelsteina rgues that Dever is too con-
servative archaeologically; Dever has valued ceramics over settlement patterns.
Moreover, Dever's historical reconstructionc lings too tightly to the biblical story.
ge 194 Instead, Finkelsteind epicts the rise of an ethnically distinct Israela s the latest phase
in long-term, cyclic processes of settlement oscillations in the highlands. Archaeo-
logical data firstp lace this "realI srael"o n the historicals tage only in the ninth-eighth
centuries BCE.
213 Appeals for Military Intervention:S tories from Zinjirli and the Bible
.,..-0!4-W Al Simon B. Parker
Iron Age Syrian inscriptions and various biblical stories referencea n ancient mili-
tary strategy used by Near Easternk ings who were threatenedb y a more powerful
neighbor: they bid a yet more formidable king to the rescue. Examining the liter-
ary dynamics of these accounts discloses that the royal inscriptions from Zinjirli
possess neither a greater nor a lesser correspondence to "history"t han the biblical
accounts of Asa and Ahaz. Whether in inscriptions recovered in modern times by
archaeologistso r in a Biblet ransmittedf orc enturiesb y religiousb odies, such accounts
must be appreciated as narrativesb efore they can be used as historical sources.
225 Royal Officials and CourtF amilies: A New Look at the 'T1 ' (ykliidim)
in 1 Kings 12
Nili Fox
The famous narrative of Rehoboam's first and worst royal decision (1 Kings 12:1-
15) structurest he new king's options as the choice between the advice of the court
"elders"a nd "youth."T he precisei dentity of this latterg roup with whom Rehoboam
fatefully sides has heretofore eluded historians. Their designation, yldidnm,
should be understood as a technicalt erm signifying membership in a group of sons
of royal officials raised in the palace household. Egypt offers analogies for just such
a royal institution,a nd biblicall ists and recovereds eals evidence multi-generational
families of Israelitec ourt officials.
233 The Date of the Siloam Inscription:A Rejoindert o Rogerson and Davies
Ronald S. Hendel
As deeply as the Siloamt unnel runs beneatht he limestones pur of IronA ge Jerusalem,
so deeply flawed is Rogerson and Davies' palaeographic assessment of the
Siloam inscription. Anything more than a cursory analysis demonstrates that the
letter forms of the inscription belong to a reliable sequence of the eighth-seventh
century BcEa nd do not fit the palaeo-Hebrew sequence of the Hasmonean period.
The epigraphic data are clear,c oherent, and compelling.
Tiglath-PileserI IIp arades in triumph on this limestone low relief from his palace
at Nimrud( Calah;c a. 730 BCEB).i blicall iteraturea nd stories from Zinjirlib oth
describe appeals of lesser kings to this Assyrianm onarchf or militaryi ntervention
on their behalf. Courtesyo f the Trusteeso f the BritishM useum, London. Photo
by Zev Radovan.
From the Editor Biblical Archaeologist
Perspectiveosn the AncientW orldf rom
Mesopotamitao the Mediterranean
Few articles in BA's recent history have generated as much controversy as Editor David C. Hopkins
last issue's "Wast he Siloam Tunnel Built by Hezekiah?" by Rogerson and Davies. Art Director Bucky Edgett, LuckyP roductions
Book Review EditorM ichel Fortin
The decision to publish their argument about this famous tunnel had been ques- Arti-FactsE ditorsB rucea nd Carolyn Routledge
tioned within BA's editorial committee, and heated debate erupted at ASOR's EditorialA ssistants
annual meeting. Of course, not all the expressions of concern qualified as "debate" Mary PetrinaB oyd, Ellen Rowse Spero
Editorial Committee
(substitute ad hominem argument), but the airing of thoughts and feelings served JefferyA . Blakely Kenneth G. Hoglund
to point out how personally invested archaeologists and historians can be in ElizabethB loch-Smith Douglas A. Knight
their methods, truth claims, and interpretations. The contentious discussion Betsy M. Bryan Mary Joan Leith
J. P. Dressel GloriaL ondon
of BA's decision to publish an article-perceived by some as "flawed"-on ErnestS . Frerichs Jodi Magness
the ardently embraced attribution of the tunnel to Hezekiah connects directly Ronald S. Hendel Gerald L. Mattingly
RichardS . Hess Gaetano Palumbo
to the on-going exchange regarding the Tel Dan bytdvd inscription (is it a ref- Paul Zimansky
erence to the historical "house of David" or not?). Several of the personalities Subscriptions Annual subscriptionr ates are $35
and much of the acrimony have carried over. But there is an obvious difference for individuals and $45 for institutions. Therei s a
between the two questions. The translation and interpretation of the freshly 6sp5e, pcihayl saincnalulya lc rhaatlel eonf g$e2d8, f oorr u stnuedmepnltos,y tehdo.s Be iobvliecra l
unearthed Tel Dan inscription naturally drew a variety of views. The date of the Archaeologisits also available as part of the
Siloam tunnel, on the other hand, has long been established palaeographi- benefits of some ASOR membership categories.
Postage for Canadian and other international
cally. Needless to say, it is not easy to revisit the incontrovertibly established. addresses is an additional $5. Payments should
Because of the nature and implications of Rogerson and Davies' attempt be sent to ASOR Membership/Subscriber
Services, P.O.B ox 15399,A tlanta, GA 30333-0399
to redate the Siloam tunnel, BA asked editorial committee member Ronald Hen- Phone [phone].E -mail:s [email protected].
del to provide a response to their September article. Avoiding diatribe, VISA/Mastercardo rders can be phoned in.
Hendel responsibly refutes their Hasmonean dating of the tunnel by reviewing Back issues Backi ssues can be obtained by
the paleographic dating of its inscription. He criticizes Rogerson and Davies for calling SP Customer Services at 800-437-6692o r
writing SP Customer Services, P.O.B ox 6996,
failing to do their epigraphic homework. According to Hendel, a peek into Alpharetta,G A 30239-6996.
the massive treasury of Late Iron II inscriptions deprives their argument of any Postmaster Send address changes to Biblical
validity. ArchaeologisAt, SOR Membership/Subscriber
Services, P.O.B ox 15399,A tlanta, GA 30333-0399.
However unsuccessful Rogerson and Davies' attempt to argue their novel Periodicalsc lass postage paid at Atlanta, GA and
dating of the Siloam tunnel may be, its publication leads to a clarification of the additional offices.
foundations of our paleographic knowledge of ancient Hebrew. Moreover, this Copyright ? 1996b y the American Schools
and other gains will have come through an open scholarly forum. In this instance, of OrientalR esearch.
we have paid a price in hostility, but this cannot be allowed to shake BA's com- Correspondence All editorial correspondence
mitment to the open forum for ongoing research. sMhaosusladc bheu asedtdtsrA esvseendu teo NBWibl,i WcaaAl srhcihnagetoonlo,D giCs4t ,5 00
This issue of BA also offers up a response by Israel Finkelstein to William 20016-5690( ph: 202-885-8699;f ax: 202-885-8605;e -
Dever's reconstruction of the emergence of ethnicity in the Iron Age high- mreagial rddhionpgsk [email protected] fmor) AC. rotrir-Fesapcotsnc daenn bcee sent
lands of Canaan (December 1995). He insists that Dever compromises his to Prof. B. Routledge;S chool of Arts and Sciences,
archaeology by adhering to the canonical story of Israel's self-perception as a Department of Anthropology;3 25 University
Museum; 33rd and Spruce Streets;P hiladelphia,
distinct people. Finkelstein's remarks are part of a long-running debate on PA 19104-6398
this vexed issue. Throughout the debate, Finkelstein and Dever have staked out Book Reviews All books for review should be
different views in prose that has often been sharp and pointed. But they have sent to: ProfessorM ichel Fortin,D epartement
d'histoire,U niversite Laval, Ste-Foy,Q uebec,
both steered clear of name calling, misrepresentation of each other's views, and Canada GIK 7P4. Books entering Canada should
questioning of each other's motives. Instead they have focused on defining the be marked:E ducationalM aterialf or Review; No
CommercialV alue-GSTE xempt.
questions, surfacing the crucial data, and supplying the appropriate interpre-
tive framework. Their exchange, in other words, exemplifies the scholarly pursuit Advertising Correspondences hould be
addressed to Leigh Anderson, ScholarsP ress, P.O.
of knowledge. This pursuit naturally includes severe assessments and sharp Box 15399,A tlanta, GA 30333-0399( ph:4 04-727-
attacks-after all, we do hold our subject matter dear. Ultimately we hold our 2327;f ax:4 04-727-2348)A. ds for the sale
of antiquities will not be accepted.
opinions open to the appeal of the greatest coherence of and congruence with
BiblicalA rchaeologist (ISSN0 006-0895)i s
the data.
published quarterly( March,J une, September,
December) by ScholarsP ress, 819 Houston Mill
Road NE, Atlanta, GA 30329, for the American
Schools of OrientalR esearch( ASOR);6 56 Beacon
Street;B oston, MA 02215-2010.P hone: 616-
353.6570.P rinted by Cadmus JournalS ervices,
Baltimore,M D.
The Making of
The Oxford Encyclopeof dia
Archaeoin lothe gyNea r East
Adaptedf rom the Preface by EricM .M eyers,E ditor-in-Chief
T
HEO XFOREDN CYCLOPEDOIAF A RCHAEOLOGY productiono f agriculturalc ommodities, glass-
IN t/lI' Near East began its journey making, shipbuilding, and metallurgy.T he
from idea to actuality in 1988 more familiar quest to determine the
when the American Schools of social world as well as the political set-
Oriental Research (ASOR) moved its ting of the peoples and cultures of the
headquarters from Philadelphia to ancient Near East remained a basic aim.
the campus of the Johns Hopkins Uni- In addition, true to the tradition of W.
versityi n BaltimoreA. s firstv ice president F.A lbright-preeminent archaeologist
for publications I was encouraged by and orientalist,f ormerp rofessoro f Near
the ASOR Boardo f Trusteest o establish Eastern Studies at the Johns Hopkins
a closer working relationship with the University and long-term director of
Johns Hopkins University Press. In that ASOR's Jerusalem school-the hand-
context I developed a project entitled book would deal with the full range of
"TheA SORH andbooko f BiblicaAl rchae- writtenm aterialst hat have survived from
ology,"w hich was to be an authoritative Syria-Palestinef,r om the originso f alpha-
one-volume referencew ork on all aspects betic writing to the development of
of the materialc ulture of the lands of the elaborate scribal practices and varied lit-
Bible in antiquity. The geographical eraturesF. inallyt,h e projectw ould embrace
region to be covered was Syria-Pales- the challenge of explaining archaeolog-
tine, or the modern territories of Israel, ical techniques, theory, methods, and
Jordan,S yria, and Lebanon. The chrono- practice including all matters pertain-
logical range was to have been the Early ing to science and archaeology.
Bronze Age to the Byzantine Period. The It soon became apparent to me and
idea was to make available and easily my counterparts at the Johns Hopkins Uni-
accessible the results of modern archaeo- versity Press that such an undertaking was
logical scholarship to readers interested in far too ambitious for ASOR and Hopkins and
the ancient Near East and biblical studies. that what I envisioned fell squarely into
No comparable work existed. the area of encyclopedic reference works.
The model for the ASORh andbook was It was then, in seeking a publisher with a
a German classic in the field, KurtG alling's strong reference department, that ASOR and
BibliscdwRs eallexikonla, rgely unavailable to Eng- Oxford University Press came together.
lish readers and long ago out of print. From the outset, the Initial meetings with the Oxford University Press refer-
ASOR handbook was to have endeavored to bring together ence editors resulted in a major reconceptualization of the
the results of archaeological fieldwork, epigraphy, and lit- project. First, it was obvious that the only way that the wide
erary-historical studies. Archaeological fieldwork was also variety of issues to be covered could be properly accom-
understood as something more than site reports. Rather, it modated was through a multivolume approach. Second,
secured data that led to a better understanding of aspects of as the editorial team began the serious work of laying out
everyday life such as agriculture, family life, medicine and a general plan, it became clear that we did not want to
public health, clothing, diet, and architecture. It examined limit our geographical locations to the Levant. Rather, we
how different sorts of material culture shaped and were were interested in the archaeology of the entire Near East,
shaped by the environment. Similarly, a major concern from the eastern Mediterranean to Iran, from Anatolia to the
was to have been the economy of the peoples of the Lev- ArabianP eninsula;w e also wanted to include Egypt, Cyprus,
ant; the volume would detail their industries, such as the and parts of North and East Africa. Because of ASOR's
194 BiblicaAl rchaeologi5st9 :4( 1996)
particular role in the archaeology of that, in the end we were all more com-
Editor-in-Chief:
Cyprus, there was hardly any argument fortable with the more descriptive,
there. What soon became a very real geographical nomenclature, which
Eric M.
problem for all of us was the classical Meyers we also believed was more appropri-
world and the question of sites relating ate, less political, and more inclusive:
to the New Testament.I n thinkinga bout Section Editors: The Oxford Encyclopediao f Archaeology
the Hellenistic world or the Roman in the Near East. Although Syria-Pales-
Empire, it became very difficult to limit William G. Dever, tine remains very much at the core of
our scope to the territories associated these volumes, it is largely the result of
with the Near East. What would we do Carol Meyers, the fact that there has been more his-
with Rome or Athens, the ItalianP enin- toric interest, and consequently, more
sula and Greece?I f we would deal only James D. Muhly, fieldwork in that area.
with sites relatingt o the New Testament The cultures of both ancient Egypt
world, how would that section stand Dennis Pardee, and Mesopotamia, which have held
up vis-a-vis the other conceptual cate- such places of pride in Western con-
gories in the encyclopedia? and sciousness since the beginning of the
In the end, we opted for the geo- nineteenth century, especially after the
graphical principle and added places James A. Sauer decipherment of hieroglyphics and
such as Maltaa nd Sardiniaw, here Semitic cuneiform, presented us with special
culture had been strong since antiquity, problems as we planned our coverage.
the Aegean world, and North Africa as Both cultures have enormous literatures
far as Morocco. Anatolia would be and complex histories that cannot be
our northern boundary, Iran our eastern boundary, and comprehensively presented even in a five-volume work such
Ethiopia and the Arabian Peninsula our southern limits. In as this encyclopedia, which includes so many individual site
a way we adopted Albright's inclusive geographical view of entries. Nonetheless, we have aimed to provide sufficient
the ancientN ear Easta nd decided to employ a broaderc hrono- coverage of these cultures so that the interested student or
logical range as well. Since so much important new scholar can use our entries and their accompanying bibli-
archaeological work was being done in periods prior to the ographies as suitable entry points for further study. Similarly,
Bronze Age, we felt that any new archaeological reference given the limited access of Westerners, especially English
work could not fail to treat the newest discoveries in pre- speakers, to Iraq and Iran, we have only been able to high-
history. At the other end of the chronological spectrum it light the most important sites there, although we have also
seemed less and less acceptable to end our studies in the included broader entries on all the significant historical peo-
Byzantinep eriod, especially given the recentu psurge of inter- ples and cultures in those countries.
est and discoveries in the field of Islamic archaeology. In the The presentation of sites stands at the very core of the
end, we decided to extend our coverage through the Cru- present work and represents the first time that site reports
sades while allowing for individual authors to discuss some of the archaeology of the entire Near East have been brought
sites and some aspects of material culture of even later peri- together in a single work. Despite the necessary selectivity,
ods where appropriate. site entries number almost 450 of the 1,100 entries in the ency-
It should be noted, however, that many subjects and sites clopedia. The editors have endeavored to include entries on
do not fall easily into the categories or parameters of the pro- all of the most significant sites; others are discussed within
ject. In some regions or countries certain periods of human the context of the more general entries on regions, countries,
history simply have not received as much attention as oth- or peoples.
ers. Islamic archaeology is stronger, as might be expected, in The index and synoptic outline of the work themselves
the Arab world. Iron Age archaeology is stronger in Israel represent major research tools. Specific sites for which we
because of interest in the Bible and the ancient kingdom of have independent entries may be generally located on the
Israel. More extensive digging in Israel, for example, has regional maps. Such topics as scientifict echniques and archae-
resulted in the fact that more is known about its antiquity ology, biographies of prominent archaeologistsn ow deceased;
than about most other ancient societies. Correspondingly, histories of all the major archaeological institutes and orga-
the relatively fewer excavations in Arabia and East Africa nizations in the Near East;a nd discussion of peoples, places,
and the current political situation in those areas means and languages as well as individual artifacts and their dec-
that our knowledge of their ancient cultures is more limited. oration and industries may be readily located by utilizing
Despite such limitations, it was impossible for us to one of these referencet ools. In locating the discussion on cer-
title our project anything but what we in truth had become, tain specialtiess uch as glassmaking (see "VitreousM aterials")
an encyclopedia of Near Eastern archaeology. While some or shipbuilding (see "Underwater Archaeology," "Seafar-
of us had some nostalgic feelings for titles such as Encyclo- ing," or "Ships and Boats"), the system of internal
pedia of Archaeologyi n the Biblical Worldo r some variant of cross-referencingi s designed to make the encyclopedia user-
BiblicaAl rchaeologis5t9 :4 (1996) 195
-
-.,,N o
~ ~
.......... P. oo~v It I C~''zralr~ : *
AWL??B;i ?tr I
top
rrrxr
itr :
i.VI ~lift
i
All( -
196 Biblical 59:4( 1996)
Arch(cid:127)aeologist
friendly, leading readers from a particular entry into a vast
network of related topics.
There are several kinds of specialty articles in this work
that distinguish it from all other presentations; the issues
involved in these articles are at the cutting edge of the field
of Near Eastern and world archaeology. In the area of the-
ory or history of the discipline, I would call attention to the
multipart entry "History of the Field," which, following a
general overview, is organized as ten articles that cover all
the countries and regions of the Near East. The special role
of "biblicala rchaeology"b ecomes clear within the largerc on-
text of Near Eastern archaeology. To round out the broad
geographicalp erspective,t he readers hould consult the entries
"Ethiopia,"" Nubia," and "North Africa."O ther entries such
as "New Archaeology," "Underwater Archaeology," "Sur-
vey, Archaeological," and "Salvage Excavation" will also
indicatet he richd iversityo f archaeologicalt heorya nd method.
While there have been numerous works on the history of
archaeology, there is nothing in the existing literature that
can quite compare to this treatment, which has the benefit of
being site specific and up to date in terms of actual fieldwork
while treating archaeology historically and in general terms.
I would also like to mention a number of entries within
the category of Special Topics: "Development and Archae-
ology,"" Museumsa nd Museology,"" Ethicsa nd Archaeology,"
"Ideology and Archaeology," "Nationalism and Archaeol-
ogy," and "Tourisma nd Archaeology." Each of these articles
Uff . I is designed to call attention to the place and plight of archae-
ology in the individual countries in which it is practiced.
Moreover, these entries focus on the results of archaeologi-
cal work and the influence those results have on both the
national culture and consciousness of people at home and
abroad. How the stories of peoples and places of long ago
are recovered and told anew brings us closer to the con-
temporaryi ssue of how modem nation-statesd efine themselves
and their cultures in the multicultural universe of contem-
0 C porary society. These articles allow the reader to reflect on
Alc? the impact of the field of archaeology on the citizens of the
modern countries located in the territories of ancient civi-
lizations, on the tourists who visit there, and on the students
who read their ancient literatures.
WO ? Bringing together the work of a wide array of scholars
from all over the world has been a real challenge; by the time
we had completed the commissioning of articles, we had
enlisted 560 contributors from more than two dozen coun-
tries. The encyclopedia contains more than 1,100 entries, and
the sheer logistics of communicating in a variety of languages
with individuals from so many countries has been enor-
mously complicated. The efforts of the dedicated staff of the
Scholarly and Professional Reference Department at Oxford
University Press have enabled the editors to overcome many
of these logistical barriers. It has been a privilege to work
with them.
EricM . Meyers, Editor-in-Chieoff The OxfordE ncyclopediao f
Archaeologyi n the Near East.
BiblicalA rchaeologist5 9:4 (1996) 197
Ethnicitaynd Origin of
-aa
a\A
By Israel Finkelstein The village of DeirA mmarw est of RamallahT. he settlement history
of the site is typicalo f central hill countrys ites in the second-first
millenniaB CEa: s mall MiddleB ronzes ite was deserted in the Late
T
HET WOT HORNIQESUTE STIORNESG ARDTINHGEE MERGEONFC E Bronze,r esettled in the IronI , and grew significantlyi n the IronI I.
early Israel involve the interplay between archaeol-
ogy and ethnicity. The first is related to the formation
of the early Israelite ethnicity: can we identify a in twelfth century BCEC anaan, there did exist, at least on
new ethnic entity in the archaeological record of the high- the highland frontier,a new ethnic entity, which we can
lands in the Iron I? The second: what can we learn from recognize in the archaeological remains, and which we
the archaeological record about the origin of the people who can distinguish from other known ethnic groups such as
settled the hundreds of new Iron I villages in the hill coun- "Canaanites"a nd "Philistines"(1 993:24s;e e also 1995a:201).
try? In a recent issue of BiblicalA rchaeologist( 1995a) as well
as elsewhere (1993:" Will the Real Israel Please Stand Up?"), Yet, as far as I can judge, this is a circular argument. It
W. Dever has delved into this thicket of issues. But his recon- is based on the biblical text, rather than on the archaeologi-
struction remains too wedded to the biblical story and too cal data. There is a remarkable continuity in the material
conservativea rchaeologicallyI. wish to refuteD ever's answers culture in the Late Bronze/Iron I transition( Dever 1991;1 993;
to these questions and offer my own, alternative solutions. 1995a). The differences between the two cultures can be
explained on the basis of socio-economic and environmen-
Dever'sH ypothesis on the Rise of Early Israel tal differences (e.g., London 1989). If this is the case, how can
Ethnicityi n Early Israel archaeologists trace a new ethnic group in the Iron I?
Dever's response to the question of ethnicity in the high- Moreover, if material culture of the Iron I highlands sites did
landso f Canaani n the IronI is based on threer elateda rguments. not depart from the Late Bronze traditions until ca. 1100-1050
He asserts, first and foremost, that archaeology can iden- (Dever 1995a:206), how can one distinguish a distinct new
tify a distinct new ethnic entity in the highlands of Canaan ethnos in the late-thirteenth century, over a century before
in the Iron I. According to Dever, this point of departure? I refer to the methodological
198 BiblicalA rchaeologist5 9:4 (1996)
JEZREEL 13 JEZREEL JEZREEL ETH
>"* "VA,SLHLEEA'LYN VEALTLHEY , zA~ (cid:127)-LLEoFYhP aenn in SE$HHE AN - S. Z.D othan LL)L.E ETYH EY SVVHAAELLALLEENY
-Dothan --4o - Uthran
"IVALLEY
.D ,ll Tell-el l Tell el- --4 (cid:127) Tell-el
Samaria Far'ah T" Far'ah
Shechem ES (Not Surveyed) Sheceh emr" - "
O I 4 o
', \
otf
"'
Tell Abu 0,
Kh
U KhM. arjama
?Ein San)(ya '
,Kh. et-Tell z "' Bethel z iBethel(
~- .
,('A)
4: : C
*0
el-Jib 0
4: 0
) Jerusalem , C Jerusalem
"',Giloh
Emeq Refaim .0 Jerusalem
) Dead
U-- LU Efrat .
.Dead SBeth-ZurDead
Hebron I *Hebron Sea c Hebron
Sea Sea
KSea
1
0 Km 10/ Kh.e/Kirmil 0?Km Km 1 S , Kh Rabud 0 Km 10
0 10
. es-Samu
Site A B A/B B/C C D E Site Small Medium Large CentralFortified Site Possible Iron I A B C D Unclassified
categories '* categories :? 0 categories a ,
Cave A Burial V Tomb A Shaft Tomb V Cemeteries V
Adheringt o the biblicaln arrativeo n the rise of EarlyI srael,D ever insistso n isolatingt he settlement phenomenon of the IronI from the long
demographich istoryo f the highlandsi n the fourth-to-secondm illenniaB CEH. owever,m ost characteristicos f the settlement processo f the Iron
I (Map3 ) can alreadyb e seen in two earlierw aves of settlements-in the EarlyB ronzeI (Map 1) and in the MiddleB ronzeI I-II I (Map 2; some
of the cemeteries markedo n the map date to the MBI ).
Map 1, EarlyB ronzeI Site symbolsi ndicatet ype (cave, burial,a nd settlement) and size classifications( in hectares):C ategoryA : 0.1-0.3 ha;
CategoryB :0 .4-1.0 ha; CategoryC 1.1-4.9h a; CategoryD : 5.0-9.9 ha; CategoryE :o ver 10 ha.
Map2 , MiddleB ronzeI I-I11S ite symbolsi ndicatet ype (tomb, shaft tomb, settlement, and fortified) and size classifications( in hectares):S mall
site, less than 1.0 ha; Mediums ite, ca.1.0-1.4h a; Larges ite, ca. 1.5-3.0 ha; and centralf ortified sites.
Map 3, IronI Site symbolsi ndicatet ype (cemetery,s ettlement, unclassified)a nd size classifications( in hectares):C ategoryA : 0.1-0.3 ha;
CategoryB :0 .4-1.0 ha; CategoryC 1.1-5.0h a; CategoryD : 5.1-9.9 ha.
problem of identifying this supposed ethnos,n ot to the the- Bronze Age formed a distinct new ethnic entity in Canaan.
oreticalq uestion whether it existed or not. Overnight creation Rather,h e rightly explained the transformations in the set-
of an ethnic entity is difficult to comprehend even in cases tlement patterns in terms of socio- economic change (e.g.,
of discontinuity in the material culture; how much more in 1980; 1995b). What differentiates the two cases is the Bible. I
this case of continuity. dare suggest that, were it not for the biblical description of
A somewhat similar case clarifies this point: the transi- the rise of early Israel in the highlands of Canaan, Dever
tion from the Early Bronze IIIt o the IntermediateB ronzeA ge would have taken a similar course of explanation for the Late
showed a dramatic change in the settlement patterns, but Bronze/Iron I transition.
clear lines of continuity in the pottery traditions. Yet, in his Adhering to the biblical narrative, Dever insists on iso-
many articles on the late third millennium BCE,D ever has lating the settlement phenomenon of the Iron I from the long
never suggested that the people of the Intermediate demographic history of the highlands in the third and sec-
BiblicaAl rchaeologis5t9 :4 (1996) 199
ond millenia BCE(s ee below). Putting
aide the very late and irrelevant bibli-
cal narrative and taking a long-term
perspective (Finkelstein 1994; 1995a),
on the same lines of argumentation one
could easily "create"e thnic entities in
the highlands in the two previous waves
of settlement that took place there-in rg
the Early Bronze and in the Middle
Bronze Ages.
Can we identify the ethinicity of QERN'iL
inhabitants of specific sites? If the
Iron I highlands people as a whole are ;4?~gs; skls'nP ;i~r~n~'iY,s;~r:llg-$llB~ s~~ba ~Bi l,o i ~s i-,
distinguishable, then such identifica-
tion ought to be possible. Yet Dever
(1993:27)c asts doubt on the ethnic affil-
iations of the inhabitantso f specific sites Kh.G hurabaw est of Shiloh representa typical newly-founded IronA ge site in the highlands.
in the region, such as Tell en-Nasbeh The very small IronI site grew in size in the IronI It o cover an area of ca. 2 acres.
and Bethel. Since there are no differ-
ences between the Iron I finds at these two sites and sites the identificationo f the early Iron I settlers as ethnic Israelites:
such as Shiloh, Kh. Raddana, and et-Tell, Dever's doubts
must be rooted in non-archaeologicalc onsiderations, namely Despite our uncertainty as to the full content of the term,
the biblical story of Israel's settlement. these 12th-11th century ethnic Israelites ... possessed an
Even if we could distinguish the highlands people archae- overall material culture that led directly on into the true,
ologically from Canaanites and Philistines, there remains the full-blown Iron Age culture of the Israelite Monarchy ...
problem of the Iron I sites of the Transjordanianp lateau. From That cultural continuity alone would entitle us to
the material culture point of view, they are virtually identi- regard these Iron I villagers as the authentic progeni-
cal to the hill country sites west of the Jordan, though they tors of later Biblical" Israel"( 1993:24;s ee also 1995a:210).
gave birth to different ethnoia nd national identities. In other
words, from the archaeological record there is absolutely no This argument is doubtless correct as it is well-known
way to distinguish the ethnic entity in the highlands of Cisjor- from the very beginning of archaeological field work in the
dan from the people who settled in hundreds of Iron I sites highlands in the 1920s. But it is meaningless for the main
in the highlands of Transjordan. In fact, we are unable to question at stake: when did the ethnic boundaries that sep-
make such a separation until quite late in the Iron II. aratede arlyI sraelf rom the othere ntitieso f Cis- and Transjordan
Many interpreters identify the new ethnic group which crystallize?
was formed in the highlands in the Iron I with the Israel The Origin of the Iron I Settlers in the Highlands
named on the Merneptah Stele. Similarly,D ever argues that In recent years, Dever has become the principal supporter
"this ethnic group may be presumed to be roughly the same among archaeologists of the Mendenhall-Gottwald social
as that which had called itself 'Israelite' since the late 13th revolution theory, arguing that the Iron I settlers in the hill
century BCEa,n d was thus well enough established to be listed country originated from the sedentary population of the low-
as 'Israel' ... in the well known 'VictoryS tele' of Merneptah" lands in the LateB ronzeA ge. His views areb ased on arguments
(1993:24). "If these 'Israelites' [of the Merneptah Stele-I.E] which were already detailed in the 1970s and 1980s, regard-
were not our hill country people," Dever asks rhetorically, ing pottery and architecture continuity and agricultural
"thenw ho and wherew ere Memeptah's' Israelites'?("1 995a:209). sophistication.
Unfortunately, scholars do not agree on the size, socio- Ceramict raditions
economicn ature( pastoralo r sedentaryp eople),o r geographical In Dever's opinion, the traits of continuity in the pottery
location of Merneptah's Israel (see Hasel's summary 1994). repertoireb etween the Late Bronze sites of the lowlands and
In other words, at least from the territorialp oint of view, one the Iron I sites of the highlands indicate that the inhabi-
cannot make an instinctive connection between "Israel"o f tants of the latter originated from the sedentary population
1207 BCEa nd the area where the Israelite monarchy emerged of the former (see already Ahlstram 1986:26-36).T he essen-
two centuries later. Furthermore,w e cannot make an equa- tial question here is the relevance of the ceramic repertoire
tion between Memeptah'sI sraela nd the entireI ronI population to the riddle of the origin of the proto-Israelites.
of the central hill country.1 Ceramic traditions of any group of people are influenced
The third prong of Dever's argument posits the conti- by several factors, among them the socioeconomic condi-
nuity in the highlands in both materialc ulture and settlement tions of the makers/users;t he environmento f theirs ettlements;
patterns from the Iron I until the late Iron II as clinching previous, local traditions; influence of nearby regions;
200 BiblicaAl rchaeologis5t9 :4( 1996)