Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Finkelstein, Israel - The Emergence of Israel in Canaan, Consensus, Mainstream and Dispute PDF

    Uploaded by

    Martín Alonso
    31 views7 pages

    Original Title

    Finkelstein, Israel - The Emergence of Israel in Canaan, Consensus, Mainstream and Dispute.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    31 views7 pages

    Finkelstein, Israel - The Emergence of Israel in Canaan, Consensus, Mainstream and Dispute PDF

    Uploaded by

    Martín Alonso

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 7
    46 Robert B. Coote tion for the spread of settlement of the hill country largely under tribal leadership is a change in this frontier role of Israel. The third often made and more certain is that no major highland urban sites developed during this period of settlement spread. This circuny stance relates less to some intrinsic nature of early Israel and more 10 the initial failure or inability of Early Iron highland chiefs to forge relations with newly arrived urban sea peoples comparable to their erstwhile relations with Egyptian lords and urban Palestinian lords related to Egypt. I agree with those who interpret the material culture of these villages a5 lacking any feature that distinguishes an Taralite from a non-sraclite site, This fits the viow of trialism as mainly a Political form of organization, of which one would expect +0 find linte or no direct trace in the archaeological evidence, In summary, my understanding of early Isracl hinges on six kinds of cevidence Geriptures, Merneptah, the archacology of Palestine, the sea peoples, settlement change in’ Palestine, and comparative history), thiee basic issues (discount the Bible, take Israel as a political term, and base the history of early Israel on a generic political history), and three changes of mind (politics more than trade, no more bedouin, and the emergence of Israel and the seitlement of the highland are two separate issues) SOF 2 (199) ‘THE EMERGENCE OF ISRAEL IN CANAAN: CONSENSUS, MAINSTREAM AND DISPUTE, Israel Finkelstein, Tel Aviv ‘As far as I can judge, the most significant step in the research of the ‘emergence of Isael in Canaan since the publication of the four books discussed in this session (Lemche 1985; Ahlstrom 1986; Coote and Whitclam 1987; Finkelstein 1988) is the recent volume From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel (Naaman and Finkelstein 1990), This collection of articles presents the state of the art in research on the emergence of Israel. It is the first time that all the regional survey projects under- taken in recent years in Israel have been summarized in one volume, in an attempt to integrate the archacological material with the historical data It is no coincidence that the above-mentioned four books have been brought together as the basis for the possible forging of a “consensus”, {Also taking into consideration the fifth volume cited above, I will explore from the archaeological point of view lines of consensus, or what I would better call “mainstream thought”, and points of dispute in the research of early Israel. T have done my best 10 follow the Instructions given to the participants of the session and will therefore divide my paper into two sections dealing with: 1) key issues that ‘must be addressed in the reconstruction of the emergence of Israel in Canaan and 2) the ideas that I have reconsidered since my book was published, Key Issues in the Study of the Emergence of Israel From the early days of modern research until the present the two ‘main questions that have haunted scholars who have tried to decipher the riddle of the emergence of Israel are the origin of the population that established the scores of Iron I sites in the hill country of Canaan and the manner of its settlement. The archae- Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 2/1991 © Aathus University Press 48 Israel Finkelstein ‘logical methods have changed and the focus has changed, but these still remain the tantalizing questions todey. We should remember that unless new historical data come to light Ge, an archive from one of the Palestinian Late Bronze city-states), the only dynamic dis that can adi new material 10 the discus sion is archaeology. Hence, in order to be able to give better answers {o the abovermentioned questions, in my opinion, the following five steps should be taken: BSc lene tne tll overayel avers tat haves teen unae taken in the hill country in the last deczde and their final publication So far we have partial publications of the surveys in northera Samaria ‘Gertal 1988) and in lower Galilee (Gal 1982), preliminary reports of the surveys in southern Samaria (Finkelstein 198889) and in Judah (fer 1990), and a forthcoming final report on the surveys in the plateau of Benjamin (Finkelstein and Magen, forthcoming), For better understanding of the settlement, demographic and economic conditions in the country in the Late Bronze/Iron I transition, we should also undertake comprehensive surveys in the lowlands. It is clear today that without reliable maps of the settlement patterns in the entire country from the Middle Bronze to the Iron Mi (that is, dlstritution of sites, their precise chronology, their size, ete). we will not be able to move forward. 9 See earns of single-period Iron 1 sites sh fut in_different_parts of the country, I emphasize the single period Sites because they provide a good opportunity to uncover large areas that can shed light on the layout of the sites and enable the excavator to retrieve rich assemblages of finds Gee already Giloh ~ Mazar 1981; ‘Tel Masos ~ Fritz and Kempinski 1983; ‘Izbet Serteh — Finkelstein 1986; and Mt, Ebal ~ Zeral 198687). The pottery of each site should bbe studied in a quantitative method, Environmental, paleoeconomic, Botanical and archacozoological studies should be carried out at each site, These excavations should be related to the regional surveys in ‘order 10 combine the two dimensions of archaeology — the spatial andthe local, Preferably, such excavations should be catried out under the auspices of one project, so that the same methods of research would be applied, The accumulation of data from such excavations may shed light on almost every topic connected with the material culture of the period, including the tantalizing question of The Emergence of Israel in Canaan 49 the relationship -between-material culture and ethnos. Petrographic investigations of Late Bronze, Iron I and Iron I pottery from sites, around the country should be carried out, in order to trace manu ae centers and marketing processes. Qw spite of the impressive work being carried out in Transjordan “Sp recent years, itis still very much a terra incognita. The surveys fand excavations that have been carried out on the Transjordar plateas do not yet give us reliable regional pictures, Folowing are two examples: A. The interpretation of the data from the Moab survey is far from satisfying. For instance, the reported number of Late Bronze sites (iS = Miller 1990) is much higher than the number of Late Bronze sites in ll the regions of the highlands of Cisjordan put together, which is \ highly improbable. B,C. Bennet'’s elim (198677, 80) tha the Iron Age sites in Edom were not occupied before ca. 800 BC has been accepted by all | authorities (eg. Bienkowski 1990). But a careful examination of the poitery published from the Edomite sites reveals that mary of them, including the excavated sites of Umm el-Biyara, Tawilan and Busei- leah, were in fact inhabited in the Tron 1 (Finkelstein, forfieoming a). “This, of course, changes the entire reconstruction of the history of southern Jordan in the Iron Age ‘To sum up the Transjordanian issue, we are still waiting for reliable taps of the Late Bronze, Iron I and Iron II settlement aattems and for better information on the material culture of Iron 1 sites in the Gifferent subregions of that area. Qik is extremely important to clarify the riddle of the pottery of fe “ark age that inthe 105%h centuries BC. Without reaching this foal it will be impossible 10 trace the seitlement patern of that period, which is crucial for understanding the setlement and emogeaphie proeses during the period of the rie of the monarchy. (S) Last but not least, we desperately need a Late Bronze archive, To “his end, we should not neglect excavation of the main Late Bronze Sites of the lowlands When such an archive is found, the reconstruc tion of the Late Bronze sociey, economy and poiial affairs will be within our reach This will lo be the time for a reevatiation of the al eee 50 Israel Finkelstein ‘When all this is done, it will be possible to tackle the two main sub ‘questions that, in my opinion, are on the agenda for research of the ‘emergence of Isracl: 1%, The relationship between ethnos and material culture and Vb. The share of settled vs, pastoral elements, and indigenous vs foreign groups, in the new emerging entity, The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement: Two Years Later Before listing the ideas that T have reconsidered in the lst few years, T wish to comment briefly on some of the reviews of my book ‘Although the reviews were favorable, there were also some very ‘surprising phenomena that have convinced me to use my personal experience in order to prepare a manual on “how to review 1 book” Reviewer rule no 1.1f you have a reasonable preconception, donot read the book you are requested to review; itis a waste of time! “The best example of this principle is A. Kempinsk’s review of my book in Qadmonior (1987). ere ate a few illustrations: A. “What is a settlement site? I could not find a clear definition”: Kempinski could not find it because he simply did not read the book In fact, he did not even look at the table of contents. Chapter 2 is named “The Characteristics of Israelite Settlement Sites” (pp 2530 in the Hebrew version, which Kempinski reviewed). B. “The book lacks a teatment of the ceramic finds”. I assume that Kempinski’s specimen was printed with some kind of invisible ink because Chapter 7 in the specimen that I have is named “Iron T Pottery in the Central Hill Country” (pp 247-266 in the Hebrew version). In this case, as in other ones, it is relatively easy 10 understand what Kempinski opposes; on the other hand, itis almost impossible to trace his views, since he has never submitted a clegr alternative theory. Here are his main ideas, as far as I can tell:“Kempinski thinks that research on the emergence of Israel reached its peak in the 1950's with Y. Alaroni’s survey in the Upper Galilee and that the process should be checked in areas such as the Galilee and the Becrsheva valley (bot it has been proven beyond any doubt that these regions ‘were of secondary importance in the provess)'Ffe does not believe in ‘The Emergence of Israel in Canaan 51 the importance of regional surveys; in fact, he ignores them. In his view, in the 13th century there already was a tribal league named “israel” in the hill country, composed of people who had infiltrated into Canaan from the steppe. Kempinski and) A. Zertal have remained the only archaeologists who assume the existence of a recognizable Israelite entity as early as the 13th century BC. Reviewer rule No 2.\f you have a political bias, you do not need @ scientific discipline. It also liberates you from the uneasy task of understanding the book you review. ‘An astonishing example of this rule is given by a certain C. Fdens in AJA (1989). “Finkelstein . . . emphasizes the isolation and exclus: ivity of the Israelites from other communities, and their freedom from external forces. These attitudes . .. ignore the specific conditions of Ottoman land tenure and taxation while dismissing the Arab population as incapable of reacting to these conditions. Such attitude forecasts a dismal and violent future for the region”. This note is ‘outrageous, since the entire discipline of my survey was based on the study of Arab land-use and subsistence economy in the 19th and early 20th centuries (1988:129-139; 1988 89126136). Reviewer rule No 3, Choose from the book what is convenient for your theories; ignore the rest, itis irrelevant. ‘This rule is demonstrated by G. London's recent article in BASOR (0989), London’s ethnoarchaeological work in Cyprus is no doubt valuable for the study of ancient pottery manufacture and marketing. However, when she applies her observations to Palestine of the Late Bronze and Iron I periods they turn into a mixture of errors and trivia, Her insufficient knowledge of the archaeological data is apparent from various rearks, Following are a few exampl ‘A. London argues that collartimmed jars are found mainly in villages because farmers tend to store foodstuff more than town dwellers However, the distribution of these vessels is far more complicated. For instance, they are almost nonexistent in villages of the lowlands, while in the highlands and in the Jordan they are found in large ‘quantities at ceniral sites as well as villages. B. London criticizes me for comparing an Iron I assemblage from a village — ‘abet Sartah — to those of towns ~ Aphek, Qusile and Gezer. But at that period the latter were far from being towns, Aphek ‘and Qasile of the early Iron I were apparently not larger than ‘Izbet Sarta, 52 Israel Finkelstein London claims that a village house is different from a house in the city, Although this is not impossible theoretically, there are concrete ‘examples that contradict her theoretical stance, For instance, in the Tron II we find the same pillared houses in villages, towns, and cities. D. London argues that surveys inicte that in the 443th centuries jhe population was diapered in small vilges eround the county, Vie ‘opporie Ie tre the moat obviow characterise of the Late Bronze settlement pattern is the absence of small villages. j Reviewer rule No 4. Use the author's reservations as the basis for your own criticism of his work. This will save you time and effort D, Esse (1988) rightly notes that the westward expansion of the Iron | 1 settlement process in the hill country does not necessarily indicate that the settlers came from a pastoral background; the easter areas | might have been populated first because they are simply more con- | venient for mixed agriculture. So far so good; but this is exactly my | view: “Admittedly, another explanation for this patter of setlement is also possible, If the area was almost devoid of sites in the Late Bronze period, the settling groups would choose the eastern flanks of the region... simply because they are the most convenient areas for cecupation” (1988199), ‘The same holds true for Esse's suggestion that the courtyard sites may be dated contemporaneous with the_pillared-building because they represent different socioeconomic backgrounds of their inhabitants: “In describing the development of early Israelite architec ture, we speak of several ‘phases’. By this we mean a given architec tural situation reflecting both the socioeconomic. background of the inhabitants and environmental data, These ‘phases’ need not always have chronological implications . ..” (Finkelstein 1988238) Although I find it difficult t0 accept the abovementioned reviewers’ notes, there are some major points at which I have changed my ‘views, or at least have sharpened them, 1. In some places, I would rearrange the structure of the book, For jnstance, in order to prevent misunderstandings of the kind T mentioned above, I would devote a special chapter, not only few paragraphs, to the question of “who is an Israelite in the Iron 1 Another possibility would be to omit_the term Israelite. ftom_the discussion of the Iron-L altogether and instead to call the people “hill country settlers”. In that case the term Israelite would be used only The Emergence of Israel in Canaan 3 for the emergence. of the monarchy. T would leave the first part, which deals with the results of excavar tions and surveys in the past, unchanged but I would extend the discussion to other parts of the country as well. Tam now convinced that in-order-to-tackle.the-question.of the emergence of Istcl in the hill country, the lowlands should also be studied carefully. In Part 2, I would extend the discussion of the survey of the land of Ephraim to include a detailed description of the settlement partems of the Middle Bronze, Late Bronze and the Iron TI periods as well, I would be more_nibilistic in the treatment of the material culture. A special chapter would be devoted to the question, “What does the material culture of the Iron I reflect” This would investigate the connection of material culture to the environment, to the subsistence economy of the people, to the neighboring cultures, to the previous cultures in the region under discussion and to ethnos, I would extend the fourth part, the historical discussion, to include what I have subsequently treated in other places, i. the. political situation in the hill country in the second millennium BC (orth- coming b) and the emergence of the monarchy (1989). Both topics cannot be excluded from the discussion of the processes of the Iron I; the first is @ description of the arena in the period before the process ‘was in full swing and the second deals with the outcome of the processes of the Iron I. ‘of the Iron I highlands population, leaving mote room for some out- side elements alongside the sedentarizing local pastoralists. This issue was treated by many of the participants in the volume From nomadism to Monarchy. Naaman (1990) has presented solid historical evidence for population movements in the Ancient Near East in general and at the end of the 2nd millennium BC in particular, The collapse of the Hittites, the deterioration of the urban cultures of the Levant, the wave of the sea peoples and ecological calamities caused Considerable demographic movements in the southern Levant. The fact that northern elements settled in Palestine at the end of the | second milennium BC is evident from he biblical secoun and i possibly supported by some archaeological finds (such as cultic stands — Beck 1990; and the Raddana krater — Kempinski 1979), ‘A. Ofer, in his thorough study of the settlement processes in Judah in the Iron I (1990), suggests that the early monarchy enrolled people i T would be mare flexible today regarding the isue ofthe rign 54 Israel Finkelstein Jof different origins in their censes: pastoral groups who had settled down, elements from the northern part of the hill country that had migrated to Judah, and nomads from the southern steppe who had ‘moved to the southem part of the Judaean hills and seiled down there, These groups crystallized in a long and complicated process 10 form the core of Judah of the early monarchic period. 4. In my book T argued that the Iron 1 hill country population originated from local pastoral elements. Ths view was stimulated by iy interpretation of the layout of Tron T sites and by data collected in recent surveys indicating a wave of seement in the highlands in the Middle Bronze, a severe esis in the Late Bronze and another wave of settlement in the Iron I. T argued that a proces of nomadiza tion of the highlands population stired in the later sage of the Middle Bronze. Inthe Late Bronze, the sedentary pastoral balance in the hilly frontier zones shifted to the latter, and in the Iron I, as a result of the economic, pofieal and social eis in the lowlands and in the urban cultures in the entire Levant, there was a shorage of grain, which le to the resedenisizaton ofthe pastoral groups Recently, S. Bunimovitz (1988) has used the core of this theory for a somewhat different model, which he has labeled “the changir {runic In shaping ithe was influcnced by O. Lattimore V henner Asian frontiers of China (1967). According to Bunimovitz, there are archacologeal indications for a large pastoral component in the hill country in the Middle Bronze, while there are relatively few hn fo ps og ha yon in he Later nion, in times of decay of central government, such as the Late Bronze HIA and the Ottoman period, the frontier “sled” down from the hil country to the lowlands. In other words, when the economic Situation in the hill country deteriorated in the later phases of the Middle Bronze, the pastoralists moved to the lowlands, where they were active alongside urban sites, At the end of the Late Bronze, then the Egyptian grip over the southern lowlands strengthened, the pastoralists were pushed back to the highlands’ frontier and settled down there ‘This is an attractive theory, that should be seriously considered; fee itis not devoid of shortcomings: The evidence for pastoral activity in the highlands in the Late Bronze may not be strong, but it cannot be brushed aside; on the ‘The Emergence of Israel in Canaan 55 cother hand, there is absolutely no archeological evidence for pastoral ‘groups in the lowlands at that time. Furthermore, it is highly improbable that the billy regions, so well adapted for enclosed nomadism, were not inhabited by the large numbers of pastoralists of she Late Bronze, ‘The collapse of the urban centers in the Middle Bronze highlands fd not necessarily influence the cconomy of the pastoral groups 10 such an extreme as to force them to move to the lowlands, moreover, the lowland centers could have taken over their role in the symbiotic economic relations of the Palestinian dimorphic society. eh do not sec any reason why the lowland urban centers of the (ath centuries would have consented t0 the presence of the pastoral groups on the fertile lands immediately adjacent to their dwellings. “Although the Egyptian grip on the southern coastal plain strengthened in the 13th century, they had clear strategic interests in the region through the period of the New Kingdom, 1e overall settlement pattern of the Late Bronze period cannot be ‘Compared to that of the Ottoman period: in the former, the lowlands were thickly populated while the hill country was almost devoid of sedentary occupation; in the latter, the lowlands were neglected and the hilly regions were thickly populated. In light of the above considerations I would accept the concept of the changing frontier, especially for the Ottoman period, but would adhere to my original approach to explain the dispersal of most of the pastoral groups in the Late Bronze, 4, Almost all participants in the volume From Nomadism to Monarchy argued that the seulement and demographic processes that took place in the country in the Iron I should be viewed in a regional context. I took the sume view in my book, but apparently not strongly enough, ‘The following brief statements demonstrate the differences between the various regions: In the Beersheva valley there ‘were various groups of diverse origin — from the southern steppe, from the coast and from the highlands; in Judah the process involved settling nomads and groups from the southem steppe; in the arca between Jerusilem and Shechem most of the population came from f@ pastoral background, with northern elements in the vicinity of Jerusalem; in Manasseh there were settling nomads alongside the indigenous sedentary population. 56 Israel Finkelstein 5. I would emphasize today the cyclic nature of the settlement history of the country in the 3rd-2nd millennia BC. The main features Of this mechanism were the emergence and collapse of urban cultures, waves of settlement and interludes of decay in the highlands, alter nating periods of sedentarization and nomadization in the southem steppe, the emergence and collapse of desert politics etc, In the ill country there was acyclic process that took place three times in the, 3rd-2nd_ millennia BC; each time it included the following steps: a ‘wave of settlement, the emergence of fortified centers that possibly ‘were organized into large political entities and finally, a collapse prompting a severe settlement crisis. A better understanding of the forces behind these cyclic processes is crucial for tackling the problem |, of the emergence of Israel. \ Research on the emergence of Israel in Canaan shows more lines of consensus today than in any time in the past. 1 would dare to suggest that most of us can unite behind the following “New Orleans State- ments" and form what 1 would call the mainstream view on early Israek There was no political entity named Israel before the latetIth century. \

    You might also like