1

An All Israelite Identity: Historical Reality or Biblical Myth?

Avraham Faust

(as accepted, published as: Faust, A., 2017, An All-Israelite Identity: Historical Reality or
Biblical Myth? in J. Lev-Tov, P. Wapnish, and A. Gilbert (eds.), The Wide Lens in
Archaeology: Honoring Brian Hesse's Contributions to Anthropological Archaeology,
Atlanta: Lockwood Press, pp. 169-190).

If you would like the final pdf of the article, please send me an email to:
avraham.faust@biu.ac.il

Until a few years ago, most historians and archaeologists treated Israelite identity as

embracing both Israel and Judah, and while still used in this way by most scholars today,

more and more doubts are cast over this overarching identification. Did Israel and Judah

have more in common than other ancient peoples? Or is it a later perspective supplied by the

authors and editors of significant portions of the biblical texts, who strived to legitimate later

territorial, religious and political claims by Judahite/Jewish rulers and authors by asserting

an "Israelite" identity for themselves? As the reliability (and dating) of the textual sources is

being questioned, it is the aim of this article to reexamine the question of an "all Israelite"

identity on the basis of the available, contemporaneous, Iron Age evidence.1

1
While I did not address the question of the ethnic relations between Israel and Judah (and of an all-Israelite

identity) in detail before, the present article relies on my previous work on ethnicity. Naturally, I cannot repeat

all the background information in such a short article and the data presented in the first half of this paper is

only a brief summary of the topics discussed. For a more detailed summary, see, for example, Faust 2006a;

2013; 2015)
 2

The Problem

Israelite identity in past scholarship

Ever since the modern study of ancient Israel began, it has been commonly assumed that

Israel and Judah, despite the differences between them,2 formed one people. Though

composed of different groups, which maintained separate local or totemic identities, and

despite political and economic differences, it was agreed that the Israelite identity was shared

by most of the population in the territories that later became the kingdoms of Israel and

Judah. The common view was that, although the division of the monarchy led to the creation

of two different political entities, and despite the political division and economic differences,

the identity of the population of the two kingdoms was affiliated. The two polities were

therefore regarded as "sisters," and were almost always discussed together (e.g., Netzer

1992; Herzog 1992a; 1992b; Holladay 1995; Dever 1995b:416, 420-421; for an exception,

see Faust 2012b). More explicitly, Perdue argued that "the ethics of solidarity shaped a

network and care that moved beyond the immediate compound family to include clans,

tribes, and the totality of the "children of Israel" (Perdue 1997:167)." Isserlin (1998:7-8)

stressed the common features of the two kingdoms, mainly sharing the same "national" deity,

and concluded that treating the kingdoms as sisters is justified. Reviv wrote that "The

division into 'Israel' and 'Judah'…did not obscure the cohesive elements among the

Israelites" (Reviv 1979:143; see also Elgavish 1994). De Vaux (1961:97) explicitly referred

to this duality, in which the group identity crossed political boundaries: "(O)ne fact… is very

clear: Israel and Judah are sometimes allies, sometimes enemies, but they are always

independent of each other, and other nations treat them as distinct entities. This political

2
For example that the kingdom of Israel was much larger and wealthier than the kingdom of Judah; see inter

alia, Baron 1952:60; De Vaux 1961:65-67; Oded 1984:135.

 3

dualism, however, does not prevent the inhabitants feeling themselves to be one people; they

are brethren" (my emphasis).

The Critique

This understanding was based, first and foremost, on the portrayal of the population of Israel

and Judah in the Bible. With the advent of critical scholarship, the historical reliability of

the biblical texts gradually eroded, their biases were exposed, and the notion of a shared

Israelite identity encompassing Israel and Judah was increasingly discredited.

The idea that Israel and Judah were two different entities is not new (e.g., Gelander 2008,

and references). Davies's highly influential work, "In Search of 'Ancient Israel'", was one of

the main works to bring the problematic implications of this understanding to the fore.

Davies challenged the applicability of the term 'Israel' to the population of both Israel and

Judah (e.g., Davies 1992:73, and elsewhere). This "common" identity was invented later,

and was projected back in time by the authors of the biblical texts. Finkelstein and Silberman

(2001:150, emphasis mine), for example, suggested that "there were always two distinct

highland polities", and they criticized archaeologists and biblical historians for taking the

biblical narratives of the United Monarchy "at face value", and for taking for granted the

"ethnic unity and distinctiveness of the people of Israel as a whole" (ibid., 152). They noted

that "Shechem and Jerusalem, Israel and Judah, were always distinct and competing

territories" (ibid. 155), and that "(P)ut simply, Israel and Judah experienced quite different

histories and developed distinctive cultures". They describe the distinctiveness of Israel and

Judah as "perhaps the most unsettling clash between the archaeological finds and the Bible"

(ibid., 150). Na'aman (2010:1-2) wrote that: "(T)oday, it is widely accepted that biblical

historiography – which extended the name 'Israel' to cover both kingdoms, collectively

designating their inhabitants 'Israelites' – did not, in fact, appear prior to the annexation of
 4

the Kingdom of Israel by the Assyrian empire in 720 BCE". Lemche (2012:27) also wrote:

"(F)rom a historical point of view the idea of Israel is a construction. It demands an Israelite

unity stretching back to the hoary past that never existed…". Fleming (2012:249), after

reviewing a number of recent works on Iron Age ethnicity, suggests that "(B)oth Faust and

Killebrew focus entirely on the ethnicity and ethnogenesis of ‘Israel’ and thus rely on the

Bible's final combination of Israel and Judah into one people under that name".

Various scenarios were raised for the processes in which "Israel" came to encompass also

Judah. Finkelstein and Silberman (2001:167, my emphasis), for example, attributed it to

"Josiah's ambition to expand to the north and take over the territories in the highlands that

once belonged to the northern kingdom", and the Bible therefore "explains" that "the

northern kingdom was established in the territories of the mythical united monarchy…; that

it was a sister Israelite state; that its people were Israelites…". Na'aman (2010), stressing

the religious motivation, believes that Judah adopted the prestigious name, Israel, following

the destruction of the latter. And Davies (2007) argued that the adoption took place only

after the fall of Jerusalem.

While the biblical texts themselves are clearly open to other interpretations (Kratz 2006;

Williamson 2011), it appears that the archaeological record might allow us a better

understanding of ancient Identities.

Archaeological Study of Israelite Identity

Past Archaeological Studies of Israelite Traits

This is not the place to summarize previous archaeological scholarship on Israelite identity

at any length (see Faust 2006a:20-29, and discussion and references there). Briefly, many

past studies, conducted in the spirit of the culture history school, have identified the Israelites
 5

with the highland's material culture. It was assumed that such a "culture" is the material

expression of what today would be called a “people”. The underlying assumption was that

the finds in the area where the Israelites were supposed to have lived in (according to the

Bible) reflect their culture. Thus, finds that were found in those areas were labeled

"Israelite", and were subsequently used to identify Israelites wherever such finds were

unearthed. Such finds included, for example, the four room house, collared-rim jars, and

more.

Over the years, however, the association of those finds with the Israelites was challenged.

This was a result of both changes in the archaeological approach to the study of ethnicity

resulting from the advent of the new/processual archaeology, as well as from the discovery

of what were considered to be Israelite traits such as four room houses within non-Israelite

sites (see extended discussion below; see also Ahlstrom 1992:339; Finkelstein 1996:204-

205).

Ethnicity in the Archaeological Record

It is accepted today that ethnic identities are not fixed. New groups emerge through time,

and people can change their own identity and adopt another one. Moreover, ethnic identity

is but one identity each individual has, and people usually have a number of group identities

at the same time, stressing one at the expense of the other (without necessarily replacing

them) according to circumstances. Groups define themselves in relation to, and in contrast

with, other groups (Barth 1969; Emberling 1997; Jones 1997; Wimmer 2013). Due to the

subjective nature of ethnicity, it is not expressed, as already noted, by an "archaeological

culture", and the latter is a result of various processes and reflects also ecology, economy,

and more. Furthermore, while "material culture" can change through various processes of

culture contact (e.g., acculturation, transculturation, hybridization, creolization, etc.; e.g.,

 6

Liebmann 2013, and references), such changes do not necessarily reflect changes in identity,

since the latter is subjective. It is clear, therefore, that the ethnic boundaries of a group are

not defined by the sum of cultural traits contained by it, but by the idiosyncratic use of

specific material and behavioral symbols as compared with other groups (Barth 1969: 14,

15; McGuire 1982:160; Emberling 1997:299; Faust 2006a). McGuire points out that overt

material symbols of ethnic identity (ethnic markers; e.g., yarmulke) are the clearest evidence

for ethnicity, but such markers are scarce in the archaeological record (McGuire 1982:163).

Furthermore, grasping the symbolic significance of artifacts, which is arbitrary, can be

extremely difficult.

Notably, in addition to ethnic markers, ethnicity can also be identified by the material

correlates of ethnically specific behavior. Behavioral differences might include, in

McGuire’s words, “variations in rubbish disposal patterns... or differences in floor plans of

dwellings, which reflect differing behavioral requirements for space” (ibid.). This ethnic

behavior is much easier to identify than ethnic markers, as archaeology is to a large extent a

behavioral science.3

Notably, social dimensions such as economic status, prestige, religion, occupation, urban or

rural setting, and other factors may all affect the symbolic content of artifacts (McGuire,

1982:164; see also London 1989; Emberling 1997:305–306, 310–311), and only after the

3
In many cases there are elements (artifacts, decoration, etc.), which are used to convey messages within the

group, and are connected to intra-group communication. Often, however, those elements are not spread evenly

across the human landscape, and are used by members of a specific group only; hence, as a by-product, they

"are likely to offer not only good but the best evidence of ‘ethnicity’ generally preserved in the archaeological

record" (David et al. 1988: 378).

 7

other elements have been identified can we attribute ethnic labels to some traits of material

culture.

Israelite Traits

In light of these insights, and as part of a large-scale study of the society and economy of

Iron Age Israel (Faust 2006a; 2012a; 2012b), a few traits – either markers or behavioral –

were suggested to correspond with Israelite presence, and in the following we will review a

number of such traits and will see how distinctive they are. Notably, in this section we will

use the term Israelite(s) in the traditional, encompassing sense. Later, I will examine the

implications of the discussion for the current debate over the term.

The Four Room House: The term "four room house" refers to a specific configuration of

rooms and spaces within a typical Iron Age house. Notably, the number of rooms in the

house can vary greatly, and what counts is the configuration. The presence of pillars is also

not essential for the definition, although they are common. Four room houses were abundant

in sites that are regarded as Israelite, both urban, like Beersheba, Tell Beit Mirsim, Beth-

Shemesh, Jerusalem, Tell el-Farah north, and rural, like Kh. Jemein, Beit Arye, Nahal Zimri,

Kh. er-Ras, H. Malta, and the French Hill (Shiloh 1970; 1973; Faust 2012b, and many

references). This distribution gave rise to the label "the Israelite house". However, such

houses were gradually reported to have been found in non-Israelite sites such as Tel Qasile,

Afula, Tel Qiri, Tel Keisan, as well as in various Transjordanian sites such as Sahab

(Ahlstrom 1992:339; Finkelstein 1996:204-205; also Faust 2006a:71-84, 221-226;

2012b:217-219, and references), and this gradually led to the erosion of the Israelite label.

Finkelstein (1996:204-205) summarized that the houses have "been found also in the

lowland and Transjordanian Iron I sites", concluding that "Its popularity in the central hill
 8

country must be linked to environmental and social factors, rather than to the ethnic

background of the communities”.

It appears, however, that the skeptical approach is unwarranted, both methodologically and

factually (Faust 2006a:71-84). Indeed, an examination of various "exceptions" mentioned in

the literature shows that most of them have nothing to do with the four room house. Thus,

for example, the houses uncovered at Tel Keisan, Sahab, Tel Qiri and Afula are not four

room houses. Some, e.g., at Afula (Dothan 1955) and Tel Keisan (Humbert 1993), have four

rooms, while others have pillars, e.g., at Tel Qiri (Portugali 1987) and Sahab (Ibrahim 1975),

but all are arranged in a completely different configuration and does not even resemble four

room houses (Faust 2012b:217-219, and references). Thus, the number of "exceptions"

discovered in Cisjordan, for example at Tel Qasile (Mazar 2009), is quite minimal, and dates

almost exclusively to the Iron I. As for the houses in Transjordan, some, e.g., at Tall al

‘Umayri, were most probably used by Israelites (for Tall al 'Umayri, see for example Herr

and Clark 2001; for a broad discussion, see now Petter 2014; see more below). When one

acknowledges Israelite presence there, the number of four room houses in "non-Israelite"

sites is quite minimal, and also date mainly to the Iron I.4 The existence of a few exceptions

in the Iron I, especially in Transjordan, should not come as a surprise, since ethnic identity

in this region was not always fixed at that time, and many groups used various traits when

negotiating their identities (Faust 2006a:221-226; Faust and Katz 2011; Bunimovitz and

4
During the Iron I, one can apparently identify a few four-room houses in Transjordanian sites whose

inhabitants were probably not Israelites (e.g., at Kh. al-Mudayna al-'Aliya, Lahun, and more; Swinnen 2009;

Routledge 2000; note that most houses in these sites are clearly not typical four-room houses).
 9

Lederman 2011). It must therefore be stressed that the number of exceptions in Iron II, after

the crystallization of ethnic identities in the region, is quite minimal.5

It is not, however, only the meager number of houses that were found outside Israelite

territories which strengthen the association of the house with the Israelites. Even more

significant is the fact that those houses are extremely dominant within sites in Israel and

Judah, and in most cases the vast majority of excavated houses belong to this group (for the

situation in the ethnically mixed area of the northern valleys, see below). The dominant

position of the house in all types of sites, covering various ecological niches, socioeconomic

classes and settlement types, attests to its suitability to the Israelite way of life (Faust and

Bunimovitz 2014). It is therefore clear that Israelites used this house extensively, and while

a few such houses might have been used by non-Israelites, this was a very rare occurrence,

especially in the Iron II. A settlement in which no such houses were found can be safely

labeled non-Israelite, and given the evidence, when many such houses are found in Iron II

settings, it would be very difficult to suggest that the site was built by non-Israelites.

5
This is clearly the case in Cisjordan, but even the number of Transjordanian "exceptions" during the Iron II,

when identities were more "fixed", is minimal, and includes, for example, Ghareh (Hart 1988) and Kh.

Mudayna (Daviau et al. 2012). While various scenarios can be raised in order to explain these "exceptions",

the main point is that they are exceptions that do not influence the overall pattern in which Israelites used this

type of house extensively (more below), and other groups only sporadically. Note that other Iron Age II four

room houses in Transjordan should probably be associated with Israelites, one way or the other (e.g., some

houses at Kh. en-Nahas [e.g., Levy et al., 2014:142-144, 155-156], Barqa al-Hatiya [Fritz 2002; see also Ben-

Yosef et al. 2014], and probably the unique neighborhood at Tell es-Sa'idiyeh that will be addressed below).
 10

Lack (or Rarity) of Decoration on Pottery: The extreme rarity of decoration on the pottery

manufactured in Israel and Judah is well known to modern scholarship. The lack of painted6

decoration on the pottery produced during the Iron Age I in the highlands has been noted by

practically all scholars dealing with the Settlement phenomenon (e.g., Dever 1995a:205;

Mazar 1985:69; 1992:290; Bloch-Smith and Alpert Nakhai 1999:76; King and Stager

2001:139), and is usually explained by the low standards of living and the hardship of life in

the small highland villages of this era. The conspicuous absence of decoration on pottery

persisted, however, in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah (Barkay 1992:354; Aharoni

1982:177; Franken and Steiner 1990:91; Dever 1997a:465; Lapp 1992:442). Notably, unlike

the situation in the Iron I, it cannot be claimed that a low standard of living was responsible

for the lack of decoration, as in some cases living standards were extremely high (e.g.,

Campbell 1994; Faust 1999; 2012b). The rarity of decoration in Israel and Judah is unique,

and stands in sharp contrast to its significance both in the nearby regions of Cyprus,

Phoenicia, Philistia, Midian, Moab, and Edom (e.g., Barkay 1992:325, 326, 336–338, 354,

358; E. Mazar 1985; Kang 2013; Schreiber 2003), and the 2nd millennium BCE Canaanite

tradition (Franken and London 1995). This absence must be meaningful, and might have

been connected with an ethos of simplicity and egalitarianism as well as with the group's

self-definition in contrast to other groups (Faust 2006a:92-107; 2013).

Rarity of Imported Pottery: another important trait is the extreme rarity of imported pottery

in most sites of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah (e.g., Dever 1995a:204; 1997b:79; Meyers

1988:144; Bloch-Smith and Alpert Nakhai 1999:76). Obviously, this trait is much more

significant in the Iron II (Dever 1997a:465; Lapp 1992:442), following the resumption of

6
Whether we should address slip and burnish as a type of decoration can be debated, but here I am referring

to painted decoration, which is almost non-existent in Israel and Judah.

 11

trade in the eastern Mediterranean, but it is manifested in the Iron I by the almost total

absence of Philistine pottery in the highlands. The lack of imported pottery also seems to

reflect the ethos of simplicity (Faust 2006a: 49-64; 2013).7

Explaining the Distribution of Traits

It must be stressed that the distribution of any of the above traits cannot be explained along

economic, topographical, ecological, or climatic lines. Some 25 years ago, Gloria London

suggested that collared rim jars reflected a rural society. Therefore contrasting its ubiquity

in the highland villages with its absence in the valley's towns, and associating it with the

Israelites, is methodologically flawed (London 1989; but see Faust, 2006a:191-220).

Fleming recently developed a similar line of reasoning, claiming that some of the "Israelite"

traits reflect simple highland society (Fleming 2012:249-250). Fleming writes: "(S)o far as

features of the simple life characterizing highland or inland people from Dan to Beersheba,

it is not clear why only those who identify themselves with Israel would share them"

7
It is, of course, not a question of the presence of one, or even a few imported pieces at a site (although in

many sites imports are completely missing). Where a few such vessels were found at a site that was extensively

excavated, they can nonetheless be treated as extremely rare. The issue was addressed at length elsewhere

(Faust 2006a:49-64; 2006b), and there is no point in repeating the argument here – one example should suffice

to explain it. While only a few imported pottery vessels were unearthed at Tel Beersheba and other sites within

the Beersheba-Arad valleys, which are located along a major trading route in the south (e.g., Singer-Avitz

1999), 10% of the wood remains that were found (in 7th century sites in the region) were imported from

Lebanon (Liphshitz and Biger 1991). While the latter shows the significance of trade in this region (including

large-scale trade), this is not expressed in pottery, and any quantitative study of the latter might have led to the

conclusion that trade was very marginal in this region, if it had any importance at all.
 12

(emphasis added).8 Later he wrote that "it is not clear that the patterns themselves are best

understood as reflection of ethnicity, as opposed to other social and environmental trends"

(ibid., 253).

Still, such lines of arguments are clearly refuted by a number of factors. First of all, viewing

the highlands as one ecological unit is overly simplistic. As Finkelstein and Silberman noted:

"(T)he north and south have distinct ecosystems that differ in almost every aspect:

topography, rock formation, climate, vegetation cover, and potential economic resources"

(Finkelstein and Silberman 2001:155-157).9 Furthermore, it was this ecological and

geographical dichotomy between north and south that served as the backbone of Finkelstein

and Silberman's claim that the two regions were "always" separate (ibid. 150-155). But there

is more to it than that.

Standards of life in the Iron II were quite high in many locales, so an explanation that relates

the four room house, for example, to "simple life," is simply insufficient. The houses were

used by rich and poor, in towns and villages, and even for public buildings (e.g., Lehmann

and Killebrew 2010; Faust and Bunimovitz 2014) and as a template for the Judahite tomb of

the late Iron Age (e.g., Barkay 1999). This is not a reflection of "simple life".

A negation of such an explanation is also supported by the structure's disappearance from

the archaeological record after the Iron Age (Faust 2012a). People continued to live a "simple

life" in the Persian period, but the house was abandoned.

8
Fleming's assumption that there were additional groups like the Hivites that need to be identified

archaeologically (ibid., note 28) is based on late texts whose historicity is unclear, and is methodologically

problematic.
9
Although the differences they are outlining are somewhat exaggerated, they are clearly correct in denying the

uniformity of these regions

 13

The Northern Valleys: Patterns of Distribution and "Simple Life"

Furthermore, the data from the lowlands – where "simple life" is not "expected", also refutes

such an explanation. During the Iron II, Israelite traits are found in some cities in the northern

valleys, but almost never in villages, were the local, indigenous population continued to

reside (Finkelstein 1999; Faust 2000; 2012b). In the cities, moreover, these Israelite traits

are limited to some neighborhoods, whereas equivalent "indigenous" traits continued to

prevail in other areas. For the sake of clarity I will exemplify it with the four room house.

Finding such structures in some Iron II settlements in the northern valleys (e.g., Megiddo

and Hazor; Kempinski 1989; Geva 1989) indicates that its distribution is not connected with

ecology and topography (and is not limited to the highlands). At the same time, the absence

of the houses from rural settlements (e.g., Tel Qiri and Nir David), and from some

neighborhoods in the cities (e.g., in Megiddo and Hazor, as well as Rehov, where such

houses were not discovered at all; Mazar 2009:333) shows that the pattern is meaningful,

non-random, and has nothing to do with "simple life." The above is sufficient, first and

foremost, to show that such arguments ("simple life") fall short of explaining the complex

situation and are therefore disqualified.

There is, however, more to it than that, and a closer and more detailed look at the

multifaceted reality in the northern valleys will show how different lines of data converge,

and this will strongly support the ethnic sensitivity of the discussed traits (again, for the sake

of brevity, I will focus on the four room house). Notably, the population of the valleys

showed a high level of continuity during the transition from the Late Bronze Age to the Iron

I, and from the Iron I to the Iron II (unlike the situation in the highlands); it is agreed by

practically everyone that the area formed a Canaanite enclave, and that the vast majority of

the inhabitants maintained their Canaanite identity throughout this time (e.g., Finkelstein
 14

1999:44, 47, 48; Finkelstein and Silverman 2001:191-192; Faust 2000; 2012b:230-254;

Munger 2013; see now also Mazar 2015:45-46). Accordingly, four room houses are

practically absent from the region during Iron I. During Iron II, things partially changed.

Now (as noted above), four room houses are found in cities, along with other ("traditional",

local) types of architecture. The "new" four room structures most likely housed people from

the highlands (Israelites) who for various reasons moved into those cities when they became

part of the kingdom of Israel, or members of the Canaanite elite which gradually assimilated

into the new ruling class. The rest of the population continued to live in the traditional

courtyard and row houses. At the same time, four room houses are practically missing from

rural sites in the northern valleys even in Iron II, e.g., Tel Qiri and Nir David (Portugali

1987; Levy and Edelstein 1972; Faust 2000; 2012b:230-254), apparently because this

population did not assimilate and maintained its identity.

Thus, the distribution of the four room house defies any simplistic ecological dichotomy of

highland versus lowlands, or socioeconomic ones like rich versus poor or cities versus

villages. The distribution of four room houses (and other traits) is non-random, it creates

sharp boundaries (e.g,. Bunimovitz and Faust 2003; Faust and Bunimovitz 2014; Faust,

2006a:75-78; 2012b:217-219, and references), and it is clear that the explanation for the

adoption and use of this structure lies with culture.10 The data discussed here is matched by

10
This can also be supported by the unique finds at Tell es-Sa'idiyeh Stratum V (Pritchard 1985). At this

level, a block of four room houses (belonging to the three rooms subtype) was uncovered. The houses of the

previous stratum in the same area, however, were of different plan, and later, after the destruction of stratum

V by fire, these unique four room structures were not rebuilt. It is quite clear that Stratum V present an intrusive

type of building, and not a gradual, local development. Given the location of the site, within the Canaanite

enclave, it is quite expected that most houses were not of the four room type. Although it is possible, of course,

that a few such houses were built in parts of the mound that were not excavated, the overall pattern is in line
 15

that of other traits (e.g., the prevalence of imports. For a discussion, see Faust 2000;

2012b:230-254, and many references; see also Munger 2013), and with the historical

information we possess, and all lines of evidence converge and create a clear and coherent

picture of who lived where, and who used what.

On the Affinity Between Israel and Judah

All the above traits are very dominant within very clear and distinct boundaries, and are

completely or almost completely absent immediately outside those boundaries (be they a

region, a settlement, or a neighborhood). Such sharp fall-offs suggest that the distribution is

meaningful (Hodder 1979a:452; 1979b:12; Kimes, Haselgrove and Hodder 1982; Dever,

1995b:421). We must therefore stress that all of the above traits, while having clear

boundaries in contrast to other groups, are shared by Israel and Judah!

To use the four room house again as an example, the vast majority of the houses in both

Israelite and Judahite sites belong to one of its sub-types, whereas only very few such houses

are found outside those boundaries.

But there is more to it than even that. We have noted that some traits commonly viewed as

ethnically sensitive, like the rarity of decoration on pottery or the avoidance of imported

pottery (both shared by Israel and Judah), seem to derive from Israel's egalitarian ethos

(Faust 2006a; 2013). Although not an ethnic marker per se, the lack of royal inscriptions in

the kingdoms of Israel and Judah is but another well-known example of this ethos (e.g.,

with other sites in the region. The sudden appearance of four room houses show that their construction had to

do with an intrusive population, whatever the exact historical background behind the erection of Stratum V

was (which is not our concern here). Again, the sharp boundaries (in the case, not spatially but chronologically)

supports the cultural and ethnic significance of the four room house.
 16

Na'aman 2002:94; Hallo 2003:xxiii-xxvi: Rendsburg 2007). The territories of the kingdoms

of Israel and Judah have been excavated to a much larger extent than any other polity in the

region, and have yielded larger quantities of finds of various sorts, including ostraca and

bullae (e.g., Ahituv 1992). When one examines the quantity of royal inscriptions, however,

the situation changes dramatically, since most other polities have yielded such inscriptions

(Gitin, Dothan and Naveh 1997; Biran and Naveh 1995; McCarter 1996:84-96, etc.). This

ironic reality is reflected by the fact that while kings/dynasties from Israel or Judah are

mentioned in a few inscriptions (e.g., the Dan inscription and probably also the Mesha

inscription), none was written in Israel or Judah!11 Again, Israel and Judah together share

something which makes them different from other polities.

To this one can add the linguistic argument: Rollston (2006:67), and following him Sanders

(2009), discuss the development of Hebrew writing. Thus Sanders wrote: "(T)he boundaries

of Hebrew writing never fit the boundaries of any state but they were made consistent with

the biblical defined territory of Israel" (ibid. 136), adding that "Hebrew users put in extensive

work to make sure that their texts were done in a way that made them the same as each other

and different from those of their neighbors". Hebrew, therefore, also attests quite clearly to

a very strong affinity between Israel and Judah.12

11
It is quite clear that there were royal inscriptions in Israel and Judah, and it is reasonable to assume that

some will be discovered in the future. The above, however, clearly shows that they were extremely rare when

compared with the situation in other polities.

12
Fleming (2012:301) claimed that "Rollston's foundational analysis of a unified development across Israel

and Judah is based on the same assumption of a single identity that burdens the ethnicity studies or earlier

periods." I must admit, however, that I fail to see the logic behind this claim. Is the pattern they present correct

or not? If the pattern is "real", than it must be addressed, and scholars' assumptions (real or not) are irrelevant.

Fleming (ibid.:302) also claimed that the finds from Israel are pre-720 BCE, whereas those from Judah date to
 17

The same applies to the name of the deity, which was shared by both kingdoms (e.g., Isserlin

1998:7-8), but was rarely mentioned in the texts of other polities. And if there was a

"national" god to the other polities, it was never Yahweh.

This is striking.

Despite the political friction between the two polities, the economic and ecological

differences (see extensive discussion and references in Faust, 2012b:190-212), and perhaps

even periodic hostility, all the traits that seem to be culturally and ethnically sensitive, and

which exhibit meaningful distribution with clear boundaries, seem to encompass Judah and

(most of) Israel. Furthermore, the mere fact that a number of discrete types of data show the

same boundaries indicates that those very same boundaries were extremely significant.

To this one can add that as of yet – and not due to the lack of wanting – not a single

archaeological trait that was interpreted as culturally sensitive (rather from just regional

variation that can be explained along economic lines) seems to have differentiated Israel

from Judah.13

Pigs in Iron II Israel?

the 701 BCE destructions, and are therefore post 720 BCE. This is a possibility, of course, but clearly not a

necessity, and the finds in destruction layers can also represent longer process of accumulation. In any event,

20 years is close enough and it appears that the finds represent the same archaeological and cultural horizon.
13
The Judahite tombs, which were typical of the kingdom of Judah, were adopted mainly from the late 8 th

century, after the destruction of the kingdom of Israel. Interestingly, it appears that a few tombs began to be

hewn in Israel (e.g., Yannai 2013) alongside those of Judah, but the process was still in its infancy when the

kingdom of Israel was destroyed (linguistically, there were probably differences between north and south [e.g.,

Rendsburg 2003, and references] but such are expected [and there were, most likely, many dialects; ibid., 5],

and at any event do not negate a shared identity).

 18

Sapir-Hen et al. suggested recently that there is a material difference between Israel and

Judah in the Iron II – pork consumption (Sapir-Hen et al., 2013). According to their

argument, while in the Iron I the population of both regions avoided pigs, in the Iron II the

population of Israel, unlike that of Judah, reverted to pork consumption. This is deduced

from finds of pig bones in various Iron II sites in the kingdom of Israel, like Hazor, Megiddo,

Yoqneam, Rehov, etc. (ibid., 9-10).

But this suggestion is problematic on practically every ground. First and foremost, all the

sites are located in the northern valleys, and as we have seen it is clear that a Canaanite

population continued to live there, although politically they were part of the kingdom of

Israel (Finkelstein, 1999:48; Finkelstein and Silverman 2001:191-191; Faust 2000; 2012b;

Munger 2013; see now also Mazar 2015). It is clear that some Israelites lived in this region

of course (above), but the majority of the population was Canaanite, and the latter consumed,

to varying degrees, pork, as was explicitly suggested in the past (already Faust 2000:16).

The finds reported by Sapir-Hen et al. only strengthen this conclusion. The only relevant

Iron II highland site discussed by Sapir-Hen et al. (2013:5, 9) is the village at Horbat Rosh-

Zayit, which was interpreted by the excavators as Israelite (Gal and Alexandre 2000; contra

Sapir-Hen et al., 2013:9), and where pork was indeed avoided! Clearly, the avoidance, or at

least extreme rarity, of pork was characteristic of both Israel and Judah (with the exception

of Canaanites residing within the borders of Israel). Sapir-Hen et al. apparently confused

political boundaries and ethnic ones.

A Note on the Relations Between Political Boundaries and Ethnic Identity

The close association between ethnic or other forms of group identity and political

expression, e.g., states, is to a large extent a result of modern nationalism, and this seems to
 19

confuse many scholars,14 leading them to assume that since Israel and Judah were two

separate polities, its inhabitants could not have shared the same ethnic identity.

Indeed, Fleming (2012:300), despite his repeated reservations throughout the book, admits

toward the end that there are many traits that are shared by the population of Israel and Judah,

adding that "(O)nly what is tied to the political formation of Israel and Judah will be expected

to show substantial contrast." Later, Fleming again stresses that the difference is political,

adding "(G)iven the geographical juxtaposition in the highlands, a connection should not be

surprising" (ibid., 302). Indeed, the differences between Israel and Judah are political (more

below). But this means that there is no reason to deny the ethnic affinity.

Scholars assumed that the mere existence of the two kingdoms indicates that this is the

natural, ethnic, reality (on the basis of the reality in other periods; e.g., Finkelstein and

Silberman 2001), and that at a later stage the unity between the two was "invented."

However, although there were political, and even religious-institutional differences between

the kingdoms, and even if the (unfounded, in my view) assumption that there was no United

Monarchy in the 10th century were to prevail, this does not say much about the ethnic identity

of the population. In the ancient world there was no binding connection between political

and ethnic identity (and even today the connection is not always straightforward).

Israelite and Other (Totemic) Identities

It must be stressed that "Israel" was not homogenous. From its beginning Israel included

various groups which were different from each other, and in the course of its history absorbed

more and more individuals and groups, which were assimilated into it on the one hand, and

14
Some erroneously concluded that ethnicity is a modern phenomenon (but see Smith 1986; Gat 2013, and

references)
 20

changed it on the other. Some of the traditions of the new groups were eventually adopted

by all of Israel, e.g., the tradition of the Exodus (Faust 2015, and references).15 Other

traditions, however, remained local, and accentuated the differences within this "Israel,"

contributing to the persistence of local, totemic (Comaroff and Comaroff 1992), or tribal (to

use biblical terminology) identities. But since people have more than one group identity, this

should not come as a surprise. Those "local" group identities do not detract from the

significance of the larger, ethnic identity.16

The multiplicity of concurrent identities is something that was not sufficiently explored by

scholars who questioned the existence of an "all Israelite" identity. They prioritized the

political identity of Israel and Judah. However, even if this was the correct procedure, and

even if they do prove the importance of Judahite identity and its material correlates, this does

not negate the existence of an "all Israelite" identity.

A Shared Identity

The affinity between the population of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah seems, therefore,

to be definable based on solid archaeological evidence, expressed in the distribution of

15
The same applies also to material traditions. Some important traits were abandoned in the course of time

(e.g., the collared rim jar, which was not in use during the Iron Age II, at least in Cisjordan, but was very

significant in the Iron Age I; Faust 2006a:191-220, and references), while others crystallized and received more

importance as time progressed (e.g., the four room house, whose importance in the Iron II greatly exceeded

that in the Iron I, see above). Still, it is only expected that despite inevitable developments some traits will be

in continued use for many hundreds of years (and the four room house is exactly such a trait).
16
It is more than likely that some traits might have been used to demarcate the boundaries between the two

kingdoms (especially those that can be connected with monarchies, or with institutionalized religion), but these

have yet to be discovered.

 21

various types of traits, which are very dominant within both Israel and Judah, and have very

sharp fall-offs in their boundaries. The clear cultural boundaries reflected in the

archaeological record serve as independent evidence for affinity between most of the

inhabitants of the two kingdoms, and the contrast between them and the inhabitants of other

kingdoms.

An Israelite Identity

What name we wish to call this group is another issue. Like most scholars today, I think that

the term Israel is appropriate (more below), but even if one wishes to claim that the term

"Israel" is late and cannot be used for the population of Israel and Judah, this is only of

secondary importance. The population of the two polities (most of it, above) was affiliated!

If one believes that calling them "x peoples" is more sound, that is another issue, but the data

clearly shows that there was clear association between the populations there.

If, however, one wishes to explore the question of the name, it is arguable that the term

"Israel" should be used. Scholars who think that "Israel" was the identity of the inhabitants

of the northern kingdom only and that it was later "projected back" onto Judah, do not fully

address the significance of Merneptah's Israel. It is quite clear that at around 1200 BCE there

was an identity group by this name, and that it was significant enough to be mentioned by

the Egyptians. Its location in the highlands is more than likely. It is hardly logical to suggest

that the similarity between Israel in Merneptah's stele and the name that is attested in the

Bible is incidental. This connection is strengthened by the continuation in the use of what

proved to be sensitive, non-random material traits. The chances that the Israel of the Iron II

is not a "continuation" of Merneptah's Israel are very slim (Faust 2006a). And there is no

reason whatsoever to suggest that Israel of the Iron I did not include the southern highlands

(Faust 2006, and references).

 22

Although I concentrated here on archaeological traits, two notes on the textual data should

be mentioned. (1) In order to make the claim that there is no evidence for the use of the name

"Israel" as designating both Israel and Judah before the Assyrian period of domination valid

in this discussion, one has to show which texts predate this era, and that they are numerous

enough that the absence of reference is sufficient to learn from it (see also Williamson,

2011:90, 95). Without sufficient data, one cannot learn from the absence. This, of course,

refers only to the logic of the claims and I think invalidates them; (2) Some scholars suggest

that the term Israel was used in Judah before the destruction of the kingdom of Israel.17

A Note on the Name Israel

As noted, during the Iron I the name Israel was the name of an important group. It is more

than likely that other group identities coexisted, and it appears that "Israel" was a broad term

that incorporated various distinct identities, though the boundaries of these groups were

probably fluid. These groups (which were part of Israel) could stress their unique identity or

even separate themselves from "Israel" altogether according to the circumstances. As time

progressed, more individuals and groups joined this "Israel," assimilated into it, and changed

it in the process. The term "Israel" was broad, and served as a general identity for various

groups. It is likely that after the formation of the monarchy there were groups that were

forcibly annexed politically, whether they eventually adopted the Israelite identity or not.

Israel was, therefore, only one group identity that people had.

17
e.g., Williamson 2001:33-35; 2011; Kratz, 2006:111, 114, 123 (the mere activity of Amos in Israel should

probably be seen in this light). This issue is debated by Na'aman (2010) and Fleming (2012), and here I would

just like to note that the biblical evidence is not as straightforward as it might seem in some studies.
 23

Whether the "United Monarchy" existed or not, its development is therefore not unlikely. At

any event, whether fragmented from a united one or not, both Israel and Judah were

composed of various groups, many of which were part of earlier Israel, and being "Israel"

was one of their identities. The name itself came to be associated with the northern polity,

but this did not completely obliterate the ethnic significance of the name. Notably, it is

possible that while the northern polity retained the "older" name (Israel), the southern one

used (for its name) the name of the common deity – Yahweh18 – which was worshipped in

both kingdoms (but not in others; see also Faust 2015, and references). The term Israel was

probably still used, even if sporadically, in Judah (e.g., Williamson 2011:95). Then, after the

fall of Samaria, it is only understandable that the term was re-adopted and used more

frequently by the remaining kingdom (ibid.).

Summary

The affiliation between (most of) the inhabitants of Israel and Judah, is quite clear from an

examination of the archaeological record. Many traits, which exhibit non-random

distribution with sharp boundaries, were common to most inhabitants of these two polities

(covering distinct geographical zones), but are missing from neighboring regions. This

demonstrates that the affinity between the populations was real, despite the political

fragmentation.

This should not come as a surprise, however, as the only reason to expect any overlap

between ethnic identities and political boundaries is based on modern precepts, and not on

the situation in antiquity.

18
For the possible connection between the two names, see for example Millard (1974); or de Hoop (1999:115-

121, and references). This, however, is not accepted by most scholars.

 24

It is clear that this Israelite identity encompassed various local, totemic and tribal identities,

that sometimes competed with the "larger" one (that combined both Israel and Judah), but

did not negate its existence. It is possible that among these local identities were also identities

that overlapped with the political boundaries, i.e., one for the southern kingdom and one for

the northern one. Should such be discovered in the future, it is clear that they were more

marginal than the common one that united both Israel and Judah. But such identities are not

mutually exclusive.

The critique of the common identity of Israel and Judah has some major flaws. To a large

extent it is built on a projection of the nation-state into the past, and gives too much weight

to political boundaries, which could have very limited meaning to people in antiquity, and

did not necessarily exert much influence on their identity. In addition, it ignores the

multiplicity of identities that people have. The critiques, apparently, intend to stress the

unique identity of each polity. But people have many identities, based on family affiliation

(real or fictive), settlement, region, "tribe," etc. The existence of a separate Judahite identity,

even if proven, does not negate the importance of the "all Israelite" identity, which is so

exerted so much influence on the archaeological record.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Prof. Simi Chavel, Dr. Justin Lev-Tov and an anonymous reviewer

for their helpful comments and suggestions. The responsibility for the content of the

article and for any mistake or error is, of course, mine alone.

The writing of this article was supported by a grant from the Dr. Simon Krauthammer

Chair in Archaeology, the Martin (Szusz) department of Land of Israel Studies and

Archaeology, Bar-Ilan University.

 25

Bibliogrphy

Aharoni, Yohanan

1982 The Archaeology of the Land of Israel. Translated by Anson F. Rainey. Westminster
Press, Philadelphia.

Ahituv, Shmuel

1992 Handbook of Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions from the Period of the First
Commonwealth and the beginning of the Second Commonwealth. The Bialik Institute,
Jerusalem, Israel.

Ahlstrom, G.W.

1993 The History of Ancient Palestine from the Paleolithic Period to Alexander’s
Conquest. JSOT Press, Sheffield, England.

Barkay, Gabriel

1992 The Iron Age II–III. In The Archaeology of Ancient Israel, edited by Amnon Ben-
Tor. Translated by R. Greenberg, pp. 302–373. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Baron, Salo Wittmayer

1952 A Social and Religious History of the Jews. 2nd ed., 1,2 vols., The Jewish Publication
Society of America, Philadelphia.

Barth, Fredrik

1969 Introduction. In Ethnic Groups and Boundaries, edited by Fredrik Barth, pp. 9–38.
Little, Brown, Boston.

Ben-Yosef, Erez, Najjar, Mohammad, and Levy, Thomas, E.

2014 New Iron Age Excavations at Copper Production Sites, Mines, and Fortresses in
Faynan. In New Insights into the Iron Age Archaeology of Edom, Southern Jordan, edited
by Thomas Levy, Mohammad Najjar, and Erez Ben-Yosef, pp. 767-885. The Cotsen
Institute of Archaeology Press, University of California, Los Angeles

Biran , Avraham and Naveh, Joseph

1995 The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment. Israel Exploration Journal 45:1–18.

Bloch-Smith, E. and Alpert Nakhai, B.

1999 A Landscape Comes to Life: The Iron I Period. Near Eastern Archaeology 62(2):62–
127.

Bunimovitz, Shlomo and Faust, Avraham

 26

2003 Building Identity: The Four Room House and the Israelite Mind. In Symbiosis,
Symbolism and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel and Their Neighbors from
the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina, edited by William G. Dever, and
Seymour Gitin, pp. 411–423. Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, Indiana.

Bunimovitz, Shlomo, and Lederman, Zvi

2011 Canaanite Resistance: The Philistines and Beth-Shemesh – A Case Study from Iron
Age I. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 364:37-51.

Campbell , Edward F.,

1994 Archaeological Reflections on Amos’s Targets. In Scripture and Other Artifacts,

edited by Michael D. Coogan, J. Cheryl Exum, Lawrence E. Stager; managing editor:
Joseph A. Greene, pp. 32-52. Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky.

Comaroff, John L. and Comaroff, Jean

1992 Ethnography and the Historical Imagination. Westview Press, Boulder.

David, N. Sterner, J. and Gavua, K.

1988 Why Pots are Decorated? Current Anthropology 29(3):365–389.

Daviau, P. M. Michèle, Chadwick, Robert, Weigl, Michael, Johnston, E. Kate, Gohm,

Christopher J., Edwards, Steven, Ladurner, Mechthild, Mulder-Hymans, Noor, and
Ferguson, Jonathan

2012 Excavations at Khibat al-Mudayna and Survey in the Wadi ath-Thamad: Preliminary
Report on the 2008, 2010 and 2011 Seasons, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of
Jordan 56:269-308.

Davies, Philip R.

1992 In Search of “Ancient Israel". JSOT press, Sheffield, England.

Davies, Philip R. (editor)

2007 The Origins of Biblical Israel. (Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies;
485), T & T Clark, New York; London.

De Vaux, Roland

1961 Ancient Israel, Its Life and Institutions. Translated by John McHugh. McGraw-Hill,
New York.

Dever, William G.

1995a Ceramics, Ethnicity, and the Questions of Israel’s Origins. Biblical Archaeologist
58(4):200–213.
 27

1995b Social Structure in Palestine in the Iron Age II Period on the Eve of Destruction. In
The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, edited by Thomas E. Levy, pp. 416-431.
Leicester University Press, London.

1997a Ceramics, Syro-Palestinian Ceramics of the Neolithic, Bronze and Iron Ages. In
Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East 1, edited by Eric Meyers, pp. 459–
465. New York.

1997b Is there any Archaeological Evidence for the Exodus? In Exodus: the Egyptian
Evidence, edited by Ernest S. Frerichs and Leonard H. Lesko, pp. 67–86. Eisenbrauns,
Winona Lake, Indiana.

Dothan, M.

1955 The Excavations at ‘Afula. ‘Atiqot 1:19–70.

Elgavish, David

1995 Restraint in the Wars between Israel and Judah. Judea and Samaria Research Studies
4:59-68, XII (Hebrew).

Emberling, Geoff

1997 Ethnicity in Complex Societies, Archaeological Perspectives. Journal of

Archaeological Research 5(4):295–344.

Faust, Avraham

1999 Socioeconomic Stratification in an Israelite City: Hazor VI as a Test-Case. Levant

31(1):179–191.

2000 Ethnic Complexity in Northern Israel during the Iron Age II. Palestine Exploration
Quarterly 132(1):1–27.

2006a Israel’s Ethnogenesis: Settlement, Interaction, Expansion and Resistance. Equinox,

Oakville, London.

2006b Trade, Ideology and Boundary Maintenance in Iron Age Israelite Society. In A Holy
People, edited by Marcel Purthuis and Joshua Schwartz, pp. 17-35. Leiden: Brill.

2012a, Judah in the Neo-Babylonian Period: The Archaeology of Desolation. Society of

Biblical Literature, Atlanta.

2012b The Archaeology of Israelite Society in Iron Age II. Translated by Ruth Ludlum.
Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, Indiana.

2013 Decoration versus Simplicity: Pottery and Ethnic Negotiations in Early Israel. Ars
Judaica 9:7-18.
 28

2015 The Emergence of Iron Age Israel: On Origins and Habitus. In Israel’s Exodus in
Transdisciplinary Perspective: Text, Archeology, Culture and Geoscience, edited by
Thomas E. Levy, Thomas Schneider and William H.C. Propp, pp. 467-482. Springer,
Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht and London.

Faust, Avraham and Bunimovitz, Shlomo

2014 The House and the World: The Israelite House as a Microcosm. In Family and
Household Religion: Toward a Synthesis of Old Testament Studies, Archaeology,
Epigraphy, and Cultural Studies, edited by Rainer Albertz, Beth Alpert Nakhai, Saul M.
Olyan, and Rudiger Schmitt, pp. 143-164. Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, Indiana.

Faust, Avraham and Katz, Hayah

2011 Philistines, Israelites and Canaanites in the Southern Trough Valley during the Iron
Age I. Egypt and the Levant 21:231-247.

Finkelstein, Israel

1996 Ethnicity and the Origin of the Iron I Settlers in the Highlands of Canaan: Can the
Real Israel Stand Up? Biblical Archaeologist (Near Eastern Archaeology) 59(4):198–212.

Finkelstein, Israel

1999 State Formation in Israel and Judah, A Contrast in Context, A Contrast in Trajectory.
Near Eastern Archaeology 62(1):35–52.

Finkelstein, Israel and Silverman, Neil Asher

2001 The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and Its Sacred
Texts. Simon and Schuster, New York.

Fleming, Daniel E.

2012 The Legacy of Israel's in Judah's Bible. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Franken, Hendricus Jacobus, and Steiner, Margarete Laura

1990 Excavations in Jerusalem 1961–1967, Volume II. Royal Ontario Museum, London.

Franken, Hendricus Jacobus, and London, Gloria

1995 Why Painted Pottery Disappeared at the End of the Second Millennium BCE.
Biblical Archaeologist 58(4):214–222.

Fritz, Volkmar

2002 Copper Mining and Smelting in the Area of Feinan at the End of Iron Age I. In Aharon
Kempinski Memorial Volume: Studies in Archaeology and Related Disciplines, edited by
Eliezer D. Oren and Shmuel Ahituv, pp. 93–102. Ben-Gurion University Press, Beer Sheva.
 29

Gal, Zvi and Alexandre, Yardenna

2000 Horbat Rosh Zayit, an Iron Age Storage Fort and Village. Israel Antiquities
Authority, Jerusalem, Israel.

Gat, Azar

2013 Nations: The Long History and Deep Roots of Political Ethnicity and Nationalism.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Gelander, Shamai

2008 Two Peoples into One: Belief, Religion and Cultural Environment in Israel and
Judah in Biblical Narratives and Historiography. The Bialik Institute, Jerusalem, Israel
(Hebrew).

Geva, Shulamit (editor)

1989 Hazor, Israel: An Urban Community of the 8th Century BCE. (B.A.R International
Series 543), Oxford, England.

Gitin, Seymour, Dothan Trude Krakauer and Naveh Joseph

1997 A Royal Dedicatory Inscription from Ekron. Israel Exploration Journal 47:1–16.

Hallo, William W.

2003 Introduction: The Bible and the Monuments. In The Context of the Scripture, Volume
Two: Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World, edited by William W. Hallo, and
K. Lawson Younger, Leiden, pp. xxi–xxvi.

Hart, Stephen

1988 Excavations at Ghrareh 1986: Preleminary Report. Levant 20:89–99

Herr, Larry G., and Clark, Douglas R.

2001 Excavating the Tribe of Reuben: A Four-Room House Provides a Clue to Where the
Oldest Israelite Tribe Settled. Biblical Archaeology Review 27(2):36–47, 64–66.

Herzog, Zeev

1992a Administrative Structures in the Iron Age. In The Architecture of Ancient Israel
from the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods, edited by Aharon Kempinski and Ronny
Reich, pp. 195-230. Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem, Israel.

1992b Settlement and Fortification Planning in the Iron Age. In The Architecture of
Ancient Israel from the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods, edited by Aharon Kempinski
and Ronny Reich, pp. 231-274. Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem, Israel.

Hodder, Ian
 30

1979a Economic and Social Stress and Material Culture Patterning. American Antiquity
44(3):446–455.

1979b Pottery Distribution: Service and Tribal Areas. In Pottery and Archaeologist, edited
by M. Millet, pp. 7–23. Institute of Archaeology, London.

1991 Reading the Past. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Holladay, John S.

1995 The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah: Political and Economic Centralization in the Iron
Age IIA-B (ca. 1000–750 B.C.E.). In The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, edited
by Thomas E. Levy, pp. 368–398. Leicester University Press, London.

de Hoop, Ryamond

1999 Genesis 49 in its Literary and Historical Context. Brill, Leidn.

Humbert, Jean Baptiste

1993 Keisan, Tell. In New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land
3, edited by Ephraim Stern, pp. 862–867. Israel Exploration Society & Carta , Jerusalem,
Israel.

Ibrahim, M.M.

1975 Third Season of Excavation at Sahab: 1975 (Preliminary Report). ADAJ 20:69-82.

Isserlin, B.S.J.

1998 The Israelites. Thames and Hudson, New York.

Jones, Sian

1997 The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in the Past and Present,
Routledge, London; New York.

Kang, Hoo Goo

2013 Ashdod Ware Found at Khirbet Qeiyafa and its Implications for Understanding the
Tradition of Philistine Decorated Pottery. Mediterranean Review 6(2):1-31.

Kempinski, Aharon

1989 Megiddo, A City State and Royal Centre in North Israel. C.H. Beck, Munchen.

Kimes, T., Haselgrove C., and Hodder I.

1982 A Method for the Identification of the Location of Regional Cultural Boundaries.
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1(2):113-131.

King, Phillip J., and Stager, Lawrence E.

 31

2001 Life in Biblical Israel. Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville.

Kratz, Reinhard G.

2006 Israel in the Book of Isaiah. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 31(1):103-
128.

Lapp, N.L.

1992 Pottery, Pottery Chronology of Palestine. ABD 5:433–444.

Lehmann, Gunar, and Killebrew, Ann E.

2010 Palace 6000 at Megiddo in Context: Iron Age Central Hall Tetra-Partite Residencies
and the Bīt-Ḫilāni Building Tradition in the Levant. Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research 359:13-33.

Lemche, Niels Peter

2012 Using the Concept of Ethnicity in Defining Philistine Identity in the Iron Age.
Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 26(1):12-29.

Levy, S. and Edelstein, G.

1972 Cinq années de fouilles à Tell ‘Amal (Nir David). Revue Biblique 79:325-367.

Levy, Thomas E., Najjar, Mohammad, Higham, Thomas, Arbel, Yoav, Muniz, Adolfo,
Ben-Yosef, Erez, Smith, Neil G., Beherec, Marc, Gidding, Aaron, Jones, Ian W.

2014 Excavations at Khirbat en-Nahas, 2002–2009: An Iron Age Copper Production

Center in the Lowlands of Edom. In New Insights into the Iron Age Archaeology of Edom,
Southern Jordan, edited by Thomas Levy, Mohammad Najjar, and Erez Ben-Yosef, pp.
89-245. The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, University of California, Los Angeles.

Daniel Frese, Craig Smitheram, and Mark Robinson

Liebmann, Matthew

2013 Parsing Hybridity: Archaeologies of Amalgamation in Seventeenth Century New

Mexico. In The Archaeology of Hybrid Material Culture, edited by Jeb J. Card, pp. 25-49.
Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Papers No 39, Carbondale.

Liphshitz, Nili., and Biger, Gideon

1991 Cedar of Lebanon (Cedrus Libani) in Israel during Antiquity, Israel Exploration
Journal 41: 167-174

London, Gloria

1989 A Comparison of Two Contemporaneous Lifestyles of the Late Second Millennium

B.C. . Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 273:37–55.
 32

Mazar, Amihai

1985 The Israelite Settlement in Canaan in the Light of Archaeological Excavations. In

Biblical Archaeology Today—1984: Proceedings of the International Congress on Biblical
Archaeology, Jerusalem, April 1984, edited by J. Amitai, pp. 61–71. Israel Exploration
Society, Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities in cooperation with the American
Schools of Oriental Research, Jerusalem.

1992 The Iron Age I. In The Archaeology of Ancient Israel, edited by Amnon Ben-Tor.
Translated by R. Greenberg, pp. 258–301.Yale University Press, New Haven.

2009 The Iron Age Dwellings at Tell Qasile. In Exploring the Longue Duree: Essays in
Honor of Prof. Lawrence E. Stager, edited by David Schloen, pp. 319-336. Eisenbrauns,
Winona Lake, Indiana.

2015 Religious Practices and Cult Objects during the Iron Age IIA at Tel Rehov and their
Implications regarding Religion in Northern Israel. Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 4:25-
55.

Mazar, Eilat

1985 Edomite Pottery at the End of the Iron Age. Israel Exploration Journal 35(4):253–
269.

McCarter, Peter Kyle

1996 Ancient Inscriptions. Biblical Archaeology Society, Washington D.C.

McGuire, Randall H.

1982 The Study of Ethnicity in Historical Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological

Archaeology 1(2):159–178.

Meyers, Carol

1988 Discovering Eve: Ancient Israelite Women in Context. Oxford University Press, New
York.

Millard, A.R.

1974 The Meaning of the Name Judah. ZAW 86:216-218.

Munger, S.,

2013 Early Iron Age Kinneret – Early Aramaean or Just Late Canaanite? Remarks on the
Material Culture of a Border Site in Northern Palestine at the Turn of an Era. In Arameans,
Chaldeans, and Arabs in Babylonia and Palestine in the First Millennium B.C., edited by
Angelika Berlejung, and Michael P. Streck, pp. 149-182. Harrassowitz Verlag,
Wiesbaden.
 33

Na’aman, Nadav

2002 The Past that Shapes the Present: The Creation of Biblical Historiography in the
Late First Temple Period and After the Downfall. Yeriot, Jerusalem (Hebrew).

2010 The Israelite-Judahite Struggle for the Patrimony of Ancient Israel. Biblica 91:1-23.

Netzer, Ehud

1992 Domestic Architecture in the Iron Age. In The Architecture of Ancient-Israel From
Prehistoric to the Persian Periods, edited by Aharon Kempinski and Ronny Reich, pp.
193–201. Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem, Israel.

Oded, Bustenay

1984 The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah. In Israel and Judah in Biblical Times, edited by
Israel Eph'al, pp. 101-201. (The History of the Land of Israel, volume 2), Jerusalem,
(Hebrew).

Perdue, Leo G.

1997 The Israelite and Early Jewish Family: Summary and Conclusions. In Families in
Ancient Israel, edited by Leo G. Perdue, pp. 163-222. Westiminster John Knox Press,
Louisville.

Petter, Thomas D.

2014 The Land Between the Two Rivers: Early Israelite Identities in Central Transjordan.
Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake.

Portugali, Y.

1987 Construction Methods, Architectural Features and Environment. In Tel Qiri, (Qedem,
24), edited by Amnon Ben-Tor, and Y. Portugali, pp. 132-138. Hebrew University,
Institute of Archaeology, Jerusalem.

Pritchard, James, B.

1985 Tell es-Sa’idiye: Excavations on the Tell, 1964-1969. University Museum, University
of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Rendsburg, Gary A.

2003 A Comprehensive Guide to Israelian Hebrew: Grammar and Lexicon. Orient

XXXVIII: 5-35.

2007 No Stelae, No Queens: Two Issues Concerning the Kings of Israel and Judah. In The
Archaeology of Difference: Gender, Ethnicity, Class and the 'Other' in Antiquity, edited by
Douglas R. Edwards, and C. Thomas McCollough, pp. 95 – 107. American Schools of
Oriental Research, Boston.
 34

Reviv, H.

1979 The Structure of Society. In The World History of the Jewish People 4.2, edited by
A. Malamat, pp. 125-146. Jerusalem.

Rollston, Christopher A.

2006 Scribal Education in Ancient Israel: The Old Hebrew Epigraphic Evidence. Bulletin
of the American Schools of Oriental Research 344:47-74.

Routledge, Bruce

2000 Seeing Through Walls: Interpreting Iron Age I Architecture at Khirbat al-Mudayna
al-ʿAliya. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 319:37-70.

Sanders, Seth L.

2009 The Invention of Hebrew. University of Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago.

Sapir-Hen Lidar, Bar-Oz Guy, Gadot Yuval and Finkelstein Israel

2013 Pig Husbandry in Iron Age Israel and Judah: New Insights Regarding the Origin of
the “Taboo”. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 129(1):1-20.

Schreiber, Nicola

2003 The Cypro-Phoenician Pottery of the Iron Age. Brill, Leiden, Holland.

Shiloh, Yigal

1970 The Four Room House: Its Situation and Function in the Israelite City. Israel
Exploration Journal 20:180-190.

1973 The Four-Room House - The Israelite Type-House? EI 11:85-277.

Singer-Avitz, Lily

1999 Beersheba: A Gateway Community in Southern Arabian Long-Distance Trade in the

Eighth Century BCE. Tel Aviv 26: 3-74.

Smith, Anthony D.

1986 The Ethnic Origins of Nation. B. Blackwell, Oxford, U.K.

Swinner, Ingrid, M.

2009 The Iron Age I Settlement and Its Residential Houses at al-Lahun in Moab, Jordan.
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 354:29-53.

Williamson, Hugh Godfrey Maturin

 35

2001 Isaiah and the Holy One of Israel. In Biblical Hebrews, Biblical Texts. Essays in
Memory of Michael P. Weitzman, edited by Ada Rapoport-Albert, and Gillian Greenberg,
pp. 22-38. (JSOTSup 333; Sheffield), Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield.

2011 Judah as Israel in Eight-Century Prophecy. In A God of Faithfulness: Essays in

Honour of J. Gordon McConville on His 60th Birthday, edited by Jamie A. Grant, Alison
Lo, and Gordon J. Wenham, pp. 81-95. T & T Clark, New York and London.

Wimmer, Andreas

2013 Ethnic Boundary Making: Institutions, Power, Networks. Oxford University Press,
New York.

Yannai, Eli

2013 A Burial Cave from Iron Age II and the Early Roman Period North of Tel Hadid.
Atiqot 70:1-20 (Hebrew).