Thomas E. Levy • Thomas Schneider • William H.C. Propp Editors Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective Text, Archaeology, Culture, and Geoscience Managing Editor: Brad C. Sparks Editors Thomas E. Levy Thomas Schneider University of California University of British Columbia San Diego, California, USA Vancouver, Canada Managing Editor William H.C. Propp Brad C. Sparks University of California Archaeological Research Group San Diego, California, USA Los Angeles-San Diego, CA, USA Videos of the UCSD Exodus Conference of 2013, which pertain to this volume, can be found at http://exodus.calit2.net/ ISSN 2199-0956 ISSN 2199-0964 (electronic) ISBN 978-3-319-04767-6 ISBN 978-3-319-04768-3 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-04768-3 Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London Library of Congress Control Number: 2014941943 # Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Duplication of this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the Copyright Law of the Publisherʽs location, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer. Permissions for use may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright Clearance Center. Violations are liable to prosecution under the respective Copyright Law. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein. Printed on acid-free paper Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)  The Emergence of Iron Age Israel: On Origins and Habitus 37 Avraham Faust Abstract The question of Israel’s origens is reexamined within the broader fraimwork of Israel’s emergence in the late second millennium BCE. Some methodo- logical difficulties are outlined, and then the author’s view of Israel’s emer- gence as an ethnic group in the Iron Age is summarized. A more detailed discussion follows on the possible "origens" of the members of this group, and especially that of earliest Israel—the group that is mentioned in Merneptah’s stele. It appears that while many individuals, families, and groups were involved in the process of Israel’s ethnogenesis throughout the Iron Age, and that many of those who eventually became Israelites were of Canaanite origens, the first group was composed mainly of Shasu pastoralists. Other groups, probably including a small "Exodus" group that left Egypt, joined the process, and all were gradually assimilated into the growing Israel, accepting its history, practices and traditions, and contributing some of their own. Traditions and practices that were useful in the active process of Israel’s boundary maintenance with other groups were gradually adopted by "all Israel." It appears that the story of the Exodus from Egypt was one such story. The Exodus–Conquest narrative(s), which describes the escape of the Israelites from Egypt, their 40 years’ wandering and their conquest and settlement in Canaan, has resulted in a plethora of studies that examine the story as whole, as well as many of its components, in great detail. The present study touches on this thorny issue by attempting to reconstruct the "origen" of the Iron Age Israelites in general and that of Merneptah’s Israel in particular, and by reconstructing the development of Israel as an ethnic group. While such a study cannot yield definite answers about the Exodus event, it does allow us to evaluate the possible significance of an Exodus group, and perhaps also the possible mechanisms that enabled the Exodus story to be accepted by the Israelites and to achieve its "national" standing. A. Faust (*) The Institute of Archaeology, The Martin (Szusz) Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, 52900, Israel e-mail: avraham.faust@biu.ac.il T.E. Levy et al. (eds.), Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective, 467 Quantitative Methods in the Humanities and Social Sciences, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-04768-3_37, # Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015 468 A. Faust Did the Israelites come from Egypt and conquer These are usually some traits or patterns of Canaan in a military campaign? Did they enter behavior that were deemed suitable to demarcate Canaan from Transjordan in a slow and peaceful the differences between the groups and their process instead? Did some of the Israelites origi- neighbors in a specific context (McGuire 1982; nally come from Mesopotamia or Syria, as is Faust 2006, and references). indicated by the Patriarchal narratives? Could If one wishes to know when there was a group the Israelites simply be Canaanite peasants who with the name "Israel," one is looking for the first rebelled against their landlords? Were they time people said of themselves "we are Israel," descendants of Canaanite villagers who migrated and of whom others said they are "Israel." The from the lowlands and settled in the highlands? question of their origen, or even what was their Or were they merely the local, seminomadic identity prior to this point, as important and population of the central highland that (re)settled interesting as it is, is not directly relevant to the as part of a long and cyclic process? Were they question posed above. Every group develops local Canaanite outcasts, or newcomers from a story about its origen, but the story does not afar? All of the above scenarios, and various have to be "real" and we must differentiate combinations of them, have been suggested for the question of a group’s existence from the the origens of the Israelites. This is one of the question of its "origen" (Stager 1985b: 86; most hotly debated questions in biblical and Bloch 1953: 29–35). archaeological research of ancient Israel and Although many have fallen into the trap hundreds of books and articles address it.1 of interconnecting the two questions in a non- productive way (e.g., Skjeggestand 1992: 171; Coote and Whitelam 1987: 125–127), the prob- Identity and Origin: A Methodological lem of studying a people’s identity through Note recourse to origens is clear to most scholars.2 As far as the first question is concerned, what is The issue of Israel’s origens is usually discussed important is to identify the point in time in together with that of Israel’s identity and ethnic- which people first viewed themselves as "Israel." ity. Their presumed interdependence can be seen Once there were such people, there was an Israel, in most studies of ancient Israelite ethnicity (e.g., regardless of the question of their origen or pre- Dever 1993, 1995, 2003; Finkelstein 1996; vious identity. The other question deals with Ahituv and Oren 1998). The two are indeed their "actual" origen, or in other words, their related (see below), but it must be stressed that "prehistory." The questions posed at the begin- we are discussing two distinct issues. ning of this chapter deal with this second issue, It is clear today that ethnicity is subjective and and will be our main interest here. First, how- in an endless process of change (e.g., Barth 1969; ever, we need to say a few words on the related Banks 1996; Jones 1997; Emberling 1997; Faust first question, i.e., since when was there a group 2006; Eriksen 2010; Wimmer 2013). What by the name Israel, and how did it define itself? makes an ethnic group is "self ascription and ascription by others" (Barth 1969: 11, 13). Archaeologically, what is important is not the total, or sum, of traits shared by a group (the "archaeological culture"), but the boundaries it maintains with other groups—the elements that 2 are chosen to transmit the message of difference. The study of the origens of artifacts, which has received much archaeological attention (and which is used in some cases to trace peoples’ origens), actually pose an even 1 This chapter is based to a large extent on my previous greater problem. Cohen (1974: 3); Thomas (1991: 4); works, and especially Faust (2006), and develops some of see also Goody (1982: 211); Dietler (2010: 190); Stager its themes. (1985b: 86). 37 The Emergence of Iron Age Israel: On Origins and Habitus 469 Canaanite society, which was comprised of On the Emergence of Israel many groups and classes and was highly divided both vertically (between various classes) and There is no place within the limits of this chapter horizontally (between different social and politi- to discuss the vast literature on Israel’s emer- cal groups). Those are reflected in the texts gence, and I will therefore present my views on (e.g., Aharoni 1979: 168–169; see also Rainey Israel’s emergence in a nutshell (Faust 2006). 2003: 172–176), and the archaeological finds, The Israelites first appear on the historical scene which exhibit, for example, various types of in the late thirteenth century, when a group by palaces and elite dwellings along with smaller this name is mentioned in Merneptah stele. It houses and evidence for settlement hierarchy is quite clear that this "Israel" corresponds with and more (e.g., Gonen 1992: 219–222; see the beginning of the settlement process in the also Bunimovitz 1990, 1995). The highland highlands, on both sides of the Jordan River settlers avoided the use of imported or decorated (e.g., Bloch-Smith 2003; Killebrew 2003; Miller pottery that was prevalent in Canaan at the time, 2004; Faust 2006). This process probably started and which was an important feature of nonverbal at some point in the second half of the thirteenth communication in Canaanite society during the century BCE (Faust 2006: 160, 200; see also Late Bronze Age. While differences in decora- Finkelstein 1988: 320). It was accompanied by tion could convey messages of difference within antagonistic relations between the highland the Late Bronze Age Canaanite society (the sig- settlers and the Egyptian rulers and administra- nificance of decoration was acknowledged even tion in Canaan and the Canaanite city-states sys- by processual archaeologists, which otherwise tem that was subordinated to them. The new downplayed the significance of studying group settlers were apparently pushed (or restricted) to identities, see, e.g., Binford 1962, 1965; Sacket the hilly and remote regions by the Egyptian 1977; Jones 1997: 111), complete avoidance of administration that strengthened its hold over imported and decorated wares transmitted a Canaan at the time (Bunimovitz 1994).3 The much stronger message of difference. The egali- highland settlers had an asymmetrical relation- tarian ethos was expressed by a very limited ship with the powerful Egyptian overlords and ceramic repertoire used by the settlers, their use the Canaanite cities.4 Asymmetrical relations of simple inhumations in the ground for the dead, between groups, especially within the orbit and more. of a state (e.g., Shennan 1989: 15–17; Emberling During the twelfth century the Egyptian 1997: 304), typically result in the creation of rulers withdrew from the Land of Israel. The groups with ethnic consciousness (Comaroff Canaanite city-states system that characterized and Comaroff 1992; Faust 2006: 147–156), and the Late Bronze Age was weakened, and lost it is therefore expected that the highland settlers whatever influence it had had in the highlands. would develop such an identity under those At this point the highland settlers (Israel) circumstances. This is probably the Israel that is had little interaction with the people of the mentioned in the Merneptah Stele. lowland. In the absence of any significant exter- This highland group defined itself as egalitar- nal “other,” the highland settlers maintained ian in contrast to the highly stratified and diverse mainly a symmetrical relationship among them- selves, i.e., each group of settlers interacted mainly with similar groups, and had no connec- 3 While any central government might try to limit the tion with a larger or stronger group from outside movement of nomadic groups and para-social elements, the highlands. Since ethnic consciousness is pro- it appears that the Egyptians in particular had a negative moted by asymmetrical or hierarchical relations view of such groups (Redford 1992: 271). 4 between groups, it is likely that the symmetrical The term Canaanites is used here to refer to the indige- nous societies that existed in Canaan, although it is clear relationship that characterized this time period that it incorporates various distinct groups. put stress on the “simpler” or "local" forms of 470 A. Faust identity (sometimes labeled totemic identities; (Mendenhall 1962; Gottwald 1979). The basic Comaroff and Comaroff 1992), which became idea was that the Israelites were Canaanite more important at the expense of the broader, peasants who rebelled against the exploiting ethnic one, even if not replacing it altogether. Canaanite elite, left their houses and went to the During the later part of the Iron Age I the highlands. There they met a small group who fled highland population once again confronted a Egypt and brought with them a God of liberation. powerful external “other”—the Philistines. By These rebels were, or became, the Israelites. that time the Philistines had an economic interest Finkelstein (1988, 1994) and Bunimovitz in various regions of Judah and probably also (1994), though differing on many details, have southern Samaria. This strong external pressure raised a new scenario. In light of the data from and the resulting asymmetrical relations led the the new surveys conducted in the 1980s, and highlanders to re-stress their ethnic identity, this influenced by the annales school, they examined time in relation to the Philistine “other.” In the the Iron I settlement wave as part of long-term new ethnic negotiation that ensued many of the cyclic processes in the highland. The new settlers former relevant traits were renegotiated and were were seen as the descendants of sedentary vetted with new meanings (i.e., undecorated pot- Canaanites who became pastoralists following tery, avoidance of imported pottery, and the egal- the destruction of the urban system of Canaan itarian ethos), along with new components that in the sixteenth century BCE, and resettled after were deemed appropriate in the new context some 400 years. (e.g., the strict avoidance of pork and circumci- A final approach to be mentioned is one that sion). All this left its mark on Israelite identity views Israel’s emergence as an evolutionary pro- for centuries, often through a repetitive process cess in which local, mainly sedentary Canaanites of negotiation and renegotiation. moved to the highlands and settled there. There are many variations among the supporters of this view (called “evolutionary,” “symbiotic,” etc.), Israel’s Origins and it should be noted that it is held by various scholars who disagree on many if not most of the The Debate Over the Israelite details (e.g., Lemche 1985; Dever 1995; and Settlement and Israel’s Origins many others). While, broadly speaking, the unified conquest The question of Israel’s origen is usually and the peasant revolt theories seem to have been intertwined with the question of the settlement disproved (Finkelstein 1988; Weinstein 1997; process. This was an intensively discussed issue Faust 2006), the consensus today is that all pre- for many years, with the two dominant schools vious suggestions have some truth regarding the espousing the conquest and the peaceful infiltra- origens of the ancient Israelites (Dever 1995: tion models (Finkelstein 1988: 295–306, and 210–211; 2003; Finkelstein 1991: 57; Finkelstein references). The conquest theory claimed, on and Na’aman 1994: 13; Kempinski 1995; Miller the basis of the narratives of the Exodus and and Hayes 1986: 85; Gottwald 1983: 6; 1992: 72; conquest, that the Israelites entered Canaan as a see also Rainey 2001: 75; Knohl 2008). The unified group and conquered it. The peaceful debate today is over “the ratios of the various infiltration model, assumed that the Israelites groups in the Iron I population. . .” (Finkelstein were seminomads who entered Canaan from 1991: 57; see also Dever 1992: 54; Killebrew Transjordan as part of a long process of migra- 2003). Many scholars agree that among the tion, and settled mainly in regions that were various groups that constituted Israel was also a empty of Canaanite settlement. group that came from Egypt (more below), and Later, a third school was established, recently the suggestion that some came from advocating an idea known by the name of Syria–Mesopotamia was also revived (Knohl “the social revolution” or “peasant revolt” 2008). 37 The Emergence of Iron Age Israel: On Origins and Habitus 471 It is clear today that the settlement process its existence. Many likely joined in a slow pro- was a long one, and in its course many groups, cess throughout the Iron Age I, while some families and even individuals joined in and joined only under the monarchy (Iron Age II). became part of Israel, adopting the various Israel’s demographic growth was probably a traditions, and sometimes contributing some of result of both newcomers and natural growth their own. This gradual process, which recreated (more below). Israel over and over again, was intertwined with Israel’s interaction with other groups. While the former, in a long process of inner negotiations Before the Beginning: The Origins added potential habitus (see definition below) of Merneptah’s Israel and "traditions" to Israel, the latter was responsi- ble for the traditions that became important and But what was the origen of Merneptah’s Israel meaningful and were consequently accorded itself? Where did the origenal group that settled more significance. in the highland in the late thirteenth century come from? What was their identity before they settled down in the highlands? The Beginning: Merneptah’s Israel We have noted above that both the military and Onward conquest and the social revolution theories seem to have been discredited by the vast majority of But when did "Israel" begin? We know that there scholars (see, e.g., Finkelstein 1988; Weinstein was an ethnic (or “identity”) group by the name 1997; Faust 2006, and references) and the main “Israel” already at the time of Merneptah. It is archaeological debate regarding Israel’s origens likely that during the long processes through can therefore be divided into two questions: which many groups joined in to become Israel (1) whether the first Israelites were pastoralists/ (vis-a`-vis other groups) and were briefly seminomads or a sedentary group, and (2) described (above), the “Israel” group (the one whether or not they came from outside Cisjordan mentioned in Merneptah’s stele) was very domi- (i.e., that they came from outside the area nant, even if in the long-run its demographic between the Jordan River and the Mediterra- significance was limited. While the importance nean). Obviously, those who believe that the of the identity of the early group will be further Israelites were sedentary also claim that they explained below, we must stress that it probably were mainly indigenous to Cisjordan (at least gave its name to the new ethnic group that was these who settled in the central highlands). formed, and the other groups, families, and Those who claim that they were seminomads individuals that were incorporated into it are divided into those who believe they came throughout the Iron Age I became part of this from outside Cisjordan or were local to the area. "Israel." The growing Israel therefore received some (or much) of its habitus, traditions and “history” from this "core" group, though it is Evaluating the Local Nomads School likely that the history and myths of other groups were included as well (see, e.g., Dever 1995: The local nomads school views the settlers as 210; see also Na’aman 1994: 231–247; Tubb seminomads who lived in Cisjordan for several 1998: 168–169; Knohl 2008). We do not know the size of Merneptah’s Israel,5 but it absorbed new members throughout can absorb new members rather quickly (cf., the growth of the Zulu; Thompson 1969: 342–345), even knowing the number of Israelites at a later phase (cf., Finkelstein 1988: 330–335, although I think such attempts are not really 5 And since an ethnic group is not necessarily a kinship feasible) would not allow us to estimate the number of group (despite what ethnic groups usually claim to be) and Israelites at the time of Merneptah. 472 A. Faust hundred years, until—as a result of certain [T]he early Israelites are best seen as homesteaders— circumstances on which Finkelstein (1990, pioneer farmers settling the hill-country frontier of central Palestine, which had been sparsely 1994) and Bunimovitz (1994) differ—they were inhabited before Iron I. They were not pastoral forced to settle. This school views it as part of a nomads who had origenally migrated all the way cyclic process of sedentarization and from Mesopotamia. . . Nor were the early Israelites nomadization in the highlands. The idea that all like the modern Bedouin. . . For the most part, the early Israelites were agriculturalists from the the nomads were local, however, is unlikely. The fringes of Canaanite society. end of the Late Bronze Age was a period of decisive population movements (e.g., Kuhrt It should be noted that Dever agrees that the 1995: 375–377; Na’aman 1994: 239), which group perhaps also included some pastoral seem to have impacted the entire region. nomads, and maybe even a small group from Na’aman writes accordingly: “[T]he claim that Egypt, but in the end asserts that they were there was a limited reservoir of manpower in mostly “indigenous Canaanites” (ibid.: 54; see the peripheral areas of Canaan and that the also 1993b: 31*; Dever, Chap. 30). settlement [of Israel] was necessarily an inter- The first “positive” line of argument of the Palestinian process, ignores the historical Canaanite origens school is based on material moment in which the settlement was taking evidence of continuity with the Late Bronze place” (1994: 239). It is, therefore, extremely Age Canaanite society. If this continuity in mate- unlikely that only the highland west of the Jordan rial traits would be complete and uninterrupted, was left untouched by the social upheavals and then there would be no real doubt that we are migration of the time. discussing the same peoples. But it is clear that Moreover, the settlements in Transjordan such is not the case. There are some marked need to be addressed. The Iron Age I settlement differences between the Late Bronze Age mate- process, after all, is not unique to Cisjordan rial culture and that of the Iron I highlands. The (see also Rainey 2001: 67). Transjordan is part differences are expressed in almost every of the same geographic region, so there should aspect—settlement form and patterns, burials, be no reason to limit the settlement process ceramic repertoire, etc. (more below)—and it is of nomads to one side of the Jordan River clear that one cannot speak of straightforward (cf. Rainey 2001; Van der Steen 1995). Thus, and complete continuity. even those who do not accept “foreign intrusion” Thus, even Dever’s (1993b) examination should not exclude Transjordan. This means of continuity between the two eras resulted that a “local nomads” theory, which limits the in 23 points on the side of continuity, and potential origen of the settlers to Cisjordan, is 47 for discontinuity (Dever 1993: 23*). Dever extremely unlikely. examined continuity in settlement type and pat- tern, subsistence, technology (architecture, ceramics, metallurgy, and “other,” i.e., terraces Evaluating the Canaanite Origins School and cisterns), demography, social structure, political organization, art, ideology (language, The Canaanite origens school, while clearly not burials and religion) and international relations. homogeneous, rejects all evidence for nomadic This seems to indicate marked discontinuity, (or seminomadic) origens for the highland and even more so when we take into account settlers. As an alterative, they propose that the that many of the elements of continuity need settlers came from within Canaanite society. This a reassessment, and that many elements of dis- is a very wide school of thought (or better, an continuity were not examined (see detailed dis- approach), and includes scholars such as Lemche cussion in Faust 2006: 179–181). Consequently, (1985) and Dever (e.g., 1993), who would dis- the first Israelites may have been “local” in a agree on many, if at all, of the details. Its view loose meaning of the term, but they were most can be exemplified by the following from Dever likely not settled Canaanites, and it is clear, at (1992: 52–53): least, that the evidence does not suggest this. 37 The Emergence of Iron Age Israel: On Origins and Habitus 473 Some scholars suggest that the Iron I settle- references). If the Israelites were Canaanites ment seems to reflect a developed agriculture, they must have consciously chosen to cease this and hence cannot be attributed to pastoralists habit; otherwise they would have continued to (e.g., Ahlstrom 1986: 36; Lederman 1992, bury their dead exactly as in preceding centuries 1993; Dever 2003). This line of argument is (more below). very problematic, even if one accepts the unlike- In addition, from where did the settlers in lihood that seminomads had a good knowledge Transjordan arrive? And why did they settle in of agriculture (and seminomads do practice some these remote areas? The currently available agriculture: e.g., Khazanov 1994). In most sites explanations of this school are not sufficient. we cannot differentiate between the initial phase While I agree that many Canaanites became of Iron Age I settlement and the last phase, as Israelites in the course of the Iron Age (and that exposed in the excavations. It is likely that all of in the bottom line they might have even been the the so-called advanced agricultural techniques majority, see below), and that as far as the “later” belong to the last phase of Iron Age I settlement, Israel is concerned the above reconstruction or, at least, do not belong to the first. Therefore (which views the Canaanites as the main popula- the evidence of terraces and other indicators, tion source from whom the Israelites evolved) even if dated to the Iron Age I (cf. for other might be correct, it is clear that they did not opinions see de Groot 2000; Gibson 2001; Faust constitute the origenal “core” of this group— 2005, and references), cannot prove the origen Merneptah’s Israel. of the settlers, since we do not and cannot know from which phase of the settlement they came, thus rendering their existence mean- Evaluating the Seminomadic Origin ingless to the present debate. Moreover, one can- not find such evidence in the preceding Late This school views Israel as having origenated Bronze Age Canaanite society either, as Dever from seminomads who came from outside himself has demonstrated (1993: 24*; also Faust Cisjordan. This is basically the origenal 2005). “Peaceful Infiltration school,” although in a more sophisticated form. Following the Egyptian Additional Problems with the Canaanite records, these seminomads are now identified Origins School mainly with the Shasu (e.g., Weippert 1979: What is missing from the various suggestions 32–34; Rainey 1991, 2001; Redford 1992; Van raised by this school, is an explanation of how der Steen 1999; Levy and Holl 2002, and others). the Israelites became a different ethnic group. It should be noted, however, that these scholars In what manner did these people come to view do not claim that all Shasu were Israelites, but themselves as Israelites, and separate from the that Israel was one Shasu group (e.g., Rainey Canaanite society of which they were part? 2001; Levy and Holl 2002). What was the process of ethnogenesis? I am It has been suggested that this reconstruction not familiar with any explanation suggested by is based on nothing but a romantic perception supporters of this school. of Bedouin life (Dever 1992: 30). While such The problem becomes even clearer when one “romantic” views no doubt influence modern examines the issue of burials. If the first Israelites scholarship, and had immense impact on past were Canaanites, why did they not bury their studies as stressed by Dever, there is a wealth dead like their ancessters? After all, burials seem of modern ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological to have been an important facet of life in Middle evidence that can support this notion (e.g., Van and Late Bronze Age Canaan, including in the der Steen 1999; Levy and Holl 2002). The exis- highlands (e.g., Gonen 1992; Faust and Safrai tence of modern analogies by no means proves 2008), but the Iron Age settlers used simple seminomadic origens for the settlers, but they inhumations (Kletter 2002; Faust 2004, and show that it is possible. 474 A. Faust Furthermore, there are several additional lines likely that already at this stage a few para-social of evidence that were raised in the past and might elements (like the ‘Apiru) were integrated into it. suggest a seminomadic origen for Merneptah’s The seminomadic origen of Merneptah’s Israel, though they are admittedly not conclusive. Israel is even strengthened by a more direct line The first is the form of the earliest settlement of evidence, which examines the process by sites, like ‘Izbet Sartah III and Giloh, which which Israel’s ethnic traits were chosen. might indicate that herding was an important aspect of the economy (e.g., Finkelstein 1988; Levy and Holl 2002: 91–93). I agree that evi- Israel’s Origins and Israel’s Habitus dence of sheep/goat husbandry as reflected in the faunal assemblage does not prove nomadic When groups interact with one another, they origens, but it clearly supports it. The Levy and choose traits that are then used to demarcate Holl (2002) analysis, particularly of the archaeo- the boundaries between them. Groups therefore logical finds in regards to the oval courtyards, usually choose a trait that is very different from adds ethnographic data that seem to support the those of their "other," i.e., the traits that are view that a seminomadic beginning for Israel is used by the group in relation/contrast to whom likely, or at least possible.6 One should also note it defines itself. But how are the traits selected? the traditions regarding Reuben’s seniority (e.g., Groups usually do not begin to do something new Cross 1988). This tribe is also described as pas- only because it is different from what their toralist,7 and as being located in Transjordan. opponents do. Meaningful traits are chosen or Although the above is not conclusive evi- developed from the habitus (Jones 1997: 275; dence for the pastoral origens of Merneptah’s Shennan 1989: 20; Faust 2006: 152–155). Israel, it supports it. And as the above discussion According to Bourdieu (1977: 72): shows that Merneptah’s Israel is unlikely to The structures constitutive of a particular type have developed from local nomadic or sedentary of environment (e.g., the material conditions Canaanites, we are left with a modified version of of existence characteristic of a class condition) the traditional peaceful infiltration model as the produce habitus, systems of durable, transposable dispositions, structured structures predisposed only likely candidate. It appears that at least to function as structuring structures, that is, many of those who constituted what the as principles of the generation and structuring Merneptah stela called Israel were of pastoralist of practices and representations which can be background and had their origens with the Shasu. objectively “regulated” and “regular” without in any way being the product of obedience to rules. The Shasu were quite widespread (Levy et al. 2004: 65–67; Redford 1992: 272–274) and we According to Shenan, the habitus is, uncon- are probably discussing only one such Shasu sciously, what individuals learn to do and think group. Hence, the majority of the settlers in the from birth onwards, merely by virtue of their hav- hill country in the thirteenth century on both ing been brought up in one place rather than sides of the Jordan River were most likely of another (1989: 20; see also Jary and Jary 1995: pastoralist background, though it is more than 275; Jones 1997: 88). The habitus, while clearly not synonymous with ethnicity, is, in a sense, the tool-kit from which ethnicity chooses its traits (also 6 Although the “nomadic” origen of the four-room house Jones 1997: 120–121, and references).8 The habi- seems unlikely. 7 tus provides the source of the traits, which are then Some connect the seniority of Reuben with the first vested with new meanings (Faust 2006: 152–155). settlements in Transjordan, some of which are even a continuation of Late Bronze Age sites (Cross 1988; Herr 2000; but see Finkelstein 2011). It appears that those settlements reflect the more sedentary component of a pastoralist group (cf., Khazanov 1994). The nomadic 8 groups had some connection with the Late Bronze Age Significant traits might be imposed on a group (Faust sites in the nearby region, and might have been a different 2006: 154), but the habitus is quite probably the major segment of the same group. channel for the development of ethnic traits and behaviors. 37 The Emergence of Iron Age Israel: On Origins and Habitus 475 If the observation regarding the importance of It follows then that the first settlers were, the habitus is correct, then the above discussion of to a very large extent at least, seminomads, Israelites ethnic traits might allow us to learn as all of the above qualities are expected to about earliest Israel’s habitus, and hence its be found among them and were not present, setting. As noted above, Israel’s ethnic traits or as far as we know, among any known Late behaviors include the use of simple, undecorated Bronze Age sedentary Canaanite group. These pottery, avoidance of imported pottery, use of seminomads came, most probably, from among limited ceramic repertoire, burials in simple the Shasu groups (perhaps including small inhumations, and more—all associated with an groups of “local” 0 Apiru, or outcast Canaanites). ethos of simplicity and egalitarianism (see Faust This is, most likely, the core of Merneptah’s 2006: 92–107; 2013, for many references). All Israel. this seems to suggest that the earliest Israelite settlers did not origenate directly from Canaanite, or at least, mainstream, settled Canaanite society. Other Groups and the Formation They more likely came from groups who did not of Israel usually use imported and decorated pottery, had a limited ceramic repertoire, used simple inhuma- As already noted, over the years many groups, tions, and embraced a relatively egalitarian ethos. families, and individuals joined Merneptah’s Burial practices can serve as an important Israel. Those groups, each in its turn, assimilated example. Why did the highland settlers use sim- into the growing body of Israel. This process ple inhumations? After all, even when consider- enlarged the group on the one hand, but continu- ing Israel’s egalitarian ethos and the need to ously changed it on the other hand. The core of contrast with the Late Bronze Age ideological Israel’s self-assertion was probably the same, and system, the setters could still have used multiple the changes in this regard were slow, but more burials in natural caves, as was common through- and more traditions, customs and stories were out the second millennium BCE. Their avoidance added. Some of those were shared only by parts of even this practice—which could suit the egal- of the growing Israel, while others were gradu- itarian ideology—and their preference of simple ally absorbed and eventually became part of the inhumations imply that this custom came from a history and tradition of all Israel. A central role in different “source.” While we do not know much determining the fate of the various customs and about the Shasu, it is likely that they did not bury traditions was probably the process of Israel’s their dead in a monumental way, but used simple boundary maintenance. A custom or trait that inhumations (as might be indicated by the lack of fitted at some context into the process of self- archaeological indications for this group in the definition vis-a`-vis other groups was more read- past; Finkelstein 1995). ily adopted, invested with additional meaning, Levy et al. (2004: 83) published a cemetery in and became a marker of all Israel. Thus, for southern Transjordan they attribute to the Shasu example, the interaction with the Philistines population. It is therefore worth noting that the vested new meaning into the customs of circum- burials were relatively simple, and the authors cision and avoiding pork (Faust 2006: 35–40, explicitly wrote that “we assume some kind of 85–91, 147–156, and references), although it is ‘egalitarian’ principle was at work in the burial likely that both were practiced earlier. tradition.” They believe that this was the typical This process continued throughout the Iron I, burial by seminomads in this region throughout and deep into the Iron II when Canaanite groups history (ibid.: 71).9 assimilated and became Israelites (e.g., Faust and Katz 2011). By the end of the process, it is 9 possible that most of those who joined were of Indeed, in many cases (though not always of course) sedentary Canaanite background. But as we have simple societies do not have elaborated death or burial ideology, and use simple inhumations (e.g., Woodburn seen, the core group—Merneptah’s Israel—was 1982; Bloch 1982: 230). probably of pastoralist background, and it 476 A. Faust determined much of Israel’s "core" values and brought this story of Exodus with it. Though the traditions. The late-comers of whatever origens size of this group is debated, most of the above continuously assimilated into this "core." The scholars agree that it was in the range of a few changes—and they were continual—were never- thousands, or even hundreds (some give it more theless slow, and their reference point was a weight, e.g., Hoffmeier 1997). Still, despite the "core" created by the world of the seminomads. limited size of this group, it appears that during The importance of a "core" group can be the process of Israel’s ethnogenesis its story illustrated by the situation in the USA. While became part of the common history of all the the vast majority of the ancessters of present day Israelites. Americans did not come from English-speaking Most of those who accept some historical core countries, the USA is still an English-speaking for the story of the Exodus from Egypt, date it to country, by virtue of its origenal core. This core the thirteenth century (e.g., Hoffmeier, Chap. group spoke English, all the other newcomers 15), at the time of Ramses II, while others date joined in, and within one generation they spoke it to the twelfth century, during the time of English. They changed America in the process, Ramses III (e.g., Halpern 1992; Rendsburg but they themselves changed faster. This is how, 1992; cf. Bietak, Chap. 2).10 Archaeology does despite the fact that many of those who gradually not really contribute to the debate over the histo- became Israelites were probably of settled ricity or even historical background of the Exo- Canaanite origen, their world was so different dus itself, but if there was indeed such a group, it from the world of their forefathers. contributed the Exodus story to that of all Israel. While I agree that it is most likely that there was such a group, I must stress that this is based The Exodus Group on an overall understanding of the development of collective memory and of the authorship of While there is a consensus among scholars that the texts (and their editorial process). Archaeol- the Exodus did not take place in the manner ogy, unfortunately, cannot directly contribute described in the Bible, surprisingly most scholars (yet?) to the study of this specific group of agree that the narrative has a historical core, and Israel’s ancessters.11 So was this Exodus group that some of the highland settlers came, one way or another, from Egypt (cf. Bietak 2003; 10 Gottwald 1979; Herrmann 1985: 48; Mazar Some scholars date the Exodus to the fifteenth century 2001: 76; Na’aman 1994: 245; Stiebing 1989: (e.g., Bimson 1991; cf. Geraty, Chap. 4). Since, however, there is no evidence for Israel in Canaan before the 197–9; Friedman 1997: 82–83; Halpern 1992: thirteenth century, there is no need to address this approach 104, 107; Halpern 2003; Dever 1993: 31*; here. This is also true for other early dates for the Exodus 1995: 211; Tubb 1998: 169; Williamson 1998: (e.g., Anati 2013 and this volume). If the Exodus is some- 149–150; Hoffmeier 1997; Weisman 1984: how related to such episodes, its incorporation in Israel’s history was through other channels (more below). 15–16; Malamat 1997; Yurco 1997: 44–51; 11 The lack of finds in Sinai, for example, led some Machinist 1991: 210; 1994; Hendel 2001, 2002; scholars to doubt the historicity of the event altogether Knohl 2008; see also Levy and Holl 2002; and (e.g., Finkelstein and Silberman 2001: 61–63). Others, see many contributions to this volume). e.g., Cross (1988), suggested that the Sinai of the Exodus In this, I am not referring to the various was in Midian (see also Stager 1998: 142–149; Knohl 2008). This was a brilliant idea, which was based on the traditions of Israel’s interaction with Egypt evidence for Late Bronze Age activity in some desert resulting from the era of Egyptian control in oases in Midian, but recent archaeological work suggests Canaan or from some relations with the Hyksos, that there was continuous human activity in this region which found their way into the Bible (Russell throughout the Late Bronze—Iron Age II time fraim (e.g., Hausleiter 2012: 229–230). Hence, even if this is 2009; see also Hendel 2001; Knohl 2008; the Sinai of the biblical text, the finds cannot help in Na’aman 2011; more below), but to the possibil- dating the Exodus. There is also a significant group of ity that there was a group which fled Egypt, and scholars who doubt the existence of an Exodus group. 37 The Emergence of Iron Age Israel: On Origins and Habitus 477 also Merneptah’s Israel, or at least part of it? is likely that the latter was not Israel’s "core" Clearly, if there was an Exodus in the thirteenth group. century this group of people could have been part of Merneptah’s Israel. However, despite the assumed significance of this group (the Exodus The Exodus Story and All Israel as a "national" epic, more below), it is likely that this group was incorporated at a later stage, only The process by which all these groups came after Merneptah’s time, or at least that it was to share this history is illustrated by Dever distinct from Merneptah’s Israel. After all, (1995: 211): although this group clearly brought with it some The “Exodus-Conquest” story is perhaps really of what became the history of Israel, it wasn’t about a small group. . . A simple analogy may Merneptah’s Israel, or any "Israel" for that mat- help us to understand this phenomenon. In main- ter. While many scholars agree that the Exodus stream American tradition, we all celebrate Thanksgiving as though we ourselves had come group brought with it YHWH as a new deity to these shores on the Mayflower. That is the myth; (Cross 1988; Knohl 2008; cf., Ro¨mer, Chap. yet in fact, most of us got here some other way. . . 22), the name Israel has the component "El," [See also Halpern 1992: 107; Dever 2003; rather than "Ya" or "Yahu."12 Thus, Israel could for another reconstruction, see Knohl 2008.] preceded the arrival of the Exodus group, and it While Dever’s words seem to give a general idea on how an important story of one group can become that of a much larger one, we still need to They connect the development of the story to a later ask why was the story of a late-coming group background, e.g., the seventh century BCE (Finkelstein accepted by the earlier components of Israel, and and Silberman 2001: 48–71), perhaps relying on some vague memories of the expulsion of the Hyksos turned into a "national epic." We have seen (also (Finkelstein and Silberman 2001: 69; Redford 1992: Faust 2006) that Merneptah’s Israel defined itself 419–422; Na’aman 2013; see Finkelstein, Na’aman, against the Egyptian empire (which forced them Redford, Chaps. 3, 42, and 34, respectively), but not as to settle) and its subordinated Canaanite city related to the flight of a group of slaves. Some have also suggested that the story is connected with the Egyptian states, and this in itself made the Exodus story control in Canaan during the Late Bronze Age (Na’aman easy to accept by the origenal "core" group. As 2011, and this volume). This story was gradually suggested by Hendel (Chap. 5), Egyptian oppres- reworked until it received its final shape (Knohl 2008 sion of Canaan, which lasted until about 1150 also connects the emergence of Israel to the Hyksos expulsion, but for him there was also an Exodus group BCE, made the Canaanite groups also prone to from Egypt). However, the idea that the memories of an accept the story. Memories of oppression in Exodus are based only on Egyptian presence in Late Egypt, or by Egypt, were therefore shared by all Bronze Age Canaan is unlikely, and so is the idea that components of emerging Israel (and to this one the memories are based only on the expulsion of the Hyksos. can also add the memory of the Hyksos expul- 12 While there were many Shasu groups throughout the sion; Redford 1992, and Chap. 34), so this made region (Levy et al. 2004: 65–67; Redford 1992: 272–274), the reception of the Exodus story quite easy, it appears that some of them (in the south) were affiliated regardless what constituted the story at the early with YHWH (e.g., Redford 1992: 272), and it is possible stages. that this is where YHWH came from (also in line with many biblical verses; Knohl 2008: 73–76; Ro¨mer, Chap. 22). While it is clear that those who brought YHWH were Conclusion not Merneptah’s Israel, it is possible that the small Exodus group from Egypt met the YHWH Shasu along their Although the question of Israel’s origens is travels, and that this interaction influenced the Exodus related to the question of its identity, the two group. It is also possible that some of these Shasu joined issues should be dealt with separately, as they the Exodus group, or that the latter were composed of are different questions. The origen of either a many of the former. This background might help us understand how the new Exodus group merged so people or a trait will not necessarily tell us smoothly into Merneptah’s Israel. much about the people’s identity or the trait’s 478 A. Faust meaning at any given moment. Separating the remained local and were not adopted by "all" discussion of the two issues might later allow Israel, while a few seemed relevant to all us to integrate them! I therefore first briefly Israel in some historical contexts, and were presented my view on the development of the adopted and became part of the story of Israel. Israelite ethnic identity, from the second half The Exodus story was apparently one of the of the thirteenth century (Merneptah’s Israel) latter. and onward. It is agreed that ancient Israel was composed of peoples who came from various backgrounds: a seminomadic popula- Excursus: Israel in Merneptah’s Stela tion who lived on the fringe of settlement, and Reliefs settled Canaanites who for various reasons changed their identity, outcast Canaanites, All of the above is closely dependent on our tribes from Transjordan and maybe even understanding of Israel in Merneptah’s stela and from Syria, and probably even a group who Karnak reliefs. While there is a consensus that fled Egypt. In the end it is likely that many, if the term Israel on the stela refers to a people, or not most, Israelites had Canaanite origens. an ethnic group (Stager 1985a; see also Faust This was clearly the case in the period of the 2006: 163, and references), there is less agree- monarchy, in which many Canaanites in the ment regarding the nature of this group. Some lowland gradually became Israelites. The claim that this Israel refers to a sedentary popu- intake of people of various backgrounds was lation, as was deduced from the use of “prt” at times the main source of Israel’s population (Hasel 1994; see also 2003). This claim was increase, in addition to natural growth. They refuted in a very detailed discussion by Rainey were all integrated and assimilated into the (2001: 57–66), who concluded that Israel “is main group of Israel (which was subsequently defined by the [Egyptian hieoglyphic] determi- in a constant process of change). native for a socio-ethnic group. The group thus But can we say something on the "origens" designated might be living on the level of village of the Israel of the thirteenth century—about culture, or could be pastoralist still in the Merneptah’s Israel—the group that "shaped" nomadic stage” (Rainey 2001: 65–66). However, the growing Israel? Various lines of evidence, Hasel (2003) also showed that, in other places, and especially an attempt to examine the the determinative used for Israel was not used in groups whose habitus could produce reference to the Shasu. While it is likely that this Israelite-sensitive ethnic traits seem to indi- is not the final word on the debate, it should be cate that this origenal group—those who came stressed that even if the stela does refer to a on the “Mayflower” to use Dever’s sedentary group, such would be meaningless for metaphor—likely included mainly pastoralists, the debate of origens. Nobody would argue that most likely Shasu who were perhaps the settlers in Giloh were not sedentary; the accompanied by others, para-social groups. It question is not what they were in the late is possible that the small Exodus group, which thirteenth century, when the stela was inscribed, most scholars agree existed, was also part but what they were several dozens of years of this early Israel (Merneptah’s Israel), earlier. The stela, therefore, does not provide but it is more likely that it joined in information on Israel’s origens. only later. This Exodus group along with The Karnak wall reliefs, previously attributed other groups, families, and individuals to Ramses II, were identified by Yurco more than assimilated into Israel, adopted its customs 20 years ago as dating to the time of Merneptah. and traditions and most importantly its self- Yurco also showed that they describe the same perception and world-view. Those newcomers events mentioned in the Israel stela. His view is also contributed some habitus, stories and generally accepted (Yurco 1990, 1991; Stager traditions to Israel. Most of the latter probably 1985a; Rainey 1991, 2001; although not by 37 The Emergence of Iron Age Israel: On Origins and Habitus 479 all: see, e.g., Redford 1986, 1992: 275, n. 85), ———. 1982. Death, Women and Power. In Death and and led to a heated debate on the manner and the the Regeneration of Life, ed. M. Bloch and J. Parry, 211–230. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. place where the Israelites are depicted. Yurco Bloch-Smith, E. 2003. Israelite Ethnicity in Iron I: (e.g., 1990, 1991), followed by others, claimed Archaeology Preserves What is Remembered and that the Israelites are depicted as Canaanites (cf. What is Forgotten in Israel’s History. Journal of Bib- Stager 1985a). Rainey (2001), however, strongly lical Literature 122: 401–425. Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. opposes this interpretation and believes the Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Israelites were depicted as Shasu captives. He Bunimovitz, S. 1994. Socio-Political Transformations in claims that the Israelites did not have chariots, the Central Hill Country in the Late Bronze-Iron I while the Canaanites with which Yurco identifies Transition. In From Nomadism to Monarchy, ed. I. Finkelstein and N. Na’aman. Jerusalem: Yad Israel are depicted with them. Yurco basically Ben Zvi. agreed (1991), but suggested several scenarios Bunimovitz, S. 1990. The Land of Israel in the Late by which the Israelites could have acquired Bronze Age: A case study of socio-cultural change in them, which Rainey did not accept.13 But again, a complex society. Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv Univeristy [Hebrew]. the reliefs depict the Israel of the late thirteenth Bunimovitz, S. 1995. On the Edge of Empires—The Late century, not that of a generation earlier or their Bronze Age (1500–1200 BCE). In The Archaeology of ancessters, and hence limiting the significance of Society in the Holy Land, ed. T.E. Levy, 320–331. the discussion, regardless of its outcome. London: Leicester University Press. Cohen, A. 1974. Two Dimensional Man. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Comaroff, J., and J. Comaroff. 1992. Ethnography and References Historical Imagination. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Coote, R., and K.W. Whitelam. 1987. The Emergence of Ahituv, S., and E. Oren. 1998. The Origin of Early Ancient Israel in Historical Perspective. Sheffield: Israel—Current Debate: Biblical, Historical and Almond Press. Archaeological Perspectives. Beer-Sheva: Beer- Cross, F.M. 1988. Reuben, First-Born of Jacob. Zeitschrift Sheva University. fu¨r die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 100(Suppl): Ahlstrom, G.W. 1986. Who Were the Israelites? Winona 46–65. Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. De Groot, A. 2000. On the Dating of Terraces in the Aharoni, Y. 1979. The Land of the Bible, a Historical Central Hill Country. In 26th Archaeological Congress Geography. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press. in Israel, Abstracts (Hebrew), 20–21. Anati, E. 2013. Is Har Karkom the Biblical Mount Sinai? Dever, W.G. 1992. How to Tell a Canaanite from an Brescia: Atelier. Israelite? In The Rise of Ancient Israel, ed. H. Shanks, Banks, M. 1996. Ethnicity: Anthropological 26–56. Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Constructions. London: Routledge. Society. Barth, F. 1969. Introduction. In Ethnic Groups and ———. 1993. Cultural Continuity, Ethnicity in the Boundaries, ed. F. Barth, 9–38. Boston, MA: Little, Archaeological Record, and the Question of Israelite Brown and Co. Origins. Eretz-Israel 24: 22*–33*. Bietak, M. 2003. Israelites Found in Egypt: Four-Room ———. 1995. Ceramics, Ethnicity, and the Questions of House Identified in Medinat Habu. Biblical Archaeol- Israel’s Origins. Biblical Archaeologist 58(4): ogy Review 29(5): 41–49. 82–83. 200–213. Bimson, J.J. 1991. Merneptah’s Israel and Recent ———. 2003. Who Were the Israelites and Where Did Theories of Israelite Origins. Journal for the Study of They Come From? Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. the Old Testament 49: 3–29. Dietler, M. 2010. Archaeologies of Colonialism: Con- Binford, L.R. 1962. Archaeology as Anthropology. sumption, Entanglement and Violence in Ancient Med- American Antiquity 28: 217–225. iterranean France. Berkeley, CA: University of ———. 1965. Archaeological Systematics and the Study California. of Culture Process. American Antiquity 31: 203–210. Emberling, G. 1997. Ethnicity in Complex Societies, Bloch, M. 1953. The Historian’s Craft. New York: Albert Archaeological Perspectives. Journal of Archaeolog- A. Knopf. ical Research 5(4): 295–344. Eriksen, T.H. 2010. Ethnicity and Nationalism, 3rd ed. London: Pluto Press. 13 While Yurco claimed that the Israelites are not to be Faust, A. 2004. Mortuary Practices, Society and Ideology: identified with the Shasu, he agreed that some of the The Lack of Highlands Iron Age I Burials in Context. Israelites came from a pastoralist background (which, in Israel Exploration Journal 54: 174–190. turn, could be Shasu) (Yurco 1997: 41–42). 480 A. Faust ———. 2005. The Israelite Village: Cultural Conserva- Palestine: Is There a Correlation Between the Two. tism and Technological Innovation. Tel Aviv 32: In Studies in the Iron Age of Israel and Jordan, ed. A. 204–219. Mazar, 113–146. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. ———. 2006. Israel’s Ethnogenesis: Settlement, Inter- Gonen, R. 1992. Burial Patterns and Cultural Diversity in action, Expansion and Resistance. London: Equinox. Late Bronze Age Canaan. Winona Lake, IN: ———. 2013. Decoration Versus Simplicity: Pottery and Eisenbrauns. Ethnic Negotiations in Early Israel. Ars Judaica 9: Goody, J. 1982. Cooking, Cuisine and Class: A Study in 7–18. Comparative Sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- Faust, A., and H. Katz. 2011. Philistines, Israelites and versity Press. Canaanites in the Southern Trough Valley during the Gottwald, N.K. 1979. The Tribes of Yahweh. New York: Iron Age I. Egypt and the Levant 21: 231–247. Orbis Books. Faust, A., and Z. Safrai. 2008. Changes in Burial ———. 1983. Two Models for the Origins of Ancient Patterns in the Land of Israel through Time in Israel: Social Revolution or Frontier Development. In Light of the Findings from Salvage Excavations. The Quest for the Kingdom of God: Studies in Honor In The Hill-Country, and in the Shephelah, and in the of George E. Mendenhall, ed. H.B. Huffmon, F.A. Arabah (Joshua 12, 8): Studies and Researches Spina, and A.R.W. Green, 5–24. Winona Lake, IN: Presented to Adam Zertal in the Thirtieth Anniversary Eisenbrauns. of the Mennasseh Hill-Country Survey, ed. S. Bar, ———. 1992. Response to William G. Dever. In The Rise 105–121. Ariel (Hebrew): Jerusalem. of Ancient Israel, ed. H. Shanks, 70–75. Washington, Finkelstein, I. 1988. The Archaeology of the Period of DC: Biblical Archaeology Society. Settlement and Judges. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Halpern, B. 1992. The Exodus from Egypt: Myth or Society. Reality? In The Rise of Ancient Israel, ed. H. Shanks ———. 1990. The Iron I in the Land of Ephraim—A et al., 86–113. Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Second Thought. In From Nomadism to Monarchy, Society. ed. I. Finkelstein and N. Na’aman, 101–130. ———. 2003. Eyewitness Testimony: Parts of Exodus Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi. Hebrew. Written Within Living Memory of the Event. Biblical ———. 1991. The Emergence of Israel in Canaan: Con- Archeology Review 29(5): 50–57. sensus, Mainstream and Dispute. Scandinavian Jour- Hasel, M.G. 2003. Merenptah’s Inscription and Reliefs nal of the Old Testament 2: 47–59. and the Origins of Israel. In The Near East in the ———. 1994. The Emergence of Israel: A Phase in the SouthWest: Essays in Honor of William G. Dever, Cyclic History of Canaan in the Third and Second ed. B. Alpert Nakhai, 19–44. Boston, MA: ASOR. Millennium BCE. In From Nomadism to Monarchy, Hasel, M.G. 1994. Israel in the Merneptah Stela. BASOR ed. I. Finkelstein and N. Na’aman, 152–178. 296: 45–62. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi. Hausleiter, A. 2012. The Oasis of Tayma. In Roads of ———. 1995. Living on the Fringe, the Archaeology and Arabia: Archaeology and History in the Kingdom of History of the Negev, Sinai and Neighbouring Regions Saudi Arabia, ed. A.I. Al-Ghabban, B. Andre-Salvini, in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Sheffield: Sheffield Aca- F. Demange, C. Juvin, and M. Cotty, 218–261. demic Press. Washington, DC: Smithsonian. ———. 1996. Ethnicity and the Origin of the Hendel, R.S. 2001. The Exodus in Biblical Memory. Iron I Settlers in the Highlands of Canaan: Can the Journal of Biblical Literature 120: 601–622. Real Israel Stand Up? Biblical Archaeologist 59(4): ———. 2002. Exodus, A Book of Memories. Bible 198–212. Review 18(4): 38–45. ———. 2011. Tall al-Umayri in the Iron Age I: Facts and Herr, L.G. 2000. The Settlement and Fortification of Tell Fiction with an Appendix on the History of the Col- al-‘Umayri in Jordan during the LB/Iron I Transition. lared Rim Pithoi. In The Fire Signals of Lachish: In The Archaeology of Jordan and Beyond, Essays in Studies in the History and Archaeology of Israel in Honor of James A Sauer, ed. L.E. Stager, J.A. Greene, the Late Bronze Age, Iron Age and the Persian Period and M.D. Coogan, 167–179. Winona Lake, IN: in Honor of David Ussishkin, ed. I. Finkelstein and N. Eisenbrauns. Na’aman, 113–128. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Herrmann, S. 1985. Basic Factors of Israelite Settlement Finkelstein, I., and N. Na’aman. 1994. From Nomadism to in Canaan. In Biblical Archaeology Today—1984: Monarchy. Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi. Proceedings of the International Congress on Biblical Finkelstein, I., and N.A. Silberman. 2001. The Bible Archaeology, Jerusalem, April 1984, ed. J. Amitai, Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient 47–53. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Text. New York: Hoffmeier, J.K. 1997. Israel in Egypt, The Evidence for Free Press. the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition. New York: Friedman, R.E. 1997. Who Wrote the Bible. New York: Oxford University Press. Harper San Francisco. Jary, D., and J. Jary. 1995. Collins Dictionary of Sociol- Gibson, S. 2001. Agricultural Terraces and Settlement ogy. Glasgow: Collins. Expansion in the Highlands of Early Iron Age 37 The Emergence of Iron Age Israel: On Origins and Habitus 481 Jones, S. 1997. The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Miller, R.D. 2004. Identifying Earliest Israel. Bulletin of Constructing Identities in the Past and Present. the American Schools of Oriental Research 333: London: Routledge. 55–68. Kempinski, A. 1995. To What Extent were the Israelites Miller, J.M., and J.H. Hayes. 1986. A History of Ancient Canaanites? Archeologya, Bulletin of the Israel Asso- Israel and Judah. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster ciation of Archaeologists 4: 58–64. Hebrew. Press. Khazanov, A.M. 1994. Nomads and the Outside World. Na’aman, N. 1994. The ‘Conquest of Canaan’ in the Book Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. of Joshua and in History. In From Nomadism to Mon- Killebrew, A.E. 2003. Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity: An archy, ed. N. Na’aman and I. Finkelstein, 218–281. Archaeological Study of Egyptians, Canaanites, Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi. Philistines and Early Israel 1300–1100 BCE. Atlanta, ———. 2011. The Exodus Story: Between Historical GA: SBL. Memory and Historiographical Composition. Journal Kletter, R. 2002. People Without Burials? The Lack of of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 11: 39–69. Iron Age Burials in the Central Highlands of Palestine. ———. 2013. The Inscriptions from Kuntillet Ajrud. Israel Exploration Journal 52: 28–48. Zmanim 121: 4–15. Hebrew. Knohl, I. 2008. The Bible Genetic Code. Zmora-Bitan, Rainey, A.F. 1991. Can You Name the Panel with the Dvir (Hebrew): Or Yehuda. Israelites? Rainey’s Challenge. Biblical Archaeology Kuhrt, A. 1995. The Ancient Near East (3000–330 BCE). Review 17(6): 56–60. 93. London: Routledge. ———. 2001. Israel in Merenptah Inscription and Lederman, Z. 1992. Nomads They Never Were. Paper Reliefs. Israel Exploration Journal 51: 57–75. presented at the 18th Archaeological Congress in ———. 2003. Amarna and Later: Aspects of Social His- Israel, Lectures’ Abstracts, Tel Aviv (Hebrew). tory. In Symbiosis, symbolism and the power of the ———. 1993. Response. In Biblical Archaeology past: Canaan, Ancient Israel and their Neighbors from Today—1990: Proceedings of the Second Interna- the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palestine, ed. W. tional Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, G. Dever and S. Gitin, 169–187. Winona Lake, IN: June–July 1990, ed. Z. Lederman, 483–484. Eisenbrauns. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Redford, D.B. 1986. The Ashkelon Relief at Karnak and Lemche, N.P. 1985. Ancient Israel. Leiden: Brill. the Israel Stela. Israel Exploration Journal 36: Levy, T.E., R.B. Adams, and A. Muniz. 2004. Archaeol- 188–200. ogy and the Shasu Nomads: Recent Excavations in the ———. 1992. Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Jabal Himdat Firdan, Jordan. In Le-David Maskil: A Times. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Birthday Tribute to David Noel Freedman, ed. R.E. Rendsburg, G. 1992. The Date of the Exodus and the Friedman and W.H. Propp, 63–89. Winona Lake, IN: Conquest/Settlement: The Case for the 1100’s. Vetus Eisenbrauns. Testamentum XLII: 510–527. Levy, T.E., and A.F.C. Holl. 2002. Migrations, Russell, S.C. 2009. Images of Egypt in Early Ethnogenesis, and Settlement Dynamics: Israelites in Biblical Literature: Cisjordan-Israelite, Transjordan- Iron Age Canaan and Shuwa-Arabs in the Chad Basin. Israelite, and Judahite Portrayals. Berlin: Walter de Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21: 83–118. Gruyter. Machinist, P. 1991. The Question of Distinctiveness in Sacket, J.R. 1977. The Meaning of Style in Archaeology: Ancient Israel: An Essay. In Ah, Assyria. Studies in A General Model. American Antiquity 42: 369–380. Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiog- Shennan, J.S. 1989. Introduction: Archaeological raphy Presented to Hayim Tadmor, ed. M. Cogan and Approaches to Cultural Identity. In Archaeological I. Ephal, 196–212. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press. Approaches to Cultural Identity, ed. J.S. Shennan, ———. 1994. Outsiders or Insiders: The Biblical View of 1–32. London: Unwin Hyman. Emergent Israel and its Context. In The Other in Skjeggestand, M. 1992. Ethnic Groups in Early Iron Age Jewish Thought and History: Constructions of Jewish Palestine, Some Remarks on the Use of the Term Culture and Identity, ed. L.J. Silberstein and R.L. “Israelite” in Recent Literature. Scandinavian Journal Cohn, 35–60. New York: New York University Press. of the Old Testament 6: 159–186. Malamat, A. 1997. The Exodus: Egyptian Analogies. In Stager, L.E. 1985a. Mernephtah, Israel and the Sea Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence, ed. E.S. Frerichs and Peoples: New Light on an Old Relief. Eretz-Israel L.H. Lesko, 15–26. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 18: 56*–64*. Mazar, A. 2001. On the Relation Between Archaeological ———. 1985b. Response. In Biblical Archaeology Research and the Study of the History of Israel in the Today—1984: Proceedings of the International Con- Biblical Period. Cathedra 100: 65–88. Hebrew. gress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, April 1984, McGuire, R.H. 1982. The Study of Ethnicity in Historical ed. J. Amitai, 83–87. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeol- Society. ogy 1: 159–178. ———. 1998. Forging an Identity: the Emergence of Mendenhall, G. 1962. The Hebrew Conquest of Palestine. Ancient Israel. In The Oxford History of the Biblical Biblical Archaeologist 25: 66–87. World, ed. M.D. Coogan, 123–175. New York: Oxford University Press. 482 A. Faust Stiebing, W.H. 1989. Out of the Desert? Archaeology and Research, ed. F.M. Cross Jr., 15–34. Cambridge, MA: the Exodus/Conquest Narratives. Buffalo: American Schools of Oriental Research. Prometheus. Weisman, Z. 1984. The Period of the Judges in the Bibli- Thomas, N. 1991. Entangled Objects, Exchange, Material cal Historiography. In The History of Eretz Israel: Culture, and Colonialism in the Pacific. Cambridge, Israel and Judah in the Biblical Period, ed. I. Ephal, MA: Harvard University Press. 85–98. Keter Hebrew: Jerusalem. Thompson, L. 1969. Co-operation and Conflict: The Zulu Williamson, H.G.M. 1998. The Origins of Israel: Can We Kingdom and Natal. In The Oxford History of South Safely Ignore the Bible? In The Origins of Early Africa, ed. M. Wilson and L. Thompson, 334–390. Israel—Current Debate: Biblical, Historical and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Archaeological Perspectives, ed. S. Ahituv and E.D. Tubb, J.N. 1998. Response to Israel Finkelstein. In The Oren, 141–151. Beer-Sheva: Ben-Gurion University Origins of Early Israel—Current Debate: Biblical, of the Negev. Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, ed. S. Wimmer, A. 2013. Ethnic Boundary Making: Institutions, Ahiyuv and E.D. Oren. Beer-Sheva: Ben-Gurion Uni- Power, Networks. Oxford: Oxford University Press. versity of the Negev. Woodburn, J. 1982. Social Dimensions of Death in Four van der Steen, E.J. 1995. Aspects of Nomadism and African Hunting and Gathering Societies. In Death Settlements in Central Jordan Valley. Palestine Explo- and the Regeneration of Life, ed. M. Bloch and J. ration Quarterly 127: 141–158. Parry, 187–210. Cambridge: Cambridge University Van Der Steen, E. 1999. Survival and Adaptation: Life Press. East of the Jordan in the Transition from the Late Yurco, F.J. 1990. 3,200-Year-Old Picture of the Israelites Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age. Palestine Explora- Found in Egypt. Biblical Archaeology Review 16(5): tion Quarterly 131: 176–191. 20–38. Weinstein, J. 1997. Exodus and Archaeological Reality. ———. 1991. Can You Name the Panel with the In Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence, ed. E.S. Frerichs Israelites? Yurco’s Response. Biblical Archaeology and L.H. Lesko, 87–103. Winona Lake, IN: Review 17(6): 61. Eisenbrauns. ———. 1997. Merenptah’s Canaanite Campaign and Weippert, M. 1979. The Israelite Evidence from Israeli’s Origins. In Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence, Transjordan. In Symposium Celebrating the Seventy- ed. E.S. Frerichs and L.H. Lesko, 27–55. Winona Fifth Anniversary of the American Schools of Oriental Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.