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