ARCL3072 Archaeology of the Levant

Where did the early Israelites come from & when did the formation of the Israelite state take place?

Words: 2,625

1

Introduction

The answer to these two questions is still highly contested, as much of Iron Age I (IAI) and Iron

Age II (IAII) archaeology in the Levant has been heavily influenced by biblical chronology.

Furthermore, there are few extra-biblical texts relating to the Israelites and the Israelite State,

and those that we do have, give us little detail of who the early Israelites where, or when the

Israelite State was formed. In addition, much of the chronology has been established by

relative dating due to a lack of dateable material, such as inscriptions being found out of

context. However, I will attempt to answer where the Israelites came from, and when the

Israelite State took place by exploring past debates and new theories mainly set forward by

Israel Finkelstein.

Where Did the Early Israelites Come From?

In the 1960s, archaeological investigations turned their attentions away from biblical sites in

the Coastal Plains and Shephelah regions, and instead looked towards the Highlands

(Finkelstein 1988). A series of archaeological surveys conducted between the Beersha and

Jezreel valley revealed hundreds of Highland settlements. Finkelstein (1988) realised that the

250 IAI sites in the Highlands of Cisjordan, sat within a landscape that contained 220 Middle

Bronze Age (MBA) and 100 Early Bronze Age settlements (EBA) (Figure 1). Finkelstein took on

Braudel’s theoretical framework of the ‘longue duree’ (Smith 1992, 25), arguing that the IAI

settlement wave was not a unique event. Instead, it was part of a longer history of ‘cyclic

settlement oscillations’ (Finkelstein 1995, 351) that began in the 4th century BC. Each wave of

settlement, interceded with two periods of decline, grew in size and scale, until the IAI

settlement eventually facilitated the growth of the Israelite State (Holladay 1995).

Finkelstein (1996) claims that early Israelites are not an ethnically defined group, but rather a

people who share the same socio-economic way of life; pastoral nomadism. He argues that

indigenous Canaanites opted out of urban society in the Bronze Age due to socio-economic

circumstances (Finkelstein 1996). They developed into pastoral nomads who entered a ‘cyclic

2

mechanism of alternating processes of sedentarization and nomadization’ (Finkelstein 1996,

208). The waves of sedentarisation are documented archaeologically, however, the two

interceding periods of decline are archaeologically invisible, due to nomads reverting back to

perishable materials. Bates and Lees (1977) argue that this process is caused by the symbiotic

relationship between pastoral nomads and sedentary societies. Nomads supply sedentary

societies with meat, dairy and hides whilst the other supplies surplus grain. However, when

sedentary societies disintegrate, they cannot produce enough surplus, forcing the nomads to

settle down and produce their own (Bates & Lees 1977). Finkelstein argues that this symbiotic

breakdown caused the third and final wave of settlement, as during the 13th century BC,

Canaanite city-states began to collapse (Finkelstein 2001). But what archaeological evidence

do have for the origins of the early Israelites?

Textual Records

The Egyptian New Kingdom texts, such as the Amarna tablets, have given us a wealth of

information on the social, economic and political structure of Canaan in the LBA (Finkelstein

2001). However, there are very few historical sources that document the transition from the

LBA to the IAI. The first mention of Israel is found in the Merneptah stele dating to the 12th

century BC (Pritchard 1967). The text gives little detail of whether Israel is a place or a people,

however it does tell us that “Israel”, in whatever sense, exists in Canaan around 1207 BC

(Hasel 2008).

Spatial Context

Finkelstein argues that the terrain of the highlands, and similarities in settlement patterns

between the EBA, MBA and IAI sites suggests some sort of continuity of socio-economic

practices (Finkelstein 1996). Firstly, he argues that many IAI sites re-settled EBA and MBA sites

(Finkelstein 1996). In addition, each wave began from east to west and was more densely

populated in the northern highlands (Finkelstein 2001). It is argued that nomads originated

from the eastern desert fringes, therefore the eastern Highland terrain enabled villages to

3

continue to herd sheep and goats whilst transitioning to small scale farming (Finkelstein

2002). Eventually more settlements moved to the west where herding and farming was less

hospitable but where olive and wine orchards were lucrative (Finkelstein 2002). In addition,

the north was more settled than the south as it was geographically better suited to the

economic subsistence strategies and the transition of pastoral nomads to sedentism.

Figure 1: Three maps which show the three settlements in the Highlands in Israel, The Early Bronze Age, Middle Bronze Age

and the Iron Age I. As you can see, each settlement waves causes a larger concentration of sites and an influx in population.

Some sites are reoccupied and you can see the similarities between each settlement wave (Finkelstein 1996).

4

Material Culture:

The Culture Historical School argues that material culture can be used to identify particular

cultures or ethnicities by the recurrence of similar characteristics in assemblages (Meskell

2001). However, there are major debates over the validity of this technique, as recurring

patterns may be due to external factors, like terrain or economic subsistence (Finkelstein

1996). Finkelstein (1996) argues this to be the case regarding early Israelite material culture.

IAI settlements contain few assemblages or artefacts that can enlighten us to their ethnicity.

Settlements are devoid of complex record keeping, seals, seal impressions, foreign items or

luxury goods, burial customs or cult. However, a bronze bull statuette was found at the “Bull

Site” and may suggest a continuation of Canaanite deity worship (Finkelstein 2001).

Collared rim store jars have been argued to represent early Israelite culture, and are used as

a main indicator of their presence from the 13th to the 10th century BC (Finkelstein 1988).

These simple pithoi are found concentrated in Highland sites, but have also been found in

Transjordan and in small quantities at Canaanite sites like Megiddo (Figure 3) (Finkelstein

1988). They differ highly in shape and decoration to IAI Lowland Canaanite pottery and

Philistine Bichrome (Finkelstein 1988). However, collared rim store jars are similar to MBA IIC

pottery found in the Highlands (Figure 2). This could potentially suggest a continuity of

culture, or it could mean the pot form was best fit for the environment and socio-economic

subsistence strategies (Finkelstein 1996). Other common finds are grinding stones, sickle

blades and cooking pots (Finkelstein). The simplicity of the material culture, and lack of

hierarchy, reflects a self-sufficient society without a centralised or complex economy

(Finkelstein 2002). This lack of centralisation could also suggest that there was not enough

social cohesion or organisation to create shared cultural symbols or styles.

5

Figure 2: Middle Bronze Age jars found at the Highland site Shiloh, which later became a major cult

site for the early Israelites. Notice the similarity with Iron Age I Israelite collar rimmed store jars. They

may have been a continuation of culture between the Bronze Age and Iron Age pastoral nomad

settlers. However it could also be due to the fact that the size and shape is best suited to the

environment and economic subsistence strategies (Finkelstein 1988).

Figure 3: Iron Age I, early Israelite collared rim store jars found at Shiloh

(Finkelstein 1988).

6

Architecture:

Early Israelite sites contained no public buildings or ritual centres. Each of the houses were

fairly uniform in size and form, and had stone lined silos (Faust 2003). The main settlement

type was the ‘four-room house’ (figure 4) (Faust 2003, 22). Its presence between the 13th and

6th century BC is seen to ubiquitously symbolise early Israelite culture. It is found mainly

concentrated in the Highlands, but again, is also found in Transjordan and the Lowlands. The

house is usually made up of 4 main rooms, and is organised into 3 parallel long rooms set

against a large broadroom (Faust 2002). Pillars occasionally separated the broadroom from

the rest of the house.

Figure 4: Floor plan of a normal 4 roomed house, typical of Iron Age I early Israelite

Highland settlements (Faust 2003).

7

Figure 5: Elliptical shaped sites, Izbet Sartah, Stratum III. As you can see below in figure 6, of 19th / 20th century Bedouin

tent encampments, they are very similar. The surrounding tents formed an oval to create a pen for their livestock looks

incredibly similar to this Iron Age I site. This is why Israel Finkelstein argues that the early Israelites may originally be

pastoral nomads which built their settlements in the stone version of the tents they used to live in (Finkelstein 1988).

Figure 6: Image taken of Bedouin tent encampment in the Judean desert in the 20th century (Finkelstein 1988)

8

Finkelstein (1988) has suggested that the four room house is not a sudden cultural

development, but a natural progression from elliptical shaped sites (figure 5), which are

thought to be the stone manifestation of nomadic tents (Finkelstein 1988). IAI Highlands are

full of elliptical shaped sites, the earliest is at 13th century BC Izbet Sartah in stratum III

(Finkelstein 1988). It was made from an ‘elliptical band of rooms surrounding a broad central

courtyard, in which a number of stone-lined silos’ were placed (Finkelstein 1988, 238). Each

broad room would be an individual dwelling and the courtyard acted as a collective holding

pen for livestock (Finkelstein 1988). This settlement form has also been argued to have

influenced IAII casemate fortresses. Finkelstein has drawn parallels to ethnographic accounts

of 19th and 20th century Bedouin tent encampments in the Judean Desert (figure 6). Shmueli

(1980) argued that sedentary Bedouin villages were ‘Bedouin encampments executed in

building materials’ (Shmueli 1980, 83). This could have similarly happened with the elliptical

sites, which influenced the four roomed house, suggesting early Israelites may have been

pastoral nomads.

Part II

When Did the Formation of the Israelite State Take Place?

State formation theory has been heavily influenced by the work of Elman Service, Morton

Fried and Marshal Sahlins (Johnson 2010). They argued that a State is characterised by

particular archaeological markers (Carneiro 1970). Scholars argue that each state should

present evidence of; class hierarchy, monumental architecture, centralisation of religion and

administration. Most of these characteristics are present at sites like Megiddo, Hazor, Gezer

and Samaria, through the presence of large ashlar block palaces, casemate walls and

chambered gates (Finkelstein 2001). These markers have been attributed to King Solomon,

however, Finkelstein argues that the strata dates a century later and not all of these markers

can be attributed to the same builder or context (Finkelstein 2001).

9

Conventional chronology, or High chronology, places the Israelite state in 1000 BC, when King

David apparently conquered Canaan (Ray 2008). This school of thought is heavily influenced

by biblical chronology, and has been based on to two archaeological occurrences (Finkelstein

2005). The first is the appearance of Philistine pottery in 1175 BC, the second is the relative

date of stratum VA-IVB at Megiddo to the 10th century BC, the time of the United Monarchy

(Albright 1945). However, Israel Finkelstein has reviewed these two occurrences, and has

argued for a 'Low chronology', in which the archaeology should be brought forward by a

century (Finkelstein 2005). Therefore, attributing the first Israelite state to the early 9th

century BC, the reign of the Omride dynasty (Finkelstein 2005).

Anchor 1: The Philistines.

The first occurrence, or upper dating anchor, is based on Albrights and Alts chronology of the

Philistines in Canaan (Albright 1945). They argue the Philistines were settled in the region by

Ramesses III in 1175 BC (Finkelstein 1988). This date is established by Philistine Monochrome

found in strata dating to this period at Ashod, Tel Miqne and Ashkelon (Finkelstein 2005). Low

chronologists thus argue that Monochrome lasted until the start of the 11th century BC, until

it was usurped by Bichrome ware (Finkelstein2005). Bichrome ware then suddenly ends

around 1000 BC due to a widespread violent event (Finkelstein 2005). Evidence of major

conflagration at sites around the region, like Megiddo, are attributed to King David’s conquest

recorded in Kings 9:15 (Finkelstein 2005).

However, Finkelstein argues the Egyptians still occupied parts of Canaan up to the time of

Ramesses IV in 1135 BC, which is evident from Egyptian material culture found at Beth-Shean

(Finkelstein 1996). This potentially means that the Philistines and Egyptians would be living in

Canaan contemporaneously (Finkelstein 2005). However, Finkelstein argues that there is no

evidence of ‘Philisto-Egyptian’ (Finkelstein 2005, 33) mixed material culture. He argues that

20th dynasty Egyptian pottery and Philistine Monochrome are chronologically separated in

different strata (Finkelstein 2005). Therefore, the Philistines can only have settled in Canaan

after the 1140s/1130s BC, as Monochrome ware is not seen until this date (Finkelstein 2005).

10

Finkelstein proposes that the Monochrome period should now stop at the end of 12th century

BC (Finkelstein). Meaning that the Bichrome period is pushed back to the 11th century BC, and

finishes towards the end of the 10th century BC (Finkelstein 2005). Therefore, the IAI to IAII

transition could not happen before the end of the 10th century BC (Finkelstein 2005).

Anchor 2: Megiddo

The second occurrence of Conventional chronology is based on the 10th century date for the

destruction stratum VIA at Megiddo (Finkelstein 2010). Yidael Yadin (1970) argued that the

conflagration in stratum VIA was caused by King David, as it initiated the end of Canaanite

material culture, and introduced the Golden Age of the United Monarchy (Finkelstein 2010).

This is apparently evident in stratum VA-IVB, which presents monumental architecture, such

as two ashlar block palaces and a large 6 chambered gate (Finkesltein 2010). Similar gates

were also discovered at Hazor and Gezer which were also dated to the time of Solomon

according to Kings 9:15 (Finkelstein 2010). Furthermore, the campaigns of Shoshenq I are

dated to around 926 BC, and he is argued to have caused the destruction of VA-IVB

(Finkelstein 2005). Lastly, stratum IVA revealed large stables at Megiddo which are attributed

to the biblical King Ahab in the early 9th century BC (Finkelstein 2005).

However, Ussishkin (1980) argues that the wall of the 6 chambered gate is actually built much

later than those at Hazor and Gezer, and is attached to stratum IVA, which dates to the 8th

century BC. In addition, Yadin based his 10th century BC date of the gates on biblical

chronology, as well as red slip and burnished ware (Finkelstein 2005). This ware, is apparently

attributed to the 10th century BC. However, the ware was given this relative date by Dever, as

he found it in strata which he thought was Solomonic (Finkelstein 2005). In short, the ‘stratum

is dated by pottery…the pottery is dated by its relationship to the six-chambered gate…which

is dated according to the biblical testimony to the days of Solomon; a classical circular

reasoning’ (Finkelstein 2005, 34).

11

Figure 7: Palace 1723 at Megiddo in stratum VA-IVB (Robert 1939)

Figure 8: Mason marks on Ashlar blocks on Palace 1723, Megiddo, Stratum VA-IVB. These mason marks

are highly characteristic and are also found on the 9th Century BC Omride palace in Samaria (Robert 1939).

12

King Hazael

Furthermore, high chronology undoubtedly causes issues in attributing known historical

events to particular strata in the IAII. If David caused the destruction in VIA, and if Shoshenq

I caused the second layer of destruction in VA-IVB, it leaves no room archaeologically for the

destruction apparently caused by King Hazael in 835 BC (Halpern 1994). This destruction is

documented by the Tel Dan Stele, which also refers to the Omride dynasty (Halpern 1994).

Low chronology rectifies this issue, by attributing VIA to Shoshenq I in 925 BC and the VA-IVB

destruction to Hazaels campaign in 835 BC (Finkelstein 2010). This means stratum VA-IVB

could not be dated any earlier than the end of the 10th century BC. In addition, it explains why

there is actually a continuation of lowland Canaanite settlements and early Israelite Highland

settlements throughout most the 10th century BC (Finkelstein 2010).

Mason Marks

Finkelstein also argues that the ashlar blocks found in palace 1723 at Megiddo in stratum VA-

IVB (figure 7+8), contain unique mason marks (Finkelstein 2005). These mason marks have

also been discovered at the Samaria palace dating to the Omride Dynasty in the 9th century

BC (Franklin 2008). They are so similar it is thought they are made by the same builders.

Therefore, either the palace at Megiddo are built in the 9th century BC, or the Omride palace

was built in the 10th century BC (Finkelstein 2005). The other archaeological evidence suggests

the only option would be to pull Megiddo to the 9th century BC. Therefore placing the

construction of palace 1723 to the Omride Dynasty rather than King Solomon in the 10th

century BC (Finkelstein 2005).

Conclusion

To conclude, the early Israelites were most likely originally indigenous Canaanites that left

urban society in the Bronze Age to take on pastoral nomadism. They maintained a symbiotic

relationship with sedentary societies which created cyclic settlement oscillations in the

13

Highlands. The material culture they left behind was most likely caused by similar socio-

economic subsistence strategies rather than a clear ethnic identity. The crystallisation of early

Israelite culture probably began when Highland settlements started to consolidate tribal links

and expand into neighbouring territories which eventually led to the formation of the Israelite

state (Finkelstein 1988). Finkelstein has argued that this process took place in the 9th century

BC, which is evident from the dating of Philistine pottery, the similarity between mason marks

at Samaria and Megiddo, the continuation of Highland settlements throughout the 10th

century BC and the sequence of occupation and destruction events at Megiddo. Therefore

many of the State characteristics found in the Northern Kingdom, can be attributed to the 9th

century Omride dynasty or periods after, not to the United Monarchy.

14

Bibliography

Albright, W.F. 1945. The Chronology of the Divided Monarchy of Israel. The American Schools of

Oriental Research. Vol 100, pp. 16- 22.

Bates, D, G. and Lees, S.H. 1977. The Role of Exchange in Productive Specialisation. American

Anthropologist. Vol 79, pp 824-841.

Carneiro, R. 1970. A Theory on the Origin of the State. Science. Vol 169, pp 39-47.

Faust, A. & Bunimovitz, S. 2003. The 4 Room House. Near Eastern Archaeology. Vol 66, pp 22-31.

Finkelstein, I. 1988. The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Tel Aviv: Israel Exploration Society.

Finkelstein, I. 1995. The Great Transformation: the ‘Conquest’ of the Highland Frontiers and the Rise

of the Territorial States. In: Levy, T, E. (eds) The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. New York:

Facts on File, pp 349-367.

Finkelstein, I. 1996. Ethnicity & the Origin of the Iron I Settlers in the Highlands of Canaan. Biblical

Archaeology. Vol 59, Issue 4, pp 198-212.

Finkelstein, I. 1996. The Archaeology of the United Monarchy: An Alternative View. Levant: The Journal

of the Council for British Research in the Levant. Vol 28, Issue 1, pp 177-187.

Finkelstein, I. & Silberman, N. A. 2001. The Bible Unearthed. New York: Free Press.

Finkelstein, I. 2005. A Low Chronology Update: Archaeology, History & the Bible. In: Levy, T.E., Higham,

T. (eds), The Bible & Radiocarbon Dating. London: Equinox, pp 31-42.

Finkelstein, I. 2009. Destructions: Megiddo as a Case Study. In: Schleon, D.J (ed) Exploring the Longue

Duree. Warsaw: Eisenbrauns, pp 113-126.

Finkelstein, I. 2010. A Great United Monarchy? Archaeological and Historical Perspectives. In:

Reinhard, K. Spieckermann, H (eds) One God – One Cult – One Nation: Archaeological and Biblical

Perspectives. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, pp 1-28.

Franklin, N., 2008. Trademarks of the Omride Builders? In: Fantalkin, A., Yasur-Landau, A. (eds) Bene

Israel: Studies in the Archaeology of Israel & the Levant in Honour of Israel Finkelstein. Leiden: Brill, pp

45-54.

Halpern, B. 1994. The Stela from Dan. Bulletin of American Schools of Oriental Research. Vol 296, pp

63-80.

Hasel, M.G. 2008. Merenptah’s Reference to Israel: Critical Issues for the Origin of Israel. In: Hess, R.

Klingbeil,G. Ray,P.J. (eds) Critical Issues in Early Israelite History. Eisenbrauns, Indiana.

Holladay, J.1995.The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah: Political and Economic Centralisation in the Iron

IIA-B. In: Levy, T,E. (eds) The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. New York: Facts on File, pp

368-398.

Johnson, M. 2010. Archaeological Theory: An Introduction. 2nd Edition. Chichester: Blackwell

Publishing.

15

Meskell, L. 2001. Archaeologies of Identity. In: Hodder, I. (ed) Archaeological Theory Today.

Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 187–213.

Pritchard, J., 1967. Ancient Near Eastern Texts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Ray, P.J. 2008. Classical Models for the Appearance of Israel in Palestine. In: Hess, R. Klingbeil, G.

Ray,P.J. (eds) Critical Issues in Early Israelite History. Indiana: Eisenbrauns, pp 47-61.

Robert S. Lamon and Geoffrey M. Shipton.1939. Megiddo 1. Seasons of 1925-34: Strata I-V. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Smith, E. 1992. Braudel’s Temporal Rhythms and Chronology Theory in Archaeology. In: Knapp, B.

(eds) Archaeology, Annales, and Ethnohistory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp 23-34.

Ussishkin, D. 1980. Was the "Solomonic" City Gate at Megiddo Built by King Solomon? The American

Schools of Oriental Research. Vol 239, pp. 1-18.

Yadin, Y.1970. Megiddo of the Kings of Israel. The Biblical Archaeologist. Vol. 33, Issue 3, pp 65-96.