The Invention of Ancient Israel (33 page)

However, his reasoning is not logical. It is driven by the domain assumption, derived from the biblical traditions, that any settlement at this time, in this region, would have to be Israelite. He presumes that if the Israelites had been in control of the cities they would have settled in the highlands above the cities. His reasoning illustrates clearly the way in which Palestinian history is effectively silenced: he never asks the question as to why the non-Israelite Palestinian inhabitants of the cities do not expand into the highlands. It is a question which can be posed only about Israel. The latter situation is not a puzzle for Gal: Palestinian history is not allowed any voice.

Gal tries to justify his conclusions with a brief review of the sites in the valleys, which stresses that they were not occupied by Israelites. The consistency and logic of his interpretation of the evidence is interesting. In the case of Megiddo, he concludes that despite the discovery of collared-rim ware in Stratum VI this is not ‘sufficient to determine that this stratum represents an Israelite village, particularly when other features attest to the continuity of the Canaanite tradition' (Gal 1982: 80). However, the ‘conspicuous' absence of collared-rim ware in Stratum IIIA at Affulleh, along with a pottery repertoire ‘typical to that prevailing at the end of the Canaanite period' confirms that it cannot be Israelite (Gal 1982: 81). The absence of collared-rim ware at one site confirms that it is not Israelite but its presence at another is not enough to confirm that it is Israelite. How much collared-rim ware needs to be present in order to confirm the presence of Israelites? In the case of other sites in the valley such as Tel Kedesh, Tel Qiri, Tel Qishion, and Tel Menorah, the controlling factor in determining the ethnicity of the inhabitants is the continuity of pottery repertoires with the Late Bronze Age. Gal then tries to correlate the findings from his survey with a reexamination of the biblical traditions about Issachar. Thus the failure to mention Issachar in the story of Gideon's pursuit of the Midianites or the battle of Deborah (Judges 4) is seen as confirming that Issachar was absent from the land assigned to it. He does not puzzle over why a territory named after the tribe is empty of that tribe. Instead, references to Issachar's tenuous connection with the Samarian hills (1 Chronicles 7: 1; 1 Kings. 15: 27) results in the claim that ‘in the light of this archaeological and biblical evidence, we may conclude
that Issachar settled together with Manasseh within the latter's territory in the northern Samarian hills' (Gal 1982: 83). Only after the destruction of the Canaanite cities at the beginning of the tenth century BCE did some of the clans of Issachar move to the basalt heights of eastern Lower Galilee (Gal 1982: 83) – seemingly, moving to a territory which according to Gal was already named after them! It is his understanding of the biblical traditions and not the archaeological evidence which governs his assumptions about the location of Israel or particular tribes. There is nothing in the archaeological data which would allow particular sites to be identified with Issachar or Israel for that matter: the presence or absence of particular pottery types seems to have no effect upon the decision. The findings of the survey, in particular the absence of early Iron I sites in this region, ought to lead to questions about the process of settlement and the factors which affect it. Are the sites indigenous, do they show clear signs of material continuity, and, if so, why did sites appear here in the early Iron Age? But instead the concern is with trying to correlate this with the biblical traditions. Despite all the problems inherent in interpretation of the archaeological data, no thought is given to the possible relevance of this material for the pursuit of Palestinian history.

The circularity of reasoning which stems from the central problem of the discourse of biblical studies in the quest for this imagined past of ancient Israel is evident in a number of other influential and representative reports and monographs on the archaeology of early Israelite settlement. The excavation and publication of the small rural site of Giloh on a high ridge to the south-west of Jerusalem with Bethlehem on the south-east provides a case in point (Mazar 1981: 1–36; 1982: 167–78). Mazar asserts that ‘it is the only site in the northern part of Judah which can be related
with much certainty
to the earliest Israelite settlers in this area' (Mazar 1981: 2; emphasis added). The certainty is dependent, however, on an understanding of the material finds at the site read in conjunction with the traditions of the Hebrew Bible. Thus, he points to sites ‘which can be attributed to the early Israelite settlers' (1981: 4), such as Tell el-Ful, Khirbet Raddanah, and Khirbet Umm et-Tala which are located in similarly remote places.
¹²
But this is all part of the circular argument as is demonstrated by his explanation of the material culture and identification of the inhabitants of this site. He notes that the four-room house type, found at Giloh, is known in ‘non-Israelite regions of the country' (1981: 10), as at Tel Qasile, Tel Sera, and Megiddo Stratum
VIB, but still insists that because it is also found at Khirbet Raddanah, Izbet Sartah, and Tel Masos ‘it has become clear that this plan was common in Israelite sites of the Iron Age I' (1981: 10). The recognition that this architectural form is ‘widely distributed in all parts of Palestine' (1981: 11) does not lead him to question the identity of the inhabitants of Giloh.
¹³
Similarly, his publication of the pottery assemblage from Giloh stresses the continuity in ceramic forms with the Late Bronze Age. He notes the problems of accepting collaredrim ware as a marker of Israelite settlement given that it is found at Sahab in Jordan, sites such as Tel Megiddo and Tell Keisan, and is absent from sites in the northern Negev. Yet he still concludes that ‘the fact remains, however, that in the central mountain sites which can be related
with confidence
to the Israelite settlers, these pithoi were not only popular, but indeed the most common pottery type' (1981: 30; emphasis added). His confidence is not drawn from the archaeological data, however, since these sites can only be regarded as Israelite if one accepts the picture presented in the biblical traditions. Mazar (1981: 30) notes the socio-economic importance of collared-rim pithoi for storage at such sites but fails to expand upon this observation because the search for ancient Israel, rather than an explanation of the archaeological data, is all-consuming.

Giloh is described as a ‘fortified herdsmen's village' (1981: 32) which adds to our understanding of ‘the complex process of Israelite conquest and settlement' (1981: 36). What is interesting about his presentation is that, despite a number of guarded comments about the problems of interpretation or the significance of the data, he is able to present the archaeological evidence as though it is this that points to the conclusion that ancient Israel has been revealed. This is exacerbated in his more popular presentation of his findings (1982: 167–78) where he refers to the house form as reminiscent of the houses which became common during the ‘period of the Judges' (1982: 169). The problematic distribution of ceramic or architectural types is overcome when the reader is informed that ‘the identification of the settlers with the earliest families of Judah who settled in this region suggests itself naturally' (1982: 170). But why is it such a natural conclusion? Suddenly we move from qualified statements concerning material features used to identify particular groups to the reality of ancient Israel in control of the land: ‘The architecture of the excavated private house, apparently an early example of typical Israelite private architecture, reinforces this conclusion; the site at Giloh effectively illustrates the process of Israelite settlement in the
central hill country' (1982: 170). Yet the ambiguous archaeological data cannot confirm any such conclusion. Such an assertion is dependent upon factors external to the archaeological data, namely the biblically inspired idea that Israel is to be found in the Palestinian hill country.

We find similar problems in the interpretation of a small Iron I site on a ridge in the northern part of the central hill country. Mazar (1982: 27) describes this site, in the opening paragraph of his report, as ‘an open cult place situated on a hill in the Land of Manasseh and dated to the period of the Judges'. Palestinian history is silenced before it can have a chance to speak: the labels used emphasize that this time and this space belong to Israel. He concentrates on the bronze figurine found at the site, which despite its obvious connections with indigenous Palestinian religious iconography and imagery is thought to be in the possession of Israelites:

It seems they either obtained this by trade or, less plausibly, through manufacture by an Israelite craftsman inspired by Canaanite traditions. Again the pottery finds are said to show continuity with the Late Bronze Age. Whereas for Gal such a continuity confirmed that sites in ‘the land of Issachar' were not Israelite, it does not seem to deter Mazar from seeing this site as Israelite. However, we rapidly move from this to discover the reality of ancient Israel. The site is said to be located in the midst of a cluster of Iron I sites which should ‘probably be related to the settlement process of the Israelite tribes in the area' (1982: 37).
¹⁴
The so-called bull site is then considered to be ‘a central ritual place for the group of settlements' (1982: 37–8), a conclusion which then leads to a further conclusion that ‘Israelites, probably of the tribe of Manasseh, were builders of our site' (1982: 38). Thus a chain of ‘probabilities', based on assumptions drawn from the biblical traditions, concludes with the discovery of Israel. Here is Israel located in the land, located in the past. This imagined past, however, has blocked any attempt, however tentative, to explore alternative constructions of the past based upon the archaeological evidence freed from the straitjacket of the Hebrew Bible.

Mazar's (1990) recent general review of the archaeology of ‘the land of the Bible' shows a growing awareness of the problems of interpretation which have governed this search. He makes a conscious attempt to use the term ‘Palestine' rather than ‘land of Israel' or ‘Eretz Israel' to refer to the region. However, the qualification of the term ‘Palestine' with the phrase ‘the land of the Bible' (1990: 33 n. 1) indicates that the region has little intrinsic value on its own except as the backdrop for understanding the Bible. The volume is designed ‘to illuminate the
realia
of the biblical narrative' (1990: xv) which means that it is Israelite rather than Palestinian history in general which is bound to be the focus of attention. Mazar is still able to refer to the ‘Israelite Conquest' despite the fact that most commentators have accepted that the growing body of new archaeological data from the region has fatally undermined Albright's proposals. He adds that ‘in examining the archaeological aspect of the conquest of Canaan, we shall concentrate on the
factual content
at the various sites which are related to the conquest by biblical tradition' (1990: 329; emphasis added). He urges due caution in trying to distinguish different ethnic groups at various sites but once again is able to conclude that the newer surveys and excavations enable a better understanding of ‘the settlement process of the Israelite tribes' (1990: 329). Thus he uses the rhetorical device, which we have met on several occasions, whereby the reader is alerted to difficulties and problems of interpretation, before advancing to a much more certain conclusion. The device serves to convince the reader that due objectivity is observed but at the end of the process of cross-examination a trustworthy verdict can be announced:

The problem of ethnic identification is overcome once again by appeal to the biblical traditions. It is the biblical text which has methodological priority rather than the archaeological evidence; for, as Mazar admits, there is nothing in the archaeological record alone which would allow the attribution of particular sites in the Late Bronze–Iron Age transition to different ethnic groups. He is still able
to refer to Israel during this period as ‘a new national entity' (1990: 334) while his conscious attempt to use the term ‘Palestine' is forgotten in favour of references to ‘the tribal territories of Manasseh and Ephraim in the central hill country of Palestine' (1990: 335). The continuing power of the discourse of biblical studies is able to hold together this interlocking network of ideas despite the profound challenges to its central assumption that Israel is to be located in the Late Bronze–Iron Age transition. The pursuit of Palestinian history is hindered by the failure to accept that the term ‘Israelite' has no archaeological meaning but is imposed upon the evidence by the claims of the biblical text.