The Invention of Ancient Israel (45 page)

  
2
  The impact of newer literary studies has been more extensive and is made more explicit in the work of Davies, Thompson, and Whitelam. It has had far less impact on the studies of Ahlström, Lemche, and Coote.

  
3
  Alt (1959), in an article first published in 1944, also refers to the rhythms of Syrian and Palestinian history.

  
4
  See Coote and Whitelam (1987) for a review of the settlement history of Palestine from the Early Bronze Age to the present. Whitelam (1994) sets out proposals for the pursuit of Palestinian history through the study of settlement history (cf. Dever 1992).

  
5
  He put forward a similar view in 1985b: 80. However, as noted on p. 241 n.9, he has more recently acknowledged that a survey of the whole region, including the lowlands, for the Middle Bronze II to the Iron II is a pressing problem that needs to be carried out (1991: 48). It should be acknowledged that Finkelstein provides valuable data for other periods and that his reports are invariably a model of clarity allowing the historian to utilize the data in historical reconstruction. However, the point at issue here is the way in which the search for ‘ancient Israel' has been a major obstacle in recognizing the potential and importance of the data for a regional Palestinian history.

  
6
  The irony of these surveys is that they illustrate Viceroy Curzon's comment, at the turn of the century, about the British in India: ‘It is … equally our duty to dig and discover, to classify, reproduce and describe, to copy and decipher, to cherish and conserve' (cited by Anderson 1991: 179). Detailed mapping allows the classification and control of the past. The mapping of Iron I sites, presented as Israelite, exposes the roots of modern Israel deep in the past. It is this particular segment of the past which is cherished and preserved. It is designed to provide an ‘objective' illustration of the continuity between past and present.

  
7
  The data tend to be scattered in specialist publications and journals. What
is needed is a comprehensive synthesis of the latest survey findings organized by period and area in order to allow comparisons to be made.

  
8
  Elon goes on to describe the outbreak of enthusiasm for archaeology as a means of discovering and confirming Zionist claims to the land. He cites the recollections of Eliezer Sukenik, the excavator, which illustrate the motivations at the time:

  
9
  See, for example, the debate between Aharoni and Yadin (1979) on the dating of these settlements and their relationship to the destruction of Hazor.

10
  Miller (1991a: 97–9) similarly draws attention to Finkelstein's use of biblical traditions, such as the so-called Ark Narrative (1 Samuel 4–6; 2 Samuel 6), for controlling the interpretation of archaeological data (see also Dever 1991: 79).

11
  This expectation informs a great deal of archaeological work on the early Iron Age. Gal (1992: 88), for instance, believes ‘that the tribes of Zebulun and Naphtali, whose inheritances were within this subregion, were settled one or two generations after the destruction of these Canaanite cities'. This biblically inspired reasoning is taken to its extreme in Dar's publication of the Survey of Samaria for 800 BCE to 63 CE in which he conjectures that the early Iron Age farmhouse was a ‘characteristic model of settlement by kinships (extended families) of the Joseph tribe' (1986: 2). He argues not only that the four-room house was an Israelite invention but also that the rural farmhouse was improved and developed by families of the tribes of Ephraim and Manassah. Similarly, the acceptance of the tribal allotments is evident in the reading of the archaeological data in Garsiel and Finkelstein's (1978) discussion of the Western expansion of the ‘house of Joseph'. Surprisingly, it can also be found in Silberman's (1992: 192–8) review of recent scholarship on Israelite origins. Despite his attention to the political aspects of archaeology and biblical studies, he is still able to claim that Zertal's work on the territory of Manassah had been complemented by major new surveys in Galilee and ‘the territories of the tribes of Ephraim and Judah'.

12
  Callaway (1969; 1970; Callaway and Cooley 1971) is much more circumspect in terms of the identity of the inhabitants of Ai and Raddanah.

13
  Shiloh's (1970) belief that the four-room house was an Israelite invention has been undermined by its discovery in a wide variety of locations throughout Palestine.

14
  He bases his conclusions on data drawn from the earlier survey undertaken by Kochavi (1972).

15
  
Skjeggestad (1992: 159–65) has provided a detailed critique of Finkelstein's understanding of ethnicity.

16
  This is a response in the
Biblical Archaeologist Review
to the SBL/ASOR session, the papers of which are contained in
Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament
(1991).

17
  This point is illustrated in reviews of these works by Bimson (1989; 1991) and Miller (1991a) which focus on their use of biblical traditions and their relevance for constructing early Israelite history. They do not pick up on the issue of Palestinian history and its relationship to biblical studies.

18
  Carroll (1991) has been very forthright in arguing for the Hebrew Bible as the product of the second Temple period. He is also scathing of attempts to construct history from such texts: ‘the gap between texts and the real world remains as unbridgeable as ever' (1991: 124). Coote, by contrast, regards many biblical texts as products of the Davidic bureaucracy in the tenth century BCE (Coote and Coote 1990; Coote and Ord 1991).

19
  He reiterated his view of the texts as late and therefore of little value for constructing the early history of Israel at the Chicago symposium (Lemche 1991a: 14), adding that he did not believe that the Old Testament historians wrote history. He has added to this in numerous articles and later publications (1991b; 1994).

20
  The growing unease with attempts to write biblical histories of ancient Israel is encapsulated in the methodological crisis represented by the works of Soggin and Miller and Hayes (cf. Davies 1985).

21
  Whitelam (1986: 47) was able to state that ‘it is important to address and refute claims that the study of the history of Israel cannot or should not be undertaken and to state clearly that it remains a fundamental task of research and teaching' (
contra
Davies, 1985: 172).

22
  Rogerson (1986) and Martin (1989) raise important questions about the standard assumption that Israel was a tribal confederation.

23
  See Whitelam (1994) for a discussion of some of the problems in trying to interpret the stele. Shanks (1991: 16) has dismissed as a passing fad the questioning of constructions of Israel in the pre-monarchic period. He asserts, astoundingly, that these ‘negative historians' would like to ‘send someone to the Cairo Museum to blow up the Merneptah stele' so that ‘all their problems in connection with early Israel would be solved' (1991: 16).

24
  He bases much of his analysis on Finkelstein's understanding of the chronological development of ‘Israelite Settlement'.

25
  Emerton (1988) has drawn attention to the inconsistencies and problems involved in trying to identify a ring structure in the inscription.

26
  He cites (1991a: 24 n. 14) the final report from Hazor by Yadin
et al.
(1989: 25, 29) which claims that stratum XII, with its numerous pits but no buildings, was occupied by invading semi-nomadic Israelites. There is nothing in the archaeological record to support such an interpretation. Ahlström (1993) argues that it could just as easily have been due to the survivors from Hazor who lacked the tools or skills for rebuilding.

27
  Ahlström (1991a: 19) claimed that the works of Lemche and Finkelstein
supported his proposals. He accepted that the archaeological evidence pointed to some non-Palestinian groups from the north in accordance with the demographic traditions of the country. He questions Mazar's use of the term ‘Israelite' to describe the inhabitants of Giloh (1986: 29) and describes the material culture as Canaanite (1986: 35–6).

28
  The subtle ways in which the contemporary context, or use of language, can shape perceptions of the past is brought out by his attempt to challenge the use of the ethnic label ‘Israelite' to describe the inhabitants of these new settlements:

The term ‘pioneers', although widespread in terms of settlement in different parts of the world, has particular connotations, of course, in the contemporary contest for land. It is frequently used to describe Zionist settlers in the
kibbutzim
and agricultural settlements during the early immigrations into the area.

29
  He appeals (1985: 387) to Snodgrass's description of post-Mycenaean Greece as an example.

30
  Whitelam (1991), in discussing the problems of history and literature, frequently refers to ‘Israel', encoded in such a way, and talks of a regional history of Palestine. The power of the discourse is still evident but the development of the current argument is already present:

The implications of this are more fully realized in Whitelam (1994).

31
  For a response to Thompson's critique of Coote and Whitelam (1987), see Whitelam (1995a).

6 Reclaiming Palestinian History

  
1
  I have been unable to obtain a copy of his new book on the career of Yadin. Clearly from the reviews (for example, Elon 1994), it addresses directly the issue of the politics of Yadin's archaeology.

  
2
  
The interconnections throughout the eastern Mediterranean during this and many other periods are well documented in archaeological deposits, although the precise connections, their regulation, and control are not nearly so clearly understood. The exploration of the economy of ancient Palestine is one of the key areas for future research.

  
3
  Coote and Whitelam (1987: 49–71) explore some of the possible factors involved, placing particular emphasis on the effects of fluctuations in trade on the variability of settlement. Thompson (1992a: 180) doubts that the breakdown of international trade at the end of the Early Bronze and Late Bronze Ages could have had such an effect upon the Palestinian economy as to result in ‘wholesale dislocations throughout the region, and especially in so many sub-regions (such as the hill country and the Northern Negev)' since such regions were only marginally affected by trade routes. He believes (1992a: 215) that the evidence points to major climatic change resulting in widespread drought and famine from
c.
1200–1000 BCE. Climate is obviously an important factor given the marginal nature of the subregions of Palestine where dramatic variations in rainfall over two or more years can have devastating effects. Famine, however, is not always a direct result of periods of drought but is frequently the result of socio-political factors as the tragic events in parts of modern-day Africa all too vividly illustrate (cf. Thompson 1992a: 219–20). It is also the case that Palestine has witnessed important shifts in settlement during more modern periods when the climate in the region has remained stable. Thompson (1992a: 261) points out that the Phoenician cities survived the drought without widespread collapse, attributing their political and economic autonomy to their relative geographical isolation. This would suggest that it is socio-political factors which are of greater importance in understanding the settlement shifts rather than climatic change. Geographical isolation is no protection against catastrophic climatic change.

  
4
  Dever (1991: 78) believes that the absence of collared-rim ware at large sites such as Gezer compared with its proliferation at smaller rural sites points to a socio-economic rather than ethnic dichotomy. Finkelstein (1991: 51) points out that Aphek and Qasile, usually described as urban centres, were no larger than ‘Izbet Sartah.

  
5
  Mazar's (1990) recent survey of the archaeology of the region is a good case in point of the way in which any female figurine is represented as part of a fertility cult.

Bibliography

Abu-Lughob, I. (1987)
The Transformation of Palestine: Essays on the Origin and Development of the Arab-Israeli Conflict
, Evanston: Northwestern University Press.