The Invention of Ancient Israel (9 page)
Read The Invention of Ancient Israel Online
Authors: Keith W. Whitelam
This assumption, inherent in the work of some of the most influential figures in biblical studies, particularly German and American biblical historiography, as we have seen, has also maintained a profound hold over biblical archaeology this century. The constitution of the Palestine Exploration Fund at its establishment in 1865 illustrates clearly the widely held assumption that Palestine held little intrinsic interest apart from its connections with the Bible. The PEF's stated aims were âthe accurate and systematic investigation of the archaeology, the topography, the geology and the physical geography, the manners and customs of the Holy Land, for biblical
illustration' (cited in Kenyon 1979: 1). Palestine becomes âthe Holy Land', as it was for Smith, and its history and physical features have little intrinsic value in their own right, being important solely as illustrations for understanding the Bible. This is the dominant assumption which informs so much of biblical scholarship in the West such that Palestinian history ceases to exist and the history of the region becomes the history of ancient Israel as depicted in the biblical traditions.
Katherine Kenyon acknowledges that the area is important for our understanding of the origins of civilization and not just for illustrating the Bible. However, it needs to be remembered that âcivilization' is here shorthand for the West, which is heir to the JudaeoâChristian tradition. Although Kenyon's work is ostensibly a study of the archaeological findings of the region, it is clear that her views are dependent upon a prior understanding of the biblical traditions rather than a reading of the archaeological data in its own right. So she is able to state that:
The period is undoubtedly that in which the national consciousness of the Israelites is developing greatly. The biblical narrative shows how the groups were gradually combining together, with tentative efforts at temporal unification under the Judges and the stronger spiritual link of a national religion, with the high priest at times exercising temporal power. It is during these centuries that the groups allied by race, but differing in the manner and time of the settlement in Palestine ⦠must have come to combine their ancestral traditions together under the influence of the Yahwehistic religion, and to believe that all their ancestors took part in the Exodus. The nation was thus emerging, but its culture was as yet primitive. Its settlements were villages, its art crude, and the objects of everyday use homely and utilitarian.
(Kenyon 1979: 230)
It is difficult to see what it is in the archaeological record that would allow for her conclusion that âthe national consciousness of the Israelites' was developing in this period. As will be seen below, the problem of trying to attach ethnic labels to material remains for this period has become a crucial factor in helping to free the history of the region from such long-dominant, unargued assumptions. The reading of the archaeological evidence is determined by Kenyon's prior understanding of the biblical narratives. Her statement is
dominated by the terms ânational' and ânation': it is the nation state which is the representative of (European) civilization. Ancient Israel, as a nation state, or incipient nation state, provides a direct link with Europe as the very essence of civilization. The significance of the region then lies in its importance for understanding the origins of (European) civilization and the biblical traditions which have underpinned the development of a JudaeoâChristian culture in the West. However, it does not extend to an investigation of any intrinsic value attached to the history of the vast majority of the indigenous inhabitants of the region.
The work of William Foxwell Albright, whose influence on all aspects of the discipline remains strong despite current reassessments of many of his conclusions, illustrates how these underlying domain assumptions are often implicit and not always apparent to the reader. His classic treatment
The Archaeology of Palestine
(1949) uses the terms âPalestine' and âPalestinian' throughout. Even in his discussion of the Iron Age, designated by many Israeli archaeologists as the âIsraelite period', he consistently refers to the archaeology of Palestine. The history of the region is presented in a sober fashion which seemingly values Palestine in its own right. In his conclusion he is able to state that:
The role of archaeology in providing data for objective evaluation of the history of Palestine is already so great that no student can now neglect it without intellectual disaster. Although twenty years have elapsed since the study of Palestinian archaeology reached a sufficiently stable phase to warrant use of its data by sober historians, it is still very difficult for the non-specialist to pick his way among the conflicting dates and conclusions of archaeologists.
(Albright 1949: 252â3)
However, the theological presuppositions of Albright's approach are revealed particularly towards the end of his study:
In one's enthusiasm for archaeology research, one is sometimes tempted to disregard the enduring reason for any special interest in Palestine â nearly all the Hebrew Old Testament is a product of Palestinian soil and Israelite writers, while most of the events which underlie the Greek New Testament took place in the same sacred terrain.
(Albright 1949: 218)
Here we discover the reason for any âspecial interest' in the region: it is the locale for the development of the Old and New Testaments. He acknowledges the contribution of surrounding cultures to both these works but adds that they have been âtransmuted' by religious insight into something far surpassing these contributory cultures. He then tries to defend the objectivity of biblical scholarship against the charge of religious bias:
It is frequently said that the scientific quality of Palestinian archaeology has been seriously impaired by the religious preconceptions of scholars who have excavated in the Holy Land. It is true that some archaeologists have been drawn to Palestine by their interest in the Bible, and that some of them had received their previous training mainly as biblical scholars. The writer has known many such scholars, but he recalls scarcely a single case where their religious views seriously influenced their results. Some of these scholars were radical critics; still others were more conservative critics, like Ernest Sellin; others again were thorough-going conservatives. But their archaeological conclusions were almost uniformly independent of their critical views.
(Albright 1949: 219)
Notice how Palestine now becomes the âHoly Land'. Furthermore, the seeming objectivity of approach and the pursuit of Palestinian history and archaeology in its own right are exposed in his conclusion, where he tries to account for the importance of Palestine in world history despite its small size and lack of resources:
Though archaeology can thus clarify the history and geography of ancient Palestine, it cannot explain the basic miracle of Israel's faith, which remains a unique factor in world history. But archaeology can help enormously in making the miracle rationally plausible to an intelligent person whose vision is not shortened by a materialistic world view. It can also show the absurdity of extreme sectarian positions, from the once reputable doctrine of verbal inspiration of Scripture to the weird vagaries of believers in the divinatory properties of numbers, measurements, and alleged biblical ciphers. Against these and other modern forms of ancient magic, archaeology wages an unceasing war, and few things are more irritating to the sober archaeologist than to see religious faith compounded with
magic by exponents of cheap materialism. To one who believes in the historical mission of Palestine, its archaeology possesses a value which raises it far above the level of artifacts with which it must constantly deal, into a region where history and theology share a common faith in the eternal realities of existence.
(Albright 1949: 255â6)
It becomes clear that the history of Palestine is of little intrinsic interest in its own right: âthe historical mission of Palestine' derives from its occupation of the âsacred space' out of which the Old and New Testaments appear. Albright's theological beliefs, despite denials to the contrary, clearly shape his assessment and construction of Israelite history. This is history, moreover, in which Europe or the West is the real subject, as Asad and others have pointed out of other modern accounts of the past. It is ultimately a pursuit of the roots of Western âcivilization'.
The problems of terminology and methodological approach can be illustrated further from Baly's influential revision of his
The Geography of the Bible
(original 1957; completely revised 1974). He states his aim as twofold: to provide a work for scholars who require âsolid, detailed, and accurate information' in the form of âa serious geographical and biblical study' (1974: xi) which is at the same time a simple and straightforward presentation for the beginning student and general reader. Baly is well aware of the problems that his venture holds: the problems of the time limit and the theological presuppositions imposed on the study.
When the study is limited to the biblical period, it is difficult to avoid the suggestion that the history of Palestine began with Abraham and came to an end in A.D. 70, an impression which is already too firmly implanted in the minds of many Western people ⦠it cannot be denied that the events of the biblical period are those which most concern the ordinary American or British reader, and it seems, therefore a useful place at which to begin, though obviously it is only a beginning.
(Baly 1974: xiii)
Here we can see that the problems of time and space are intricately related. Yet, as with Albright, the presentation of the âhistory of Palestine' is informed by theological considerations which override all others, as Baly admits. He refers (1974: xiv) to the complaint that
âtheologians are not interested in geology, and geographers do not want theology in a geography book'. His defence is that it is important to understand the culture and climate of the country in order to understand the nature of the environment which has had such a profound influence upon its inhabitants. But related to this is his view that it is equally important to understand the nature of the âBook' with its claim to the existence of the one God who is both active and effective. The theological claims mean that the history of the region can only be understood in terms of âbiblical history': it is defined by and dominated by the concerns and presentation of the biblical texts. It is not, then, a history or geography of Palestine but a history and geography of âbiblical Israel'. To refer to the history of the period of Abraham is to accept a biblical definition of that history and to deny any other perception of the past. Baly attempts to overcome the problems of definition which are tied to the present and determined by theological presuppositions in his choice of terminology:
There still remains, however, the problem of names, for as anyone who has dealt with Middle Eastern geography knows to his cost, names tend constantly to take on political significance, and to be the cause of much recrimination. Therefore, it must be said clearly that
no name at all, whether âIsrael' or âPalestine'or any other, will be used in its modem political sense, unless this is expressly stated
. The name âPalestine' will be used to mean âthe country of the Bible,' on both sides of the Jordan, in the sense in which it is used in many biblical commentaries. âIsrael' will be kept for the ancient kingdom of Israel, lying to the north of the kingdom of Judah. In speaking of the two regions on either side of the great Central Valley of the Jordan and the Arabah we shall speak of âCis-jordan' and âTransjordan'. The whole coastland, stretching from the borders of modern Turkey to Egypt, may be described as the âLevant Coast'.
(Baly 1974: 5)
6
The problem here is that the designation âPalestine' is merely shorthand for âthe country of the Bible'. It is theological assumptions and biblical definitions which ultimately determine any understanding of the region. This is confirmed by the map at the beginning of the book entitled âOld Testament Palestine' in which the regional designations are all biblical tribal designations: âZebulun', âManasseh',
âEphraim', âBenjamin', etc. The theological claims of the Hebrew Bible have been given priority in determining the designation of the land, thereby silencing any alternative claims to understanding the region and its past.
7
The problems of different designations for the region and their underlying competing claims to the past and the present become even sharper in modern Israeli scholarship. Yohanan Aharoni's
The Land of the Bible. A Historical Geography
(1962) has been particularly influential in shaping the discipline. Throughout the work, the phrase âthe Land of the Bible' is used interchangeably with âthe Holy Land' and âPalestine'. At first sight the terms do not appear to be particularly controversial or self-conscious. However, the title of the Hebrew original,
The Land of Israel in Biblical Times
, tends to suggest that, as with Baly, the term âPalestine' is simply shorthand: it is defined primarily in terms of Israel and the biblical understanding of the past. Part Two of the work, entitled âPalestine during the ages' contains a separate chapter on âThe Canaanite period' followed by a series of chapters dealing with âIsraelite' and âJudaean' history. It is noticeable that in chronological terms âCanaanite' is separate from, is succeeded by, and replaced by âIsraelite' history. This chronological distinction between âCanaanite' and âIsraelite' periods pervades biblical scholarship and is an important archaeological and historical differentiation in Israeli scholarship in particular. The Israeli convention of designating archaeological periods as âCanaanite' and âIsraelite' is in contrast to the American and European practice of designating these periods as the Bronze and Iron Ages. However, as we have seen in the work of Albright, despite the differences in archaeological nomenclature, the assumption of much of biblical scholarship is that âIsraelite' culture succeeds, replaces, and surpasses âCanaanite' culture.