Review of: A. Faust: “Israel’s Ethnogenesis: Settlement, Interaction, Expansion and Resistance” (original) (raw)
Related papers
The aim of this article is to reexamine the question of Israel's origins within the broader framework of Israel's emergence in the late 2nd millennium BCE. The article first outlines some methodological difficulties involved in this endeavor, and proceeds to summarize the author's view of Israel's emergence as an ethnic group in the Iron Age. This is then followed by a more detailed discussion of 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 which 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 owns. 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 ofMerneptah’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.
Ethnicity has always been a central issue in Biblical Archaeology. Still, detecting ethnic groups in the archaeological record of ancient Israel in general, and identifying the Israelites in particular, have become less fashionable recently, with many scholars avoiding this altogether. The present article will analyze the reasons for this attitude, and, in light of anthropological approaches to ethnicity, will suggest a new method for the study of ethnic groups in the archaeological record of ancient Israel.
I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times”: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, 2006
The debates surrounding the identity and origins of ancient Israel represent one of the most contentious chapters in the history of archaeological and biblical research. Most views regarding the emergence of ancient Israel fall into the category of one of four general approaches-conquest, peaceful infiltration, social revolution, or pastoral Canaanite theories. The development of these schools of thought not only mirror increased archaeological fieldwork but also are indicators of research and political trends over the past 80 years. These theories, discussed in greater detail below, often reflect not only scholarly opinion and the fashion of the times but also deeply held personal beliefs. However, based on a careful reexamination of the relevant literature and an analysis of the complex social and cultural boundaries of 12th-century BCE Canaan, I propose that a consensus is emerging. Ancient Israel during the Iron I period should be defined as constituted by largely indigenous, tribal, and kinship-based groups, with the additional influx of smaller numbers of members of external groups, whose genealogical affiliations together comprised a "mixed multitude" of peoples. This "mixed multitude" is defined as the inhabitants of the rural Iron I hill country and Transjordanian highland villages and countryside, a population that has been identified by some as the premonarchic "Israelites" or "Proto-Israelites." This article summarizes the textual and archaeological evidence and the role ideology played in the ethnogenesis Early Israel.
Age (e.g., Sass 1983; 2010; Golani and Sass 1998; Finkelstein et al. 2008; Finkelstein and Sass 2013). As we have spent the last 20-odd years studying the Philistine culture, it is with much pleasure that we present in Benny's honor this study of the definitions and relations between the Philistines and their neighbors in the region of the Shephelah during the early Iron Age. In a few recent discussions on the early Iron Age in southern Canaan and the cultural and ethnic entities existing at the time, particularly in Philistia and the Shephelah, the suggestion was raised that a distinct Canaanite entity (or enclave) can be identified in the Shephelah, e.g., Bunimovitz and Lederman 2009, 2011; Na'aman 2010; Faust and Katz 2011, 2015; Faust 2013, 2015d; Lederman and Bunimovitz 2014. This enclave was supposedly situated between the Philistines located to the west on the Coastal Plain and the Israelites located to the east in the Central Hills. In this brief paper, we would like to examine some of the suppositions, and relevant data, regarding the existence of this putative Canaanite enclave. The study of the Philistines and their culture has seen a floruit in the last few decades. Excavations at major urban and smaller rural sites, along with many topical studies, have produced much new data and many new interpretations. Among other issues, the question of how to identify a site as being of the Philistine culture, and even more basically, how the various levels of "Philistine identity" can be archaeologically defined, has been avidly discussed. Unfortunately, some of the attempts to differentiate between the "Philistines" and other ethnicities in the Iron Age Levant on the basis of a small set of material correlates have led to simplistic or simply mistaken differentiations. Thus, suggestions to characterize what we might call the "Philistinicity" of a site based on a small group of traits (often related to as Philistine type fossils) such as the presence/ absence of decorated Philistine pottery (particularly in drinking sets), consumption of pig and dog meat, "Aegean-style" pinched loom weights ("spools"), hearths, "Cypriot-style" notched scapulae, rectangular halls with worked column or pillar bases, are problematic at best. As already noted in the past, many of these specific cultural attributes can appear on "both sides" of the supposed Philistine/ Israelite ethnic boundaries-and even beyond (Hitchcock and Maeir 2013; Maeir et al. 2013; Maeir and Hitchcock in press). 1 Clearly, when viewed as a whole, the material assemblages at major sites in Iron Age Philistia are different from those of sites in regions associated with other groups (Israelite, Judahite, Phoenician, etc.). But time and again, specific types of objects can be seen in many areas and are used by many groups (such as pottery types appearing in different cultural areas; see, e.g., Ben-Shlomo et al. 2008). The appearance of supposedly Philistine objects should not be seen as necessarily indicating the expansion of the Philistine culture into other zones, and similarly, for the appearance of Israelite/Judahite facets among the Philistines. Rather, artifact assemblages should be examined in their contexts in order to draw out different cultural encounters, functions and entanglements as well as to elucidate new ones (e.g., Ross 2012).