rainey inside color - DAVlD BlVlN/ ANSON RAINEY BEFORE THEY...

This preview shows page 1 - 7 out of 7 pages.

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 7 pages?

Unformatted text preview: DAVlD BlVlN/LlFElNTHEHOLYLANDLDM ANSON RAINEY BEFORE THEY SETTLED IN THE HILL COUNTRY OF Canaan, where did the earliest Israelites come from and what was the nature 'of their society? The Bible is very clear. They were pastoral nomads who came from east of the Jordan. Much of the scholarship of the last part of the 20th century, however, has reached a far different conclu— sion. One might almost describe it as diametrically opposed to the Biblical account. According to this scholarship, the Israelites were originally Canaanites fleeing from the city—states of the coastal plain west of the hill country. On one thing all scholars agree: In the period archaeologists call Iron Age 1, from about 1200 to 1000 B.C.E., approximately 300 new settlements sprang up in the central hill country of Canaan that runs through the land like a spine from north to south. Almost everyone also agrees that these were the early Israelites settling down. The famous hieroglyphic text known as the Merneptah Stele, which dates to about 1205 B.C.E., refers to Where Did the Early Israelites Come From? INSIDE OUTSIDE BASED ON A MORE—DETAILED MAP FROM THE SACRED BRIDGE EV ANSUN F. RAINEY AND ll, STEVEN NOILEY _ m; lei-1L was... PRECEDING PAGE. The Canaanite hill country where the earli- est lsraelites settled. “Israel” at this time as a people (not a country or nation) probably located in Transjordan. According to the Bible, Abram (later Abraham), the first Hebrew, was born in Ur, a city far east of the Jordan. Then the family “set out for the land of Canaan,” though they first sojourned in Haran, a site in the modern “Jezirah” of northeastern Syria (Genesis 11:27—32). Biblical traditions also stress the close affinity of the earliest Israelites with the Arameans who lived in the Syrian desert, and not with the city— dwelling Canaanites or Amorites. When Abraham commands his servants to find a wife for Isaac, his servants head east, back to Aram—Naharaim, the city of Nahor, Abraham’s grandfather (Genesis xk—s 24:10). Rebecca, the bride they find, is an Aramean (Genesis 25:20). Likewise, Jacob’s wives, Rachel and Leah, are the daughters of “Laban [Abraham’s nephew] the Aramean” (Genesis 3120,24). In the long speech of Moses that is the Book of Deuteronomy, Moses tells the people to recite before the Lord, “A wandering Aramean was my ancestor” (Deuteronomy 26:5). The Biblical narrative is very clear as to where the first Israelites came from: outside Canaan, east of the Jordan. The Bible is also clear as to the nature of the society from which they came. When Jacob and his sons come down to Egypt to escape the drought in Canaan, Joseph tells them that he will explain to Pharaoh that “My brothers and my father’s house- hold are shepherds. They have always been breeders of livestock, and they have brought with them their flocks and herds and all that is theirs” (Genesis 46:31—34; also Genesis 47:3—4). When the Israelites leave Egypt and come to the land of Edom, they assure the Edomites they will pay for any water the Israelite cattle drink (Numbers 20:19, 32:1). In short, the Bible describes the eain Israel- ites as pastoralists. In 1962 George E. Mendenhali of the University of Michigan introduced a new theory of Israelite origins, however. According to him, the Israelites who settled in the hill country came not from out- side, east of the Jordan, but from inside, from the Canaanite cities of the coastal plain. This massive influx of new settlers into the hill country was the result of an “internal revolt” by beleaguered peas- ants against the Canaanite city-states. To support his thesis, Mendenhall grossly distorted a number of passages from the Amarna Letters that men- tion the ‘apiru, a term often mistakenly associated with the early Israelites (see article on p. 51 of this issue). Empowered by a belief in their God Yahweh, the Israelites eventually withdrew from the power- centered Canaanite cities to the hitherto-unsettled hill country to the east.1 So Mendenhall. Building on this model in a massive monograph, Norman K. Gottwald, then of Union Theological Seminary in New York, did not emphasize the role of religion, as Mendenhall had done, but explained the move to the hill country as an application of a universal Marxist paradigm. The subtitle of his book refers to “liberated Israel." Its reasoning is informed by what the author considers a univer— sal anthropological or sociological model: The early BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY REVIEW - NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2098 rill . lll . ‘\ peasants who became Israel successfully emerged from the Canaanite cities as a result of a “peasa ant revolt.” The revolt was fueled not by Yahwism, as Mendenhall maintained, but by “socio-political egalitarianism.”2 The earliest Israelites, according to this theory, were really Canaanites. To make my position clear at the outset, I have dubbed Gottwald’s theory, which has become wildly popular in academia, the “revolting peasant theory.” The archaeological evidence to support the “revolting peasant theory” was supposedly supplied in 2003 by the well—known American archaeologist William G. Dever of the University of Arizona. Got- twald’s “insights,” Dever wrote, “have proven bril- liantly correct, even if [they were] largely intuitive at the time. Gottwald was right: The early Israelites ' were mostly ‘displaced Canaanites’—displaced both geographically and ideologically.”3 Dever then pur- ports to supply the firm archaeological grounding for the theory.4 Dever’s archaeological support for Gottwald’s ‘ “revolting peasant theory” comes almost exclu- sively from pottery analysis, one of his specialties. According to Dever, the pottery traditions of the Iron Age I hill-country settlements are developed from the Late Bronze Age Canaanite areas of the coastal plains. The pinto-Israelites settling in the hill country brought with them their knowledge of ' Canaanite ceramic traditions, says Dever, thus deme , onstrating their origin. This argument can be easily discredited, howr , ever. The same ceramic traditions have recently been found in Transjordan. Dever simply ignored the Transjordanian evidence that thoroughly under— mines his contention. To supposedly prove his point, Dever con— structed a comparative table of pottery from two hill-country sites (Izbet Sartah and Shiloh) dating to the 12th century B.C.E. alongside similar pot- tery from three major Canaanite cities to the West (Gezer, Lachish and Megiddo) dating to the 13th Century B.C.E. (the Late Bronze Age). This was intended to demonstrate the Canaanite source of the Israelite pottery shapes that appear a century later in the hill country.5 However, we have published a similar chart using as comparative material potter from sites east of the Jordan, including the large mound of Tall al- ‘Umayri, expertly excavated by Larry Herr and Doug- las Clark. This new chart (constructed by Christie :j-l .1 Goulart) shows the same similarities as Dever’s INSIDE OUTSIDE SEEING TRlPLE? If these three jars look identical, that's for a good reason: They are! Well, almost: All three are examples of the famous collared-rim pithos, a large storage jar char- acteristic of the [run Age | (1200—1000 B.C.E.). Scholars have long viewed this vessel as a hallmark of Israelite settlement in ~/’ the hill country. But today, this form has been identified not only at hill-country sites like lzbet Sartah (right) but also at lowland Canaanite cities such as Megiddo {below left) and Transjordanian sites like Tall al—‘Umayri (below right). For Rainey, these similarities prove that the ceramic traditions of the early Israelites did not have to originate from the Late Bronze Age Canaanite city-states, as argued by William Dever, but could just as easily have come from the Transjordanian highlands. chart and clearly demonstrates that there is no longer any excuse to look westward for the inspiration of the surviving Iron Age I pottery shapes. The new hill-country set— tlers acquired their pottery traditions , from their life on the Transjordanian plateau and the Jordan Valley.6 While we’re on the subject of archae- ology, we may note, as does Dever, that there is also a general dissimilarity in domes- tic house construction between the hill-country NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2008 - BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY REVIEW 41 - 7W9»... COURTESY OF THE MADABA PLAINS PROJECT EKCAVATIDNS AT TALL AL-‘UMAYRI‘ IORDAN. ARTIST: RHONDA ROOT @100] INSIDE OUTSIDE 48 LITTLE HOUSE IN THE HILL COUNTRY. Pillared houses {also known as “four—room houses”), a common feature of Iron Age I hill-country settlements, were uniquely adapted to the simple agrarian lifestyle of the early Israelites. In this excavated structure from Tel Masos (above), rows of pillars divide the house into three long rooms, with an additional broad room spanning the back of the house. As shown in the reconstruction at left, the ground floor was used primar- ily for work and as storage for animals and dry goods. The family—which likely included up to three generations—lived, ate, entertained and slept upstairs. The pillared house represents a departure from the earlier Canaanite courtyard house and thus provides further evi— dence that the Israelites did not originate from the lowland Canaanite cities of the Late Bronze Age. In fact, the pillared- house type has been discovered at Transiordanian sites like Tall al-‘Umayri, indicating that this floor plan had broad appeal in the highlands on both sides of the Jordan and may be evidence of a common origin. BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY REVIEW ' NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2008 ZLIM HVWX'IOA I E J3.- S. E- a C). H- .19."): . .2:_Q__fo_9_3__.m. Ctrd _d D l.-..‘l'___L'b._. _f‘ .—o.._».-u_m H as.-- runruvvwnun Israelites and the earlier Canaanite cities of the plain. The famous “four-room house,” with rows of pillars that separate the long rooms (see photo and drawing opposite), that was once identified as the hallmark of an Israelite settlement is found not only at hill-country sites (and at later Israelite sites of the Iron Age II) but more recently on the coastal plain (Tel Harasim, Tell Lachish and Tel Batash)? However, there are also examples from Transjordan at Tall al—‘Umayri and at Khirbet al—Mudayna al- ‘Aliya on the southern Moabite plateau. Another kind of archaeological evidence—the animal bones found in excavations—also tends to disprove the “revolting peasant theory”: The hill- country people did not raise pigs. In contrast, the Philistines living on the coastal plain did have pigs. Pig bones are also typical to some degree of the older Canaanite sites on the coastal plain. It cannot be argued that the hill-country areas were unsuit- able for raising pigs; quite the opposite is true. If the new settlers of the Iron Age I had come from the lowlands, where pigs were domesticated and used, why did they not continue that tradition? Conversely, the steppe land east of the Jordan would not have been conducive to pig-raising. Pigs are hard to move as “flocks,” unlike sheep and goats, which can be moved and herded quite easily. Fur- thermore, since pigs do not have sweat glands, they suffer terribly in the heat On the other hand, sheep and goats, with their protective coats and grazing habits, are ideally suited to life in the steppe. This may explain the absence of pigs in the culinary diet of the hill-country settlers; they were not accustomed to raising pigs because they did not have them in their former habitat on the east ern steppe. Indeed, the cultural/religious ideology that seems to have accompanied the prohibitions on eating pork, preserved in Biblical kosher laws, probably derives from a rejection of the values of the sedentary Canaanite and Philistine religions. In cultures around the eastern Mediterranean, pigs were sacred to the deities of the underworld and were sacrificed to them. That this was true for the Aegean suggests that it could have been equally true of Philistia. Perhaps the most powerful arguments that the ancient Israelites came from the eastern steppe, rather than from lowland Canaan, come from lin~ guistics, a discipline in which Dever is sadly lack ing. My study of Northwest Semitic languages in the last few years, especially of the significant INSIDE OUTSIDE epigraphic discoveries made in the late 20th cen- tury,* has firmly convinced me that Hebrew has more affinities with Ti-ansjordanian languages (such as Aramaic and Moabite) than with Phoenician (that is, coastal Canaanite). And this has profound significance for the origin of the Iron I settlers in the hill country. The Biblical narrative is very clear as to where the earliest Israelites came from-— east oft/16 Jordan. Although both ancient Hebrew and Aramaic bor— rowed the 22-letter Phoenician (Canaanite) alpha- bet, the fit was not quite perfect: Hebrew and Aramaic needed more consonants. Hebrew had at least 25 consonants. Aramaic had at least 26. (The consonantal repertoire of Ammonite, Moabite and Edomite cannot yet be established.) Accordingly, Hebrew and Aramaic had to make some compro- mises. A few letters had to do double duty; that is, they were polyphonal. The use of one sign for shin “sh”) and sin “s”) is the most obvious example. It would be completely illogical to suggest, as would be required by the “revolting peasant theory,” that the vast population of the newly established hill- country sites were peasants from the lowlands who had always spoken a different dialect from their Canaanite feudal masters. The adoption of the Phoenician alphabet by the Hebrews settling in the hill country and by the 'I‘ransjordanian peoples is easily explainable: The Phoenician alphabet enjoyed a high prestige in the Levant, probably because of the Phoenicians’ high degree of literacy. The rustic clans from the steppe lands to the east were so impressed by this supe- rior cultural feature that, as they began to develop their own social and political organizations, they adopted the writing medium of the highly cultured people of the coastal areas. The linguistic affinities between Hebrew and the Transjordanian languages evidence the com- mon heritage of the early Israelites with other pastoral nomadic Transjordanian tribes such as the *Namely the Aramaic Deir Alla Inscription mentioning the prophet Balsam (see Andre Lemaire, ‘Fragments from the Book of Balsam Found at Deir Alla,” BAR, September/Octo- ber1985) and the Aramaic Tel Dan Inscription (see "‘David’ Found at Dan,” BAR, March/April 1994). NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2008 - BIBLJCAL ARCHAEOLOGY REVIEW 49 INSIDE OUTSIDE Ammonites, Moabites and Edomites, and further east, the Arameans. This area is a single isogloss, as linguists call the area of a common dialect of languages. Coastal Phoenician (Canaanite) does not share these features. For example, Phoenician and Ugaritic (a language known from the north- ern coastal city of Ugarit) have a different root for the verb “to be” (kwn) than that found in Hebrew, Moabite and Aramaic (hwy or hyy). Other exam- ples of linguistic divergence include the verb "to do” and the word for “gold.” Another significant link between Hebrew and Moabite is the use of the relative pronoun “that” (usher). It has no relationship to the Phoenician word ’is that performs the same linguistic service. well-known refuge zones to which ancient pasto- ralists would turn in times of trouble. The 13th and the early 12th centuries B.C.E. saw a new phenomenon in the hill—country areas and plateaus of the southern Levant As we have seen, a plethora of small campsite—like settlements sprang up in the uplands of the Upper Galilee, in the Lower Galilee, in the hill country of Manasseh and Ephraim, in the hill country of Judah and in the Biblical Negev, all as documented in recent archae— ological surveys. Surveys on the eastern side of the Jordan Valley indicate the same phenomenon was occurring there.8 It is in this anthropological con- text that the emergence of the early Israelites must be understood. Hebrew has more affinities with Transjordanian languages than with coastal Phoenician. This has profound significance for the origin of the Israelite settlers in the Canaanite hill country. BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY REVIEW - Several word sequences (or syntagmas) used to narrate sequential actions are shared by Hebrew, Moabite and Aramaic but are not found in coastal Phoenician. The most striking is the use of an archaic form for the past tense, often wrongly called the verb with conversive wow. . All this linguistic material provides a very strong argument for classifying ancient Hebrew and Moabite not as Canaanite dialects, but as Trans- jordanian languages. And this provides a nearly airtight case that the speakers of ancient Hebrew came from the same area as the Moabites, the Ammonites and the Araineansiand not from the Canaanite cities on the coastal plain. It is ironic that the “revolting peasant theory” is supposedly based on anthropological models, while in fact a consideration of the anthropological context of the emergence of the ancient Israelites points in the opposite direction. It is clear, espe- cially from Egyptian texts of the Ramesside period (13th—12th centuries B.C.E.), that during times of stress (especially periods of drought and famine), pastoralists like the Israelites would seek refuge in settled areas. Such behavior finds striking paral- lels in the activities of 19th-century C.E. Bedouin groups, as well as the movements of the Biblical patriarchs, especially Jacob and his sons. The Tigris and Euphrates Valley, the Lebanese Beqa‘ and the Jezreel Valley were, like the Egyptian Delta, all Moreover, as Dever himself has observed, coastal Canaanite sites such as Acco, Tel Keisan, Tel Yoqne‘am and Tell Qiri, as well as Megiddo, all reflect a continuity of occupation from the 13th to the 11th centuries B.C.E.9 They show no signs of a “peasant revolt.” Another anthropological insight places the emer- gence of the Israelites in a still-broader context. All across the eastern Mediterranean and the Near East, there were massive invasions of the sedentary areas by outsiders at the end of the Late Bronze Age (about 1200 B.C.E.). The Libyans (with their constituent tribes or nations) invaded the Egyptian Delta. The Phryg‘ians/Mushku invaded Anatolia. The Sea Peoples (including the Philistines, Sikels and others) destroyed Canaanite cities and settled in a long swath on the eastern Mediterranean coast, excluding the Phoenician port cities. Hordes of Arameans stormed into northern Syria and Mesopotamia. In each of these cases, a new ethnic group, fully conscious of its ethnicity, found a new homeland. In the same way, the new immigrants into the hill-country areas of Galilee, Samaria and Judea brought with them a consciousness of their own ethnic identity. There is no reason to doubt the principal assumption of the Biblical tradition that the ancient Israelites migrated as pastoralists from east of the Jordan. 9 ENDNOTES ON PAGE B4 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2008 —( -GAR_O NALBANDIAN Queries & Comments continued from page 16 times who believe that women are less intelligent and capable. Please continue with what you do best.- publishing reports and evaluations on the state of archaeology. No, I will not cancel my subscription in self-righteous anger. DORCAS AURKO WALLKILL, NEW YORK BAR AS TOURIST GUIDE I am a pastor. Theologically I am an evan- gelical but not a fundamentalist, in part for philosophical reasons. But I read and enjoy BAR. I learn something every time I read the magazine, and I learn something every time some scholar writes and says why an article can’t possibly be correct. What’s wrong with disagreement? IfI didn’t read BAR, I wouldn’t have enjoyed my recent trip to Israel nearly as much. Seeing Caesarea, Sepphoris and the Temple Mount after reading BAR and seeing the pictures (and reading Hershel’s book on the Temple Mount and the Holy of Holies) was wonderful. I knew what I was looking at! ROSERT CAMPBELL SHARON HILL. FENNSYLVANIA IT DIDN’...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Get FREE access by uploading your study materials

Upload your study materials now and get free access to over 25 million documents.

Upload now for FREE access Or pay now for instant access
Christopher Reinemann
"Before using Course Hero my grade was at 78%. By the end of the semester my grade was at 90%. I could not have done it without all the class material I found."
— Christopher R., University of Rhode Island '15, Course Hero Intern

Ask a question for free

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern