CSAP 619 MD: Biblical Archaeology

On the Origin of Israel in

Canaan 15th Century Conquest, Tribalism and Struggle

Timothy A. Zieger

5/25/2012

Titus Kennedy

Zieger 1

How did the Israelites come to be in the land of Canaan?1 The Biblical narrative has been

mostly discounted by modern skeptical scholars as erroneous at best and fictional at worst. As

Provan notes, “The history of ‘ancient Israel,’ if that is the correct term, must in this case be

sought not in the biblical stories, but in the artifacts, buildings, and inscriptions the people

themselves left behind.”2 Toward that end, archaeologists have proposed a plethora of theories

accounting for the origin of Israel. Notwithstanding, two general perspectives have arisen,

though a great deal of variance abides with regard to specifics. One perspective understands

Israel to have entered into the land from without. The other view sees them as having emerged

from the Canaanites within the land. Some of the latter emergence theories and their proponents

are at present enjoying great popularity; but, the evidence adduced for their varied positions is

not incontrovertible. A late 15th

century conquest that only marginally involved razing, followed

by several centuries of social strife fits both the archaeological and biblical testimony best, and is

to be preferred.

Some Archaeological Perspectives

1 For the purposes of this paper, a discussion of the Exodus lies outside the scope—the question is how

Israel came to be in the land of Canaan. However, it is here assumed that an Exodus ca. 1446 is the Bible’s own

testimony (see especially: 1 Kings 6:1; Judges 11:26); it is thus used as a working hypothesis.

For resources on a 15th

century Exodus, see:

Bryant G. Wood, “Recent Research on the Date and Setting of the Exodus,” Bible and Spade Vol. 21 No. 4, (Fall

2008); Idem, “The Biblical Date for the Exodus is 1446 BC: A Response to James Hoffmeir,” JETS 50/2, (June

2007): 249-58; William Shea, “Amenhotep II as Pharaoh of the Exodus,” Bible and the Spade Vol. 16 No. 2,

(Spring 2003). John J. Bimson, and David Livingston, “Redating the Exodus,” Biblical Archaeology Review,

(Sep/Oct 1987): 40-48, 51-53, 66-68.

For contrapuntal perspectives, see:

Nahum M. Sarna, “Exploring Exodus: The Oppression,” The Biblical Archaeologist , Vol. 49, No. 2 (Jun., 1986):

68-80.; Kenneth A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003); James K.

Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition. (New York: Oxford

University Press, 1996).; Baruch Halpern, “The Exodus from Egypt: Myth or Reality?,” The Rise of Ancient Israel,

(1991): 87-117. 2 Lain W. Provan, “Ideologies, Literary and Critical: Reflections on Recent Writing on the History of

Israel,” Journal of Biblical Literature Vol. 114, No. 4 (Winter, 1995): 585-606.

Zieger 2

Many theories have been put forth to account for the presence of Israel in the land of

Canaan. As mentioned above, the models can be grouped into two broad categories: those that

see Israel as entering from without, and those that view Israel as having emerged from within.

From Without

Merrill observes that “The most common understanding of the conquest in precritical

times was that of a violent destructive incursion of Canaan by Israel’s armies, one that in seven

years or so annihilated much of the indigenous population and reduced the cities, towns, and

other structures to rubble.”3 This position was modified by scholars like Albrecht Alt and Martin

Noth, who argued for an extended infiltration. Instead of being violent and militaristic, their

conquest was “…a gradual penetration of Canaan by outside pastoralists who eventually united

with each other as tribes and who also brought into their federation indigenous peoples.”4 Alt and

Noth posited that from this coalescence a core of religious traditions/convictions involving the

worship of YHWH arose.5

In Merrill’s estimation, the once dominant conquest model of W.F. Albright and John

Bright largely adheres to the biblical picture with a few notable adaptations.6 He presents their

basic perspective:

Israel emerged…as a collection of tribes, some indigenous and some from the outside,

who confessed a common heritage and faith and who, on that basis, became a

recognizably distinct people. As for the conquest, it did take place, and with violent

repercussions, sometime in the 13th

century. It should not be seen as an all-Israel

invasion, however, but as the action of only some of the tribes who experienced

Canaanite resistance to their attempts to locate within the land.7

3 Eugene H. Merrill, “The Late Bronze/Early Iron Age Transition and the Emergence of Israel,” Bibliotheca

Sacra 152: 606 (1995): 145-162, here, 148. 4 Ibid., 149.

5 Ibid.

6 Kenneth A. Kitchen is currently the most outspoken proponent of essentially this 13

th century conquest

model. See: Kenneth A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003). 7 Merrill, “The Late Bronze/Early Iron Age Transition and the Emergence of Israel,” 149.

Zieger 3

Dever suggests that the main point recommending the conquest model to influential scholars like

W. F. Albright, J. Bright, G. E. Bright, and Y. Yadin was “that it took the biblical account (in

Joshua, though not in Judges) seriously, if naively.”8 He goes on to suggest that the main reason

for its demise was “the absence not only of destruction levels at Dibon and Heshbon in

Transjordan, but also any possible occupational context for such.” 9

Ultimately, however, the

work of Kathleen Kenyon at Jericho left nothing for Israel to defeat on any theory of the exodus,

and therefore severely undercut the 13th

century conquest model.10

From Within

After expressing dissatisfaction with the sole alternatives for the origin of Israel then

available, G.E. Mendenhall proposed a new, sociologically oriented, “peasant revolt theory.”11

To him, Alt’s model was based upon a faulty understanding of nomads that, upon re-evaluation,

left the infiltration hypothesis empty. And, as far as the conquest theory was concerned,

Mendenhall proclaimed,

...There was no statistically important invasion of Palestine at the beginning of the twelve

tribe system of Israel. There was no radical displacement of population, there was no

genocide, there was no large scale driving out of population, only of royal administrators

(of necessity!). In summary, there was no real conquest of Palestine at all; what happened

instead may be termed, from the point of view of the secular historian interested only in

socio-political processes, a peasant’s revolt against the network of interlocking Canaanite

city states.12

This he based largely upon the notion that the biblical accounts and the Amarna letters conveyed

the same situation on the ground, namely the political and subjective withdrawal of the hab/piru

8 William G. Dever, Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?, (Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 2003), 44. 9 Ibid., 45.

10 Ibid. John Brimson notes this Achilles’ heel as well, citing the profound lack of archaeological

corroboration at “Jericho, Ai…Gibeon…Hebron, Arad and Zephath/Hormah,” as insurmountable problems for the

13th

century conquest model. See: John Brimson, “The Origins of Israel in Canaan: An Examination of Recent

Theories,” Themelios 15.1 (October 1989): 4-15, here, 5. 11

George E. Mendenhall, “The Hebrew Conquest of Palestine,” The Biblical Archaeologist Vol. 25, No. 3

(Sep., 1962): 65-87 12

Ibid., 73.

Zieger 4

from the Canaanite society as it stood.13

This withdrawal was, for him, sparked by the Yahwistic

faith of a small group of “slave labor captives [that] succeeded in escaping from Egypt.”14

Though this suggestion was not initially well received, it gradually inspired a number of

other theories of a similar nature. Brimson highlights four such theories: Finkelstein’s nomadic

model, J.A. Callaway’s displaced coastal plain and Shephelah villagers interpretation, N. P.

Lemche’s “evolutionary Israel” view, and R. B. Coote and K. W. Whitelam’s synthesis, which

places the emergence of Israel in the context of LB economic decline.15

Dever’s summation of

the current climate of scholarly opinion demonstrates just how seminal Mendenhall’s

sociological theory was. He suggests that all older models of Israel’s origins are obsolete:

archaeology, the best source for the real history of early Israel has demonstrated the fact that

Israel’s origin is indigenous to Canaan, and occurred visibly within the LB II/IA I transition. In

13

Ibid. Anson Rainey and others have suggested that habiru (‘apiru) has absolutely no connection with the

Hebrews, linguistically or otherwise. “Habiru,” he observes, “is not an ethnic designation. The habiru are a social

element. It is likewise clear from the personal names of individual habiru that they are not from a single linguistic

group.” He argues that habiru was a pejorative term often synonymous with “pauper” or “mutineer”. He does,

however, believe that shasu refers to the Hebrews, noting several connections, including the fact that shasu is used

to designate a pastoralist, tribal people group that occupied regions throughout the Levant, including much of

Canaan. (Anson F. Rainey, “Shasu or Habiru: Who Were the Early Israelites?,” Biblical Archaeology Review

Nov/Dec 2008, 51-55. Cf. Idem, “Scholars Disagree: Can You Name the Panel with the Israelites?: Rainey’s

Challenge.” Biblical Archaeology Review Nov/Dec 1991, 56-60, 93, 96.)

Rainey, of course, uses this distinction to argue in favor of a nomadic origin of Israel (as per Finkelstein).

The finer points of this theory are simply not robust. For instance, the notion that the earliest settlements lie toward

the eastern edge of the central hill country of Canaan (used to indicate the Transjordan origin of the nomadic—

shasu—peoples that formed Israel) is simply not convincing. Dever has done a respectable job showing that

Finkelstein’s settling nomads would simply not be enough to explain the “ten-fold growth in population in Iron I—

not even if every family produced 50 surviving children!” This he accomplishes on Finkelstein’s own estimates for

the highland settlement population of the 12th

century B.C. (ca. 12,800 to 17,000) and for the 11th

century B.C. (ca.

30,200 to 42,700). For, “by Finkelstein’s own estimates, the pastoral-nomadic element of the population of Palestine

in all periods up until recently has been about 10% of the total (or a maximum of 15%),” leaving, at most, 1,200-

1,500 nomad-pastoralists to account for the 17,400-25,700 new occupants in the Iron I highlands (Cf. Dever Who

Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?, 157.).

Perhaps a more moderate approach may better suit the shasu vs. habiru problem. Perhaps both shasu and

habiru, as terms denoting, respectively, pastoralist-tribalists and outlaw-paupers, encompass the Hebrews without

specifically denoting them. 14

Ibid. 15

Brimson, “The Origins of Israel in Canaan: An Examination of Recent Theories,” 10ff.

Zieger 5

support of this consensus are the material continuities between the Canaanites and the LB II/IA I

settlements associated with “Proto-Israel.”16

Thus it stands. The Bible has been relieved of the duty to account for Israel’s historical

origin: archaeology and anthropology provide the truth where it could not. Those theories that

posit a violent conquest or even peaceful infiltration are now all but abandoned. This consensus

is unsatisfying, and is based on essentially three erroneous assumptions: the biblical conquest is

set ca. 1230 B.C., it included wide-scale razing, and it would preclude material continuity

between the Canaanites and Israelite conquerors. Given the Bible’s own admissions and the

archaeological record, however, there is little reason to discount the text as historically reliable.17

The Biblical Testimony

Conquest

According to the Bible’s portrayal, Israel entered the land from without, first conquering

portions of the Transjordan region from beside the Dead Sea north to Mt. Hermon, and then

crossing the Jordan to seize southern and northern Canaan regions in two campaigns.18

Bypassing the Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites, Moses and the Israelites quickly took

territory from kings Sihon and Og east of the Jordan (cf. Num. 21:21-25; Deut. 3:8-10); Reuben,

Gad, and half of the tribe of Manasseh chose to occupy this land (Num. 32:1). Subsequently,

Israel moved across the Jordan and engaged in a long conquest of Cisjordan (cf. Jos. 6-12). The

southern campaign was punctuated by a covenant renewal at Shechem (Jos 8:33), wherein both

16

Cf. Dever Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?, 167. 17

Issues of textual criticism are simply outside of the scope of this paper, though they remain troublesome

for many skeptics. Yet, the extent to which the biblical accounts of the conquest an settlement of Canaan fit with a

reasonable reconstruction of the archaeological data militates against rampant skepticism toward the text. 18

Cf. Num. 21:21-35; Deut. 2:32-37, 3:1-17; Joshua; Judges 1

In answer to the question, “Who were the earliest Israelites and what was the nature of their society?” Rainey

declares: “The Bible is very clear. They were pastoral nomads who came from east of the Jordan.” Indeed, this is

very clear, and so starkly put, it highlights the significance of the proposal that Israel arose as a “motley crew” of

indigenous Canaanites and other displaced folk from the broader Levant.

Anson F. Rainey, “Inside, Outside: Where Did the Early Israelites Come From?,” Biblical Archaeology Review

(Nov/Dec 2008): 45-50, here 48.

Zieger 6

“resident foreigners and native Israelites” (NET) heard the Law of Moses read aloud. After this,

the land was divided among the remaining tribes, each one with the responsibility of fully

displacing the Canaanites within their respective territories (cf. Jos. 13-21). Much of Canaan thus

became occupied by the tribes of Israel.

Significantly, no biblical passage dealing with this entrance into the Transjordan or

Cisjordan regions requires that the Hebrews always destroyed conquered cities, or that their

conquest was complete. That is, the conquest primarily involved the displacement of peoples;19

few cities were razed or burned (Jericho: cf. Jos. 6:24, Ai: cf. Jos. 8:28, and Hazor: cf. Jos.

10:11).20

There would be little reason for the Israelites to do so. In fact, exhortations like that

found in Deuteronomy 6:10-12 suggest that they did not:

“Then it shall come about when the LORD your God brings you into the land which He

swore to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to give you, great and splendid cities

which you did not build, and houses full of all good things which you did not fill, and

hewn cisterns which you did not dig, vineyards and olive trees which you did not plant,

and you eat and are satisfied, then watch yourself, that you do not forget the LORD who

brought you from the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. (NASB; italics are mine

for emphasis)

Israel was expected to occupy cities, with all their attendant benefits, that were not their own. It

would not, then, be surprising to discover a general state of material continuity within the

Canaanite regions through LBI/LBII A transition (conquest), or even the LBII B/IA I transition

(proliferation of highland settlements). The semi-nomadic Hebrews executing the conquest of

Canaan should not be expected to usher in a sharp cultural break with the inhabitants of the land:

19

Merrill opines, “Once one understands that the [cherem] under which Canaan stood applied only to

populations and not places (Jericho, Ai, and Hazor excepted) the archaeological verifiability of the conquest is

shown to be an exercise in irrelevance.” This may be slightly hyperbolic, since the material evidence for the

conquest of those three principle cities is arguably discernible, but the general point is valid. Eugene H. Merrill,

“The Late Bronze/Early Iron Age Transition and the Emergence of Israel,” Biblitheca Sacra 152: 606 (1995): 145-

162, here, 153. 20

It is noted in Judges that Jerusalem was set on fire by “the men of Judah” (Jud. 1:8); such evidence

remains to be found. Given the extent to which significant excavations are restricted in the city, Jerusalem remains a

perpetual frustration for archaeologists.

Zieger 7

they would likely have had little distinctive material culture of their own and would possibly

have been in need of the material resources available within the conquered cities and outlying

districts of Canaan.21

Indeed, that is the expectation noted in this passage.

Furthermore, the conquest was not complete; several passages make this abundantly

clear. In Transjordan and to the south, the Hebrews left several notable people-groups

unmolested: the Edomites (Deut. 2:4), Moabites (Deut. 2:9), and Ammonites (Deut 2:19, 37).

After Joshua’s southern and northern campaigns in Cisjordan, several inhabitants explicitly

remained, including those of Gibeon (Jos. 9-10:15), of Jerusalem (Jos. 15:63), of Gezer (Jos.

16:10), and of the coastal regions along the Mediterranean up to Megiddo (cf. Jos. 17:11-13).

Moreover, Joshua’s farewell address to Israel includes exhortations to stay distinct from the

“nations…which remain[ed] among [them]” (cf. Jos. 23:12-13). There should be little doubt that

such remaining indigents would have influenced the socioeconomic culture of Canaan even with

the Israelites there.

Beyond the Conquest

Additionally, the book of Judges not only reiterates these vestigial inhabitants and towns,

listing even several more (cf. Jud. 1:27-35), but the tenor of the book is pointedly fixed on this

latent non-Israelite presence and the grief which it fomented.22

By the Bible’s clear admission,

the Israelites were not alone in the land after Joshua’s spearhead campaigns, and only slowly,

with great struggle, became established in Canaan.

21

Cf. Bimson, and Livingston, “Redating the Exodus,” 40-48, 51-53, 66-68. 22

That indigents would remain as a troublesome presence within the land is anticipated by the warning of

Numbers 33:55: “But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then it shall come about

that those whom you let remain of them will become as pricks in your eyes and as thorns in your sides, and they will

trouble you in the land in which you live.” (NASB)

Even more significant is the rebuke of Judges 2:1-3: “The angel of the LORD went up from Gilgal to Bokim and

said, “I brought you up out of Egypt and led you into the land I swore to give to your ancestors. I said, ‘I will never

break my covenant with you, and you shall not make a covenant with the people of this land, but you shall break

down their altars. ’ Yet you have disobeyed me. Why have you done this? And I have also said, ‘I will not drive

them out before you; they will become traps for you, and their gods will become snares to you.”(NIV)

Zieger 8

First, the book depicts great social turbulence in the land. As semi-independent entities,

each Israelite tribe was responsible for displacing the Canaanites within their region. So, at the

outset, the tribes encountered severe resistance. Judah took possession of the hill country, but

was unable to displace the inhabitants of the plains (Jud. 1:19). The Benjamites failed to drive

out the Jebusites from Jerusalem, and so shared the city with them (Jud. 1:21; cf. Jos. 15:63).

Manasseh did not expel the Canaanites along the northeastern edge of its allotted land (cf. Jud.

1:27); though they later “pressed [them] into forced labor,” they “never drove them out

completely” (Jud. 1:28). The tribes of Ephraim (Jud. 1:29), Zebulun (1:30), Asher (1:31-32), and

Naphtali (1:33) experienced similar setbacks. And, the Amorites, who were “determined to hold

out in Mount Heres, Aijalon and Shaalbim,” are said to have “confined the Danites to the hill

country, not allowing them to come down into the plain” (1:34). The buffeted Israelites even

seem marginalized by the portrait of these texts, occupying primarily the heartland regions of the

Cisjordan and areas of Gilead, cut off from one another by numerous Canaanite settlements.

Beyond this, no fewer than six foreign oppressions are recorded in Judges: Cushan-

Rishathaim (Mesopotamian; cf. 3:7-11), Eglon (Moabite; 3:12-31), Jabin (Canaanite; 4:1-5:31),

Midianite (cf. 6:1-10:6), Ammonite (10:7-12:15), and Philistine (13:1-16:31).23

The tribes of

Israel, unified by virtue of their ethnicity (descendants of Israel) and their shared identity as the

people of YHWH (cf. Lev. 26:12; Num 1), were often sorely oppressed during the Judges period.

They are pressed into labor often, and at one point are even forced to inhabit “dens which were

in the mountains and the caves and the strongholds” (6:2). Leaders arose ad hoc in this tribal

configuration, relieving Israel from these oppressors and securing fleeting periods of peace.

Among the most notable episodes of deliverance is that which comes under the direction of

23

Andrew E. Steinmann, “The Mysterious Numbers of the Book of Judges,” JETS 43/3 (September 2005):

491-500, table 1, 493.

Zieger 9

Deborah and Barak, against Jabin, the “king” of Canaan who lived in Hazor, whose military

commander they defeated, and whom they pressed ultimately to destruction (cf. Jud. 4:1-24).

The loosely knit tribes endured this turbulent status until Saul became king (1 Sam 10), when a

unified state began to form that would become established under David.

Ineluctably, the biblical testimony is clear: a significant Canaanite populace remained in

the land when Israel moved in, and the socioeconomic conditions that followed were turbulent.

No scholar denies the clear message of the biblical narrative in this regard. One real objection is,

however, well-articulated by Finkelstein when he states, “According to the inner logic of the

biblical narrative, and when placed against the history of the ancient Near East, the period of the

Judges covered about two centuries, from approximately 1200 to 1000 B.C.E. Yet the book of

Judges does not depict the realities of the Iron Age I period.”24

Chronological issues aside, just

what realities might be expected given the biblical testimony regarding the Judges period that

came swiftly in the wake of the conquest?

The Bible’s own assertions must be born in mind in attempting an answer to this

question. The conquest left many cities intact and people alive and the Israelites struggled with

these nations for several centuries as tribal entities until the monarchy. Thus, in sum, few cities

and town conflagrations ought to be attributable to the conquest: only three are explicitly named

in the text—these destruction layers, dating to the Late Bronze I age, ought to be reconcilable

24

Israel Finkelstein and Amihai Mazar, The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the

History of Early Israel, ed. Brian B. Schmidt, (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007): 73.

This statement is misleading. The two hundred year span cannot be based upon the “inner logic” of the biblical

narrative alone which even by the time of Jephthah has Israel occupying “Heshbon, Aroer, the surrounding

settlements and all the towns along the Arnon” (Jud. 11:26) for three hundred years. On the biblical chronology, the

Judges period must occupy nearly four centuries, as Solomon began constructing the temple in the fourth year of his

reign, ca. 966 B.C., four hundred eighty years after the Exodus (1 King. 6:1), ca. 1446. Roughly one century must be

deducted from that figure for the period in the wilderness and the reigns of Saul and David, leaving about three

hundred eighty years for the Judges. Yet, it is not clear that Finkelstein’s picture would be any different if he

allowed the frame to be ca. 1350-1000 B.C.

Zieger 10

with the archaeological evidence. Material remains during the Late Bronze should not indicate a

drastic ethnic shift. As referenced earlier, Israel anticipated using cities, cisterns, and other

features of civilization, so they would likely have let them stand largely as they found them: any

distinct material culture attributable to the Israelites ought to emerge somewhat gradually.

Finally, according to the picture presented in the book of Judges, the cultural and demographic

characteristics of the LB II/IA I settlements within the region should be poor and tribal in

organization.

Synthesizing the Data with the Biblical Testimony

Many of the sites mentioned in the conquest narratives have been either surveyed or

excavated to varying degrees. A mere sampling of this accrued data should suffice to give a taste

of the situation on, or in, the ground. First, however, it should be mentioned that locating biblical

sites with any degree of certainty is often fraught with challenges. MacDonald suggests that

“three factors come into play in the identification of an ancient settlement: 1) topographical and

historical information derived from ancient written sources; 2) analysis of the site’s name,

development, and preservation in the area; and 3) artificial evidence recovered by excavation

and/or survey.”25

This is by no means to say that site identification is outside of the scope of

certitude, but only to acknowledge the fact that the precise location of many biblical sites is not,

in all cases, settled: site identification generally remains a complex process.26

As with all

archaeological research especially, this reality confirms the sound adage, “absence of evidence is

not evidence of absence.”

A. Transjordan Sites

25

Burton MacDonald, “East of the Jordan” Territories and Sites of the Hebrew Scriptures, (Boston:

ASOR, 2000): 13. 26

For more on site identification, see: Anson F. Rainey, “Historical Geography: The Link between

Historical and Archeological Interpretation,” The Biblical Archaeologist Vol. 45, No. 4 (Autumn, 1982): 217-223,

especially 219ff.

Zieger 11

Dibon

Biblical Dibon of Moab is ubiquitous in Numbers. The Israelites briefly camp there while on

their journey into the east Jordan region (Num. 33:45-46). It is referenced as the city at the

southern extent of the Transjordan conquest (Num. 21:30), and among those “ideal for cattle,”

apportioned by Moses to the tribe of Reuben (Jos. 13:15-23). At some point following the

apportioning of land east of the Jordan, the Gadites are said to have “rebuilt Dibon” (Num.

32:34), indicating that it had been destroyed or abandoned earlier (likely by the oppression of the

Amorites, not the Hebrews; cf. Num. 21:24-30).

Numerous excavations at Dhiban have failed to uncover any notable occupational layers

from the time of the LB up through IA I: “Six seasons of excavations at Dhiban (ancient Dibon)

during 1950-56 and 1965 produced a small amount of Iron I material, none of it located

stratiagraphically.”27

As referenced above, Dever seizes this as one of the chief reasons for

denying the historicity of the conquest. However, a few rejoinders may be made to such a

reaction. As Kitchen notes, “The archaeology of the site is very fragmentary and incomplete.”28

Perhaps there is more to be discovered at Dhibon—it is certainly possible—or, instead, perhaps a

nearby site is a better location for Dibon. Though skepticism may scoff at the latter notion, it is

not simply the lack of evidence for biblical Dibon that recommends alternatives: it is the

presence of extrabiblical, reliable references to it that uphold the existence of a Late Bronze-Iron

Age Dibon. During Egypt’s period of domination over Canaan in the Late Bronze Age, roads

were maintained leading from Egypt to and through various areas of Canaan, including Dibon.

Three relevant Egyptian maps and topographical lists, dating to the LB I, LB IIA, and LB IIB,

are known to be extant. Though none is complete, all include Dibon as a city along the way from

27 Max Miller, “Ancient Moab: Still Largely Unknown,” The Biblical Archaeologist Vol. 60, No. 4, The

Archaeology of Moab (Dec., 1997):194-204, here, 199. 28

Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, 195.

Zieger 12

Arabah to the Jordan, and by comparing the three lists, the Numbers 33:45b-50 list of Israel’s

camps becomes easily discernible.29

Additionally, toponym lists of Thutmoses III’s (ca. 1479-

1425 B.C.) military forays into the Transjordan include references that may be interpreted as

referring to Dibon (ti-pu-nu).30

So, even though the artifacts may not yet be found at Dhibon,

enough evidence exists to warrant an acceptance of 15th

century Dibon and lend rich plausibility

to the biblical account of Israel’s encounter with it.

Heshbon

The “city of king Sihon of the Amorites,” (Num. 21:26), Heshbon is cast as a prominent city

of Transjordan in the conquest narratives. The tribes of Israel are not supposed to have destroyed

the city proper at all; instead, their defeat of King Sihon at Jahaz opened the whole Amorite

territory to their occupation: “Israel settled in all the cities of the Amorites, in Heshbon, and in

all its villages” (cf. 21:23-25).

Biblical Heshban is generally identified as Tell Hesban (Tall Hisban), though not

unequivocally. A number of excavations have taken place at the Tell, yet no verifiable

occupational levels have been dated to the Late Bronze. Geraty et al., of the Madaba Plains

Project, observe that, in the region, a period of settlement abatement lasted from roughly the MB

III/IV on through the LB until Iron I, with one notable exception: Tell el Umeieri, located

roughly 10 km north east of Hesban.31

It may certainly be the case that Hesban was no more than

the site of limited tribal or nomadic activity around the time of the conquest, as seems to be the

29

Cf. Charles R. Krahmalkov, “Exodus Itinerary Confirmed by Egyptian Evidence,” Biblical Archaeology

Review (Sep/Oct 1994): 54-62.

See also: Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, 195. 30

Cf. Udo Worschech, “Egypt and Moab,” The Biblical Archaeologist Vol. 60, No. 4, The Archaeology of

Moab (Dec., 1997): 229-236, here, 230ff. This interpretation, however, has not been unchallenged, as Worschech

notes. 31

Lawrence T. Geraty et al., “Madaba Plains Project: A Preliminary Report of the 1987 Season at Tell El-

'Umeiri and Vicinity,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Supplementary Studies No. 26,

Preliminary Reports of ASOR-Sponsored Excavations 1983-87 (1990): 59-88, here 60.

Zieger 13

case with much of the rest of the Transjordan in this period;32

but it is not unlikely that either

Tell el-Umeieri or Tell el-Jalul may instead be the actual location of biblical Heshbon.33

Given

the current archaeological understanding of the region, however, there is little reason to jettison

the biblical conquest picture. Two points especially undergird the plausibility of the biblical

account: a “lessening and a centralization of sedentary population at a comparatively few fixed

and strongly fortified points”34

seems to reflect the character of the region of Israel’s attack as

described in Numbers, etc., and the increase in settlement activity during Iron Age and on35

fairs

well with Israel’s presence in the land during the Judges period and beyond.

Cisjordan Sites

Jericho

The first city on Israel’s agenda after crossing the Jordan was Jericho (Jos. 6). Joshua and

the incoming forces are said to have achieved a great victory over Jericho—the walls of the city

collapsed and the Israelite attackers went “up into the city, each one straight ahead,

and…captured the city” (Jos. 6:20b NET). Unanimously identified as Tell es-Sultan, Jericho has

been the darling site of opposing perspectives. Two main excavations serve as the subjects of

32

Cf. Robert D. Ibach, “Archaeological Survey of the Hesban Region,” Andrews University Seminary

Studies 14.1 (Spring 1976): 113-117. And, see Glueck:

“During most of the…MB II period and much of the LB period, both in the Jordan Valley and in the Transjordan,

there seems to have set in a sharp decline of permanent settlement, accompanied by a lessening and a centralization

of sedentary population at a comparatively few fixed and strongly fortified points. In North Gilead and in the Jordan

Valley, this decline seems to have taken place mainly between the middle of the 18th

and the 15th

centuries B.C.,

while in the rest of Transjordan south of the Wadi Zerqa it seems to have extended between the 20th

and 13th

centuries B.C. Available literary evidence confirms these inductions.” Nelson Glueck, “Explorations in Eastern

Palestine, IV Part I: Text,” The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research Vol. 25/28, Explorations in

Eastern Palestine, IV. Part 1: Text (1945 - 1949): iii+v+vii+ix-xix+1-423, here 423. 33

Tell Jalul was the site originally pinpointed by the Madaba Project as a potential site for Hesbon, but

escalating political tensions in the region forestalled any attempts to excavate for some time. Both it and el-Umeiri

have, however, since been excavated with rich archaeological results. See: Larry G. Herr, “The Search for Biblical

Heshbon,” Biblical Archaeology Review (Nov/Dec 1993): 36-37, 68.

Kitchen also suggests that el-Jalul or el-Umeiri may be sites more fitted to the biblical Heshbon. See: (2003): 196. 34

Glueck, “Explorations in Eastern Palestine, IV. Part I: Text,” 423. 35

Geraty et al., “Madaba Plains Project: A Preliminary Report of the 1987 Season at Tell El-'Umeiri and

Vicinity,” 60.

Zieger 14

general debate, those of John Garstang, from 1930-1936, and Kathleen Kenyon, from 1952-

1958. Garstang discovered a burn layer corresponding to City IV that contained scarabs from the

time of Amenhotep III and Cyprian painted pottery. Furthermore, he noticed the conspicuous

absence of Mycenaean pottery typical of the 14th

century. Cumulatively then, these termini for

the dating of that destruction led Garstang to conclude, “Our excavations, logically interpreted,

point to a fall of the city in the reign of Amenhotep III (ca. 1400 B.C.), possibly late in his reign

(which is well represented), but before that of his successor, Akhenaton…”36

Garstang’s

assessment was never uncontested. Nevertheless, a contemporary critic reservedly commented:

“Absolutely all that we can now say about [the problem of Jericho] with certainty is that the city

fell to the Hebrews sometime between cir. 1475 and 1300 B.C.”37

Kathleen Kenyon revised the accepted date on the basis of her excavations at Tel es-Sultan.

By carefully employing her stratigraphic technique, Kenyon’s work at Jericho contributed

greatly to the tools and techniques of archaeology, and was generally admired.38

Thus, her

conclusion regarding the date of the City IV destruction has held great sway. She concluded,

When the material is analyzed in the light of our present knowledge, it becomes clear that

there is a complete gap both on the tell and in the tombs [found to the northwest of the tell]

between c. 1560 B.C. and c. 1400 B.C.39

36

John Garstang, “The Story of Jericho: Further Light on the Biblical Narrative,” The American Journal of

Semitic Languages and Literatures Vol. 58, No. 4 (Oct., 1941): 368-372.

Amenhotep III (ca. 1390-1352), ruled over a period of relative peace in Egypt, diplomatically maintaining the

empire secured by his predecessors. See: Carol A Redmount, “Bitter Lives,” in The Oxford History of the Biblical

World. Oxford Biblical Studies Online, http://www.oxfordbiblicalstudies.com/article/book/obso-

9780195139372/obso-9780195139372-div1-26 (accessed 20-May-2012).

Akhenaton (Ak-hen-Aton, Akhenaten, Amenophis IV, Amenhotep IV), famed for establishing a cult dedicated to

Aton; ruled ca. 1352-1336 B.C. See: John A. Wilson, “Akh-en-Aton and Nefert-iti,” Journal of Near Eastern

Studies Vol. 32, No. 1/2 (Jan. - Apr., 1973): 235-241. 37

G. Ernest Wright, “Two Misunderstood Items in the Exodus-Conquest Cycle,” Bulletin of the American

Schools of Oriental Research No. 86 (Apr., 1942): 32-35. 38

“Excavations at Jericho from 1952 to 1958 vindicated the ‘Wheeler-Kenyon’ method of excavation and

made her a world figure in archaeology.” Joseph A. Callaway, “Dame Kathleen Kenyon 1906-1978,” The Biblical

Archaeologist Vol. 42, No. 2 (Spring, 1979): 122-125. 39

Kathleen Kenyon, Archaeology in the Holy Land 4th edition (New York: Norton, 1979): 182, as quoted

in Bryant G. Wood, “Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho? A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence,” Biblical

Archaeology Review (Mar/Apr 1990): 44-59.

Zieger 15

Given Kenyon’s date, the incoming Israelites would have had nothing more than a barren mound

to conquer circa 1400 B.C.

Bryant Wood has since analyzed and compared the results of the excavations at Tell es-

Sultan and come to heartily agree with Garstang’s date for the destruction of City IV: LB I, ca.

1400 B.C. He points out the disturbing reality that Kenyon’s detailed excavation reports “became

available only in 1982 and 1983 when two volumes on pottery excavated from the tell were

published:”40

a gap of over two decades. Prior to these volumes, “Her conclusions were reported

only in a popular book published the year before she completed her fieldwork, in a series of

preliminary reports and in scattered articles.”

41 Despite the lack of detailed evidence for over

twenty years, most archaeologists accepted her assessment, and indeed, most still do, having

come to treat it as a foregone conclusion. Nevertheless, Wood noted serious methodological

flaws in Kenyon’s work at Jericho: “Kenyon based her opinion almost exclusively on the

absence of pottery imported from Cyprus and common to the Late Bronze I period (c. 1550–

1400 B.C.E.).” 42

Wood goes on to note the fragility of this position. First, he observes that both

Kenyon and Garstang dug in poor portions of the city—expensive, imported pottery is not likely

to be found there—second, Kenyon based her conclusion on two very limited excavation areas

(26’x26’ each),43

third, shards of imitation or import Cypriote pottery were found by Garstang,44

fourth Kenyon largely discounted the domestic pottery that is datable to LB I,45

fifth, the

presence of Egyptian scarabs indicates a final occupation of City IV ca. 1400,46

and finally, an

40

Wood, “Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho?,” 44-59. 41

Ibid. 42

Ibid. 43

Ibid. 44

Bryant G. Wood, “Battle Over Jericho Heats Up: Dating Jericho’s Destruction: Bienkowski Is Wrong on

All Counts,” Biblical Archaeology Review (Sep/Oct 1990): 45, 47-49, 68-69. 45

For a discussion of the domestic pottery of City IV, see: Ibid. 46

Ibid.

Zieger 16

argument from silence is almost never sound, especially in archaeological investigation. Wood’s

work has admirably demonstrated the viability, indeed the accuracy of, a ca. 1400 B.C. date for

the destruction of Jericho.

Additionally, some interesting features of the LB I destruction layer warrant mention. Among

the destruction debris of City IV were found several pots of charred grain, indicating an abundant

supply of food at the time of the city’s downfall. Wasting resources in this way is quite unlike

Egyptian military technique47

and suggests that the City’s destroyers cared little for Jericho’s

resources, or were committed to destroying the city in its entirety. Furthermore, the destruction

of City IV is followed by a period of general abandonment excepting Garstang’s “Middle

Building,”48

dated to the 14th

or late 13th

centuries. This is in close fitting with the biblical

portrayal of the total destruction of Jericho which then lay abandoned, except for a brief

occupation by Eglon, king of Moab during the Judges period (Jud. 3:12-30).

Ai

The most common site for Ai is et-Tell, “a polygon shaped mound…of 27.5 acres on the

south side of the deep Wadi el-Jaya leading east toward Jericho.”49

According to Callaway,

“Violent destruction overtook the city of Ai ca. 2400 B.C., during the Fifth Dynasty of

Egypt…the site was abandoned and left in ruins…[and] lay in ruins until ca. 1220 B.C. at the

47

Kathleen Kenyon proposed the Egyptians as the culprits of the Jericho destruction, specifically, the

Hyksos on their exodus from Egypt in the mid-16th

century. However, Wood contends that the Hyksos would have

little reason to decimate a city to which they were fleeing for refuge, and there is little evidence otherwise that the

Egyptians conducted military campaigns into southern Canaan in the XVIIIth dynasty (following the Hyksos). This

seems especially so considering their main interests of the time: “trade routes on the Mediterranean coast and the

Kishon-Jezreel Valley and in points further north.” Wood, “Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho? A New Look at the

Archaeological Evidence.” 48

John Garstang, “The Story of Jericho: Further Light on the Biblical Narrative,” p. 371ff.; So called

because it was “between Iron Age structures above and the destroyed Bronze Age city below.” Bryant G. Wood,

“From Ramesses to Shiloh: Archaeological Discoveries Bearing on the Exodus-Judges Period,” in Giving the Sense:

Understanding and Using Old Testament Historical Texts, eds. David M. Howard Jr. and Michael A Grisanti,

(Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2003). 49

Joseph Callaway, “Excavating Ai (Et-Tell): 1964-1972,” The Biblical Archaeologist Vol. 39, No. 1

(Mar., 1976):18-30, here, 18.

Zieger 17

beginning of Iron Age I when a new settlement was founded upon 2.75 acres of the acropolis

terraces.” 50

This leaves little to corroborate with the military rout and subsequent razing that

takes place in Joshua 8. Thus, most scholars have considered the Joshua conquest account

erroneous or fictional; but, alternative sites have been proposed—as noted above, the

identification of ancient sites is not without challenges. David Livingston spearheaded the work

on the problem of Ai’s location.51

Livingston cited several geographic and topographic

requirements for the location of biblical Ai,52

including its relative location to Bethel; for this

reason Livingston was equally concerned with correctly identifying Bethel. He rejected the

common association of Bethel with Beitin on several grounds,53

proposing instead Bireh (el-

Bira) as the real location.54

Though Bryant Wood agrees with Livingston on the identification of

Bethel, he would disagree with his suggestion that Khirbet Nisya is Ai, and believes instead that

Khirbet el-Maqatir is the better site.55

Excavations conducted at Khirbet el-Maqatir under

Wood’s direction have led him to conclude that all twelve of the Biblical criteria for the location

50

Ibid., 29. 51

See: David Livingston, “Location of Biblical Bethel and Ai Reconsidered,” Westminster Theological

Journal 33.1, (November 1970): 20-44. 52

Ibid. 53 See Ibid., “Geographical: 1. Roads. a. Beitin is not on the main crossroad in the area. b. It is on only one

of three Roman roads going from Bireh to Nablus. c. It was not even on the main northerly Roman road, from

Jerusalem to the Roman capital at Caesarea through Gophna, at the time when Eusebius-Jerome would have made

their Onomasticon. d. It is a “dead town” today simply because it is not on main crossroad. 2. Borders. a. There is

an abnormal northerly bend if Beitin is on the border between Benjamin and Ephraim, Judah and Israel. b. There is

no natural topographical feature enabling it to become a border town. 3. Ai has not been discovered east of Beitin. 4.

The distance from Jerusalem mentioned by Eusebius-Jerome does not bring one to Beitin. 5. Town names move.

Perhaps so in this case. (Nor can certain proof be advanced that Beitin-Bethel etymologically.) Topographical:

There is a small valley instead of a mountain between Beitin and et-Tell (although there is a small hill just northwest

of et-Tell). Archaeological: 1. The Bible nowhere says Bethel was burned by Joshua. 2. There is no archaeological

evidence identifying Beitin as Bethel. 3. Jeroboam’s sanctuary has never been discovered. 4. Chronology of the site

accords with high dating. 5. There is no certain evidence Beitin was even occupied in Eusebius-Jerome’s time” 54

Livingston is careful to note the meaning of the Hebrew word “bireh,” “castle, or fortified place, palace,”

observing the significance of this definition: the former name of Bethel (Luz) also has this meaning. Ibid., note 83. 55

See: Bryant Wood, “Searching for Joshua’s Ai,” in Critical Issues in Early Israelite History, eds.

Richard S. Hess, Gerald A. Klingbeil, and Paul J. Ray Jr., (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2008): 205-240, here, 225.

Zieger 18

of Ai have been met there.56

Wood reports, “Abundant evidence of destruction by fire has been

found at Khirbet el-Maqatir in the form of ash, refired pottery, burned building stones and

calcined bedrock.”57

Elsewhere he states that he and his team uncovered “a small border fortress

dating to the 15th

century B.C. that had been destroyed by fire.”58

Thus, little is to be concluded

from the absence of evidence at et-Tell—it may just be the wrong mound!

Hazor

The final site reportedly burned by the Israelites was the great city of Hazor, conquered

on Joshua’s northern campaign (cf. Jos. 11). Archaeological evidence has confirmed the Bible’s

depiction of Hazor as a dominant city within Canaan (cf. Jos. 11:10); it is the “largest biblical-era

site in Israel, covering some 200 acres,” with an estimated population in the second-millennium

of about 20,000 people.59

Additionally, Hazor was the object of Israelite reprisal under the

leadership of Deborah and Barak (cf. Jud. 4-5), which on the biblical chronology is supposed to

have occurred in the mid-13th

century B.C.

Hazor has been excavated under Yigael Yadin (1955-1958; 1968-1969), and more

recently under Amnon Ben-Tor (1991-present).60

An uncontestable and well documented

destruction layer has been unearthed at Hazor that seems to correspond to the Deborah and Barak

56

These criteria are: 1) Adjacent to Beth-aven (Josh 7:2) 2) East of Bethel (Josh 7:2) 3) An Ambush site

between Bethel and Ai (Josh 8:9, 12) 4) A militarily significant hill north of Ai (Josh 8:11) 5) A shallow valley

north of Ai (Josh 8:13-14) 6) Smaller than Gibeon (Josh 10:2) 7) In the vicinity of bethel 8) Occupied at the time of

the conquest 9) Fortified at the time of the conquest (Josh 7:5, 8:29) 10) Gate on the north side of the site (Josh 8:11)

11) Destroyed by fire at the time of the conquest (Josh 8:19, 28) 12) Left in ruins after 1400 B.C.E. (Josh 8:28)

Ibid., pp. 230ff. Wood is careful to distinguish Kh. el-Maqatir, the site of Joshua’s Ai, from the site of Abraham’s Ai

(et-Tell), and Ezra and Nehemiah’s Ai (perhaps Beitin or Kh. Nisya). Ibid., 239. 57

Ibid., 231. 58

Bryant Wood, “Archaeological Views: Let the Evidence Speak.” Biblical Archaeology Review (Mar/Apr

2007): 26, 78. 59

The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, “The History of Hazor,”

http://unixware.mscc.huji.ac.il/~hatsor/hazor.html (accessed 4/28/12).

Yadin estimated the population to be around 40,000 cf.: Yigael Yadin, “Excavations at Hazor,” The Biblical

Archaeologist Vol. 19, No. 1 (Feb., 1956): 1-11, here, 11. 60

The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, “Excavation Reports,” (accessed 4/28/12).

Zieger 19

event, ca. 1210.61

Interestingly, however, there is another destruction layer, observed by Yadin in

several places, including the royal temple of the upper city, which was “…demolished and

abandoned during the Late Bronze I period.”62

Moreover, a similar burn layer was noted

explicitly by Ben-Tor in his 2001 excavation report, in area M:

…This earlier phase ended in a conflagration, similar to the one that brought the late

phase to an end. The ceramic assemblage associated with this earlier phase, albeit

meager, seems to place the date of this earlier destruction somewhere in the Late Bronze

Age I (fifteenth century B.C.E.). This destruction is most probably contemporary with the

end of Stratum 2 in the lower city, which may have been the result of the military

campaign led by Thutmosis III.63

That Ben-Tor compares the fire that destroyed the LB I phase to the one that consumed

the LB II city suggests that this was a significant conflagration indeed. As to Ben-Tor’s

suggestion that this destruction may be attributed to Thutmosis III, Petrovich has convincingly

shown that this is unlikely.64

Thutmoses III would have little reason to raze the city, as it would

have been a valuable resource for troop subsistence on his numerous campaigns throughout the

region. And, significantly, Papyrus Hermitage 1116A records the Egyptian presentation of

material goods to envoys from various towns, including Hazor, clearly indicating the fact that

Hazor was occupied at the time of its composition (ca. 1433).65

“Thus there could not have been

61

“The last LB city at Hazor was violently destroyed. A level consisting of fallen mud brick, debris, ash,

and burnt wood (in some places more than 1 m thick) was encountered almost everywhere in both the upper and

lower city. It is the best indication of Hazor's catastrophic end. In areas C and H there is evidence of the deliberate

mutilation and desecration of cult objects. Yadin fixed the date of that destruction in the last quarter of the thirteenth

century BCE and tended to attribute it to the conquering Israelites, as described in Joshua 11:10. The current

excavation encountered that same destruction layer in area A. The date of the destruction Yadin proposed, as well as

its cause, should, for the time being, be left open.” As per: “Hazor,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in

the Near East., edited by Eric M. Meyers and Amnon Ben-Tor, Oxford Biblical Studies Online,

http://www.oxfordbiblicalstudies.com/article/opr/t256/e478 (accessed 28-Apr-2012). 62

Yigael Yadin, “The Fifth Season of Excavations at Hazor 1968-1969,” The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol.

32, No. 3 (Sep., 1969): 49-71, here, 52. 63

Amnon Ben-Tor, “Tell Hazor 2001,” Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 51, No. 2 (2001): 235-252. 64

Douglas Petrovich, “The Dating of Hazor’s Destruction in Joshua 11 Via Biblical, Archaeological, and

Epigraphical Evidence,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 51.3 (Sept. 2008): 489-512. 65

James M. Weinstein, “The Egyptian Empire in Palestine: A Reassessment,” Bulletin of the American

Schools of Oriental Research No. 241 (Winter, 1981): 1-28, here, 13.

Zieger 20

an extended occupational gap at Hazor…covering the 2nd

half of the 15th

century B.C.”66

Therefore, the two destruction layers at Hazor (LB I ca. 1400 and LB II ca. 1210) correspond

neatly to the two destructions attributed to Israel in Joshua and Judges.67

Merneptah Stela

The Merneptah Stela, erected ca. 1208 in commemoration of Pharaoh Merneptah’s

military campaign in Canaan, remains the first virtually uncontested reference to Israel in

Canaan.68

According to Hasel’s recent analyses of the stela, Israel was “an agricultural/sedentary

socioethnic entity,” located in Canaan, and, “The term ‘seed’ Egyptian prt, based on contextual

relations in other military texts, means ‘grain,’ supporting the identification of Israel as a largely

agricultural, noncity-state entity.”69

In essence, then, this entity Israel was an agrarian people

group worthy of Merneptah’s gloat by the late 13th

century B.C. On the biblical chronology, this

would have occurred around the Deborah and Barak events of Judges 4-5. Given Israel as the

possible causal agent behind the destruction of Hazor ca. 1210, this would perhaps be an Israel

that just recently regained security for itself in the land (cf. Jud. 4-5). Notably, the Merneptah

Stela highlights Israel’s conspicuity in Canaan just around the time of the blossoming highland

settlements.

66

Ibid. 67

In addition to these three sites mentioned, Bimson and Livington have made a striking correlation

between seven more sites mentioned in the biblical conquest narratives that have been excavated and have revealed

cities (most of which are known to have been walled) with destruction layers or abandonments dating to the LB I:

Gibeon, Hebron, Hormah/Zephath (Tel Masos), Arad (Tell Malhata), Debir (Khirbet Rabud), Lachish, and Bethel

(Beitin). See: Bimson and Livingston, Sidebar: “Biblical Tradition and the Archaeological Record” in “Redating the

Exodus.” 68

“The princes are prostrate saying: Shalom! Not one of the Nine Bows lifts its head: Tjehenu is

vanquished, Khatti at peace, Canaan is captive with all woe. Ashkelon is conquered, Gezer seized, Yanoam made

nonexistent; Israel is wasted, bare of seed, Khor is become a widow for Egypt. All who roamed have been subdued

by the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, Banere-meramun,son of Re, Merneptah, content with MAAT, given life like

Re every day.” In Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 2.77, as cited in: Readings from the Ancient Near East,

eds. Bill T. Arnold and Bryan E. Beyer, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002): 160. 69

Michael G. Hasel, “Israel in the Merneptah Stele,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental

Research No. 296 (Nov., 1994): 45-61, here, 45.

Zieger 21

Is this correspondence supportive of theories like Dever’s or Finkelstein’s? Did Israel

emerge in the highlands at this time according to the cyclical phases of the sedentarization of

pastoralists, as per Finkelstein, or as displaced, dissatisfied Canaanites etc., as per Dever? Not

obviously. Certainly, any number of explanations may be proposed for biblical Israel’s relative

invisibility prior to the end of the 13th

century. As referenced on several occasions above, the

Israelites expected to occupy former Canaanite cities, and are said to have actually done so. If

they had done so, they could perhaps have distributed the majority of their population among the

urban centers, leaving themselves inconspicuous in relation to the more sparsely settled

highlands of the LB. Furthermore, as the covenant renewal at Shechem demonstrated (Jos. 8:33),

Israel seemed even to absorb some of the local inhabitants into their own cause. Such

relationships, when they existed, could easily involve an assimilation of local Canaanite culture

to some degree, likewise rendering biblical Israel’s presence less than obvious. Moreover, by the

overt admission of the text, “The Israelites lived among the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites,

Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. They took their daughters in marriage and gave their own

daughters to their sons, and served their gods” (Jud. 3:5-6 NIV)—might not Israel have thus

rendered themselves imperceptible to the archaeologist?

Essentially, little is left to distinguish Israel from the Canaanites on the biblical model.

While this may account for the curious invisibility of Israel in Canaan prior to the Merneptah

Stela, its explanatory scope does not, by itself, reach to the sudden proliferation of the highland

settlements ca. 1200 to 1000 B.C. However, the demise of the LB, which serves as the backdrop

for the emergence of Israel on Dever’s theory, can serve equally well as an explanation for the

centralization of biblical Israel in the 12th

century B.C.

Hill Country

Zieger 22

Virtually no scholar questions that the hill country of Canaan experienced “an

unprecedented wave of settlement”70

in the Iron Age I period. Finkelstein states that “about 250

settlements were established between the Beer-sheba and Jezreel Valleys,”71

most of which,

“continue to be settled uninterrupted in the Iron II when they formed the heartland of the states

of Israel and Judah.”72

Thus their inhabitants may be “safely referred to as ‘Israelites,’ or ‘proto-

Israelites’ (William G. Dever’s term)”73

according to Finkelstein. This swell in highland

settlements in the IA I is the anomaly upon which the emergence theories that are most in vogue

are founded.

Finkelstein points out, “The central hill country can be divided into two major

geographical subunits, namely, the Samarian highlands between Jerusalem and the Jezreel

Valley in the north and the Judean hills in the south, between Jerusalem and the Beer-sheba

Valley.”74

The first surveys conducted in these areas took place “following 1967, when Israeli

scholars gained access to the territories of the central hill country of Judah and Samaria.”75

The

results of these initial surface surveys afforded a broad view of the highland settlement patterns,

“So in 1978 a much larger and more deliberate archaeological survey was launched, led mostly

by young archaeologists of the Tel Aviv University.”76

Essentially, these surveys are carried out

by teams of archaeologists and students who grid off a selected region and “walk the entire area

looking for all traces of ancient remains.”77

The surveyors are interested in “topographic

irregularities, wall-lines, and in particular the broken potsherds that provide the best clue to the

70

Finkelstein and Mazar, The Quest for the Historical Israel, 74. 71

Ibid. 72

Ibid. 73

Ibid. 74

Ibid., 77. 75

Ibid., 85. 76

Dever, Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?, 92. 77

Ibid., 93.

Zieger 23

various periods of occupation below the surface.”78

Though these surveys provide the advantage

of efficiently illuminating the general settlement characteristics of a broad region, they present

several drawbacks.

(1) They can give a somewhat misleading impression of settlement history for a given

region, since many sites—especially smaller and single-period sites—have already been

lost to erosion or modern construction, or may simply be buried and invisible under deep

alluvial deposits. (2) The remains preserved and picked up on the surface may come

principally from the final occupation, while deeper layers (or strata) from earlier periods

remain completely invisible. (3) Finally, the material exposed on the surface, which

archaeologists can actually see and thus pick up, may be very scant, due to overgrowth,

the accidents of preservation, or many factors. For instance, a small site may yield only a

handful of badly worn, obscure shards. For all these reasons, surface surveys are often

impressionistic and lacking absolute statistical validity.79

Nevertheless, Dever willingly concedes the point that these surface surveys have been shown to

supply “fairly reliable relative statistics—especially on period-by-period changes in settlement

distribution.”80

Estimates on the number of hill country sites in the LB range from 29-36, and in

the IA I, from 254-319.81

On any estimate, there was a significant settlement—and population—

increase in the Iron I hill country. In an earlier article concerning the central hill country of

Samaria and Judea, Stager estimates there was roughly a “2 percent per year increase in

population between 1200 B.C. and 1150 B.C., which can hardly be ascribed to natural growth

within the highland zone itself.”82

Notably, a great portion of these settlements were new

foundations,83

and this expansion in the hill country has no analogue in the coastal plain or the

Shephelah.84

78

Ibid. 79

Ibid. 80

Ibid., ff. 81

Cf. Ibid., Dever works with Israel Finkelstein’s, and Lawrence Stager’s estimates here. 82

Lawrence E. Stager, “The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel,” Bulletin of the American

Schools of Oriental Research No. 260 (Autumn, 1985): 1-35, here, 3. 83

Ibid. 84

Dever, Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?, 99.

Zieger 24

On the basis of those that have been excavated, the settlements are generally understood

to be small villages, consisting of groups of the distinctive “four room house,” or “pillared

house” typically associated ethnically with Israel.85

Stager makes note of the ubiquity of the

collard rim storage jar (pithos) in these houses, citing excavations at Ai, Raddana, and Giloh, and

observes that numerous other implements found within such houses reinforce the “agrarian roots

of their inhabitants.”86

From the nature of the remains at the hill country sites, Dever infers

certain qualities of the occupants’ lifestyle: “‘simple’; ‘self-sufficient’; perhaps ‘egalitarian’ or

better, ‘communitarian.’”87

Dever appeals to such qualities, modifies earlier theories, like that of

Norman Gottwald, and suggests that Israel was a “motley crew” of pioneering “agrarian

reformers with a new social vision.”88

Such a view may not seem grossly out of step with the

nature of the biblical Israelites besides the glaring exception that it denies the historicity of the

exodus and conquest and views the explosion of settlement activity in the Iron I highlands as

nascent Israel, not as the biblical Israel that had already been in Canaan for some two hundred or

so years. Yet, the very material factors that seem to lend credence to Dever’s model lend equal

credence to the biblical account. That is, that the material culture of the Iron I highland

settlements attributed to Israel differs little from contemporaneous Canaanite sites or those of the

LB stands to reason if Israel had already been in the land for some time. Given the previous

demonstration in favor of the plausibility of the conquest events, the explanatory scope of the

biblical testimony is sufficient to account for the archeological data.

85

See: Ibid., especially 101-107; Stager, “The Archaeology of the Family in Israel,” 11ff. Finkelstein and

Mazar, The Quest for the Historical Israel; Avraham Faust and Shlomo Bunimovitz, “The Four Room House:

Embodying Iron Age Israelite Society,” Near Eastern Archaeology Vol. 66, No. 1/2, House and Home in the

Southern Levant (Mar. - Jun., 2003): 22-31. Finkelstein’s reticence to appeal to material remains as ethnic markers

represents a fringe perspective. When it comes to the collared rim storage jar and the four room house, virtually

every scholar is willing to associate them with Israel, whether “proto” or actual, for they remain commonplace at

sites identified with Israel well into the monarchical period. 86

Stager, “The Archaeology of the Family in Israel,” 11. 87

Dever, Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?, 110. 88

Ibid., 191.

Zieger 25

What, though, might be the reason(s) for Israel’s sudden mass occupation of the highland

regions; does the biblical model allow for that? The causes for the sudden density of settlements

in the Iron I highlands were perhaps varied, involving the oppression of the Ammonites (cf. Jud.

10), the oppression of the Midianites (Cf. Jud. 6), and most especially the oppression of the

incoming Philistines (cf. Jud. 10; 13-16; 18; 1 Sam. 4-7, etc). The “Sea Peoples” (Philistines

among them) are agreed to have arrived along the coast of the Mediterranean during the reign of

Ramses III (ca. 1184-1153 B.C.), having engaged in a great sea battle with the Egyptians ca.

1175 B.C.89

Their ferocity is clearly recorded in Judges and Samuel. The tribe of Dan struggled

hard to maintain its territorial allotment, ultimately failing and migrating to Laish (renamed Dan:

Tel Dan) as conveyed in Judges 18.90

The main conflict, however, remained between the

Philistines and the tribe of Judah (cf. Jud. 13-16; 1 Sam. 4). The Philistines ultimately captured

the Ark of the Covenant, destroyed Shiloh (cf. Jer. 7:12-14; Psalm 78:60), and moved north,

taking hold of Beth Shean and Megiddo.91

“This gave them control of most of the territory west

of the Jordan River; with these victories and with their monopoly on metalworking in the area,

the Philistines were able to keep the Israelites in a position of economic as well as political

dependence.”92

Dothan goes on to observe that the domination of the Philistines was the main

impetus behind the formation of the Israelite kingdom.93

Thus, the arrival of the “Sea Peoples” in

Canaan, and especially the Philistine constituent, may serve as the dominant reason for the

centralization of Israel’s settlements in the hill country during Iron I: the Bible does allow for

that.

89

Avner Raban, and Robert R. Stieglitz, “The Sea Peoples and Their Contributions to Civilization,”

Biblical Archaeology Review (Nov/Dec 1991): 34-42. 90 See: Avram Biram, “Tel Dan,” The Biblical Archaeologist Vol. 37, No. 2 (May, 1974): 26-51. 91

Cf. Trude Dothan, “What We Know About the Philistines,” Biblical Archaeology Review (Jul/Aug

1982): 20-44. 92

Ibid. 93

Ibid.

Zieger 26

Final Assessment

Despite the fact that the imbalance of scholarly opinion tends to corner the Bible as

nearly irrelevant to the origin of Israel in Canaan, the archaeological data do not seem to warrant

it. The Bible’s own testimony regarding the origin of Israel in Canaan is that it occurred by

means of a mildly successful military invasion that only marginally included razing, sometime

around 1406-1400 B.C. In the wake of this invasion, the fragmented Israelite tribes occupied

Canaanite cites, took on their customs, and otherwise rendered themselves less than

distinguishable from the Canaanites. With inconsistent, ad hoc leadership, Israel struggled within

the land, cycling between security and oppression, loosing much of the outlying territories to

neighboring nations or invaders like the Philistines. Thus, the archaeological expectations, given

such a portrait, should be little more than what the archaeological record currently displays.

Theories like Dever’s appear to amount to little more than story telling in an effort to account for

a phase in Israel’s history that is several hundred years after their arrival in Canaan according to

the biblical account, and a plausible consequence of the turbulence brought on by the incoming

Sea Peoples of the 11th

century B.C.

Zieger 27

Bibliography

Arnold, Bill T. and Beyer, Bryan E., eds. Readings from the Ancient Near East.

Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002.

Ben-Tor, Amnon. “Tell Hazor 2001.” Israel Exploration Journal Vol. 51, No. 2 (2001):

235-252.

Brimson, John. “The Origins of Israel in Canaan: An Examination of Recent Theories.”

Themelios 15.1 (October 1989): 4-15.

Callaway, Joseph. “Excavating Ai (Et-Tell): 1964-1972.” The Biblical Archaeologist Vol. 39,

No. 1 (Mar., 1976):18-30.

- “Dame Kathleen Kenyon 1906-1978.” The Biblical Archaeologist Vol. 42, No. 2 (Spring,

1979): 122-125. Dever, William G. Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?. Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.

Dothan, Trude. “What We Know About the Philistines.” Biblical Archaeology Review Jul/Aug

1982: 20-44.

Faust, Avraham and Bunimovitz, Shlomo. “The Four Room House: Embodying Iron Age

Israelite Society.” Near Eastern Archaeology Vol. 66, No. 1/2. House and Home in the

Southern Levant (Mar.—Jun., 2003): 22-31.

Finkelstein, Israel and Mazar, Amihai. The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating

Archaeology and the History of Early Israel. Ed. Brian B. Schmidt. Atlanta: Society of

Biblical Literature, 2007.

Garstang, John. “The Story of Jericho: Further Light on the Biblical Narrative.” The American

Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures Vol. 58, No. 4: Oct., 1941: 368-372. Geraty, Lawrence T., Herr, Larry G., LaBianca, Øystein S., Battenfield, James R.

Christopherson, Gary L., Clark, Douglas R., Cole, Jon A., Daviau, P. Michèle, Hubbard,

Lorita E., Lawlor, John I., Low, Russanne, Younker, Randall W. “Madaba Plains Project:

A Preliminary Report of the 1987 Season at Tell El-'Umeiri and Vicinity.” Bulletin of the

American Schools of Oriental Research. Supplementary Studies. No. 26, Preliminary

Reports of ASOR-Sponsored Excavations, 1983-87 (1990): 59-88.

Glueck, Nelson. “Explorations in Eastern Palestine, IV. Part I: Text.” The Annual of the

American Schools of Oriental Research Vol. 25/28, Explorations in Eastern Palestine,

IV. Part 1: Text (1945 - 1949): iii+v+vii+ix-xix+1-423.

Hasel, Michael G. “Israel in the Merneptah Stele.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental

Research No. 296 (Nov., 1994): 45-61.

Herr, Larry G. “The Search for Biblical Heshbon.” Biblical Archaeology Review (Nov/Dec

1993): 36-37, 68.

Ibach, Robert D. “Archaeological Survey of the Hesban Region.” Andrews University Seminary

Studies 14.1 (Spring 1976): 113-117.

Kitchen, Kenneth A. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.

Krahmalkov, Charles R. “Exodus Itinerary Confirmed by Egyptian Evidence.” Biblical

Archaeology Review. (Sep/Oct 1994), 54-62.

Livingston, David. “Location of Biblical Bethel and Ai Reconsidered.” Westminster Theological

Journal 33.1, (November 1970), 20-44.

MacDonald, Burton. “East of the Jordan” Territories and Sites of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Boston: ASOR, 2000.

Zieger 28

Mendenhall, George E. “The Hebrew Conquest of Palestine.” The Biblical Archaeologist Vol.

25, No. 3 (Sep., 1962): 65-87. Merrill, Eugene H. “The Late Bronze/Early Iron Age Transition and the Emergence of Israel.”

Biblitheca Sacra 152: 606 (1995): 145-162.

- “The Late Bronze/Early Iron Age Transition and the Emergence of Israel.” Bibliotheca

Sacra 152: 606 (1995): 145-162.

Meyers, Eric M. and Ben-Tor. Amnon. “Hazor.” The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the

Near East. Oxford Biblical Studies Online.

http://www.oxfordbiblicalstudies.com/article/opr/t256/e478 (accessed 28 April 2012).

Miller, Max. “Ancient Moab: Still Largely Unknown.” The Biblical Archaeologist Vol. 60, No.

4, The Archaeology of Moab (Dec., 1997): 194-204. Petrovich, Douglas. “The Dating of Hazor’s Destruction in Joshua 11 Via Biblical,

Archaeological, and Epigraphical Evidence.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological

Society 51.3 (Sept. 2008): 489-512.

Provan, Lain W. “Ideologies, Literary and Critical: Reflections on Recent Writing on the History

of Israel.” Journal of Biblical Literature Vol. 114, No. 4 (Winter, 1995): 585-606.

Rainey, Anson F. “Historical Geography: The Link between Historical and Archeological

Interpretation.” The Biblical Archaeologist Vol. 45, No. 4 (Autumn, 1982): 217-223.

- “Inside, Outside: Where Did the Early Israelites Come From?.” Biblical Archaeology

Review (Nov/Dec 2008), 45-50, 84. - “Shasu or Habiru: Who Were the Early Israelites?.” Biblical Archaeology Review

(Nov/Dec 2008): 51-55. - “Scholars Disagree: Can You Name the Panel with the Israelites?: Rainey’s Challenge.”

Biblical Archaeology Review (Nov/Dec 1991): 56-60, 93, 96. Raban, Avner and Stieglitz, Robert R. “The Sea Peoples and Their Contributions to

Civilization.” Biblical Archaeology Review (Nov/Dec 1991): 34-42.

Stager, Lawrence E. “The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel.” Bulletin of the

American Schools of Oriental Research No. 260 (Autumn, 1985):1-35.

Steinmann, Andrew E. “The Mysterious Numbers of the Book of Judges.” JETS 43/3 (September

2005): 491-500.

Weinstein, James M. “The Egyptian Empire in Palestine: A Reassessment.” Bulletin of the

American Schools of Oriental Research No. 241 (Winter, 1981): 1-28.

Wood, Bryant. “Archaeological Views: Let the Evidence Speak.” Biblical Archaeology Review.

(Mar/Apr 2007): 26, 78.

- “Searching for Joshua’s Ai.” Critical Issues in Early Israelite History. eds. Hess, Richard

S. Klingbeil, Gerald A., and Ray Jr., Paul J. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2008.

- “From Ramesses to Shiloh: Archaeological Discoveries Bearing on the Exodus-Judges

Period.” in Giving the Sense: Understanding and Using Old Testament Historical Texts.

eds. Howard Jr., David M., and Grisanti. Michael A. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2003.

- “Battle Over Jericho Heats Up: Dating Jericho’s Destruction: Bienkowski Is Wrong on

All Counts.” Biblical Archaeology Review (Sep/Oct 1990), 45, 47-49, 68-69.

- “Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho? A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence.”

Biblical Archaeology Review Mar/Apr 1990, 44-59.

Worschech, Udo. “Egypt and Moab.” The Biblical Archaeologist Vol. 60, No. 4, The

Archaeology of Moab (Dec., 1997): 229-236. Wright, G. Ernest. “Two Misunderstood Items in the Exodus-Conquest Cycle.” Bulletin of the

Zieger 29

American Schools of Oriental Research No. 86 (Apr., 1942): 32-35. Yadin, Yigael. “The Fifth Season of Excavations at Hazor 1968-1969.” The Biblical

Archaeologist Vol. 32, No. 3 (Sep., 1969): 49-71.

- “Excavations at Hazor.” The Biblical Archaeologist Vol. 19, No. 1 (Feb., 1956): 1-11.