The Invention of Ancient Israel (31 page)

The Archaeology of Early Israel

It is not an exaggeration to say that the prospect of the study of Palestinian history for these periods, as a subject in its own right, has been made possible, however unwittingly, by a marked shift in the nature of archaeological investigations in the region in recent years. It has been made possible by the switch of focus by archaeologists from an almost exclusive interest in urban tells at the beginnings of archaeological research in the region to a more balanced interest in
regional surveys in conjunction with the excavation of larger urban and smaller, often single-period rural sites. The reasons for an earlier preoccupation with urban tells has been well documented elsewhere and is entirely understandable in the context of the need for spectacular results in order to continue funding for these expensive projects. However, such an approach also coincided with the interests of ‘biblical archaeology' which sought to illuminate the biblical traditions by tying it to the material realities of the past. The biblical texts often mention major urban centres, their conquest and destruction, therefore it was only natural that ‘biblical archaeologists' should concentrate on such tells in order to confirm the events of the past and reveal the realities of ancient Israel and the Bible. Furthermore, since ancient Israel was conceived of as a nation state, or incipient nation state, it was natural to look for confirmatory evidence at the major urban centres – the obvious markers, it was believed, for such a state.

However, the vital switch from single-site excavation to regional surveys has begun to provide settlement data which allow the observation of the patterns and rhythms of Palestinian life over centuries.
³
Such an approach allows the historian to try to account for the differences and similarities in these rhythms over time. As Renfrew and Wagstaff (1982: 1) remind us, ‘the spatial and temporal patterns of human culture are never stationary, particularly when viewed in a long-term perspective. Changes may be discovered: cultures emerge, flourish and decay.' The slow, often imperceptible, patterns and changes of settlement when viewed over a few decades might suggest a static society. However, the rhythms of change often only become apparent when viewed over centuries. On other occasions, of course, there are dramatic bursts of activity with sudden declines or expansions or changes in regional settlement. The historian needs to be aware of the different levels of time in settlement history and needs to analyse, compare, and contrast the different phases of settlement in order to try to understand the forces and processes at work in the history of the region.
⁴
Snodgrass's expression of the importance of archaeological surveys to Greek archaeology could equally be applied to Palestinian history:

Yet once again, although survey and excavation data are fundamental for the study of Palestinian settlement, unfortunately but inevitably we are faced with a series of partial texts. They are partial partly because not all subregions have been surveyed to the same level of intensity and partly because the new data generated by this switch in strategies from tell-centred archaeology is only just beginning to be exploited in historical syntheses and the generation of new hypotheses. More importantly, however, the partiality is governed by political and theological assumptions which determine the design or interpretation of such projects. Even so, this trend is the most promising development for the historian desperate to understand the settlement, organization, and economy of ancient Palestinian society. The body of data is growing at a considerable rate; but it remains the case, of course, that the historian will always be faced with partial data, however extensive the archaeological work might be.

Snodgrass (1987: 102–3) raises the important question of the differences in survey techniques: intensive and extensive surveys. Intensive survey is obviously more labour intensive and expensive in proportion to the size of area that can be surveyed. He opted for the former on the basis of the discovery that intensive surveys in Greece had revealed a density of sites that was significantly higher, by a factor of fifty times or more, than extensive surveys. As he notes, this raises the serious question that a great deal of information is likely to be missed by extensive surveys. This is a serious hindrance to the study of settlement patterns and changes in Palestinian history since the historian is forced to work with data that can only allow large generalizations about demographic, economic, or settlement trends in a region. Even though we are dealing with an expanding database, it is none the less the case that practical and financial difficulties will severely hinder the completion of intensive surveys for the whole region. The best that can be hoped for is a mixture of intensive and extensive surveys so that the data can be compared and modified where necessary.

Snodgrass points to another important limitation:

Yet there is a more important connection with the present day which Snodgrass does not go on to develop. In the case of Greek archaeology and history, although it has been subject to the same Eurocentric representation, it has not suffered from the search for ‘ancient Israel'. The utilization of the new store of knowledge pertaining to the ancient Palestinian past has been dictated and hindered by the powerful political and theological assumptions which have guided the search for ancient Israel. The irony of the situation is that the new possibilities for the study and development of Palestinian history, which have been opened up by these surveys, have been masked by the all-consuming search for ancient Israel. The new store of knowledge has been exploited by the very same research strategies which have invented and located Israel in the Late Bronze–Iron Age transition and early Iron Age.

The theological and political assumptions inherent in the search for ancient Israel, in defining research strategies, have determined the nature and utilization of the results. This is not an objective search that provides objective data for the historian simply to arrange into
a narrative which reflects a trustworthy account of the past. The historian is faced with partial texts in every sense of the term. Again, it is the fascination with Israel which has dominated biblical archaeology so that the focus has often been upon those sites, subregions, or periods which are thought to illuminate the emergence and development of Israel. The obsession with the ‘emergence of Israel' has meant that vast scholarly resources have been focused upon the Late Bronze–Iron Age transition and Iron I in terms of survey and excavation where it is believed that Israel is to be located. It is noticeable that the most intensive survey work has been carried out in the central hill country of Palestine because it was assumed from the time of Alt and Albright onwards that this was the location of ‘Israelite' settlements. The Land of Israel Survey has continued to carry out vital work in different areas, adding to the valuable data, while regional surveys in Jordan have begun to provide vital information about areas that until recently were archaeologically little known. Yet the coastal area of Palestine, so vital in the history of the region, has not been surveyed to the same extent. Therefore it is simply not possible to make comparisons between some, often very important, subregions. Israel Finkelstein, who has contributed so much to providing the new body of survey and archaeological data, states that ‘Canaanite' urban centres had nothing to tell us of the processes of ‘Israelite settlement' (1988: 22–3).
⁵
Similarly, Finkelstein (1985a: 123) defined the goals of the Shiloh excavation as ‘elucidation of the history of the site prior to Iron Age I and the circumstances of its development into an important Israelite religious, economic and political centre; determination of its character during Iron Age I and its position in the overall settlement pattern and social system of the period; a better understanding of the material culture of the central hill country in the Middle Bronze, Late Bronze and Iron Age I periods'. Once again it is Israel which dominates the agenda and forms the assumptions of archaeological and historical investigation. The initial investment of precious resources in excavations and regional surveys has been heavily influenced by biblical scholarship and the all-consuming search for ‘ancient Israel'.
⁶

This partiality is manifested in the regions where extensive surveys have been carried out, since in a number of cases, where results have been published, the focus has been upon the Iron Age, the period of the essential Israel. The principal interest in the results has been to quantify and qualify Israelite settlement or the development of the monarchy. Earlier and later periods are less well served, either in
terms of the publication of results or the detailed analysis of the data.
⁷
The patterns and rhythms of settlement need to be studied, compared and contrasted, in the long term. It is vital to try to understand how any one period fits into the settlement history by comparing it with earlier and later periods from the Stone Age to the present. Such a task will not be possible until all regions are surveyed with an equal intensity and, equally importantly, the data for all periods, not just those thought to be of interest to biblical archaeologists and historians whose special interest is the emergence and development of Israel, are published. The task of the latter is not well served by the partial surveys or the partial publication of data since it denies important comparisons over
la longue durée
.

Finkelstein has described the developments in archaeology since Albright's excavations at Tell el-Ful as a ‘a veritable revolution' in research on ‘Israelite Settlement' (1988: 20). He has made a major contribution to research through the timely publication of data from his own Land of Israel Survey and his excavations at ‘Izbet Sartah and Shiloh. Yet his revolution, like Coote's new horizon, is more apparent than real. It is a term that might be used to qualify the rapid increase in the quality and quantity of data since the heyday of Albright's work in the field. However, the essential assumptions which underlie the archaeological investigation of the region for the period of the Late Bronze and early Iron Ages have not changed significantly. If anything, the political search for the reality of ancient Israel has grown stronger since 1948, supplementing and strengthening the theological motivations which informed Albright and a host of other biblical archaeologists. This so-called revolution suffers from the very same distractions of the search for and invention of ancient Israel, the problems of trying to free historical research of the region from the constraints imposed by the Hebrew Bible and the discourse of biblical studies, which historical research has encountered throughout the century. The switch from site excavation to regional survey, or a combination of these, has succeeded in intensifying rather than diminishing the search for ancient Israel. The way data, which are vital to the realization of Palestinian history in its own right, are utilized to continue the search for Israel and to silence Palestinian history is illustrated in the opening pages of Finkelstein's monograph. His assumptions, shaped by the dominant discourse, mean that the past belongs to Israel, effectively silencing any alternative construction:

The terminology, partly explained in a footnote (1988: 15 n. 1), is significant. He uses ‘Settlement' to refer to Israelite settlement, while the same term in lower case, ‘settlement', ‘is used with its regular meaning'. This suggests from the very outset that there is something special about Israelite settlement whereas the settlement of other groups is not particularly noteworthy or at least is not to be demarcated in any special way. Furthermore, this is the ‘Land of Israel'. The denial of any Palestinian claim to this space is completed by the manipulation of time: ‘The historical concept “Settlement period” or “period of the Settlement and Judges” is synonymous with the term “Early Israelite period” and the archaeological definitions “Iron I” and “Early Iron Age”' (Finkelstein 1988: 15 n. 1). He then adds that this is equivalent to the period from the end of the Late Bronze Age to the beginning of the Israelite monarchy, ‘whatever the label'. The last comment suggests a matter-of-fact reporting which assures the reader that there is nothing contentious here. But, as we have seen, the label is crucial. The terms are not neutral: they imply claims to the land and the past denying other competing claims. The reference to the ‘period of Settlement and Judges' already indicates the influence of the periodization of the Hebrew Bible, and alerts the reader to the possibility that the biblical traditions have played a much greater role in the interpretation of the archaeological data than is at first apparent. The aside that ‘Iron I' and ‘early Iron Age' are synonymous with the ‘early Israelite period' drives home the notion that this is Israel's past. However, before turning to this issue, the way in which recent surveys have determined the conceptualization and control of the ancient past needs to be considered.