Recenti tendenze nella ricostruzione della storia antica d’Israele. Convegno internazionale (Roma 6-7 marzo 2003)

Citation preview

Si ringrazia la «Associazione Amici della Accademia dei Lincei» per la collaborazione offerta all'edizione del presente volume

FINITO DI STAMPARE NEL MESE DI APRILE 2005 Grafica Cristal S.r.l. - Via Raffaele Paolucci, 12/14 - 00152 Roma

ISSN: 0394-0705

ISBN: 88-218-0933-1

ACCADEMIA

NAZIONALE

DEI

LINCEI

ANNO CDII - 2005

CONTRIBUTI DEL CENTRO LINCEO INTERDISCIPLINARE «BENIAMINO SEGRE» N. 110

CONVEGNO INTERNAZIONALE

RECENTI TENDENZE NELLA RICOSTRUZIONE DELLA STORIA ANTICA D'ISRAELE (Roma, 6-7 marzo 2003)

ROM/\ i\CCJ\DEML\ N,\ZIONJ\LE DEI LINCEI 2005

COMITATO ORDINATORE EMILIO GABBA GIOVANNI GARBINI GHERARDO GNOLI MARIO LIVERANI

(Segretario Scientifico)

PAOLO MATTHIAE MANLIO SIMONETTI

Il Convegno è stato organizzato con il contributo dell'Università degli Studi di Roma «La Sapienza»

MARIO LIVERANI

INTRODUZIONE AL CONVEGNO La storia antica d'Israele è stata a lungo concepita come una sorta di parafrasi del racconto biblico. Dapprima il peso teologico della parola rive­ lata ha reso difficile l'applicazione e l'accettazione di una critica razionali­ stica, che è riuscita a guadagnare il suo spazio solo più faticosamente e più lentamente che non in altri campi della storia antica. Poi anche le scoperte archeologiche non sono state in Palestina (a differenza dall'Egitto, dalla Mesopotamia, dall'Anatolia hittita) così ricche di dati documentari da permettere una riformulazione ex-novo della storia sulla base di fonti coeve ed autentiche. Alla fine dell'Ottocento prese anzi corpo un uso dell'archeolo­ gia quale «prova» dell'attendibilità del racconto biblico che era invece messa in dubbio dalla critica letteraria dei filologi - un uso che persistette fin oltre la metà del secolo scorso, e che a livello divulgativo è vivo ancora oggi. Nel corso degli ultimi due secoli la critica biblica ha progressivamente smantellato dapprima la storicità della creazione e del diluvio, poi quella dei Patriarchi, poi (sempre seguendo l'ordine cronologico) quella dell'Esodo e della conquista, di Mosè e di Giosuè, del periodo dei Giudici e della «Lega delle 12 tribù» - arrestandosi però al regno unito di David e Salomone consi­ derati sostanzialmente e indubitabilmente storici. La consapevolezza che gli elementi fondanti della conquista e della Legge fossero in realtà retroiezioni post-esiliche (intese a giustificare l'unità nazionale e religiosa e il possesso della terra per i gruppi di reduci dall'esilio babilonese), pur se richiedeva una qualche riscrittura della storia d'Israele, non incrinava però la convinzione che uno stato d'Israele unitario (ed anche potente) fosse realmente esistito sotto David e Salomone, e che fosse realmente esistito un «Primo Tempio» che dunque i reduci dall'esilio dovessero ricostituire un'entità etnica e poli­ tica e religiosa già esistita in passato. La più recente critica all'esistenza stessa di un regno unito mette in crisi totale il racconto biblico, perché riduce l'Israele «storico» a uno dei tanti regni palestinesi spazzati via dalla conquista assira, e nega un collegamento tra Israele e Giuda (dunque un Israele unito) in età pre-esilica. La riscrittura della storia d'Israele diventa a questo punto assolutamente drastica, col mettere in dubbio le radici stesse dello schema ideologico. Ovviamente lo stato attuale degli studi è di aperto dibattito (anche acca­ nito, fino ad accuse incrociate di incompetenza e di pregiudizi ideologici).

6

M. LIVERANI

Ma ciò che più colpisce è come i due approcci, l'innovativo e il tradizionali­ sta, continuino a produrre due tipi di ricostruzione storiografica totalmente diversi non solo nei risultati (ciò che sarebbe ovvio) ma anche nella strut­ tura, in entrambi i casi storicamente insoddisfacente. Da un lato gli storici tradizionalisti continuano a seguire la trama narra­ tiva fornita dalla Bibbia. I Patriarchi saranno magari considerati figure leggendarie, ma ci sarà pur sempre un capitolo sui Patriarchi o sull'età patriarcale. La datazione mosaica della Legge sarà probabilmente posta in dubbio, ma ci sarà pur sempre un capitolo su Mosè. La conquista sarà presentata in modo critico e sfumato, ma ci sarà sempre un capitolo sulla conquista. E così via, senza un serio tentativo di collocare i materiali testuali nei periodi della loro composizione anziché in quello cui si riferisce il loro contenuto. D'altro lato, l'approccio critico ha sempre prodotto dei Prolegomena (per usare il termine scelto appunto dal Wellhausen) o dei manifesti teorici anche molto arditi (ve ne sono diversi assai recenti), ma mai una storia raccontata la quale, dopo aver scartato il filo narrativo biblico, costruisca un suo proprio filo narrativo storico. Se lo smontaggio critico-letterario del racconto biblico è accettato, non si vede perché mai non si dovrebbe tentarne un rimontaggio che metta in opera i materiali letterari all'epoca della loro redazione (e non a quella cui si riferiscono i racconti). Le recenti tendenze critiche di tipo «post-moderno» tendono invece a negare la possibi­ lità stessa di scrivere una storia, di stabilire un rapporto tra tradizioni lette­ rarie e referente evenemenziale - non perché questo sia stato falsificato ma perché resta inconoscibile. Si sta così scavando un vero e proprio iato tra una storia raccontata che cerca di restare il più possibile aderente alla trama tradizionale, e una critica letteraria che ha perso ogni contatto con un uso storico delle fonti. Questo convegno, linceo e romano, intende lavorare nella direzione - ovvia ma ardua - di scrivere una storia antica d'Israele che sia basata sui principi critici avanzati (e peraltro assolutamente normali) sia in campo di analisi testuale sia in campo archeologico, ma che al tempo stesso intenda appunto essere una storia degli eventi e delle correnti culturali che hanno generato le fonti stesse. Gli studiosi appartenenti alle correnti più innovative dovranno assumersi la responsabilità di scrivere una storia vera e propria (anche per i periodi anteriori alla redazione finale), rinunciando a fermarsi al troppo facile livello della critica decostruttiva. Gli studiosi appartenenti alle correnti conservative dovranno prendere più chiara coscienza che l'adozione di metodi critici e laici sfocia inevitabilmente nell'assunzione di una trama narrativa diversa da quella biblica, che era motivata da ideologie che non sono più le nostre.

INTRODUZIONE AL CONVEGNO

7

Mi sia consentita una notazione inusuale, che faccio a titolo strettamente personale: questo convegno internazionale di studio si svolge a Roma il giorno dopo il grande digiuno per la pace. Se nella grave congiuntura attuale gli studiosi hanno dei compiti da svolgere - e certamente ne hanno - uno è quello dell'esempio. Il dibattito acceso sarà tanto più efficace quanto più sarà inteso ad intendere le ragioni dell'altro, più che ad affermare le proprie. Le piccole battaglie si possono anche vincere distruggendo il nemico, ma le grandi guerre di cultura si vincono solo coinvolgendo e convincendo degli interlocutori che vanno innanzi tutto compresi.

L'ARCHEOLOGIA E I PERIODI PIÙ ANTICHI

lSRAEL FINKELSTEIN*

FROM CANAANITES TO ISRAELITES: WHEN, HOW AND WHY ABSTRACT. - The transition from Canaan to lsrael was dictated by three major events. The collapse of the Canaanite city-state system under Egyptian domination in the second half of the 12 th century BCE was the first , though noi the most crucial, step, since it was followed by a Canaanite revival in the lowlands. Canaanite materiai culture and the city-state system carne to an end in the second half of the 10 th century BCE, possibly as a result of the Shoshenq I campaign. This opened the way for the rise of the Northem Kingdom in the early 9 th century. Certain remnants of Canaanite materiai culture - noi territorio-politica! organiza­ tion - can be traced in the north even later, unti! the Assyrian take-over. The final step in the transition from Canaan to Israel carne with the weakening of the Omride state by Damascus in the second half of the 9th century. This facilitated the rise of Judah - and as a by-produci the emergence of pan-Israelite conscience after the fall of the Northem Kingdom a century later.

lNTRODUCTION

The topic of this paper - From Canaanites to Israelites: When, How and Why - has been at the heart of investigations into the history of Early Israel from the very outset of modem research. And it is one of the topics that has undergone a thorough revolution in the last few decades. Ten or twenty y ears ago the answer to these questions would have been straight forward and almost unanimous: The transition from Canaan to Israel took piace in the late 13 th century BCE, at the time of the fall of the Late Bronze centers and the beginning of a new wave of settlement in the highlands (e.g., Coote and Whitelam, 1987; Finkelstein, 1988). The debate concen­ trateci mainly on the nature of the «Israelite» settlement in the hill country. Time has shown that this answer is much too simplistic. The processes that brought about the demise of second millennium BCE culture and politica! organizations and the rise of a new arder in the Iran II were much more complex and long-term.

* Institute of Archaeology - Te! Aviv University - Ramai Aviv - 69978 TEL Avrv (Israel).

12

I. I'INKELSTEIN

I wish to start this discussion with six preliminary notes: 1. As expected in every attempl lo reconstrucl long-term processes, I will take the liberty of drawing broad lines without going into the well-known details. 2 . Since I consider myself a «historian who practices archaeology», I will dea] mainly with politica! history. 3. The main - in fact only - emphasis in this paper will be on territo­ rio-politica! changes, that is, on the transition from the Egypto-Canaanite city-state system of the Late Bronze Age to the large territorial units of the Iron II. 4. lt should be acknowledged that there is very little historical documen­ tation for the Jron T - the period from the late 12 t h to the early 9th centuries BCE. Though the biblica! text may have preserved shreds of early memories, the materiai in the Books of Joshua and Judges has very little to do with this formative period in the history of early Israel. Historically, the main value of these books is in what they teach us about the periods of the compilation and redaction of the text, in the late-7th century BCE and afterward (see, for instance, Nelson, 1981; Van Seters, 1990; Finkelstein and Silberman, 2001 ). 5. Needless to say, in what follows I will use the Low Chronology system for the dating of the lron Age slrata (Finkelstein, 1996a). Beside the fact that it is the only workable system from the purely archaeological and historical points of view, I wish to reiterate that almost ali recent radiocarbon samples from Megiddo, D01; Te! Hadai� Tel Rehov, Kinneret and other sites support it. Analysis of ali available results, which has recently been conducted by Prof. Eliezer Piasetzky of the Department of Physics at Te! Aviv University, shows that the statistica! probability that the conventional chronology will prevail is less than one percent (Finkelstein and Piasetzky, 2003a 1 ). This means that the traditional «Solomonic» strata at Megiddo and other sites date to the early 9th century BCE. lt also means that the transition from the Iron I to the Iron II should be set at the very late 10th century, or ca. 900 BCE. 6. This leads me to a note on the United Monarchy. To the best of my understanding, the notion of a great Pan-Israelite state in the 10t h century BCE is the creation of the Deuteronomistic historians, and was dictated by the ideology of late-monarchie Judah (e.g., Van Seters, 1983: 307-3 12; Mille,� 1 Far thc specific measu1·cments see also Mazar and Carn1i (2001); Gilboa and Sharon (200 I). Reccnl radioca1·bon 1·eadings [rom Te] Rehov, which have been interpreted as supporting the convcntional dating system (Bruins et al., 2003) are based on wrong methodology and hislorical intcrprclation ancl, in anv cvent, suppoi-t the most important component of the Low Chronology systcm - thal the Mcgiddo Stratum VA-IVB palaces were built in the eady 9'11 ccntury BCE (Finkelstein ancl Piasetzky; 2003b; 2003c).

FROM CJ\NJ\J\NITES TO JSRJ\ELITES: WHEN, 1-IOW J\ND WI-IY

13

1997; Niemann, 1997; Finkelstein and Silberman, 200 1). This is nol to say that there were no David and Salomon; they most probably did exist, but they ruled aver a small, poor dimorphic chiefdom in the southern highlands. In arder lo make it easier to follow the paper, I wish to start with the end. In what follows, I will argue that three major events changed the history of Palestine in the Iran I and early Iran II and dictated the transition from Canaanites to lsraelites: 1. The collapse of the Egypto-Canaanite system in the 1140s or 1130s BCE. 2. The campaign of Pharaoh Shoshenq I in the second half of the 10 th century. 3. The take-over of large parts of the country by Aram Damascus in the second half of the 9 t h century BCE.

NEW DATA ON THE COLLAPSE OF THE EGYPTO-CANAANITE SYS TEM

Conventional theory argues that the collapse of the Canaanite city-state system was a slow and graduai process that took piace during the course of more than a century - from ca. 1300 BCE (Hazor) to the mid 12 th century BCE (Lachish and Megiddo; see, for instance, Beck and Kochavi, 1985). Recent finds cast doubt on this assumption. lt now seems that the entire system collapsed in a relatively short period of time, within or shortly after the reign of Ramses IV. Scarabs of this pharaoh have recently been identified among the Lachish finds (Krauss, 1994; Lalkin, 2004). Since Lachish was uninhabited for a few centuries after the destruction of the Canaanite city, these scarabs must be associated with Stratum VI - the last Late Bronze city. A reevaluation of the Ashdod finds seems to indicate that the Late Bronze city was destroyed in the mid- 12 th century BCE (Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz, 200 1). This conclu­ sion is based on both the ceramic finds and on the Ramses III and Ramses IV scarabs found in unslratified contexts at the site (Brandi, 1993: 138- 139; Ben-Shlomo, 2003: 89, respectively). These scarabs must have originated in the Stratum XIV horizon at Ashdod. At Gezer, the destruction of Stratum XV was rightly attributed by the excavators _lo the late 13 th century BCE. Stratum XIV was «rather thoroughly destroyed» (Dever et al., 1974: 51). Its pottery is typical of the late-Late Bronze-pre Philistine (20th dynasty) phase in the southem coastal plain, and as such should probably be dated to the 12 th century BCE. A relatively large number of late- 19 th and 20 th Dynasty objecls - most of them unstratified -

14

I . FINKELSTEIN

were found at Gezer by Macalister. They include an Egyptian «sundial» with the cartouches of Memeptah, a scarab of Siptah, two cartouches of Ramses III on a plaque from a tomb and a scarab of Ramses IV. As already suggested by Singer (1986-87), by default ali these finds should be affiliated with Stra­ tum XIV - the last Late Bronze leve! at Gezer. These finds cali attention to nearby Aphek. Based on Singer's dating of the Ugarit letter found at the site in the late 1970s, and assuming that the tablet arrived at the site a short while before the city was devastated, Beck and Kochavi (1985) dated the destruction of the residency to the 1230s BCE. Next in the stratigraphic sequence comes a post-Late Bronze pre-Philistine stratum and then two strata characterized by Bichrome Philistine pottery. A Ramses IV scarab was found in a pit that belongs to one of the latter strata. As far as I can judge, the Ugarit letter provides nothing but an earliest possi­ ble date for the destruction of Aphek and the Ramses IV scarab could have originated in the residency 2 • Stratum IX at Tel Sera produced a hieratic inscription dating to the 22nd + X year of the reign of a pharaoh - Ramses III being the only monarch to fit this date (Goldwasser, 1984). According to Uehlinger ( 1988: 13- 15), two scarabs found at Tell el-Farah (south), date to the time of Ramses III. Recently Goldwasser and Wimmer ( 1999) discussed two hieratic fragments found by Petrie at the site and dated them to the days of Ramses III. Anti­ quity market items from Deir el-Balah include scarabs from the days of Ramses IV and, possibly, rings from the days of Ramses VI (Giveon, 1977). The picture in the north is quite similar. Beth-shean yielded a few items from the days of Ramses IV (Finkelstein, 1 996b) and Megiddo produced the famous bronze pedestal of a statue of Ramses VI, which seems to indicate that Egypto­ Canaanite Megiddo lasted unti! the 1 130s (Singer, 1 988-89; Ussishkin, 1995). The picture that emerges from this short review is clear and unanirnous: from the coast to the Shephelah and Jordan Valley, from the fringes of the desert to the Jezreel Valley, Egyptian domination continued at least unti! the days of Ramses IV, if not a bit later. This means that the fall of Late Bronze Canaan was a much shorter process than that described in recent research. It was brought about by the migration of the Sea People, the collapse of Egyptian rule and the upheaval that carne in its wake. This upheaval could have involved clashes between locai city-states, or coalitions of city-states of the kind hinted at in the Amarna letters, as well as raids by groups of Apiru

2 The lowering of the des1n1c1ion of Aphek makes it possible 10 lower the end of occupation al Hazm· lo thc late 1 3 1 1 , century BCE. This would conform with the possihle mention of Hazor in RS 20.255 (Arnaud, 1 998).

f'ROM CANAANITES TO ISRAELITES: WHEN, HOW ANO WHY

15

and Shosu o n isolated urban centers. Needless t o say, almost n o scholar attributes any of these destructions to the early Israelites - save for any who accept the idea that a mob of angry, pious Israelite monotheists broke the statues of the idolatrous Canaanites of Hazor (Ben-Tor, 1998: 465). But what carne next? Was this the final collapse of second millennium Canaan?

A REVIVAL OF CANAANITE POLITY IN THE NORTHERN VALLEYS IN THE lRON I

In studying the fall of Late Bronze Canaan, one should acknowledge that the finds at sites such as Megiddo, Beth-shean, Lachish and Ashdod reflect events in the main centers, i.e., the city-states, ports and Egyptian strong­ holds. Recent archaeological field-work indicates that the picture in the countryside was different. Excavations at sites such as Teli Wawiyat and Ein Zippori in the Lower Galilee show that the rural sector was not damaged during the transition period. To the contrary, these sites indicate a clear demographic and cultura! continuity in the Late Bronze-Iron I transition (Desse!, 1999). This trend can also be traced in the settlement patterns. Recent surveys in the Jezreel, Jordan and Huleh Valleys show clear continu­ ity in the settlement patterns in the transition from the Late Bronze to the Iran I (e.g., Ilan, 1 999: 162- 17 1 ). It seems that the peasants of Canaan contin­ ued their ages-long routine just a few miles away from the ruined cities. No wonder that a short while after their destruction, even the main centers of the northern valleys were reoccupied by people stili carrying second millennium «Canaanite» materiai culture (Finkelstein, 2003). The best case-study is Megiddo. In the 11 th century, after a short occupational gap, the site was resettled (Stratum VIB). This was a small, poor village that, in the course of a few decades, gradually developed without interruption into the prosperous city of Stratum VIA, dating to the late 1 1th and 1 0th centuries BCE. The city of Stratum VIA is strikingly similar to that of Stratum VII - of the Late Bronze Age. First, the size of the two cities is similar, covering both the upper teli and the lower terrace - an area of about 1 1 hectares. Second, the layout of the two cities is quite similar: both had a palace in the north, near the gate, a tempie in the east, etc. Third, the pottery indicates a clear cultura! continuity (already noticed by Engberg, 1940). Fourth, the bronze objects of Stratum VIA represent continuity of Late Bronze Age traditions (Neghi, 1974). Fihh, a typical open courtyard house in the second millen­ nium tradition was recently uncovered in the renewed excavations. Sixth, and most important, the pottery assemblage from the last (and only) floor of. the «Migdal» Tempie reveals that it continued to function until the destruc-

16

I. FINKELSTEIN

tion of Stratum VIA (Maza1� 1985: 97; Kempinski, 1989: 77-83; Ussishkin, 1995: 256). The identity of the inhabitants of this city has been fiercely debated, with scholars pointing to «Philistine» or «Israelite» characteristics in its materiai culture (e.g., Kempinski, 1989: 82-83 and Aharoni, 1970 respectively). But, as I have just demonstrated, there is scarcely a doubt that Megiddo VIA was a Canaanite city. The inhabitants probably carne from nearby villages that gradually recovered from the blow that shook their centers of power in the 12 t h century. And that is not ali; it seems that Megiddo VIA functioned as a center of a city-state, controlling the rural territories around it . With no writ­ ten sources at hand, one can hardly prove this assumption. But the analysis of the finds - which point to a city that was large and prosperous; engaged in long-distance trade; had clear indications of socia) stratification; was located in the center of a rural territory; was in a region where the old population was not shattered; was located in a region with a tradition of city-state systems - leaves us with no alternative interpretation. At least in the north, then, Late Bronze Canaan, which suffered a severe blow in the mid- 12 t h century, rose from the ashes in the late 1 1 th and 10 t h centuries BCE. And Megiddo was only one link in this revived Canaanite system. Iran I Ki1111eret replaced Late Bronze Hazor as the politica! center of the upper Jordan Valley. A heavily fortified city - about 1 O hectares in size developecl there in a short period of time, reached its peak of prosperity in the Megiddo VIA horizon, and was then destroyed. It never recovered the size and power it had in the Iran I (Fritz, 1999). The excavations at Tel Relwv point out that the city contemporary to Megiddo VIA covered the entire mound - the upper teli and the lower terrace alike - an area of about 1O hectares (Mazar� 1999). Considering that Rehov was a major city-state in the Late Bronze Age , that it was the main city of the Beth-shean Valley in the Iran I, and that Beth-shean of that time was a relatively small settlement, one can safely suggest that Iran I Rehov functioned as a center of a territo­ rial entity that covered the Beth-shean and eastern Jezreel Valleys. Acca declined at the end of the Late Bronze Age , but Tell Keisan - most probably the location or Late Bronze Achshaph - continued to prosper (Humbert, 1993). Jt seems that it served as the main center of the northern coastal plain, with its port located at Teli Abu Huwam. Its territory probably included that o[ Late Bronze Acca. Dar also prospered at that time, stretch­ ing aver an area of 7-8 hectares. Its inhabitants traded with Phoenicia and Cyprus. The monumental building excavated in the south of the mound attests to the wealth ancl urban nature of the Iran I city, which must have dominateci the coastal plain of the Carmel ridge (Stern , 2000: 353-363).

FROM CANAANITES TO ISRAELITES: WHEN, HOW AND WHY

17

The prosperity in the north stemmed from the stability of the rural sector and from vibrant trade with Phoenicia, Cyprus and beyond. But then, with no preparatory signs, this system, which I would label «New Canaan» (or better, «Revived Canaan» ), collapsed, its centers put to the torch. Violent destructions have been traced in ali the main centers. At Megiddo, the entire city was burned to the ground; Kinneret never recov�red from the blow. Radiocarbon dates from Te! Rehov, Dar, Megiddo and contemporary Te! Hadar show that this destruction took piace quite late in the 1 0t h century BCE (Gilboa and Sharon, 200 1; Finkelstein and Piasetzky, 2003a).

PHILISTIA AND THE PHILISTINES

In the Late Bronze/Iron I transition, this area featured traits of both continuity and change. Recent studies have shown that immigration of thou­ sands of people from the west is highly unlikely, and that the population of Iron I Philistia had a significant locai component (far example, Bunimovitz, 1990; Finkelstein, 1996c; Yasur-Landau, 2003). It therefore seems that the migrated elite dictated cultura! traits in a mixed population. Fram a demo­ graphic- territori al point of view, the main changes were the total liquidation of the Late Bronze city-state of Lachish and its villages, the dwindling of the rural sector in the rest of the area, and the rise of Philistine Ekran. In this case, tao, continuity is indicated mainly in the continued activity in some of the rural areas. Elsewhere, I have shown that the biblica! concept of the Pentapolis - a league of five cities - was probably influenced by the Greek leagues of the archaic period and thus reflects late-Iron II realities (Finkelstein, 2002a). But this does not necessarily mean there was no system of peer-cities in the Iran L In arder to check this possibility one needs to compare the Iran I centers thus far excavated, that is, Ashdod, Te! Miqne-Ekran and to a certain extent Ashkelon and Gath. A dose look at the available data shows that these centers are very differ­ ent from one another in almost every aspect related to analysis of a territo­ rio-politica! system . The first item that should be checked is size. Iran I Ashdod covered the upper teli only - an area of about 7 hectares. A large mound at Ashdod - comprising the upper and lower tells alike - is a late­ Iron II, 8t h century phenomenon (Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz, 2001)·. At Te! Miqne, the Iron I settlement stretched aver the upper and lower mounds alike - an area of 20 hectares - making it almost three times larger than that of Ashdod . Stager ( I 995: 342) suggested that Philistine Ashkelon covered the entire area within the Middle Bronze earth embankment - about 60

18

I . J'JNKELSTEIN

hectares . But as far as l can judge, thus far the data from the site indicates that only the inner mound - covering about 7 hectares - was occupied (see also Yasur-Landau, 2003: 358, 46 1). We do not have sufficient data on Iran l Gath, but recent excavations there seem to show that the city grew dramati­ cally only in the early Iran 11; in the 9 th century BCE il covered an area of ca. 40 hectares and became the dominant city in the Shephelah, and probably in the entire country (Maeir and Ehrlich, 2001). Dothan and Dothan (1992), Stager ( 1995) and others have portrayed the Iran I centers in Philistia as heavily fortified cities. This, however, is not the case. Iran I Ashdod was not fortified. The remains that Dothan and Porath ( 1993: 70-73) interpreted as an Iran I city wall are no more than traces of an elaborate building on the margins of the mound. In fact, the earliest city­ wall al Ashdod seems to date to the 8 th century BCE (Finkelstein and Singer­ Avitz , 200 1). Ussishkin (in a lecture at Tel Aviv University, Aprii 2003) chal­ lenged the notion that Iran I Ekron was protected by strong fortifications. Finally, contra Stager (1995: 342), there is no indication that Ashkelon was fortified in the Iran I; the Philistine pottery associated with the city wall and rampart on the northern edge of the mound comes from fills and therefore could have been braught there from any spot on the mound . More important than size and fortifications, the data available thus far permit us to propose that the balance of power in Philistia shifted during the Iran Age fram one site to another: Ekran in the Iran I, Gath in the early Iran II, Ashdod in the 8th century and Ekran again in the 7th century BCE.

THE HIGHLANDS

Surprisingly, the great leap forward in the past few years in our under­ standing of the transition from Canaanites to Israelites has not come from the highlands. What we knew about the Late Branze and the Iran I in the hill country ten years ago is stili valid today, with minor adjustments. Therefore, I will not repeat the generai observations regarding the origin of the prato­ Israelites and the manner of their settlement; instead, I will restrict myself to the territorio-politica! aspects. We need to acknowledge that archaeology - pottery, architecture and even settlement hierarchy - has not supplied any clue far the rise of a terri­ torial polity in the highlands in the Iran I. The settlement patterns of the late-Iran I - the late- I I th and 10 t h centuries BCE - do show a more advanced settlement hierarchy and hint at more sophisticated economie production. The latter can be traced, far instance, in the growing number of sites in the horticulture niches of the highlands . Stili, the archaeological

f'ROM CJ\NJ\J\NITES TO ISRJ\ELITES: WHEN, HOW J\ND WHY

19

record contains no direct proof of the existence of an elaborate polity in the highlands. This is the piace to correct my own observations of a decade ago regard­ ing the significance of the finds at Shiloh. In the final report of the excava­ tions I stili toyed with the possibility that a regional shrine functioned at Shiloh in the Iran I (Finkelstein, 1993: 383-389). At that time, however, I was not yet fully liberated from a somewhat nai"ve reading of the biblica! text. To be frank, if one treats the site according to rules of pre- or proto- historical archaeology, nothing in the finds hints at such a regional shrine or a cult piace at ali. The architecture is quite common, and so is the pottery. The size or the site and the settlement pattern around it are unexceptional, and there are almost no finds that can be directly associated with cult. This is not to say that there is nothing historical in the biblica! memory about Shiloh; after ali , there was no significant activity at the site in the Iran II and hence its importance in the biblica! story must stem from early memories of some sort. One can say no more. In any event, one phenomenon related to the possibility of the existence of a late-Iran l polity in the highlands stands out. One of the most obvious characteristics of the Iran I sites in the bili country is that most of them ca. 90% or the 250 recorded - continued to be inhabited without interruption in the Iron II. The most apparent exception to this rule - a clear cluster of sites that were destroyed or abandoned in the late Iran I, that is, in the course of the I 0th century - is found in the area to the north of Jerusalem (Finkelstein, 2002b). Three cases can be counted under this description. The first includes Iran I sites abandoned and not reoccupied in the Iran II, such as the villages or et-Teli ('Ai') and Khirbet Raddana near Ramallah. The second includes sites destroyed or abandoned in the late Iran I and resettled only in the late­ lron II . The best examples can be found at Gibeon, Bethel and possibly Teli el-Ful, sites that did not produce early Iran II pottery. A special case in this group is the site of Shiloh, located just north of this cluster. It was completely destroyed in the late Iran I and was only partially resettled in the late Iran II. The third case comprises Iran I sites that were significantly diminished in size in the early Iran II.

SHOSHENO

I AND

THE RISE OF EARLY ISRAEL

Exactly the same niche to the north of Jerusalem is the only area in the highlands specifically mentioned in the list of towns taken by Pharaoh Shoshenq l in his campaign to Palestine in the second half of the 1 0t h century BCE, inscribed on the wall of the Tempie of Amun at Karnak in

20

I. FINKELSTEIN

Upper Egypt (Kitchen, 1986: 432-447). The better-known sites in this area mentioned in the list are Beth-horon, Gibeon and Zemaraim - the latter should no doubt be identified at a site located on a high hill in the modern town of el-Bireh. In contrast to the concentration of sites in this area, other parts of the highlands are missing from the list. I refer to Jerusalem and the hill country to its south and, with one possible exception, to northern Samaria - the most densely settled area in the hill country in the Iron I. In the New Kingdom period, Egyptian pharaohs refrained from penetrat­ ing into the sparsely settled, wooded, rugged and hostile hill country. The many references to Egyptian military campaigns of that time do not include even a single mention of such an incursion . T he march of Shoshenq I against this area is therefore an exception . Elsewhere I have rejected the proposal that Jerusalem was the target of the campaign (Finkelstein, 2002b ). One needs to ask, therefore, what was it that attracted the attention of the Egyptian pharaoh to this relatively remote area of no real geopolitica) impor­ tance? The only reasonable answer is that the area around Gibeon was the hub of an emerging territorio-politica\ entity that was strong enough to endanger Egyptian interests in Palestine. There is good reason to suggest, therefore, that Shoshenq l's campaign was the cause of the destruction and abandonment of sites in the hill coun­ try to the north of Jerusalem in the late Iron I. The next question should be: Are there any clues in the literary sources for a late-Iron I territorial forma­ tion centered around Gibeon? The only possibility of such due is the biblica] account of the reign of the Saulides . The Shoshenq I list and the biblica\ description of the Saulide chiefdom speak about the very same niche in the hill country; no less important, both also refer to - of ali places - the Jabbok River area in Transjordan. The Shoshenq I list mentions Adamah, Succoth, Penuel and Mahanaim - ali located along the Jabbok River, an area never of great interest to the Egyptian pharaohs, and the biblica) description of the days of the Saulide dynasty specifically connects the Gibeon area with Mahanaim (for the territory of the Saulides see Edelman , 1985). This can hardly be a coincidence. What we have here is a unique case in which archaeology, a highly important extra-biblica) historical source and the bibli­ ca\ text ali speak the same language. This is not the piace to deal with the sources for the description of the Saulide state in the Book of Samuel (see, For example, Halpern, 200 1; Na'aman , 1992). Let me say only that as far as I can judge, this materiai could not have been put in writing before the late 8 th century BCE, after the fall of the Northern Kingdom. Stili, the possibility that such a memory had been preserved should not be ruled out. Note that the conventional dating of Shoshenq I and the early Israelite monarchs do not stand in the way of this proposal; both are loose enough to allow a

FROM CANAANITES TO ISRAELITES: WHEN, HOW ANO WHY

21

certain flexibility in the second half of the 10th century BCE (for the Egypt­ ian 2 1'1 and 22 nd dynasties see Kitchen, 1986; Hagens, 1996; Dodson, 2000; for the early Israelite monarchs see Hughes, 1990: 60-6 1; Handy, 1997: 10 1102; Ash, 1999: 24-25). The Shoshenq I campaign aimed at two additional areas in Palestine. The first - beyond the scope of this paper - is the Tel Masos desert formation. The second is the Jezreel Valley. Ali sites of the Megiddo VIA horizon in the north Tel Rehov, Beth-shean Upper VI, Yokneam XVII, Kinneret, Tel Radar and of course Megiddo VIA - met a violent end in a huge conflagration in the second half of the 10th century BCE. Some of these sites never regained their previous status, others experienced a short gap in occupation. Unless they were hit by an earthquake, there are two altematives for this 10th century destruction of the Canaanite centers in the north. According to the first, the expanding settle­ ment system of the highlands struck a blow against the cities of the lowlands and inherited them. According to the second, the «New Canaan» system was hit by Shoshenq I. Rehov and Megiddo are mentioned in his list, and a frag­ ment of a Shoshenq I stele was found at Megiddo, unfortunately in an unstrat­ ified context. According to this alternative, Egypt waged a devastating attack on the Canaanite centers in the north. But this time it had no intention of - or did not succeed in - staying for long. Egypt's retreat, after the annihilation of the old system, created a vacuum, which opened the way for the rulers of the northern hill country - the Northem Kingdom in its early days - to expand to the lowlands and to establish a large territorial, multi-ethnic state3 • The Shoshenq I campaign may, therefore, be seen as a major turning point in the history of Palestine. It seems to have inflicted a blow on an early polity in the highlands and on the late Canaanite city-state system in the northern valleys . By that, it opened the way for the rise of a North Israelite polity - the first full-blown Israelite state. Whether the «New Canaan» system in the north was annihilated by the highlanders or by Egypt, its fall marks the real transition point from Canaan to Israel, at least in the north­ ern part of the country. This is perfectly demonstrated at Megiddo: A gap followed the destruction of Stratum VIA - the last Canaanite city. The new settlement that followed, Stratum V, was probably established in the very late 10t h century BCE. It was different in all its features from the previous city: It was limited to the upper mound; its layout was utterly new; it had 3 T here are severa] difficulties related to this alternative. First, why would a pharaoh, who probably wished to establish a long-lasting Egyptian rule in Palestine , destroy an important city like Megiddo (Ussishkin, 1 990: 72-73)? Second, radiocarbon investigations of the last few years have not yet fixed the exact date of the destruction of the Megiddo VIA hol"izon (see references in Note I above); almost any time in the mid-to-late 1 0t h century is possible.

22

I. FINKELSTEIN

two small palaces rather than a single , large one; its pottery features the Iron II ceramic tradition; and the second millennium courtyard houses, metal industry and cult compound disappeared. Thus far, I have dealt with the Northern Kingdom. Now I will turn to Judah and the south.

THE OMRIDES, HAZAEL ANO THE RISE 0F JUDAH

Elsewhere I have emphasized the significant difference in date and pace of state formation between Israel and Judah (Finkelstein, 1999). Israel reached full-blown statehood in the days of the Omride dynasty in the early 9t h century. This is reflected in the great building operations carried out in Samaria, Jezreel, Megiddo and Hazor. The situation with Judah is different. In the 10 t h and most of the 9 t h century BCE the southern hill country in generai and Jerusalem in particular stili featured what I would describe as «Amarna-like» demographic and territorio-politica! conditions: a poor village in Jerusalem ruled over a very sparsely inhabited southern highlands. Characteristics of full-blown statehood appeared in the south only in the second half of the 8t h century BCE - a century and a half after they appeared in Israel . Yet, the first signs of statehood in Judah - certainly relative to what we know about the Late Bronze-Iron 1-early Iron II continuum - appeared in the late 9 t h century. Most of the evidence for this early stage - fragmentary as it may be - comes from the periphery of Judah - the Shephelah in the west and the Beer-sheba Valley in the south. In the Shephelah, two sites are of special importance: Lachish and Beth­ shemesh. Lachish was the «second city» of Judah, the most important administrative center in the lowlands. The fortifications of the famous Stra­ tum III, which faced Sennacherib in 70 1 BCE, were originally built in Stra­ tum IV. The first residency, which was erected on the highest point of the mound, dates to the same period (Ussishkin, 1983: 1 7 1- 173; 1996: 35, n. 4 ). A thorough investigation of the pottery of Lachish makes it possible to date Straturn IV to the late 9t h century BCE (Zimhoni, 1997: 172-174). Recent excavations at Beth-shemesh have uncovered a system of massive fortifications and an elaborate water-system (Bunimovitz and Lederman, 2001). Their construction seems to be contemporary with the first phase of fortifications at Lachish, that is, they were probably constructed in the late 9 t h century BCE. Two Judahite sites in the Beer-sheba Valley were fortified for the first time in the same period. The earliest fort at . Arad - Stratum XI - was appar­ ently constructed in the 9 t h century. During the sarne period, Te! Beer-sheba

!"'ROM CJ\NJ\J\NITES TO ISRAELITES: WHEN, HOW J\ND WI-IY

23

was also fortified far the firsl time - with a massive brick wall and an elabo­ rate four-chambered gate. In Jerusalem, tao, the firsl signs of significant building activity seem to date to lhe 9 t h century BCE (Finkelstein, 200 1). Two elaborate structures, known as lhe Terraces and the Stepped Stone Structure, were built on the eastern slope of the City of David, near the Gihon Spring, in arder to stabi­ lize the slope and to facilitate the construction of large buildings on the ridge (Kenyon, 1 974: 95-96; Steiner, 1 994; 1998). The latest pottery from the Terraces dates lo lhe Iran I. But the latest sherds from the Stepped Stone Structure include early red slipped and burnished types, which date to the 9 t h century BCE. This means that the structure was built and renovated in the course of severa\ cenluries, with the final reconstruction in the 9 t h or in the very early 8 t h cenlury BCE. In any event, it is the earliest elaborate Iran II building thus far found in Jerusalem. What braught about the sudden rise of Judah in the late 9 t h century? Undoubtedly, in the first half of the 9t h century Israel was the most powerful state in the Levant. The Omrides conquered territories in the northeast (from Damascus) and in the east (from Moab and prabably Amman). And they must have dominated the poor and marginai chiefdom of Judah to their south. In fact, 2 Kings, in what seems to be reliable historical testimony, reveals thal the Omrides may have tried to take aver Judah, maybe even to annex it, by a rayal, «diplomatic» marriage of the Israelite princess Athaliah with the Davidide King Jehoram. In fact , far a few decades in the first half of the 9t h century, Israel managed to establish a great United Monarchy - a real United Monarchy - that stretched from Dan in the north to Beer-sheba in the south; yet il was ruled from Samaria, not from Jerusalem. Ali this changed with the fai\ of the Omrides under the pressure of Aram Damascus. The Arameans assaulted the Northern Kingdom, took back terri­ tories in the northeast, destrayed many of the Israelite centers in the valley, including the administrative center of Stratum V at Megiddo and the palace compound at Jezreel, and pushed the Northern kings into a limited territory in the highlands araund Samaria (Na'aman, 1997). As a result, the grip of the Northern Kingdom aver Judah eased, and a coup in Jerusalem braught a Davidide - Jehoash - back to power. No less important events took piace at that time in the Shephelah. Hazael of Aram Damascus campaigned in the coastal plain, besieged Gath and conquered it (2 Kings 12, 1 8; far the relia­ bility of this source see, e.g. , Gray, 1970: 589). At that time Gath was the most powerful Philistine center, possibly the largest and most influential city in southern Palestine. Recent excavations at Teli es-Safi in the western Shep­ helah - the location of ancient Gath - revealed dramatic evidence far these events (Maeir and Ehrlich, 200 1). Ninth century BCE Gath was a huge city

I. FINKELSTEIN

24

that stretched over an area of about 40 hectares . A sophisticated siege system, which included a deep trench and an earth ramp, was laid around it, probably by Hazael. And inside the city the dig shows that in the late 9t h century Gath was put to the torch and was completely destroyed. It never fully recovered from these events . For a short while in the second half of the 9th century, a window of oppor­ tunities opened for Judah. In the north, Israel was severely weakened by the Arameans. In the west, Gat_h - the most powerful Philistine city - was destroyed by Hazael. Judah took advantage of this situation, expanded to the west, and built the administrative centers of Lachish and Beth-shemesh. Need­ less to say, such a westward expansion could not have taken piace before the demise of Gath. In Judah then, the real transformation from an Amama-like situation to an early territorial state took piace in the second half of the 9th century BCE, in the wake of the temporary