Israelites and Canaanites

028

Scholars have spilled much ink trying to understand the relationship that existed between the Canaanites and the Israelites before the establishment of the monarchy. Can the two groups—the Canaanites and Israelites—actually be distinguished in the archaeological record of Iron Age I (1200–1000 B.C., the Biblical period of the Judges)?

I should say at the outset that this is a different question than where the Israelites came from—whether they came from outside the land or from inside or both. Wherever they came from, it is clear that in the period prior to the establishment of the United Monarchy in about 1000 B.C., there were people in the land of Canaan who called themselves Israelites. (Otherwise there would have been no Israelites to form the United Monarchy.)

During the second millennium B.C., the population of Canaan—the land west of the Jordan River, according to Egyptian and Akkadian sources of the time—lived mostly in cities, which had been in existence from the beginning of the second millennium B.C. until their destruction during the course of the 12th century. These cities were strongly fortified and ruled the countryside surrounding them. Beginning in about the middle of the second millennium B.C., however, these city-states began to decline. For the most part, their fortifications were gradually abandoned.

029

This was the situation when the Israelites began to emerge in Canaan—in the period we call Iron Age I. It is possible that the Israelites were a distinct ethnic group and therefore formed a separate social group. Or they may have been, for the most part, ethnically the same as the Canaanites. But that is not our question here, because, in any event, they must have been a separate population element. We know from our literary sources, particularly the Bible, that they understood themselves to be different. Our question is whether we can tell the difference in the archaeological record.

There is no question that the material culture in Canaan during Iron Age I continued the traditions of the Late Bronze Age (1550–1200 B.C.).¹ The Iron Age I pottery is essentially the same in all settlements in Canaan in this period: We cannot distinguish Israelites from Canaanites on the basis of the pottery.² Nor can eating habits be used as a basis of distinction. Although the percentages of different 030types of animal bones recovered from different sites vary, this could have been caused by factors other than differences in social groups.³

There is another criterion that will yield better results: settlement structure.

A new phenomenon appears in Iron Age I: numerous new settlements in peripheral zones ouside the old city-states. These settlements characteristically differ from the cities of the second millennium:

• They are usually founded on natural soil or on bedrock. No previous settlements existed on the site.

• They are mostly located in peripheral areas like the central hill country and the Negev.

• They are quite small—less than three acres.

• The predominant architecture in the settlements is the four-room house or its variants. (The four-room house consists of one broad room with three adjacent long rooms, of which the middle one is usually an open courtyard—see “Ideology in Stone: Understanding the Four-Room House,” in this issue.)

These new settlements mark a socioeconomic change in settlement structure during Iron Age I, in contrast to the Late Bronze Age. This change is probably due to a new population element—either a regrouping within the Canaanite population or an influx of newcomers. It is highly probable that the Israelite population element can be connected to this change in the settlement structure. The hundreds of new Iron Age I villages may have been founded and inhabited by the new Israelite population.

The Canaanites of Iron Age I can be defined as the successors of the inhabitants of the former Canaanite city-states.

Four different patterns of settlement-change from the Late Bronze Age to Iron Age I will help us identify the Canaanite element in the population at this time.

1. Some Late Bronze Age cities continued to exist in Iron Age I. Examples are Megiddo,⁴ Beth-Shean,⁵ Gezer, Aphek, Tell esû-Sðeriµ‘a and Tell Beit Mirsim.⁶ This continuity of habitation is closely bound up with the continuity of the inhabitants. Cities with an unbroken settlement history probably continued to be inhabited by Canaanites. The same continuity in settlement history can be seen in some Lower Galilee villages, including Tell ‘En Sippoµriµ and Tell el-Waµwiyaµt.⁷

2. In other cities, such as those in the southern coastal plain, a new population element—the Philistines—is evident from their distinctive pottery. The cities themselves, however, are 031not new. They were a significant part of the landscape even in the Late Bronze Age. In these cities—for example, Ashdod, Ekron and Timnah (Tell Bataµsh)—Canaanites continued to constitute most of the population, even though they were under Philistine domination.

3. In some cities, there is a sharp break between the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age I settlements. Examples of this can be found at Dan and Hazor. The first Iron Age I stratum at Dan exhibits a profusion of pits, perhaps dwelling pits, and thus a fundamental break with the preceding prosperous Late Bronze Age settlement.⁸ The same pattern can be seen at Hazor.⁹ The destruction of the Late Bronze Age city was followed only by sporadic habitation. This new settlement structure indicates the presence of new settlers at both sites. They were probably Israelite.

4. At some sites, such as Lachish, the major city was abandoned in Iron Age I after the destruction of the Late Bronze Age city, only to be inhabited again at the beginning of Iron Age II, during the tenth century B.C.

Thus we see a marked reduction in Canaanite habitation in Iron Age I. Nevertheless, the Canaanite population element by no means disappears. It continues throughout Iron Age I at the Late Bronze Age cities that survived. At other sites, Canaanites were dominated by the Philistines. At still other sites, Israelites may have re-inhabited destroyed Canaanite cities.

At the same time, numerous new settlements—populated by the Israelite element—were founded in the peripheral areas outside the former Canaanite centers, especially in the central 063hill country and in the Negev. Iron Age I is thus characterized by the coexistence of Israelites in the new settlements and Canaanites in some of the surviving cities. Although the picture is complex and not always clear,¹⁰ the archaeological evidence justifies the distinction between two different population groups, which, according to the sources, can be designated “Canaanites” and “Israelites.”

Scholars have spilled much ink trying to understand the relationship that existed between the Canaanites and the Israelites before the establishment of the monarchy. Can the two groups—the Canaanites and Israelites—actually be distinguished in the archaeological record of Iron Age I (1200–1000 B.C., the Biblical period of the Judges)? I should say at the outset that this is a different question than where the Israelites came from—whether they came from outside the land or from inside or both. Wherever they came from, it is clear that in the period prior to the establishment of the United Monarchy in about […]