Searching for Israelite Origins

034

The emergence of Israel in the hill country of Canaan poses some of the most intriguing questions now occupying archaeologists as well as Biblical scholars. The archaeological reflection of the “Israelite settlement”¹ is dozens of hill-country sites dated to the period that archaeologists call Iron Age I (c. 1200–1000 B.C.).

At the heart of research on the emergence of Israel lies the question of the origin of the people who settled these hill-country sites. If we fail to answer it, we will not be able to solve the riddle of the Israelite settlement.

Until the early 1960s, scholars were virtually unanimous in concluding that the newcomers came from the desert, or the desert fringe, to the east. The differences among scholars concerned the manner in which these people appeared on the scene, whether by military conquest (Albright and others)² or by peaceful infiltration (Alt and his followers).³

The last two decades have witnessed the advent of a new, revolutionary theory promulgated by George Mendenhall and Norman Gottwald. These two scholars have rejected any eastern desert origin for the settlers. Instead, Mendenhall and Gottwald view these settlers as refugees from the lowest, exploited classes of urban Canaanite society in the Late Bronze Age (c. 1550–1200 B.C.).⁴ A slightly variant version of this theory looks for the roots of Israel in an early rural framework in the hilly areas of the country. This “sociological” viewpoint has influenced discussions of other archaeological periods as well and has stimulated scholars to seek answers to archaeological-historical problems within the social structure of the country, rather than to speculate about migrations of new elements from outside.⁵

Although I reject many of the central tenets of the Mendenhall-Gottwald approach (especially the notion that the Iron I hill-country settlers came directly from 036the urban centers of the lowlands), I do accept two of their important points: Before the camel was domesticated as a herd animal, which apparently occurred only toward the end of the second millennium B.C., sizeable groups of people could not live deep in the deserts of the ancient Near East. Accordingly, the nomads (that is, pastoralists who herded flocks, not camels, and who therefore did not live deep in the desert) and the sedentary dwellers formed two specialized parts of one dimorphic society. The two groups lived in proximity and established mutual economic and social relations. The sedentary dwellers supplied the nomad/pastoralists with grain and other agricultural products; and the latter supplied the former with meat and other animal products. Their relationship was characterized by symbiosis rather than by confrontation.

In order to trace the roots of a specific group like the Israelites—regardless of the time frame or geographic location involved—three avenues of inquiry should be pursued:

1. Historical sources, to the extent that they exist.

2. The material culture of the group, including indications of its socio-economic character and its relationship to the material culture of the preceding period.

3. The settlement pattern of the period in question compared to the previous period (and sometimes the succeeding period as well).

Let us see what such an inquiry can tell us about the origins of the Israelites.

The principal historical source concerning the period of the Israelite settlement is, of course, the Bible. Without denigrating its overwhelming importance for reconstructing the history of Israel, the fact remains that attempts to reconstruct the course of the Israelite settlement on the basis of the Biblical accounts have not been successful. The main reason for this failure is that the Biblical narratives were redacted (that is, edited) centuries after the events they purport to describe. As a result, what they really reflect is the version of history that was current in Jerusalem at about the end of the period of the monarchy (in the seventh century B.C.).

Let us turn then to the other two categories: material culture and settlement patterns.

Both of these factors strongly suggest that the people settling in the hill country in Iron I, or at least most of them, came from a pastoralist background. As for the material culture, the only conclusive evidence comes from the layout of the Iron I sites: The elliptical site plan, where a series of broadrooms encompassed a large central courtyard, was adapted from the nomadic tent camp. Although not conclusive, the proliferation of storage silos dug into the ground at Israelite settlement sites is also characteristic of a formerly nomadic society in the process of 037sedentarization. This phenomenon can be observed today in the settlements of newly sedentarized Bedouin in the Negev and in the Judean Desert, where the first structures they erect are for the storage of grain and straw. Silage is the first problem for which such societies must find a permanent architectural solution.⁶

Another indication: Looking at the settlement pattern, it is quite clear that the Israelite settlement was densest in regions suitable for cereal crops and pasturage, and that it was relatively sparse in areas appropriate for horticulture (such as grapes or olives, which take longer to mature) and mixed agriculture.

Let us now look at the extent to which the material culture of these Israelite settlements relates to Canaanite material culture of the Late Bronze Age. Scholarly opinion on this matter is divided. According to the most widely accepted view, there was a sharp contrast or break between the Late Bronze Canaanite material culture and Iron I Israelite material culture. More recently, however, points of contact and continuity have been highlighted, especially with respect to pottery.⁷ Naturally, this has given considerable weight to the arguments of adherents of the Mendenhall-Gottwald school.

Despite this continuity, which might suggest that the Israelites emerged from within Canaan, there are a number of counterbalancing facts that must not be overlooked. No total cultural break should be expected even if new groups of people entered the area. The material culture of the new group would soon be influenced by the material culture prevailing in that area, and thus a seeming link to the previous period would be forged.

Equally important, material culture is influenced primarily by the socio-economic situation of the inhabitants and by environmental conditions. It is therefore quite possible that the material cultures of two contemporaneous peoples living in close proximity will be dissimilar—for example, Israelite material culture in the hill country is very different from the contemporaneous Philistine culture in the southern coastal plain and the Shephelah. Similarly when we compare Late Bronze Age Canaanite material culture, which was primarily urban and commercially interconnected, with the material culture of the Iron I inhabitants of the hill country, who lived in isolated villages and who were preoccupied with daily subsistence, we would expect the material culture of the two groups to be dissimilar. In cases where Israelites and Canaanites lived in physical proximity and shared a common environment, on the 038other hand, certain similarities are bound to be perceptible in their pottery, despite the differences in their divergent socio-economic situations.⁸

An examination and comparison of the archaeological finds of the hill-country Iron I sites with those of the Late Bronze Age urban centers, especially looking at the layout of the hill-country sites, leads us to conclude that most of the people who settled in the hill country in Iron I came from a background of pastoralism, and not directly from the urban lowland Canaanite polity of the Late Bronze period. These people, who tended flocks, did not originate deep in the desert—they apparently did not herd camels. Instead, they had previously lived on the fringes of the settled areas, or perhaps even in the midst of the sedentary dwellers.

The material culture of indubitably Israelite sites, those in the central hill-country, is completely different from that of the Canaanite centers. The contrasting socio-economic character of these two cultures, their disparate environmental settings and the changes occurring all over the country at the end of the 13th and beginning of the 12th centuries B.C. underlie these differences. Certain points of contact between the two cultures, notably in pottery types, attest to relations between the settlers and the nearby Canaanite centers; some of the latter continued to exist until at least the mid-12th century B.C. and probably even later.

From the human-ecology point of view, the land of Israel can be divided into two zones of occupation:

1. Regions where permanent settlement was continuous over a long period of time, with few and relatively short gaps in occupation. These are the fertile areas of the coastal plain, the Shephelah and the northern valleys.

2. Marginal regions, where sedentary activities waxed and waned in accordance with varying conditions. This was the case in the semi-arid areas of the Negev Highlands, the Beer-Sheva Valley, the Judean Desert and considerable areas of the hilly regions of Upper Galilee, Ephraim and the Judean Hills. These mountainous areas can be described as ecological “frontier zones.” The harsh topography, difficult rock formations and dense copses were all obstacles to settlement. Only a limited area was available for agriculture. Travel from one place to another required great effort, and it was difficult to hew out cisterns.

Prior to the Iron Age, before the hilly regions were 039rendered arable by generations of labor, settlers chose to live in the coastal plain and in the valleys. Penetration into the “frontier zones” of the hill country took place only when the more favorable areas became overcrowded. Conversely, when there was a decline in occupation, these marginal areas of the hill country were depopulated first. Because discontinuity of occupation was indeed felt more acutely in the “frontier zones” than in the northern valleys and the coastal plain, such areas were particularly sensitive barometers of historical change.

Even in times of sparse permanent habitation, however, the “frontier zones” of the hill country were well suited to the needs of pastoralists, who exploited them primarily for summer pasturage.

Before trying to draw conclusions from these general observations, let us examine the third factor I mentioned at the outset: settlement patterns. As we shall see, the patterns of settlement in the central hill-country during the interval from Middle Bronze II to Iron I will make a crucial contribution to clarifying the course of Israelite settlement and will also shed light on the origins of the Israelite population.

In Middle Bronze II B (c. 1750–1650 B.C.), the entire country flourished.⁹ In contrast to earlier periods of prosperity, however, an unprecedented number of settlers inundated the central hill-country as well. Hundreds of sites of every size—fortified cities, villages and individual farms—were founded throughout the hill country, especially along the fertile intermontane valleys, but also in more remote and inhospitable areas.

One investigator, Adam Zertal has found 116 MB II sites in his survey of the hill country of Manasseh.¹⁰ I have examined about 60 such sites in Ephraim. Although comprehensive archaeological information from Benjamin and Judah is lacking, many more sites were founded there in MB II than in the preceding periods (although far fewer than in the northern hill-country area referred to above). Altogether, some 200 MB II sites have been found in the central hill-country. As surveying continues, many more will no doubt be discovered.

Study of the pottery from these surveys is just getting underway, so the chronological subdivisions of the period have yet to be nailed down. However, a preliminary examination of the finds from the Middle Bronze sites encountered in the survey of Ephraim and the finds from my excavations at Shiloh^a—an urban center in the heart of the region—produced the following tentative outline: The wave of settlement crested in MB II B (c. 1150–1650 B.C.). At that time, the small village was the primary unit of settlement (but some of the sites may represent pastoralist groups). In MB II C (1650–1550 B.C.), the nature of activities in the region changed somewhat. A number of the unfortified sites were abandoned, while at a few locales, impressively fortified centers arose.¹¹ At the end of the MB II (c. 1550 B.C.), the fortified centers of the hill country, as well as many of the major cities of the lowlands, were destroyed.

In contrast to the extraordinary prosperity of MB II, the Late Bronze period was characterized by a severe crisis in settlement throughout the country. Ironically, the Late Bronze period was, until recently, thought by some scholars to mark the apex of development in the land of Israel in the second millennium B.C. The relative abundance of historical records (such as the Amarna letters) and the richness of the material culture (pottery, ivories and other objects) unearthed in excavations at the large tells created this false impression. Now, thanks to the extensive surveys, a more realistic assessment of the state of Late Bronze settlement can be made. Despite certain achievements in the realm of material culture, and despite close commercial links with other Mediterranean shores, the land of Israel in the Late Bronze Age was a mere shadow of its former glory.¹²

The crisis was gravest in the hill-country, where the reduction in the number of settlements was drastic. Only 21 Late Bronze sites have been found in Manasseh; a mere five sites are known in Ephraim and just two or three in Benjamin and Judah. Altogether only 25–30 sites were occupied in the Late Bronze II (c. 1400–1200 B.C.) between the Jezreel and Beer-Sheva valleys. Human activity was confined mainly to the large central tells, the majority of which have long been known. It is highly unlikely, therefore, that many additional Late Bronze sites will be discovered in the future, because it is difficult to overlook such major settlements. Other regions were also practically deserted during the Late Bronze period: only two or three sites were found in Upper Galilee, five in Lower Galilee, none in the Beer-Sheva Valley and few on the Transjordanian plateau.¹³

Moreover, many of the occupied sites shrank in size. For example, the fortified Middle Bronze settlement at Shiloh was abandoned and replaced by only small-scale cultic activity in the Late Bronze Age.¹⁴ The survey shows that the contraction of occupation was pronounced at other sites as well. Only in the southern coastal plain, the Shephelah and the northern valleys was human activity lively during this period.

The decline of occupation during the transition from the MB II to Late Bronze has also been noted in recent studies on the size of the sedentary population. The number of inhabitants west of the Jordan has been estimated at 140,000 in MB II. The Late Bronze population, however, is estimated at less than half as large—about 60,000 to 10,000.¹⁵

In Iron I there was a dramatic swing back in the population of the hill country. About 240 sites of the period are known in the area between the Jezreel and Beer-Sheva valleys: 96 in Manasseh,¹⁶ 122 in Ephraim (including the vicinity of Izbet Sartah to the west), and 22 in Benjamin and Judah. In addition, 68 sites have been identified in Galilee, 18 in the Jordan Valley and dozens of others on the Transjordanian plateau. Because 040sites proliferate all over the region in Iron I, no doubt more will be discovered in the future.

The three patterns of settlement representing the MB II, Late Bronze and Iron I settlements illuminate the problem of the origin of the early Israelites. They raise two critical questions: Where did over half of the country’s people (and almost all the hill-country population) “vanish” to at the end of the Middle Bronze Age? And from where did the people who settled the hundreds of sites in Iron I “materialize?”

Our survey of Ephraim suggests that the decline in MB II settlements set in before the end of the Middle Bronze period. The process was apparently gradual and took place mainly during the 16th century B.C. The reasons for the disintegration of permanent settlements at the end of MB II are not entirely clear. At first glance, we might be inclined to blame it on Egyptian military conquests at the beginning of the New Kingdom, which would have dealt a massive blow to Canaan. Archaeological (or even historical) evidence that many sites across the country were destroyed simultaneously is, however, wanting. Moreover, even an Egyptian campaign into Canaan would not explain the wholesale abandonment of hundreds of small unfortified settlements.

The more probable explanation lies in stresses and strains within the Canaanite socio-political system itself.¹⁷ These internal problems initially led both to the disbanding of some of the unwalled settlements throughout the hill country and to the strengthening of the central sites. Subsequently, these stresses and strains brought about the total abandonment of small sites and the contraction of fortified centers. It is possible that Hurrians and other northern elements entering the land of Israel at the end of the 11th 041century B.C. were also implicated in these changes.¹⁸ The frequent destructions of Shechem, the most important site in the central hill-country, might reflect turbulence and unrest during this period.¹⁹

Nevertheless, for whatever reasons, the settlements declined and disappeared. That much is clear. What then happened to the sizeable population if it was not decimated by war or pestilence? There is plenty of documentary evidence for the phenomenon of nomads settling down in the Near East in recent generations, as they did in antiquity. But there is little literature on the subject of this trend in reverse—the nomadization of sedentary peoples—although such situations are known in modern times.²⁰

A reversion to nomadization can be caused by increasing population pressure on finite natural resources, natural disasters, confiscations by the authorities, heavy taxation, insecurity, etc. An excellent example comes from recent history: Heavy Ottoman taxation and misrule in the 18th–19th centuries brought about the destruction of the rural framework of Palestine and southern Syria, and apparently large parts of the sedentary population became nomadized.²¹

It seems probable that this is what happened in the “frontier zones,” including the hill country, toward the end of the Middle Bronze Age. The network of permanent settlements fell apart, and many of the inhabitants adopted a nomadic existence. This would explain their archaeological “disappearance,” for we have yet to find a way to detect and identify the activities of nonsedentary, pastoral groups, especially in nondesert regions.

This reconstruction of events brings us back to population estimates. During the transition from the Middle Bronze to Late Bronze periods, the number of people in the country did not actually shrink in half. Rather, there was a change in the proportion of sedentary dwellers to pastoralist groups, but only the reduced ranks of the former category are reflected in archaeological field work and, consequently, in population estimates. The new pastoralists of the Late Bronze Age were simply not counted.

At the beginning of the 20th century A.D., the Bedouin in the land of Israel constituted about 15 percent of the population.²² In other periods, the percentage may have been far different. In Iron II (1000–586 B.C.) and the Roman-Byzantine period (31 B.C.–640 A.D.), when the polity was well organized, there was an almost absolute sedentary majority. In the Intermediate Bronze Age (c. 2350–2000 B.C.) and perhaps in the Late Bronze and early Iron I periods as well, there was a preponderance of nonsedentary inhabitants.

But can we produce any archaeological evidence whatsoever—or even the slightest hint from historical sources—for the existence of a large population of pastoralists in the land of Israel in the Late Bronze Age?

Archaeologically, there are, perhaps, two intriguing clues. The first is the phenomenon of isolated sanctuaries, either unrelated to any settlement or else located close to permanent sites, but beyond the boundaries of their built-up areas. The first type—unrelated to a settlement—includes the sanctuary at Tell Deir Alla, which the excavator describes as a “shrine of wandering Bedouins.” Other examples are the Late Bronze cult place at Shiloh, where no permanent settlement was found; perhaps the Late Bronze shrine at Tel Mevorakh, described by the excavator as a roadside sanctuary; and possibly also the Amman airport structure. The second type—sanctuaries located close to, but not part of, a permanent settlement—includes the building discovered near Tell Balatah at Shechem that is generally identified as a shrine, and the Fosse Temple at Lachish.²³ For four reasons, these sanctuaries should be regarded as archaeological evidence for nonsedentary groups in the Late Bronze Age:

1. This phenomenon is unknown in those periods of antiquity characterized by urban activity.

2. Faunal analysis of the remains from Shiloh suggests that the Late Bronze cult place served a population of pastoralists.^b

3. At both Shechem and Lachish, there were also temples within the bounds of the city.²⁴ The necessity for extramural shrines is difficult to explain except as 042serving the needs of nonsedentary groups outside the settlement.

4. Most of these shrines were situated in typical “frontier zones”—the central hill-country, the Jordan Valley and the Transjordanian plateau.

Another archaeological indication of the existence of a significant population of pastoralists in the Late Bronze Age is the relatively large number of cemeteries that were not situated adjacent to permanent settlements. These have been found in various places, especially in the hilly regions and on the Transjordanian plateau—once again, unequivocally marginal areas—what I have been calling “frontier zones.”²⁵ These cemeteries apparently served a nonsedentary population. Such cemeteries were not so widespread during times of intense permanent settlement; conversely, it is a feature of those periods, such as the Intermediate Bronze Age, when the proportion of nomads in the population was large.

On the other hand, we must ask whether groups of 043pastoralists could have achieved a level of material culture as highly developed as that reflected in the Late Bronze finds at the Amman airport structure and the Lachish temple and in the debris of the cult place at Shiloh? The answer appears to be positive. The finds from these sites and from the cemeteries are almost all cultic, and as such need not be representative of ordinary, everyday material culture, which was probably much simpler.

Because similar, highly developed, ritual objects were common at contemporaneous Late Bronze urban centers in Canaan, it is likely that these artifacts came into the possession of the nomadic pastoralists as a result of the pastoralists’ close ties with the sedentary inhabitants in this dimorphic society. Nor can we preclude the possibility that certain cult sites (Shechem and Lachish, for example) served some of the residents of the nearby cities as well. Furthermore, some members of the groups of shepherds and nomads could have established close relations with the urban dwellers, 044including sojourning in physical proximity to, or even within, their cities.²⁶ In the process, they would have adopted some aspects of urban material culture.

There is even some historical evidence for the existence of significant nonsedentary groups in the Late Bronze Age. New Kingdom Egyptian sources such as the Amarna letters tell us of certain population elements operating outside urban Canaanite society, but nonetheless alongside that framework. The most important may be the Shosu=Sutu groups.²⁷ Indeed, many scholars have suggested that the early Israelites may have originated from these groups, or, at least, that they were associated with them.²⁸ Interestingly enough, these elements are generally mentioned in conjunction with the “frontier” regions of the country—Transjordan, the hill country and the south.

This then is what probably happened from the end of the Middle Bronze Age through the Late Bronze Age. Now let us look at the transition from the Late Bronze Age to Iron I, where the process we have just described was reversed.

At the end of the 13th century B.C., the socioeconomic and political tides turned, and conditions became favorable for groups of pastoralists to settle down. It is extremely difficult to analyze the historical causes that brought about this change, for the simple reason that our ignorance about the period exceeds our knowledge.

The most important and useful method of analysis involves the comparative study of similar processes in modern cultures. Various studies undertaken in the Middle East in the last generation—as well as in more distant lands—have identified a number of stimuli that are likely to set in motion the process of sedentarization.²⁹ These include improved security conditions, the influence of adjacent cultures, the existence of external economic alternatives to a subsistence based on herding, military pressure exerted by a central authority, climatic changes, the difficulties of subsistence based on pastoralism, and the breakdown of the socio-political organization of the sedentary dwellers alongside whom the nomads lived.

Iron I was a period characterized by the weakening of Egyptian and Canaanite authority, political instability and worsening security conditions. There is, at present, no evidence of any climatic change. But there does appear to have been a breakdown of the socio-political organization of the sedentary settlers beside whom the pastoralists lived, and alternatives to pastoral subsistence apparently presented themselves to the nomadic population. True, the circumstances remain somewhat vague, but we should not expect to come up with a rigid and monocausal model for the process of sedentarization; it is entirely likely that other factors, which have escaped our notice, were at work too.

For our purposes, the end of the Late Bronze Age was singular in that this relatively short span of time marked the culmination of a series of trends and events, which together had far-reaching consequences for the history of the land of Israel. Egyptian military campaigns, economic exploitation of Canaan by Egyptian overlords, conflicts among the Canaanite citystates, possibly long periods of droughts and, finally, the pressure exerted by the Sea Peoples (among whom were the Philistines) all shook the foundations of the political and economic order of Canaan and weakened the fabric of urban and rural life to an unprecedented degree. These same factors led to the settlement of the nonsedentary groups.

In a dimorphic society, the nomadic pastoralists supply the sedentary dwellers with animal products in exchange for surplus grain; this in fact is the major expression of the symbiotic relationship between the two components of the social structure. In such a society, the nomads cannot afford to cause any major reversal in the fortunes of the sedentary inhabitants unless the nomads settle down in their stead,³⁰ for the destruction of agriculture would prevent the nomads’ continued specialization in herding. In short, the disintegration of permanent settlements (or, at a minimum, the inability of sedentary dwellers to produce 045a surplus of grain) will necessarily bring about a gradual transition from pastoralism to dry farming, and this will lead to sedentarization.

Even if this model is not the only valid one, it does help explain the causes that led to the settlement of groups of pastoralists starting at the end of the 13th century B.C. The internal dissolution and collapse of the Canaanite city-states dealt a crushing blow to agriculture, thus destroying the fragile symbiotic balance between the nomadic pastoralists and the sedentary population, setting in motion the forces that led to sedentarization. The most crucial factors in this process may have been the Egyptian economic exploitation of the urban centers, which apparently reached its peak in the 13th century B.C.,³¹ and long periods of severe droughts. This could have eliminated the ability of the Canaanite sedentary population to produce agricultural surplus and thus would have forced the pastoralist/nomads to engage in seasonal grain-growing agriculture, leading to the beginning of sedentarization.³² The process of settlement was probably gradual and lengthy. As the proportion of sedentary inhabitants increased, the number of nomads dwindled. But only toward the end of the 11th century and beginning of the 10th would the majority of the population have become sedentary.

The material culture of Iron I sites in the hill country therefore partially reflects the character of the people who lived there prior to sedentarization. The influence of the previous pastoralist mode of existence is still evident, especially in architecture. On the other hand, a certain connection with the material culture of the Canaanite cities is perceptible, especially in pottery; this is best understood as the result of the long symbiotic coexistence of nomadic and sedentary elements of the population.³³ At the same time, the finds from Israelite settlement sites reflect the first stage of sedentary life in the “frontier zones,” when the Israelites lived in small isolated groups and wrestled with less-than-ideal topographical and environmental conditions in order to eke out their daily sustenance. The absence of luxury goods was undoubtedly connected both to basic economic conditions and to the general decline in the economy and material culture of the inhabitants of the country in Iron I.

As most scholars do, I accept that there must be a kernel of historical veracity in the deeply rooted Biblical tradition concerning the origin of Israel in Egypt. Certain elements among the settlers may well have come from outside the country, perhaps from the south, and a portion of the new population may even have come from a desert background. At the same time, we cannot brush aside the possibility that certain groups who settled in the hill country in Iron I originated directly from the Canaanite urban society of the lowlands; it is just that the archaeological evidence to support this view is vague, if it exists at all.

But the vast majority of the people who settled in the hill country and in Transjordan during the Iron I period, must have been indigenous; they were not, however, as suggested by the proponents of the Mendenhall-Gottswald model (which, in this context, they often refer to as the “peasant-revolt” model), direct dropouts from the Canaanite cities of the lowlands or from a nonexistent rural network in the hilly regions. These people had dropped out of the framework of permanent settlement back in the 16th century B.C., at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, and lived as pastoralist groups during the Late Bronze Age. While they may have been active all over the country, their presence would have been felt most keenly in the sparsely inhabited “frontier zones” that were suitable for pasturage—the Transjordanian plateau, the Jordan Valley, the desert fringe and the hill country. They had traversed these areas as part of a seasonal pattern of transhumance and had established economic relations with the sedentary inhabitants, especially with those resident in the few centers existing in these marginal regions in the Late Bronze Age—for example, Shechem and Bethel. Starting at the end of the 13th century B.C., these groups began to settle down. The process lasted about two centuries and culminated in the political consolidation of the national identity of Israel.³⁴

(This article has been adapted from the author’s recently published book, The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement [Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1988]. See review in Books in Brief, in this issue.)

The emergence of Israel in the hill country of Canaan poses some of the most intriguing questions now occupying archaeologists as well as Biblical scholars. The archaeological reflection of the “Israelite settlement”1 is dozens of hill-country sites dated to the period that archaeologists call Iron Age I (c. 1200–1000 B.C.). At the heart of research on the emergence of Israel lies the question of the origin of the people who settled these hill-country sites. If we fail to answer it, we will not be able to solve the riddle of the Israelite settlement. Until the early 1960s, scholars were […]