The Invention of Ancient Israel (34 page)

The most noteworthy attempt to deal with the problem of ethnicity and ‘Israelite identity' has come from Finkelstein who believes distinctions between ethnic groups at that time were ‘apparently still vague' (1988: 27). The reader is not informed as to the nature of the evidence which forms the basis for his understanding of the self-definition of various groups. In an apparent disagreement with Mazar, he states that it is doubtful whether a twelfth century BCE inhabitant of Giloh would have described herself or himself as an ‘Israelite'. Finkelstein employs the rhetorical device of measured caution before moving to a much firmer conclusion: ‘Nonetheless, we refer to this site and its material culture as “Israelite”' (1988: 27). It does not matter if the inhabitants' own self-identity is different since the search for and location of ancient Israel is all-important. Israel is able to claim possession of the land in retrospect:

This is a stronger, more encompassing definition of ‘Israelite' identity than we have encountered elsewhere. It is a label which is used to claim the past of the inhabitants of sites which are to be located in the biblically defined territory of the Israelite monarchy. They are ‘Israelites', regardless of their own self-understanding, because this is the land of Israel; their territory and their past belongs to Israel. Once again the controlling factor in all this, as we have already noted, is an acceptance of the essential historicity of the narratives in 1 Samuel (see Miller 1991a: 97–9).

The conceptualization and control of the past inherent in Finkelstein's
definition is drawn into sharp relief by the problem of Galilee, as he is aware (1988: 28). Here is a region of Palestine which is not considered to be part of the territorial jurisdiction of the early monarchy. It does not therefore qualify as Israelite under the terms of his definition. Furthermore, he argues, against Aharoni, that Iron I settlement in the area was later than previously thought, belonging to a later or secondary phase rather than as part of the first phase of settlement (1988: 323–30). As is well known, these settlements are not characterized by the collared-rim ware common in the central hill country and other areas of Palestine. Yet none of these seemingly fatal objections prevents him from insisting that it is ‘Israelite'. It then becomes part of his definition of what it is to be ‘Israelite':

The definition is so wide that it encompasses all inhabitants of those areas which have been designated as Israelite.
¹⁵
The definition is not dependent upon archaeological evidence but stems from a reading of the Samuel narrative in the Hebrew Bible. Finkelstein has realized the inherent problems of such a definition by his admission that he would consider omitting the term ‘Israelite' from the discussion of Iron I settlement and refer instead to ‘hill country settlers' until the period of the monarchy (1991: 52). The concession is significant since it confirms the growing recognition that the archaeological evidence from recent surveys and excavations cannot be used to differentiate Israelite and indigenous material culture. The reluctance of Finkelstein or Mazar, for instance, to accept the full implications of this conclusion illustrates the difficulties of overcoming and breaking away from a dominant discourse. Finkelstein might be willing to omit the term Israelite and substitute a circumlocution, ‘hill country settlers', but is unable to talk of indigenous Palestinian settlement. In fact, these caveats have little practical effect upon his subsequent discussion since he continues to talk of ‘Israelite Settlement'. The concession is important, however, because once the label ‘Israelite' is removed the debate is freed from the control of the Hebrew Bible and its conceptualization and control of the past. Instead it can
become a discussion of the processes involved in and the factors affecting Palestinian settlement during the Late Bronze–Iron Age transition and later. It allows a comparison, or encourages strategies designed to elucidate a comparison, of regional variations in settlement throughout Palestine and neighbouring regions. This requires intensive survey of all areas of Palestine, not just those deemed by the discourse of biblical studies to be Israelite.

Yet it is not a set of shared assumptions that is likely to be overturned easily. The unease which is engendered as the implications of this change slowly seep through is expressed in the plaintive cry of Shanks:

Thus we discover that these settlements are of ‘special interest' because they are
thought
to be Israelite. Interestingly the inhabitants of settlements which are not Israelite or from other archaeological periods, said to be of ‘interest', remain anonymous. They are ‘Early Bronze Age IV people' not Palestinians. Despite the profession of interest, it is clear that Palestinian history is of no concern at all. It is the search for ancient Israel which is important: Shanks's message is that scholars should concern themselves with this even though it is only ‘thought', not demonstrated, that these are Israelite settlements. Where does this thought come from? It can only come from an acceptance that the biblical claims in Joshua and Judges are to be accepted as historically viable. Yet it is a thought that is fundamental to the theological and political assumptions which have helped to shape and sustain the discourse of biblical studies.

What we have seen with the sample of discussions above, and this could easily have been expanded considerably, is that the existence or lack of existence of particular material features is used differently
in order to locate Israel in the central hill country, Galilee, and Negev. At some sites, we are told that particular features of the material culture, principally collared-rim ware or the four-room house, are important indicators of Israelite presence but that at other sites their absence is not significant. At all these sites it is acknowledged that features of the material culture have continuity with the Late Bronze Age, but the explanation for this seems to be that Israelites have borrowed techniques and styles from the indigenous population, usually a population they are at war with or from which they are isolated. It is clear in these comparisons that it is the biblical text and not the archaeological data which determines the definition. The reader is often left wondering how much collared-rim ware needs to be present or absent in order to confirm or deny the presence of Israelites. Finkelstein has tried to address some of these issues by concentrating upon geographical location, site size, settlement pattern, architecture, and site layout (1988: 29–33) in order to sharpen his discussion. However, in each of these cases the principal value of the evidence is in helping to determine the socio-economic and environmental factors affecting regional settlement in Palestine. The implication of this observation is continually inhibited by his search for ancient Israel as conceived through his reading of the biblical traditions:

However, there is no logical connection between the two parts of this sentence. It is clear that it is not the archaeological features of these sites which are determinative of the label ‘Israelite Settlement'. This just continues the circularity of the discourse of biblical studies as illustrated in his assertion that ‘Israelite cultural traits must therefore be deduced from the Iron I sites in the central hill country, especially the southern sector,
where the identity of the population is not disputed
' (1988: 28; emphasis added). Yet, like so many other archaeologists, he notes that all these material features have precedents or connections with features at ‘non-Israelite' sites or previous
periods and that they are probably determined by topographic and economic considerations. The last point is vital to the pursuit of Palestinian history but its implications are denied by the search for ancient Israel. This is evident in his subsequent presentation of survey and site information of which the discussion of the ‘territory of Benjamin' is typical:

It is abundantly clear that despite the sophisticated use of percentage counts of pottery types or the comparison of other material features, there is nothing in the archaeological record which allows one site to be labelled ‘Israelite' or another ‘Hivite'. Finkelstein does not even attempt to discuss Hivite identity: it is a label which is taken over from the Hebrew Bible. He admits that he does not know how the Hivites came to be in the region or how the cities came to be Israelite. This ethnic differentiation is drawn on the basis of the biblical traditions despite the fact that there is nothing to confirm this in the archaeological data.

As we have seen throughout, the puzzle for archaeologists is that they have assumed that ancient Israel inhabited particular areas of the country and therefore it ought to be possible to distinguish Israelite occupation. Even after it became clear that particular ceramic and architectural forms were found in diverse parts of Palestine or in areas which the Bible does not reckon to be Israelite, the drive to find Israel continued. It is the discourse of biblical studies which has encouraged this blinkered pursuit of an imagined past – a situation which has been reinforced by the political needs of the modern state of Israel to find itself in the past. Despite the fact that the increasing body of archaeological data and the undermining of historical-critical approaches to the biblical texts have effectively shattered the dominant paradigm, it has such a hold on the conceptions and consciousness of Western and Israeli scholars that it has
clung on tenaciously in the face of such overwhelming dissonance. This is one of the best illustrations of the power of the discourse of biblical studies to silence Palestinian history and obstruct any alternative construction or claim to the past.

The politics of archaeology, evident in so many different regions of the world, has been raised to a fine art in biblical studies. Anderson (1991: 183) notes that archaeology is such a profoundly political enterprise that the personnel of a colonial state are unlikely to be aware of the fact. This deeply political shaping of archaeology has rarely been acknowledged in the discourse of biblical studies. It is not as if this is a matter that has not been recognized by political commentators such as Elon:

He also refers to the treatment of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls as assuming ‘a hallowed air', considered by many to be ‘almost titles of real estate, like deeds of possession to a contested country' (1983: 285). Yet the discourse of biblical studies has tried to present the search for these roots, the excavation and mapping of various sites, as the objective search for knowledge. The critical issue which Elon identifies, the implications of archaeology or the constructions of the past for contemporary struggles over a contested land, is ignored or denied in the discourse of biblical studies. The stranglehold of this discourse, its ability to disguise the political shaping of the past, is revealed ironically and unexpectedly in Silberman's (1992) review of recent scholarship. Silberman remains strangely silent on the politics of this new archaeology of Israel. In reporting the results of Finkelstein's survey, he refers without comment to ‘Israelite settlements' and says: