The Invention of Ancient Israel (32 page)

The surveys which have been carried out embody a paradox: they are vital to the pursuit of Palestinian history but they are also an expression of a claim to the land by the mapping and conceptualization of that land. Thus Israeli scholars have recently conducted surveys in Manasseh (Zertal), Ephraim (Finkelstein), Judah (Ofer), Western Galilee (Frankel) and Lower Galilee (Gal). Again the terminology is significant since the claim that these are surveys of
‘tribal areas', embodied in the names Manasseh, Ephraim, and Judah, reinforces both the search for ancient Israel and the belief that this is the land of Israel. The concentration of effort on the occupied West Bank underlines the search for Israel as conceived in the biblical traditions. It is an expression of a claim to the land by naming and mapping that land. One of the early surveys conducted by Kochavi in the central hill country and the Golan was entitled
Judaea, Samaria, and the Golan: Archaeological Survey 1967–1968
. This is the ‘Judaea and Samaria' of Begin, which in modern political parlance embodies the claim through historic right to inhabit the land of ‘biblical Israel'. The discovery of ‘Israelite' sites in this politically sensitive region is bound to have considerable political consequences for the present. Significantly, those areas which are thought to have been ‘Canaanite', particularly in the coastal lowlands, have not been subjected to such intensive research. Finkelstein (1988: 22–3) acknowledges the selective use of archaeological data in his analysis: ‘We have already expressed the opinion that however much the evidence for the large Canaanite mounds may contribute to the understanding of various phenomena at the end of the Late Bronze period, it can do little to advance the study of the process of Israelite Settlement.' It is the occupation of the land of Israel which is important; other occupants of the land or their claims to the land are not of significance. They are not designated by capitalization (Settlement) nor are they relevant for understanding Israelite settlement. The partiality of archaeological research is determined by which sites are excavated or which areas are surveyed: what is searched for determines to a large extent what is found. It is a process which confers legitimacy on some aspects of the past and not on others: a process which is concerned with the location of ancient Israel and not with the explication of Palestinian history in general.

The identification of ‘Israelite' sites and ‘Israelite' material culture is a fundamental part, whether consciously or otherwise, of the politics of archaeology. This search for and location of the material realities of the past in many parts of the globe, as we have seen, is a crucial factor in the construction and confirmation of social identity. The discovery of the past provides a cohesive factor which helps to confirm the present (cf. Rowlands 1994: 130; Elon 1994). As Rowlands (1994: 133) has noted, ‘nations without pasts are contradictions in terms and archaeology has been one of the principle suppliers of the raw material for constructing pasts in modern struggles for nationhood'. Elon (1994: 14) points out, for example,
that virtually all the major Israeli national symbols, the State seal, medals, coins, and postage stamps, are derived from archaeology. It is not just the sense of identity which the construction of the archaeology reinforces and confirms but the material presence and right to the land. This has been an important aspect of the invention of ancient Israel from the inception of biblical archaeology but has become of even more vital concern since the growth of Zionist immigration in the 1920s and particularly the foundation of the modern state in 1948. Elon (1994: 14) relates the story of the discovery of a synagogue mosaic at Beit-Alpha in 1928 during the construction of an irrigation system. The inhabitants of the commune, members of the socialist
Hashomer Hatzair
(the Young Guard), debated whether or not to cover it up as an irrelevant religious symbol. It was eventually decided to preserve it as a political, Zionist monument revealing the Jewish presence in the land and confirming ‘the legitimacy of the Zionist claim'.
⁸
In the 1950s and 1960s archaeology became more than an amateur pastime, it was a national obsession (Elon 1994: 16; Silberman 1989: 87–136). But it was an obsession with the search for ancient Israel which cemented their claim to the land and helped to forge a sense of shared identity among a disparate population. The archaeological investigation of the Late Bronze-Iron Age transition and Iron I in recent years is in reality a narrative about possessing the past. It has been couched in terms of objectivity and scientific investigation which mask the power of representation (see, for example, Bond and Gilliam 1994). The theologically motivated search of Western biblical studies, the search for confirmation of divine action within history, has articulated well with and been enhanced by the politically motivated search of the modern state of Israel. The development of archaeology in the service of the present has probably been more advanced in Israel than any other area of the modern world. It reflects the need of the nation state to legitimize its possession of the present by discovering itself in the past.

The search for ancient Israel has been given reality through the very materiality of the archaeological process. Thus the real irony of the claim is that it is the switch to survey work which has provided the prospect of progress in the realization and articulation of Palestinian history, whereas the practical effect has been to establish the presence of ancient Israel in the past, thereby creating a
real
presence in terms of its ‘historic right' to the land. The recent intensive surveys have added an impressive catalogue of sites which
has reinforced the ‘reality' of Israel. How could it be dismissed as an imagined past when the material reality of presence and possession is so evident in the surveys of Finkelstein, Gal, Zertal, Frankel, and Ofer? The cataloguing of hundreds of Iron I sites and their identification as Israelite, particularly in the hill country, modern Israeli ‘Judaea and Samaria', have only emphasized Israel's claim to the land both past and present. The archaeology of ancient Israel has effectively confirmed, for most scholars, that the past belongs to Israel.

It is only with the recognition of the essential circularity of reasoning that it becomes clear that the interpretation of excavation and survey data has resulted in an imagined past. This can be illustrated from the first major survey of southern Upper Galilee conducted by Aharoni in the 1950s. He discovered a number of small sites in close proximity and assigned them to the Late Bronze-Iron Age transition on the basis of the pottery assemblage at Khirbet el-Tuleil (Horvat Harashim). He was then able to conclude that ‘this wave of settlement from the beginning of the Iron Age is Israelite' (1957: 149). Notice that he refers to a wave of settlement echoing the domain assumption, common at the time, that social change was the result of waves of Semitic nomads coming from outside. However, the crucial point here is that this conclusion, drawn from a reading of the biblical traditions rather than the archaeological evidence alone, follows in the tradition of Alt and Albright that such early Iron Age sites must be Israelite. It contains an essentially circular form of reasoning in order to sustain the notion of identity and land: the definition of Israelite culture and sites has been determined archaeologically; the Hebrew Bible indicates which areas were Israelite during the Late Bronze and early Iron Ages; those sites which fall within these areas are Israelite; Israelite material culture is defined as the material culture at the sites in areas designated by the Hebrew Bible to be Israelite; the discovery of these Israelite sites confirms the essential historicity of the biblical narratives. The debate in archaeology has not concerned the identity of the inhabitants; this was taken for granted as self-evident until recently. The concern has focused on the dating of particular sites and the direction of settlement.
⁹
It is only once the circularity of argument is admitted that the full implications of recent archaeological data become apparent. Yet it is the power of the discourse of biblical studies which has helped to mask the circularity.

The numerous reports on site excavations and surveys of Iron I settlements have stressed, with varying degrees of emphasis, the
continuity between Late Bronze Age material culture, particularly ceramic assemblages, and finds at these sites. Any alternative constructions which might try to make sense of all relevant data, particularly the anomalies which do not fit with dominant constructions, have remained unthinkable or marginalized within the discipline. It has taken a long time for significant numbers of scholars to come to the conclusion that the evidence points to indigenous development. The discourse of biblical studies, the network of associations and assumptions that have grown up reinforced by religious and political beliefs, is so strong that the prevailing belief has been that these sites are to be identified with Israel. The heat of the debate over the various ‘models' of Israelite origins and the initial hostile reception to the suggestion of indigenous origins in the form of a peasant revolt only succeeded in masking the more crucial issue of the far-reaching implications of recently published archaeological data.

The grip of the discourse of biblical studies in controlling the interpretation, in preventing scholars escaping from dominant models and domain assumptions, is evident in a wide variety of archaeological publications. It is instructive to begin with Finkelstein's major publication (1988) of the results of his Land of Israel Survey and accompanying excavations at Izbet Sartah and Shiloh. This is now generally recognized as the most complete review and interpretation of archaeological evidence pertaining to the emergence of Israel which will be fundamental to future research in this area. He appears at first sight to escape the methodological bind of the Hebrew Bible which has coloured previous scholarship. He rejects the failures of ‘traditional biblical archaeology' to reconstruct ‘the process of Israelite Settlement'. Although he acknowledges the importance of the Hebrew Bible for the study of the history of Israel, he believes that the book of Joshua, ‘the primary biblical source', redacted centuries later, presents an understanding of Israelite settlement at the end of the period of the monarchy rather than as a contemporary record of the Late Bronze–Iron Age transition (1988: 22; see also 1991: 56). Thus he appears to give methodological priority to the interpretation of archaeological data: the implications of this data for an understanding of the biblical narratives can only follow as a secondary step in the research strategy.

The real test of this strategy is provided in his discussion of ‘Israelite identity' and the precise meaning of the term ‘Israel' in archaeological terms. Finkelstein (1988: 27) believes the formation of
Israelite identity to have been ‘a long, intricate and complex process' which was not completed until the beginning of the monarchy. Yet his definition of Israelite identity precedes his review and analysis of excavation and survey data from all regions of the country. The professed research strategy is effectively reversed and undermined:

The archaeological evidence, presented in his preliminary report on the excavations at Shiloh (1988: 205–34), does not support his bold conclusion that Shiloh was a ‘supratribal sacral center' or that this site, therefore, played a crucial role in the crystallization of Israelite identity. His evidence for a sanctuary is the terraced structures in area C which he believes ‘hint at the physical character of the sanctuary itself' (1988: 234; cf. also 1985a: 168–70). He thinks that these structures are ‘no ordinary houses' and represent the only public buildings found at an ‘Israelite' settlement site. Dever (1991: 82) rejects this claim as ‘nothing but wishful thinking, hardly worthy of the hard-headed realism Finkelstein exhibits elsewhere'. The attempt to discover the archaeological remains of a sanctuary at Shiloh is governed by his acceptance of its status in the Samuel traditions. Yet the archaeological evidence is extremely flimsy, as Dever points out. Finkelstein, none the less, believes that this is not just a sanctuary but a ‘supratribal sacred center'. What is it in the archaeological record which would point to such a conclusion or what evidence would an excavator have to find in order to justify such an assertion? It is clear the biblical traditions have methodological priority in his research strategy. Finkelstein, in accepting the status given to Shiloh in the books of Samuel, is predisposed to see the terraced structures in area C as the remains of this sanctuary. Furthermore, his acceptance that Israel is a tribal organization is shaped by the biblical traditions rather than the archaeological data. This claim clearly embodies an explicit assumption that ‘Israel' was some form of tribal organization and religious unity. His assertion that ‘all agree' that 1 Samuel is a ‘historical work' hardly reflects the newer literary approaches to this text over the last decade and a half.
¹⁰
The stranglehold of the discourse of biblical studies is clearly evident
in this series of assumptions which control, have methodological priority over, his interpretation of the archaeological data. It is evident in his use of the biblically derived chronological periodization, ‘the period of the Judges'. To label the period in such a way is to assert Israel's claims to the past: it prevents an examination of the archaeological data for understanding the processes at work in the settlement shifts taking place in Palestinian society of the Late Bronze and early Iron Ages.

The interpretation of Gal's preliminary findings from the Land of Israel Survey are also bound by the network of assumptions embodied in the discourse of biblical studies. He refers to the settlement of Issachar, thereby immediately tying his interpretation of the archaeological data to a reading of the biblical traditions: the naming of the land in terms of a biblically derived tribal designation is an expression of Israel's claim to the past. His final report, which includes survey data for the Chalcolithic through the Persian periods, still focuses upon the settlement in those areas ‘relating to the tribes to whom Galilee is allotted' (Gal 1992: viii). Since it is not made explicit it can only be assumed that this is an assertion of Israel's right to the land on appeal to divine fiat. Gal opens the earlier preliminary report with a brief review of the biblical material, mentioning Issachar in the context of his survey of ‘the region of Ramoth Issachar, covering the area from the Harod Valley in the south to the Jabneel Valley in the north, from the Jezreel Valley in the west to the Jordan Valley in the east' (1982: 80). Already the biblical traditions and their claims are pre-eminent. Gal reports that there were ‘no sites here that could be dated to the settlement period – nor even to the Late Bronze Age'. The term ‘settlement' does not need capitalization, as in Finkelstein's work, since the controlling assumption is that any settlement in this period must be ‘Israelite settlement'.
¹¹
The absence of settlement is a problem for Gal: his expectation, that because this is the land of Issachar, Israel's possession ought to be manifest in the material remains of the past, is not confirmed. He is then forced to try to make sense of the biblical traditions in the light of this silence: