Faust, A., 2015, The Emergence of Iron Age Israel: On Origins and Habitus, in T.E. Levy, T. Schneider and W.H.C. Propp (eds.), Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective: Text, Archeology, Culture and Geoscience, Springer, pp. 467-482

I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times”: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, 2006

The debates surrounding the identity and origins of ancient Israel represent one of the most contentious chapters in the history of archaeological and biblical research. Most views regarding the emergence of ancient Israel fall into the category of one of four general approaches-conquest, peaceful infiltration, social revolution, or pastoral Canaanite theories. The development of these schools of thought not only mirror increased archaeological fieldwork but also are indicators of research and political trends over the past 80 years. These theories, discussed in greater detail below, often reflect not only scholarly opinion and the fashion of the times but also deeply held personal beliefs. However, based on a careful reexamination of the relevant literature and an analysis of the complex social and cultural boundaries of 12th-century BCE Canaan, I propose that a consensus is emerging. Ancient Israel during the Iron I period should be defined as constituted by largely indigenous, tribal, and kinship-based groups, with the additional influx of smaller numbers of members of external groups, whose genealogical affiliations together comprised a "mixed multitude" of peoples. This "mixed multitude" is defined as the inhabitants of the rural Iron I hill country and Transjordanian highland villages and countryside, a population that has been identified by some as the premonarchic "Israelites" or "Proto-Israelites." This article summarizes the textual and archaeological evidence and the role ideology played in the ethnogenesis Early Israel.

Journal of Biblical Literature 122: 401-25., 2003

The article summarizes the research on the emergence of Israel as an ethnic group in the Iron Age, within the broader study of ethnogenesis.

The Oxford Handbook of the Historical Books of the Hebrew Bible, 2020

In the Hebrew Bible, God’s covenant and promise of the Land of Canaan as Abraham’s and his descendants’ eternal inheritance mark the emergence of the people of Israel. But before Abraham’s progeny can take possession of the promised land, they embark on a detour to Egypt as recounted in Genesis 37–50. Abraham’s grandson Jacob (whom God renames “Israel,” Gen. 32:28) witnesses his favorite son Joseph’s sale into slavery, orchestrated by jealous brothers. The saga, which continues with Joseph’s subsequent rise to a position of power and the migration of Joseph’s brothers to Egypt during a time of famine, serves as a literary bridge to one of the central themes of Israel’s emergence—their ensuing enslavement in Egypt and escape to freedom as described in the book of Exodus. The books of Joshua and Judges continue to tell the story of how the twelve tribes, or “sons” of Israel, after four decades of desert wanderings, conquer the Land of Canaan and settle there. For millennia, this story was taken for granted as a reliable account of the genesis of Israel as a people in its land. However, with the advent of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century post-Enlightenment methods of text criticism and the discovery of contemporary ancient Near Eastern texts and cultures, the historical reliability of the biblical text came into question. Aided by an ever-growing body of archaeological evidence, our understanding of early Israel has been transformed during the past century. This essay will review the theories of Israel’s emergence that have been advanced by critical scholarship, beginning with a critique of the two schools of thought developed during the first half of the twentieth century that use the Exodus story and the books of Joshua and Judges as their starting point. Subsequently, two additional models, utilizing sociological, anthropological, and archaeological approaches, attempted to write a secular history of early Israel largely independent of the biblical account. The essay concludes with recent efforts to reconcile the biblical, extra-biblical textual, and archaeological primary sources, considered together with contemporary sociological and anthropological models to reconstruct Israel’s ethnogenesis.

Biblical Archaeologist , 1996

early Israel involve the interplay between archaeology and ethnicity. The first is related to the formation of the early Israelite ethnicity: can we identify a new ethnic entity in the archaeological record of the highlands in the Iron I? The second: what can we learn from the archaeological record about the origin of the people who settled the hundreds of new Iron I villages in the hill coun-try? In a recent issue of Biblical Archaeologist (1995a) as well as elsewhere (1993: "Will the Real Israel Please Stand Up?"), W. Dever has delved into this thicket of issues. But his reconstruction remains too wedded to the biblical story and too conservative archaeologically. I wish to refute Dever's answers to these questions and offer my own, alternative solutions. Dever's Hypothesis on the Rise of Early Israel Ethnicity in Early Israel Dever's response to the question of ethnicity in the highlands of Canaan in the Iron I is based on three related arguments. He asserts, first and foremost, that archaeology can identify a distinct new ethnic entity in the highlands of Canaan in the Iron I. According to Dever, The village of Deir Ammar west of Ramallah. The settlement history of the site is typical of central hill country sites in the second-first millennia BCE: a small Middle Bronze site was deserted in the Late Bronze, resettled in the Iron I, and grew significantly in the Iron II. in twelfth century BCE Canaan, there did exist, at least on the highland frontier, a new ethnic entity, which we can recognize in the archaeological remains, and which we can distinguish from other known ethnic groups such as "Canaanites" and "Philistines" (1993:24; see also 1995a:201). Yet, as far as I can judge, this is a circular argument. It is based on the biblical text, rather than on the archaeological data. There is a remarkable continuity in the material culture in the Late Bronze/Iron I transition (Dever 1991; 1993; 1995a). The differences between the two cultures can be explained on the basis of socioeconomic and environmental differences (e.g., London 1989). If this is the case, how can archaeologists trace a new ethnic group in the Iron I? Moreover, if material culture of the Iron I highlands sites did not depart from the Late Bronze traditions until ca. 1100-1050 (Dever 1995a:206), how can one distinguish a distinct new ethnos in the late-thirteenth century, over a century before this point of departure? I refer to the methodological 198

WdO 49, 2019

FOR A COPY OF THIS ARTICLE PLEASE CONTACT ME VIA EMAIL Abstract: This study aims to discuss the formation of Israelite identity vis-à-vis the formation of the Israelite monarchies (Israel, Judah), while highlighting its kinship association. In order to do so, I first discuss the material remains and settlement patterns in the Iron I–IIA central Canaanite Highlands and the adjacent valleys (Jezreel, Beth-Shean and the central Jordan). Consequently, and in light of the archaeological discussion, I further elaborate on biblical and extra biblical textual sources that may shed light on the nature of Israelite identity and its consolidation vis-à-vis the process of state formation. Full citation: Sergi, O. 2019. Israelite Identity and the Formation of the Israelite Polities in the Iron I-IIA Central Canaanite Highlands. Welts des Orients 49: 206–235.

The Origin of Early Israel – Current Debate, Biblical, Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, 1998

For a copy of the article please contact me VIA email. Full citation: Sergi, O. 2019. The Formation of Israelite Identity in the Central Canaanite Highlands in the Iron I-IIA. Near Eastern Archaeology 82: 42 -51