Donnes Archologiques Sur Les Premiers Isralites
Summary |
Archaeological surveys conducted since 1990 on the high land of Canaan (to Bethel and Shiloh ) show from -1200, early Iron Age, the small settlement of nomadic communities who are probably starting to grow grain.
This settlement is marked by the appearance of small villages in Transjordan north and center, in Galilee , in the hills of Samaria and Ephraim , the territory of the tribe of Benjamin, in the northern Negev. It begins in the XII century mainly in the central hills, but also in Transjordan and the Negev. In the eleventh century, it continues in the Galilee ( Hazor XII, Dan VI). The city of Dan was destroyed and occupied by Israel from the center of the country.
From the start, development is much faster in the northern half, wettest and crossed by the lines of communication, in the southern half, dry and inaccessible.
For most of them, these villages are not fortified. Some are organized into oval, like the Bedouin villages, indicating a nomadic origin ('Izbet Sartah, Beer Sheba, Tel Esdar).
The use of pillar in the home is becoming quite common. Thus the house four pieces , home then quite common in the region, will become typical of the Israelites at the time of the monarchy. It also reflects a nomadic origin of this population.
There are no monuments or public buildings and few fortifications.
It is a settled population divided into small non-urban communities in a dozen people forming an egalitarian society trying to live in the harsh conditions of mountain forests and semi-arid regions. For Amihai Mazar , the socio-economic structure of this population is what the Scriptures describe the period of the Judges. .
It is quite difficult to accurately assess the number of people settled at that time. To -1000, on the basis of 100 persons per acre occupied, I. Finkelstein's estimated 60,000 inhabitants.
Towards the end of the eleventh century, many villages are abandoned, while some become urban sites. This change is probably related to the concentration of population in the emerging cities and the formation of the state at the time of the monarchy.
Identification
The culture of this population have strong characteristics, like home to 4 parts, jars, necklaces and especially the lack of breeding and pork consumption. This last feature is most crucial: in contrast to their neighbors, the early Israelites do not raise pigs and do not eat pork, which allows them to archeology to trace, for analysis waste (bones).
However it turns out that none of these three factors is unique to this population.
The stele Merenptah
The stele of Pharaoh Merneptah , dated -1207 , cites the land of Canaan and the people named Israel among the vanquished. It's the only time this name appears in Egypt at that time. The inscription states, by deeming that this population is a group of nomadic or semi-nomad who does not live in a city .
The stele Merenptah attests to a tribal organization fully developed at the very end of Late Bronze Age. Israel is recognized and named as a distinct people before settling in early Iron Age. , . A source connects Israel Biblical Archaeological Iron II, that of the monarchy, with the Late Bronze II. As these populations occupying the highlands of Iron I become the Israel of Iron II, so there is a continuity of population and it is not useful to speak of proto-Israelites as does W. Dever.
Origin of the population settled down in the twelfth century
Archaeological findings describe the settling of tribal groups who were previously living pastoral semi-nomadic. Because of this nomadism there is no archaeological evidence of this pure population prior to its settlement. Nomadic populations leave little or no archaeological traces, unless mentioned in ancient texts.
Several aspects of the Late Bronze Age were associated with the origin of the Israelites:
- Nomads as Shasous and Apirous were often mentioned, but it is risky to establish a direct link between these terms and the first Israelites.
- Some places of worship, such as Shilo and Beth-El are both used by the nomadic people of the highlands and expressly mentioned in the Bible as a place of worship of the Israelites.
Several models described below, were presented to explain the origin of the Israelites in the light of archaeological discoveries.
Resdentarisation
It is an idea of Yohanan Aharoni The model Albright - Wright conquest This is the model derived from the Biblical Archaeology of the mid-twentieth century. Albright and Wright in the United States and Y. Yadin in Israel are the spearhead of biblical archeology in the years 40-70. Based on excavations of Albright and Wright on the discovery by a thick layer of ash Beitin, they develop the idea that the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites occurred in the thirteenth centuryBC. AD by linking the destruction of Beitin, Hazor, Lachish. This model has become obsolete, it is totally undermined because it represents a rapid conquest of Canaan and all that is neither archeology nor the biblical text. Destruction that served them as such were at times too far apart to be part of the campaign. In particular the destruction of Jericho is much too early for this model. This model, proposed in different variants (conquest at different times of Late Bronze Age, between the fifteenth and thirteenth centuries) is based on a rereading of biblical texts and the progress of archeology. The text of Joshua specifically indicate that only three cities are destroyed during the conquest, but not occupied by the Israelites later: Jericho , Ai and Hazor. This conquest would only have the effect of killing the leaders of Canaan and a part of the population. The Old Testament recounts the failure of this rapid conquest and difficulties for the Israelites settled in Canaan. According to A. Kitchen cities mentioned in the book of Joshua actually correspond to existing cities in the thirteenth century, and some show traces of destruction at that time . For others, like J. Bimson, the Conquest is the destruction of Canaanite cities, which marks the end of the Middle Bronze Age, while the history of nomadic and tribal corresponds to the Late Bronze Age . Albrect Alt in 1925 proposes a gradual infiltration of the Israelites in Canaan, some may be passed through Egypt and who reported their particular tradition. . They are nomadic or semi-nomads who arrived over an extended period. Martin North adds the idea of a federation of twelve tribes linked by a common god and a place of worship. George Mendenhall offer this model in 1962. He said the emergence of a religious movement made possible the revolt of peasants against the Canaanite tax collectors from the cities. This would be the appearance of a small group of slaves from Egypt that would have allowed the lifting of an entire country against his king. It is a sociological and cultural observation that leads to this conclusion . This idea is echoed by Norman Gottwald in "The Tribes of Yahwe" which, to the chagrin of Medenhall placed this theory in a Marxist version of history. Gottwald will be severely criticized by Lemche, which incorporates the idea of Medenhall, proposing as a descendant of the Israelites Apirous, but in fact a progressive, first to a tribal organization, then to a nation, identifiable as such on the Merenpath stele. There would not be in his foreign origin. Entry into Canaan and late occupation
Infiltration
Peasant Revolt
References
See also
Related articles
External Links
Bibliography
In French
Ancient Egypt
Portal History ( C ) Geography ( C ) Mythology ( C ) Gods ( C ) Art ( C ) / Pyramid ( C ) Science ( C ) Everyday life ( C ) / Political Organization / Pharaohs
Loading ...