William G. Dever, Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?

Grand Rapids: MI, 2003. Pp. xi + 257. $25.00.

The publication of WHO WERE THE EARLY ISRAELITES AND WHERE DID THEY COME FROM? coincides with William Dever's retirement from the University of Arizona, where he served as professor of Near Eastern Archaeology and Anthropology for many years. Dever seeks to write on a semi-popular level here, explaining the background and origin of his "protoIsraelites."

Dever reviews the biblical story of the early Israelites and shows some of the difficulties in harmonizing them with historical chronology and with archaeological data (pp. 7-21). He follows this same approach in dealing with the conquest of Transjordan (pp. 23-35), and of the land west of the Jordan (pp. 37-74). Next, the author surveys archaeological work related to early Israel carried out since 1970 (pp. 75-90) and recent archaeological surveys (pp. 91-100), and summarizes the material culture of the Iron I assemblage (pp. 101-28). The remainder of the work reviews previous attempts to synthesize textual and archaeological data on early Israel and works toward a new harmonization. Dever interprets the data as evidence that ancient Israel was made up of disaffected Canaanites who withdrew to the hill country during and following the LB/lron I transition (191-221). For him, the question of Israelite origins is completely solved, and the only remaining contribution for archaeology will be to illuminate the context in which Israel emerged (p. 167).

It is the continuity between the LB/lron I material remains that is, for Dever, the "decisive" factor in reaching the conclusion that Israel originated from among the indigenous Canaanites. However, in chapter 7, Dever argues for the distinctiveness of early Israel by noting five "new" technologies that appeared with the emergence of Israel: terraces, silos, cisterns, iron, and pottery (pp. 113-18). There seems to be a tension within his argument. He seeks to resolve this by suggesting that while certain aspects of the pottery do reflect change (potting techniques, simplified repertoire), the pottery assemblage primarily reflects continuity. Dever explains: "The fact is that it is the pottery of the Iron I hill country colonists that is our best clue to their origins. The continuity shows that they emerged from within Late Bronze Age Canaanite society" (p. 125).

Overall, Dever's case for the pottery as the decisive factor for his theory is not compelling, and a number of archaeologists would question its continuity, including Amihai Mazar, Aharon Kempenski, and, at least in his 1988 book, ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE ISRAELITE SETTLEMENT (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1988), Israel Finkelstein. These writers claim that some pottery from the LB/lron I transition is "transitional" and some stands "in sharp contrast" to that of the Canaanite centers.

In chapters 10-11, Dever reiterates the arguments for an indigenous origin for early Israel, and then puts forth his own version of the "peasant revolt" theory. The withdrawal of the hill country settlers from Canaan was not, however, "flight from intolerable conditions or necessarily a revolutionary Yahwistic fervor ... but rather simply a quest for a new society and a new lifestyle. They wanted to start over. And in the end, that was revolutionary" (p. 178). Dever's early Israelites were not, therefore, violent revolutionaries, but peaceful utopianisEs. He summarizes, "... to my mind, land reform must have been the driving force behind, and the ultimate goal of, the early Israelite movement" (p. 188). Dever compares the hill country settlement to the establishment of the 19th-century Oneida Community, the New Harmony community in southwestern Indiana during the same period, and the 18th-century Shaker movement (p. 189), but finally admits that, in regard to the reasons behind the protoIsraelites' withdrawal and settlement, "my theory is speculative ... [with] little archaeological evidence to support it" (p. 179).

Chapter 12 may be unique among archaeological works in that it recognizes that archaeological claims might have theological ramifications. Here, Dever explores three possible scenarios for the origin of the Hebrew Bible, reviews some possible historical circumstances behind the Exodus story, and discusses the historicity of Moses. In closing, he demonstrates the "real world" importance of what might seem to be an "ivory tower" discussion by showing how Israelis and Palestinians have both appealed to archaeology to legitimize themselves and/or delegitimize the other.

While Dever's discussion of Israelite origins differs very little from Baruch Halpern's THE EMERGENCE OF ISRAEL IN CANAAN, published over twenty years ago (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983), it will be important for two reasons. First, it will serve as an updated text, in that it seeks to integrate archaeological data collected over the last twenty years into the discussion. And secondly, it seeks to use those data (which were not available to Mendenhall or Gottwald) to support a modified peasant's revolt theory. This work will certainly be an important new contribution to the study of Israelite origins.

Ralph K. Hawkins

Andrews University

Berrien Springs, MI 49104