Hybridity,Hapiru, and Ethnicity in 2nd MillenniumBCEWestern Asia 151Judges, both of which belong to the Deuteronomistic History (DH) that includes the
books of Deuteronomy (law), Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, and 1 and 2 Kings,
reveals two very different and often contradictory accounts of the settlement of the
Israelite tribes (regarding the DH, see Knoppers 2000). There is a consensus among
most biblical scholars that the account in Joshua of a lightening campaign resulting
in the conquest of much of Canaan holds little historical valuevis-à-visearly Israel
and most likely reflects realities of later historical times (see, e.g., Na’aman 1994b,
especially 218–30, 249–50, and bibliography therein;contraKitchen 1998). Thus, this
multi-layered account of early Israel’s settlement of the land was likely redacted from
multiple sources, including oral histories and archival materials that spanned centuries.
As an historical source for the emergence of early Israel, the biblical texts must be used
with caution.
Although archaeological evidence provides invaluable information for the southern
Levant following the crisis and decline of the great Late Bronze Age empires, attempts
to identify early Israel in the twelfth- and eleventh-centuries’ archaeological record are
highly contested. The significant population shifts and changes in settlement patterns
that occur following the mid-twelfth-century Egyptian retreat from Canaan, however,
are undeniable. Numerous hamlets appear in the central hill country of the southern Le-
vant, a region previously sparsely inhabited and described in later biblical traditions as the
heartland of early Israel. These small, unfortified villages comprise clusters of four-room
houses, accompanied by domestic installations. The ceramic assemblage is limited and
utilitarian in function, but developed typologically out of the thirteenth centuryBCE
repertoire of Canaan. Notable are open-air cultic sites, such as the Bull Site and Mt.
Ebal, and the absence of pig bones from Iron I hill country settlements. Thus, a pic-
ture of both continuity and change emerges from the archaeological evidence (Killebrew
2005a: 149–96).
Questions regarding the identity, origins, and ethnicity of an early Israel have resulted
in a large body of secondary literature. The majority of scholars agree that a well-defined
Israelite ethnicity most likely crystalized only during the early centuries of the first mil-
lennium (Faust 2006: 20–29), although a minority of scholars termed the “minimalists”
have questioned the very existence of an Israelite entity (Whitelam 1996contraDever
1998). Most intriguing, and the focus of the discussion here, is the proto-history and
ethnogenesis of peoples that came to be known during the Iron II period as Israel.
Building on textual and archaeological evidence, recent studies of early, or “proto,”
Israel have recognized the complexity of its origins and ethnicity (Bloch-Smith 2003;
Dever 2003; Killebrew 2005a; Faust 2006). It most likely comprised diverse elements of
the remnants of Late Bronze Age society, including the rural Canaanite population, dis-
placed peasants and pastoralists, and lawlesshapiruas well as semi-nomadic tribes such
as theShasu(see also Brett [2003], who considers Israelite ethnicity a “fissure within
Levantine culture,” which he terms “cultural hybridity”). Fugitive or runaway Semitic
slaves from New Kingdom Egypt, a memory of which could be reflected in the exodus
account, may have joined this “mixed multitude.” The porous borders of these largely
indigenous, tribal, and kin-based groups permitted penetration by small numbers from
external groups, perhaps including Midianites, Kenites, and Amalekites, peoples men-
tioned in the biblical narrative. These groups most likely played a role in the ethnogenesis
of what was later known as Israel, a people that shared a collective identity as expressed