Chapter III - AN ETHNIC GROUP FORMS

III. AN ETHNIC GROUP FORMS The Egyptians in Canaan In which historical period and in which political context can we place the settlement of the Hebrew-Israelites in Canaan?

We can say that the occupation lasted from the XIII BCE. probably until the XI BCE. This period corresponds to the end of the Late Bronze Age (15001150 BCE) and the beginning of the Iron Age I (1150-900 BCE). In Egypt it was the time of the New Empire of Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten) of the XVIII Dynasty who died in 1347 BCE. The Conquest and Settlement had extended through the XIX Dynasty (1334-1194) of Ramesses II and Meremptah.

The end of the Hyksos occupation was the starting point for a different external policy: while Nubia, on the southern border, carried on being a direct source of primary materials, the New Empire began to increase its interest in the north east border, which linked Egypt with Asia via the Canaanite Corridor. The occasional excursions and looting ceased. The Canaan Corridor would now serve a double role: on the one hand, as a through-way for merchandise to and from other countries and on the other as an occupied country which could offer support to the conquering expeditions on their way through to the Anatolic-Mesapotamian territories. We remember once again that Canaan, dissected by two important routes, the Via Maris along the coast and the Royal Route through Transjordan, fulfilled this function perfectly (Maps I and II) In order to optimise their objectives, the Pharaohs decided to leave untouched the social structure of the region, establishing a military-based administrative control and exacting the payment of taxes. (1) To ensure the free 1

. Canaan was made up of a number of small states centred around small cities. At the head of each could be found a king (hazannu), a commercially active prince on the cusp of a social pyramid, under him were the aristocrats (maryannu), in the middle the artists and finally, at the bottom of the pile were the peasants (hupsu). While they were under Egyptian domination, the leaders of these small communities acted as true administrators, on a level with governors, and their functions varied from collecting taxes, overseeing the swearing of allegiance to the pharaoh, the sending of troops and controlling the movement of merchandise. The Letters from Amarna describe this situation. As well as information about collecting taxes and requests for protection they also describe how the sons of Canaanite chiefs were sent to Egypt to be trained and daughters were sent as a guarantee of submission and obedience.

1

flow of merchandise, Egypt chose to exercise its authority by focusing particularly in the coastal region ( 2) .The mountainous interior of the country, away from the main routes, was of little interest to the Egyptians. As they were poorly populated, Egypt’s main preoccupation was not to leave an empty space which would subject the region to the mercy of enemies contrary to their interests., for example the Kingdoms of the North and East and independent tribes such as the Habiru and even the aggressive and uncontrollable Shosu. The Egyptians soon found out about their bothersome existence.

Taking this into account, they established two centres of support and vigilance, Siquem in the north and Jerusalem in the south (known as Urusalim in the Letters from Amarna). This strategic system was not enough by itself, meagre local support and sparse Egyptian garrisons were sometimes unable to defend the region from the persistent movements of the “irregulars”, to repel raids along the costal route and to protect the valley traffic in Jordan.

Canaan also provided figs, oil, wine, some varieties of resin as well as grains such as wheat and barley. Although Egypt normally produced enough to cover its needs, these formed a valuable contribution to the maintenance of the functionaries and garrison residents as well as to the expeditionary forces. Among the merchandise moving through, were lapis lazuli from Afganistan, silver from Anatolia, copper from Cyprus and wood from the Lebanese mountains. At the same time, the Pharaohs undertook expeditions to procure contingents of prisoner-slaves During the last dynasties of the New Empire, the Near East entered into the Late Bronze Age Crisis (1250-1100) Canaan cities such as Hazor, Afek and Megiddo were left in ruins, burnt and abandoned. Reasons for this whirlwind of destruction are not really known. It was probably due to the general wearing out of the Canaan societies and/or rivalries between local chiefs. It is possible that the overwhelming strength of the Philistines contributed in no small part to this.

This complex situation (invasions, internal fighting, and structural problems) resulted in a considerable reduction in the population of Canaan, both in the valleys and in the coastal plains. The Egyptian’s policy of deportation may have contributed to this, but the fact is that many cities were reduced to small towns, a far cry from what they had been previously. The Letters from El Amarna 2

. The main focus of the occupation followed the coastline through Sharuhem, Gaza, Ashkalon, Ashdod, Jaffa, Dor, Acco, Tiro and Byblos. A second line, the Via Maris went along the coastal plains through Gerar, Eglón, Lakish (the plains of Shephelah), Azekah, Ekrón, Gezer, Afek (the plains of Sharon) y Megiddo. The route through the interior, via Transjordan (the Royal Route) became more important later on.

2

tell how cities such as Acco and Azekah were reduced to small local settlements that could hardly muster fifty men for their protection or Jerusalem which could only count on 50 chariots to face the threat from the Habiru.

Many of the groups displaced by the crisis, emigrated to Egypt. There they filled many diverse posts, such as cultivating the land, domestic service, guards in the palace or temple or, if they were handy, they worked as knitters, gold or silver smiths or copper craftsmen. So, strewn along the length of the Nile could be found a heterogeneous, conglomerate of “Asiatics�: Canaanites, or in a wider sense Semites, who had not been able to establish any specific relationship with the Hebrews.

In the XII century BCE, a new factor upset the equilibrium in the Eastern Mediterranean: the arrival of the Sea People. Although Ramesses III in 1174 BCE managed to stem their advance and expel them from Egypt, he could not stop a sector, the Philistines from settling on the southern coast of Canaan. By 1100 BCE the Philistines were occupying the coast and making incursions into the high central mountains, even opening their horizon towards the north in regions such as the valley of Jezreel and the neighbouring mountainous area. The Philistine occupation was devastating.

From all of this, fully documented in epigraphs, stelas, reliefs and papyrus, we can draw our first conclusions. All these events and circumstances which happened in great part along the coast of the Canaan Corridor occurred towards the end of the Bronze Age and at the beginning of the Iron Age I (12501000 BCE). This period corresponds, according to traditional history to the time of the Conquest and the Occupation, to that of the Judges and the beginning of the Monarchy. In this setting, according to these documents, the Hebrew-Israelites have not left testimony of their existence, unlike the Philistines who are much talked about in the Bible. In the interior mountainous zone, where the Egyptians exercised control, the Canaanite governors also make no mention of the displacement of the Hebrew-Israelite groups. There is however a reference to a Canaanite king Abdi-Heba of Urusalim, who does not seem to be related to the Davidic dynasty and also, and above all, the existence of independent uncontrollable groups is repeatedly mentioned in these documents. It seems that it is here that a new road opens for us.

Biblical stories. Their limitations.

3

The events of the conquest are narrated in the Bible, mainly in a part of Numbers, in Joshua and in Judges. (3) .

The reconstruction we can make from the biblical stories starts approximately with the campaign started by Moises and continued by Joshua which we transcribe in the footnote (Map XI) (4) The list of the Canaanite cities taken by the Israelites is impressive.

Joshua carried out his successful campaign in seven years (Jos. XIV,7.10), a period which does not correspond to the results of archaeological excavations which stagger the destruction of these cities over approximately a century.

According to these stories, they were important “fortified cities, formidable barriers even for the powerful Egyptian war machine” (A.Malamat); Lakish was taken in only two days (Josh. X, 31) a feat that could not have been achieved by the Pharaoh. It seems that the rustic and inexpert contingents that included women and children were able to overcome these disadvantages with their capability and cunning. The writers of the Bible have put a lot of effort into highlighting the use of the surprise factor, the night marches, the pretend retreats, and a developed system of intelligence complemented with advanced logistics (at least for the time). In addition, “they faced a Canaanite population devoid of national consciousness, a country incapable of presenting a united front against the invader” (A. Malamat).

The fighting would not only have been against the Canaanites, but also against the Philistines and other Semite peoples from the region such as the Edomites, the Moabites and the Ammonites.

On looking closer, contradictions begin to appear. The conquest of Transjordan is also attributed to Manases’men; the capture of Hebron and Debir to Joshua. Elsewhere, it is attributed to the clans of Caleb and Kenez of the tribe of Judah and they also figure as being captured a third time. The same fate is detailed for Hormah, apparently captured three times while Bethel figures as 3

.. Those belonging to the tribe of Levi (son of Lea) who were the guardians of the cult, received no land The twelve tribes still existed as the sons of Joshua, Manases and Efrain, formed two tribes.

Dina, the daughter of Lea, as a woman, of course did not receive any land. (Map XI) 4

. After some clashes with the Amorites, the Edomites, and the Moabites and the taking of Hormah and Arad, in the southern regions, the Hebrews made their way north along the east side of the Dead Sea and took Heshbon. Then, a column continued northwards occupying Gilead, Midan, Bethshan and Edrei while a second column diverted towards the west, crossed Jordan and took Gibeon. The conquest continued towards the south, occupying the highlands of Judah and further north, by the Jezreel valley, the high Jordan valley and the heights of Galilea. The description of the rest of the conquest is rather confusing although the taking of the Canaanite cities seems to have always been successful.

4

being captured twice. There are cities whose conquests are attributed to Joshua or Moses in some chapters while in others they feature different protagonists. The same thing happens when the fighting and taking of Jerusalem and Hazor is described in numerous verses, in many different ways and in different circumstances.

The anachronisms abound, like the references to the kings of Moab and Ammon, whose kingdoms correspond to the later I Millennium ACE and again the reference to the camel which appears in the history of Gideon (8 Judges VI, 5 and others) These inconsistencies have led traditional historians like A.Malamat to accept that “the intricate web of the biblical testimonies prevents us from accepting the literary worth of the books of Numbers, of Joshua and of Judges as a authoritative historical narrative or as a coherent chronological register of the Conquest and the Settlement. Besides the Biblical sources, there are no existing Egyptian documents (apart from the Meremptah Stele) Asiatics or others, before the XII BCE which can be associated with the Conquest.

At the same time, the Bible almost totally ignores the characters or situations in Egypt and the near East which could have been related in some way to Israel during the second Millennium BCE, the period of the Conquest and the Settlement. Among these events that happened in the second part of the New Empire, the Seti and the Rammeses are absent (all eleven of them). There is only a brief mention of Pi-Rammeses (the city of Rammeses) but he himself is never mentioned neither are the homonymous Pharaohs. In Joshua XV,9) Neptoah is mentioned as a source and identified by the name of Meremptah. But in no way do the Egyptians appear to-ing and fro-ing across the flat coast lands, nor across the mountainous scenes of the Promised Land. Nor do we see the subjection, incidents and exchanges that the Canaanites and their chieftains had with their Egyptian masters as catalogued in the Letters from Arnama. Let alone the impressive arrival of the Sea People (the Philistines) in the XII century BCE. The bible mentions them prematurely installed in Canaan, at the beginning of the II Millennium BCE, at the time of Abraham. Although the events with which they are associated happened much later, in the time of David, having much to do with his travels at the time.

The existence of these blanks or gaps should not surprise us if we take into account that the Bible was assembled or rather reassembled between the VII century and the Vi century BCE., a time in which the New Empire had been left way behind and the concerns of its writers in relation to Egypt, were of a very different order.

Given this panorama, it is not easy to reconstruct the history of a people, pretty well closed in within their geographical and spiritual boundaries, and 5

mainly based on a document whose spiritual weight sports the Western JudeanChristian civilisation. A document which is defended valiantly by its followers despite its contradictions, while freer spirits, when they try to get out of the confined space defined by tradition and prejudice, find themselves in great difficulty.

They ask, if we deny the anecdotal events of the Bible, does that not lead us to deny the spiritual content of it too?

By unravelling its contradictions and discovering the background of much of its declarations, could this not make us think that we are putting ourselves on the same side as its detractors, defamers of the Jewish people?

Archaeological sources The archaeological information does not offer any certainty with regard to the Conquest of Canaan. Further to the settlement, the struggles continued, not only against the Canaanites, but also against the Philistines and other Semite groups such as the Edomites, the Moabites and the Ammonites.

From 1960 BCE and moreover from 1967, exhaustive surveys in the central mountainous areas of Canaan have revealed new elements important in deciphering the intricate problem of the arrival of the Israelites to Canaan. The archaeological excavations revealed the existence of populated sites which began in the Bronze Age and which, with a few interruptions, were established at the end of the Late Bronze Age (1200 BCE), supposedly the beginning of the Conquest and in the Iron Age 1 (1150-900 BCE), times which correspond to Judges and the beginning of the Monarchy. The settlements were located in the upper central regions covering an area that corresponds to what were, at one time, the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. They each had a different demographic density; the more populated settlements were in the north (Israel) and those in the south (Judah). The first settlements were made up of a succession of dwellings organised in an oval formation, in a large patio or yard, and distributed in a similar fashion to the desert nomads’ tents.

This also shows that these sites were advancing from the east, from the desert, to the west. In other words one could think that they belonged to the pastoral nomads coming in from the desert who were becoming sedentary with all the changes that this implied: the cultivation of fodder, then grain and finally permanent agriculture. The occupied sites were in places far from the populated urban centres, which had been at one time Canaanite and then Judeo-Israelite such as Jerusalem, Bethel, Shiloh and Shechem. In addition, unlike the Canaanite 6

cities, they had no public buildings such as palaces, temples or depots; instead they had only a primitive stage of development and meagre cultural reference which contrasted with that of the Canaanites. This also supports the notion that these settlers were from the desert of the East (in Syria), from the South East (the Nefud desert in the north of Africa) or from the South (the Negev or Sinai desert).

Because of these circumstances, it is therefore logical to suppose that these were not Canaanite displacements, as thought by historians such as George Mendenhall and Norman Gottwald (the theory of the “Revolutionary Peasant”) also I. Finkelstein and N. Silberman who thought that the Hebrew-Israelites were Canaanites who had been displaced to the “higher lands”.

These groups were not the only ones becoming sedentary and settling down in the highlands of Canaan. In the following sections we will deal with the other groups who were roaming around these parts and who would have probably integrated with the former ones (Map X).

Hebrew versus Habiru In the periphery of the structured Canaanite and Egyptian societies moved two independent and marginalised nomad groups: the Habiru (Hapiru, Abiru o Apiru) and the Shosu (Shasu or Sassu).

For some historians, the Habiru and/or the Shosu could have formed part of the groups that made up the Hebrew-Israelites in the mountainous regions of Canaan.

The possibility of a correlation between the Hebrews and the Habiru has been an on-going polemic issue for over 100 years. For one thing, the term Habiru has a marked linguistic similarity with the word Hebrew. Even more than a resemblance, we could say an identity, if we remember that in Hebrew the vocals are not written, so that in both cases they would be designated using the same Hebrew letters, equivalent to the letters HBR. It should also be remembered that, for linguists, Ibri o Abiru have a Semitic root, Eber o Aber, that means “those from far beyond”.

The Hariru have been described by various historians using varied but concurring terms. For some, they were a “collection” of anti-social renegades.

They have also been described as “predatory” bands or “outlaws” who roamed the lands between the city-states. In some cases, these heterogeneous and marginal groups offered their services as mercenaries to the local chiefs or princes, making up what were really battalions or brigades. The letters from Arman mention them about 200 times; reflecting their intense war activities and marginality in the 7

region of Canaan, in the first half of the XIV BCE. In the Alalah city list a band of Habiru is mentioned, which was made up of thieves, drivers of war chariots, beggars, and even a priest. ( 5) These circumstances and the way they spread (through Canaan, Anatolia, the north of Syria and Mesopotamia) go to show, definitively, that the term Habiru and its equivalents were applied to marginal groups with a social, or if you prefer anti-social content and this is why they were not considered to be an ethnic group or people. This is one of the arguments used by Abraham Malamat to reject the hypothesis that the Habiru could have been included in the conformation of the Israelite ethnicity. Never the less he leaves open the door in recognising that the precise nature of the Habiru is still a matter for dispute among scholars. (6).

Societies in the Late Bronze Age had a structure which has come to be called dimorphic as, during many millenniums, tribal nomadic sectors coexisted with sedentary urban ones. When the Late Bronze Age crisis began, it started a process whereby the most vulnerable sectors, threatened by starvation, debts, the taxation and prolonged military service, moved elsewhere looking for better living conditions. While the societies disintegrated, other groups from different 5

. In previous documents such as the cuneiform tablets of Cappadocia and the Letters from Mari in the second millennium BCE, the term “habiru” was used more as a verb “habaru” which meant “to immigrate” which they applied to those individuals whose situation as immigrants was being disputed. For the Summerians the term meant “wise” while the Akkadians understood it to mean “thief, bandit or invader”. G. Buccellati, based on documents from the second half of the II Millennium BCE, puts forward the idea that it was quite common in the Near East for groups of humans to change their social and political affiliation; they called them “munnabtutu” which meant “fugitives”. In other documents, the term was taken to mean “those covered in dust”.

6.

During this period from the later part of the XIII century BCE to the end of the Late Bronze age (1150 BCE) the vast area that included the Hellenic peninsula, the Aegean Archipelago, Asia Minor, Syria, Canaan and upper Mesopotamia was the setting of a drastic transformation with the disappearance and crumbling of civilisations and the emergence of new kingdoms and new towns.

So this period saw the disappearance of the Mitanni, the great Hittite Kingdom, the crisis in the middle Assyrian Kingdom which declined and resurged as the Neo-Assyrian Empire and the New Egyptian Empire which gave way to the Late Dynasties. During this period is recorded the destruction of the big city states in the north of Syria such as Alalah and Ugarit, the collapse of the Canaanite cities (from which were subsisting the Phoenicians), the arrival of the Dorians in Greece, the Phrygians into Central Anatolia and the formation and strengthening of the Aramean kingdoms; and the emergence of the Sea People and who settled on the central and southern coast of Canaan, and finally, the appearance on the scene of the Hebrew-Israelites and the formation of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah (or at least of the former). As we have pointed out previously the reasons for these transformations and collapses has not been determined in a clear and unanimous way. The scenarios range from the breakdown of societies because of structural and economic crisis, as we mention above, to a drastic climatic change or because of the interruption of the migration of new peoples.

8

places appeared and formed heterogeneous social groups such as the Habiru and others. These groupings could be considered dissident or troublesome probably because their social structure was very lax, due to the fact that they were the result of the union of individuals or families of different origin, whether they were nomadic or urban settlers.

The groups sometimes moved individually or they moved more in the style of a true migration. Normally, the group was headed by a leader, but overall their structure was so weak that there was no room for hierarchies or the type of institutions typical of clans or tribes. Placed in a position of inferiority because of their origin and situation and faced with the impossibility of conquering lands and obtaining pastures, they took to plundering and banditry. They formed bands with no social order, with no permanent location, property or flocks and so, in the eyes of the sedentary population, they became contemptible and dangerous. They were not always small groups, in fact they grew to be quite large. The Egyptians treated them as disturbers of the peace; the Letters from El Amarna show that the Canaanite chiefs regarded them as “powerful enemies” capable of destroying the small Canaanite cities. (7) Their marginality however, was neither absolute nor permanent and often they ended up joining, either as individuals or battalions or enrolling as mercenaries in the very same towns they had been harassing. These circumstances paved the way for their reintegration into the sedentary societies and gave way to their inclusion in many diverse activities designed to find a different and better livelihood.

In this way, the Habiru or their equivalents started to disappear as bands of rootless vagabonds and they became transformed and integrated into the tribal or urban societies or they formed the nucleus of new tribes. We could conclude that these groups. which appeared in different periods and different locations in western Asia, had very little in common with each (other apart from their social status) and they differed widely in aspects such as their origin, their characteristics, where they came from and how or where they ended up establishing themselves or integrating into other groups. Each society had its own 7

. The Stele de Amenhotep II, which relates the campaigns of the pharaoh, mentions that among the prisoners was a contingent of 3,600 Habiru and 15,200 Shosu. Sometimes they posed a real threat, as in the case of when the King Abdi-Heba of Ursalim (later Jerusalem) asked his master for military help to stop the marauding Habiru. The papyrus document shows Anastasi I also worried by the sense of insecurity expressed by the Egyptian officials when they had to cross the mountainous regions (inhabited by marauding nomads) in order to get to the coast. The Habiru also provided support troops to the city chiefs; King Biryawaza of Damascus writes: “I am ready with my troops and my chariots, with my brothers, my Habiru and my Sutu for when and where my King and Lord orders”.

9

Habiru. We could even say that the Habiru phenomenon could have gone through a cyclical processes in which rootless folk, after a period of rebellion and harassment, end up being absorbed into a new medium.

At the end of the day, the fact that the Habiru did not exclusively correspond to one ethnic group in the geographical area of the Middle East where they developed, does not exclude the possibility that the Habiru from Canaan or part of them, could have ended up in the widely inclusive conglomerate of the Hebrew-Israelites (8).

It is difficult to accept that a human group with these characteristics has disappeared from history leaving no trace. If they had been annihilated, there would have been some traces of this annihilation so, most probably they were integrated into another group or groups.

Between which historic parameters should we place ourselves? On one side we have the period when the letters from Amarna were written in the first half of the XIV century BCE (the reign of Amenhotep III and IV) and on the other the XII and XI centuries BCE which correspond to the occupation and settlement of the Hebrew-Israelites in Canaan. Then, there is a period of “documental silence� which lasted 150 years, between Amenhotep IV (around 1350 BCE) and the first recognised Hebrew-Israelite settlements (around 1200 BCE), in the Early Iron Age, when their integration into the Hebrew-Israelite tribes must have take place and/or their disappearance from the historical arena.

In this period we can insert the Stele of Meremptah which, at the end of the XIII BCE indicated the existence of a population grouping called Israelites.

Let us now look at what could have been the Habiru-Hebrew-Israelite connection. We find our first clue in the Stele Minor from Bethshan, erected in the time of Seti I (1308-1290 BCE) to commemorate the victory over the Habiru in the mountains of Lower Galilee, where the name Asher is mentioned, the same Asher as of one of the tribes of Israel.

But the Habiru also left traces in the Bible. The images and situations that appear could not have just been the product of the imaginations of the compilers.

The fact is that in various biblical verses, groups with Habiru characteristics appear (drifters, outcasts and marauders) forming part of the contingent of the Israelites. For I. Finkelstein y N. Silberman this would be the case of David, a 8

. There is no doubt that the idea of a relationship between the Hebrews and the Habiru provoked and provokes irritation in some conservative sectors. We feel that if this relationship existed, there is no reason to feel so bad. It is well known that the Sea People (Philistines, Tekites, Sekelites etc) also had a controversial background (Aegean, Balkan, Thracian and Anatolian) and also, it has often been confirmed, they were made up of groups of marauders and drifters.

10

capable and brave man who served the Philistine King Akis who followed the customs and tactics of the Habiru heading a group of marginals and looting the neighbours including those from the land of Judah (I. Sam. XXVI; XXVII) (9). In these circumstances, he would have taken on, together with his contingent, the assault on the Jebusites of Jerusalem defeating it. Converted into the centre of operations, this small town Jerusalem, then became the capital of Judah and the seat of the dynasty that carried David’s name.

Nadav Na’aman analyses the context in which the Bible takes the term “habiru” with its social significance and gives it an ethnic meaning which authorises it to be changed for that of the term Hebrew. The fact is that the term Hebrew is often used with a similar significance to that of Habiru, meaning “foreign immigrants” and as a consequence “undesirables”.

Specifically, it was used by the Egyptians, with an added pejorative connotation of “foreigners” and even of “slaves” (Gen XXXIX, 14 y Ex. I, II).

Also in the Exodus and in Genesis, the Israelites were named, because of their condition of being foreigners in Egypt, in a similar manner. Jonah calls himself Hebrew when he leaves the land fleeing to a foreign country (Jon. I, 9) And Abraham himself is called Hebrew when Jehovah orders him to leave the country “to the land that I will show”(Gen.XII,1).

There are other significant elements such as the attitude of the Philistines towards the Hebrews, which was untrusting, in the same way as the general attitude of people in the region with respect to the Habiru. “What are these Hebrews doing here?” (I.Sam XXIX, 3). Even more so, in the books of Samuel, where the term is used specifically to distinguish a group different to the Israelites, and which is closer to the meaning assigned to the Habirus (10).

9

. David and his men put themselves at the service of the Philistine King Akis and as a mercenary he looted the neighbouring countries including the land of Judah (I:Sam). XXVII;XXVII). Looting, a characteristic Habiru behaviour, is presented in the Bible as “obtaining provisions”, so that the troops followed “the word of Yahveh” (Jos. VIII, 27;XI, 14) (¿???)

A similar case is that of Jefte, from the Galaad tribe (Jue. XI, 1 and following) son of a whore, he was obliged to “emigrate” (remember one of the meanings of habiru) and “he met up with the idle men who were his friends”. Transformed into a brave warrior he was anointed chief by the elders of Galead. Also Abilmalek, who “rented idle men and tramps” (Judges IX, 4) also David when he fled from Saul, led a band of fugitives made up of those who were persecuted, rebels and those excluded from the social order “all the afflicted, those in debt and embittered sprits” (I. Sam. XXII,2).

10

. In I.Samuel XIV, 21, can be found the most significant verses where the term “Hebrew” is noticeably differentiated from that of “Israelite”: “And the Hebrews, who had been with the Philistines previously...came back to be with the Israelites who were with Saul and Jonathan”. The differentiation here is not just literary. It can also be seen when Saul, fighting against the Philistines, orders the trumpets to be blown so “the Hebrews hear” (allies of the Philistines) thus making a clear differentiation with the Israelites of Saul (I. Sam. XIII, 3), or when Samuel speaks to the Philistines

11

In some cases it is true, the verses are contradictory, like when they called those who were fighting the Philistines “Hebrews”, and also those who were hidden in the caves, the same as in previous verses, named as being “all those from Israel” (I.Sam. XXV, 11). Although, we have to admit, this could have been the result of contradictions presented by the compilers.

We know of no other elements that register the incorporation of the Habiru into the Hebrew-Israelites in a more specific way.

Na’aman has highlighted the parallelism of the Hebrews with the Habiru in his work on the story of David and his followers, his trajectory and his attitudes. The relationship that David had with the Habiru was not exclusive.

Na’aman also analyses the migration of other Israelites such as the Danites who moved across towards Lais behaving more like Habiru bandits than a tribe of shepherds (Judges XI, 4-11). The rebellion of Sheba (II. SAM. XX), and that of Absalom would also be examples of typical Habiru situations (11).

We could ask ourselves, where did these sectors come from that became Hebrews?”

They could have originally come from the nomadic tribal sectors that initially formed the Hebrew-Israelites, an idea supported by Na’aman, or from other tribal groups, or they could have emerged from the same urban Canaanite society caught up in the final throes of a structural crisis as put forward by J.Bottelli, or as suggested by the general idea of G.Mendenhall and N.Gotwald. It is not our intention to intervene in this polemic argument: we prefer to leave the options open.

So far we have looked at the considerations that form the framework of the historical circumstance, the relevant facts, the non-Biblical documents, and the Biblical stories which relate the Habiru to the Hebrews, as one of the groups which have integrated with other groups to form the Judeo-Israelite ethnicity.

From here on in, we will have to owe our readers, and archaeology and history more precise information.

The Shosu Bedouins saying “Do not serve the Hebrews as they have served you” (I. Sam. IV, 9). It is important to note that, according to the tradition, the books of Samuel were the first to be transcripted and therefore the authors would have been closer in time and space to the events that they were describing.

11

. In I. Kings XI, 22, 23, is mentioned another case, that of Rezon, who during the reign of Solomon would have fled from Hadad-Ezer, the Syrian king of Damascus, to later on replace him on the throne of Damascus: A typical Habiru situation of flight and return.

12

It is not surprising that the relationship between the Shosu and the Hebrew-Israelites has not been extensively explored since the word “Shosu” does not correlate linguistically as well as the word “Habiru” and in addition, it is less frequently mentioned in the Letters from Amarna. The Shosu however, open an interesting window into the intricate problem of the origin of the Israelites. This group of Bedouins wandering around the Canaan region, entered into Egyptian jurisdiction looking for water, particularly in times of drought.

While they were on the whole, treated in a similar deprecatory fashion as the bandits or marauders, and were probably often confused with the Habiru, historians have generally been quite benevolent towards them, more so than with the former. Non-the-less, their constant movement as shepherds (and their condition as foreigners) meant that they were often associated with banditry (Papyrus Anastasi I) and even with spying (according to R.Giveon). This being the case, it does not seem exagerated to remember the passage in the Bible where the Hebrews in Egypt are accused of being spies by the Pharaoh. On the other hand, the word “shosu”, probably a Canaanite word, was the equivalent of “to loot”, the term had been transcripted into Egyptian as the equivalent of “to wander” and also as a synonym of Bedouin. In ancient Babylonia and in Mari, the term “suteo” was used to refer to elements of groups that were detribalised (12).

Rafael Giveon has conducted an exhaustive study into some 70-odd Egyptian documents, mainly epigraphs and some papyrus, in which the Shosu are named. The first mention of the Shosu from Egyptian sources, is when the name appears on the tomb of El-Kab, during the reign of Thutmose II from the XVIII dynasty: “an Egyptian army sent to defeat the country of the Shosu, bought back prisoners too numerous to count”(13). The confrontations with the Shosu continued 12

. Their activities have most commonly been located in the plains of Moab, Edom and in the south of Transjordan, but their travels took them, as we have mentioned, across a vast area which extended from the east of the Nile Delta, the Arabah and the Neguev, to the north in Coelesyria along the Mediterranean coast to the central mountains and the valleys of Jordan and Jezreel. When their activities changed from a merely pastoral focus to include banditry, they also included in their circuits the commercial north-south routes, the Via Maris, the central mountainous area of Shechem, the route along the Jordan valley and the Royal Route in Transjordan.

13

. The victorious campaign against the Shosu is mentioned in the Annals of Thutmose III located in the temple of Anar. Documents written during the time of Amenhotep II, Thutmose IV and Amenhotep III also mention lists of Shosu prisoners, among others. In the Stele of Karnak of Amenhotep I, it is notable that the Shosu is registered as one of the largest groups of prisoners, 15,200 (taking into account that this number may have been exaggerated) only surpassed by the Kharu or the Canaanites with 36,300 prisoners. In the lists the Habiru are mentioned separately. On the tomb of Thutmose IV, it is mentioned that the Shosu resisted violently the Egyptian domination.

During the XVIII dynasty, it is during the reign of Amenhotep III that the Shosu are most frequently mentioned. And during the XIX dynasty, between 1300 and 1200 BCE, their presence carried on being a source of worry for the Egyptians, as was recorded in the documents of Seti I and more-over

13

through the reigns of various pharaohs especially during the time of Ramesses II. In the papyrus of Anastasi I, the confrontation between the Shosu tribal nomads and the Egyptian government is featured as taking place during the second half of the reign of Ramesses II; here the name of Aser as chief of the tribe is mentioned again. The reality was that the Shosu were not a compact unit, they encompassed a number of small groups and taken as a whole they added up to what could have been considered as a real enemy by Egypt. In response to this threat, during the time of Seti and Ramesses II, military stations of defence and control were established in the region of the Delta and to the east in Edom.

The last documents to mention, in a contemporary fashion, the Shosu, date from Ramesses III. Other documents from later times, mention them, but as groups which have disappeared from the historical scene.

They had a similar relationship to the Habiru with the Canaanites; their military importance was worrying but also they came to contribute in no small way to military strategy for both Canaanite and Egyptian forces as they often enrolled as mercenaries responding to orders from the pharaohs (14).

Within this wide fan of reference, both in time and place, which coincides in many ways with that of the Israelites, D. Redford considers that it is quite likely that the famous Stele of Meramptah, when it refers to the victory over Israel, which took place in the Efraimite mountains, is in fact identifying the Israelites with the Shosu. This document mentions the name of the Israelite chief Aser as head of the Shosu tribe which reinforces this hypothesis. In the same way, the lists of Soleb and Amarah at the end of the XV century mention the “YHVA (a tetragram of Yahveh but with an A instead of an H) in the country of the Shosu in the land of Se’ir (Edom) The mention of Se’ir, as equivalent to Edom, common in Biblical literature, appears in other Egyptian documents in relation to the Shosu. Giveon shares some of these affirmations when he suggests that the Shosu, at the very least, were in contact with the Israelite groups in the region of the Dead Sea. There are other parallels with the Israelite tribes. As well as their presence in the area east of the Delta (from where the Hebrews started their flight) the scene of their actions was at the same time and place as the Exodus (the south and southeast of Canaan). The Shosu also suffered imprisonment by the in those of Ramesses II. 14

. As a result of their pastoral wandering, their looting raids, their migratory “infiltration”, or forced displacement as prisoners or mercenaries, or later settlements, the fact is that, by the middle of the XIX Dynasty, the Shosu were strongly infiltrated into the east of the Nile. And in these regions they engaged in other activities such as land workers, building workers, or were at the service of the palaces and temples. The pharaohs made them pay taxes which were an important source of income.

14

Egyptians, worked in the quarries and constructions during Ramesses II (the cities of Pithom and Pi-Ramesses in the Bible) and the Egyptians were also “their” enemies. Another element that could connect them with the Israelites is that they used clothes with frayed edges which can be seen in the representations of the Shosu by the Egyptians. Clothes with frayed edges were also used by the warriors, the people from the desert and from the mountains: “that the children of Israel fray the edges of their shifts” (Num. XV, 38) or “make a fringe on the four corners of your cloak” (Deut. XXII, 12).

The last moments of the XII century BCE saw the crumbling of Egyptian control over the Asiatic Coast (the end of the XX Dynasty) and the arrival of the Sea People. This is also the period in which the “nomadism on the back of an ass” disappears (in the song of Deborah, it still talks about the caravans and the chiefs mounted on the backs of white asses (Jue.V) and the rising trend of “nomadism on the back of a camel”). This period coincides with the disappearance of the Shosu from history and the installation in Canaan of the Hebrew-Israelite tribes.

Based on all of the above, we think that it is fair to conclude that the Shosu from Edom and the central mountains of Canaan in the later part of the XIV, XIII and XII BCE, possibly also related to the cult of Yahveh, could have been a component of the amalgamate groups that came together to form the Israelite People.

The Occupation At the end of the Late Bronze Age crisis, in the high lands of Canaan, a long process of sedentarisation was beginning which involved various nomad groups: Habiru warriors, Shosu Bedouins, nomad groups which had arrived from the desert and the Hebrew-Egyptians fleeing from Egypt. This combination of groups with primitive religious beliefs and an incipient monotheism would crystallise to form a new ethnicity. They became masters of the mountains and the high lands; it was the beginning of The Occupation.

Archaeology has discovered the existence of settlements that correspond to these groups, both in time and place. And the Bible also confirms it: “And Judah took control of the mountains and could not drive out the inhabitants of the flat lands who had iron chariots” (Judges 1, 19). And again “And the servants of the King of Syria told him: their Gods are Gods of the mountains and that is why they have defeated us, if we fight with them in the flat lands, they could not defeat us” (I. Kings. XX, 23).

As the sedentary phase advanced, (the end of the XII century BCE and through the XI century BCE,) these settlers began to imitate the cultural models 15

of their neighbours from the lowers lands, the Canaanites. Successive excavations have uncovered architectural and domestic prototypical elements from these sources. Little evidence has been found that could illuminate their beliefs but we can highlight an interesting finding: virtually no pig bones have been found, contrary to the excavations undertaken in lands occupied by the Philistines, Maobites and Ammonites. More directly related to worship, altars have been found located outside the settlements, would have served as a place of common worship for various surrounding communities. In addition, except for some findings that can be considered as having an accidental connection with Canaanite worship, no iconic representations of the gods have been found. This could be seen as an expression of aversion to the representation of images, a feature of tribal Judah-Israelites.

Clearly, these proto-Israelites, rough and primitive nomads could not leave written records, as this is only consistent with more advanced civilizations.

Regarding their social organization, it is worth mentioning Egyptian documents from the thirteenth century BCE. (inscribed during the time of Ramesses) which refer to the Shosu enclaves in the central regions as being divided into a clan-like system ruled by "chiefs" (like later on, the Israelites had their "judges") which was different to the pyramid-structured organization of the Canaanites.

These archaeological discoveries made in the 20th century (our time), show the process of The Occupation of the central mountainous regions and disperse many incognitos. It was a long process with successive and intermittent waves. The first signs trace back to the early Early Bronze Age (3500-2200 BCE.) And there was a second wave around 2000 BCE. in the Middle Bronze Age (2000-1550 BCE.) and a third late in the Late Bronze Age, around 1200 BCE. Settlements were initially thin in scattered villages, and were generally more concentrated and inhabited in the north than in the south. Some of them became important centres in subsequent periods, for example Tirzah in the north and the biblical Haay or Ai (Khirbet-et Tell) in the south.

In the heyday of the Middle Bronze other fortified centres as Jerusalem, Hebron, Bethel, Shiloh and Shechem were registered, the most important Jerusalem, in the south and Shechem in the north, became even more important in the Late Bronze Age. This confirms the existence in the XIV century BCE of two regional groupings with their respective kings (the aforementioned Abdi-Heba and Labayu, who are named in the Letters from El Amarna). None of those kings, have been correlated with the later kings of Judah and Israel that appear in the Bible. With a population of approximately 45,000 inhabitants in the early Iron Age I (XI century BCE.) both groups were on the point of entering an important 16

stage of development reaching, in the eighth century BCE., a population total of approximately 250,000, unevenly divided between the north and south.

After The Settlement, the Judah-Israelites began engage in agricultural activity, mainly the production of oil and wine (especially in the north). The surplus of these products opened the door for exchange with the lower regions and beyond, with neighbouring Egypt. The existence of this exchange has been confirmed by excavations in Egypt, which have uncovered remnants of ceramics from the Canaanite highlands, and even a jar containing the remains of grape seeds.

What explains this process of occupation of Canaan by the Israelites? There is a general background that can guide us. In a long process of moving, nomadic groups coming from the desert initially occupied the highlands, while the well organized and structured Canaanite settlements dominated the fertile and prosperous lowlands. At a later stage, during the crisis of the Late Bronze Age (XII and XI centuries BCE.), the Canaanite system was terribly weakened by various possible causes which we have mentioned. This situation, undoubtedly facilitated the descent into the plains by the Judah-Israelite conglomerate giving rise to a new stage of development (I. Finkelstein and N. Silberman)..

We can identify two major trends in the interpretation of the process of occupation. On the one hand, the proposal of the most traditionalist sector, who accept the validity of the Bible in general terms and who imagine a massive and violent eruption under the imprint of an epic moment, national or pan-Israelite, which was then followed a peaceful occupation. These theories would concur with the book of Joshua, which presents the conquest as an epic narration, with Joshua in the role of leader. This point of view is associated with the American archaeologist William F. Albright and later on, with Yigael Yadin. These scholars hold that during the conquest and occupation, the Israeli strategy would have been to dominate and occupy first the highlands and from there, developing the necessary skills and tricks, would have faced and defeated the Canaanites, since direct opposition to a stronger enemy, well-armed for battling on the plain, would have had a slim chance of success.

On the other hand, there is the school of the German bible scholars Albrecht Alt and Martin North, and more recently Manfred Weippert, who support the theory that the Israelite shepherds who roamed seasonally between mountains and the desert regions, began to settle in the highlands of Canaan at the end of Late Bronze Age. After a period of peaceful development and expansion, at a later stage there would have been clashes of interest with the Canaanites, over access to water or land distribution.

17

Both trends tend to use as their framework the biblical chronology: the arrival of the Judah-Israelites at the end of Late Bronze Age (1,200 BCE). They basically differ in that for the former group, the initial burst was massive and violent, followed by an peaceful, occupation while for the later the initial settlement was peaceful and the clashes came later. The former group finds the biblical stories more in line with the Book of Joshua while latter would choose the book of Judges (15).

The question of whether the peaceful occupation preceded or followed the violent actions has led to a long and complex argument about how to locate, in the time of the settlements, the destruction or disappearance of the Canaanite cities. When in an excavation ruins of a settlement were found, it was questioned whether the settlement corresponded to a Canaanite city mentioned by the Bible or if this destruction corresponded to a city from the Late Bronze or Middle Bronze Age, or even the Iron Age I; or if the destruction was due to the tribes of Israel or some other people (the Philistines) or even as a result of internal struggles among the Canaanites.

In this controversy, successive discoveries have led to a modification or moderation of the terms and basis of the discussion (16).

15

. For A. M. Alt North, the books of the Bible are a collection of legends, heroic stories and local myths, many of which are based on real events, these were then modified to fit the time and interests of the compilers. This is an etiological interpretation, i.e., not a historical one, an explanation or justification of situations or events that may have had some element of reality or historical approximation.

This way of thinking appears in virtually all of our analysis of the period of the Patriarchs, also in the Exodus from Egypt and in the correlation between the Hebrew-Habiru and the Israelite tribes.

According to A. Alt and M. Noth, the compilers of the book of Judges have narrated the conquests as being carried out by circumstantial alliances against a common enemy, which in most of the actions does not show the imprint of a national epic battle but instead specific battles against specific enemies, isolated tribes or groups of tribes, in general under the direction or domination of one of them, with their chief or judge at the head.

16

. As one of the defenders of the traditional position, A. Malamat admitted that the model of "infiltration" and " thereafter riot" is based on some real situations. "There is no question that some infiltration and peaceful occupation occurred and some strife and insurgency in the Canaanite cities" and that, in parallel with military action that ended successfully with the Israelite penetration into Canaan, there were also peaceful settlements. A. Malamat states that just because there is no clear archaeological evidence of the destruction of many Canaanite cities in the thirteenth century BCE., for example Lakish, Bethel and Hazor, you cannot take the Bible literally in relation to The Conquest. "On the contrary, in relation to those events (the Bible) should be regarded as a protohistory: it records the event of the Conquest as a version crystallized after complex work by generations and which reflects in some way, concepts and trends of the later publishers and editors.

There is no doubt that new values and motivation have been injected into previous accounts based on later political and religious ideology.� A. Malamat also modifies the value of these, in relation to

18

We are inclined to think that the circumstances of the penetration and settlement have not been definitively confirmed.

That it involved groups wandering shepherds and that by the end of Late Bronze Age they had begun to settle in the highlands, or that, according to the latest archaeological research, the settlements had taken place in earlier times (Early Bronze Age 3500 BCE.) or during the Late Bronze Age (1200 BCE.).

Historically the difference is not small, but neither is it transcendent.

This set of groups, because of the diversity of background and training, made up very heterogeneous clusters. It is more than likely that the process of settling developed slowly and on more than one occasion its components parts, given their different characteristics, would have clashed. Together with the Bedouin shepherds going through their process of settling down, would have been the nomadic warriors and looters, harassing the weakened Canaanites. It is therefore quite possible that in the period of the settlement there were also violent the military clashes, when he recognises that, “in the XIII century BCE, the Canaanite city-states, after a long period of harassment and subjugation by Egypt, had deteriorated to such a point that they were vulnerable to attacks even by the weak Israelite forces.”

Yigael Yadin supports the idea of an "emancipating" gesture but he also keeps a moderate position “supporting the veracity of the book of Joshua and Judges in a broad sense does not mean that the archaeological record corresponds absolutely to the claims of the Bible ... when archaeological evidence contradicts the biblical narrative as has happened several times, we must consider the possibility that it is a later interpolation etiological or a misinterpretation of the compilers.

Following A. Alt’s ideas, Y. Aharoni believes that Israelite settlements from the middle of the XIII century BCE. were preceded by others dating from the XIV century BCE. This meant that the destruction of many of the Canaanite cities, that supposedly had taken place during the Conquest, would have occurred prior to it.

For his part M. Weippert, in support of A. Alt says that "the tribal confederation did not exist at the time that those who later would the Israelites, entered Palestine. It would be extremely dubious to talk about the existence of real tribes in that period, better to talk of individual clans or groups of clans." The process of settling down (alternating seasonal movements in search of better grazing, the first regular settlements would have been in marginal areas, rotation of new land and the beginning of farming practices) would have been a peaceful process, in so far as the interest s of the holders of the land had not been damaged. Only in a second stage, would the Israelites have gradually spread to the richer plains and valleys, which had been occupied by the sectors connected with the Canaanite cities. That would have been the stage when isolated clashes occurred, in which the Israelites were not always victorious. In these encounters however, the Israelites were gradually taking the fortified cities, massacring or expelling their inhabitants and taking control of arable land: what A. Alt calls the "Israelite territorial expansion." M. Weippert called this stage "essentially silent" an expression that is severely criticized by Y. Yadin, as it would be a way to defend the validity of the "peace" position, in the absence of archaeological evidence.

19

actions taken against the Canaanites and the Philistines, that these conflicts would have continued at a later stage and that, along the way, the wayward warriors would have realized that the settlement and assimilation of elements of Canaanite civilization was more profitable than trying to squeeze the ailing economies of their cities.

The fighting was not only against the Canaanites and their sister tribes (Perecites and Hivites), it was also against the Hittites (Neohittites) and also the Amalekites and the Midianites (who were sometimes allies) and, of course, against the Philistines. With regard to the people of Transjordan, the clashes were mainly with the Moabites and Edomites, further south, although it is known that the kingdom of the latter appears in much later times.

The defeat of the Ammonites (by Jehu) is particularly interesting, as it confirmed, at least for the compilers of the Bible, the importance of trade in the region. The Ammonites, who had achieved great economic prosperity, would have control of the merchant caravans using the Royal Route, the interior international route linking Syria to the Gulf of Eilat and the Arabian Peninsula.

The ideological strategy of constantly invocating God in the army, which happened in the time of the prophets; a stern and cruel God, volcanic and irascible, is a transposition the compilers of the Bible are making about the hard life of the nomadic warrior. There are numerous acts of cruelty in the stories set during the Exodus and the beginning of the Conquest, Yahveh ordering extermination, bloody stories in the book of Joshua about the execution of kings, men, women and children and "anything that breaths". These attitudes do not correspond to the commandments according to Moses, except for the unconditional attitude towards Yahweh, the explosive God. These acts are more related to the reality of a nomadic people, kill or be killed.

The norm was to kill prisoners of war, since to take them as slaves at that stage of development was seen as counterproductive since they consumed as much as they could produce with their work. Thus, signs of humanitarian behavior and respect for strangers, the rules against the enslavement laid out in many verses (Exodus XXIII, 9, Lev. XIX, 33-34 and Deu. X, 18) do not correspond to the period they purport to relate, but were surely incorporated by chroniclers of later times.

As for the Phoenicians, except for occasional mentions for example in Sidonians (Judges III, 3) they were not only respected, but as we shall see,

20

became important allies and partners. Allies who were particularly prized thanks to the traditional "respect" the Israelites held for the sea (17).

The Bible reinforces this image of the distrust of the Jews to the sea, when, in Psalm 93, it speaks of "the noise of many waters (and) ... the strong sea waves." That distrust is repeated almost verbatim in Isaiah (XVII, 12 and 13), when it says" loud like the roar of the sea "and" noisy like the noise of many big waters." The moot point of the existence of a Judah-Israelite fleet in the Red Sea during the time of Solomon, and the reconstruction of the port of Eilat during OsĂ­as does not invalidate what we have expressed because in both cases they could have counted on the help of their allies, the Phoenicians, to build boats and to help navigate. In I. Kings (IX, 26/28) there is a reference to this: "... and Hiram sent his servants, skilled sailors .... from the banks of the Red Sea, and they went to Ophir [supposedly on the coast of Somalia] and took away from there gold. "

The Settlement: coexistence and assimilation Thanks to modern archaeological excavations in Palestinian that uncovered evidence of two important settlements located in the mountainous region of the south and the north, we could accept the biblical account of the existence of the Tribes of Judah in the south, and Israel in the north. Even more, we could admit the existence of internal gentile divisions into clans or tribes. The way is open for the biblical hypothesis of the two tribes of Judah and the Ten Tribes of Israel. In the footnote we describe how they had developed their actions as a group( 18).

17

. The attitude of "respect" for the sea is consistent with the concept of a "talasofobia" (hating the sea) shown by ancient continental peoples, the Sumerians, Hittites, Hurrians, Assyrians and Chaldeans. The Israelites were also people from the "interior" and they had an attitude of contempt for the sea, which probably derived from the distrust and fear that it caused in them. The Egyptians themselves, despite their expeditions to Punt, the canal from the Nile to the Red Sea and their maritime activity in the Mediterranean, distinguished strongly between the Nile river and the Delta coast over which they never managed to establish firm control; they considered the lowlands of the coast as "wastelands." This situation was favourable to the Hyksos, who were able to consolidate their power in the Delta, establishing their capital in Avaris, and also the Libyan dynasty XXII, in the X and IX century BCE., who settled in the area of Lower Egypt, near the sea. The Hittites also rejected the sea: King Khattushili expelled his rival to the sea but as maritime communication was essential (for example trading with Cyprus for the supply of copper), he created a small state-cap on the coast, to defending his maritime flank. The Assyrians also expressed a similar attitude, and as they advanced towards the sea, they ended up demanding payment of taxes by the trading ports (such as Tyre and Sidon), without conquering them.

18

. In their political and military actions, the tribes would not have acted with firm determination and would have established partnerships just for specific struggles. The tribes of the north strengthened their ties by establishing a relationship that is akin to a confederation, designated by the Greek term

21

As for the validity of the biblical stories of the Judges, Donald Redford makes the following observation: "If you consider the list of judges the" major "as well as the" minor", it would apparently represent all the tribal groups of Israel.

Closer examination leads us to the following considerations. Some refer to long and important legends, while others are hardly mentioned. The vast majority of these judges corresponded to territories occupied by Ephraim and Manasseh and Benjamin, north of Judah, graphically near Jerusalem, and did not include characters or situations which occured in the regions further north like those of Samaria and Galilee. In other words, the texts reflected the influence of Jerusalem in the selection process and have little to do with the historical reality of the period in question; a situation that clearly ignores the importance of the northern region, which, as we will see, was more relevant historically in the beginning (19).

The story of the fighting by the various tribes demonstrates the lack of the links between them and the absence of a unifying leader or a national consciousness. With this background the warrior elements of the nomadic tribes are relevant when facing the also disunited Canaanite towns.

After occupying the mountainous areas, the Israelites went down to the plains and fought and subdued the Canaanites. The Canaanites were a people of an "advanced" civilization. The Chalcolithic era (copper management) became the Bronze Age and then the Iron Age. With a sedentary lifestyle, they had incorporated farming methods and had learned to engage in commerce, which they had developed thanks to the major routes which crossed the country and connected it with the surrounding regions. We recall that the Canaanite cities during the Egyptian domination ensured the traffic of goods along the coast, the coastal plains, the Via Maris.

for "amphictyony" a political-religious association formed to defend a shrine. The two southern tribes, Judah and Simeon, kept away from those of the north, Simeon being much smaller than Judah, would have been almost completely absorbed by it.

Each tribe had its own leaders called judges, there were 12 (7 majors and 5 minors) who would have ruled for a period of about 230 years (from 1250 to 1020 BCE.), some at the same time. They were called “shofet” an adaptation of the Phoenician word “suffet”, as were called the presidents of the Phoenician cities. The judge would rule for life, and the job could not be inherited. His appointment would be popular choice, determined by military prestige or ancestry.

19

. The institution of judges would have started a new phase in the social structure. This stage would correspond to the beginning of the decline of patriarchal, tribal authority as a result of sedentarism, greater attachment to the land and adaptation of the urban Canaanite environment. This stage would correspond to an intermediate one, where there was still no state structure formed nor any differentiated social formation.

22

"In many respects the Israeli invasion resembled the invasion of the barbarians in the Roman Empire and the Arab invasion in the Byzantine Empire" (Millar Borrow, quoted by S. Baron.) People from "superior" civilizations depleted or in decline, were invaded by "primitive" people, full of energy and verve. They could dominate “superior� spent civilisations or those in decline and after a long process, they could begin to co-exist. Even though the situations were different, we can say that the Jewish-Israelite invaders, after fights and victories, ended up dominating the Canaanites, assimilating and co-existing with them.

In some cases, the invaders formed alliances with some Canaanite tribes, such as the Kenites, the Kenizites and the Calabites, who accepted the presence of the new occupants. They also formed alliances with the Jebusites in Jerusalem, in the heart of the mountains: "And the children of Benjamin did not cast out the Jebusites who dwelt in Jerusalem, so the Jebusites lived with the children of Benjamin to this day" (Judges I, 21 and Josh. XV,63). Similarly, the same happened with the Hivites in Shechem (Joshua XXIV) and with the Gibeonites, who accepted the superiority of men of Yahveh (Josh. IX,3).

As the settlement became more established, they began to coexist with the Canaanites and the way of treating the "enemies." modified. The acts of extermination, which the Bible writers elliptically called "expulsion" disappeared and the Canaanites became tributaries of the Israelites and little by little, the Israelites were integrated into commercial economic structure of the Canaanites.

Thus, "Manasseh did not cast out ... those from the village, nor the inhabitants of Megiddo and other villages. The Canaanites wanted to dwell in this land, and as Israel was strong, they made the Canaanites tributaries, and did not cast them out" (Judges I, 27 and 28). A similar treatment was was shown to the Canaanites by all the tribes of Ephraim, Zebulun, Asher and of Naphtali, (Judges I, 31 et seq.)

Economic wealth, commercial importance, cultural development and having their own social and administrative structure made the conquered lands an attractive target for the Israelite tribes. To the Canaanites, the occupation by a semi-nomadic people like the Israelites meant a temporary setback, productively, technically and in their cultural and commercial activities. "Archaeological excavations have shown the rapid deterioration in the quality of pottery and construction and the houses and fortifications began to be less resistant" (S. Baron).

If the arrival of the Israelites caused a shock to the Canaanites, the Israelites too were faced with a cultural clash on meeting these people in a sedentary stage with a strong commercial tradition.

In this chapter we mentioned that the Bible considered the word Canaanite to be synonymous with merchant. Analyzing and comparing the verses 23

of the Bible: Isaiah (XXIII.. 8), Zechariah (XIV. 21), Proverbs (XXXI. 24), Job (XLI, 6) it is not easy to draw conclusions. When a verse is speaking of merchants or trader, they do not mention Canaanites and conversely, when they refer to the Canaanites, they are not specifically called traders or merchants. In order to escape from the "intrigues" we call on the different interpretations of historians.

For Salo W. Baron, the negative conclusion is unequivocal: the alleged synonymy of the "Land of Canaan" (No. XXXIV, 2) to "trade lands" (Num. XXIII) would correspond to a grammatically awkward explanation of an "anonymous rabbi" (sic). Moshe Elat instead reaches the following conclusions: "... in Israel trade was viewed as a Canaanite activity. The most common Biblical term for merchant is "Canaanite" and it is applied to both merchants from Israel and foreigners" (20).

Moshe Elat, at the end of his analysis, offers some significant conclusions: "we do not have any more elements that could help us to decide whether these merchants were called Canaanites because of their affiliation or ethnic origin, or whether this term, used as an equivalent of trader, whatever their nationality, was created in the pre-monarchic period, when the merchants that the Israelites met were invariably Canaanites." He adds that in any case," the

passages that describe these situations in the Persian era, relate that trade in the Israelite society, was an occupation engaged in by the Canaanites or individuals of foreign origin "(our italics).

Apparently M. Elat finds it hard to accept that the Israelites (who for him were not traders), when they came into contact with people who were, could have incorporated themselves into an activity, which obviously was a base for development and progress. His conclusions would be that the Israelites, who were never merchants, came into contact with a people who they dominated, and assimilated but happily without being contaminated by their "pernicious" defects..

Living close to the Canaanites and adapting to a sedentary way of life was causing changes in the lifestyle of the Israelites. Their focus changed from nomadic and semi-nomadic livestock to sedentary farming and agriculture, 20

. In the Bible, adds M. Elat, "Isaiah, refers to Tyre, where their merchants were princes and Canaanites were nobles in the land (Isa. XXIII, 8). The term "its Canaanites," continues, for M. Elat, it has no ethnic significance, but is equivalent to "its merchants." Ezequiel also relates the term K'na'an to trade when Zedekiah is told off “'and he took it to the land of K'na'an and put it in the city of merchants' (Ezek. XVII, 4). Similarly, Zephaniah's prophecy against the city and the ruling classes, writes: 'Howl residents of Mahktesh, because all the merchant people (K'na'an people) have fled' (Zephaniah I, 1). Hosea also condemns K'na'an land as the equivalent of a merchant’s land (Hosea XII, 8). "

24

horticulture and production. As the settlement progressed, as the Jews were incorporated into the cities, it is logical to think that they also were adopting the commercial activities, "the peace brought a revival of commercial activity from the time of El Amarna (according to S.W. Baron) says, our italics).

Trade caravans started to cross the country again. Their closeness to a nomadic status facilitated the incorporation of the Israelites into commercial activity: desert life had accustomed them to moving from one place to another in search of better natural resources, and this encouraged the exchange of products: livestock, dates, grains, oils, wooden and bronze utensils.

An increasingly large sector of the population dedicated itself to crafts and trade. This socio-economic process could not fail to have influence on the religious aspects. We are witnessing a people with a simple social formation, with an incipient monotheistic religion, which has come into contact with a structured civilization, with an agricultural and commercial base. In their contact with the Canaanites, who had a polytheistic religion with divine representations, the Israelite tribes entered into a conflict; the contradiction between the influence and attraction of a polytheistic Canaanite civilization linked with commercial activity, and maintaining the rigidity of monotheism, underpinned with its ethical and moral principles. This situation could not avoid leading to fierce clashes and contradictions.

Those sectors linked to grazing and raising livestock remained more faithful to monotheistic principles or beliefs, following the patriarchal ideal of their ancestors from the desert. The sectors that engaged in agriculture began to feel the importance of the forces of nature in the success of their activities. Nature was present in their religious beliefs. The idea of God the Father gave way to God-Master, the Baal of the Canaanites. There also appeared a female element in the pantheon of the cult: while the patriarchal society, nomadic or semi-nomadic, left no room for a female deity, the Goddess-Mother Astarteh, the goddess of fertility and of love, occupied a space of worship. She was not the mother of the clan or tribe but Mother Earth who lavished benefits on the farmers.

Artisans and merchants did not feel the same attraction to nature, but they were attracted to the worship of the Phoenician-Canaanites, who had led them in new directions. Syncretism was adapted by these traders and artisans. That sentiment was strongest when, with the monarchy, a sector appeared interested in strengthening links with the Phoenician-Canaanite, in favour of promoting expansion that increased commercial activity.

For the Bible, acts of idolatry and religious infidelity proliferated: 25

"The children of Israel did evil in the eyes of the Lord and served the Baals ... and idolised Baal and Astarteh "(Judges II, 11). A sedentary lifestyle accompanied the dissolution of the clan. Mixed marriages helped the diversification of the creed, so that, together with religious idolatry, numerous exogamous unions were presented as acts of "promiscuity" (21).

The Canaanite influence was felt even in the choice of names, Gideon takes for his child's name Jerobaal or Jeroboal ("want Baal to give more") and Saul himself called one of his sons Isbaal or Eshbaal ("Man of Baal "or" Baal exists").

The confrontation between monotheism and syncretism continued, Yahweh’s threats and reproaches for the infidelity and ingratitude after having freed his people from the yoke of Egypt, appear in the texts of the biblical editors and compilers who have a clear vocation for monotheism, and also appear with full weight at the time of prophets. Monotheism, though still "primitive" and blurred, would finally prevail. But there was still a long way to go.

If the struggle for monotheism against idolatry and syncretism of the Phoenician-Canaanites left its traces in the biblical texts, one wonders, referring to the commercial activity of the Canaanites, who were dominated and assimilated and that of the Phoenician entrepreneurs who had became partners, "could this activity take place and leave no trace on the people of Israel? Because undoubtedly the struggle against sin, corruption and enrichment, was an expression of the "conservative" sectors linked to the past, to the nomadic tradition of the desert which was an austere and "untainted" life. Now they were faced with ideas and ways of life connected with the advance of trading and economic development which would lead to enrichment and greater material pleasure.

21

. "Neither did they hearken unto their judges, but they went a whoring after other gods to worship them" (Judges II, 17) and again in Judges. III, 5 and 6: "the children of Israel, who dwelt among the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perezites, Hivites and Jebusites, took their daughters as wives and gave their daughters to their sons and served their gods." Also after the death of Gideon, "when the children of Israel, were whoring to Baal that who they called God" (Judges.VIII, 33). Also the marriage of the son of Judah and Ruth the Moabite, or that of Samson and Delilah the Philistine, and the marriage of the children of Judah with the Canaanites (I Chronicles II, 3), and again the children of Israel with the Moabites and the Midianites (Num. XXV).

26