Teorías de la Unión, Mixtas o Eclécticas

This survey of the archaeology of ethnicity, with its focus on the ethnic labels of Canaanites and Israelites as seen in the archaeological records at the Iron I Period sites of Beth Shean and Hazor, has given several conclusions to the two questions of this study. Again, these questions are: Does material culture represent ethnicity, and should archaeologists apply ethnic labels to material culture. The answer to the first question is that while material culture may represent ethnicity, we do not know what that ethnicity is or exactly which features of the material culture are an ethnic indicators. As seen in the second and third chapters, archaeologists have claimed that specific ethnicities can be seen in material culture. I have argued that through combination of the human thing entanglement and the partible and permeable nature of identity, that it may be possible for material culture to have certain features that do demonstrate the ethnic characteristics of the people who produced it; however, we cannot be sure which ethnicity these features represent. In addition, according to the working definition of ethnicity, Canaanites and Israelites were historic ethnic groups during the Iron I and their material culture would have in some way, whether large or small, reflected their ethnicity. Nevertheless, the material culture assemblages which we have called “Canaanite” and “Israelite” cannot be proven have been made, owned, or used by these historic ethnicities.

72

Material culture found in the Levant very well may represent different ethnicities. However, how do we know which specific historic ethnicity made, owned, and used it, as I demonstrated we cannot rely on historical texts to give us this information and the material culture does not tell us this. We call a set of artifacts ethnically Canaanite because of the region in which it was found, its association to other groups of material culture which have been called Canaanite, a material culture style, and the historical texts which give the name Canaanite for the people of the region and period. Nonetheless, we do not know if that group of material culture actually was made, owned, and used by an ethnically Canaanite person. Clear examples of this are the material culture sets from both Beth Shean and Hazor from the Iron I Period. As I have demonstrated, the material culture from both sites do demonstrate shifts from the Late Bronze Age to the Iron I Period; however, why these shifts occurred and who made them, are questions we cannot answer solely by an examination of the material culture.

This first question was followed by my second research question of, should archaeologists give ethnic labels to material culture. I have answered this by saying if archaeologists choose to use ethnic labels, they must employ great caution when ascribing these ethnic labels to material culture. A part of the difficulty with these labels is that we use the same label for the physical phenomenon we see in time and space which create the material culture groups and for the people groups mentioned in historical texts. However, this problem can be avoided if archaeologists clearly indicate that the use of a term such as Canaanite may not reflect the specific historic ethnicity called “Canaanite.” Rather, it is the term we use to describe a physical phenomenon which may represent an ethnic group; however, which ethnic group that is, we do not know from the material culture. This is one possible way to avoid some of the confusion and debate over ethnicity. If we acknowledge we do not know what the specific ethnicity for the material culture was, and the label we use was ascribed to the material culture based upon early archaeological research in the Southern Levant having its roots in the Hebrew Scriptures. Alternatively, if we choose to associate the material culture group called Canaanite with the “Canaanite” ethnicity we should be explicit in demonstrating we truly do not know if this association is accurate.

Where then does this leave us? Should archaeologist avoid the pursuit of attempting to find ethnicity in the material culture record or in their analysis of sites following along with the post- modern idea that we cannot know anything about the past? I would say the answer to this

73

question is certainly not; however, there remains a great many difficulties with this problem. I have attempted through this examination of the supposed “Canaanite” and “Israelite” material culture from the Iron I Period to demonstrate the many hurdles which archaeological research has yet to face. There is currently no one standard definition for what is ethnicity, what is an ethnic group, or how would these ethnic groups manifest their ethnic identity in material culture. I have demonstrated the possibility that material culture may be intrinsically linked to ethnicity through the human thing entailment and the partible and permeable nature of identity. However, even with this consideration, we do not know how ethnicity would manifest itself into material culture or how we as archaeologists would be able to recognize the ethnic aspects of material culture.

Another problem specific to the Southern Levant, as I have demonstrated, is that there is no clear way to denote Israelite and Canaanite ethnicity solely through an examination of the material culture. This can be seen in the rather flimsy definitions for Canaanite and Israelite ethnicity, and when examining the material culture from Beth Shean and Hazor, I have presented there to be no way of knowing who made, owned, and used the material culture at the site. One final problem which we must continually face is how we use historical documents in archaeological research of ethnicity. Again, I have attempted to illustrate the problems which can occur when using historical documents to give ethnic identity to material culture even though we do not know if these two sources can be correlated. Thus, with all of these issues remaining unresolved, I believe it demonstrates that archaeological theory and practice must continue to take questions pertaining to ethnicity seriously, and to realize that the debate over ethnic identities in the past is far from over and must be considered with renewed vigor.

Archaeology may not be able to prove, at the moment, that material culture represents a specific ethnicity, and it may not be able to denote what the traits are that specifically make something Canaanite or Israelite. However, as I have stated, this does not mean that archaeologists should not attempt to answer these questions, and quite the opposite, archaeologists should strive to find answers. This is as true for the archaeology of the Southern Levant during the Iron I Period as it is in Nubia, or in Mesopotamia. This research has, I hope, cast doubt on our current understanding of ethnicity in the archaeological record, and to demonstrate there remains much work to be done in this field of study. It is by this continued research can the archaeology of the Levant continue to grow. We must put forth new theories

74

and new ideas regarding the archaeology of ethnicity not only for the people who lived during the Iron I Period, but also in the times before and after as this problem is one which effects all times, places, and peoples who lived in the so-called Promise Land.

75

Abstract

In the recent decades, the study of the archaeology of ethnicity has become increasingly important throughout the field of archaeology. Many books and articles have been written which address the questions of what is ethnicity, what is an ethnic group, and can we see ethnicity in material culture? Questions pertaining to ethnicity have been of great importance in the archaeology of the Southern Levant as scholars have debated over the ethnic identity and labels of such groups as the Canaanites and Israelites. There is a great debate over the difference between “Canaanite” and “Israelite” material culture, and if these ethnicities can even be seen in the archaeological record. The purpose of this research is to investigate material culture from the Southern Levant during the Iron I Period to see if it truly does represent the ethnicities of “Canaanite” and “Israelite” and if these ethnic labels are correctly attributed to the material culture. I will address two main questions in this research which are: Does material culture represent ethnicity, and should archaeologists apply ethnic labels to material culture?

My attempt at answer these questions will be divided into five chapters. In the first chapter, I will present a brief of the history of archaeological investigation in the Southern Levant with it bases in Biblical studies. The second chapter will focus on examining the past and current theories of ethnicity and how these affect our understanding of ethnicity in the archaeological record as well as shaping our current paradigms. Chapter three will be an examination of the specific theories regarding the Canaanite and Israelite identities and how scholars have identified them in the past in the archaeological record and in historical texts. In chapter four, I will present material culture from Iron I strata of two case studies, Beth Shean and Hazor, which have been given by scholars the ethnic labels of Canaanite and Israelite respectively. The focus will be upon certain architectural elements and the ceramic assemblage. Finally, in the fifth chapter, I will critically examine the material culture from Beth Shean and Hazor in light of the theoretical framework established in the prior chapters to determine if the material culture truly can be called ethnically “Canaanite” or Israelite. In this process, I will attempt to answer my two research questions. Thus, the purpose of this research is to critically examine the ethnic labels which have been given to the material culture from the Southern Levant during the Iron I Period.

76