Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 141, 1 (2009), 72–75

REVIEWS
Faust, A., Israel’s Ethnogenesis: Settlement, Interaction, Expansion and Resistance. 2006. Pp. xvi, 289, 18 figures.
London and Oakville: Equinox. Price: £75.00 (HB), £22.50 (PB).
This book is essential reading for anyone interested in the archaeology of the Early Iron Age in the
Southern Levant, Ancient Israel, and the archaeology of ethnicity. Avraham Faust has written an
engaging synthesis that offers important and provocative new insights.
Faust follows a broadly structuralist approach by identifying persistent and materially observable
features that characterized life in the Central Highlands of Iron II, ‘when it is agreed that there
was an Israelite ethnicity’ (p. 8). He then traces the emergence of these features back to Iron I, and
eventually to the Late Bronze Age. Faust sees the Israelites’ ethnogenesis as forming gradually over
time. Iron I was a key period in which selected symbols of identity were canonized, including food
taboos, lifestyle differences, and attitudes to social display and elaboration. Many of these attitudes
were reinforced through interaction with, and in opposition to, other ethnic groups, largely the Philis-
tines. As the process of state formation unfolded during the Iron I/II transition, this ‘other’-defined
identity crystallized into a more fully formed Israelite ethnic consciousness.
This book develops in a complex way, although many chapters can be read as self-contained
studies. Much of this book cites articles published by the author over the past decade, alongside
entirely new areas of study. This is not a history of the Israelites, and does not follow a clear chrono-
logical sequence. For example, the discussion of Israel’s emergence in the 13th century does not appear
until late on in the book (Part IV).
Part I introduces concisely the theory and methods. Here, archaeology is prioritized over written
sources, and anthropology is employed to fill in the gaps. This widens the scope of a subject rooted
in culture-history significantly. In terms of theoretical and methodological approaches to ethnicity, the
work of Barth, Hodder, Jones and Emberling is most influential here. Core aspects seen as relevant
to the formation and persistence of ethnic groups and boundaries include competition, ethnocentrism,
and differential distribution of power between ethnic groups.
Part II discusses archaeologically observable features including meat consumption, ceramic
traditions, and the four-roomed house. An overview of animal bone assemblages at numerous sites
(Ch. 5) leads to the suggestion that although non-consumption of pork was not exclusive to Israelites,
this taboo was probably canonized through interaction with pork-eating Philistines during Iron I.
Chapters 6 and 7 assess an aspect of material culture seldom discussed in ethnic terms: the scarcity of
decorated and imported pottery in the Highlands. Previously explained by low living standards in Iron
I, this feature is found by Faust to be persistent in Iron II, when social conditions had improved and
imports could easily be obtained. This continuity is related to Israelite egalitarianism, reinforced by
a distrust of coastal traders and biblical purity laws (pp. 59–60). The four-roomed house (Ch. 9) is
discussed not as an exclusively Israelite trait, but rather as a symbol that structured patterns of lived
behaviour that subsequently became ethnically significant. Faust argues on the basis of space syntax
and access analysis that the partitioning of space in four-roomed houses contributed to the persistence
of purity laws concerning menstruating women.
Absence of evidence is a recurrent theme of Chapters 10–11. Circumcision (Ch. 10) is seen as an
important feature of ethnic difference canonized by the Israelites during Iron I in opposition to the
non-circumcision of Philistines. Faust tentatively suggests that the ethnic significance of circumcision
waned in Iron II as the Philistines took up the practice. ‘Hierarchy and equality’ (Ch. 11) explores the
apparent roots of the Israelite egalitarian ethos, in this case signified by a conspicuous absence of
elaborate burial customs, temples and royal inscriptions at Israelite sites.
In Part III, ‘Israel’s Identity and the Philistines’, the Philistines, as the most significant enemy
of Israel, played a crucial role in the construction of their ethnicity through symbolic opposition
and competition. Israelite identity was therefore defined in opposition to Philistine identity, shaped by
their densely populated urban centres, hierarchical social organization, consumption of pork, use of
decorated and imported pottery, use of temples, and non-practice of circumcision.
A study of Highland settlement patterns for the Iron I–II transition (Ch. 12) suggests that
most rural villages were abandoned by late Iron I, explaining the Iron II population expansion within

© Palestine Exploration Fund 2009 doi: 10.1179/174313009X387590

r ev i e w s 73
pre-existing and new settlements. Faust posits that these developments were caused by Philistine threats
to Israelite security, resulting in resettlement of rural populations. This must have played a role in
Israelite state formation and the establishment of strong leadership or monarchy (pp. 128–129).
‘Merneptah’s Israel’ (Part IV) examines Israel’s Late Bronze Age background. The Merneptah
stele is the earliest inscription recording Israel as an ethnic or identity group, and Faust therefore
considers Israel’s role within the Late Bronze Age ‘Egypto-Canaanite’ world and the process of
Israelite settlement in Canaan. He rejects ‘dead’ social revolution and military conquest theories and
also criticizes Dever’s ‘Canaanite continuity’ school. Faust favours Alt’s peaceful infiltration model
of sedentarizing semi-nomads, viewing Israel as coming from among Shasu groups, including local
‘Apiru or outcast Canaanites who coalesced into a single group (pp. 184–185). This group shared an
egalitarian ideology and simple lifestyle stemming from their semi-nomadic background, and formed
in opposition to the Egypto-Canaanite society that dominated the lowlands.
‘Aspects of Distribution’ (Part V) deconstructs the deconstructionists of the 1990s, who argued
convincingly that conspicuous archaeological features such as the four-roomed house and the collared
rim pithos could no longer be viewed as Israelite ‘type fossils’, but were instead features well-adapted
to a rural highland lifestyle. Faust finds the arguments flawed, as the four-roomed house persists in
urban settings in later periods (also see Ch. 9). In turn, Faust revives a close association between these
features and Israelite ethnicity. He also highlights the potential for identifying the presence of Israelites
archaeologically outside the highlands of Cisjordan, especially in Transjordan.
A general concern I have with this book is the selective seeking out of differences at the
presence/absence level, which in turn creates a seemingly black and white division between Israelites
and non-Israelites with little room for fluid and situational aspects of ethnic identity. The potential
for blurred and negotiated ethnic boundaries is partly raised in ‘Pots and Peoples Revisited’ (Ch. 19):
‘mixed symbols’ were identified at Iron I Qasile, and a multi-ethnic community may have been present
at Megiddo. Yet, distinctions between ethnic groups, even those thought to occupy the same settle-
ment, are largely determined by the presence or absence of pottery types. There is little discussion of
the mechanisms of interaction and social relations that might be encountered between ethnic groups,
including trade and exchange, relations between sedentary and semi-sedentary groups, the role of
language, and intermarriage. Physical appearance, dress and jewellery, which have great potential for
the expression of ethnic identity, receive no mention in this study.
A postscript (Ch. 22) is counterproductive to what is largely a well-argued study. Faust accuses
the ‘minimalists’ of denying the Israelites their identity and for having political prejudices against
modern Israel (p. 236). This prompts me to highlight another gap in this book: the role played by the
archaeology of Israelite settlement in the construction of modern Israel’s national identity, and vice
versa. As Faust raises the issue of political bias, perhaps this should be the focus of a chapter in a
future edition?
This book carries facts and figures to back up interpretations, and a modest number of line
drawings including simple site plans, pottery drawings, and distribution maps (the latter being the most
useful). A conventional chronology is employed throughout. Rather than consistently using period
designations (i.e. Iron I, Iron II, etc.), the use of specific dates or centuries reinforces the author’s
non-acceptance of the low chronology. A few typographical errors were noted including ‘Comeptition’
instead of ‘Competition’ (p. 17) and ‘Shenan’ instead of ‘Shennan’ (p. 153). An impressive bibliography
and an author and subject index are provided. There is no scripture index.
Despite some shortcomings, this is a well-written, detailed, scholarly study that summarizes
the archaeological data and the key debates. The ethnic role of features such as the collared rim pithos
and four-roomed house will surely continue to fuel debate. This book offers many interesting
interpretations that will open up new avenues of research, within both archaeology and biblical
studies.
John D. M. Green

Guri-Rimon, Ofra, et al., The Great Revolt in the Galilee (catalogue no. 28). 2008. Pp. 240, 181 illustra-
tions. Haifa: The Hecht Museum. ISBN 965-7034-18-3.
This publication presents some of the fruits of recent archaeological research at sites in Galilee relating
to the First (Great) Jewish Revolt against Rome, which broke out in 66 CE. It largely concentrates on
74 palestine ex ploration quarte rl y, 141, 1, 2 009
discoveries from Gamala (Gamla) and Jotapata (Yodefat), excavated from 1976 and 1992, respectively.
However, evidence obtained elsewhere in Galilee in recent years is also included, much of it presented
here for the first time. These findings have opened up new vistas on the Revolt, already glimpsed in
the collection of papers edited by Berlin and Overman (2002), which this Hecht Museum publication
is helping to extend.
Rather than adopting the normal catalogue format with an emphasis on an inventory of exhibits,
the present volume consists entirely of a collection of essays by different authors, 11 in English and 14
in Hebrew. The page numbering of the English language section is separate from the rest and marked
with an asterisk. Somewhat idiosyncratically, nine of the essays are shared between the English and
Hebrew sections, while two appear only in English and five only in Hebrew. Therefore, all told, there
are 16 different contributions, which, intriguingly, include some contrary opinions on various issues.
The rather pithy introduction was written by the Director of the Hecht Museum, Ofra
Guri-Rimon (pp. 5*–7*). She does not attempt an overall synthesis or summary of the collection of
contributions. Rather, she limits herself to a few pointed comments. In particular, Guri-Rimon points
out that the Great Revolt is ‘permanently etched in the historical memory of the Jewish people’. She
quotes the Israeli writer, Meir Shalev: ‘Judaea was not destroyed because of factionalism . . . Judaea
was destroyed because of the military superiority of the Romans, because of the stupidity and extremism
of the Zealots and because of the surrender of the leadership to their Messianic violence . . . The
Temple, fortunately, we have not yet built, but we have already acted like fools and called streets in
our cities after those contemptible figures (i.e. the rebel leaders), Shimon bar-Giora, Yochanan of Gush
Halav (John of Gischala), and El’azar ben-Yair’ (Yediot Achronot, Saturday Supplement, 27 July 2007,
p. 5). Indeed, echoes of the sentiments decried by Shalev are found in some of the contributions
themselves: while several of the Israeli contributors describe the war as ‘ha-mered ha-gadol’ (i.e. the
Great Revolt), others who are still haunted by this ancient conflict prefer to use the more emotionally
charged term, ‘ha-milchama ha-churban’ (literally, ‘the War of the Catastrophe’, i.e. of the destruction
of the Temple).
A handful of the contributions have a historical focus, including, in particular, the brief historical
overview of the Great Revolt provided by Uriel Rappaport (pp. 8*–13*), an assessment of comparable
elements in Galilee and Judaea associated with the Revolt by Yuval Shahar (pp. 29*–37*), and an
account of Justus of Tiberias as a historian of this event by Pnina Stern (pp. 66*–72*). Jack Pastor
examines aspects of ethnicity, society and economy in Jewish Galilee from a modern socio-economic
perspective (pp. 14*–18*), while Ofra Guri-Rimon reviews the available evidence for the Jewish–
Christian community in 1st-century Galilee (pp. 36–48).
Other contributions in this volume deal specifically with the variety of archaeological discoveries.
Thus, Rafael Frankel describes food processing installations in 1st-century Galilee (pp. 19*–27*), Yard-
enna Alexandre analyses the impact of the Revolt on the ancient village of Cana of Gospel fame (at
the site of Karm er-Ras) from archaeological evidence (pp. 73*–79*), and Renate Rosenthal-Hegin-
bottom evaluates the material culture of the Roman Army based on finds from Galilee and Judaea
(pp. 90*–107*). Danny Syon considers the archaeological evidence of the Great Revolt at Gamala
(pp. 53*–65*), which is contrasted with the data from Sepphoris, analysed by Ze’ev Weiss (pp. 20–26),
which stayed out of the conflict. Amos Kloner, Boaz Zissu and Yuval Shahar describe the hiding places
used by the rebels in Galilee (pp. 90–100).
Turning from sites of the conflict to the individual participants, Guy Stiebel pieces together the
uniform and equipment of a Roman legionary fighting in this campaign from discovered material
(pp. 111–118). At the top end of the scale, the performance of Vespasian as a Roman general in this
war is appraised by Israel Shatzman (pp. 80*–90*).
The contributors to this volume address a number of important historical questions which have
been the subject of lively scholarly debate. One of these concerns the ethnic origin of the Jews of
Galilee, mentioned by Pastor (p. 15*). For the past century two different theories have held sway,
namely that the Galileans were mostly pagans who had converted to Judaism only a few generations
before the Revolt; a second is that the Galilean Jews were the descendants of ancient Israelites who
had escaped deportation by the Assyrians (Chancey 2002, 22–26, for a summary of these theories).
Recently, a third alternative has gained currency on the strength of new archaeological evidence,
which is that the Jewish inhabitants of Galilee were, in the main, relocated Judaeans. Aviam had
observed a burgeoning of new settlements in Galilee during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus or even
r ev i e w s 75
earlier, under Aristobulus I (Aviam 1993, 453). He has further demonstrated a correlation between the
Hasmonaean capture of Galilee and a striking change occurring in the material data (Aviam 2004a;
2004b). Up to that time, a type of vessel, referred to as ‘Galilean coarse ware’, was common throughout
Upper Galilee but it disappears by the end of the 2nd century BCE, when the region was conquered
by the Hasmonaeans. It has been suggested that the ‘Galilean coarse ware’ had been produced by the
pagan inhabitants of Galilee. Perhaps not one of these theories on its own fully accounts for the Jewish
population of Galilee in the 1st century CE.
Another important question that has long puzzled scholars is whether the claims made by
Josephus about his role as governor of Galilee in fortifying Galilee on behalf of the rebel government
reflect the reality or largely a fiction spun by him for self-promotional purposes. Rappaport is
convinced that the latter holds true (pp. 11*–12*). Aviam employs archaeological evidence, which he
helpfully illustrates, to argue precisely the contrary (pp. 38*–52*). He sees a common and contempo-
raneous programme of defensive works at Jotapata, Gamala, Mt Tabor, Beer-Sheba of the Galilee,
Mt Nitai and Arbel. They point to organized action throughout Galilee at the beginning of the Great
Revolt. Walls were built hastily and somewhat haphazardly, without deep foundations. At Gamala the
existing city wall was reinforced and, because it was made to incorporate parts of pre-existing build-
ings, it follows an irregular course (pp. 56*–57*). Gaps between buildings were filled in and some
impinging structures that got in the way of the wall were demolished. The strategy employed by the
Jewish rebels was to pin the Roman forces down to a prolonged series of sieges, wear them down and
eventually prevail (with the expected divine help). Organization on this scale and over an extended
geographical area is indicative of a reasonably cohesive rebel administration, contrary to the accusa-
tions of intense factional feuding made by Josephus. On this score, Josephus seems to be guilty of
exaggeration in order to justify his own betrayal of the rebel cause. Then, again, the minting of a
well-designed and executed coinage, to a well-controlled metal purity and weight standard, by the
rebel authority over five years of the Great Revolt also speaks against the picture of anarchy painted
by Josephus (Rappaport 2007).
Chaim ben David tests the reliability of Josephus on another point, that is on the 204 towns and
villages that he asserts existed in Galilee on the eve of the Revolt (pp. 15–19; cf. Jos., Vita 235). Ben
David believes that this statistic is credible provided that it covers the entire area placed under the
command of Josephus by the rebel government, which comprised the Golan as well as Galilee.
This volume is liberally illustrated and many of the photographs are in colour. There are a
number of typographical errors and, in places, the English leaves something to be desired, but the
shortcomings do not unduly diminish this timely publication.
David M. Jacobson
bibliography
Aviam, M., 1993. ‘Galilee: The Hellenistic to Byzantine Periods’, in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations
in the Holy Land, vol. 2 (4 vols), Jerusalem: IES / Carta, 452–458.
Aviam, M., 2004a. ‘First-century Jewish Galilee: An archaeological perspective’, in Edwards, D.R. (ed.), Religion
and Society in Roman Palestine: Old Questions, New Approaches, New York / London: Routledge, 7–27.
Aviam, M., 2004b. Jews Pagans and Christians in the Galilee (Land of Galilee 1), Rochester NY: University of
Rochester Press.
Berlin, A.M. and Overman, J.A. (eds), 2002. The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History and Ideology, London / New
York: Routledge.
Chancey, A.M., 2002. Myth of a Gentile Galilee: The Population of Galilee and New Testament Studies (Society of New
Testament Monograph Series 118), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rappaport, U., 2007. ‘Who minted the Jewish War’s coins?’ Israel Numismatic Research 2, 102–16.