The Oxford Illustrated History of the

Holy Land H.G.M. Williamson Et Al.

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-oxford-illustrated-history-of-the-holy-land-h-g-m-w
illiamson-et-al/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

The Oxford Illustrated History Of The Book James Raven

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-oxford-illustrated-history-
of-the-book-james-raven/

The Oxford Illustrated History of the World Felipe

Fernández-Armesto

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-oxford-illustrated-history-
of-the-world-felipe-fernandez-armesto/

The Archaeology of the Holy Land Jodi Magness

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-archaeology-of-the-holy-
land-jodi-magness/

The Oxford Illustrated History of the Renaissance 1st

Edition Gordon Campbell

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-oxford-illustrated-history-
of-the-renaissance-1st-edition-gordon-campbell/
The Oxford Illustrated History of Modern China Jeffrey
N. Wasserstrom

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-oxford-illustrated-history-
of-modern-china-jeffrey-n-wasserstrom/

The Oxford illustrated history of science First Edition

Iwan Rhys Morus

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-oxford-illustrated-history-
of-science-first-edition-iwan-rhys-morus/

The Oxford illustrated history of the Reformation First

Published In Paperback Edition Marshall

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-oxford-illustrated-history-
of-the-reformation-first-published-in-paperback-edition-marshall/

The Oxford Illustrated History of Witchcraft and Magic

1st Edition Owen Davies

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-oxford-illustrated-history-
of-witchcraft-and-magic-1st-edition-owen-davies/

Oxford Textbook of Clinical Nephrology 4th Edition Neil

Turner Et Al. (Eds.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/oxford-textbook-of-clinical-
nephrology-4th-edition-neil-turner-et-al-eds/
THE OXFORD ILLUSTRATED HISTORY OF THE
HOLY LAND
The  historians who contributed to The Oxford Illustrated History of the
Holy Land are all distinguished authorities in their field. They are:

 . , Yale Divinity School

 , Bar-Ilan University
 , writer and journalist
 . , University of Hull
 . , Denver Seminary
 , University of Edinburgh
 . , New York University
 , University of Bamberg
 É , École Pratique des Hautes Études
 -, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
 , Western Galilee College
 , Cardiff University
 , Bar-Ilan University
 , Trinity School for Ministry
. . . , University of Oxford
THE OXFORD ILLUSTRATED
HISTORY OF THE

HOLY LAND

Edited by
ROBERT G. HOYLAND
H. G. M. WILLIAMSON

1
 3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford,  ,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© Oxford University Press 
The moral rights of the authors have been asserted
First Edition published in 
Impression: 
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
 Madison Avenue, New York, NY , United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 
ISBN ––––
Printed in Italy by
L.E.G.O. S.p.A.—Lavis TN
 CONTENTS

List of Maps vii

Introduction 
. The Birth of Israel 
Avraham Faust

. Iron Age: Tribes to Monarchy 

Lester L. Grabbe

. Israel and Judah, c.–  

André Lemaire

. Babylonian Exile and Restoration, –  

H. G. M. Williamson

. The Hellenistic and Roman Era 

John J. Collins

. A Christian Holy Land, –  

Konstantin Klein

. The Coming of Islam 

Milka Levy-Rubin

. The Holy Land in the Crusader and Ayyubid Periods,

– 
Carole Hillenbrand

. The Holy Land from the Mamluk Sultanate to the

Ottoman Empire, – 
Nimrod Luz
vi Contents

. From Napoleon to Allenby: The Holy Land and

the Wider Middle East 
Robert Fisk

. Pilgrimage 

Peter Walker with Robert G. Hoyland

. Sacred Spaces and Holy Places 

Richard S. Hess and Denys Pringle

. Scripture and the Holy Land 

Adam Silverstein

Further Reading 

Index 
Picture Acknowledgements 
 LIST OF MAPS

 Map of the Holy Land in the earliest Israelite period 

 The Holy Land in the period of the Israelite monarchies 
 The cities of the Decapolis 
 Map of the Holy Land under Roman occupation in the first
century 
 Map of the late antique Holy Land and neighbouring regions 
 Map of the Crusader states in Palestine, Syria, and Anatolia 
 Location of sacred spaces and holy places 
 Introduction

I an aide-memoire following the First World War, the British Prime Minister
David Lloyd George wrote to his French opposite number Georges Clémenceau that
Palestine was to be ‘defined in accordance with its ancient boundaries of Dan to
Beersheba’. Lloyd George had been steeped in the Bible from his childhood, so that it
is understandable, if politically astonishing, that he should have allowed his instinctive
memory to influence his approach to modern political realities.
Different names and geographical definitions bedevil the history of this part of
the world and none can do justice to the sweep of what we have set out to describe
in the present volume. Precisely for that reason we have deliberately chosen the title
Holy Land, a familiar name which has never featured on any map worth its salt. It serves
to indicate that our intention here is far from political—and that is one good reason
why we have called a halt in our historical survey at just the point where Lloyd George
was clarifying his thoughts on the post-war settlement. But just as we have stopped
short of the modern era, so we have not included anything about the thousands of
years of occupation which preceded the biblical period. The Carmel Caves, for
instance, have yielded evidence of some of the earliest human occupation known
worldwide, a testimony to the geographical centrality of the region as a link between
Africa and Europe. Jericho has often been called the word’s first city, and archaeology
has revealed much about human occupation throughout the millennia since then.
The Holy Land, however, conjures up an approach to territory which is more
cultural, and specifically religious, than political, however closely intertwined the
two were until relatively recently. This modest strip of land saw the birth of two
world religions, Judaism and Christianity, and was of central significance to a third
from its earliest days, Islam. It is sobering to recall that Jerusalem has been taken by
military force by adherents of each of these three religions; no other city anywhere is of
such central religious importance to each. It was therefore inevitable that we should
begin our history with Abraham, whom each religion reveres. It is worth reflecting that
according to our texts he owned no property in this land apart from a tomb, however,
and that he had only limited engagement with the resident population.
The expression ‘Holy Land’ itself occurs first, and then only once, in the Hebrew
Bible, at Zechariah :: ‘The Lord will inherit Judah as his portion in the holy land, and
will again choose Jerusalem’. These words were written quite late in the Old Testament/
 Introduction

Hebrew Bible period, after the return of the Judeans from their exile in Babylon from
  onwards. The area was no longer independent at this time but divided between
several provinces in the mighty Persian Empire. Neither here nor elsewhere are precise
geographical divisions supplied. We are used to referring to the Holy Land in the much
earlier period as Canaan, but that too did not exist as a single entity; it comprised a
number of minor independent city-states under the overarching hegemony of Egypt.
Then came the Israelites, and we eventually have two kingdoms during the first half of
the first millennium —Israel in the northern part and Judah (including Jerusalem)
in the south. But to the west, along part of the Mediterranean coast, there were the
Philistines, so that even then the territory was not united. And in that period
the nearest we come to the expression ‘Holy Land’ refers initially to an area outside
the land of Israel altogether, namely God’s ‘holy abode’ on Mount Sinai in Exodus :,
echoing the ‘holy ground’ where Moses encountered God in the burning bush at
Exodus :. From there we approach our more familiar usage when Psalm :
reminds the worshippers in the Jerusalem temple that God ‘brought them to his
holy border, the mountain that his right hand had won’.
Still, this is thin pickings for what became so influential a name in later centuries.
It occurs a few times in early apocryphal Jewish writings after the close of the Old
Testament period and then more frequently in the later rabbinic sources. It is com-
pletely absent, however, from the foundation documents of the Christian faith in the
New Testament, and it did not become common Christian parlance (as Terra Sancta)
until the Middle Ages, no doubt reflecting the attitude of European Crusaders and
pilgrims. Accordingly, its use for maps has tended to be restricted to those included in
Bibles, where the name is used anachronistically and without proper regard for either
ancient or modern political realities. Medieval Muslims took some interest in the term
because it appears in the Qur’an, where Moses is recorded as instructing the Israelites to
‘enter the holy land, which God has ordained for you’, though scholars were at odds
over the definition of this term. The legal scholar Muhammad al-Tabari (d. ), for
example, says he knows of four main possibilities: ‘Mount Sinai and its environs’,
‘Jericho’, ‘al-Sham’ (which corresponds roughly to our term ‘The Levant’), and ‘Palestine
and part of Jordan’. Yet the term did not enjoy circulation outside academic circles;
rather, attention was paid to specific cities and sites, especially Jerusalem (simply called
al-Quds, ‘holiness’, or Bayt al-Maqdis, ‘house of sanctity’) and the Temple Mount.
It fits with this spasmodic witness from antiquity that the region is not carefully
defined; in the biblical reference cited above it seems to be restricted to Judah, a tiny
part of what we usually mean by the term. In subsequent centuries its implicit
definition will have varied according to the prevailing political and administrative
circumstances. As with the varying definitions of the extent of the land in the Hebrew
Bible, so subsequently the various regions within the southern Levant may be included
or excluded as appropriate. While a basic working definition could be the land between
the Jordan river on the east and the Mediterranean on the west, and between the Sinai
desert in the south and the Hermon range in the north, the territory to the east of the
 Introduction 

Jordan was sometimes an integral part of the land as well, while at other times areas in
the north or the west were effectively excluded. As editors we have deliberately allowed
our contributors freedom to concentrate on the natural geographical and national
borders that suit their period of study most appropriately (see Map ). Equally, it should
be added, attention to some regions quite apart from the Holy Land itself has some-
times been imperative in order to understand what was going on there (Babylon in the
biblical period, Europe at the time of the Crusades, and Turkey during the Ottoman
period, for instance); to exclude such material could not be justified.
Two special features mark this Illustrated History from some others and so deserve
comment. First, in addition to the expected historical survey (which, incidentally, covers
some  years, so that it cannot always enter into great detail), we have included three
chapters on themes which transcend specific periods of history but which, in their
different ways, are important to each of the three major religions and which, further-
more, contribute to the notion of a Holy Land: pilgrimage, sacred space, and Scripture.
These are huge topics, of course, and so can effectively only be introduced here, but
without including them we should not be able to do justice to some of the major
underlying motives and values which drove the significant political actors.
Second, it is likely that, for the early period at least, most readers’ knowledge will
derive from the Bible, and for many this remains an inspired source for religious belief
and practice. Our greatly increased knowledge of the ancient world both from arch-
aeological discoveries and from newly discovered texts of ancient Israel’s neighbours
shows that we have to tread carefully when assessing the Bible from a purely historical
point of view. It is far from our intention to cause any offence or deliberately to
challenge personal beliefs, so we have asked all our authors to write with consideration
towards those for whom a strictly historical approach may be unfamiliar. The fact
remains, however, that these ancient texts were not written according to the methods
or standards of modern historians and their purpose was religious, moral, or didactic,
using at the same time all the stylistic skills they could bring to their task. We do not
believe that the results of modern historical research are in any way incompatible with
the continuing use of the Bible as scripture. Nevertheless, it seems only right to warn
readers in advance that the ‘story’ of ancient history may not always coincide with
inherited preconceptions. Our hope is that all may nevertheless learn from, as well as
enjoy, this summary of current understanding, and that through such understanding
appreciation of what each of the faiths had to offer may be deepened without the
hostile fragmentation which has characterized much of the history we trace here and
which still, sadly, is prevalent in the modern world.
  

The Birth of Israel

 

The beginning of Israel: the biblical narrative

T well-known biblical story of Israel’s birth and emergence is the story of a family,
and how it became a people. Abraham left his home in Mesopotamia and emigrated to
Canaan. This is where he lived with his wife, Sarah, and his children Isaac and Ishmael.
His grandchild (Isaac’s son)—Jacob—and his great-grandchildren went down to Egypt,
as an extended family or a lineage (hamulah). They stayed there for a few generations,
multiplied, were then enslaved, and eventually left in the epic story of the Exodus, led
by Moses. After forty years of wandering in the Sinai desert, they finally entered Canaan
under the leadership of Joshua, and conquered it. Joshua’s campaign began with the
conquest of Jericho, where the Israelites, through the help of a local harlot by the name
of Rahab, conquered the city after encircling it for seven days, blowing rams’ horns
until the city walls miraculously crumbled. This was followed by the eventual conquest
of the city of ‘Ai, and Joshua’s campaigns against coalitions of kings in the southern
and northern parts of Canaan. Following the conquest, the land was divided between
the various tribes, named after Jacob’s descendants. Despite a few side-stories that
interrupt its flow (like the story of Judah and Tamar in Genesis ), the story is very
clear, and the narrative flows quite smoothly.

Problems with the narrative

Still, the story is not completely uniform, and it includes some intriguing features.
Thus, although Abraham continued to live for fifteen years after Jacob’s birth, the story
never mentions them meeting, and while Isaac, Abraham’s son and Jacob’s father, is
mentioned in connection with both figures, Abraham and Jacob never interact.
Another feature that raises some eyebrows lies in the apparent contradiction between
the account of the conquest in the book of Joshua, and the description of the land that
was not conquered (in both the books of Joshua and Judges). Thus, cities like Gezer,
Megiddo, and Ta’anach, are explicitly mentioned as being conquered by Joshua ( Josh.
:, ), but also appear in the description of the remaining land that was not
 The Birth of Israel 

. Map of the Holy Land in the earliest Israelite period

 Avraham Faust

conquered ( Judg. :, ). These are but two examples out of many, and to such
inconsistencies one has to add the growing discrepancies between the available
historical and archaeological information we possess and some parts of the biblical
narrative. Thus, as we shall see below under the section ‘Archaeological background’,
during much of the period discussed, Canaan was under Egyptian rule, but this is not
acknowledged in the biblical stories. And while such discrepancies, or missing data,
might be explained one way or another, there are even more direct contradictions
between the biblical narrative and the historical and archaeological data at our
disposal; for example, cities that are mentioned in the conquest stories in the Bible
(like ‘Ai) did not in fact exist at the time when the stories are supposed to have taken
place (we will discuss the chronology in more detail below under ‘Chronological
framework’). Such discrepancies gradually eroded the historical validity of the texts.
The growing understanding (beginning centuries ago, of course) that the texts were
written down many years after the events they were supposed to describe took place,
that they went through a long process of transmission, and that they were exten-
sively edited for various (mainly theological) purposes, only exacerbated the texts’
reliability problem, casting more doubts on the historicity of large portions of the
well-known narratives.
Other elements in the stories seem to be more in line with what is known on the basis
of modern research, and the process of the Israelite settlement in the more mountainous
parts of the country, rather than in the valleys and plains, can be identified archaeologic-
ally (perhaps in accordance with the information supplied in Joshua :–; :; and
throughout the book of Judges, where the mountainous regions are the core of the
Israelite settlement). The name Israel is attested in an Egyptian victory stela, dated to this
period (late th century ). Other elements of the narrative are to a large extent beyond
the realm of modern scholarship. Thus, while the background that is reflected in the
stories about the Patriarchs and Matriarchs can be (and is) debated, their existence, and
the historicity of the stories about these individuals and their small families, is largely
outside the scope of scholarship. After all, we cannot expect to find documents or
artefacts related to individuals, or even a family, after almost  years, and as we
shall see below under ‘The Israelite settlement: assessing the evidence’, even the exact
background behind the stories continues to elude scholars.
It seems, therefore, that while some parts of the biblical narrative (at least some of
its general outlines) appear to be in line with modern research, other parts are
seriously challenged (if not completely undermined) by it, and some elements of the
story remain outside scholarship’s domain, or are, at best, at its fringes. Consequently,
there is not much agreement among scholars about any aspect of Israel’s early
history or the historicity of the Bible. Some scholars view the biblical narrative as
mostly reliable testimony for history, while others deny any historical value to the
texts, and view them as a very late, literary creation which is of practically no use for
the study of the periods it purportedly describes. Most scholars are located somewhere
along a broad spectrum between these two extreme views.
 The Birth of Israel 

So how can we proceed and reconstruct the story of Israel’s emergence in Canaan?
It appears that a combination of the vast archaeological data we possess and the
(more limited) historical information at our disposal, through a very careful and critical
reference to the biblical narratives, can allow us to reconstruct Israel’s development.
While very little can be viewed as a consensus among scholars, this chapter aims to
present a plausible middle ground between the two more extreme approaches. We will
begin our journey by presenting the chronological framework, and since the biblical
story, briefly summarized above, is probably familiar, we will proceed by describing
the situation in Canaan in the second millennium , in the periods which are usually
known by the names Middle Bronze Age (roughly /– ), Late Bronze
Age (roughly – ), and Iron Age I (roughly – ). We will then
summarize the debate regarding the Israelite settlement, and proceed to offer a broad
reconstruction of the processes through which Israel emerged in Canaan: we will review
the group’s early developments, until the formation of the monarchy in the Iron Age II
(in the th century, according to most scholars; see Chapter ), and will suggest some
possible insights into the way the biblical story—as we know it today—evolved.

Chronological framework
Attempting to synchronize the archaeological periods with the biblical events and
stories is not always a straightforward enterprise. The dating of archaeological periods
addressed in this chapter, while relying on synchronisms with adjacent regions, was
developed largely independently of the biblical narratives, and stands on its own. This
statement might seem somewhat surprising, given how much biblical archaeology
developed in the shadow of the biblical texts. Still, although nobody would deny that
biblical texts influenced the archaeological inquiry in the Holy Land, scholars were
usually critical (at least, by the standards of their time) and did not simplistically accept
the biblical framework. The dating of the Israelite settlement in Canaan is a good
example of this. The Israelite settlement is dated by most scholars, from all schools of
thought, including those who accepted the historicity of the conquest narratives in the
book of Joshua, to (roughly) – , and its beginning is dated to the late
th century at the earliest. As we shall presently see, chronologies that are based on
the Bible alone date the conquest to about  . This -year gap suggests that
archaeologists followed the archaeological data, and rejected the biblical chronology
when they found that the two did not match (although this does not negate the
significance of the biblical chronology in influencing the general landscape of historical
reconstruction). Nowadays, many of the dates are decided on the basis of scientific
methods, mainly carbon  dating, which somewhat changes the traditional dating of
some periods.
Biblical chronology, of course, relies first and foremost on the dates supplied in the
Bible. One can create a chronological sequence that incorporates the period of the
Patriarchs, and even the descent to Egypt and the slavery there, and a biblical chronology
 Avraham Faust

of the period of the monarchy in Israel and Judah can also clearly be compiled. The first
part—that of the Patriarchs and the slavery in Egypt—is of course much more problematic
and relies on a few sketchy and sometimes contradictory pieces of information, while the
chronology of the period of the monarchy is more reliable. The most problematic feature,
however, is the attempt to connect the two parts—the period of the Patriarchs and the
sojourn in Egypt on the one hand and that of the monarchy on the other—something
which relies on just one verse.  Kings : states that the construction of the Temple by
Solomon was completed  years after the Exodus. Since the construction of the Temple
was dated by many to around   (though it might well have been somewhat later),
then the Exodus, which ended the period of slavery in Egypt, should have occurred in about
 , and the conquest of Canaan (after forty years in the desert) at about  .
And the Patriarchs lived a few hundred years earlier (the exact time of the Patriarchs
depends on which biblical verses one uses to create the chronology).
The biblical chronology, however, is not only sketchy, but even the available data
are problematic on a number of counts. First of all, many of the numbers that are
mentioned in the texts seem typological. Forty years, for example, is used quite often,
and seems to designate a lengthy period of time—perhaps a generation—rather than
an exact duration of time. Additionally, did the Patriarchs (and other biblical figures)
really live for so many years— years for Abraham, for example? Or are the numbers
exaggerated? Even the  years that supposedly separated the Exodus from the
completion of the temple in Jerusalem—the only figure that connects the more reliable
dates of the later monarchy with those of Israel’s prehistory—seems typological, and a
number of scholars have pointed out that it might have been a result of a schematized
counting of twelve generations (of forty years each). Thus, a more realistic figure for
twelve generations would be – years, and would date the Exodus, and by
extension the settlement in Canaan, to the th, even the late th century (we shall
return to this issue below under ‘Israel’s emergence’).
The problematic nature of the biblical chronology is exemplified by the debate over
the date of the patriarchal narratives. Even scholars who consider the stories to reflect a
specific historical background vary greatly in dating them, and the dates supplied cover
approximately a millennium. This great variation is partly the result of some scholars
not accepting the biblical sequence of events as such. Still, many of those who accept
the biblical sequence of events as broadly historical simply use its very unclear nature
to support the period in which they find more cultural and social parallels to the
background which is reflected in the stories. Most of the latter, however, place them
somewhere between – .
When discussing the Exodus and the settlement, the situation is somewhat clearer.
As noted, a literal reading of I Kings : would place the Exodus in the th century , and
the conquest of Canaan at the beginning of the th, but we have seen that a more critical
reading of the verse will direct us to the th century , and this seems to be more in line
with the external evidence at our disposal (see the following section).
We will now begin our archaeological survey, which supplies the background for Israel’s
emergence, at the beginning of the nd millennium —in the Middle Bronze Age.
 The Birth of Israel 

Archaeological background
During the Middle Bronze Age (roughly /– ) Canaan experienced
intensive urbanization, especially in the low-lying parts of the country, and to a more
limited extent also in the highlands. Many cities were surrounded by massive earth-
works, which gave the mounds their present form and to a large extent even created
the Levantine landscape of today, which is dotted by mounds. The political structure of
the era is not completely clear, but it is likely that the country was divided between
many independent or semi-independent city-states. The period is regarded as repre-
senting a demographic peak in the area more generally, and some scholars estimate the
population as about , (west of the Jordan). Although the figure is far from
certain, and is questioned on many grounds, it does suggest, when compared with the
demographic estimates of other periods, the prosperity of the period, something also
reflected in the settlement remains uncovered by archaeologists. The relations with
Egypt during the time of the Middle Kingdom are not clear. The Execration Texts are
groups of texts, uncovered in Egypt, in which names of local rulers in Canaan were
inscribed on bowls or figurines and were apparently used for voodoo-like purposes,
probably to secure their rulers’ loyalty to Egypt. The existence of these texts might
suggest that the Egyptians felt some authority over the region but this is not certain. In
the later part of the Middle Bronze Age (known in Egyptian history as the Second
Intermediate Period) Asian/Canaanite dynasties (known as the Hyksos) ruled over
much of lower (northern) Egypt (the Nile delta), and the region was extensively settled
by Canaanites who maintained close connections with Canaan itself.
During the th century  the Hyksos were ousted and were replaced by the th
dynasty (often referred to as the ‘Hyksos expulsion’)—an episode that also marks the
beginning of the New Kingdom of Egypt. This triggered many campaigns into Canaan,
and many cities were devastated in the course of the century. Many archaeologists
consider this as the beginning of the Late Bronze Age (roughly – ).
Although there is much continuity in culture between the two periods, the settlement
and demography were greatly affected by the campaigns, and despite gradual recovery
during the Late Bronze Age the country did not recover its Middle Bronze Age
demographic peak until some point in the Iron Age. Population estimates for the
end of the Late Bronze Age (i.e. after the recovery from the nadir of the th century)
are between ,–,, and although the figures are uncertain, the comparison
with the Middle Bronze Age estimate is quite telling. Settlements were concentrated in
the lower parts of the country, and the highlands were only sparsely settled. From
at least the th century, the country was apparently nominally subjugated to Egypt,
and this situation prevailed through the th dynasty (roughly the th century )
and well into the time of the th dynasty (until the middle of the th century or
slightly later). As part of their rule over Canaan, the Egyptians built garrisons in a few
places (e.g. Gaza, Jaffa, Beth Shean), and the rest of the country was divided between
many city-states, which were vassals of Egypt. Egyptian sources, and especially the
Amarna letters (th century ), supply a wealth of information on the political
  Avraham Faust

and social organization in Canaan at the time, and we know of the existence of many
marginal groups which were active outside the settlements, and whose activity led to
severe unrest. Most notable among these groups are the notorious Habiru, composed of
outcasts or exiled people from various backgrounds, who seem to have caused much
unrest throughout the country (such groups were already known in earlier periods).
It is a common accusation made by vassal Canaanite princes that their opponents are
collaborating with the Habiru. Another group (or groups) mentioned in the Egyptian
sources is that of the Shasu—tribal groups of pastoral nomads that were active outside
the settled areas or on their fringes in both Cisjordan (i.e. west of the river Jordan) and
Transjordan (i.e. east of it). Towards the end of the period—during the th and
early th centuries—the Egyptians apparently strengthened their hold over Canaan.
Archaeologically, this is expressed, for example, by the construction of the so-called
Egyptian governors’ residencies.
The material culture of the period reflects the existence of many social groups and
social classes. Imported pottery is abundant, and some scholars refer to a period of
internationalism. Decoration on local pottery is common and was probably used
to convey differences between classes and groups. While not many dwellings have
been excavated in their entirety, many public buildings, including palaces and
temples, are known to archaeologists, reflecting the social distinctions and hierarchy
that characterized this period. This is also reflected in burials: hundreds of burials
of various types are known from this period, and the differences between them
were probably also used to convey social differences between groups, families, and
even individuals.
A series of events, beginning in the late th century and ending around the middle
of the th century, marks the end of the Late Bronze Age and the transition to the Iron
Age in the region. These include the fall of the Mycenean civilization, the demise of
the Hittite empire, the destruction of various major cities like Ugarit, and eventually
Egypt’s withdrawal from Canaan and its political decline. As far as Canaan is con-
cerned, these large-scale changes (marking the beginning of the Iron Age) were
accompanied by a decline in many of the urban centres that existed in Canaan—
mainly in the lower parts of the country—as well as by the emergence of two

An ivory knife handle from Megiddo, depicting Canaanite palace court scenes and reflecting the highly
hierarchical social structure of the Canaanite cities.
 The Birth of Israel 

A ceramic assemblage from Shiloh, showing typical forms of the earliest Israelite settlement.

additional phenomena: the Sea People, most notably the Philistines, who came from
somewhere in the Aegean world or its fringes and settled in the southern coastal plain,
and the Israelite settlement in the highlands.
The term ‘Israelite settlement’ refers to hundreds of small sites that were established
during Iron Age I—beginning at some point in the second half of the th century—in
the highlands of Canaan in both Cisjordan and Transjordan, and mainly in the area
north of Jerusalem, in the region of Samaria. Most of the settlements were quite small,
less than one hectare in size, and were not densely settled. Many of the houses were
long houses, of the type that later crystallized into the well-known four-room house
which dominated the urban landscape of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah in the Iron
Age II (th–th centuries ), and the economy was based on a mixture of grazing,
growing grains, and the cultivation of olives and vines. The material culture uncovered
in these sites was quite rudimentary, and included a very limited ceramic repertoire that
was composed mainly of large pithoi (mainly of the type known as the collared rim
jar), cooking pots, and bowls.
 Avraham Faust

A bronze bull figurine discovered near an open, cultic site in northern Samaria, subsequently
known as the ‘Bull Site’. The simple nature of the site reflects the nature of the local society, which
probably lacked a specialized class of priests.

The pottery was simple and undecorated and did not include imported pottery, not
even the highly decorated Philistine pottery that was produced in the nearby southern
coastal plain, and which constituted nearly  per cent of the assemblage in many
th-century sites there. Hardly any burials are known from these villages, probably
because the population buried their dead in simple inhumations in the ground.
The association of these sites with the Israelites was based not only on the (rough)
temporal and (more exact) spatial correspondence with the biblical testimony regard-
ing the areas in which the Israelites settled, but also on the clear connections between
the culture unearthed in these settlements and the culture of the kingdoms of Israel and
Judah of Iron Age II, as well as the reference in an Egyptian stela by a Pharaoh called
Merneptah to an ethnic group that he called Israel. The stela is dated to the late
th century, and although the exact location of this group is not stated, most scholars
view it as referring to the settlement phenomenon described above, or part of it.
 The Birth of Israel 

The stele of the late th-century Egyptian Pharaoh Merneptah which contains
the earliest reference to Israel outside the Bible.
 Avraham Faust

The Israelite settlement: the growing debate

While the Israelite identity of the settlers was not questioned until recently, there was a
major debate on the process through which the settlements came to be. Albrecht Alt, a
German biblical scholar, noted as long ago as  that there is a discrepancy between
the description of a military conquest of the entire country, as depicted in the main
narratives in the book of Joshua, and the situation on the ground following the
conquest as described in the narratives in the books of Judges, – Samuel, and
the descriptions of the remaining land in Joshua :–; Judges :–, in which the
Israelites settled only parts of the country, mainly in the highlands. Moreover, from the
Egyptian sources that relate to Late Bronze Age Canaan prior to the appearance of
the Israelites, it appears that the Canaanite centres of settlement were concentrated
in the valleys, the Shephelah (the low-lying region between the Judean hill country
and the coastal plain), and the coast, whereas the highlands were only sparsely settled
prior to the Israelite settlement. Comparing the Late Bronze Age Canaanite settlement
distribution with that of the later Israelite settlement made it clear, argued Alt, that the
Israelites settled in less hospitable regions that were largely devoid of Canaanite
settlement anyway. This picture, of settlement in sparsely populated and inhospitable
regions, does not correspond with a military conquest in which the conquerors
annihilate the entire country and can settle wherever they choose, but rather with a
more peaceful, and mostly non-confrontational process in which the Israelites occu-
pied the sparsely settled regions of the country simply because they were not popu-
lated and so were available for settlement. Alt, therefore, concluded that the Israelite
settlement was a long, gradual, and mainly peaceful process, in which pastoral groups
crossed the Jordan in search of pastoral lands, and gradually settled in the relatively
empty parts of the country.
While the process was mainly peaceful, it was accompanied by occasional confron-
tations and wars. Towards the end of the Iron Age, when Israel’s national history was
composed in Jerusalem (by the so-called Deuteronomistic school, that was probably
active from the th century  onward), the various traditions that commemorated
the warring episodes (some historical, some clearly more mythical in origin) were
combined into the monumental history of Israel. This period of Israel’s history was
situated between the Exodus and the period of the Judges, and attributed to a local hero
of the tribe of Ephraim: Joshua. According to Alt, therefore, the conquest that is
described in the book of Joshua never actually happened. Due to the way it recon-
structs the settlement process, this school of thought is often called the peaceful
infiltration school (or theory).
William F. Albright, sometimes regarded as the doyen of biblical archaeology in its
golden age between the two World Wars, strongly opposed this view. He claimed that
the story in Joshua is historical, at least in its general outlines, and that the Israelite
tribes did conquer Canaan by force. Albright introduced archaeology into the debate,
and argued that archaeological inquiry can prove the historicity of the conquest.
 The Birth of Israel 

A landscape in the hill country of Samaria, typical of the kind of territory in which the new material culture of
the earliest Israelites developed.

He suggested that scholars should excavate Canaanite cities (mainly those mentioned
in the conquest narratives), and should the Late Bronze Age occupation be devastated
towards the end of this period, it would suggest that the conquest traditions are
historical. Albright went on to excavate the mound of Tell Beit Mirsim in the south-
eastern (inner) Shephelah, and was involved in additional projects, where evidence
for violent destruction of the Canaanite cities of the Late Bronze Age was indeed
unearthed. In light of its acceptance of the historicity of the main narratives in the book
of Joshua, this school came to be known as the unified conquest school (or theory).
The debate between these two schools continued throughout most of the twentieth
century, more and more scholars joining in, with figures like the German biblical
scholar Martin Noth and the Israeli archaeologist Yohanan Aharoni taking the leading
role in the peaceful infiltration school, and the American biblical scholar and archae-
ologist George E. Wright, the American biblical scholar John Bright, and the Israeli
archaeologist Yigael Yadin taking the leading role in the unified conquest school.
Members of the latter school stressed the sites in which the Canaanite cities were
devastated and destroyed around the end of the Late Bronze Age (e.g. Tell Beit Mirsim,
Hazor, Lachish, Bethel, and many others), while their opponents emphasized the sites
  Avraham Faust

Tel ‘Eton, a Canaanite site in the foothills west of Hebron, as excavated by the author.

which did not even exist at the time (e.g. Arad, ‘Ai, Jericho), and the large gap between
the destruction of some of the sites that were destroyed—about a century separates the
destruction of Hazor and Lachish—which does not allow these destructions to be
attributed to a single campaign.
Notably, while these two schools were the dominant ones during most of the
twentieth century, additional theories developed over the years. In the s, and
mainly in the s and s, a new approach was developed (mainly by George
Mendenhall and Norman Gottwald), which viewed the settlers as being mainly of
Canaanite descent, and as local peasants who rebelled against their overlords, and fled
to the highlands, where they met a small group of people who did come from Egypt,
and together they formed ‘liberated Israel’. Although this view—called the peasants’
revolt or social revolution—was not directly supported by many scholars, it greatly
influenced research and, indirectly at least, altered the academic discourse.
In the late s and early s an even newer approach was developed (separately,
and with some differences) by the Israeli scholars Israel Finkelstein and Shlomo
Bunimovitz, who noted that when viewed in the long term the settlement process
of Iron Age I was only part of a larger cyclic process of settlement and abandonment
in the highlands. This approach, which resulted from the systematic study of the
 The Birth of Israel 

discoveries made in the many archaeological surveys conducted in the highlands,

noted that during the Early Bronze Age (rd millennium ) the highlands were
densely settled, but that settlement declined drastically in the Intermediate Bronze Age
(late rd millennium). Large-scale settlement was resumed in the early nd millennium
(Middle Bronze Age), but the new settlement phase persisted for only a relatively
short period of time, and during the Late Bronze Age, as we have seen, settlement in
the highlands was again very sparse. Then, in Iron Age I, large-scale settlement in the
highlands was resumed. Identifying this pattern, it was argued, put the settlement wave
of Iron Age I in general, and Israel’s emergence in particular, within a broader
perspective, so that it should not be viewed as a unique event, but rather as part
of the cyclic process of settlement and abandonment in the highlands. Moreover,
Finkelstein argued that settlement abandonment and decline (as between the Middle
Bronze and the Late Bronze Ages) does not mean that the inhabitants died or left the
region, but rather that they abandoned their settled way of life, and became semi-
nomads within the very same region. Movement along the settlement–nomadic
spectrum is a well-known phenomenon in the Middle East. Nomadism occurs when
settlers change their main economic mode, increase their herds, leave the permanent
settlement and come to rely mainly on their herds for subsistence. When the popula-
tions’ livelihood is based on nomadic pastoralism, argued Finkelstein, they do not leave
many material remains—hence the rarity of finds attributed to this era in the high-
lands. Such phenomena are known in the Middle East in various periods, even for
reasons as mundane as over-taxation and recruitment to the army. The reason the
Middle Bronze Age settlers in the highlands might have reverted to a more nomadic
way of life does not concern us here, but according to the new theory the population
remained as nomads in the highlands during the following centuries, only to resettle in
the late th and th centuries . Thus, according to this view, the settlers were not
outsiders, but rather local pastoral-nomads who settled down after a few hundred
years of a pastoral livelihood that did not leave much by way of remains in the
archaeological record of the highlands. Due to its reference to long-term processes,
and following its explicit reference to the French Annales School, this approach is
sometimes called the ‘longue durée’ approach, or the ‘cyclic process’.
The last two schools of thought (the ‘social revolution’ and the ‘longue durée’
perspectives) viewed the settlers, or most of them at least, as ‘local’ people (whether
semi-nomads or settled population) who lived in the region for many generations, and
who for various reasons settled down in the highlands (or moved there from the
lowlands, but not from outside Cisjordan). This new trend towards viewing the settlers
as ‘locals’, and not as a new population coming from the outside, eventually led to the
development of a new school (‘approach’ would probably be a more accurate term),
which viewed the highland settlers as Canaanites, who for some reason simply moved
into the highlands and established new villages there. According to this latter view the
settlers were not revolting peasants nor settling nomads, but rather agriculturalists
from the lowlands. This last approach is best described as evolutionary.
 Avraham Faust

As for the best name to call the settlers, views differed greatly. Many called them
Israelites, as the Merneptah stela clearly indicates that Israel was in existence at the time.
Others challenged the ‘Israeliteness’ of the settlers, suggesting that we cannot distin-
guish Israelites from other groups that according to the Bible settled in the highlands,
viewing the settlers simply as Canaanites. Alternatively, a large number of scholars
followed the lead of the American scholar William G. Dever in calling the settlers
Proto-Israelites, acknowledging that their later descendants were indeed Israelites, but
leaving the settlers’ identity in Iron Age I, and that of the Israel that was mentioned in
the Egyptian inscription, as an open question.

The Israelite settlement: assessing the evidence

Notably, while strongly supporting their own preferred ‘theory’, many scholars in the
s and s came to view the settlement process as a very complex development,
accepting that it was not monolithic. In other words, the debate became more
concentrated on the question as to which was the main mechanism through which
the settlers settled in the highlands, and many scholars agree that all schools of thought
are probably right to some extent, and that not all the settlers came from the same
background, nor that they all settled down following a similar process.
Still, in the course of the extensive study of the settlement process that evolved in
the late s and early s it became apparent that two schools of thought were
gradually abandoned and were left with hardly any supporters: the unified conquest
theory, and the social revolution. As for the former, there are simply too many sites
which either did not exist at the time of the supposed conquest, or where Canaanite life
continued as usual in Iron Age I. Moreover, as already noted, the destruction of some
of the sites that were destroyed around the Late Bronze Age—Iron Age  transition
(and which were used by supporters of the unified conquest theory to support their
view) are separated by a hundred years; Hazor, for example, was destroyed by fire
(which actually fits the detailed biblical description) at around  , whereas
Lachish was destroyed around the middle of the th century, hence ruling out the
possibility that they were destroyed in one military campaign, opening up the question
as to who actually was responsible for their destruction, and even whether this can be
attributed to the Israelites at all. As for the social revolution theory, although it was
very influential, especially by (indirectly) influencing scholars to develop additional
scenarios in which Israel was no longer viewed as an outsider, the entirety of the
evidence weighs heavily against it. Not only is there no supportive evidence for this
scenario, but many finds seem to make it very unlikely. Thus, for example, if Canaan-
ites from the lower strata of society were to rebel and flee to the highlands, and since
the Shephelah and the southern coastal plain were a major hub of population during
the later part of the Late Bronze Age, we would expect to find a major concentration of
settlement in the nearby Hebron highlands. However, this region was relatively
sparsely settled in Iron Age I, and the main centres of population in the highlands
 The Birth of Israel 

were further away from Canaanite settlements. Supporters of this school also failed to
explain the emergence of a new identity group—Israel—as a result of a social revolu-
tion which might be expected to replace the rulers or regime, but not to create new
ethnicities. Finally, supporters of this school failed to explain the new material culture
that evolved in the highlands.
The debate between the remaining theories regarding the main source of population
for the settlement process can be divided into two aspects: () did the settlers come
from within the population of Cisjordan (as maintained by both the cyclic process and
the evolution theories) or from outside it (the peaceful infiltration model)? () Did the
settlers come from a semi-nomadic background (peaceful infiltration and cyclic pro-
cess) or did they come from the sedentary population (evolution theory)? Obviously,
those who believe that the Israelites were sedentary also claim that they were indigen-
ous to Cisjordan.
Evaluating the Cyclic Process and the Local Nomads School: The idea that all the
nomads were local is unlikely. First, the end of the Late Bronze Age was a period of
decisive population movements, which seem to have impacted the entire region. It is,
therefore, extremely unlikely that the highlands west of the Jordan were alone left
untouched by the social upheavals and migrations of the time. Moreover, identifying
the central hill-country of Cisjordan as the ‘pool’ from which the settling population was
drawn ignores the fact that the Iron Age I settlement process was not unique to Cisjordan,
but took place also across large segments of the highlands east of the Jordan River. Thus,
even those who do not believe that a ‘foreign intrusion’ of population is responsible for
the settlement should not exclude Transjordan as the possible place of origin of the
settlers. This means that a ‘local nomads’ theory, which limits the potential origin of the
settlers to Cisjordan, is unlikely, and does not fit the historical and geographical contexts.
This leaves us with two possible theories: sedentary Canaanites (the evolution
theory) and the peaceful infiltration model.
Evaluating the Sedentary Canaanite Origin School: The rationale in arguing for the
Canaanite origins of the highlands population was based, first and foremost, on a total
rejection of their nomadic origins. There are also some more positive arguments in
favour of a Canaanite origin as well. The negative argument is that the idea of the
nomadic origins of the Israelites was based on only a simplistic reading of the biblical
material and on some old-fashioned, romantic notions of the desert and desert life,
which have nothing to do with reality. The positive argument is that the Iron Age
I villages show evidence of sophisticated agriculture; hence the settlers were experi-
enced farmers, and could not have been nomads.
Both arguments, however, are very problematic. While nobody would deny that
romantic notions of desert life influenced previous research, modern and sophisticated
studies of Bedouin societies illuminate the processes by which they settle down, and
show that there is nothing improbable about such processes. As for the sophisticated
agriculture argument, this is problematic on a number of grounds. First of all, even if
  Avraham Faust

one accepts that pastoral nomads are not expected to be familiar with sophisticated
agriculture, there is no reason to attribute the archaeological evidence of such agricul-
ture to the beginning of the settlement process. In fact, the finds are more likely to date
to the later phase. After all, even if the settlers were of semi-nomadic origin, they could
still be expected to master agriculture after a few generations of settling down and
practising it! Even more disturbing is the fact that evidence of the very same advanced
agriculture is usually missing from Late Bronze Age Canaanite settlements, from which
supporters of this theory suggest the settlers came. It is quite clear, therefore, that the
attempts to claim that the settlers could not have originated from pastoral nomads
are not substantiated by the available data, and the attempt to connect them with the
Late Bronze Age sedentary population does not stand scrutiny. The dissociation of the
Iron Age I villages from the Late Bronze Age sedentary population is supported also by
the clear differences between the material culture of the highland settlements and that
of the Late Bronze Age in most respects.
Although there is similarity in the form of the vessels unearthed in Iron Age
I villages and the Late Bronze Age pottery forms (for example of cooking pots and
bowls), other forms are different (for example those of the collared rim jars), and major

The discovery of a row of large collared rim jars from Shiloh. These jars, frequently found in early Israelite
settlements, differ from the previous local repertoire.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute
this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the
Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if
you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project
Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or
other format used in the official version posted on the official
Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at
no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a
means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project
Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™
works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or

providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
 about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project

Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different
terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain
permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™
trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3
below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on,
transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright
law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite
these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the
medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,”
such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt
data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other
medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES -

Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in
paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic
work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for
damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU
AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE,
STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH
OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH
1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER
THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR
ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE
OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF
THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If

you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of
receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you
paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you
received the work from. If you received the work on a physical
medium, you must return the medium with your written
explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the
defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu
of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or
entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.
If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund
in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set

forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’,
WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR
ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this
agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this
agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the
maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable
state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of
this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the

Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless
from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that
arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project
Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or
deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect
you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new
computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of
volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project
Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™
collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In
2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was
created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project
Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your
efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the
Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-
profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the
laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by
the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal
tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax
deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and
your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500

West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact
links and up to date contact information can be found at the
Foundation’s website and official page at
www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission
of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works
that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form
accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated
equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly
important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws

regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of
the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform
and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many
fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not
solicit donations in locations where we have not received written
confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or
determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states

where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know
of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from
donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot

make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations
received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp
our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current

donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a
number of other ways including checks, online payments and
credit card donations. To donate, please visit:
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could
be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose
network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several

printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by
copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus,
we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any
particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new
eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear
about new eBooks.