MIDEAST Day 8: Iron Age, Joshua, and the Making of Identity: The Conquest Narrative, Archaeology, and Modern Implications
Makeup class logistics
There is a makeup class scheduled due to the break-heavy semester: one makeup session next Sunday evening at 7:00 PM on Zoom.
Access details:
The Zoom link will be sent via email reminders.
Access is through the course Canvas site using your University of Minnesota credentials.
Left-hand Canvas menu has a “Zoom” button to log in and view the full class, including the PowerPoint and the ability to ask questions.
Class format:
Regular one-hour and twenty-minute session (like a normal class).
Participants can join, take notes, and ask questions as usual.
Recording:
The makeup class will be recorded on Zoom.
There is no attendance requirement for this makeup class; you can watch it later if you miss the live session.
If you watch later, you should do so before the next chapter on Tuesday, because Tuesday’s class will cover the next material.
Important caveats:
Access is restricted to students with U of M credentials via Canvas; the Zoom link is not open to everyone.
An email reminder with the link will be sent to all students.
Course context and focus
Ongoing schedule notes:
The teacher emphasizes that there are many breaks (today, Tuesday, Yom Kippur Thursday evening, and a full break the following week), which affects pacing.
The aim is to cover as much material as possible within the semester while accommodating breaks.
Current topic:
The Iron Age is the central focus for the upcoming and following sessions.
The last session touched on some academic theses about the Iron Age; this week and next will expand on that, with later sections revisiting or clarifying unresolved points.
Iron Age overview: central questions and significance
Timeframe and significance:
The Iron Age begins around and marks a central period of change in the Middle East, especially in the region that later becomes Israel/Palestine.
It is considered a transformative change, not just a minor shift, in the broader context of the Middle East.
Pre-Iron Age context:
Before the Iron Age, the area was known as Canaan and was dominated by the Canaanites, organized into city-states under Egyptian overlordship.
The Egyptian empire withdraws during the late Bronze Age, creating a political vacuum.
The four core questions about the Iron Age (as framed in the lecture):
Who were the newcomers arriving in the Iron Age?
How did they arrive into the region?
What did they achieve by the end of the Iron Age?
Why is this era important to understanding the modern Israeli–Palestinian conflict and the broader Middle East?
The four questions set up the central inquiry: why studying the Iron Age is crucial for interpreting later historical and contemporary dynamics.
Biblical framing and Joshua as a bridge
The Bible and its composition:
The Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) is a compilation of books written in different periods, later gathered into a single collection.
The term "Bible" means "the book" in Greek; the collection spans thousands of years, with the books themselves created long before the Common Era.
The Book of Joshua:
Book 6 in the Bible; positioned as a bridge between the Torah/Pentateuch (the first five books) and later biblical history.
The author presents Joshua as a military history of the beginning of the Iron Age, claiming to recount how the Israelites conquered and settled in Canaan under divine sanction.
Key claims: iron-age conquest, replacement of Canaanite city-states by an Israelite nation, and a narrative of a land promised to the ancestors (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob).
The story’s two major claims in Joshua:
A military conquest: new groups (Israel) came and conquered Canaan through a series of campaigns, destroying Canaanite city-states and establishing new kingdoms.
Ethnic identity: the new nation of Israel is described as ethnically unified, descended from one patriarch (Jacob/Israel) with twelve tribes representing his sons.
The biblical sequence and significance for modern identity:
Joshua is integrated into the broader biblical sequence (Torah -> Joshua).
In Israel, Joshua has become a central figure in national and cultural identity; the modern state name “Israel” echoes the biblical name and the figure of Joshua to symbolize a national lineage and divine entitlement to the land.
The teacher notes the extent to which Joshua is taught in secular and religious settings in Israel as a foundational myth and source of cultural identity, including names, streets, songs, and national narratives.
The analysis connects biblical story to modern politics:
The modern state of Israel (established 1948) chose the name Israel in part to align its national narrative with the biblical story of Israel and Joshua.
The Joshua narrative is used to construct a sense of continuity between ancient Israelites and modern Israelis, reinforcing certain ethno-national identities.
There are debates within Israel about broader territorial claims (e.g., Greater Israel) rooted in the biblical tradition and national memory.
The Joshua conquest narrative: specifics and geography
Geographic and strategic overview (as presented in the maps/slides):
The Israelites entered Canaan via a northern route through Transjordan, rather than from the south; Jericho is a key initial conquest site.
The central hill country is a strategic corridor; conquering Jericho and Ai helped cut the Canaanite power by splitting city-states and preventing unified defense.
The two key early conquests:
Jericho (first city conquered)
Ai (second city conquered, located near Jericho)
Military logic and sequence:
After securing Jericho and Ai, the Israelites defeated the southern kings and then the northern kings, effectively dividing and conquering in sequence.
The concept of a unified Israel:
The text presents Israel as a single, unified nation under one god, descended from the twelve tribes.
The narrative emphasizes a promised land repeatedly, tying national destiny to divine decree and ancestral promises.
The concept of the “promised land” and its theological justification:
The conquest is framed as divinely ordered and justified by God’s promise to the ancestors (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) and their descendants.
The Israelites’ faith and obedience to the god of Israel are presented as legitimizing the conquest.
Ethnicity, race, and modern identity in Joshua
Ethnic unity vs. diversity:
The Book of Joshua emphasizes ethnic unity among the Israelites, portraying them as a single race descended from one father (Jacob/Israel).
This unity is a key feature used to claim a single national identity and a common divine mandate for occupying the land.
The concept of a “promised land”:
The narrative frames Canaan as land promised to the ancestors, reinforcing the claim of divine rights to the territory.
The modern reinterpretation and political implications:
The book’s portrayal of a unified, ethnically coherent Israel under one god informs modern Israeli identity, education, and public memory.
The Jewish/Israeli emphasis on Joshua helps justify territorial claims in certain political ideologies, including views on Greater Israel.
Terminology distinctions:
The modern state is called Israel; the biblical people are described as Israelites; modern scholarship often uses different terms to distinguish historical-critical perspectives from biblical rhetoric.
The sociopolitical context in which Joshua is taught:
In Israel, Joshua is taught as a foundational national hero; secular and religious segments alike study Joshua in school and in cultural memory.
The conversation about broader territorial horizons:
Some groups in modern Israel advocate for extending borders beyond the current state boundaries, citing biblical narratives and slogans (e.g., “two banks to the Jordan River”).
The linguistic note:
The biblical term “Israel” and the modern term “Israelis” share a root, but are used in different historical and linguistic contexts.
Archaeology and the unified military conquest theory (Albright family tradition)
Origin of the theory:
Early 20th century: William F. Albright and his students developed the unified military conquest theory, asserting that the Bible’s Joshua narrative reflects actual historical events validated by archaeology and inscriptions.
Key archaeological sites and findings supporting the theory:
Hazor (Tel Hazor): destruction layer consistent with a violent conquest, followed by new construction reflecting a different culture; Hazor’s walls and gates (Case Wall) shown in excavations.
Megiddo: strategic importance at the entrance to the Jezreel Valley and Via Maris; evidence of ancient open-air temple and altar, destroyed in the conquest narrative; Megiddo’s water system and layout show a major Canaanite site that changed in the Iron Age.
The Merneptah Stele (Merneptah Stele):
An Egyptian inscription from Pharaoh Merneptah (reign approximately to ).
The inscription contains the name "Israel" (Hebrew-like rendering of a place/name), widely cited as the earliest extrabiblical reference to Israel as a people in the late Bronze/Early Iron Age.
The concluding idea of the Albright School (Unified Military Conquest Theory):
The “unified” part: the conquest was carried out by a single, ethnically unified Israelite group.
The “military conquest” part: the political and territorial change was achieved through military campaigns.
The theory is a synthesis of biblical text, archaeology, and epigraphy (inscriptions like the Merneptah Stele).
Critical responses: challenges and refinements to the unified theory
Major challenges identified in the second half of the 20th century:
Jericho and Ai chronology and archaeology:
Excavations by Scandinavian, American, and Israeli archaeologists found no Bronze Age settlement layers for Jericho or Ai at the expected times; these sites show different Bronze Age timelines and water-related issues.
Problem: how could the conquest occur if these cities were uninhabited at the critical Bronze Age end?
Material culture and geographic distribution of newcomers:
The newcomers seem to cluster in the Central Hill country rather than occupying all fertile zones (e.g., Jezreel Valley, coastal plains) immediately; this suggests a more gradual transition rather than a swift, uniform replacement of the Canaanites.
The pace of political transition:
The supposed rapid 14-year conquest is not reflected in the archaeological record, which shows longer and more complex processes, sometimes with Canaanites re-establishing settlements after initial confrontations.
Ethnic homogeneity vs. diversity of origins:
Evidence indicates that the newcomers did not arise from a single origin; they likely consisted of diverse groups coming from the broader Mediterranean and Near Eastern world, challenging the claim of a single unified Israelite ethnicity.
The chronology from Bronze to Iron Age:
The transition was gradual, taking centuries, not the short timeline implied in Joshua’s narrative.
The resulting alternative framework: the peaceful infiltration theory (and its sociological sub-theory)
Main proponent: Israel Finkelstein (modern Israeli archaeologist) and contemporaries.
Core claims:
The Book of Joshua is not a historically accurate account of a single, unified conquest; instead, it is a later legend or retrospective narrative.
The newcomers were not a single ethnolinguistic group invading en masse; they were a mix of groups arriving for various reasons (opportunity, migration, etc.).
Key concepts in this theory:
Newcomers as diverse groups from across the Mediterranean and Near East settled in various regions, with some evidence of continued Canaanite presence in cities that would later become part of the Israelite landscape.
The term peaceful infiltration emphasizes gradual settlement rather than violent, sweeping conquest.
Sociological sub-theory:
Some scholars argue that elements of the newcomers’ identity show continuity with local Canaanites, suggesting complex social processes (e.g., intermarriage, cultural exchange) rather than a clean break.
Controversy and reception in modern Israeli discourse:
Finkelstein’s conclusions are seen by many in Israel as challenging foundational national narratives.
The debate touches on identity, historiography, and political legitimacy of current territorial claims.
The Philistines and upcoming topics: linking new actors to the Iron Age saga
The Philistines:
Introduced as another major group arriving in the Iron Age around the same period as the newcomers.
The Philistines are tied to broader questions of ethnic formation and interactions with the Israelites.
The term Philistine is connected to the identity of a later group tied to what modern Palestinians identify with historically.
Next topics outlined for the course:
Deep dive into who the Philistines were, how they arrived, and how they related to the newcomers and the broader Iron Age political landscape.
Examination of Palestinian identity in the ancient and modern context, including how these histories are connected or contested.
Preparations for the makeup class and tomorrow’s section discussion, with readings assigned (e.g., Truda Dulman’s article) and a follow-up on the broader Iron Age narrative.
Four core questions to keep in view throughout the Iron Age study
Question 1: Who were the newcomers arriving at the Iron Age into Canaan?
Question 2: How did they arrive there (mechanisms, routes, and processes of migration/settlement)?
Question 3: What did they achieve (political entities, territorial configurations, cultural transformations)?
Question 4: Why is this period important for understanding the modern conflict between Israelis and Palestinians (and for broader Middle East history)?
The lecturer emphasizes that answering these questions helps illuminate how ancient processes shaped modern identities, borders, and conflicts.
Anecdotes, context, and methodological notes
Personal anecdote about Joshua’s centrality in Israeli memory:
The lecturer shares a personal memory of learning Joshua in Israel, including the popular association of Joshua with the land and national identity.
The story illustrates how deeply Joshua is embedded in education and cultural memory in Israel.
A light anecdote about a Harvard lecture used as a pause during the lecture to illustrate student engagement and the role of storytelling in academic settings.
Methodological note on how this course treats sources:
We balance biblical texts with archaeological and epigraphic evidence to test the historicity of Joshua’s conquest narrative.
We consider how modern identities and political claims are influenced by ancient narratives, and we examine competing scholarly theories (Albright Unified Military Conquest vs. Finkelstein’s Peaceful Infiltration) to understand the complexity of history.
Key terms and concepts to review
Iron Age: start; transformative period in the Middle East, especially for Israel/Palestine.
Bronze Age vs. Iron Age transitions: shift in political structures, settlement patterns, and material culture.
Canaanites: the Bronze Age inhabitants of the land, organized into city-states under Egyptian influence.
Jericho, Ai, Hazor, Megiddo: key sites used to illustrate conquest and archaeological narratives.
Hazor: destruction layer, case wall, gates, and temple remains serving as archaeological evidence for conquest.
Megiddo: strategic site at Jezreel Valley entrance, with a significant water system and altar; important in the material culture record.
Tel Hazor and Tel Megiddo: tell sites where stratigraphy reveals transitions from Bronze Age to Iron Age cultures.
Merneptah Stele: Egyptian inscription (circa ) mentioning Israel as a people; used as external corroboration for ancient Israel.
Unified Military Conquest Theory: Albright school’s claim that Joshua describes a unified Israelite conquest corroborated by archaeology and inscriptions.
Peaceful Infiltration Theory: Israel Finkelstein’s critique that Joshua is not a literal historical conquest; newcomers originated from multiple regions and came for opportunity.
Sociological theory: a sub-theory within peaceful infiltration that emphasizes social and cultural continuity with Canaanites in some settlements.
Newcomers: a term used to describe the various groups arriving in the Iron Age and contributing to the formation of early Israelite and other regional polities.
Greater Israel: political concept among some modern Israelis aiming to extend borders beyond the current state boundaries, rooted in biblical narratives and identity.
Summary takeaways (for exam prep)
The Iron Age is a transformative period that set the stage for later political and cultural developments in the Levant, including the emergence of Israel and its neighbors.
The Book of Joshua presents a narrative of a unified Israel conquering Canaan, framed as a divinely sanctioned mission with a promised land; this narrative has deeply shaped modern Israeli national identity.
Archaeology offers competing interpretations: the Albright school (unified conquest with external corroboration) vs. Finkelstein’s peaceful infiltration (diverse origins, gradual process, challenges to a single national origin).
The discovery of the Merneptah Stele and material-culture evidence from sites like Hazor and Megiddo provide critical data for evaluating the historicity of Joshua’s conquest and the nature of early Iron Age transitions.
Modern debates connect ancient history to contemporary politics, including discussions of territories, national identity, and the evolution of ethnic groups in the region.
The Philistines and the broader question of who constituted the various people later identified as Palestinians are positioned as essential topics for the next part of the course.