27. ETHNIC IDENTITY IN BIBLICAL EDOM, ISRAEL, AND MIDIAN: SOME INSIGHTS FROM MORTUARY CONTEXTS IN THE LOWLANDS OF EDOM

by Thomas E. Levy

ONFLICT with and resistance to other ethnic Seir—another, perhaps earlier, name for Edom. For C groups can be one of the primary catalysts for example, in one of the Late Bronze Age Amarna let- the formation and maintenance of ethnic identity. In ters (mid-fourteenth century), King Abdi-heba of this short contribution, it is suggested that the crystal- Jerusalem wrote to the Egyptian Pharaoh Amenhotep lization of Edomite identity occurred in the crucible III: “The land of the king is lost: there is war against of conflict with neighboring tribal groups, such as the us, as far as the lands of Seir (and) as far as Gath- Israelites and Midianites. The data for testing this Carmel!” (EA 288; see Pritchard 1969:488). hypothesis come from the recent excavations of a Recently, Yuval Goren, Israel Finkelstein, and tenth-century B.C.E. Iron Age cemetery in the region Nadav Na»aman (Goren et al. 2004:267) carried out a known historically as the lowlands of Edom in south- petrographic analysis of this Amarna tablet and dem- ern Jordan. onstrated that it was a Jerusalem-made tablet from the central hill country. This early fourteenth-century Introduction B.C.E. reference to Seir provides extrabiblical textual confirmation that the name Seir was in use in the In beginning this discussion of Edomite ethnogenesis, eastern Mediterranean region even before the biblical it is important to try to identify when in the Near sources. Eastern historical sources it is possible to identify a During the mid-twelfth century B.C.E., there is geographical region known as Edom, and Edomites additional proof that Seir remained a geographical as the name of a people. It will then be possible to location well known to the ancient Egyptians. For suggest a number of hypotheses that link our recent example, in Papyrus Harris I, Ramesses III (1193– excavation of a tenth-century B.C.E. cemetery in 1162 B.C.E.) claims: “I have destroyed the people of southern Jordan with some suggestions concerning Seir among the Shosu tribes. I have laid waste their Edomite ethnogenesis. However, as we are especially tents, with their people, their belongings, and like- interested in understanding the processes that led to wise their cattle without number” (see Albright 1944: ethnogenesis, we must look deeper in time, earlier 229; Giveon 1971:134–37). than the sixth–seventh centuries B.C.E., when we While these early Egyptian historical sources tell know that an Edomite state, with its own script, pal- us that the inhabitants of Seir/Edom were “Shosu/ ace architecture, and other accoutrements of the state Shasu,” a nomadic people, they do not tell us what were in place (Bienkowski 2002; Crowell 2004; Por- the people of Seir/Edom actually called themselves. ter 2004). According to Ward (1972:56–59), “Shasu” probably The earliest reference to Edom comes from Egyp- derives either from a Northwest Semitic root meaning tian sources dating to the late thirteenth century “plunderers” or an Egyptian word meaning “wander- B.C.E., in particular, in Papyrus Anastasi VI. This ers.” The term appears only in Egyptian sources dat- document contains a report from an Egyptian frontier ing to the period 1500–1100 B.C.E. It refers to both a official who served during the reign of Pharaoh people and a territory and thus did not designate an Merneptah (ca. 1224–1214 B.C.E.)—the same Merne- ethnic group but rather a social class (Ward 1992: ptah whose stele discovered at Thebes by Sir Flinders 1165). Thus, Shasu is similar to the generic Arabic Petrie in 1896 preserves the earliest mention of the term Bedouin or “pastoral nomad.” However, these ancient ethnic group known as “Israel” (Shanks et al. Egyptian documents offer a rich contribution to his- 1992). With regard to the region of Edom, Papyrus torical reconstruction because they confirm that the Anastasi VI states: “We have finished letting the Northwest Semitic term “Edom” (Avishur 1996) was Bedouin tribes of Edom pass the Fortress [of] Mer- already in use in the region during the late thirteenth ne-Ptah Hotep-hir-Maat—life, prosperity, health— century B.C.E. and that the social-subsistence base of which is (in) Tjeku, to the pools of Per-Atum . . . to the inhabitants of this desert region was rooted in keep them alive and to keep their cattle alive.” pastoral nomadism. But the problem remains—when There are other fourteenth- to twelfth-century do the people, the Edomites, appear in the historical B.C.E. Egyptian sources that mention Edom, and also records? 252 Thomas E. Levy

Background: The Hebrew Bible and Early Edom Edom—the copper-rich Faynan district—are left out of Knauf’s model. Unlike neighboring Moab, which produced at least According to Avishur (1996:372), Genesis 36 in- one historical source, the Moabite Stone (Harrison dicates that prior to Edom’s conquest by David, two and Barlow 2005; Routledge 2004), there are no ex- periods can be distinguished: the “period of the tant historical records from ancient Edom. Thus, chiefs” and the “period of the kings.” This parallels without historical sources of their own, the Edomites, the division of Israelite history into the “period of the as a separate ethnic group, appear earliest in the He- judges” and the “period of the monarchy.” If we fo- brew Bible. As Bartlett (1992:288) points out, some cus on the “period of the chiefs” (Heb. »allufim), the information may be gleaned from Genesis 36 con- tribal structure of Edom also parallels that of Israel cerning the early inhabitants of Edom, but in its cur- during the “period of the judges,” as well as nomadic rent form the information comes from a rather late pastoral chiefdoms in general (Sahlins 1968). While Israelite editor of the sixth century B.C.E. In the Bib- Genesis 36 mentions only 11 chiefs of Edom, Av- lical accounts about the eponym “Esau who is Edom” ishur (ibid.) points out that a twelfth name is found in (Gen. 36:1), the Edomites are related to the Hebrews the Septuagint, but left out of the Masoretic text. because Esau was the grandson of Abraham the He- Marshall Sahlins (ibid, p. 24), a noted cultural an- brew and was the son of Isaac. As the twin brother of thropologist, has used the conical clan model, based Jacob-Israel, the relationship between the two peo- on the Polynesian type of complex chiefdom, to de- ples was close but antagonistic. According to Avishur scribe a wide range of complex chiefdom-level socie- (1996:370) it is possible to distinguish earlier and ties, including the ancient Israelites, societies in Cen- later elements in the ethnic composition of Edom. tral Asia and parts of Africa, as well as the Celtic Thus, in the Deuteronomic tradition about the ancient peoples. The twelve-fold chiefdom organization of settlers of Edom before the advent of the Hebrews, it conical clans is characteristic of a number of ethnic is asserted: “Seir was formerly inhabited by the groups known from the Hebrew Bible, namely, the Horites; but the descendants of Esau dispossessed Nahorites (Gen. 22:20–24), the Ishmaelites (Gen. them, wiping them out and settling in their place” 25:13–15), the Israelites, and the Edomites. This (Deut. 2:12). conical clan social organization is typical of Near According to E. A. Knauf (1992:288), this so- Eastern nomadic societies both in the ethnographic called displacement of the local Horite population by (Barfield 1993; Musil 1927) and historical record the Edomites mirrors the Israelite displacement or (Faust 2006; Levy and Holl 2002), and provided it conquest of the Canaanites presented by the Deuter- the primary crucible in which Edomite and Israelite onomistic school in the Book of Joshua. Gen. 14:6 ethnogenesis crystallized. assumes that there is no difference between the re- gions of Edom and Seir, something that Knauf dis- Anthropology and Ethnic Identity agrees with. Knauf argues that it is important to dis- tinguish “Edom” and “Seir” as separate areas in Now that we have outlined the tribal nature of Late southern Transjordan, with the “sons of Esau” inhab- Bronze Age and early Iron Age social organization in iting Edom, which he locates on the agricultural land northwestern Arabia and southern Jordan, it is neces- of the Transjordanian plateau, and the Horites occu- sary to define what is meant by ethnic identity. For pying the wooded mountain slopes. By taking this anthropologist George De Vos (1995), ethnicity re- position, however, Knauf ignores the possibility of fers to the “self-perceived inclusion of those who multiple models of “Edomite settlement,” just as hold in common a set of traditions not shared by oth- there is a range of models that can be used to explain ers with whom they are in contact.” Some of these “Israelite settlement” (Shanks et al. 1992) based on traditions include: “folk” religious beliefs and prac- the different narratives of Israel’s relations with the tices, language, aesthetic cultural patterns (such as Canaanites as portrayed in Joshua and Judges. How- tastes in food, dance tradition, styles of clothing, and ever, as the extrabiblical Egyptian sources noted ear- definitions of physical beauty), a shared sense of his- lier stress, Seir and Edom are indeed terms for the torical continuity, common ancestry or place of ori- same general region of southern Transjordan and gin, territoriality, and economic specialization. Many occasionally, parts of the Negev (Kitchen 1992). of these variables have an archaeological signature Thus, Knauf’s idea that “Edom” and “Seir” were dif- and will be touched on in relation to the Iron Age ferent “microzones” in southern Jordan loses cre- cemetery at Wadi Fidan 40 in southern Jordan. dence. In addition, by locating Seir on the “wooded Operating with this understanding of ethnicity, we slope” of the Edomite plateau, the lowlands of can now look at ethnogenesis, the process by which Ethnic Identity in Biblical Edom, Israel, and Midian 253 ethnic groups are formed. According to the Macmil- in this cemetery, 235 individuals were recovered lan Dictionary of Anthropology (Seymour-Smith from 172 distinct burial contexts (Levy, Najjar, 1986), ethnogenesis refers to “the construction of Muniz et al. 2005:473). Second, a new suite of radio- group identity and resuscitation or persistence of cul- carbon dates from the WFD 40 cemetery securely tural features of a people undergoing rapid and radi- place it in the tenth century B.C.E., close in time to cal change. It may also be used to refer to a new eth- some of the Egyptian references to Edom/Seir nic system emerging out of an amalgamation of other (Kitchen 1992), as well as the earliest poems in the groups.” Underlying this concept of ethnic formation Hebrew Bible (Freedman 1980) that relate to this in the context of rapid cultural change is the notion of region such as the “Song of the Sea” (Exodus 15) and resistance to “the other”—whatever the level of so- the “Song of Deborah” (Judges 5). Third, as the an- cial organization (band, tribe, chiefdom, state). One thropological record indicates that the notion of “ter- of the most recent examples of ethnogensis may be ritoriality” among social groups is marked by their the crystallization of Palestinian ethnic identity in the establishment of separate cemeteries in the landscape early 1960s following their resistance to Zionism. (Chapman et al. 1981), the large Iron Age cemetery When the Zionist project began in Palestine during at WFD 40 provides an ideal locale to investigate the the late nineteenth century, the local Arab inhabitants growth of the buried population’s control of this part viewed themselves as “Arabs” and as part of the of Edom. And, fourth, any grave offerings found in greater Arab people. It took over sixty years of resis- the WFD 40 cemetery can provide important clues tance to and conflict with the neighboring Jewish about the socioreligious beliefs and identity of the population before the local Arab population defined buried population. Taken together, these factors indi- themselves as a separate ethnic group. Thus, as cate the great potential of this cemetery for investi- shown in A. Faust’s (2006) study of ancient Israelite gating the nature of ethnogenesis in Iron Age Edom ethnogenesis, resistance is indeed a key factor that (although the present paper should be viewed as a promotes ethnogenesis. prelude to a more in-depth study).1

Ethnic Diversity in the Iron Age Southern Levant Significance of the WFD 40 Cemetery Excavations

As indicated above, during the Late Bronze to early Among the most notable aspects of the Iron Age Iron Age, the Hebrew Bible and other ancient texts cemetery at Wadi Fidan 40 are the stylistic differ- refer to a wide range of ethnic groups in the southern ences of this mortuary site (linked to pastoral no- Levant. These include Canaanites, Amorites, Hitti- mads) and contemporary tombs in Judah, Ammon, ties, Egyptians, Perizzites, Hivites, Horites, Israelites, and other neighboring regions (Bloch-Smith 1992; Jebusites, Amalekites, Midianites, Philistines, and Faust 2004; Tubb et al. 1997; Yassine 1983). Earlier Shasu. By the tenth–eighth centuries B.C.E., many of studies explain in detail the archaeological correlates these ethnic groups evolved into secondary “ethnic” that connect this cemetery to a pastoral nomadic mini-states such as Aram, Phoenicia, Philistia, Judah, community and its probable links to the Shasu no- Israel, Ammon, Moab, and Edom. The timing and mads (Levy, Adams, and Muniz 2004; Levy, Adams, processes that led to the emergence of each of these and Shafiq 1999). To date, WFD 40 may be the most mini-states are contentious issues (Joffe 2002; Levy comprehensively excavated Iron Age pastoral nomad and Higham 2005; Routledge 2004) that are beyond cemetery in northwestern Arabia and southern Jor- the scope of this paper. However, as noted above, we dan. Thus, it provides a stepping stone for examining must look deeper in time, earlier than the sixth and the formation of the pastoral nomadic population in seventh centuries B.C.E. when we know that an this part of Jordan. Edomite state, with its own script, palace architec- The WFD 40 cemetery was initially probed by R. ture, and other accoutrements of the state were in B. Adams (1991), who linked the cemetery to the place. Early Bronze Age village of Wadi Fidan 4 located on There are a number of reasons why the best place the opposite bank of the Wadi Fidan (Adams and to begin investigating Edomite ethnogenesis is the Genz 1995; Levy, Adams, and Najjar 1999). The first Iron Age cemetery at Wadi Fidan 40 (WFD 40). large-scale excavations at WFD 40 were carried out First, the closest that archaeologists, historians, bio- anthropologists, and molecular scientists can get to 1 My student Marc Beherec is using the mortuary data from the actual people who lived in a historic region are the UCSD–Department of Antiquities of Jordan Wadi Fi- the human skeletal remains found in mortuary con- dan 40 cemetery excavations for his doctoral research on texts (Pearson 2000). Following the 2004 excavations this topic at the University of California, San Diego. 254 Thomas E. Levy

Figure 1. Plan of the excavated tombs in the Wadi Fidan 40 Iron Age cemetery by T. E. Levy and Adams in 1997, when 62 circular large portion of the eastern half remains to be inves- tombs were excavated (Levy, Adams, and Shafiq tigated (figure 1). In order to date the cemetery more 1999) and the site was subsequently dated to the Iron adequately, a series of eight additional high-precision Age. Jewelry, other burial goods, and a single radio- radiocarbon dates were obtained from pomegranates carbon date taken from a pomegranate found buried found in tombs exposed in the 2004 excavations. in Tomb 92 (Beta-111366; 2800±70 B.P., 1 sigma cal. Seven of these dates were from different pomegran- 1015–845 B.C.E.; 2 sigma cal. 1130–815 B.C.E.) ate offerings found in a single tomb (no. 59) and at placed the cemetery in the Iron Age. In 2003 and the 95.4% probability level produced an average date 2004, Levy and M. Najjar directed emergency exca- of 1010–920 B.C.E. (Levy, Najjar, Muniz, et al. vations at the site under the auspices of the Depart- 2005). While more radiocarbon dates are certainly ment of Antiquities of Jordan that brought the total needed, the fact that a corpus of radiocarbon dates number of graves excavated in the cemetery to 287. was obtained from three different tombs spread over The tombs typically have a stone circle ca. 1.0–1.8 different parts of the cemetery—and all are from sty- m in diameter situated ca. 0.80–1.0 m above a well- listically similar tombs characteristic of the entire built stone-lined cist tomb large enough for an ex- cemetery sample—suggests that the main use-period tended burial (figures 1 and 2). In many cases, elabo- of the cemetery was during the tenth century B.C.E. rate mortuary structures were built on the site surface This was confirmed by an Egyptian stamp seal found among the cemetery tombs, consisting of pavements, as a grave offering in Tomb 91 in Area A. According rectangular structures, concentric circles with stand- to Stefan Munger (in Levy et al. 2005a:470–71), this ing stones (figure 5), and other structures. While the type of seal is typical of the transition between Iron western sector of the cemetery and eastern extremity Age IB and Iron IIA. In Egyptian terms, this corre- of the cemetery have been extensively sampled, a lates primarily with Dynasty 21 (ca. 1075–945 Ethnic Identity in Biblical Edom, Israel, and Midian 255

B.C.E.), with examples found at Tell Abu Hawam, ites, Edomites, and Midianites. As noted above, the Gezer, Tell el Far«ah (South), Megiddo, and other close links between “Esau who is Edom” (Gen. 36:1) sites. The temporal correlation between the Tomb 91 and his twin brother Jacob/Israel are well known. The seal and the radiocarbon dates from the cemetery is links between the Late Bronze Age and early Iron remarkable and indicates that the majority of burial Age Israelites and the Midianites, whose core terri- activities took place during the late Iron I to Iron IIA tory was situated in the northern Hijaz (Bawden periods. Extensive surveys within a 5 km radius of 1983; Parr 1982; Rothenberg 1998; Rothenberg and Wadi Fidan 40 failed to find any villages or habita- Glass 1983), were both consanguineous and acrimo- tion sites in the area and strengthen the interpretation nious, as were the links between the Israelites and that this cemetery was an important territorial marker Edomites (Halpern 2001; 2005). In Frank Moore for the nomadic inhabitants of the lowlands of Edom. Cross’s (1988:55) article “Reuben, First-Born of Jacob,” a case is made for close relations between the Summary and Interpretations Israelites and Midianites based on the tradition that Moses married a Midianite woman and tended the The present paper should be viewed as a work in flocks of the priest of Midian (Exod. 2:21; 3:13–15), progress because archaeological research on Iron Age and based on the central role played by the Midia- Edom is still in its infancy. However, what is becom- nites at Mount Sinai, where the priest of Midian of- ing increasingly clear from our work in the lowlands fered sacrifices to Yahweh and instituted a juridical of Edom is the importance of conceptualizing the system (Exodus 18). For a variety of reasons, includ- Edomites as one of a number of tribal peoples who ing the fact that the distinctively decorated “Midia- emerged out of the ethnic melting pot of northwest- nite” pottery (also referred to as Hijaz or Qurayyah ern Arabia and southern Jordan toward the end of the Ware) is not found in the Sinai Peninsula but is found Late Bronze Age. This certainly included the Israel- radiating from the Midianite center at Qurayyah in

Figure 2. Overview of excavations in the Wadi Fidan 40 cemetery (view to north) Photograph by T. E. Levy 256 Thomas E. Levy

Figure 4. Scarab found in Grave 92, B. 2152 (from Levy, Adams, and Shafiq 1999) Uraeus with red crown (MB IIB, ca. 1640–1500 B.C.E.). Parallels: Tell el-Ajjul, Lachish, Megiddo Tombs.

Figure 3. Overview of Tomb 92 found during the 1997 excavations in the Wadi Fidan 40 cemetery One of the pomegranates found in this tomb produced a radiocarbon date spanning the late eleventh–late ninth centuries B.C.E. (Beta-111366; 2800±70 B.P., 1 σ cal. 1015–845 B.C.E.; 2 σ cal. 1130–815 B.C.E.) Photograph by T. E. Levy

Figure 5. Stone circle burial monument with standing Figure 6. Anthropomorphic standing stone found stone found in 2004 (Area C, Grave 712) in 2004 (EDM no. 70337, Area A, Basket 3233) Photograph by T. E. Levy Photograph courtesy of UCSD Levantine Archaeology Laboratory Ethnic Identity in Biblical Edom, Israel, and Midian 257

Figure 7. Egyptian stamp seal with loop handle (Grave 91, Area A) Photographs courtesy of the UCSD Levantine Archaeology Laboratory northwestern Saudi Arabia, and throughout southern vicinity of the copper-rich Faynan district of southern Jordan and at Timna in southern Israel, Cross argues Jordan. that Mount Sinai (Horeb) must be sought in southern The intensified use of the Iron Age cemetery of Edom or northern Midian, not in the Sinai Peninsula. Wadi Fidan 40 in the lowlands of Edom during the Our own excavations at Khirbat en-Nahas, some tenth century B.C.E. can be seen as a major expression 50 km south of the Dead Sea, provide the northern- of territoriality among this nomadic population fol- most evidence of “Midianite” pottery (figure 8) in the lowing the processes of fission that affected the tribal Wadi Araba region that separates modern Israel and confederations of northwest Arabia and Jordan earlier Jordan (Levy, Adams, Najjar, et al. 2004). Bearing in in the Late Bronze and early Iron Age. The recent mind the problems of linking pottery with distinct excavations and studies of the radiocarbon dates from ethnic groups, if the known distribution of Midianite pottery is coupled with the biblical traditions associ- ating Yahweh with Edom/Seir, as in the Song of Deborah (Judges 5:4), which proclaims that Yahweh marched from the region of Edom, the case for Mount Sinai being in Edom or the region of Midian makes sense. The idea that the Yahweh tradition is rooted in Edom can be supported by the Late Bronze Age Egyptian records that link the god yhw| = Yah- weh with the Shasu nomads of Edom (Giveon 1971; Levy, Adams, and Muniz 2004; Rainey 1995; Ward 1992). This is important for our study of Edomite ethnogenesis because it brings together some of the archaeological, biblical, and extrabiblical data which indicate that these three chiefdom-level societies— Israel, Edom, and Midian—interacted in meaningful and profound ways in the cauldron of northwestern Arabia and Jordan in the Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age. Thus, competition, conflict, and resistance between these three groups, for reasons not yet eluci- dated, led to the process of fission so typical of tribal societies, and sparked both Edomite and Israelite ethnogenesis. The Israelite section moved out of Jor- dan and northwestern Arabia into Canaan (Faust 2006; Shanks et al. 1992), while the Edomite section displaced the local populations (Horites?) of Seir and Figure 8. “Midianite” pottery from Khirbat en- established their hold on the lowlands of Edom in the Nahas, Jordan (from Levy et al. 2004:876) 258 Thomas E. Levy the stratified Iron Age site of Khirbat en-Nahas, interaction and processes of resistance to neighboring located some 5 km northeast of WFD 40, illustrate related societies such as the Israelites and Midianites, that there is a deep-time Iron Age history in Edom and social groups linked together through blood and that spans at least the twelfth–ninth centuries B.C.E. marriage ties. This relationship extended back in time (Higham et al. 2005; Levy, Najjar, van der Plicht et to the period when the only name we can link to the al. 2005). At Khirbat en-Nahas, the Qurayya or inhabitants of Seir/Edom and northwest Arabia is the “Midianite” ware, scarabs, Cypro-Phoenician ceram- Egyptian term “Shasu.” By the time the sixth-century ics, and black burnished juglets may indicate oscilla- B.C.E. biblical editors compiled the Hebrew Bible tions in interaction throughout this period between (Friedman 1988), the various competing northwest Edomites, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Israelites, and Arabian ethnic groups were known as Midianites, Midianites.2 Excavations in the WFD 40 Cemetery Edomites, Israelites and the relationships among suggest that by the tenth century B.C.E. there was a them were understood in terms of kinship, marriage, large nomadic population in the lowlands with its history, and myth. Perhaps the latest development in own ethnic markers such as circular mortuary monu- Edomite ethnogenesis occurred during the seventh– ments, cist graves (figures 1–3), and burial practices. sixth century B.C.E., when the Edomite script devel- Some of these rituals included placement of the de- oped for use amongst elite groups in their society ceased in leather shrouds (Levy et al. 1999), special (DiVito 1993; Porter 2004). The new archaeological burial offerings using pomegranates, and the place- data from the lowlands of Edom briefly touched on ment of highly abstract anthropomorphic standing here, coupled with the biblical and Egyptian texts, stones (Heb. maṣṣēbôt) with stylized nose and ear suggest that for most of their history, the Edomite features (figure 6). In the absence of clearly defined social organization remained rooted in tribal social ranking of burial monuments or grave offerings (fig- structure (LaBianca 1999; LaBianca and Younker ure 1), the Wadi Fidan 40 cemetery seems to reflect 1995). Much more work needs to be done to clarify the same type of segmentary social organization, per- the nature of seventh–sixth century B.C.E. social or- haps according to a conical-clan level of social inte- ganization in Edom, when monumental palatial archi- gration as implied in the “Song of the Sea,” which tecture was established in the highlands at sites such states that chiefs ruled in Edom (Exod. 15:15) at the as Busayra (Bienkowski 2002) and the region was end of the Late Bronze Age—an organizational pat- subservient to the Assyrian core civilization. We do tern that may have extended into the tenth century know that the tension and resistance between the two B.C.E. The Egyptian scarabs and stamp seal found at related societies, Israel and Edom, continued to be Khirbat en-Nahas and the Wadi Fidan 40 cemetery strong at this time and fueled the processes of indicate that nomads had connections with Egypt Edomite and Israelite ethnogenesis. from the late fifteenth century (see figure 4) to the Acknowledgments: tenth century B.C.E., providing archaeological evi- dence for the “tribes” or Shasu nomads known from It is an honor to present this article in honor of my friend and inspirational colleague, Lawrence Stager. I would es- Papyrus Harris, Papyrus Anastasi, and other extrabib- pecially like to thank my colleague William Propp for his lical sources alluded to above. comments and insights. However, any factual or other er- In conclusion, twelfth- to ninth-century B.C.E. rors are mine. Thanks also to my graduate student, Neil Edomite identity was shaped by local peer-polity Smith, for preparing the GIS map used in this paper.

2 The topic of “Midianite” and Qurayya ware during the early Iron Age is being investigated by my student Sarah Malena in her doctoral dissertation dealing with “Trade in the Biblical Texts and Levantine Societies” at the Univer- sity of California, San Diego. Ethnic Identity in Biblical Edom, Israel, and Midian 259

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, R. B. DiVito, R. A. 1991 The Wadi Fidan Project, Jordan, 1989. Levant 23: 1993 The Tell el-Kheleifeh Inscriptions. In Nelson 181–86. Glueck’s 1938–1940 Excavations at Tell el- Kheleifeh: A Reappraisal, ed. G. D. Pratico, 51– Adams, R. B., and H. Genz 63. Atlanta: Scholars. 1995 Excavations at Wadi Fidan 4: A Copper Village Complex in the Copper Ore District of Feinan, Faust, A. Southern Jordan. PEQ 127:8–20. 2004 Mortuary Practices, Society and Ideology: The Lack of Iron I Burials in the Highlands in Con- Albright, W. F. text. IEJ 54:174–90. 1944 The Oracles of Balaam. JBL 63:207–33. 2006 Israel’s Ethnogenesis: Settlement, Interaction, Avishur, I. Expansion and Resistance. Approaches to An- 1996 Edom. Encyclopaedia Judaica 6:369–77. thropological Archaeology. London: Equinox.

Barfield, T. J. Freedman, D. N. 1993 The Nomadic Alternative. Englewood Cliffs, 1980 Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy: Studies in Early N.J.: Prentice Hall. Hebrew Poetry. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns.

Bartlett, J. R. Friedman, R. E. 1992 Edom. In The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D. N. 1988 Who Wrote the Bible? London: Jonathan Cape. Freedman, 2:287–95. Doubleday: New York. Giveon, R. Bawden, G. 1971 Les Bédouins Shosou des documents Egyptiens. 1983 Painted Pottery of Tayma and Problems of Cul- Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui 22. tural Chronology in Northwest Arabia. In Midian, Leiden: Brill. Moab and Edom: The History and Archaeology of Late Bronze and Iron Age Jordan and North- Goren, Y., I. Finkelstein, and N. Na»aman West Arabia, ed. J. F. A. Sawyer and D. J. A. 2004 Inscribed in Clay: Provenance Study of the Clines, 37–52. JSOTSup 24. Sheffield, England: Amarna Letters and Other Ancient Near Eastern JSOT Press. Texts. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University. Bienkowski, P. 2002 Busayra: Excavations by Crystal M. Bennett, Halpern, B. 1971–1980. British Academy Monographs in Ar- 2001 David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, chaeology 13. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Traitor, King. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans. 2005 David Did It, Others Did Not: The Creation of Bloch-Smith, E. Ancient Israel. In The Bible and Radiocarbon 1992 Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science, ed. T. E. Dead. Sheffield, England: JSOT Press. Levy and T. Higham, 422–38. London: Equinox.

Chapman, R., I. Kinnes, and K. Randsborg, eds. 1981 The Archaeology of Death. London: Cambridge Harrison, T. P., C. and Barlow University Press. 2005 Mesha, the Mishor, and the Chronology of Iron Age Madaba. In The Bible and Radiocarbon Dat- Cross, F. M. ing: Archaeology, Text and Science, ed. T. E. 1988 Reuben, First-Born of Jacob. ZAW 100:46–64. Levy and T. Higham, 179–90. London: Equinox.

Crowell, B. L. Higham, T., J. van der Plicht, C. Bronk Ramsey, H. J. Bru- 2004 On the Margins of History: Social Change and ins, M. Robinson, and T. E. Levy Political Development in Iron Age Edom. Ph.D. 2005 Radiocarbon Dating of the Khirbat-en Nahas Site diss., University of Michigan. (Jordan) and Bayesian Modeling of the Results. In The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archae- De Vos, G. A. ology, Text and Science, ed. T. E. Levy and T. 1995 Ethnic Pluralism: Conflict and Accommoda- Higham, 164–78. London: Equinox. tion—The Role of Ethnicity in Social History. In Ethnic Identity, ed. L. Romanucci-Ross and G. A. Joffe, A. H. De Vos, 15–47. 3d ed. Walnut Creek, Calif.: 2002 The Rise of Secondary States in the Iron Age AltaMira. Levant. JESHO 45:425–67.

260 Thomas E. Levy

Kitchen, K. A. Shuwa-Arabs in the Chad Basin. Journal of An- 1992 The Egyptian Evidence on Ancient Jordan. In thropological Archaeology 21:83–118. Early Edom and Moab: The Beginning of the Iron Age in Southern Jordan, ed. P. Bienkowski, Levy, T. E., M. Najjar, A. Muniz, S. Malena, E. Monroe, 21–34. Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 7. M. Beherec, N. G. Smith, T. Higham, Sheffield, England: Collis. S. Munger, and K. Maes 2005a Iron Age Burial in the Lowlands of Edom: The Knauf, E. A. 2004 Excavations at Wadi Fidan 40, Jordan. 1992 The Cultural Impact of Secondary State Forma- ADAJ 49:443–87. tion: The Cases of the Edomites and the Moab- ites. In Early Edom and Moab: The Beginning of Levy, T. E., M. Najjar, J. van der Plicht, N. G. Smith, H. J. the Iron Age in Southern Jordan, ed. P. Bi- Bruins, and T. Higham enkowski, 47–54. Sheffield Archaeological 2005b Lowland Edom and the High and Low Chronolo- Monographs 7. Sheffield, England: Collis. gies: Edomite State Formation, the Bible and Re- cent Archaeological Research in Southern Jordan. LaBianca, Ø. S. In The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archae- 1999 Salient Features of Iron Age Tribal Kingdoms. In ology, Text and Science, ed. T. E. Levy and T. Ancient Ammon, ed. B. MacDonald and R. W. Higham, 129–63. London: Equinox. Younker, 19–29. Studies in the History and Cul- ture of the Ancient Near East 17. Leiden: Brill. Musil, A. 1927 Manners and Customs of the Rwala Bedouin. LaBianca, Ø. S., and R. W. Younker New York: American Geographical Society. 1995 The Kingdoms of Ammon, Moab and Edom: The Archaeology of Society in Late Bronze/Iron Age Parr, P. J. Transjordan (ca. 1400–500 B.C.E.). In The Ar- 1982 Contacts between Northwest Arabia and Jordan chaeology of Society in the Holy Land, ed. T. E. in the Late Bronze and Iron Ages. In Studies in Levy, 399–415. London: Leicester University the History and Archaeology of Jordan, vol. 1, Press. ed. A. Hadidi, 127–34. Amman: Department of Antiquities of Jordan. Levy, T. E., R. B. Adams, and A. Muniz 2004 Archaeology and the Shasu Nomads: Recent Pearson, M. P. Excavations in the Jabal Hamrat Fidan, Jordan. In 2000 The Archaeology of Death and Burial. College Le-David Maskil: A Birthday Tribute for David Station, Tex.: Texas A&M University Press. Noel Freedman, ed. W. Propp and R. E. Fried- man, 63–89. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns. Porter, B. W. 2004 Authority, Polity, and Tenuous Elites in Iron Age Levy, T. E., R. B. Adams, and M. Najjar Edom (Jordan). Oxford Journal of Archaeology 1999 Early Metallurgy and Social Evolution: Jabal 23:373–95. Hamrat Fidan. American Center of Oriental Re- search Newsletter 11/1:1–3. Pritchard, J. B. 1969 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Levy, T. E., R. B. Adams, M. Najjar, A. Hauptmann, Testament. 3d ed. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Uni- J. Anderson, B. Brandl, M. A. Robinson, versity Press. and T. Higham 2004 Reassessing the Chronology of Biblical Edom: Rainey, A. F. New Excavations and 14C dates from Khirbat en- 1995 Unruly Elements in Late Bronze Canaanite Soci- Nahas (Jordan). Antiquity 78:863–76. ety. In Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, Levy, T. E., R. B. Adams, and R. Shafiq ed. D. P. Wright, D. N. Freedman, and A. Hur- 1999 The Jabal Hamrat Fidan Project: Excavations at vitz, 481–96. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns. the Wadi Fidan 40 Cemetery, Jordan (1997). Le- vant 31:293–308. Rothenberg, B. 1998 Who Were the “Midianite” Copper Miners of the

Arabah? In Metallurgica Antiqua: In Honour of Levy, T. E., and T. Higham, eds. Hans-Gert Bachmann and Robert Maddin, 197– 2005 The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archae- 212. Bochum, Germany: Deutschen Bergbau- ology, Text and Science. London: Equinox. Museums.

Levy, T. E., and A. F. C. Holl Rothenberg, B., and J. Glass 2002 Migrations, Ethnogenesis, and Settlement Dy- 1983 The Midianite Pottery. In Midian, Moab and namics: Israelites in Iron Age Canaan and Edom, ed. J. F. A. Sawyer and D. J. A. Clines, Ethnic Identity in Biblical Edom, Israel, and Midian 261

65–124. JSOTSup 24. Sheffield, England: JSOT Tubb, J. N., P. G. Dorrell, and F. J. Cobbing Press. 1997 Interim Report on the Ninth Season (1996) of Excavations at Tell Es-Sa«idiyeh, Jordan. PEQ Routledge, B. 129:54–77. 2004 Moab in the Iron Age: Hegemony, Polity, Ar- chaeology. Philadelphia: University of Pennsyl- Ward, W. A. vania Press. 1972 The Shasu “Bedouin”: Notes on a Recent Publi- cation. JESHO 15:35–60. Sahlins, M. 1992 Shasu. In The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D. N. 1968 Tribesmen. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Freedman, 5:1165–67. New York: Doubleday. Seymour-Smith, C. 1986 Macmillan Dictionary of Anthropology. London: Yassine, K. N. Macmillan. 1983 Social-religious Distinctions in Iron Age Burial Practice in Jordan. In Midian, Moab, and Edom: The History and Archaeology of Late Bronze and Shanks, H., W. G. Dever, B. Halpern, and P. K. McCarter Iron Age Jordan and Northwest Arabia, ed. J. F. 1992 The Rise of Ancient Israel. Washington, D.C.: A. Sawyer and D. J. A. Clines, 29–36. Sheffield, Biblical Archaeology Society. England: JSOT Press.