Archaeological data dating patriarchs Adaltlive
According to the biblical scheme of events, there was a United Monarchy for about a hundred years in the reigns of Saul, David, and Solomon.
Then a civil war brought about the division of the country into Israel, the northern kingdom, and Judah, the southern kingdom.
And it begins a slow process in which the Israelites distinguish themselves from their Canaanite ancestors, particularly in religion—with a new deity, new religious laws and customs, new ethnic markers, as we would call them today. Well, it was told because there were probably armed conflicts here and there, and these become a part of the story glorifying the career of Joshua, commander in chief of the Israelite forces.
I suspect that there is a historical kernel, and there are a few sites that may well have been destroyed by these Israelites, such as Hazor in Galilee, or perhaps a site or two in the south.
We are talking about a journey of several hundred miles around the fringes of the desert. It disturbs some people that, for the very early periods such as the so-called patriarchal period, we archeologists haven't much to say. For the earlier periods, we don't have any texts. And it's interesting that the other entities, the other ethnic groups, are described as nascent states, but the Israelites are described as "a people." They have not yet reached a level of state organization. There was no evidence of armed conflict in most of these sites.
You have to think of how perilous the journey would have been had it really taken place. It is profoundly true, but it's not the kind of truth that archeology can directly illuminate. The victory stele of Pharaoh Merneptah, the son of Ramesses II, mentions a list of peoples and city-states in Canaan, and among them are the Israelites. E., know of a group of people somewhere in the central highlands—a loosely affiliated tribal confederation, if you will—called "Israelites." These are our Israelites. We know today, from archeological investigation, that there were more than 300 early villages of the 13th and 12th century in the area. Forty years ago it would have been impossible to identify the earliest Israelites archeologically. And then, in a series of regional surveys, Israeli archeologists in the 1970s began to find small hilltop villages in the central hill country north and south of Jerusalem and in lower Galilee. The settlements were founded not on the ruins of destroyed Canaanite towns but rather on bedrock or on virgin soil.So gradually the old conquest model [based on the accounts of Joshua's conquests in the Bible] began to lose favor amongst scholars.Many scholars now think that most of the early Israelites were originally Canaanites, displaced Canaanites, displaced from the lowlands, from the river valleys, displaced geographically and then displaced ideologically.So what we are dealing with is a movement of peoples but not an invasion of an armed corps from the outside.A social and economic revolution, if you will, rather than a military revolution.