Minimalist

Many archaeologists would still argue for a "centrist" position in addition.

Minimalist

But Shalmeneser might have merely served as a model for an important ruler when a bunch of impoverished Judahites (who were apparently not all that "jewish" as we understand the term) wanted to give themselves a better pedigree.

Then of course, there is the Ain Dara temple in Syria which would have no doubt seemed impressive to people from a rathole like 8th century Jerusalem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ain_Dara_temple

Clivedurdle

I thought it was relatively easy to recognise Jewish settlements - no pig bones in the rubbish tips.

So we have a detailed picture of settlement patterns, and we have peoples who have always lived together but who developed separate cultural habits, and later on invented further differences, like shibboleth.

And zilch on home grown empires...

outhouse

the absense of pig bones starts with proto-Israelites according to Dever, but for me its not as easy to identify a Israelite early settlement.

proto israelite is also not jewish in any sense

But is noted as a difference from the early Canaanite civilizations while everything else was identical. This one cultural marker doesnt mean Israelites originated it, but as something that evolved due to its geographic location and stuck as a cultural marker in proto-Israelites. They really were not jewish at this time but still displaced Canaanites.

now I like what Finklestein states

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...rael_and_Judah

Israel Finkelstein proposed that the oval or circular layout that distinguishes some of the earliest highland sites, and the notable absence of pig bones from hill sites, could be taken as a marker of ethnicity, but others have cautioned that these can be a "common-sense" adaptation to highland life and not necessarily revelatory of origins.[25] Other Aramaean sites also demonstrate a contemporary absence of pig remains at that time

Sheshbazzar

My Adventist and Muslim acquaintances don't leave many pig bones around either.
Does that indicate that their settlements are Jewish?
Point being we have no way of knowing, with any absolute certainty, that avoidance of pork was practiced exclusively by 'Jews' in the ancient world.
There were many ancient groups and societies that we know existed by the mentions of their names in various ancient documents, yet as yet we know virtually nothing of their religious beliefs or taboos.
The Hebrews themselves may well have adopted that taboo from contacts that were decidedly NOT Hebrew or 'Jewish'.
A lack of pig bones cannot in itself be taken as a sure-fire indication that any ancient site was Hebrew, 'Israelite', or 'Jewish'.


.

outhouse

actually we do know, this was not exclusive to Israelites.


absolutely correct

Sheshbazzar

We do? I don't claim to know everything. Could you please enlighten me in this matter?

How was it determined that earlier or contemporary non-Jews held taboos against swine?
Can you identify the peoples, and the archaelogical locations that have provided this information?
All of this would be great to know with certainty.

Cesc

Not so fast. The minimalist position does not claim that all is a 100% fiction. It holds that we can say pretty much nothing about "ancient Israel" simply because there exists next to no evidence outside the OT itself, coupled with the fact that the OT is not a "history book".

I'm not a "minimalist", but often enough minimalists do propose that most of the history of "ancient Israel" is 100% fiction, or they set very late dates for the production of the OT texts, like hellenistic times.