Dever's point is that with cisterns and terracing farming is quite possible and that forms the basis of his argument for the technological edge that the city dwelling Canaanites would have had over Finkelstein nomads.Forum Monk wrote:What upheavals Min?Minimalist wrote:Dever suggests that the "Israelites" arose from Canaanite refugees (city dwellers and agriculturalists) who were displaced by the upheavals at the end of the Bronze Age.
The Sea Peoples, mainly. The whole eastern Med was engulfed in turmoil.
I don't see the connection between city dwellers and farmers. I think in this case, KB is right. Its a religious thing dealing with the shedding of blood for forgiveness. Not city/farmers vs. pastoral herders.Whatever the other merits of the argument, the pastoral tradition seems to predominate in the surviving texts. Pastoralists are good, city dwellers are bad, Abel's blood sacrifice was accepted while Cain's grain sacrifice was not....the farmer Cain killed the shepherd Abel.....yada, yada, yada...
You would have had to watch the Cain - Abel program.
I'm not aware of any off hand but I think the point is missed anyway because, that area is more suited to pastoral lifestyle than farming. There just isn' enough rain to support farming and famines were all to frequent.So this conflict is well represented in the texts. I wonder if the story is told elsewhere with a different outcome in an area in which the farmers prevailed?
I think that both of them need to realize that this was not an "event" but a "process." No doubt some of the nomads would have kept tending the flocks while others settled down to grow grain.