This, is as accurate a description of the status of modern archaeology as I have seen.
With the exception of the "tribal affiliations" (for which there is no evidence) I doubt very much that Finkelstein would have a problem with this passage.Thus far, archaeological research has not been bountiful on the period of the Israelite settlement. In most of the major places mentioned in the stories ofthe conquest, such as Jericho, 'Ai, 'Arad, and others, no strata of destruction from the Late Bronze Age which would accord with the biblical account have been found. Reputable scholars have suggested that the entire story of the conquest is nothing more than a later, etiological tradition which sets out to account for various manifestations in the light of mythological traditions and folklore.
This, would be explicitly endorsed by Finkelstein, but not by Dever. It is the essence of their disagreement.Recent extensive archaeological surveys of the central hill country, however, reveal clearly the process of Israelite settlement as a major settlement movement of the era (1250-1100 B.C.E.). Hundreds of newly-founded, small settlements were established within a short period throughout the hilly allotments of the tribes of Manasseh, Ephraim and Benjamin. The settlers used a characteristic type of pottery and their houses were generally built on a three- or four-room plan. Although Israelite pottery and architecture were influenced by the Canaanites, they have certain prominent and unique characteristics. In our survey of the hill country of Manasseh we were able to study the ecology of the Israelite settlement and, using new research methods, we succeeded in reconstructing the process by which they penetrated the central hill country from the eastern Transjordan
They would both probably dispute the dating, but not the ultimate fact, of this passage.Evidently the beginning of the penetration, sometime in the 13th century B.C.E., was made by semi-nomadic shepherd groups migrating from the edge of the desert, by way of the "ecological pipe" of Wadi el Far'a (Nahal Tirzah). Many sites with ancient pottery typical of the settlement period were discovered along the fertile and well-watered valley of this river, which is surrounded by broad pasture.
Lastly, this passage seems to mirror Canaanite practice as well...Dever makes that connection in his argument with Finkelstein.In the next phase the Israelites established themselves along the edges of the internal valleys of the hill country of Manasseh: Tubas (biblical Thebez), Zebabdeh, Sanur, Dothan, and others. An economy based on olive and grape cultivation, which henceforth would characterize Israelite habitation of the hill country, did not emerge until the settlement process drew to a close at the end of the 12th century.
Funny. They manage that whole paragraph without a single reference to Egypt or Exodus.The cultic site on Mt. 'Ebal satisfies the three criteria necessary to identify a biblical site: chronological (beginning of the Israelite settlement), geographical, and the nature of the site (a cultic center with a burnt-offering altar). In view of this analysis, the identity of the biblical story and this site as the first inter-tribal center of the Israelite tribes can hardly be doubted.
