The dawn of settlement: Uncovering the secrets of ancient Israelite Izbet Sartah

The archaeological site of Izbet Sartah, also known as "Ebenezer," is one of hundreds of early Israelite settlement sites scattered across the central hill country of Israel. Though small and relatively unknown, this site offers a rare glimpse into the period of settlement described in the Bible, following the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites under Joshua.

In the first installment of this three-part series on the reliability of biblical scripture, we examined the site of Ebenezer – its historical background and how its geography aligns with the narrative we read in the Book of 1 Samuel.

This foundation sets the stage for Part Two, where we will explore Izbet Sartah and examine how archaeology and clues from the past – including material culture, diet and language – offer compelling evidence that aligns with biblical accounts of Israel’s origins.

Izbet Sartah is a single-layer site, with all its remains dating to the early Iron Age – a period that corresponds to the Israelite settlement in the central mountain ridge, beginning in the late 13th century B.C. This era followed the Late Bronze Age, a time marked by large, fortified cities in the valleys such as Hazor, Lachish and Megiddo. By the end of the 13th century B.C., these cities showed signs of population decline and abandonment. As the Late Bronze Age ended, new cultures, including the Israelites and Philistines, emerged in the region, marking the start of the Iron Age in ancient Israel.

What the Ruins Reveal

The main finds at Izbet Sartah are about a dozen "four-room houses," a typical architectural style found at Israelite settlement sites. These structures consist of a square house divided into four elongated spaces – three parallel longitudinal rooms and one transverse room. Additionally, dozens of small pits, about a meter in diameter, were discovered. These are not water cisterns, as they lack the expected plaster lining. Archaeologists believe these pits were silos for storing wheat and barley harvested in the spring and kept throughout the year.

The village had no public buildings or fortifications, suggesting, like other sites from this period, that it was a tribal or family-based settlement. The inhabitants lacked a king or centralized administration, and there was no evidence of a governing hierarchy or collective economic activity. The biblical story of Gideon threshing wheat in a winepress (Judges 6:11) is emblematic of life in these small villages.

Who Were the Settlers?

According to the Bible, these settlers were the tribes of Israel who arrived from Egypt after wandering in the desert. However, not all scholars agree. Some argue that they were Canaanites who migrated from the valleys to the hills, while others see them as a new ethnic group entering from the east.

Despite these debates, all researchers agree that these settlers were the ancestors of the Israelites who later established the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. The main dispute centers on their origins and ethnic identity.

Clues from the Past: Material Culture, Diet, and Language

Archaeologists examine several aspects to determine the settlers' identity:

• Material Culture: Settlement sites show a much simpler culture compared to the sophisticated Canaanite cities of the Late Bronze Age, suggesting the arrival of a different people. However, Professor Israel Finkelstein argues that these settlers were not outsiders but local Canaanites who changed their settlement patterns due to a prolonged economic and climate crisis, moving from the large cities in the valleys to small hill villages.

• Animal Bones: In Philistine settlements of the 12th century B.C., as well as earlier Canaanite sites, pig bones are common. In contrast, almost no pig bones are found in the new Israelite settlements in the hills, distinguishing them from both the Philistines and the older Canaanite inhabitants.

• Language: Written artifacts from the settlement period are rare, but at Izbet Sartah, a unique ostracon (inscribed pottery shard) was found. It features one of the earliest examples of writing from this culture, using proto-Canaanite letters. Since scholars believe Israelites lived here, they assume the scribe was an Israelite who spoke Hebrew.

• Sociological Theories: In the early 20th century, German scholars like Albrecht Alt used sociological models – based on studies of nomadic societies in Africa – to suggest a "peaceful infiltration" of Semitic peoples from east of the Jordan, rather than a swift conquest as described in the Book of Joshua. Later, American scholar George Mendenhall proposed that Israelite identity and monotheism developed among nomadic tribes in Sinai, with the Bible serving as a national myth.

Unanswered Questions

Several questions arise when comparing archaeological and epigraphic evidence:

• If the minimalist scholars are correct that the early Israelites were ethnically Canaanite, why does a new group called "Israel" suddenly appear in the historical record? Where does the name come from, since it is not Canaanite? The major city in the central hills at the end of the Late Bronze Age was Shechem – why did the new people not call themselves after this city, but instead adopt the new name "Israel"? Even Finkelstein, who considers himself a minimalist, raises this question without a satisfactory answer.

• How did early 20th-century German scholars develop their sociological theories when so little archaeological research had been done in the hill country of Israel? Many discoveries were made only after the 1967 Six-Day War, fundamentally changing scholarly views. Archaeologist Adam Zertal, who participated in the post-war survey of Samaria, described in his book "A Nation Born" the surprising discovery of hundreds of new settlements that appeared suddenly in the 12th century B.C. Zertal argued that the sheer number of villages does not fit the idea of a slow infiltration or gradual evolution from the Canaanite population. Instead, the evidence supports the emergence of a new people rapidly settling the hill country. Zertal, an atheist kibbutznik, came to believe in the historical truth of the biblical narrative based on his research.

A Population Boom and the Rise of Israel

After the Six-Day War, a comprehensive survey of Samaria revealed a new understanding of the region's archaeology. At the end of the Late Bronze Age, only 35–40 settlements existed along the central mountain ridge from Beersheba to the Jezreel Valley. Starting in the 12th century B.C., about 250 new, small, unfortified settlements appeared almost overnight – a six or seven-fold increase in population within a few years.

Izbet Sartah is typical of these new settlements, likely home to just a few dozen people. It was inhabited from the 12th to the 10th centuries B.C. Its abandonment by the end of the 10th century did not signal a population decline; rather, as cities in Israel and Judah developed, small sites like Izbet Sartah lost their significance.

The Biblical Story in the Archaeological Record

When all the evidence is considered, it closely matches the biblical account: the Israelites arrive after wandering in the desert, conquer Canaan from the east, and initially settle in small villages like Izbet Sartah. Over time, they take control of Canaanite cities in the hills – Shechem, Bethel, Shiloh, Hebron – and battle the Canaanite peoples in the valleys until, after several centuries, the Canaanites disappear entirely.

Why Not Trust the Bible?

If so much archaeological evidence supports the biblical narrative, why do some scholars insist on alternative explanations? Why is there such a drive to challenge the biblical account when so many findings align with it? This is a question every archaeologist excavating in Israel must ask themselves.

In the third and final installment of this series, we will continue exploring the reliability of biblical scripture by further examining the Izbet Sartah site.