Introduction
Jerusalem did not arise at the hands of Hebrews, Israelites, or Jews. Long before these groups took historical shape in the Levant, the city was already a consolidated urban settlement, with walls, water systems, and a well-established proper name: Urušalim or Rushalimum (Liverani, 2013). Archaeological evidence traces it back to the 3rd millennium BCE, and its development as a full city-state occurred in the Middle Bronze Age (ca. 2000–1550 BCE), when it formed part of the southern Levantine Canaanite landscape (Maeir, 2011). This places it at least eight centuries—and in many respects more than a millennium—ahead of the appearance of proto-Israelite tribal confederations in the highlands of Canaan, around the 12th–11th centuries BCE (Finkelstein & Silberman, 2001).
This analysis is based exclusively on archaeological, epigraphic, and linguistic data from primary sources and systematic excavations. It does not rely on theological narratives or texts written centuries later; the approach is empirical and chronological, aimed at demonstrating that Jerusalem precedes and does not derive from any ancient Jewish identity. Later attributions to Hebrew or Israelite groups are retrospective constructions with no foundation in the city’s formative phases (Dever, 2001).
- Historiographic Criteria for Speaking of “Foundation” in the Ancient Levant
In the archaeology and historiography of the ancient Near East, determining the foundation of a city does not depend on legends or late oral traditions, but on tangible and irrefutable evidence (Liverani, 2013). Standard accepted criteria include:
– A clear stratigraphic sequence of permanent occupation: abundant ceramics, continuous residential structures, and signs of sustained economic activity.
– Developed urban infrastructure: substantial defensive walls, integrated hydraulic systems, fortified gates, and effective control of the surrounding territory.
– Contemporary mentions in non-legendary written sources: administrative, diplomatic, or royal texts that recognize the site as a political or urban entity.
Jerusalem meets all three criteria from the Early Bronze Age (ca. 3500–2000 BCE), with a decisive strengthening in the Middle Bronze Age, when it emerges as a fortified city of regional significance (Maeir, 2011; Reich & Shukron, 2010; Steiner, 2001). Any attempt to link its origin to Hebrew or Israelite groups ignores this chronology: those groups leave no detectable material trace until Iron Age I (ca. 1200–1000 BCE), and only in scattered hill-country villages, not in established urban centers such as Jerusalem (Finkelstein & Silberman, 2001).
- Archaeological Evidence: Canaanite Urban Continuity from the 3rd Millennium BCE
Excavations in the City of David—the southern ridge that constitutes Jerusalem’s original core, descending toward the Kidron Valley—reveal uninterrupted human occupation (Kenyon, 1974). From the Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age (ca. 4000–3000 BCE), ceramic fragments embedded in bedrock and evidence of sedentary settlement have been found (Steiner, 2001). However, it is during the Middle Bronze Age that Jerusalem becomes a true city:
– A massive wall 4 to 6 meters thick, built with large stone blocks, is constructed, encircling the settlement and protecting the Gihon Spring, the vital water source (Reich & Shukron, 2010).
– Sophisticated hydraulic systems are developed: vertical shafts, rock-cut tunnels, and channels for accessing and defending the water, typical features of Canaanite city-states exposed to external threats (Shiloh, 1984).
– Dense residential structures, storage facilities, and evidence of trade with Egypt and other Levantine regions appear (Maeir, 2011).
These elements, documented by excavators such as Yigal Shiloh, Ronny Reich, and Eli Shukron, show cultural continuity without significant breaks through the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1550–1200 BCE) and beyond (Shiloh, 1984; Reich & Shukron, 2010; Steiner, 2001). The ceramics, figurines, funerary practices, and architecture are identical to those of the rest of Canaan: there are no indications of a massive arrival or invasion that could be associated with “Hebrews” or “Israelites” (Finkelstein & Silberman, 2001). The city retains its Canaanite character well into the first millennium BCE (Maeir, 2011; Kenyon, 1974).
- The First Inhabitants: Canaanites and Jebusites, with No Link to Hebrew or Israelite Identities
The original inhabitants of Jerusalem belonged to the Canaanite cultural sphere: West Semites organized in independent or vassal city-states, with a polytheistic religion, a mixed agrarian-commercial economy, and defenses against regional powers such as Egypt (Liverani, 2013). The group dominating the city in the Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age I is identified as the Jebusites— a local ethnonym designating the pre-Israelite indigenous population of the area, considered a Canaanite subgroup according to historical and archaeological evidence (Van der Toorn et al., 1999; Finkelstein & Silberman, 2001).
These Jebusites were not Hebrews (there is no demonstrable connection with the semi-nomadic habiru/apiru groups mentioned in Egyptian and Mesopotamian texts; Lemche, 1998). They were not Israelites (they did not share the emerging highland tribal cult centered on Yahweh; Dever, 2001). And they were obviously unrelated to Judaism, which as a structured religious system emerged much later (Thompson, 1999). Their religious world included Canaanite deities such as El, Baal, Asherah, and probably Šalim (associated with the city’s toponym; Van der Toorn et al., 1999).
The major defensive structures of the second millennium BCE—the Middle Bronze Age wall, the possible “Millo” as a platform or fortified fill, and the Gihon defenses—represent a local Canaanite building tradition, not an external innovation (Reich & Shukron, 2010; Maeir, 2011). Archaeology records no violent conquests or abrupt cultural changes in this period; only a gradual evolution that later, in Iron Age II, incorporates influences from the highlands (Dever, 2001; Finkelstein & Silberman, 2001).
- The Earliest Mentions of the Name “Jerusalem” in Contemporary Sources
The earliest references to the toponym Jerusalem appear in Egyptian and diplomatic documents of the second millennium BCE, long before any Israelite or Hebrew context (Liverani, 2013). These mentions are independent, administrative, and unrelated to later traditions.
In the Egyptian Execration Texts (19th–18th centuries BCE, Middle Kingdom), an enemy settlement called Rushalimum or an equivalent form is listed (variants such as ‘3wš3mm or urušalimum; Na’aman, 1994). These ritual texts, inscribed on intentionally broken figurines, name Levantine cities and rulers to curse them magically (Liverani, 2013). Jerusalem already appears as an urban entity known to the Egyptians, under their influence or as a target, centuries before the emergence of proto-Israelite groups (Na’aman, 1994).
The clearest and most detailed mention appears in the Amarna Letters (14th century BCE, late Egyptian New Kingdom). In this diplomatic correspondence written in Akkadian, the local ruler ʿAbdi-Ḫeba (or Abdi-Heba) writes repeatedly to the pharaoh from Urušalim (written URU ú-ru-sa-lim or ú-ru-ša₁₀-lim; Finkelstein & Silberman, 2001). He describes the city as an Egyptian vassal enclave in Canaan, threatened by habiru groups and local rivals, and pleads for military assistance (Liverani, 2013). The language is standard diplomatic Akkadian, not Hebrew or any proto-Israelite language (Finkelstein & Silberman, 2001). This confirms that the name was fully established and that the city functioned as a Canaanite political center under Egyptian hegemony, with no trace of Israelite control (Lemche, 1998).
These sources demonstrate that “Jerusalem” existed nominally and politically at least from the 19th century BCE, and certainly by the 14th century BCE, predating by centuries any documented Hebrew or Israelite presence (Liverani, 2013).
- Linguistic Origin of the Toponym: A West Semitic Canaanite Root
The etymology of Jerusalem is clear and non-Hebrew: it derives directly from the Canaanite name Urušalim (Van der Toorn et al., 1999). The element “Uru” (or “Ur”) means “city” in Akkadian and common Semitic languages of the Levant (equivalent to later Hebrew “ʿir,” but here an earlier form; Thompson, 1992). The second component, “Šalim” (or Šalem), refers to a West Semitic deity associated with twilight, peace, completeness, or dusk—Šalim was a crepuscular god in the Canaanite pantheon, twin brother of Šaḥar (god of dawn; Van der Toorn et al., 1999).
Thus, Urušalim is interpreted as “City of Šalim” or “Foundation of Šalim” (from the Semitic verb yrw/ywr “to found, establish”; Thompson, 1992). It has no primary etymological relationship with Hebrew roots such as “shalom” (peace) or “yir’eh” (will see/provide), interpretations that are late and popular retrojections unsupported by comparative linguistics (Dever, 2001). The name was later adopted and adapted by Greeks (Hierosolyma) and Romans (Jerusalem), but its origin is purely Canaanite, pre-Israelite, and polytheistic (Van der Toorn et al., 1999).
This reinforces that the toponym itself is a Canaanite inheritance, not a Jewish or Israelite creation (Liverani, 2013).
- Later Appropriation: From Theological Myth to Identity Narrative
The idea that Jerusalem was founded or conquered by Hebrews/Israelites arises exclusively in traditions written centuries later (Thompson, 1999). Accounts describing the capture of the “Jebusite fortress” by David (10th century BCE) and its transformation into a capital are ideological constructions of the late monarchic period (7th century BCE), the Babylonian exile, and the Persian period (Lemche, 1998). These texts retrospectively project a unified identity and early control that archaeology does not corroborate: there is no evidence of abrupt cultural rupture, massive conquest, or demographic change in Jerusalem during Iron Age I–early IIA (Finkelstein & Silberman, 2001; Dever, 2001).
Modern critical historiography—both minimalist and mainstream—emphasizes that Jerusalem remained a modest Canaanite/Jebusite city until it gradually, in Iron Age IIB–C (8th–7th centuries BCE), incorporated elements from the highlands and became an administrative center under local monarchs (Liverani, 2013). Some maximalist scholars argue for early structures (such as the Stepped Stone Structure) as possible 10th-century BCE cores, but even they acknowledge the Canaanite preexistence and the absence of direct Israelite foundational evidence (Mazar, 2009; Maeir, 2011).
In sum, attributing the city’s foundation to Israelite peoples belongs to theological myth and later identity construction, not to empirical history (Thompson, 1999; Na’aman, 1994). Jerusalem is prior to and independent of those identities.
Conclusion
Based on archaeological evidence (Canaanite continuity since the 3rd millennium BCE; Reich & Shukron, 2010), epigraphic evidence (mentions in Egyptian Execration Texts and Amarna; Na’aman, 1994), and linguistic evidence (Canaanite origin meaning “City of Šalim”; Van der Toorn et al., 1999), Jerusalem predates any Hebrew, Israelite, or Jewish identity by centuries or millennia. It was not founded by those groups; it was a fortified and named Canaanite city-state when they did not yet exist as differentiated entities (Finkelstein & Silberman, 2001).
Narratives claiming otherwise are ideological retrojections unsupported by primary data (Dever, 2001). Recognizing this does not deny Jerusalem’s later historical importance for Judaism, but it requires separating myth from historical fact. The city belongs first to the Canaanite world, and its antiquity dismantles exclusivist foundational claims (Lemche, 1998; Liverani, 2013).
References
Dever, W. G. (2001). What did the biblical writers know and when did they know it? What archaeology can tell us about the reality of ancient Israel. Eerdmans.
Finkelstein, I., & Silberman, N. A. (2001). The Bible unearthed: Archaeology’s new vision of ancient Israel and the origin of its sacred texts. Free Press. Internet Archive
Kenyon, K. M. (1974). Digging up Jerusalem. Ernest Benn. Internet Archive
Lemche, N. P. (1998). The Israelites in history and tradition. Westminster John Knox Press. Internet Archive
Liverani, M. (2013). The ancient Near East: History, society and economy. Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9781315879895
Maeir, A. M. (2011). The archaeology of early Jerusalem. In A. G. Vaughn & A. E. Killebrew (Eds.), Jerusalem in Bible and archaeology: The first temple period (pp. 171–188). Society of Biblical Literature.
Mazar, E. (2009). The palace of King David: Excavations at the summit of the City of David. Shoham Academic Research and Publication.
Na’aman, N. (1994). The “Conquest of Canaan” in the Book of Joshua and in history. In I. Finkelstein & N. Na’aman (Eds.), From nomadism to monarchy (pp. 218–281). Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi.
Reich, R., & Shukron, E. (2010). Excavations in the City of David. Israel Exploration Journal, 60(2), 113–160.
Shiloh, Y. (1984). Excavations at the City of David I, 1978–1982: Interim report of the first five seasons. Qedem 19.
Steiner, M. L. (2001). Excavations by Kathleen M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961–1967, Vol. III: The settlement in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Sheffield Academic Press.
Thompson, T. L. (1992). Early history of the Israelite people: From the written and archaeological sources. Brill. Brill
Thompson, T. L. (1999). The mythic past: Biblical archaeology and the myth of Israel. Basic Books.
Van der Toorn, K., Becking, B., & Van der Horst, P. W. (Eds.). (1999). Dictionary of deities and demons in the Bible (2nd ed.). Brill. Brill
