You said:

Quote

A) Highland settlements in Canaan, yes, they are there, although biblical scholars debate clearly if these are the Israelites.

1200 BCE, there is the Stella, which does not mention if it is these settlements.

C) This is not necessarily in line with the biblical Chronology, which of course has much different dates than modern archaeological lead chronology, I don't know where you get the idea.

Question: If they were not "Israelites", or Ancestors to them or people later "Israelites" would identify has their ancestors who are they? Oh and the number of Archaeologists who deny that these were "Israelites" in some sense is miniscule unless of course your talking about minimalist nihlists. Even Finkelsten doesn't go quite so far.

The Stela mentions a "Israel" and from the context it seems to be highland Palestine and if the determintive is to be believed refers to the destruction of crops, indicating permanent settlements. Oh and just why would a stela of c. 1200 B.C.E. mention that settlements discoved in the twentieth century would be Israel. It mentions a Israel in the same region that the biblical account mentions a Israel.

As for the biblical chronology I wasn't refering the biblical dating system which due to such conceits such has having each judge vafter the other etc. is far too early but to such things as the presence of the Philistines, the mentionj of thre treasure cities in Egypt which would indicate the emergence of Israel in the late 13th early 12th century B. C. E. The Archaeology fits that rather nicely along with the stela.

You said:

Quote

Was there some group called the Israelites in 1200 BCE? yes. Was it in Canaan, maybe, the stella appears to group it with nations of that area, but it isn't concrete, and this has of course been debated.

Yes its been debated but except for a very few diehards its accepted that "Israel" refers to a group in Palestine. Sorry it isn't a maybe but a near certaincy.

You said:

Quote

Does marking this group as Israelites a people in the highlands of Canaan match with the strict biblical chronology or allow for the Israelites to have been slaves in Egypt, not really at all.

Never said it did.

You said:

Quote

Were the Israelites a people? not really, they were a group of non-related tribes held together by a system of eponymous ancestors. Some will certainly be willing to debate that this did not occur until after the united monarchy came to power, or until the later divided monarchy.

Rather sure of yourself arn't you. Then why does the Stela identify such a people? And why does the bible clearly say so? But you know that the "Israelites" were not a people even though they were held together by a "system of eponymous ancestors" sounds like a "people" to me. As for some debating this I guess your refering to minimalist nihlists again.

You said:

Quote

Can we say the Israelites were the hill people of Canaan, it is one possiblity of many. Were the later Israelites, even those from as early as the united monarchy, genetically related, culturally tied, or religiously like the hill people or the Israelites from the writing of 1200 BCE? if yes, only in tentative ways that could easily tie these same individuals to Hittite, Egyptian, Jebusite, Edomite, and likely many other cultural/genetic/family groups.

Once again you know that the hill people were only tenatively if at all tied to the later period. Please the evidence for such a radical break. Please explain why thge later group adopted the name Israel or why they would claim descent from them and further explain how this is any different from the U.S.A.,Britain or assorted other cultures and nations. As for one possibility among many really. The united monarchy is dated c. 1000 B.C.E. so that between 1200 B.C.E. and 1000 B.C.E. there was a radical change in the population of much of Palestine. Please give the "abundant" evidence for such a radical change. If the texts I've read anything to go on it appears thatthat c. 1200-800 B.C.E. there was only rather even development. Since there is no evidence that these hill people wewre replaced at some point their descendents became part of the United Monarchy.

I suppose the present U.S.A. is only most tenatively linked to the U.S.A. of 1790 after all so much cultural etc., change has happenned.

Of course one could also mention the Roman Empire in all this after all the "Romans" of c. 100 B.C.E., [those who identified as Romans] were overwhelmingly people who had been conquered and their descendents. By your reasoning they would have had no links, except tenative ones, to the Romans of c. 500 B.C.E.

Pierre