On Sun, 3 Mar 2013, Niels Peter Lemche wrote: ... Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is simply not true. First, the data -- These are theMessage 1 of 62 , Mar 4View Source
On Sun, 3 Mar 2013, Niels Peter Lemche wrote:
> So we have Assyrian references that the name was used from Adadnirari
> III to Sargon II. Sennacherib does not use the term, although he
> definitely "visited" the region.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is simply not true. First,
the data -- These are the references to Pilistu in the State Archives of
ND 02803 R121 U LU2%=@a2--E2--02-<e> a-na KUR=pi-[lis-t]a-a.a @a ina URU=a
Canon 734J AG-an |] @a URU-kal-ha a-na KUR=pi-lis-ta
ND 02715 E027 a2 a-na KUR=mu-$ur-a.a a-na KURemail@example.com la ta-da-na
ABL 0218 004 u DI-mu a-na%& LUGAL EN-ia2 KUR=pi-lis-ta-a.a @a LUGAL be-li
Ash pl.3+ R315' 2 UN-ME` KUR=$ur-ri @a2 ina KUR=pi-lis-ti lu ta-hu-me @a KUR
PRT 044 011 lu-u2 LU2=gi-mir-ra-a.a l]u KUR=pi-li-is-ta-a.a lu-u2 KUR=ku
AGS 109 011 mu-u2 LU2=hat-ta-a.a? lu-u2 LU2=pi-li-is-ta-a.a lu-u2 L]U2=$
Ash pl.3+ R319' -u URU=du-u'-ri ina na-gi-e KUR=pi-lis-te gab-[bu 0!] u3 ina
SAAS8 VIIb 026' *g-bi a-na LU[GAL-ME`-ni] @a <KUR>=pi-li@-te KUR=ia-u2-di KUR
BASOR 214 011' *] [xxx3] <URU? LUGAL-ti> @a KUR=pi-li@-ta-a-<a? @a2? 1=ha-za
ADD 1154 006 1=ab-di--a.a!  SUHUR @a2 pi-li-is!-ta!-[a.a] ku-um 15! GI
OIP 2 E1 553 *a KUR=qu-e u3 KUR=hi-lak-ku KUR=pi-li@-ti u3 KUR=$ur-ri @a a
BM 022508 544 *-a.a KUR=qu-e KUR=hi-lak-ku KUR=pi-li@-te u3 KUR=$ur-ri @a2
BM 127837+ 567 *-a.a KUR=qu-e KUR=hi-lak-ki KUR=pi-li@-ti u3 URU=$ur-ri @a a
OIP 2 C1 069 -a.a KUR=qu-e KUR=hi-lak-ku KUR=pi-li@-tu u3 KUR=$ur-ri @a a
3 Adn3 08 012 *KUR=hu-um-ri-i KUR=u2-du-mu KUR=pa-la-as-tu2 a-di UGU tam-ti
3 Slm3 16 184' *URU=me-[li-di? at-tu-mu@ x] [KU]R=pa-la-[x B]AL-at a-[na x]
The references OIP 2 E1, OIP 2 C1, BM 022508, BM 127837+ are from
Sennacherib's annals. They are duplicates, and although here Sennacherib
is talking about the people of Pilistu rather than the geographical
localtion, one can hardly say that Sennacherib does not use the term.
Moreover, the text BASOR 214 is also an inscription of Sennacherib and
here he is clearly talking about the geographical location:
BASOR 214 011'[xxx] <URU? LUGAL-ti> @a KUR=pi-li@-ta-a-<a? @a2?
BASOR 214 011'1=ha-za>-[qi--i]a-a-u2 e-ki-mu u2-dan-ni-nu-@u2-ma [xxx]
"[... GN] the royal city (capital) of the Philistines, which Hezikiah
captured, they reinforced and [...]"
The Shalmaneser III (859-824) reference is broken and in difficult context
and is not usually taken as the earliest. However the Adad-nerari III
(811-783) reference is quite clear. It describes his conquest of
3 Adn3 08 012 KUR=$ur-ru KUR=$i-du-nu KUR=hu-um-ri-i KUR=u2-du-mu
3 Adn3 08 012 KUR=pa-la-as-tu2
"Tyre, Sidon, (Bit-)Humri, Palastu"
and goes on to describe his subjugation of the ruler of Damascus. Note
that the earlier sources write the name as Palastu and the later as
Pilistu (which could equally be Pelestu).
Over and above the use of the term Pilistu by Senacherib, it also appears
in inscriptions of his successor, Esarhaddon. The two omen queries, PRT
044 and AGS 109, again refer to the people rather than the country,
seeking to find if there will be insurrection among the subjugated
populations, but Ash pl.3+ is again a royal inscription that deals with
the geographical area. In fact, this text is the treaty of Esarhaddon
with King Ba'al of Tyre (SAA 2 5; transliteration and translation
available online at http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/saao/saa02/corpus).
Esarhaddon certainly knew where Pilistu was and so did Ba'al of Tyre.
After all, Esarhaddon tramped through it on his way to and from Egypt.
> So back to basic: What do we have: Assyrian annals referring to
> Palestine. In the beginning quite exclusive (Adadnirari III), later a
> bit more diversified, as they knew about the house of Omri.
Adad-nerari III knew about Bit-Omri; see above. So did Shalmaneser III.
See the famous panel on his Black Obelisk that depicts the submission of
Jehu "son" of Humri.
> Juda and Jerusalem only began to appear in Assyrian annals the moment
> Samaria was subdued. They probably had no idea about its existence
> before they annexed Samaria to their list of provinces. But then -
> according to the available textual material - they no longer used
Again, this is simply not true. In addition to the uses by Sennacherib
and Esarhaddon, the text SAAS8 VIIb above is an inscription of Sargon II,
certainly post Samaria, that mentions:
SAAS8 VIIb 026'@a <KUR>=pi-li@-te KUR=ia-u2-di KUR=u2-d[u-me/mu]
SAAS8 VIIb 027'KUR=<ma>-a-bi a-@i-bu-ut
"... Pilistu, Judah, Edom, Moab ..."
After the conquest of Samaria, the Assyrians tend to speak of specific
Philistine cities -- Gaza, Askelon, Ashdod, Ekron -- but they still refer
to Pilistu when the need arises.
> Although it is bad manners to admit it, Wikipedia has a fine article
> called "Timeline of the name "Palestine".
The Wikipedia article is fine if you are primarily interested in the
classical sources. However, it is very sketchy on the Assyrian sources.
I recommend the Assyrian Empire Builders site, specifically,
for a more thorough discussion and further reading.
I don't dispute your other points with regard to the classical and even
modern usages of the terms. I merely wish to point out that the treatment
of the Assyrian sources is superficial and, in its details, incorrect.
Dear Yigal - I knew about Albright but I did not know about Rainey. Honestly, I do not find the Tell el-Hammah identification credible. The inscriptionMessage 62 of 62 , Mar 4View SourceDear Yigal - I knew about Albright but I did not know about Rainey. Honestly, I do not find the Tell el-Hammah identification credible. The inscription indicates Hammath was the leader of the revolt which involved other cities - all of them larger and more important. It is Hammath that threatens the Egyptian garrison of Beth-Shean while it is Pehel who beseiges Tell Rehov. Also, if Hammath revolted against Rehob, then I would expect Rehob to attack Hammath - not the other way around. Also, if it were an inter-city squabble, why attack the Egyptian garrison? That is a revolt against Seti! Seti sent 3 arms of his troops to the cities which suggests more than a few soldiers to deal with these cities. Were it about a squabble between cities, then when Seti arrived at Beth-Shean I would expect these cities to appeal to him and there would be no need for troops to go to these cities.
You may be correct about Hammath but I find it difficult to believe that story.
--- In ANEfirstname.lastname@example.org, Yigal Levin <yigal.levin@...> wrote:
> Hi again,
> Once more according to Rainey (Sacred Bridge p. 93, citing Albright from
> 1926), the Hamath involved was the small site of Tell el-Hammah, 16 km south
> of Beth-shean, which would make it about 10 km south of THAT Rehob. Rainey's
> reconstruction is that Hamath was a vassal of Rehob (which is a much larger
> site), and rebelled, encouraged by Pehel, Rehob's rival. Pehel and Hamath
> first neutralized the Egyptian "police post" (Raney's words) at Beth-shean
> and then attacked Rehob, at which point Seti intervened. We have no way of
> knowing what Yenoam's role in the story was, only that Seti sent a force
> there as well.
> It makes much more sense to read this as a minor squabble between rival
> cities, all within a 20 km radius of Beth-shean, than as a major war
> involving such far-away places as the north-Syrian Hamath. Remember that the
> victory stele was set up at Beth-shean, and no mention of this has been
> found in Egypt itself.