Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

10727Yanoam in Transjordan? (was: Seti I and Yanoam)

Expand Messages
  • Miller, Robert
    Jun 12, 2009
      You need to have good arguments to dismiss Tell el-Hamma as Hamath. The Tell el-Hamath excavated by Cahill is SW of Beth Shean, a good deal closer to Tel Rehov than any of the other Hamaths. Is there reason to believe the Hamath of the B.S. Seti I stele is other than the Hamath of the other Seti I inscriptions? If not, then we have to take account of the location of Hamath on those inscriptions, as well. Tell el-Hamath fits all of them quite well. Check out the following:

      Cahill, J. M., Lipton (Lipovich), G., and Tarler, D., 1988. Tell el-Hammah. IEJ 38:191-94.
      Cahill, J. M., Tarler, D., and Lipton (Lipovich), G., 1989a. Tell el-Hammah. ESI 9:134-35.
      ----------, 1989b. Tell el-Hammeh in the 10th Century BCE. Qadmoniot 22:33-38.

      Bob Miller
      Catholic University

      From: Deane Galbraith
      Sent: Thu 6/11/2009 6:41 PM
      To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [ANE-2] Re: Yanoam in Transjordan? (was: Seti I and Yanoam)

      > Frank Clancy wrote:
      > I asked Anson Rainey by e-mail about Yanoam and he insists it was located in the Jordan Valley/Yarmuk River region south of the Sea of Galilee. If he is correct, then "Israel" homeland is west and and slightly south of this location so no adjustment should be made - if "Israel" is located in the Samaria/Shechem region. On the other hand, Nadav Na'aman ("Yenoam" Tel Aviv 4. 1977: 168-177) argued that Yanoam should be located north east of the Sea of Galilee at the edge of the Bashan region.

      In that article, doesn't Na'aman contend that Yano'am is probably *south* east of the Sea of Galilee? "Tell esh-Shihab, situation west of Edrei on the Yarmuk River"

      > Frank Clancy wrote:
      > If Hamath was responsible for stirring up problems for Seti, then the region north of the Sea of Galilee makes more sense to me.


      > Jon Smyth
      > it seemed to me Na'aman's opinion on the location of Yanoam
      is influenced by the stela portion found at tell esh-Shihab in

      Yes, but to be fair, the main evidence Na'aman adduces is the topographical lists which locate Yeno'am in Bashan or southern Syria. (And there is conflicting evidence on this, as he notes.)

      Tell esh-Shihab seems to be a little too far away from a plausible site of Yano'am, given the close proximity of Beth-Shean, Rehob, Hammath, and Pehel in the Beth-Shean/Jordan valley, as per the Beth-shean stele. Is it even within a day's journey and military engagement, as the Beth-shean stele requires?

      As for the Merneptah Stele, if Yano'am is closer to Beth-shean than Tell esh-Shihab, then the Cisjordan highland is as likely as the Transjordan for locating 'Israel'.

      Mind you, if Merneptah went through Megiddo to get to Beth-shean-Yano'am, maybe Ya-si-r-'-l refers to the people of the Jezreel Valley? The towns along there were a recognized group which the determinative could have referred to, don't you think?

      And how much logical geographical flow can you conclude from the mention of two Philistine towns and one town somewhere in the region of Beth-shean (Yano'am)? Not too much. The Merneptah stele is not helpful for locating 'Israel' when it comes down to it, apart from it being in 'Canaan'.

      Deane Galbraith,

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 24 messages in this topic