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

Re: [ANE-2] Re: Tel Gezer: the first four seasons

Expand Messages
  • David Hall
    Doug,   You may recall the stables found at Megiddo were first dated to the time of Solomon as Solomon was supposed to have stables for 40,000 horses (1 King
    Message 1 of 148 , Oct 25, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Doug,
       
      You may recall the stables found at Megiddo were first dated to the time of Solomon as Solomon was supposed to have stables for 40,000 horses (1 King 4:26) and many chariots. 
       
      Later the stables at Megiddo were dated to the time of Ahab as Ahab had many horses in the battle at Qarqar, Syria. 
       
      More recently the stables were dated to the first part of the 8th century B.C. after pottery and C-14 studies. 
       
      See also:  Megiddo IV the 1998-2002 Seasons, Finkelstein, Ussishkin, and Halpern (editors), Tel Aviv, 2006.
       
      Likewise the six chambered gate at Megiddo has been down-dated to a lower chronology. 
       
      David Q. Hall
      Falls Church, Virginia


      ________________________________
      From: Douglas Petrovich <dp@...>
      To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 4:10 PM
      Subject: [ANE-2] Re: Tel Gezer: the first four seasons


       

      David,

      Yes, there is some controversy over the dating of the 6-chambered gate at Gezer. Probably the best place to start, though it remains somewhat dated, is Yadin’s Hazor: The Head of All Those Kingdoms. There, he offers a comparative study of the 6-chambered gates at Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer.

      Douglas Petrovich
      Laguna Hills, California .


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • aren
      Raz, Once again, I m rather hesitant to get into this, since the ongoing back and forth is most often done on the basis of party lines and self-perceived
      Message 148 of 148 , Dec 6, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Raz,
        Once again, I'm rather hesitant to get into this, since the ongoing back and forth is most often done on the basis of "party lines" and self-perceived "truths" and often without reference to the latest research in various areas.

        I was not, in any way stating who has the truth or not, at this or that university. For that matter, I felt that both sides of what appeared to be a completely aimless argument were not arguing about details of the most updated discussions and recent evidence of the LB destructions and/or the Sea Peoples, but rather going over their "party lines" - of which each side was totally convinced that his/her "truth" had "won" long ago (and nothing scares me more [in research, religion and politics] than those who know for sure that they are absolutely right).

        Simplistic conceptions of the various ideological divisions and scholarly camps are really only useful if you are interested in the debate - and not the content (or the history and sociology of research). Current research, with an overflow of wide ranging data, has shown, in my humble opinion, if anything, that the various ideological "camps" of the historical reconstruction of the beginning of the Iron Age are all wrong (or if you want, they are all partially right)! Things were much more complicated than previously assumed.
        For example, the simplistic explanation of the Philistines as monolithic conquerors does not hold - but neither does the often repeated mantra that there is no evidence of the influx of Aegean (or rather "western") oriented cultural elements. Au contraire - there is plenty of evidence of this, and that it can most probably be connected to the actual arrival of bona fide "bodies" who carried these cultural influences to the Levant.
        And to make things ever more multi-faceted, this is true to varying degrees in different areas, such as if we compare the situation in Philistia, Phoenicia and the Amuq. To try and explain away all these things in simplistic terms may sound good in a debating society - but not for those of us who are intimately involved in the nitty-gritty details of the relevant archaeological finds.
        Knowing Hebrew is not a sine qua non for studying the archaeology of this region, just like you can study the archaeology of Denmark, or Finland, without knowing the local languages. But, it can be very helpful (to say the least, as you well know).
        AND, when dealing with a topic such as the destruction of Hazor (which much of the recent discussion on this list was not demonstrating an awareness of much of the most updated research), if the most recent discussion is in Hebrew, it is worthwhile to relate to it.

        But hey - I've long ago had the feeling that this list is all too often more about the sociology of research and the psychology of the researchers, than research itself.

        But that is my opinion - and what do I know...

        Aren Maeir
        gath.wordpress.com
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.