SV: SV: SV: SV: [ANE-2] Re: Tel Gezer: the first four seasons
- What do you think of Liverani's treatment of the Philistine Problem in Israel's History or Killebrew's treatment in Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity?
Missouri State University
--- In ANEfirstname.lastname@example.org, "Thomas L. Thompson" <tlt@...> wrote:
> Palashtu is Assyrian and refers, apparently, to the southern part of Palestine.
> Peleset seems to me to be the original reference and the others derivative, but of course our information is limited. I have not seen a decent treatment of this particular issue since Ahlstrøm's chapter in his History of Palestine.
> Thomas L. Thompson
> Professor emeritus, University of Copenhagen
> Fra: ANEemail@example.com [ANEfirstname.lastname@example.org] På vegne af David Hall [dqhall59@...]
> Sendt: 31. oktober 2011 14:10
> Til: ANEemail@example.com
> Emne: Re: SV: SV: SV: [ANE-2] Re: Tel Gezer: the first four seasons
> I am not sure what Palashtu is. I have read Peleset, Philistine, and Palestine are derivatives of the same word.
> A study of the Sea Peoples might be required to begin to understand some of the migrations that were occurring. A comprehensive book about this subject is: THE END OF THE BRONZE AGE, by Robert Drews, Princeton, 1993. This might be a good place to start. I have it in paperback form with a 17 page bibliography on the back pages. The coastal cities of Crete were destroyed, the Greek city Mycenae was destroyed, etc.
> There are more recent archaeological reports about this subject as well.
> David Q. Hall
> Falls Church, Virginia
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
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...