SV: [ANE-2] Re: Final LBA Hazor's Destruction; Was Sea Peoples, a dubious term.
couldn't you bring up something better than 50+ years old rabble. I see no reference to any literature really post-Yadin. At least we could ask you to include works like Redford's definitely notg new book on Egypt and Canaan from c 1992, or what about Helck or Klengel? Not exactly new books but indispensable.
However, I remembered from oral communication the present excavator Ben Tor saying that LB Hazor was not a Palestinian but a Syrian city.
I would use Yadin for nothing today. Biblical archaeologist, and Israeli propagandist, an unholy alliance.
Niels Peter Lemche
Fra: ANEfirstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:ANEemail@example.com] På vegne af Douglas Petrovich
Sendt: den 2 december 2011 18:32
Emne: [ANE-2] Re: Final LBA Hazor's Destruction; Was Sea Peoples, a dubious term.
I failed to mention another point of interest regarding the destroyer of Hazor’s final LBA city, which relates to the unlikelihood of Egypt being the culprit. Since you mentioned Beth Shean, you are probably aware that throughout the 2nd millennium BC(E), Hazor did not have anywhere near the involvement with Egypt that Beth Shean did. In fact, in much of the literature, Beth Shean is referred to as an Egyptian outpost at many points throughout this era.
The height of Egypt’s Asiatic influence, of course, is the reign of Thutmose III, during LB I. Hazor appears on his conquest list, as well as on that of Amenhotep II and (the later) Seti I (ANET, 242). In a series of articles, Hoffmeier effectively proves that the cities Thutmose III claims to have “destroyed” were not truly destroyed in our understanding of the word.
Pritchard considered the claim of Amenhotep II to be “propagandistic” (ANET, 242), but having studied for myself this pharaoh’s reign quite carefully, my assessment would be that his claim to conquest was of the same order as that of his father (Thutmose III). He just did not do any “conquering” beyond Year 9. Yadin described the Hazor of LB I as being “one of great prosperity and cultural standards” (Hazor: The Head of All Those Kingdoms, 37).
But it should be noted that Hazor of the LBA has turned-up only relatively few Egyptian objects of any kind. In contrast, Bienkowski notes that there was a rich supply of cultic objects that reflect mostly Syrian, Anatolian, and Mesopotamian iconography, revealing a city that was glorious, influential, and (to at least some extent) autonomous (“The Role of Hazor in the LBA”, PEQ 119:1, 53).
In the Amarna Letters of the 13th century, not only does Hazor’s ruler (uniquely!) refer to himself as the King of Hazor (EA 227), but the ruler of Tyre also refers to him as such (EA 148). The King of Hazor even assures pharaoh that he is safeguarding the cities of pharaoh until the Egyptian king’s arrival (EA 227). Yadin concludes that this indicates that the King of Hazor’s rule embraced more than the city of Hazor itself (The Head, 8).
The only post-18th-Dynasty conquest-list with Hazor on it was that of Seti I, who reigned immediately before Ramesses II (during whose reign Hazor was destroyed and left uninhabited, if you remember). So it should be emphasized that Hazor never once appears on the conquest lists of Ramesses II, Ramesses III, or even Sheshonq I (ANET, 242).
Would it not seem exceedingly strange for Ramesses II’s vizier (Prahotep) to erect a monument in Hazor a mere handful of years before the city was destroyed and left uninhabited, when none of the conquest lists of Ramesses II boast of the toppling of this proud city, whose power in Canaan stretched beyond that of any other city, and whose size was 3-4x larger that than of the 2nd largest city of Canaan?
Not only would Ramesses II miss the opportunity to make one of the greatest boasts he could utter, but he would break with the precedent established by all of the pharaohs before him (back to Thutmose III), when in fact he (Ramesses II) did claim to have conquered or destroyed at least 14 other Asiatic cities (ANET, 242).
I just do not see any of this adding up to a plausible case for suggesting that the Egypt of Ramesses II’s day was the destroyer of LB-IIB/III Hazor. Am I missing something?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Links
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...