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

Re: [ANE-2] Recognizing Iron Age Israelite Settlements

Expand Messages
  • Raz Kletter
    I agree with Niels here. Sure, certain material objects and styles can serve as ethnic markers, but how does one know which ones? Any type of object can
    Message 1 of 37 , Jul 14, 2012
      I agree with Niels here. Sure, certain material objects and 'styles' can
      serve as ethnic markers, but how does one know which ones? Any type of
      object can transmit a message; the message can be about various cultural
      or economic norms, other than ethnicity. Assuming there is a certain Iron I
      uniformity (opinions differ), how do you know it was "deliberately"
      maintained, or even maintained as an ethnic marker?
      I am not sure I understood the "self-contained trading networks"
      case. If you identify them by archaeology, they too relate to appearance or
      lack of certain material finds, and are not a diferent category from the
      above mentioned.
      If archaeology alone could prove existance of ethnic groups, we would
      have found Prehistoric ethnicities by now. For example, there is no reason
      to think that ethnic groups appeared in the southern Levant only since the
      Late Bronze Age; but so far nobody manages to find which ethnic groups
      existed, if they existed, in the Early Bronze Age.
      Raz Kletter
      University of Helsinki

      2012/7/14 Miller, Robert <millerb@...>

      > I agree in part. Material culture similarities, whatever their origin,
      > serve to stress, perpetuate, and define group identity and thus may form
      > ethnicity. Thus "style" becomes a strategy for communication, the way in
      > which artifacts are made does bear a message that indicates, often, shared
      > cultural norms. Why not call that ethnicity? So might stylistic
      > uniformity in the Iron I highlands evoke similar meanings among parties
      > sharing broad ideological themes? Might the style uniformity be
      > deliberately sought and maintained as a marker of "insiders and outsiders"?
      > There are also other possible ways of talking about ethnicity. One is
      > closed trading systems. If you can establish the rough boundaries of
      > self-contained trading networks, you might again be seeing an "insiders vs.
      > outsiders" situation.
      > Bob Miller
      > Catholic University
      > ________________________________
      > From: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] on behalf of Niels
      > Peter Lemche [npl@...]
      > Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2012 03:09
      > To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: SV: [ANE-2] Recognizing Iron Age Israelite Settlements
      > Raz is right. Archaeology can define a material culture but not an ethnic
      > one. There need be no connection. Take some of the North-European Stone Age
      > cultures like Ertebølle, and Maglemose, and you see a distribution of these
      > material cultures that covers large areas where there presumably never was
      > an ethnic unity.
      > As to the last point, Fredrik Barth's old adage that you are the person
      > you believe to be and the one other people think that you are. It is not
      > enough that you believe to be a Dane or a Swede; if you are not accepted by
      > your environment as Danish or Swedish, you have a serious problem.
      > Niels Peter Lemche
      > -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
      > Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com<mailto:ANE-2%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:
      > ANE-2@yahoogroups.com<mailto:ANE-2%40yahoogroups.com>] På vegne af Raz
      > Kletter
      > Sendt: den 14 juli 2012 06:35
      > Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com<mailto:ANE-2%40yahoogroups.com>
      > Emne: Re: [ANE-2] Recognizing Iron Age Israelite Settlements
      > Dear list members,
      > Regarding pig bones, Archaeozoologists have warned that the "pig bones'
      > criterion" is doubtful a long time ago:
      > Harris 1996, "The Abominable Pig," *Community, Identity and Ideology.
      > Social Science Approaches to the Hebrew Bible* (ed. E. Carter and C.L.
      > Meyers; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns), 135-51; and Hesse and Wapnish, "Can Pig
      > Remains Be Used for Ethnic Diagnosis in the Ancient Near East?," in *The
      > Archaeology of Israel* (ed. Silberman and Small), 238-70.
      > About Iron Age ethnicities, I wrote a short summary, "Can a
      > Proto-Israelite Please Stand Up? Notes on the Ethnicity of Iron Age Israel
      > and Judah, in: *I will Speak the Riddle of Ancient Times. (Festschrift A.
      > Mazar), *2006:
      > 573-586.
      > Archaeology alone cannot prove existence of ethnic groups; only written
      > sources can. For Iron I, due to almost complete lack of (contemporary)
      > written sources, the question of Israelite ethnicity remains open. The Kh.
      > Kaiapha finds do not prove that the inhabitants were Israelite, but one
      > cannot also refute the possibility that they were.
      > Raz Kletter,
      > University of Helsinki
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > ------------------------------------
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > ------------------------------------
      > Yahoo! Groups Links

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Diana Gainer
      A better source of information on Paleolithic symbols -- not to mention more recent -- is the Bradshaw Foundation online. The results of Genevieve von
      Message 37 of 37 , Jul 20, 2012
        A better source of information on Paleolithic symbols -- not to mention more recent -- is the Bradshaw Foundation online.
        The results of Genevieve von Petzinger's 2009 analysis may be found there as well as pictorial examples of rock art from
        around the world for comparison. 
        My own research indicates that of the symbols on the Dispilio tablet, most are virtually universal.  A few examples should
        suffice to demonstrate this.  The triangle appears as a symbol in early writing or proto-writing systems: Egyptian hieroglyphs,
        Old Chinese, Luwian hieroglyphs, proto-cuneiform, proto-Elamite, Cretan hieroglyphs, Indus "script," and in non-script symbol
        systems including native Texas, native Nevada, native Australia, and Pazyryk tamgas (ownership marks).  The same or
        similar distribution characterizes the cross or plus sign, the circled circle, the circled cross, the comb, the rake, the feather
        or grain ear, and the hash marks which may or may not be numerical.  Slightly less widespread are the open quandrangle, the
        "H" and "ladder" (similar to "H" but with three horizontals).  Another symbol resembling "M" skewered by a vertical is
        found in Old Chinese, in America (Texas and Nevada), Old Europe, and among Pazyryk tamgas.  My research has not yet
        incorporated African cave art, but I expect most of these (if not all) will find parallels there as well.  For example, the rake
        symbol resembles the East African Adinkra symbol named hwehwemudua.
        In other words, all over the world people marked objects with symbols whose purpose is not immediately clear to the naive
        viewer.  This does not automatically mean that all these marks are writing.
        Diana Gainer
        Greenville, TX
        (Texas A&M Commerce)

        From: Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@...>
        To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 10:33 AM
        Subject: Re: [ANE-2] History of Writing


        An upper Paleolithic Aurignacian alphabet? 37 separate phonemes 35,000
        years ago for foraging hunter-gatherers? The Mas D'Azil bone carvings and
        the Azil Culture dates from the cusp of the upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic
        and the beginning of the domestication of animals, in this case reindeer,
        horses and oxen and apparent numerical carvings but an 1899 book W. Z.
        Ripley, "Races of Europe: A Sociological Study" by a sociologist suggests an
        alphabet based on studies by C. Letourneau (1896) Les Signes Libyques des
        Dolmens, Bull. Soc. D'Anthrop, p 319. who compared the Mas D'Azil carvings
        with dolmen carvings and found that some of the very rudimentary signs like
        the circle with a dot and the plus sign cross and other incomplete
        rectangles just as in this carving, were common from Neolithic Africa to
        Ireland but they are rudimentary signs that any culture would make for
        pictographs. Letourneau called the, "Signes Alphabetiformes'
        (alphabet-like). This was the late 19th century. I am not the expert in
        writing systems that Peter is but I cannot make the leap from these
        pictographs to an acrophonic system. Apparently neither could others over
        the last century. Could the proto-Canaanite/Sinaitic systems have used
        these common rudiments in their true acrophonic systems? Sure. I admit I am
        intrigued but you need to give me more citations.

        Jack kilmon
        Houston, TX

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Ian Onvlee
        Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 1:43 AM
        To: mailto:ANE-2%40yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [ANE-2] History of Writing

        Hi all,

        I totally disagree with both Peter and Jack. The signs are authentic and
        indeed from the 6th millennium BC Greece. It's not mere propaganda and it is
        indeed a full-fledged script. It doiesn't seem te be a text nor a hunting
        description. It can be seen that it is a list of symbols organized in 4 rows
        of 11, thus in total 41 systematically organized syllable or alfabetic
        signs. The first six or seven on the left seem to me to be a musical
        notation (flute notes). There are only a few repetitions, in fact 4, making
        the total number of unique signs precisely 37, which conforms exactly to the
        number of symbols for the Persian alfabet and the musical system of 37
        mathematical ratios. I have studied this issue extensively and these symbols
        are clearly an intermediate form between the Cave Art alfabetic system from
        Southern France, dated from 33,000 to 13,000 BC, I discussed earlier but
        nobody shows interest in (just because it seems totally alien to the current
        theories of the Bible and ancient chronology), followed by the Mas d'Azilian
        pebble script which had spread eastwards over both North-Africa an the Alps
        and northwards from 10,000 to 3500 BC , in turn followed by the later
        Sinaitic writings and the scripts of the Fenicians, Hebrews and other
        Semitic as well as Indo-European folks. We also still have the undeciphered
        Balkan script dated to around 5000 BC to consider, as well as the undatable
        Tamashek, the Amazigh Berber writings, also as yet undeciphered.

        And yes, our so-called modern theory of the history of writing needs a huge
        makeover and to be turned 180 degrees upside down so to speak. It's becoming
        quite untenable and obsolete. This - IMO - is not simply a nationalistic
        Greek propaganda issue but something that originated around 35,000 BC
        worldwide in the Cave Art Cro-Magnon communities, introducing a true
        alfabetic writing system right from the start. It apparently underwent a
        decline (disusage) between 15,000 and 3500 BC but the knowledge of this
        system eventually re-emerged from its long sleep in certain pockets of (new)
        civilization, probably some time between 6000 and 5000 BC.

        For those who forgot what we are talking about, see again:

        Ian Onvlee

        From: Jack Kilmon <mailto:jkilmon%40historian.net>
        To: mailto:ANE-2%40yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 2:16 AM
        Subject: Re: [ANE-2] History of Writing

        I have to agree with Peter. This is not writing and definitely not a
        primitive alphabet or, IMO, even a progenitor. That does not mean its not a
        significant artifact. It appears to me to be a pictographic depiction of a
        hunt. Note the arrow with 4 vertical lines "four arrows." There are forests
        the hunters traveled through to find the prey and how many days depicted by
        a sun. This makes it similar to some of our own Native American
        pictographic accounts of hunts and battles. The attempt to interpret it as
        Greece being the origin of writing is propaganda that detracts from the
        artifact's true purpose. Dispilio "scripture" is, IMO, hyperbole. This
        Mesolithic Period is also the time true agriculture began in the Natufian
        Levant and this date being considerably after that, might represent its
        spread westward . The botanical looking pictographs may represent a
        planting production. It's fun to speculate but Peter is right (after all,
        he is the imperial grand dragon of writing systems), the lack of repetitions
        makes it obvious it is not writing.

        Jack Kilmon
        Houston, TX

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Peter T. Daniels
        Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 3:40 PM
        To: mailto:ANE-2%40yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [ANE-2] History of Writing

        Please don't publicize chauvinistic propaganda. What the heck are "word
        entries," that Greek has 800,000 of and the "next" (but unnamed) language
        has 200,000 of?

        If that object bears writing, why are there no repeated sequences of
        signs -- and hardly any repeated signs at all?
        Peter T. Daniels mailto:grammatim%40verizon.net
        Jersey City

        From: Antonio Lombatti <mailto:antonio.lombatti%40mac.com>
        >To: "mailto:ANE-2%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:ANE-2%40yahoogroups.com>
        >Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 12:30 PM
        >Subject: [ANE-2] History of Writing
        >Parma, Italia
        >Inviato da iPhone

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


        Yahoo! Groups Links

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


        Yahoo! Groups Links

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.