RE: [ANE-2] Re: Pehel/Pella
- Hi Frank!
I'll keep the subject line in mind!
As far as Pella/Pehel, the Arabic name Fahil reflects "Pehel", if anything.
As far as Seti I, I don't see a problem there. The "action" was in the area
of Beth-shean and Rehob. Pehel/Fahil is almost directly east, across the
Jordan, which is not much of an obstacle. The fact that one of Seti's units
went on to Yeno'am, which we've agreed is east of the Jordan, means that
Seti had no problems with sending his troops to that area.
Identifying Fahil with Ramoth Gilead makes no sense at all. Fahil is in the
Jordan Valley, not in the hights ("Ramoth") nor properly in the Gilead,
assuming that this refers to the mountains.
Dr. Yigal Levin
The Israel and Golda Koschitzky
Department of Jewish History
Ramat Gan. 52900
From: ANEfirstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:ANEemail@example.com] On Behalf Of
Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2013 10:21 AM
Subject: [ANE-2] Re: Pehel/Pella
Dear Yigal - The subject line is usually about important topics and people!
Everyone knows your name!
The Arabic name certainly indicates the ancient name was Pella - but I am
not certain about "Pehel". If I remember correctly (this time) one of the
Australian archaeologists suggested the original name was Ramoth-Gilead.
as for Thutmose III's list - the scribes seem to use Megiddo as the focal
point and then had all roads and districts leading there. however, it was
not just the Thutmose list, I also looked at Seti's Beth-shean inscription.
I think both make more sense if Pehel was north but close to Kinneret and
south of Hazor.
--- In ANEfirstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:ANE-2%40yahoogroups.com> , Yigal Levin
> How did I become a subject line? J
> Anyway, Frank, the fact that the site of Pella is called Tabqat Fahil in
> Arabic should be a good indication that Pehel was its name in antiquity.
> Hellenistic and later city lies right by the older tell. The Thutmose IIIfar
> list is not really an itinerary - according to his annals he only got as
> as Megiddo. You're right that Pehel seems a little out of place, but whowas?
> knows what the scribe's source of geographical information about Retenu
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- Dear Yigal - I knew about Albright but I did not know about Rainey. Honestly, I do not find the Tell el-Hammah identification credible. The inscription indicates Hammath was the leader of the revolt which involved other cities - all of them larger and more important. It is Hammath that threatens the Egyptian garrison of Beth-Shean while it is Pehel who beseiges Tell Rehov. Also, if Hammath revolted against Rehob, then I would expect Rehob to attack Hammath - not the other way around. Also, if it were an inter-city squabble, why attack the Egyptian garrison? That is a revolt against Seti! Seti sent 3 arms of his troops to the cities which suggests more than a few soldiers to deal with these cities. Were it about a squabble between cities, then when Seti arrived at Beth-Shean I would expect these cities to appeal to him and there would be no need for troops to go to these cities.
You may be correct about Hammath but I find it difficult to believe that story.
--- In ANEemail@example.com, Yigal Levin <yigal.levin@...> wrote:
> Hi again,
> Once more according to Rainey (Sacred Bridge p. 93, citing Albright from
> 1926), the Hamath involved was the small site of Tell el-Hammah, 16 km south
> of Beth-shean, which would make it about 10 km south of THAT Rehob. Rainey's
> reconstruction is that Hamath was a vassal of Rehob (which is a much larger
> site), and rebelled, encouraged by Pehel, Rehob's rival. Pehel and Hamath
> first neutralized the Egyptian "police post" (Raney's words) at Beth-shean
> and then attacked Rehob, at which point Seti intervened. We have no way of
> knowing what Yenoam's role in the story was, only that Seti sent a force
> there as well.
> It makes much more sense to read this as a minor squabble between rival
> cities, all within a 20 km radius of Beth-shean, than as a major war
> involving such far-away places as the north-Syrian Hamath. Remember that the
> victory stele was set up at Beth-shean, and no mention of this has been
> found in Egypt itself.