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

Re: 10th Cent BCE inscription on jar from Jerusalem

Expand Messages
  • aren
    All pottery has a range of appearance ( battleship curves) - both chronologically and regionally. But, one has to take this into account carefully, if you are
    Message 1 of 51 , Jul 16, 2013
      All pottery has a range of appearance ("battleship curves) - both chronologically and regionally. But, one has to take this into account carefully, if you are dating something accordingly. If you have two types of vessels, one early and one later, and the later type appears at other sites in later relative contexts - the chances are that the dating is later - unless one can clearly show that the context in which the two types were found is in fact earlier than anything else. But in that case - clear evidence should be shown for this early date.
      As to LMLK. Without getting into the heated argument that is now going on, a couple of points: 1) We did not find LMLK jars in 9th cent Gath - rather a type that seems to be the first link in a long history of production of jars in the Shephelah, apparently mainly for the Judahite kingdom use (at least from the 8th onwards); 2) However you stand on the dating of the LMLK stamps, the general jar "super-type" seen in the "pre-LMLK and LMLK jars, continues also in the Rosette jars of the very end of the Iron Age.

      Aren Maeir
    • Doug Weller
      Hi Brian, Anyway, isn t the Samaritan Book of Joshua dated to around the 13th century CE, so is irrelevant? Doug ... -- -- Doug Weller Moderator,
      Message 51 of 51 , Jul 19, 2013
        Hi Brian,

        Anyway, isn't the Samaritan Book of Joshua dated to around the 13th
        century CE, so is irrelevant?

        Friday, July 19, 2013, 6:27:19 PM, you wrote:

        > Ian,

        > Great, so now we have to explain why we haven't found "made by
        > David" inscriptions for a dozen or more Amorite rulers?! One was challenging enough!

        > best,

        > R. Brian Roberts
        > Charlotte, NC

        > ________________________________
        > From: Ian Onvlee <sambacats@...>
        > To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.com" <ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
        > Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 12:10 PM
        > Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Re: King David’s Palace Uncovered in the Judean Shephelah

        > Dear Douglas,

        > I see no reason why we should delete David from the literary record
        > as given, nor do I see reason to talk of a David in the
        > archaeological record. Especially since the Masoretic and Septuagint
        > are not the only sources speaking of David. The Samaritan Book of
        > Joshua dates this same David to around 1250 BC instead. Who are we
        > to believe? Can we please be impartial about it? "David" simply
        > means "leader", so every Amoritic leader from 2300-1650 BC was
        > therefore a "David". The most famous "David" would be Hammurabi, and
        > his son Samsuiluna would then be the most famous "Solomon", when
        > Jerusalem was indeed the expected city-state/kingdom of such great
        > figures as a "Saul", "David" or Solomon, between 1900 and 1750 BC.
        > So we may well be misled to look in the wrong millennium and
        > century. That gives us all the more reason to keep "David" out of
        > the archaeological record until we do have evidence of a king David and his kingdom.

        > It is possible that one day we may uncover a kingdom of a real
        > living king Osiris, but until then it should not be entertained in
        > the archaeological record. Not long ago, the 1st and 2nd dynasties
        > were kept out of the archaeological record for the same reason, but
        > we finally dug up their tombs and artifacts. So yes, whenever the
        > Bible comes into play, nationalistic sentiments do distort our perception of the facts.

        > Regards,
        > Ian Onvlee,
        > Netherlands.

        > ________________________________
        > From: Douglas Petrovich <dp@...>
        > To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 3:07 PM
        > Subject: [ANE-2] Re: King David’s Palace Uncovered in the Judean Shephelah

        > Ian,

        > While I appreciate your zeal immensely, I must say that it is
        > exceedingly misguided. I would call your perspective ‘studying
        > archaeology in a vacuum’. Actually, this is a trap into which even
        > many brilliant archaeologists have ensnared themselves, astoundingly
        > enough. So, you certainly are not alone.

        > This diseased approach to archaeology is the result of the
        > archaeology-enthusiast’s volitional act of divorcing archaeology
        > from the greater field of (in this case) ancient history, at least
        > in his/her own mind. As I mentioned recently, I am one who devotes
        > himself to the greater field of ancient history, of which
        > archaeology is merely one branch among others, such as epigraphy, iconography, glyptics, etc.

        > I constantly have a front row seat for the silly battles that take
        > place between archaeologists and epigraphers. They each fight to
        > maintain the superiority of their own subdiscipline, using the
        > belittling of the other’s subdiscipline as a springboard to exalted
        > status. This is self-deceptive in its most pristine form.

        > All the while, the greater discipline of ancient history suffers
        > immeasurably during these childish turf wars in the realms of its
        > constituent parts. No, I have neither time nor patience for such
        > arrogant and vain battles. But I can tell you this: whatever you
        > call it, what you suggest is NOT good archaeology; rather, it is
        > revisionary history, arrived at with a dash of smugness and a
        > smattering of naiveté. The belittling of the ancient written sources
        > does no justice whatsoever to archaeology.

        > Yes, if we were to follow your mantra, we would not only remove
        > David from the record books despite the Tel Dan Stele (and yes, I
        > read Lemche, Athas, et al.), but we would etch out figures such as
        > Lugalzagesi, Ur-Zababa, and even Sargon of Akkad, among many others,
        > though their fingerprints are seen all over the landscape of the
        > ancient world, even by archaeologists! Are you certain that you are
        > ready for such a bold campaign as this? Arguments from silence are
        > precarious foundations on which to build castles, my friend.

        > There are not as many of us dinosaurs around nowadays, having lost
        > a great champion of ancient history with the passing of Anson
        > Rainey. However, we will survive this ice age, and we will be the
        > stronger for it. We will not allow archaeological arrogance or
        > revisionary history to win the day.

        > Sincerely,

        > Douglas Petrovich
        > Toronto

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

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


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

        > ------------------------------------

        > Yahoo! Groups Links

        Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
        Director The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
        Doug's Skeptical Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.