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

Re: King David’s Palace etc.

Expand Messages
  • Douglas Petrovich
    Trudy, “Actually the attempt to link historical rulers to archaeological periods/strata/levels was tried in the mid-20th century especially by German
    Message 1 of 3 , Jul 18, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Trudy,

      “Actually the attempt to link historical rulers to archaeological periods/strata/levels was tried in the mid-20th century especially by German archaeologists & historians working on Mesopotamia. It failed.”

      Really? Are you aware of the work that was done in recent times at Tell Mozan, Tell Leilan, and Tell Brak? And are you aware of how precise we can match the strata both with Akkadian invasion and specific times during the Akkadian period? Our sophistication has increased greatly since the mid-20th century, and archaeology has made huge strides in connecting strata with rulers’ reigns.

      “We didn’t dump Lugalzagesi who was clearly a historical figure,”

      And the archaeological evidence that confirms his existence consists of . . . ?

      “Likewise, no one now credits all that beautiful naturalistic art to Sargon of Akkad, who did alter the political landscape of Mesopotamia, but rather to his grandson Naram-Sin.”

      I fail to see how this is relevant to the present discussion, but you must not be aware that many scholars once again are attributing items such as the bronze head from Nineveh to Sargon (rather than Naram Sin), or at least admitting that this type of item (and thus its technology) is known to have existed during the lifetime of Sargon. Ergo, it clearly could be from Sargon’s day, if Ian allows us to have a Sargon, of course.

      Yours,

      Douglas Petrovich
      Toronto

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Trudy Kawami
      I am well aware of the finds at the Syrian sites you mentioned. But that is the point, they are not in Mesopotamia and are not helpful in sorting out the
      Message 2 of 3 , Jul 18, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        I am well aware of the finds at the Syrian sites you mentioned. But that is the point, they are not in Mesopotamia and are not helpful in sorting out the pre-Akkadian chronologies in Mesopotamia – which was what I was talking about.

        As for “many scholars” attributing the Nineveh head to the reign of Sargon of Akkad, I would be delighted to find out who they are and where they have published such interesting interpretations. Of course the technology of casting copper was widely practiced in Mesopotamia before Sargon of Akkad’s lifetime so the technology itself cannot be an indication of a date. I do not follow your logic in this matter, and would be happy to have references to the relevant studies. I am afraid that “could be” and “if” are not evidence.

        Trudy S. Kawami

        From: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Douglas Petrovich
        Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:23 PM
        To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [ANE-2] Re: King David’s Palace etc.



        Trudy,

        “Actually the attempt to link historical rulers to archaeological periods/strata/levels was tried in the mid-20th century especially by German archaeologists & historians working on Mesopotamia. It failed.”

        Really? Are you aware of the work that was done in recent times at Tell Mozan, Tell Leilan, and Tell Brak? And are you aware of how precise we can match the strata both with Akkadian invasion and specific times during the Akkadian period? Our sophistication has increased greatly since the mid-20th century, and archaeology has made huge strides in connecting strata with rulers’ reigns.

        “We didn’t dump Lugalzagesi who was clearly a historical figure,”

        And the archaeological evidence that confirms his existence consists of . . . ?

        “Likewise, no one now credits all that beautiful naturalistic art to Sargon of Akkad, who did alter the political landscape of Mesopotamia, but rather to his grandson Naram-Sin.”

        I fail to see how this is relevant to the present discussion, but you must not be aware that many scholars once again are attributing items such as the bronze head from Nineveh to Sargon (rather than Naram Sin), or at least admitting that this type of item (and thus its technology) is known to have existed during the lifetime of Sargon. Ergo, it clearly could be from Sargon’s day, if Ian allows us to have a Sargon, of course.

        Yours,

        Douglas Petrovich
        Toronto

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



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