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

Re: [ANE-2] A trace of King David?

Expand Messages
  • eliot braun
    One exception is the Dan inscription. That is a trace of the personage, is it not?   Eliot Braun, Ph D Sr. Fellow WF Albright Institute of Archaeological
    Message 1 of 51 , Jul 19, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      One exception is the Dan inscription. That is a trace of the personage, is it not?
       
      Eliot Braun, Ph D
      Sr. Fellow WF Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, Jerusalem
      Associate Researcher Centre de Recherche Français de Jérusalem
      PO Box 21, Har Adar 90836 Israel
      Tel 972-2-5345687, Cell 972-50-2231096


      ________________________________
      From: Ian Onvlee <sambacats@...>
      To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.com" <ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:43 PM
      Subject: Re: [ANE-2] King David’s Palace Uncovered in the Judean Shephelah



       
      Yes, the question mark would be the proper addition. It's funny how every dig assigned to the 10th century is immediately supposed to be "the time of David", yet not a single trace of a David himself found anywhere in the whole Levant. We should drop designations like "David", "Solomon" and the likes in archaelogical contexts. Imagine how unscientific and childish it sounds to call an artifact as belonging to "the time of Osiris" when we don't even know who or what Osiris was. Such designations foster a belief-system but has nothing to do with serious archaeological works.

      Regards,
      Ian Onvlee,
      (no connection with any university)
      Netherlands

      ________________________________
      From: Antonio Lombatti <antonio.lombatti@...>
      To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 10:03 AM
      Subject: [ANE-2] King David’s Palace Uncovered in the Judean Shephelah


       
      I'd add a "?" to the title...

      Anyway, here's the link:

      http://www.antiquities.org.il/about_eng.asp?Modul_id=14

      Antonio Lombatti
      http://www.antoniolombatti.it
      ---------------------------------------------
      Professore di Storia della Chiesa
      Università Popolare
      Borgo San Giuseppe 13
      43125 Parma - Italia

      [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]
    • 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
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Brian,

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

        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.