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

Finkelstein book

Expand Messages
  • David Hall
    Israel Finkelstein s, The Forgotten Kingdom, was published by SBL in 2013.  He used his experience as a researcher, excavator, and access to pottery
    Message 1 of 9 , Jul 26, 2014
      Israel Finkelstein's, 'The Forgotten Kingdom,' was published by SBL in 2013.  He used his experience as a researcher, excavator, and access to pottery assemblages and C14 dating to explain the history of northern Israel during the Iron Age.  It is a good archaeology/history book.

      David Q. Hall
      Port Charlotte, FL
    • Raz Kletter
      Dear David, Did you see the two recent (independent of each other) reviews in Biblical Archaeology Review, July 2014, by Dever and Burke, under the title
      Message 2 of 9 , Jul 27, 2014
        Dear David,
        Did you see the two recent (independent of each other) reviews in Biblical Archaeology Review, July 2014, by Dever and Burke, under the title "Divided Kingdom, United Critics" ? 
        Link (worked for me):
        http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/reviews/divided-kingdom-united-critics/

        Even the title of this book is not original, being an usurpation of Leonard Wooley's classic popular book on Alalakh:
        "A Forgotten Kingdom".

        Raz Kletter
        University of Helsinki

         


        2014-07-27 4:18 GMT+03:00 David Hall dqhall59@... [ANE-2] <ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>:
         

        Israel Finkelstein's, 'The Forgotten Kingdom,' was published by SBL in 2013.  He used his experience as a researcher, excavator, and access to pottery assemblages and C14 dating to explain the history of northern Israel during the Iron Age.  It is a good archaeology/history book.

        David Q. Hall
        Port Charlotte, FL


      • David Hall
        While no author is perfect, Finkelstein has authority to write about the subjects he published.  I liked The Forgotten Kingdom, for some new passages and
        Message 3 of 9 , Jul 27, 2014
          While no author is perfect, Finkelstein has authority to write about the subjects he published.  I liked 'The Forgotten Kingdom,' for some new passages and review of passages I had seen published before.   

          Finkelstein provided a summary of his theory about Hazael of Syria destroying cities between Beth Shean and Acco.  His understanding of C-14 dating added to his credibility. 

          Israel may have roots in the region of Shechem, as this was a city not destroyed in the theoretically chaotic late LBA.  Finkelstein reveiwed information about Ahab and the Omrides occupying the region of Samaria (Harvard Expeditions) and Assyrian evidence used to correlate the Hebrew records.  These things had been done before, but his work is an original text.

          David Q. Hall  
          Port Charlotte, FL

           




          On Sunday, July 27, 2014 2:33 PM, "Raz Kletter kletterr@... [ANE-2]" <ANE-2@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


           
          Dear David,
          Did you see the two recent (independent of each other) reviews in Biblical Archaeology Review, July 2014, by Dever and Burke, under the title "Divided Kingdom, United Critics" ? 
          Link (worked for me):
          http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/reviews/divided-kingdom-united-critics/

          Even the title of this book is not original, being an usurpation of Leonard Wooley's classic popular book on Alalakh:
          "A Forgotten Kingdom".

          Raz Kletter
          University of Helsinki

           


          2014-07-27 4:18 GMT+03:00 David Hall dqhall59@... [ANE-2] <ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>:
           
          Israel Finkelstein's, 'The Forgotten Kingdom,' was published by SBL in 2013.  He used his experience as a researcher, excavator, and access to pottery assemblages and C14 dating to explain the history of northern Israel during the Iron Age.  It is a good archaeology/history book.

          David Q. Hall
          Port Charlotte, FL



        • Dr. Robert Deutsch
          Dear Raz The titles are not exact and the sub titles are completely different (see the attached scan). Wooley s book was published in 1953, 60 years ago, so in
          Message 4 of 9 , Jul 27, 2014
            Dear Raz


            The titles are not exact and the sub titles are
            completely different (see the attached scan).


            Wooley's book was published in 1953, 60 years
            ago, so in any event you can't use the term
            "usurpation", you can only say it was a Forgotten
            Title (or maybe an "inheritance")


            In any event, I don't think Finkelstein needs to
            reuse a title to promote his name,
            his name is hard like a pyrite rock.


            Robert Deutsch
            PhD Tel-Aviv University








            At 21:18 27/07/2014, you wrote:
            >
            >
            >Dear David,
            >Did you see the two recent (independent of each
            >other) reviews in Biblical Archaeology Review,
            >July 2014, by Dever and Burke, under the title
            >"Divided Kingdom, United Critics" ?Â
            >Link (worked for me):
            ><http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/reviews/divided-kingdom-united-critics/>http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/reviews/divided-kingdom-united-critics/
            >
            >
            >Even the title of this book is not original,
            >being an usurpation of Leonard Wooley's classic popular book on Alalakh:
            >"A Forgotten Kingdom".
            >
            >Raz Kletter
            >University of Helsinki
            >

            >
            >
            >2014-07-27 4:18 GMT+03:00 David Hall
            ><mailto:dqhall59@...>dqhall59@...
            >[ANE-2] <<mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>:

            >
            >Israel Finkelstein's, 'The Forgotten Kingdom,'
            >was published by SBL in 2013. He used his
            >experience as a researcher, excavator, and
            >access to pottery assemblages and C14 dating to
            >explain the history of northern Israel during
            >the Iron Age. It is a good archaeology/history book.
            >
            >David Q. Hall
            >Port Charlotte, FL
            >
            >
            >





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Raz Kletter
            Dear Robert, Not exact means not exactly the same: the replacing a ... So in your opinion one can write a detective thriller and call it A Hound of the
            Message 5 of 9 , Jul 28, 2014
              Dear Robert,
              "Not exact" means not exactly the same: "the" replacing "a"... 
                   So in your opinion one can write a detective thriller and call it "A Hound of the Baskerville" and it would be just fine, since "The Hound of the Baskerville" was written in 1902?... The only word fit is usurpation (unless the new work refers DIRECTLY and EXPLICITLY to Holmes/Conan Doyl; say, a study of various manuscripts of the original novel).
                  What means "forgotten title"? Wooley's book is not forgotten (and manuscripts don't burn!). The written word deserves respect. If you re-use an old title, be fair: give a reference to the original work. Do you see such reference? 
                  "Forgotten Kingdom" is used in other, unrelated fields and even in a film, that is fine. Yet, for a book on Ancient Near Eastern Archaeology and History, a writer who doesn't know/remember Wooley, and does not care checking if a 'new' title is original in this same SPECIFIC FIELD, is ...
                  [Complete the sentence logically. Matters like promotion of names are irrelevant; they do not cover up the "reuse" of the old title].
              Best,
              Raz Kletter,
              Tallinn, Estonia

               
               


              2014-07-28 7:37 GMT+03:00 'Dr. Robert Deutsch' rd@... [ANE-2] <ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>:
               



              Dear Raz

              The titles are not exact and the sub titles are
              completely different (see the attached scan).

              Wooley's book was published in 1953, 60 years
              ago, so in any event you can't use the term
              "usurpation", you can only say it was a Forgotten
              Title (or maybe an "inheritance")

              In any event, I don't think Finkelstein needs to
              reuse a title to promote his name,
              his name is hard like a pyrite rock.

              Robert Deutsch
              PhD Tel-Aviv University

              At 21:18 27/07/2014, you wrote:
              >
              >
              >Dear David,
              >Did you see the two recent (independent of each
              >other) reviews in Biblical Archaeology Review,
              >July 2014, by Dever and Burke, under the title
              >"Divided Kingdom, United Critics" ?Â
              >Link (worked for me):
              ><http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/reviews/divided-kingdom-united-critics/>http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/reviews/divided-kingdom-united-critics/
              >
              >
              >Even the title of this book is not original,
              >being an usurpation of Leonard Wooley's classic popular book on Alalakh:
              >"A Forgotten Kingdom".
              >
              >Raz Kletter
              >University of Helsinki
              >

              >
              >
              >2014-07-27 4:18 GMT+03:00 David Hall
              ><mailto:dqhall59@...>dqhall59@...
              >[ANE-2] <<mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>:

              >
              >Israel Finkelstein's, 'The Forgotten Kingdom,'
              >was published by SBL in 2013. He used his
              >experience as a researcher, excavator, and
              >access to pottery assemblages and C14 dating to
              >explain the history of northern Israel during
              >the Iron Age. It is a good archaeology/history book.
              >
              >David Q. Hall
              >Port Charlotte, FL
              >
              >
              >

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


            • David Hall
              You cannot copyright a book title or your name.  Someone else may have the same name.  You cannot copyright a phrase either.  That is why some people play
              Message 6 of 9 , Jul 29, 2014
                You cannot copyright a book title or your name.  Someone else may have the same name.  You cannot copyright a phrase either.  That is why some people play short excerpts from songs on TV without getting sued.

                You cannot copyright a discovery.  A hundred writers might write about a train wreck, each from a unique point of view.  It is not like the first writer who reports the train wreck prevents everyone else from writing about it.  Some reporters went to the train wreck site to interview their own witnesses to avoid accusation of copying an article produced by another reporter.

                The movie industry is yet prosecuting people for illegally downloading copies of movies as their copyrights are protected by law.

                David Q. Hall
                Port Charlotte, FL





                On Monday, July 28, 2014 7:17 AM, "Raz Kletter kletterr@... [ANE-2]" <ANE-2@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


                 
                Dear Robert,
                "Not exact" means not exactly the same: "the" replacing "a"... 
                     So in your opinion one can write a detective thriller and call it "A Hound of the Baskerville" and it would be just fine, since "The Hound of the Baskerville" was written in 1902?... The only word fit is usurpation (unless the new work refers DIRECTLY and EXPLICITLY to Holmes/Conan Doyl; say, a study of various manuscripts of the original novel).
                    What means "forgotten title"? Wooley's book is not forgotten (and manuscripts don't burn!). The written word deserves respect. If you re-use an old title, be fair: give a reference to the original work. Do you see such reference? 
                    "Forgotten Kingdom" is used in other, unrelated fields and even in a film, that is fine. Yet, for a book on Ancient Near Eastern Archaeology and History, a writer who doesn't know/remember Wooley, and does not care checking if a 'new' title is original in this same SPECIFIC FIELD, is ...
                    [Complete the sentence logically. Matters like promotion of names are irrelevant; they do not cover up the "reuse" of the old title].
                Best,
                Raz Kletter,
                Tallinn, Estonia

                 
                 


                2014-07-28 7:37 GMT+03:00 'Dr. Robert Deutsch' rd@... [ANE-2] <ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>:
                 


                Dear Raz

                The titles are not exact and the sub titles are
                completely different (see the attached scan).

                Wooley's book was published in 1953, 60 years
                ago, so in any event you can't use the term
                "usurpation", you can only say it was a Forgotten
                Title (or maybe an "inheritance")

                In any event, I don't think Finkelstein needs to
                reuse a title to promote his name,
                his name is hard like a pyrite rock.

                Robert Deutsch
                PhD Tel-Aviv University

                At 21:18 27/07/2014, you wrote:
                >
                >
                >Dear David,
                >Did you see the two recent (independent of each
                >other) reviews in Biblical Archaeology Review,
                >July 2014, by Dever and Burke, under the title
                >"Divided Kingdom, United Critics" ?Â
                >Link (worked for me):
                ><http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/reviews/divided-kingdom-united-critics/>http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/reviews/divided-kingdom-united-critics/
                >
                >
                >Even the title of this book is not original,
                >being an usurpation of Leonard Wooley's classic popular book on Alalakh:
                >"A Forgotten Kingdom".
                >
                >Raz Kletter
                >University of Helsinki
                >

                >
                >
                >2014-07-27 4:18 GMT+03:00 David Hall
                ><mailto:dqhall59@...>dqhall59@...
                >[ANE-2] <<mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>:

                >
                >Israel Finkelstein's, 'The Forgotten Kingdom,'
                >was published by SBL in 2013. He used his
                >experience as a researcher, excavator, and
                >access to pottery assemblages and C14 dating to
                >explain the history of northern Israel during
                >the Iron Age. It is a good archaeology/history book.
                >
                >David Q. Hall
                >Port Charlotte, FL
                >
                >
                >

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




              • Niels Peter Lemche
                Dear Raz, Not sure that it is absolutely fair to go after Finkelstein because of this title. The title for the French edition which—or so I think—came out
                Message 7 of 9 , Jul 29, 2014

                  Dear Raz,

                   

                  Not sure that it is absolutely fair to go after Finkelstein because of this title. The title for the French edition which—or so I think—came out first is Le Royaume biblique oublié. I guess that the omission of “biblique” was done by the publisher (SBL). It is a very SBL way of doing such things.

                   

                  Niels Peter Lemche

                   

                   

                   

                   

                  Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com]
                  Sendt: 28. juli 2014 13:18
                  Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                  Emne: Re: [ANE-2] Finkelstein book

                   




                  Dear Robert,

                  "Not exact" means not exactly the same: "the" replacing "a"... 
                       So in your opinion one can write a detective thriller and call it "A Hound of the Baskerville" and it would be just fine, since "The Hound of the Baskerville" was written in 1902?... The only word fit is usurpation (unless the new work refers DIRECTLY and EXPLICITLY to Holmes/Conan Doyl; say, a study of various manuscripts of the original novel).

                      What means "forgotten title"? Wooley's book is not forgotten (and manuscripts don't burn!). The written word deserves respect. If you re-use an old title, be fair: give a reference to the original work. Do you see such reference? 
                      "Forgotten Kingdom" is used in other, unrelated fields and even in a film, that is fine. Yet, for a book on Ancient Near Eastern Archaeology and History, a writer who doesn't know/remember Wooley, and does not care checking if a 'new' title is original in this same SPECIFIC FIELD, is ...
                      [Complete the sentence logically. Matters like promotion of names are irrelevant; they do not cover up the "reuse" of the old title].

                  Best,

                  Raz Kletter,

                  Tallinn, Estonia

                   

                   

                   

                  2014-07-28 7:37 GMT+03:00 'Dr. Robert Deutsch' rd@... [ANE-2] <ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>:

                   



                  Dear Raz

                  The titles are not exact and the sub titles are
                  completely different (see the attached scan).

                  Wooley's book was published in 1953, 60 years
                  ago, so in any event you can't use the term
                  "usurpation", you can only say it was a Forgotten
                  Title (or maybe an "inheritance")

                  In any event, I don't think Finkelstein needs to
                  reuse a title to promote his name,
                  his name is hard like a pyrite rock.

                  Robert Deutsch
                  PhD Tel-Aviv University

                  At 21:18 27/07/2014, you wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  >Dear David,
                  >Did you see the two recent (independent of each
                  >other) reviews in Biblical Archaeology Review,
                  >July 2014, by Dever and Burke, under the title
                  >"Divided Kingdom, United Critics" ?Â
                  >Link (worked for me):
                  ><http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/reviews/divided-kingdom-united-critics/>http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/reviews/divided-kingdom-united-critics/
                  >
                  >
                  >Even the title of this book is not original,
                  >being an usurpation of Leonard Wooley's classic popular book on Alalakh:
                  >"A Forgotten Kingdom".
                  >
                  >Raz Kletter
                  >University of Helsinki
                  >

                  >
                  >
                  >2014-07-27 4:18 GMT+03:00 David Hall
                  ><mailto:dqhall59@...>dqhall59@...
                  >[ANE-2] <<mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>:

                  >
                  >Israel Finkelstein's, 'The Forgotten Kingdom,'
                  >was published by SBL in 2013. He used his
                  >experience as a researcher, excavator, and
                  >access to pottery assemblages and C14 dating to
                  >explain the history of northern Israel during
                  >the Iron Age. It is a good archaeology/history book.
                  >
                  >David Q. Hall
                  >Port Charlotte, FL
                  >
                  >
                  >

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

                   




                • Raz Kletter
                  Dear David, Why the legal language? My point was ethics. I was not going for legal procedures. Dear Niels, A well made point and my last email for this thread.
                  Message 8 of 9 , Jul 29, 2014
                    Dear David,
                    Why the legal language?
                    My point was ethics. I was not going for legal procedures.

                    Dear Niels,
                    A well made point and my last email for this thread.
                    A "pyrite-hard-named" author does not have to accept a title from a publisher/translator. Nobody has. Unless the author never read/forgot/does not care to check.
                    Also thanks for mentioning the French title. -Would you buy a "biblical Kingdom" from a person who claimed that his scientific archaeology dismisses the "biblical myths"? If it was SBL's ommission, chapeau, it was wise decision.
                    Best,
                    Raz Kletter,
                    Tallinn, Estonia


                     
                     


                    2014-07-29 17:35 GMT+03:00 Niels Peter Lemche npl@... [ANE-2] <ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>:
                     

                    Dear Raz,

                     

                    Not sure that it is absolutely fair to go after Finkelstein because of this title. The title for the French edition which—or so I think—came out first is Le Royaume biblique oublié. I guess that the omission of “biblique” was done by the publisher (SBL). It is a very SBL way of doing such things.

                     

                    Niels Peter Lemche

                     

                     

                     

                     

                    Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com]
                    Sendt: 28. juli 2014 13:18
                    Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                    Emne: Re: [ANE-2] Finkelstein book

                     




                    Dear Robert,

                    "Not exact" means not exactly the same: "the" replacing "a"... 
                         So in your opinion one can write a detective thriller and call it "A Hound of the Baskerville" and it would be just fine, since "The Hound of the Baskerville" was written in 1902?... The only word fit is usurpation (unless the new work refers DIRECTLY and EXPLICITLY to Holmes/Conan Doyl; say, a study of various manuscripts of the original novel).

                        What means "forgotten title"? Wooley's book is not forgotten (and manuscripts don't burn!). The written word deserves respect. If you re-use an old title, be fair: give a reference to the original work. Do you see such reference? 
                        "Forgotten Kingdom" is used in other, unrelated fields and even in a film, that is fine. Yet, for a book on Ancient Near Eastern Archaeology and History, a writer who doesn't know/remember Wooley, and does not care checking if a 'new' title is original in this same SPECIFIC FIELD, is ...
                        [Complete the sentence logically. Matters like promotion of names are irrelevant; they do not cover up the "reuse" of the old title].

                    Best,

                    Raz Kletter,

                    Tallinn, Estonia

                     

                     

                     

                    2014-07-28 7:37 GMT+03:00 'Dr. Robert Deutsch' rd@... [ANE-2] <ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>:

                     



                    Dear Raz

                    The titles are not exact and the sub titles are
                    completely different (see the attached scan).

                    Wooley's book was published in 1953, 60 years
                    ago, so in any event you can't use the term
                    "usurpation", you can only say it was a Forgotten
                    Title (or maybe an "inheritance")

                    In any event, I don't think Finkelstein needs to
                    reuse a title to promote his name,
                    his name is hard like a pyrite rock.

                    Robert Deutsch
                    PhD Tel-Aviv University

                    At 21:18 27/07/2014, you wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    >Dear David,
                    >Did you see the two recent (independent of each
                    >other) reviews in Biblical Archaeology Review,
                    >July 2014, by Dever and Burke, under the title
                    >"Divided Kingdom, United Critics" ?Â
                    >Link (worked for me):
                    ><http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/reviews/divided-kingdom-united-critics/>http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/reviews/divided-kingdom-united-critics/
                    >
                    >
                    >Even the title of this book is not original,
                    >being an usurpation of Leonard Wooley's classic popular book on Alalakh:
                    >"A Forgotten Kingdom".
                    >
                    >Raz Kletter
                    >University of Helsinki
                    >

                    >
                    >
                    >2014-07-27 4:18 GMT+03:00 David Hall
                    ><mailto:dqhall59@...>dqhall59@...
                    >[ANE-2] <<mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>:

                    >
                    >Israel Finkelstein's, 'The Forgotten Kingdom,'
                    >was published by SBL in 2013. He used his
                    >experience as a researcher, excavator, and
                    >access to pottery assemblages and C14 dating to
                    >explain the history of northern Israel during
                    >the Iron Age. It is a good archaeology/history book.
                    >
                    >David Q. Hall
                    >Port Charlotte, FL
                    >
                    >
                    >

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

                     





                  • Richard Seager
                    This is politics masquerading as ethics. You don t like Finklestein ok we know, and Dever criticising a book of his - well what a surprise that is. Richard
                    Message 9 of 9 , Jul 29, 2014
                      This is politics masquerading as ethics. You don't like Finklestein ok we know, and Dever criticising a book of his - well what a surprise that is.

                      Richard Seager
                      Otago, NZ




                      On 30 Jul 2014, at 4:09, "Raz Kletter kletterr@... [ANE-2]" <ANE-2@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

                       

                      Dear David,
                      Why the legal language?
                      My point was ethics. I was not going for legal procedures.

                      Dear Niels,
                      A well made point and my last email for this thread.
                      A "pyrite-hard-named" author does not have to accept a title from a publisher/translator. Nobody has. Unless the author never read/forgot/does not care to check.
                      Also thanks for mentioning the French title. -Would you buy a "biblical Kingdom" from a person who claimed that his scientific archaeology dismisses the "biblical myths"? If it was SBL's ommission, chapeau, it was wise decision.
                      Best,
                      Raz Kletter,
                      Tallinn, Estonia


                       
                       


                      2014-07-29 17:35 GMT+03:00 Niels Peter Lemche npl@... [ANE-2] <ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>:
                       

                      Dear Raz,

                       

                      Not sure that it is absolutely fair to go after Finkelstein because of this title. The title for the French edition which—or so I think—came out first is Le Royaume biblique oublié. I guess that the omission of “biblique” was done by the publisher (SBL). It is a very SBL way of doing such things.

                       

                      Niels Peter Lemche

                       

                       

                       

                       

                      Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com]
                      Sendt: 28. juli 2014 13:18
                      Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                      Emne: Re: [ANE-2] Finkelstein book

                       




                      Dear Robert,

                      "Not exact" means not exactly the same: "the" replacing "a"... 
                           So in your opinion one can write a detective thriller and call it "A Hound of the Baskerville" and it would be just fine, since "The Hound of the Baskerville" was written in 1902?... The only word fit is usurpation (unless the new work refers DIRECTLY and EXPLICITLY to Holmes/Conan Doyl; say, a study of various manuscripts of the original novel).

                          What means "forgotten title"? Wooley's book is not forgotten (and manuscripts don't burn!). The written word deserves respect. If you re-use an old title, be fair: give a reference to the original work. Do you see such reference? 
                          "Forgotten Kingdom" is used in other, unrelated fields and even in a film, that is fine. Yet, for a book on Ancient Near Eastern Archaeology and History, a writer who doesn't know/remember Wooley, and does not care checking if a 'new' title is original in this same SPECIFIC FIELD, is ...
                          [Complete the sentence logically. Matters like promotion of names are irrelevant; they do not cover up the "reuse" of the old title].

                      Best,

                      Raz Kletter,

                      Tallinn, Estonia

                       

                       

                       

                      2014-07-28 7:37 GMT+03:00 'Dr. Robert Deutsch' rd@... [ANE-2] <ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>:

                       



                      Dear Raz

                      The titles are not exact and the sub titles are
                      completely different (see the attached scan).

                      Wooley's book was published in 1953, 60 years
                      ago, so in any event you can't use the term
                      "usurpation", you can only say it was a Forgotten
                      Title (or maybe an "inheritance")

                      In any event, I don't think Finkelstein needs to
                      reuse a title to promote his name,
                      his name is hard like a pyrite rock.

                      Robert Deutsch
                      PhD Tel-Aviv University

                      At 21:18 27/07/2014, you wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      >Dear David,
                      >Did you see the two recent (independent of each
                      >other) reviews in Biblical Archaeology Review,
                      >July 2014, by Dever and Burke, under the title
                      >"Divided Kingdom, United Critics" ?Â
                      >Link (worked for me):
                      ><http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/reviews/divided-kingdom-united-critics/>http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/reviews/divided-kingdom-united-critics/
                      >
                      >
                      >Even the title of this book is not original,
                      >being an usurpation of Leonard Wooley's classic popular book on Alalakh:
                      >"A Forgotten Kingdom".
                      >
                      >Raz Kletter
                      >University of Helsinki
                      >

                      >
                      >
                      >2014-07-27 4:18 GMT+03:00 David Hall
                      ><mailto:dqhall59@...>dqhall59@...
                      >[ANE-2] <<mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>:

                      >
                      >Israel Finkelstein's, 'The Forgotten Kingdom,'
                      >was published by SBL in 2013. He used his
                      >experience as a researcher, excavator, and
                      >access to pottery assemblages and C14 dating to
                      >explain the history of northern Israel during
                      >the Iron Age. It is a good archaeology/history book.
                      >
                      >David Q. Hall
                      >Port Charlotte, FL
                      >
                      >
                      >

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

                       





                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.