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

Re: Japhia and Nazareth

Expand Messages
  • Rene
    ... listing is Sarid (Tell Shadud), Chisloth-tabor (Iksal or a very nearby site), Daberath (Daburiyyeh) and THEN Japhia. The present-day village of Yafa is
    Message 1 of 43 , Apr 2, 2007
      --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, Yigal Levin <leviny1@...> wrote:

      > Dear Salm. Not so fast. In Josh. 19:12, the clear west-to-east
      listing is Sarid (Tell Shadud), Chisloth-tabor (Iksal or a very nearby
      site), Daberath (Daburiyyeh) and THEN Japhia. The present-day village
      of Yafa is about 5 km WEST of Iksal, and there is no reason to suspect
      that the text is corrupt at this point. For this reason, Noth, Kallai,
      Gal and Na'aman all rejected the identification of Japhia with Yafa.
      In my paper in Cathedra 108 (2003) I concurred with Na'aman's
      suggestion that Japhia be identified with the Iron II remains on the
      summit of Mt. Tabor.
      >
      >
      > Yigal Levin
      ---------
      The proposal that Nazareth existed in the Iron Age, and that Japhia
      was on the top of Mt. Tabor is fraught with difficulties:

      (1) If that were true, then why is Nazareth not mentioned in Jos
      19:12? One cannot suppose that the settlement was simply too
      insignificant, for two large Iron Age tombs have been found in the
      basin: (a) One tomb (T 75) has side chambers, at least six benches,
      and a special repository for bones in the NW corner. The tomb was at
      the time of discovery damaged and yielded no artefacts, but its plan
      conforms to Bloch-Smith's Type 3 and Loffreda's Type RR (rectangular
      chamber with subsidiary chambers). The type "appeared in the tenth
      century BCE at sites occupied by Israelites" (Bl.-Sm. 44). Hachlili
      and Killebrew note that this type of rock-cut tomb usually served a
      large number of people. (b) Another Iron Age tomb 800m away was
      discovered in 1973 and reported by Fanny Vitto (`Atiqot 2001:159ff).
      It is B-S's type 6, Loffreda's type C (circular) "characteristic of
      the twelfth-eleventh centuries BCE" (Vitto). Vitto dates the artefacts
      in this tomb to XI BCE (Megiddo Stratum VI, Keisan Stratum 9). (c)
      Over sixty artefacts from the Iron Period have been recovered from the
      basin, only a little of which has in fact been excavated to date.
      (2) The distance between Mt. Tabor and Roman Japhia is over 10 km (as
      the crow flies)--an impressive migration by any calculation, much more
      problematic than the movement of 2-3 km involved between the Nazareth
      basin and Roman Japhia (depending from where in the basin one
      calculates). Occam's razor here favors the much smaller movement.
      (3) The boundary of Zebulun in Jos 19:12-13 passes from Japhia "east
      toward the sunrise to Gath Hefer" (qedmah mizrachah gitah chefer).
      However, Gath Hefer is due northwest of Mt. Tabor. It's impossible to
      "go east" from Mt. Tabor and reach Gath Hefer. Yet it is very possible
      to go northeast from the Nazareth basin to Gath Hefer. We just follow
      the Tiberias road which goes today from Nazareth past Reina, Gath
      Hefer (nr. Mashhad), and Kafr Kanna.

      For the above reasons, it seems to me very improbable that Iron Age
      Japhia was on top of Mt. Tabor, but very probable that it was located
      in the Nazareth basin.

      I too (Levin mentions Noth, Kallai, Gal and Na'aman) reject the
      identification of Iron Age Japhia with its Roman location. Of course,
      that's a corollary to my identification of Bronze-Iron Age Japhia with
      a settlement 2-3 km east of there in the Nazareth basin.

      Jos 19:12 does not require a perpetual east-west direction, nor that
      all the places mentioned be in a straight line. Going "up" (`alah) to
      Japhia from Dabburiya makes sense because one leaves the valley of
      Jezreel and goes up into the hills of the Nazareth Range (and into the
      raised plateau of Lower Galilee).

      Rene Salm
      www.nazarethmyth.info
      www.kevalin.org
    • JEFFREY A BLAKELY
      Beatrice, There are a number of ethnographical studies of pottery that were published in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, primarily in AA. I think some of these
      Message 43 of 43 , Apr 10, 2007
        Beatrice,

        There are a number of ethnographical studies of pottery that were published in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, primarily in AA. I think some of these appear in Kramer's "Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology" in Annual Review of Anthropology 1985. Mostly this was American, but the idea is that because of frequent use and because of frequent thermal shock that cooking vessels have a life-span in the range of months not years. Amphorae are at the other end of the scale in years if not decades. Oh yes, see Longacre's article in Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics and references there.

        I hope this helps.
        Jeff
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.