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

Re: Amarna Tablets, after all

Expand Messages
  • Yuval Goren
    The suggestion that some of the Amarna tablets were casts is, to put it mildly, very interesting. In our book we rigorously examined the possibility that
    Message 1 of 4 , Oct 26, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      The suggestion that some of the Amarna tablets were "casts" is, to put it
      mildly, very interesting. In our book we rigorously examined the possibility
      that some of the tablets were copies made in Egypt, and were able to refute
      this option completely on the basis of the mineralogical, chemical and
      structural composition of the tablets. The only copies made in Egypt of
      Akkadian texts that we located were the scholarly texts ascribed to the
      Amarna scribal school, but alas, these were found by Sir W.M.
      Flinders-Petrie during his well-recorded excavations and not looted by the
      farmers. Therefore, this suggestion is completely baseless and reflects very
      poor reading of our book. It should be emphasized that the petrography and
      geochemistry of Egyptian clays and ceramic materials have been extensively
      studied by an endless list of scholars for nearly a century now. Moreover,
      the fact that the composition of the letters of known city rulers and kings
      of identified kingdoms reflected the clay and lithological compositions of
      their locations clearly indicates that there were no "casts". This is true
      of course unless someone before 1887 traveled to Bogazkoy to collect the
      local clay in order to produce the tablets of the Hittite king, to Ras
      Shamra in order to collect the very typical clay of Ugarit (unknown as such
      till the 1920's), to Cyprus in order to collect Pachna marls and produce the
      Alashiya letters (unidentified at this period as such), to the Judean
      Mountains to collect clay of the Moza Formation and make the letters of
      Labayu of Shechem and Abdi Heba of Jerusalem, and so on and so forth. The
      list is endless and one can get it by reading our book. So I take this
      option as highly unlikely, even regardless of the fact that the first
      geological mapping of the southern Levant was made approximately at this
      time. I mention all these trivial details only for the record, because
      whoever will read our book will find them there. Of course, this is not the
      case for someone who attempts to criticize a work without reading it.



      Yuval Goren






      No virus found in this outgoing message.
      Checked by AVG Free Edition.
      Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.11/1093 - Release Date: 25/10/2007
      17:38



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