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

SV: SV: SV: SV: [ANE-2] Important New Book

Expand Messages
  • Niels Peter Lemche
    I saw your point but your argument is based on a series of assumptions. It is gratuitous. Nobody can say anything against it because there is virtually nothing
    Message 1 of 50 , Jan 7, 2009
      I saw your point but your argument is based on a series of assumptions. It is gratuitous. Nobody can say anything against it because there is virtually nothing that supports your assertions. That's the reason why I recommended to you some middle of the road literature.

      The problem with amateurs, also gifted ones, is their casual selection of evidence, lack of systematic and methodological training, enabling them to distinguish between information and assertions. They pick up something here or there without really understanding the position of such an element within the general vista of the area/time/problem in question.

      Among the literature mentioned in my previous mail, Grabbe's book is the most pedagogical of them.

      By the way, if you read German, Albrecht Alt's second article on the immigration may be to your liking. It was written in 1939 but never translated.

      Garstang and Jericho: The discussion shows that you do not really understand the problem of archaeology in Palestine. Even if a LBA city eroded away, pottery would still be there, even at the base of the tell. And why only the LBA city eroded away there while other remains are still there, beats me. I am afraid that you are beating a dead horse.

      Niels Peter Lemche

      -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
      Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af David Hall
      Sendt: den 7 januari 2009 00:46
      Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      Emne: Re: SV: SV: SV: [ANE-2] Important New Book

      You may not have seen my point.  Israel may have been expanding from Iron I to Iron II out of the hill country near Shechem and Jerusalem.  The expansion I referred to was such as has been seen in the recent archaelological reports indicating shrinking of the size population of Philistine sites, including the entire disappearance of Philistine culture from other sites, and inferred Israeli dominance.  There was also the mention of Israeli tribes east of the Jordan in the Moabite stele of Iron Age II.  In the late Bronze age Ramesses II admin. recorded Edom, but not Israel east of the Jordan.       
      As for the Joshua conquest, I have frequently stated it has unresolvable contradicitons.
      As for Israeli cultural links to Egypt.  Israel and Egypt both circumcised males, the Israelis at eight days, the Egyptains when they were in their teens (Frank Yurco).  This may have been due to Egytpian occupation of Canaan if not a migration out of Egypt as described by the writer of Joshua. 
      Joshua was credited with having conquered Dor.  Yet the Egyptians of the early 11th century described the Tjeker Sea People as occupying the seaport of Tel Dor (near Caesarea).  In Chronicles 1 Dor was reckoned as the territory of Solomon. 
      I do not believe it wise to dismiss early expedition reports entirely as discoveries of cartouches on seals, distinct pottery types, and all sorts of infomation might be gleaned from them.  Some tombs were opened that contained few skeltons and entire pottery assemblages and weapons used during a certain Bronze age period.  It is all valid context.  If a tomb contained eighty skeletons its pottery may have spanned a broader time period.  Such was known by Garstang even though he was not born yesterday.  Garstang was credited with discovering Hazor At Jericho he excavated an LBA building that some might have thought eroded away.  It was early LBA not late LBA.  Where does eroded dirt go? Down hill.  They did not find the LBA there either.  They did find Iron Age II occupation at old Jericho but not late LBA and certainly no walled city at that time. It is biased to dismiss a work merely because it is old, else there would be no use
      in studying ancient inscriptions or dead languages as was done in ANE.      
      David Q. Hal
    • David Hall
      It seems the ANE was in frequent turmoil.  One theory was that many of these ruined cities were destroyed by earthquakes.  There have not been as many
      Message 50 of 50 , Jan 19, 2009
        It seems the ANE was in frequent turmoil.  One theory was that many of these ruined cities were destroyed by earthquakes.  There have not been as many earthquakes during the past fifty years as would have been required for all the cities destroyed c. 1200 to have been destroyed by earthquake  Usually earthquake damage was more local and not spread across a thousand miles.  The amount of ash found in some sites may have been indicative of conquering armies burning cites to prevent the rebellious cities from being reused as fortresses against them.  It was noted that not all earthquakes caused such great fires as to make thick layers of ash over entire cities. Small fires started by lamps or cooking fires left burning were readily extinguished.  Burned cities may have yielded evidence of looting.  One archaeologist remarked that he did not believe much wood was used in the construction of buildings he excavated, but the layer of
        ash from c. 1200 was a meter thick.  You might recall the Romans set fire to the temple in Jerusalem c. 70 A.D. as they feared the temple establishment might start a rebellion if it the temple were allowed to stand (Jospehus).  There may have been firewood stored there for the daily sacrifices.
        Times were brutal and people worshiped gods whom they praised for giving them military victory.  Times of stability and less violence in Egypt and Mesopotamia may have resulted in the increased knowledge of mathematics, literature, agriculture, ceramics, metallurgy, theology etc.  At least one story out of Mesopotamia was of a prescient god who saved people (from a flood).  The priests in Egypt may have authorized the book of the dead wherein one was supposed to have confessed of not having done murder and not have payed to have one murdered; yet warfare has continued to this day.  
        David Q. Hall 
        -- On Fri, 1/16/09, Jon Smyth <driver40386@...> wrote:

        From: Jon Smyth <driver40386@...>
        Subject: Re: Ox-carts, etc..(was:[ANE-2] Important New Book)
        To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Friday, January 16, 2009, 9:53 PM

        I seem to have left you with the wrong impression. Certainly the city
        of Hattushas was destroyed, about the end of the Late Bronze, that is
        not in dispute. The issue was, whether the sequence of names commonly
        quoted as 'destroyed nations' are actually that, or a list of Hittite
        The fact it appears that Hattushas was indeed destroyed does not add
        support to the Medinet-habu text, as it is not possible to associate
        its destruction with the so-called Sea Peoples. And that is the trust
        of the interpretation of the text.

        Recent research inspired by the Sudberg inscription tends to suggest
        the Hittite nation embroiled itself in a civil war. The Royal house
        of Hatti appears to have been divided into three towards the end, the
        central seat at Hattushas in the north, a secondary seat at
        Tarhuntassa in the south, and a third seat ruling from Carchemish on
        the Euphrates in the east.
        The possibility has been offered that Tarhuntassa contested the rule
        of a Great King sitting at Hattushas. That there may have been strife
        between the two royal houses which tore the empire apart and severely
        weakened Hattushas. In consequence of this, the traditional northern
        enemies of Hattushas, the Kaskans (Gaskans?), may have exploited a
        final opportunity to finish Hattushas once and for all.
        This is all conjecture, but more fitting with the archaeology than
        any belief in marauding Sea Peoples.

        May I suggest The Kingdom of the Hittites by Trevor Bryce, 2005
        update, a wonderfull overview of the present state of knowledge
        concerning the history of the Hittites, from beginning to end.
        Concerning the period contemporary with Ramesses III, the Hittite
        royal house at Carchemish survived through the LBA and was the ruling
        Hittite power through the early Egyptian 20th dynasty (Guterbock,
        There is no reason to deny that Ramesses III faced the Hittites, as
        his text and reliefs clearly show.

        I would not advise anyone to emerse themselves in internet research,
        the net can be a usefull tool if you know what you are looking for
        and why. I find it rather limiting with respect to factual data.
        There is no substitute for obtaining the original books and
        monographs from the likes of Barbara Kling, Ann Killebrew, Patricia
        Bikai, etc., if your subject matter is monochrome/bichrome pottery of
        Cyprus and the Levant. One recent publication I can highly recommend
        is, Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity, Ann Killebrew, 2005. An excellent
        summary of what we know with respect to pottery wares from Egypt,
        Canaan, Philistia and Israel, in the Biblical world.

        Best Wishes, Jon Smyth
        Toronto, CAN

        --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups. com, David Hall <dqhall59@.. .> wrote:
        > Jon,
        > Although there may or may not be any ancient texts describing
        Hattusas as destroyed, someone sent an email to me offlist that the
        current theory is mountain people destroyed Hattusas. I do not wish
        to comment much about Hatti, as I am not current with Hittite
        > If you will take a tour of Hattusas, the tour guide might tell you
        Hattusas was destroyed about 1200 B.C. not far from the date of the
        destruction of Troy on the coast. This date like any other may be
        controversial, it is better to compare modern sources, although some
        modern sources might be backward reversion to old theories that were
        not well founded or new theories from one gone astray.
        > http://www.turkeyfo rholidays. com/Hittite- highand-tour. html
        > There is frequent confusion on this list, due to the lack of using
        precise wording. The list I may have referred to instead of the one
        at Medinet Habu was one Robert Drews published in his book, The End
        of the Bronze Age, Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe CA. 1200
        B.C. (U. of Princeton, 1993) He discussed the existence of more than
        one theory about sites destroyed c. 1200-1175.
        > I think you might need to do more studying as there are numerous
        references to Philistine bichrome ware on the internet. Albright
        reported Philistine pottery in the northern valleys from before the
        tenth century.
        > The Albright Institute recently published this Philistine bichrome
        shard of the ubiquitous backwards looking waterfowl:
        > http://www.aiar org/images/ PhilBird2. jpg
        > I am not qualified to give an in depth report about Philistine
        bichrome ware although I have read a few books and journal articles
        about the Philistines. As for Beth Shean there are numerous
        expedition reports and it might not be wise to comment much about the
        site without reading more and taking notes. Some web pages may not
        be reliable. I recall Philistine shards were reported from the
        Megiddo excavations dated from before the 10th century.
        > David Q. Hall

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