new discoveries

[Minimalist]

You believe in the Flood, too, so at least you are consistent.

[Guest]

You believe in the Flood, too, so at least you are consistent

yes, that is something that has been described of me but i alsolook at all the facts and scrutinize the logic, the reasoning the evidence and so on. i just don't haphazardly believe something.

but anyways,the point of this thread is to discuss new discoveries which may be of interest.

what does this piece of the arch really do for this part of the world? after all the destruction was highly documented and is a well known fact.

[Minimalist]

Not a damn thing.

It's like the Pilate inscription. People jumped up and down that it 'proved' the gospels. Of course, it did no such thing and Pilate had been extensively commented upon by Josephus and Philo so his existence was not in doubt.

I suppose one could make a valid case that having it is better than not having it but it really doesn't change anything.

Oddly, Barkay was interviewed by Jacobovici tonight on the Naked Archaeologist and when asked what his best finds were from the Waqf dumpings (this was a year or so ago) he pointed to some pottery from the late First Temple period. They also found a Roman or Byzantine coin while on camera but were remarkably silent about 9-10th century Jerusalem.

[Guest]

i am posting the link for what it says in the article and am not worried about the source. hopefully we can keep the discussion on what is being said in the article and dissenters post links to help bring fuller understanding to all sides of the discoveries mentioned here:

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Hazor_Ebeling.htm

The recent excavations at Hazor have shown definitively, however, that the six-chambered gate and casemate wall were built in the mid-10th century BCE, along with a large public building connected to the earliest phase of the casemate wall by a paved street. The ceramic assemblages found on the floors of this four-phased public building corroborate a 10th-century date for these constructions. This massive, well-planned building activity coincides with the accepted date for King Solomon’s reign, making this ruler of Israel’s United Monarchy the most likely candidate for the reestablishment of Hazor in Iron Age II (ca. 1000-732 BCE).

[Minimalist]

okay, here's the problem, and I haven't checked out the probable bias of the site yet, but I'll get to it.

This line:

The Israelite city reached its height of prosperity during the 9th century BCE, perhaps during the reign of King Ahab of Israel.

purports to present Hazor as a "city." See the sketch below.




First of all, if you look at the key and measure it out you will see that you are dealing with a site about 300 meters by 150 meters...quite small. These were not "cities" in the sense that scads of people lived in them. The term I have seen used most commonly is "administrative centers" mainly a 'palace' although many are not very palatial and a few storerooms. Buildings that were initially identified as "Solomon's Stables" have more calmly been reclassified as storerooms or warehouses. This applies not only to Hazor but also Megiddo, Samarra and Gezer.

It is important to remember that most of the population of Israel (forget Judah for the moment) lived in agricultural villages because they were farmers. Although it developed earlier than Judah, Israel was still an agrarian economy. People could not live far from their fields.

Next:

The recent excavations at Hazor have shown definitively, however, that the six-chambered gate and casemate wall were built in the mid-10th century BCE, along with a large public building connected to the earliest phase of the casemate wall by a paved street. The ceramic assemblages found on the floors of this four-phased public building corroborate a 10th-century date for these constructions.

That's Amnon Ben Tor talking, or at least being paraphrased by the author. He has no answer for Finkelstein's findings of such identical gates, built at Samarra by Omrides in the ninth century. Could someone have duplicated the exact building techniques used a century earlier? Yes. Why someone would use a fortification system which failed so utterly is not explained. However, could someone have dropped an old pot on the floor for Ben Tor to find? Answer is also Yes. He has to overcome the arguments of the opposition.

Finally...these results are not 'new' and the web site has been around for a while.

A useful summary of the results of Yigael Yadin’s excavations at Hazor can be found in the New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (Jerusalem, 1993). A survey of the results of the renewed excavations can be found in Biblical Archaeology Review vols. 25/2-3 (1999) and on Hazor’s website (address given below). Along with the author’s own knowledge of the results of the current excavations, these published sources provided much useful information for this article.

Call for Volunteers:
The 13th season of the Selz Foundation Hazor Excavations in Memory of Yigael Yadin is planned for the summer of 2002.

Clearly, since it references Yadin's old work and the published reports of a 1999 BAR the site was set up after 1999 BUT BEFORE 2002 as it speaks of an upcoming dig in 2002 at Hazor "in honor of Yadin!" Finkelstein's latest work was published in 2006 (January) and he clearly does not buy what Ben Tor is selling.

[Guest]

and I haven't checked out the probable bias of the site yet

the site isn't the issue, it is an article written by an archaeologist, check her out if you must.

and I haven't checked out the probable bias of the site yet

this minimalizing of a town is not accurate and i will disagree with the size reported here. i do not think hazor was the size of jerusalem but it must have had more than the remains or that map indicates.

with its destruction there would be many buildings whose remnants would not survive to the present day so any assessment should be qualified.

Clearly, since it references Yadin's old work and the published reports of a 1999 BAR the site was set up after 1999 BUT BEFORE 2002 as it speaks of an upcoming dig in 2002 at Hazor "in honor of Yadin!" Finkelstein's latest work was published in 2006 (January) and he clearly does not buy what Ben Tor is selling.

what does this have to do with the discovery? i do not buy what finkelstein is selling. does the fact that Yadin worked onthe site disqualify what is found? no, instead it sheds light on the fact that in the 10th century there were israleites present and building in the area.

what it does do is undermine dever and finkelstein, which is okay.

[Minimalist]

You're desperately clinging to hopelessly outdated doctrines. Israel was dotted with numerous agricultural villages but there is no sign of industry until somewhat later on when they began to produce olive oil.

Judah, to the south, contained a relative handful of villages and was probably a pastoral economy for the most part.

These were not great urban centers. They were not needed at this time.
Hazor was destroyed by fire and archaeologists have proven that they can detect such destruction layers on a very consistent basis. Hazor was not a city as we use the term....neither were the others although they may have been under the vastly more developed economies of the LBA Canaanites which were based on trade.

You dispute any given piece of evidence but steadfastly refuse to look at the whole picture that they have developed.

[War Arrow]

Although I'm just listening in at this point, for what it's worth I've thought of some sites on a similar scale to this place as cities (well, I say, I've thought, actually I've seen places (Monte Alban for example) commonly defined as cities, and found myself accepting the definition) by the criteria of 1) large ceremonial or administrative centre usually forming the focus for 2) large population spread over the surrounding area by varying degrees of density and often dwelling in far less durable structures, not forgetting 3) attendant sphere of cultural influence or impact upon region and its neighbours.
That's my tuppence hapenny (not sure what that is in cents). I will now shut up and let you all get on with it.

[Minimalist]

I went looking for a discussion of the "administrative center" concept and found this instead. Even better, although Arch will throw a fit.

http://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/archaeo ... ology.html

There are two direct supports to this chronological construct. The first emerged from Ussishkin and Woodhead’s excavations at nearby Tel Jezreel. The pottery assemblage from the compound, dated to the time of the Omride Dynasty, was found to be similar to that of Stratum VA-IVB at Megiddo. Thus, the two sites were destroyed at the same time, most probably in the mid-ninth century. This traps Stratum VA-IVB at Megiddo into a relatively narrow chronological slot—in the first half of the ninth century BCE.

The second clue comes from Samaria — the capital of the Northern Kingdom. As noticed by C. Fisher, who excavated at Megiddo in the 1920s, J. Crowfoot, who excavated at Samaria in the 1930s, and N. Franklin of the current Megiddo Expedition, the building techniques in the southern palace of Stratum VA-IVB at Megiddo resemble those traced in the palace of the kings of Israel at Samaria. Most noteworthy, ashlar blocks used in the construction of the two buildings carry identical mason's marks. This means that the two buildings—the Megiddo palace conventionally dated to the tenth century and the Samaria palace built in the ninth century BCE—were constructed at the same time, possibly by the same team of masons. The biblical testimony that Samaria was built by the Omrides (in the first half of the ninth century BCE) is supported by Assyrian sources, which refer to the Northern Kingdom as Bit Omri, that is, they name the kingdom after the founder of its capital.

[Minimalist]

This is proving to be harder than I thought.....lots of sites refer to administrative centers but few seem to bother describing them.

Anyway, from The Bible Unearthed, archaeologist, David Ussishkin's sketch of Megiddo.

[Guest]

This means that the two buildings—the Megiddo palace conventionally dated to the tenth century and the Samaria palace built in the ninth century BCE—were constructed at the same time, possibly by the same team of masons

i amnot going to throw a fit because that really isn't evidence of the same crew doing the construction just the same method being employed. construction is a pretty limited endeavor and once you pass on the technique yuou can find the same type of marks no matter who builds them. this is like saying that the crew who built the empire state building also built the world trade center.

i think that tthose who wish to discredit the 10th century construction are just grasping at whatever straw they can so they can change history. i do not buy into it and would need far more proof than construction marks.

i just got to kitchen's chapter on Saul, David and Solomon so i may be awhile before posting anything inthis thread.

[Minimalist]

A long (warning...very long) interview between Hershel Shanks and Israel Finkelstein. Bears on the questions presented though.

http://members.bib-arch.org/nph-proxy.p ... serID=3d0&

[Guest]

Anyway, from The Bible Unearthed,

there is nothing to say that the 8th century builders did not copy the 9th or 10th century design. happens all the time even in the modern world. i would like to wiat to see what kitchen says before commenting further.

i will get to the inteview after i read it.

[Minimalist]

Keep grabbing for life rafts, Arch.

[Guest]

i am not the one grabbing, it is all those who seek to discredit the biblical account that grab at straws. but we shall see what kitchen has to say.