Archaeologica.org

hey Clubs.

I actually missed seeing that unique face around here. Welcome back.

Both of those ideas are pretty silly.

As it stands right now, the prevailing theory in archaeology is that there were no "Israelites" until the end of the Late Bronze Age when they arose from the nomadic tribes of Eastern Canaan. The extent to which they absorbed refugees from the Canaanite city states which were overrun by the Sea People is a matter of some debate but 200 years of digging in Egypt have not shown any evidence that they were ever there.

clubs_stink wrote:Some more food for thought along the same vein

http://www.egyptcx.netfirms.com/were_th ... gypt_2.htm

http://www.amazon.com/Solomon-Falcon-Sh ... 31882126/1

Geesh. Guess I owe Marduk an apology claiming those hebrews came from the north. So it was egypt all along, huh?

Minimalist wrote:As it stands right now, the prevailing theory in archaeology is that there were no "Israelites" until the end of the Late Bronze Age when they arose from the nomadic tribes of Eastern Canaan.

You mean the prevailing theory of two archaeologists and yourself.

They seem to have convinced everyone except the divinity students....

Those can be a tough audience because they are not impressed by evidence.

Minimalist wrote:They seem to have convinced everyone except the divinity students....

Those can be a tough audience because they are not impressed by evidence.

I've actually done a fair amount of reading on this (the links I posted) and certainly plan to do more. It's an interesting hypothosis (although some feel at this point it is more than a hypothosis) and certainly would explain the lack of archeological evidence backing up the strickly biblical version and to be honest it does make a bit of sense to me. I'll have to investigate this a bit more before I wander to either side of the fence. I certainly know the biblical version inside and out....It would not be unusual for a group to want to separate/distinguish itself by "slightly" altering it's history.

"The Bible Unearthed" by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman.

It's in libraries or available from Amazon.

Excellent write up of a Bronze Age dig in Syria.

http://nhmag.com/index_feature.html

The tomb contained three layers of skeletons, undisturbed, as were the rest of the tomb’s contents, in the nearly four and a half millennia since they were buried. Ancient tombs containing gold and silver objects tend to be prime targets for robbers, both ancient and modern, and so a pristine tomb is an exhilarating find. In three subsequent excavating seasons (in 2002, 2004, and 2006) we have discovered that “our” tomb, now designated Tomb 1, was not alone, but was part of a large complex devoted to the burial of high-ranking individuals in the mid- to late third millennium b.c.

Minimalist wrote:Excellent write up of a Bronze Age dig in Syria.

http://nhmag.com/index_feature.html

I agree, thanks.

Discussion of Herod's tomb.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printeditio ... &cset=true

AFTER 2,000 YEARS of indignity and ignominy, Herod the Great has finally gotten his revenge.

During their revolt against Roman rule over Judea between AD 66 and 72, Jews who remembered King Herod as a Roman puppet smashed his sarcophagus, which had been interred with royal pomp about 70 years before. Christians have identified him as a baby killer who forced Jesus' family to flee Bethlehem. And Herod's habit of having his rivals and relatives killed has hardly burnished his image.

Fish in Jerusalem?

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShAr ... mNo=864747

Pottery sherds that differed in nature from those found so far in the City of David were uncovered and the researchers date them to the second half of the ninth century or the beginning of the eighth century B.C.E. approximately, a range that covers the reign of Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat, to the reign of Joash, son of Ahaziah, a period when Jerusalem was subject to the influence of its northern neighbors, the Kingdom of Israel and Phoenicia. (Reich is nonetheless cautious and says that the precise date has yet to be determined.)

From Archaeologica News.

I wonder if the mediterranean fish were part of the diet or if there was an industry for using their bones for specific purposes, i.e. some type of tools, decorations, jewelry, or other purpose.

On the otherhand, I prefer ocean fish to fresh water. Maybe they did also and some were willing to pay the higher cost.

The implication in the article was that it was Phoenecians looking to maintain "their diet."

There is a certain logic to the idea that the 9th century BC population of Judaea being mainly pastoral would have needed someone to buy up their wool. The Phoenecians were the champion merchants of the age.

Yea. Somehow I missed the conclusion. I guess I got sidetracked when I got to the last coupla paragraphs. My bad.

BTW, while Reich's idea is plausible, one also has to utilize Occam's Razor. "Cities" in this era were almost exclusively the homes of the upper classes. Even if Jerusalem was a small village it was still the biggest village in the region and therefore the home of the king and whatever bureaucracy was needed. This would have been the elite of the kingdom and maybe they were rich enough to trade with the Philistines on the coast for seafood?

Fish would have been a delicacy in land-locked Jerusalem and then, as now, the upper classes liked to flaunt their wealth!

A solid recap of modern archaeological scholarship....now that we don't have to put up with Arch jumping up and down like a lunatic and threatening to hold his breath till he turns blue!

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShAr ... &listSrc=Y

Prof. Israel Finkelstein sees no contradiction between holding a proper Pesach seder and telling the story of the exodus from Egypt, and the fact that, in his opinion, the exodus never occurred.