Page 1 of 2
Significant Find in Jerusalem
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:54 pm
by Minimalist
Middle Bronze Age fortifications.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... QD9AF8KE81
The discovery marks the first time archaeologists have found such massive construction from before the time of Herod, the ruler behind numerous monumental projects in the city 2,000 years ago, and shows that Jerusalem of the Middle Bronze Age had a powerful population capable of complex building projects, said Ronny Reich, director of the excavation and an archaeology professor at the University of Haifa.
The 17th century BCE would have been prior to the Egyptian hegemony established after the Hyksos expulsion.
Re: Significant Find in Jerusalem
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:49 pm
by Rokcet Scientist
But was that Jerusalem the administrative centre of the land we now call Palestine, or was it a 'mere' city state, with no particular control over the surrounding lands and peoples, like Byblos and Tyre were then, in the runup to Phoenicia? And who lived there, in Jerusalem 1,600 BCE, and who ruled them?
Re: Significant Find in Jerusalem
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 8:28 pm
by Minimalist
That is not the picture that Finkelstein portrays. The north, because of better climate tended to be more populous and powerful.
Re: Significant Find in Jerusalem
Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 4:27 am
by Rokcet Scientist
Minimalist wrote:That is not the picture that Finkelstein portrays. The north, because of better climate tended to be more populous and powerful.
So Jerusalem was a backwater in 1,600 BCE? An extended village at best?
Still: who lived there, and who ruled them?
Re: Significant Find in Jerusalem
Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 9:57 am
by kbs2244
Well, they do call them "Canaanites."
And those are some pretty good sized rocks just to protect a pathway.
I would have to assume the "fort" was better built.
"The 26-foot-high wall is believed to have been part of a protected passage built by ancient Canaanites from a hilltop fortress to a nearby spring that was the city's only water source and vulnerable to marauders."
Re: Significant Find in Jerusalem
Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 2:12 pm
by Minimalist
And those are some pretty good sized rocks just to protect a pathway.
The "pathway" was to the water source. In the event of a siege having the defenders die of thirst is not usually considered sound strategy. The site has no easy solution to the strategic problem: Defenders like to be above the attackers but the water source is at ground level.
However, there is Warren's Shaft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren%27s_Shaft to consider since this seems to be older than the wall but essentially doing the same job. Why, if Warren's Shaft was already in place, did they feel the need to build the wall? People don't usually engage in that kind of activity for no reason.
Re: Significant Find in Jerusalem
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 9:52 am
by kbs2244
The CNN story and video from today news page give a much better idea if the size.
It is huge.
25 feet tall walls built with 4 and 5 ton blocks of stone.
(Or deep maybe. It would depend on what surface level was at the time.)
This could be a predecessor of Warrens Shaft.
It sure shows someone though the place was worth a lot of work.
Re: Significant Find in Jerusalem
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 5:03 pm
by Minimalist
A citadel on top of a hill without access to a water supply is not much of a citadel. How much water can be stored after all?
Certainly, when Hezekiah began to develop the city in the aftermath of the collapse of Israel one of his major endeavors was to dig a tunnel to the Gihon Spring...just as had been done in the past. It's a basic defensive strategy because all the walls in the world on top of the hill are not going to matter if an attacker just has to sit on his butt for a couple of weeks while you die of thirst.
Take a look at this.
http://books.google.com/books?id=m1b1Vg ... em&f=false
Gives a discussion of the water system at Hazor.
Re: Significant Find in Jerusalem
Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 11:55 am
by kbs2244
No argument with your posts, min.
But this is pre Hebrew (David?)
It seems to be a pretty inportant place even then.
Re: Significant Find in Jerusalem
Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 12:48 pm
by Minimalist
There is only one raison d'etre for Jerusalem to be where it is and that is the Gihon Spring. Without that, the place is one more patch of desert.
But, yes, in the Middle Bronze Age the place seems to have attained some degree of importance although when you read the correspondence from Abdi-heba to Akhenaten it seems that the significance of it withered quickly. This website gives a fair overview of the tone of those letters.
http://www.lehrhaus.org/catalog/journey/journey1.html
As the life of Jerusalem passed from the Middle Bronze Age of 1800 BCE to the Late Bronze Age of four centuries later, we are offered a tragi-comic glimpse into the life of one Jerusalem's earliest known rulers in an era when the Egyptian Empire dominated a very quarrelsome province known as Canaan. Around 1360 BCE, Jerusalem was ruled by one Abdiheba, a rather hapless soul who swore his loyalty to Egypt while the rulers of neighboring city-states were lining up to overthrow both Abdiheba and the Egyptian yoke.
Abdiheba's boss was none other than the extraordinary Pharaoh Akhenaten, the man who may well have invented the world's first monotheism or one-god religion, Atenism. Akhenaten's passion was to transform the 2,000 year old religious pantheon of over 700 Egyptian deities by replacing them all with an obscure god representing the disk of the sun, the Aten. Abdiheba and Jerusalem were the least of Akhenaten's interests, and this neglect clearly shows in the surviving cuneiform tablet correspondence between them known as the Amarna Archive. In one letter, Abdiheba begs Akhenaten for more Egyptian troops to defend Egyptian interests in the Jerusalem hill country. In another, he asks the Pharaoh to withdraw some Nubian Egyptian archers who broke into Abdiheba's house!
What we don't know is what happened to Jerusalem. Ahmose I drove the Hyksos out of Egypt and chased them all the way back to Canaan. There is no destruction layer at Jerusalem so perhaps they simply surrendered? As always, the Egyptians were far more interested in the coastal towns and the gateway to the north where Phoenicia and Mesopotamia awaited as opposed to the poverty stricken interior.
Perhaps it is as simple as Jerusalem losing its trading partners when the Egyptians swept over the coast?
Re: Significant Find in Jerusalem
Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 8:58 am
by kbs2244
Doesn’t Jerusalem overlook the valley that is the pass from Jericho to the Mediterranean?
As such it would be a good place to spend the night after a day’s climb and a good place to collect taxes on those passing through.
Re: Significant Find in Jerusalem
Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 11:26 am
by Minimalist
First of all, I hate this map because it is laid out wrong but it does show the main routes...if you can re-orient yourself so that "east" is at the top.
The web site associated with the map
http://www.bibarch.com/ArchaeologicalSi ... Routes.htm
notes that there are 3 routes, the Kings Highway running from Damascus to Arabia; the coastal road connecting Phoenicia and Egypt; and the "ridge route" where Jerusalem (Jebus, on this map) is located. Jebus does have a secondary trail to connect it to the coastal road near Ekron. Jericho, though, had been destroyed c 1550 either by earthquake or assault or both. For that matter Ai, the nearest town to Jericho, had been unoccupied since c 2200 bc and was not re-founded until the Iron Age which suggests that it was not a major trading stop, either in the LBA.
Re: Significant Find in Jerusalem
Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:38 pm
by dannan14
ROFLMAODMPMP!!!!!!! There's actually a town called Jebus?!?!?!? Homer would be so happy!
Re: Significant Find in Jerusalem
Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 1:35 pm
by Minimalist
Where else would "Jebusites" live?

Re: Significant Find in Jerusalem
Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:25 pm
by kbs2244
Agreed that those are the major north / south trade routes.
I am thinking more local.
Like a salt trade route from the Dead Sea to the Mediterranean, or to a trading spot on the major north / south land routes.
I have a book somewhere with the simple title "Salt."
He traces the inportance, value and trade routes of salt world wide through history.
Pretty intresting.
It was worth a whole lot more then than now.
It was one of the reasons the Romans wanted France.
I will try and find it to see if there was such a salt trade route and, if so, when.