Archaeologica.org

A good article from National Geographic on King David. Was the the mighty king, or just a goat herd?

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/ ... raper-text

From today’s news page

http://sandiegonewsroom.com/news/index. ... &Itemid=89

I watched the Nova show last night.

The video is impressive.

The mines are very deep and complex and the smelting site shows a whole lot was going on.

I would say that, if it is a correctly dated site, it blows away the idea that there wasn’t enough sophistication in the area to support such an endeavor.

If it wasn’t David and Solomon, it was somebody else.

Good grief.


King Solomon's mine is fiction. It was invented for a novel by H. Rider Haggard in 1885. The only OT reference is the preposterous

They sailed to Ophir and brought back 420 talents of gold, which they delivered to King Solomon.

1 Kings 9:28

A "talent" btw being a Greek word and measurement which the literalists would have us believe was used 500 years before the Greeks got to Palestine. One need not "sail" to Edom.

If it wasn’t David and Solomon, it was somebody else.

Obviously. Archaeological finds/surveys in Jerusalem indicate that the place was a tiny village of less than 1,000 people while the whole region of Judah totaled about 20,000 (mainly) pastoralists with only a few settled villages.

One of the ideas floated in the program was the “King Solomon’s mines” were not gold mines but copper mines.

The strata at the smelting site show an time of reduced activity, then no activity, at the mysterious 1200 BC collapse of everything.
Then it picks back up again.

Gold was King, but copper was a close second.

There is a related program that PBS ran along with this one on the controversy of the size and influence of the “Kingdoms” of David and Solomon.
It is classic trench warfare.
Both side dug in and lobbing “new finds” back and forth.

Be careful. You may shoot your TV!

http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com ... nkelstein/


Every year about this time some overblown claim is made to make the bible-thumpers get a warm feeling when they wet their pants. Finkelstein, here, is being a towel they do not want!

I recall reading somewhere recently that much of the trade in the area was copper, with mines all over the area and into the Negev, and that some of the wars were to control the trade.

Roy.

Of course, people did not suddenly stop making BRONZE because archaeologists 3,000 years later decided to call it the IRON AGE.

We are dealing with an astounding case of circular reasoning in all this. Copper mines are found and for some reason people start trotting out "Solomon" and saying that his "mines," which are 19th century fiction, have been found. There are times when it seems as if people wish to portray the guys who wrote their bible as too stupid to know the difference between copper and gold!

Finkelstein got his camera face time.
And he has to defend his dating against all comers.

But the strata at the smelting site seem to cover a lot of time.
And the strata seem to back up the C14 dating with a “dead” period apx. 1200 BC.

And, other than for decoration, copper and bronze importance went down with the use of iron.
So why the great amounts clearly taken out if it a post Iron Age place?

And, as you pointed out, “Solomon’s Mines” are not a Biblical idea.

So why the great amounts clearly taken out if it a post Iron Age place?

The logical answer, not necessarily the correct one of course, is that they exported to a larger area to maintain and increase sales.

Roy.

And, other than for decoration, copper and bronze importance went down with the use of iron.

Really? Explain that to the hoplites.

http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/rosiva ... plites.htm


Bronze was a major component of their armor and the hoplite style of fighting only went out of fashion when the Roman legion outclassed the phalanx in the second century.

And the strata seem to back up the C14 dating with a “dead” period apx. 1200 BC.

We know that the old Late Bronze Age empires collapsed or were seriously weakened ( Egypt ) in the aftermath of 1200 BC. Whether the Sea People were the direct cause of the collapse or merely part of the result of some sort of climate shift that put lots of people on the move is something which has still to be determined. But what does seem clear is that the Sea People did not molest the Phoenicians who expanded to the south as the Egyptians retrenched and the Philistines (who were part of the Sea People) settled in the south.

People continually try to use the OT as a history text and shoehorn the "Israelites" into the equation. They are not necessary.

They are not necessary.

Now you've upset me!

Roy.

If you were an "Israelite" I'd worry about it.

I know that it does not quite match up by a few hundred years, but still suspect the eruption of Santorini had something to do with the migration of the sea people and general disruption of the mid east

Minimalist wrote:Really? Explain that to the hoplites.

They didn't get the memo?