new discoveries

[Guest]

i guess there isn't just insignificant things being thrown away in the Temple Mount dirt. here is the latest discovery from the 'garbage' that is being thrown in the dump:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShAr ... mNo=782058

Grull asked officials of the Waqf, the Muslim trust for the Temple Mount, where the tablet came from, and they explained it had been found in the large hole dug in the mount in 1999 when the entrance to Solomon's Stables was opened. The Hungarian archaeologist received rare permission to photograph and document the finding.

does anyone have more information or have i been gone so long that this has already been talked about?

[Minimalist]

It's 1,000 years after the alleged David and Solomon and Flavius Silva was not exactly an unknown figure to begin with.


Elsewhere there is a comment from Barkay acknowledging what other scholars are saying:

He has recovered much in the way of artifacts from the 7th century BC forward including coins, ostraka, etc. but relatively little pottery from the 10th century. There is no context to any of this stuff because it was moved twice....once by Herod to create his landfill and once by the Waqf to do whatever the hell it is they are doing. However, the paucity of finds datable to the 10th century is support for Finkelstein's conclusion that, far from being the site of a great "empire" in the 10th century, there was not a lot going on in Jerusalem.

[Guest]

There is no context to any of this stuff because it was moved twice....

so if it has been moved twice thenwe can conclude that the 10th century items, were not moved, or destroyed beyond recognition, hidden elsewhere but again the lack of finding anything does not prove Finkelstein right, especially since some 10th century items are being recovered.

there is still a long ways to go in sifting through the garbage...remember also the Waqf would not want any evidence of Saul, David or Solomon to be recovered thus there would be any number of reasons why that time period's artifacts are not located.

you just want too much physical proof.

[Minimalist]

1+1 still equals 2.


If vast amounts of artifacts are being recovered from periods beginning with the city's rapid expansion in size (8th century BC) but relatively little is being recovered from periods prior to that the implication is clear that there was not a lot of activity going on until the 700's BC. Coincidentally or not, this coincides with the Assyrian overrunning of Israel and the build up of population via refugees from the north.

And this is not even the most compelling argument against a widespread Davidic Empire.

[Guest]

Coincidentally or not, this coincides with the Assyrian overrunning of Israel and the build up of population via refugees from the north

since the assyrian conquest came after david's and solomon's rule, do you not think they may have carted off and/or destroyed many , many of the remnents of their rule?

i would have to re-check but the account but normally conquering armies do a lot of disruptive work to what is on hand at the time and it stands to reason that items would be missing.

look at this example: it has been 60 years since the atomic bomb at hiroshima, now there is very little evidence left of the explosion and circa 1940's architecture, and artifacts...are you saying that that blast did not happen because the physical evidence is no longer evident or in little insignificant pieces?

i think presumption is not a good tool to use in archaeology.

[Minimalist]

Exactly, except the Assyrians did not overrun Jerusalem at the time...they overran Israel and there remain plenty of archaeological sites from the northern kingdom for excavation.

A later Assyrian attack on Jerusalem seems to have occured after the city had been somewhat developed (under Hezekiah) and may well have happened because of an anti-Assyrian alliance between Judah and Egypt.
In any case when Sennacherib finally moved on Judah he laid the country waste and then comes the discrepancy.

The bible claims that god wiped out 185,000 Assyrians (an absurd number for warfare at the time, btw. The Romans, masters of military logistics operating 7 centuries later used 40,000 to devastate the whole country.)

Sennacherib's report is that after blasting most of the countryside he accepted Hezekiah's surrender and tribute.

Jacobovici, as you will see, holds out for Taharqa of the 25th Dynasty riding to the rescue and chasing the Assyrians away. Except Taharqa wasn't pharoah at the time of the siege and the whole story sounds more like the later coalition against the Babylonians which ended in Egyptian defeat at Carchemesh and a little later with Jersualem overrun and the populace deported.

Sennacherib's makes the most sense. It wouldn't have been the first time that an attacker was bought off from a siege. In fact, when Pope Leo met Attila the Hun he probably carried a lot more gold and a lot less of the Word. The bribery aspect gets left out of a lot of modern re-tellings of the story.

[Guest]

don't forget about nebuchadrezzar and his yearly levy (kitchen pg.69) beofrre his destruction of jerusalem. maybe finkestein needs t be looking for 10th sentury artifacts in saudia arabia and iraq instead of israel as it seems most of it was carted away.

out 185,000 Assyrians

i have no qualms with that figure, keeping in mind that the aasyrians had to keep other nations in mind when attacking israel. the romans did not have the same problem.

also keep in mind that jerusalem had to be re-built several times after solomomn's reign thus to expect to find a lot of 10th century construction in that city would be idealistic, also given Herod's proclivity to building. what did he tear down to make room for his structures?

The bribery aspect gets left out of a lot of modern re-tellings of the story.

i can agree with you here

[Minimalist]

i have no qualms with that figure, keeping in mind that the aasyrians had to keep other nations in mind when attacking israel. the romans did not have the same problem.

That Roman Army was normally posted in Syria to keep an eye on the Parthians (Persians) who were definitely the biggest threat at the time.

Bottom line, however, is that there simply is not the water resource available to sustain an army that size (don't forget the horses and oxen for the wagons). The number is inane.

This is a reasonable estimate.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/gab ... br0009.htm

The Assyrian army of the 8th century B.C. was comprised of at least 150-200 thousand men and was the largest standing military force that the Middle East had witnessed to this time. An Assyrian combat field army numbered approximately 50,000 men with various mixes of infantry, chariots, and cavalry.

As you correctly note, the Assyrians would have been unable to strip every other theater of troops without risking rebellion or invasion on their distant, Eastern border in order to launch a punitive campaign in the far west.

[Guest]

Bottom line, however, is that there simply is not the water resource available to sustain an army that size (don't forget the horses and oxen for the wagons). The number is inane.

again you forget that the army could have brought its own water barrels, most people do when they travel especially at that time. thenyou need to remember that the drain on the jordan was not as large then as now and it carried a lot more water than it does now. same for other water sources.

An Assyrian combat field army numbered approximately 50,000 men with various mixes of infantry, chariots, and cavalry.

isn't that convenient, man cannot accept a figure written in the Bible so they lower it down to one they are comfortable with. so man calls God a liar again...do you think that is wise?

[Minimalist]

so man calls God a liar again...do you think that is wise?

No...I think god is a figment of man's imagination and that the priests who wrote the bible are liars.

God is irrelevant in the discussion.


Jerusalem was 20 miles or so from the Jordan...a two-day march back then without the benefit of Roman roads.

Ancient armies lived off the land, Arch.

[Guest]

Ancient armies lived off the land, Arch

maybe for food, but you are trying to tell me that people who lived in the desert all of their lives, mounted an expedition without the slightest consideration of carrying barrels to put water in? they would be well aware of the dangers of a lack of water and i am sure they would make the proper preparations.

to do otherwise would take the faith you so well despise.

[Minimalist]

Another good reason for marching along river valleys whenever possible.

Sending foraging parties to secure water/food was a major operation in ancient times. A force had to be sufficiently large enough to defend itself from ambush AND accomplish the mission while at the same time not leaving the main force vulnerable to attack.

It is said that amateurs study 'tactics' and professionals study 'logistics.'

There is a reason for that.

[Guest]

Another good reason for marching along river valleys whenever possible.

Sending foraging parties to secure water/food was a major operation in ancient times.

yes but what would they put the water in?? their pockets? they would have had barrels or something similar that they brought with them for they would know they would need a large amount to quench the thirst of man and beast.

in attempting to descredit something, take a look at your own argument first and see how it sounds. even for 185,000 men they would have had something to carry, keep water in for those times they couldn't refill right away.

[Minimalist]

Only you believe in the 185,000 figure. It is as outrageous as the supposed 6,000,000 who fled Egypt and most likely created for the same reason: If you are going to lie.....lie BIG

Rameses the Great fought Kadesh with a force of 20,000. The Hittites had a slightly smaller force.

I'd imagine skins or pottery vessels served in that area.

[Guest]

Only you believe in the 185,000 figure

yes that would be so, i do not have or have seen any evidence that would corroborate any other figure. modern analysis doesn't cut it because it starts from a premise of unbelief and is looking for data to support such a position despite the possibility that it could happen.