Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Ian Hutchesson" <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

>> >the archaeological evidence is not the way you think it to be.

Ian:
>> Dispute the evidence, will you? Don't just make unsupported statements.

Michael:
>You are identifying ethnicity with ceramics.

This is not correct. I'm identifying the fact that the names are Israelite
names as indicated by the YW theophoric, that the artwork is Phoenician
influenced as one expects from Israelite artwork and done not only on the
pythoi but on the door lintels etc. Then the ceramics are northern or from
Jerusalem in origin. Do you agree with all the substantive information in
this paragraph? If not, what don't you agree with?

>You know that this
>corresponds but very roughly to the reality and doesn´t say anything about
>political controll of a teritorry.
>
>> I'm not here to imagine anything. Why speculate rather than weigh the
>> evidence of a strong Israelite presence with what appears to be an
Israelite
>> "governor" of the place?
>
>What governor, what israelitic governor?

The word governor was in quotes. The word used was sar, which is used as
prince or governor, but it obviously has a slightly wider usage than I could
convey, hence the quotes.

>A governor would need troops to
>reinforce his authority. This probably just a commercial station with a
>caravanseray on the way (judging by the position of Kuntillet) towards
>Eilat, clearly trying to avoid Judean controlled lands. Why should this
>challenge our vision of the history?
>
>The position of Kuntillet is somewhat south of Kadesh Barnea, the southern
>border of Juda. That is outside of Judean controlled teritorry.

If you assume Judean controlled territory. Jerusalem controlled might be
more likely.

And how does one get to Kuntillat Ajrud without travelling south, through
what you want to call Judean controlled territory?

>Why so? There is a rule of the commerce saying the less countries one has
>to pass through, the less taxes would lay on the merchandise, the bigger
>the profit. Eilat was apparently by the time of Kuntillet lost to Juda and
>under political controll of the same group offering protection at
>Kuntillet. Otherwise would have the Israelite merchants tarried towards
>Eilat passing through Judean teritorry.

You assume Eilat was Judean. You simply cannot. You assume that Kuntillat
Ajrud was once in the hands of a hypothetical Judah of the era. You simply
cannot do that. You are making far too many assumptions. The archaeology of
the site -- as I said -- points not to Jerusalem but to Israel. There is
nothing to make one think that Jerusalem ever had any control over the
place.

>Historical sources speak of a political influence of the Arabian king over
>the region.

Which historical sources for the period?

>Than why not associate this with the mentioned Jahweh of Teman in Arabia?
>Because this forbids your intentions?

No, because it is only one religious reference like the yhwh $mrn. The
archaeology gives no hints of any other influence at the site. Your
insistence on Teman, when there is nothing to suggest it seems unhelpful.

>A temanite controll over the
>South-Negev wouldn`t need their archaeologic presence in Kuntillet. Why
>should tent-dwelling Arabs seek protection between the walls of Kuntillet?

So you are admitting that one cannot show anything for this Teman idea.

>On the reverse would Kuntillet not need fortifications, if it would have
>foreign protection, as in reality.

It was obviously built to be able to resist local attacks. It wasn't just an
open place. Yet its intention seems to have been for trading. That doesn't
need a military presence, hence no serious fortifications.

>Would the Samaritains act on their own, without foreign protection, they
>would need a fortification in Kuntillet, just as any foreigner in adverse
>teritorry.

The question is of course was it so foreign? The particular place was
controlled by them. To have such an outpost of civilisation there means that
they had some control that far.

I think the choice in our discussion is to follow the indications from the
archaeology or to find a reason to reject it. I said last time you tried
redating, then the lacuna, and you are continuing with the Teman argument
which you have no data for. I think you just want a reason -- any reason
seems to do -- to reject the archaeological data.


Ian