Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Deborah Millier <deborahmillier AT yahoo.com>]

L. Fried wrote:

> As for the viability of mud-brick 
> buildings in the archaeogical
> record, that is primarily what 
> there is, and they are continually 
> found in excavations throughout 
> Israel. Often there are also stone 
> foundations.

No Liz.  I'm sorry, but this is simply not true.  The
emphasis is wrong.  I know you recently moved to
Israel, but I lived there too...for a little under 5
years.  Until January of last year.  I took several
courses there related to the geography and archeaology
of Israel.  The *vast* majority of structures from
*any* biblical period remaining today were built of
stone.  Not mud brick.  There are a few from mud
brick: the walls of Jericho, Hazor, ...a couple of
others.  But *by far*, stone was the medium of choice.

However, if wood had been used, it would be difficult
to trace today.  Stone is easy to detect.  Brick a
little harder, but possible.  Wood nearly impossible.

It is simply too difficult to tell from the text or
trace-evidence what the "temple" in Shilo was made of.

B'RAKHOT,
-- Michael Millier

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/