Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Lisbeth S. Fried" <lizfried AT umich.edu>]

>
> 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.

Dear Michael,
We are talking at cross purposes here.
It is certainly true that the vast majority of structures remaining
today are stone. Yet, the vast majority of buildings built in ancient Israel
was of mud brick. Stone with wood beams was reserved for
monumental public buildings.  Domestic houses were of mud brick.
The question I was responding to was whether the temple at
Shiloh would be distinguishable from ordinary houses. I presumed
that the assumption was that the distinction would be difficult
and that therefore the building material was of mud brick.
Stone pillars separated the rooms of the typical four-room house,
and that is usually all that is left standing, and perhaps the foundation
trenches. It is certainly true, however, that stone was the building
material of choice. As it had to be quarried and hauled, it was
reserved usually for public buildings and the houses of the elite.
For everyone else, it was mud brick, built on several courses of
foundation stones.

Liz Fried
lizfried AT umich.edu