Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

On Nov 11, 2007 11:34 PM, K Randolph wrote:

> Why do you assume that just because there is a name to a geographical
> location, that there was a settlement there?
>
> To give an example, the description in Genesis of Beersheva at the
> time of Abraham was that there was only a well there, with the only
> settlement the occasional temporary tent of a nomad. There was no
> town. That came later, much later. Yet it was a named place. How many
> other named sites mentioned at the times of the patriarchs were merely
> wells at good camping places?

Even a "good camping place" is a nomadic settlement, having clear
patterns of settlement.  Archaeologically it might be hard to determine
periods when the site serves as a nomadic settlement -- in general,
there are few buildings at such periods, and those that are present
may have been built at earlier periods and just reused.  That it is hard,
though, does not mean that it is impossible.   Various elements,
including burials, could also shed light on nomadic settlement
activity if the nomads practice burials.

Yitzhak Sapir