The Tel Dan Inscription

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Texts can give us human motives but, as you noted, people lie too.

Most especially ancient chroniclers of all kinds, from people such as say Suetonius and Caesar to the writers of virtually every sacred text ever written. IF you are more charitable than me you may prefer polite euphemisms such a " they used poetic licence" and "they exaggerated".

[Godscreated]

I am going to play the devil's advocate here.

As I see it the main flaw of archaeology to reconstruct history is that very little from the distant past actually get preserved in the archaeological record. A good analogue would be trying to solve a jigsaw puzzle with only some of the pictures, what you get is a incomplete picture.

To use an example in Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars, there is a record migration of a tribe called the Helvetti which even accounting for overestimation in numbers, was many thousands of people. However the archaeological evidence for this migration is nil. The same scant archaeological evidence for a lot of mass scale migrations attested in historical writings.

I agree, to little is known about much of the ancient past. During the time of David there's few historical records or facts through any sources and when something is found everyone wants their two cents worth. It would be nice to see people work together instead of everyone wanting to be king on the mountain.

[Minimalist]

During the time of David there's few historical records or facts

For once you are on the right track. The archaeological evidence from "Jerusalem" ( or whatever it was called back then ) show that in the 10th century there was little on the site beyond a tiny village. Archaeologist, David Ussishkin has gone so far as to suggest the town was abandoned at the time. It is not such an outlandish idea. The town is served by one spring and even a minor drought would have made human life on the site impossible. The condition persisted throughout the 10th and 9th centuries. Finally at the end of the 8th century we begin to find evidence of human expansion of the site. A town of perhaps 10,000 finally grew up - and all were dependent on that same spring which served as a limiting factor for growth until the Romans and their engineering of aqueducts came along.

It is precisely this lack of any evidence of a major city on the site which causes modern archaeology to discount the possibility of any sort of Davidic Empire. A significant population base is needed to conquer an empire and Judah did not have it. Moreover, the people they supposedly conquered don't seem to know anything about it.

---

Texts can give us human motives but, as you noted, people lie too.

Most especially ancient chroniclers of all kinds, from people such as say Suetonius and Caesar to the writers of virtually every sacred text ever written. IF you are more charitable than me you may prefer polite euphemisms such a " they used poetic licence" and "they exaggerated".

Or perhaps it is even worse than that? Perhaps they are simply making shit up to illustrate a point? The Roman historian Livy is a great case in point. When Roman armies were successful it was because they maintained order and discipline. Their commander was not rash or careless. When Roman armies are defeated it is because they failed to obey orders or their commander was a jackass who failed to follow a prudent course of action. If you read Livy long enough you start to see the pattern.

[KichigaiNeko]

thanks Min...excellent reading.

[Godscreated]

During the time of David there's few historical records or facts

For once you are on the right track. The archaeological evidence from "Jerusalem" ( or whatever it was called back then ) show that in the 10th century there was little on the site beyond a tiny village. Archaeologist, David Ussishkin has gone so far as to suggest the town was abandoned at the time. It is not such an outlandish idea. The town is served by one spring and even a minor drought would have made human life on the site impossible. The condition persisted throughout the 10th and 9th centuries. Finally at the end of the 8th century we begin to find evidence of human expansion of the site. A town of perhaps 10,000 finally grew up - and all were dependent on that same spring which served as a limiting factor for growth until the Romans and their engineering of aqueducts came along.

It is precisely this lack of any evidence of a major city on the site which causes modern archaeology to discount the possibility of any sort of Davidic Empire. A significant population base is needed to conquer an empire and Judah did not have it. Moreover, the people they supposedly conquered don't seem to know anything about it.

I was not just referring to the Davidic Empire, there is little known about the 10th and 9th centuries BC.

[Doubting Thomas]

What's that? The inscriptions talk about killing people? It must be from the bible.

[Minimalist]

You have to define "little."

Towards the end of the 10th century we have the temple inscription of Sheshonq I at Karnak which describes his campaign into Palestine and which lists a number of towns he "captured." We also have archaeology which can date destruction layers at some of those sites which confirms that someone attacked at roughly the right time.

We have archaeological evidence of growth in the northern kingdom, later called the House of Umri (Omri) by the Assyrians. Some minor inscriptions have been recovered from Tel Rehov in the Beth Shean valley. The site was apparently taken over by the Phoenicians when the Egyptians withdrew from Beth Shean in the mid 12th century. Since everyone used the sme general script it is impossible to tell what the letters mean without knowing what dialect was in use.

But we still have no evidence of a significant town located near what is now called Jerusalem in the 10th-9th centuries and archaeological surveys have shown that all of Judah was a poverty-stricken region of a few hamlets and villages with a population mainly of pastoralists.

Again, I heartily recommend The Bible Unearthed as a primer on archaeology.

[Erinome]

LOL

Min...

Why are you being nice to GC?

[Minimalist]

For once in his life he is being rational, hon. He has to be rewarded for that.

(Not that I think it will last long.)

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

perhaps it is even worse than that? Perhaps they are simply making shit up to illustrate a point?

Indeed.I'm thinking specifically of Seutonius' "Life Of Caligula" which is perhaps the most important source for the popular view of Caligula. Historian Anthony A Barrett* calls the book 'scurillous', apparently a not uncommon view even at the time.

Of course Gibbon is also highly judgemental and reinforces the mythology of the 'good' and 'bad' emperors.

*CALIGULA: The Corruption Of Power" Anthony A Barrett, B T Batsford,London,1989



Kind of puts the writing of sacred books in a rational context,don't it.