History & Geography
- History & Geography
For the study of the period of the early monarchy in ancient Israel, both texts (biblical and extra-biblical) and archaeology need to be taken into account. In this article, A. argues, against certain "minimalist" claims, that the oldest layers of the Dtr may preserve elements that are contemporary with the period in question. In particular, A. discusses the bearing of archaeology on the chronology of the period and urges scholars to be cautious in their arguments, until the relevant archaeological data can be more thoroughly assessed. Against this background, A. presents and analyzes recent findings from the city of Jerusalem (the City of David, the Ophel, the Givati parking lot), Moza, Khirbet Qeiyafa, Tel Tayinat, Tel ʿEton, Timna, and Faynan, and their relevance for the reconstruction of the history of the early monarchy. [Adapted from published abstract—C.T.B.]
Google Scholar
B.'s note is a response to the article of Oded Tammuz (see OTA 43 [2020] #29) cited in its title regarding the practice of concluding transactions on the Sabbath at Elephantine, Āl-Yāḫūdu, and Bīt Nasar. In his response, B. points out that Tammuz's ignoring the Egyptian dates of the Elephantine papyri cited by him problematizes his discussion and calls into [End Page 445] question his distinction between the allegedly Judean-majority population of Āl-Yāḫūdu and the Judean-minority population of Bīt-Nasar. In addition, Tammuz miscalculated the Julian dates of certain tablets; the correct date for one Āl-Yāḫūdu tablet from the reign of Nabonidus falls on a Sabbath. [Adapted from published abstract—C.T.B.]
Google Scholar
B. examines the question of the antiquity of the Israelite tribal system in view of current hypotheses that understand this as a late literary construct. In responding to these hypotheses, B. invokes the fundamental insights of social anthropology and calls attention to the epigraphic attestation of kinship-based social entities, which are also mentioned in the biblical texts, i.e., Manassite clans are referred to in the Samaria ostraca and the tribe of Gad is mentioned in the Mesha Stela. In light of this evidence, a late invention of the tribal system after 587 or 720 b.c.e. proves historically untenable according to B. Israel's kinship identity is rather to be understood as an old and important factor in the social reality of the ancient Israelites. In addition, the roles of Benjamin and Judah in the tribal system have interesting implications for the understanding the much-debated issue of the united kingdom of David. [Adapted from published abstract—C.T.B.]
Google Scholar
For several decades now, the presence of Asiatics in the eastern Nile Delta has been well established thanks to excavations carried out at Tell el-Dabʿa, ancient Avaris. Discussion of the precise geographical affiliations of these Asiatics has centered principally on ceramic evidence, while small finds, burial types, dress, and personal ornamentation, as well as domestic and cultic architecture with Levantine associations at the site have received less attention. With reference to the specifics of...
