Israelite-origins debate ignoring Iron I, Iron II human remains aspect of issue

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

vincemoon@rcn.com - 09 Dec 2004 06:40 GMT

Why are ancient Israelite Iron I & II skeletal remains being ignored?
Are there no such remains?

Some jews ( http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2554 ) have
apparently entered into an instantaneous psychologically blissful
Nirvana wherein they have replaced their Israelite racism with a
Canaanite racism that makes them feel good, on the grounds of their
newfound certainty that they and ancient Israel are descended not from
those who invaded Canaan but from indigenous Canaanites, based on their
apparently blind faith in the words of an Israeli archaelogist, Israel
Finkelstein, combined with their superficial understanding of results
posted by genetic historians.

My response to such, is that many studious archaelogists, who are in
the same specialty as Finkelstein, take issue with Finkelstein, even if
they accept the archaeological research some of his ideas and the
archaeological research he bases his conclusions on.

What strikes me as bizarre on all sides of the
archaeology-and-Israelite-origins question, is, why are actual human
remains, such as skeletons and skulls, or the lack thereof, ignored by
all sides concerned?

Supposedly though there are few burials and cemeteries found in the
Iron Age I sites in the hill country of Israel that are crucial to the
Israel-origins debate, there are many Iron Age II cemeteries and
burials in the areas. Why is everyone ignoring what human remains found
in these burial sites indicate?

Why are archaeologists over-emphasizing artifacts other than actual
human remains, when such artifacts, in reality, do no more than provide
grounds for conjecture?

Seems specialists have the attitude that if something cannot be proven
using the traditional tools of their specialties, then that idea that
cannot be proven is in fact false, whereas if the tools of their
specialty indicate that an idea is true, then that idea is indeed,
undoubtedly, true.

As for the genetic evidence, this has to do with Y-chromosome data.
Ultimately this Y- chromosome data clues investigators in on the
identity of one of hundreds or thousands of ancestors, even though
there is no cause to assume that this one ancestor contributed more to
the genetic makeup of an individual in question than any average
ancestor amongst all the ancestors did. The Y-chromosome data does not
reveal anything about the maternal ancestry of an individual. It
reveals nothing about the female ancestors on the father's side.

BBC reported a while back that skulls had been found in ancient Israel,
that were skulls of persons who were ancient Israelites, and that these
skulls were more "round" or brachycephalic in shape than the skulls of
semites, who are typically dolicocephalic.

As for the fact that Hebrew is a semitic language allegedly proving
something about the origins of Israelites, historically speaking,
Ethnic groups have adopted languages spoken by other ethnic groups. The
regime of King Solomon, who was heavily into foreign trade, was
glorified by Biblical writers in its pre-idolotrous era. Try trading
with someone whose language you cannot speak--it's not easy.
---

@2004 David Virgil Hobbs
http://www.angelfire.com/ma/vincemoon

History Forum / General / Ancient History / December 2004

Israelite-origins debate ignoring Iron I, Iron II human remains aspect of issue