Rick Sumner

The four-room house is more than a matter of simple architecture; it's a purity thing. With the room at the back, a menstruating woman, for example, can stay there without infecting the rest of the house. Perhaps they were inhabitted by "Proto-Deuteronics?"

That there were "proto-Israelites" in Egypt shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone--some early Jews were likely Canaanites. Canaanites were slaves in Egypt. Of this latter we can be certain. That doesn't mean that the Exodus is anything but a legend, and I don't expect it's going to have much impact on the theories of Finkelstein, for example.

Even if the houses can be established as Israelite houses, how would this prove the Exodus? If anything, it would indicate quite the contrary--that Proto-Israelites stayed slaves in Egypt later than we had thought.

But four-room houses are an important find, to attempt to dismiss them as parallel architecture is nothing but an ad hoc.

Regards,
Rick

Jayhawker Soule

Why should a Canaanite dwelling be deemed important?

Rick Sumner

Because we didn't know they were there that late. Could be further inquiry will indicate that it was Dever, and not Finkelstein, who hit the nail on the head. It's an interesting development.

Regards,
Rick

bleubird

Israel
Isis-Ra-El
Egypt?
Who can know?

Rick Sumner

Either an Egyptologist or someone who can read Hebrew could probably tell you without a whole lot of trouble. It looks good. . .in English.

Regards,
Rick

Jayhawker Soule

We didn't know that there was interaction between Egypt and the peoples of Syro-Palestine?

I have read both, and I remain at a loss. Perhaps you could tell me, specifically, what there is about a West Semitic dwelling that Finkelstein would find so challenging and Dever so supportive? Page references would be helpful.

It's an interesting find.

edited to add ...
This text was written a decade ago. I believe that Finkelstein/Silberman reference it, and I assume Dever was familiar with it. Neither, to my knowledge, challenged it.

Rick Sumner

Of course we did, but not "proto-Isarelites", which I think we can safely identify Canaanites in four-room houses.

Ah, I regret I can't--I got both from the library. But it's a question of dating. Finkelstein tends to predate archaeological sites--the "low choronology" to steal his term. Dever is probably the most vociferous combatant to "naive archaeologists who have become camp followers of them."(Mar/Apr BAR 2001, p41). If these are as late as they're claiming them, and depending on what else is found (I did state that it "could be that further development"), it could make a low choronology difficult to maintain.


The "gloating" would be the Harris papyrus. A century earlier than these huts. Or perhaps he had the El-Amarna letters in mind? Two centuries. Again, it's not a question of if they were there, it's a question of when.

As for Canaanites in general being there--that's not what makes this interesting. Not all Canaanites used four-room houses. In fact, I don't believe any four-room houses are found in Egypt until centuries later. It's that *these* Canaanites were in Egypt that late that makes it interesting.

Regards,
Rick

Jayhawker Soule

As noted in another thread ...

As do I. Should you get back to the library in the near future, you might well discover that the presence of a four-room dwelling in Egypt, while interesting, has little relevancy to the dispute between Dever and Finkelstein.

Yes, interesting, and nothing more.

Rick Sumner

I'm unsure why you're quoting this to me. I haven't called them Israelite houses. I've been careful to ensure that I term them "proto-Israelite" or "Canaanite." Canaanites were proto-Israelites, telling me that Canaanites and Israelites were similar doesn't change anything I've said.

*If* it could securely be established as an Israelite settlement that early (and I say *if*), Finkelstein is wrong about when Israel popped up. That's why I said "Could be further inquiry," rather than noting that what is presently there is enough to have any impact.

I'm puzzled here. Do you think I'm contending that it somehow provides a basis for the Exodus? I certainly haven't said anything to indicate that. Of course "interesting, and nothing more." What more could it be? It's more information about the society the stories came from, not more information about the stories. I never implied differently.

Regards,
Rick

Tristan Scott

I think Rick is right, these would be better described as Canaanite dwellings rather than Israelite, as all the buildings of the middle east was probably influenced by the Canaanites and Sumerians. The Semitic people in Egypt were only enslaved after the 15th and 16th Dynasties when the Hyksos ruled the lower Nile. The Hyksos were probably an immigrant people from Canaan, or they could have also been Hebrew people. There is no record that they came to power through invasion. If they were Hebrew people, it would help answer a few of the riddles posed by the stories in Genesis and in Exodus. Joseph, for example could have been one of the Hyksos Kings. When the Hyksos were ousted, it is likely that the Semitic people that stayed behind were enslaved.

There are some people who believe that Moses was actually an Egyptian Pharoah, Akhenaten, or at least one of his lieutenants. The theory is that Akhenaten was raised by Semitic relatives and that he attempted to introduce a monotheistic god Aten to Egypt. He was deposed and driven from Egypt with his semitic and Egyptian supporters. A pretty good book on the subject is Ahmed Osman's Moses and Akhenaten: The secret History of Egypt at the Time of the Exodus.