cormack12

Hi

Am doing a bit of research around the time David came to power. I'm looking specifically for:

(i) maps of the area and surrounding regions
(ii) type of architecture and building styles

in the time period 1000BC

Thanks for reading

Toltec

I think you looking for archaeological confirmation of biblical events, I'm afraid there is no archaeological evidence to back up the bible. You may as well look for the archaeological evidence of Harry Potter at Euston Station.

The Exodus and David's city is a fable full of moral fibre (well maybe not) but designed to be treated that way by anyone not a bible literalist.

Comet

I think my friends at the biblical archeological review would disagree with you...http://www.bib-arch.org/index.asp#

There are some things we can confirm as fact...city of Jericho, the 1st Temple in Jerusalem, etc. Does this mean that all events, people, places, things are fact in the bible? No...and I think this is what you were getting at.

cormack12

I'm not exactly looking for confirmation of any biblical tales as such. Just what the archietcture at the time would have been like and clothing etc.

I have found a map that is based upon the book of Samuel so it's just the buildings etc I need now. Clothing from that time period if possible.

Toltec

I'm sure biblical archaeology review would confirm anything.

That Jericho existed doesn't confirm bible myths, saying that is like saying Rome existed so that proves the jesus story. It's quite ironic that Jericho has been continually inhabited for nearly 4000 years with only a 400 year break when the site was uninhabited that falls slap bang in the middle of the bible myth.

However the non-existence of one city is academic, the reason the bible myth is a fake is simply put the whole are the old testament took place was part of the Egytian Empire at the time. All those fictional cities and the few real ones were Egytian occupied. There were no rivals tribes to fight they were under Egyptian control. Also it kinda knocks the leaving of Egypt bit on the head, when you're still there.

Toltec

I think you're missing the point, if the bible tales didn't happen there was nothing built because the people that built them didn't exist, so no architecture. Perhaps as an alternative you could look at the non-biblical people that really were there and did build stuff.

Comet

I don't get it...everyone seems to be out to "prove something is a lie or a fake". That's not history...that's philosophy. There is no possible way to prove or disprove anything that has been researched or written about the ancient world. There just isn't enough information for any of us to make that determination. We do what we can with what we have and we paint a portrait of the time period...that's the job of archeologists and historians.

Towards the time of Solomon, the area in question was not under the control of the Egyptians...in fact, Egypt was no longer a major factor in its own area. If I remember right, Nubia and Kush were equal in power to the Egyptians. Like other civilizations, it had been in decline for sometime.

I noticed some websites calling Solomon and others Egyptian pharoahs...which I assume is where you got your information. I don't know how accepted this is theory is, but I will check into it.

If you read my post, I didn't say that Jericho confirmed the bible as fact...in fact, one of my last lines read: "Does this mean that all events, people, places, things are fact in the bible? No." We are not out to prove the bible to be fact...we are out to find a better understanding of the Ancient world. When you combine the bible with archeological evidence, it can provide a snapshot into a world in which we really have no clue.

Comet

From what I gather, the theory is not an accepted one amongst the scholarly community. However, much like any other myth and legend, it does pull together some interesting information.

Toltec

I don't think anyone is out to prove it a lie or fake, anymore than anyone is out to prove Harry Potter is a lie or fake. I think something has to have some merit in being considered truth first. So far there have been no serious claims backed with evidence that the bible is true as far as I'm aware.

And I agree there is no way of knowing ancient history for fact based upon the tenious writings. However there is a way of knowing it based upon finding physical evidence. If anyone wants to say there is any truth a successful archaeological dig would be the method. However with the Archaeology Department of the National Museum of Israel saying that the Kingdoms of David and Solomon are a myth based upon evidence not tenuous writings and the official line of Egypt there were never any Israelites there in history based upon evidence, people who want to dispute this have a lot of digging to do.

Comet

As a historian, it's not my concern to look for the truth in things. My job is to try to put together the best possible scenario of the past, using what evidence is available...written or physical.

Not that its a problem Toltec, but might you be thinking in terms of personal belief? The theory of Egyptian kings...could it be driven by your personal opinion of the bible? Again, this is not an interrogation. However, I'm thinking we're on different wave links here and I want to see your point of view...in other words, are we looking for history or religious truth?