>National Geographic News has an article describing the findings at Tell Ta’yinat. The following are two excerpts from the article:
An ancient temple in Turkey has been found filled with broken metal, ivory carvings, and stone slabs engraved with a dead language.
The find is casting new light on the “dark age” that was thought to have engulfed the region from 1200 to 900 B.C.
Written sources from the era-including the Old Testament of the Bible, Greek Homeric epics, and texts from Egyptian pharaoh Ramses III-record the transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age as a turbulent period of cultural collapse, famine, and violence.
But the newfound temple suggests that may not have been the case, say archaeologists from the University of Toronto’s Tayinat Archaeological Project, led by Timothy Harrison.
“We’re beginning to find new archaeological evidence that there was a continuation of writing traditions, as well as cultural and political continuity from the Bronze Age into this Iron Age period,” Harrison said.
“We are filling in a cultural and a political history of this era.”
******
Researchers initially examined the remains of the temple’s southern entrance, which includes a stone-paved courtyard, a wide staircase, and a doorway once supported by an ornately carved column.
The team also found the smashed remains of massive stelae-commemorative stone slabs-carved with hieroglyphs in Luwian, an extinct language once spoken throughout what is now Turkey.
The temple’s main room was long ago damaged by fire, but it was found littered with the remains of bronze and ivory wall or furniture fittings, along with gold and silver foil and the carved eye inlay from a human figurine.
The article contains a photo of the remains of the temple discovered at Tell Tayinat
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tags: Archaeology, Luwian, Tell Tayinat
var addthis_pub = ‘claude mariottini’;
Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament 
>Dear Dr. Mariottini,This article seems to provide support for one of the major conclusions of Velikovsky’s ‘Ramses II and His Time’ – that the dark age of Anatolia did not occur. Velikovsky attributed the appearance of a dark age to reliance on the conventional chronology of ancient Egypt which in his view was too long and misdated objects from the first millenium BC to the second millenium BC. Such misdating would leave the appearance of a time gap in which various aspects of human culture seem to suddenly cease around 1200 BC and then reappear in the archaeological record around 500 years later. Not only would they reappear; they would reappear puzzlingly in the same or similar styles as seemed to occur some 500 years earlier. Velikovsky seems to have got this right, even though he was not a field archaeologist. To say that Velikovsky’s conclusions go against the Bible seems overall to be very unfair. Much of Velikovsky’s historical work seems to support and shed light on aspects of the Bible, including events in the Book of Exodus, events involving the biblical Amalekites, and evidence supporting the Bible’s picture of the opulence of Solomon’s kingdom. On the other hand, much of Velikovsky’s work has little or nothing to do with the Bible but is equally fascinating because it presents many brilliant ideas and well-fortified arguments supporting and shedding light on other aspects of human heritage such as aspects of Greek and Anatolian and Persian history.Would you please read Velikovsky’s ‘Peoples of the Sea’ first, then ‘Ages in Chaos’ or ‘Ramses II and His Time’ before reading ‘Worlds in Collision’? It seems that the first two books have not received nearly as much scientific and scholarly attention as ‘Worlds in Collision’ or even ‘Ages in Chaos’. Because of the widespread unethical treatment that has been done against Velikovsky over decades (especially against ‘Worlds in Collision’), and because of the long-term widespread ignoring of Velikovsky in archaeology/history publications, it appears probable that Velikovsky’s ‘Peoples of the Sea’ and ‘Ramses II and His Time’ have not received the serious attention by scientists and scholars that they deserve. Similarly, it appears probable that the vast majority of professional Bible and history scholars and archaeologists are not even aware of the main ideas in these books. For you to seriously and thoughtfully consider and review Velikovsky’s ‘Peoples of the Sea’ at your blog could possibly do some real good for archaeology and biblical studies. Adam S.
LikeLike
>Adam,Thank you for your comment. As I mentioned in my previous post, I will read Velikovsky’s book this summer. Until then, I cannot make any personal, faithful evaluation of his work.Claude Mariottini
LikeLike
>Dr. Mariottini,Although I provided the text of the following paragraph in an e-mail to you, I am including it in this comment so that others can read it as well: “The webpage at the below link discusses some of the many lines of reasoning pointing to the conclusion that the Pereset or Peleset in the reliefs of Medinet Habu were Persians rather than Philistines. Here is a little background information, some of which I previously mentioned: Velikovsky’s ‘Peoples of the Sea’ proposes that Ramses III was the Egyptian king Nectanebo I, called Nectanebis by Diodorus of Sicily. Diodorus’ account of Nectanebis’s defenses of Egypt against invading forces of the Persian empire and Greek mercenaries in approximately 374-373 BC seems to match up well with Ramses III’s records of his defenses against the Pereset and other peoples of the sea. The Persian forces were commanded by the satrap/general Pharnabazus. The Athenian general Iphicrates also participated in this Persian attempt to retake Egypt. The name Nectanebis, mentioned by Diodorus, would seem to be but a shortened and perhaps slightly garbled version of one of Ramses III’s long Egyptian names. Some ideas at this webpage are from Velikovsky’s works; some are not. I suppose this website and Velikovsky’s books are not perfect but personally I believe they are important pioneer works of which some ideas appear to be correct or probably correct.” The below webpage is the best one I know of making the comparison between Pereset or Peleset headgear from Medinet Habu and headgear shown in Persian art. Both the webpage and Velikovsky’s ‘Peoples of the Sea’ discuss evidence that the reliefs of Ramses III at Medinet Habu show Persian soldiers of the fourth century BC, not Philistines of the 12th century BC. Also, I suggest that it is important to note that there are two—not just one–types of headgear that should be compared: 1. The petaled headgear of the Pereset shown at Medinet Habu (compare to petaled headgear of Persian guard at Persepolis)2. The cap worn by a Pereset prisoner shown at Medinet Habu (compare to cap shown at Persepolis)Here, for the information of archaeologists, scholars, and interested laypersons, is the link or internet address to the webpage mentioned above:http://www.specialtyinterests.net/ramses3.html#headgearAdam StuartJacksonville, Florida
LikeLike