tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post7267767757608072477..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Tayinat Dark Age templeDienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-53331828919656639772009-04-23T19:36:00.000+03:002009-04-23T19:36:00.000+03:00@Onur: we just don't know.In the homepage of the T...<I>@Onur: we just don't know.</I>In the homepage of the Tayinat Archaeological Project (TAP), it is stated that Kunulua (Tell Tayinat) was the capital of the Neo-Hittite/Aramean Kingdom of Patina (Unqi). On the other hand, according to both the TAP pdf and the Eurekalert article, Kunulua was the capital of the Kingdom of Palastin (thought to be a variant of the word Philistine), thus a kingdom of the Sea Peoples. Both of them cannot be true at the same time, so either:<br /><br />1- These kingdoms occupied Kunulua in different periods of the Early Iron Age.<br /><br />2- One of them never really occupied Kunulua.<br /><br />3- They are one and the same kingdom, as the ethnic composition of the Early Iron Age northwestern Levant was pretty diverse.<br /><br /><I>I have not found any date re. Tayinat that places it before the detruction of Ugarit and Alalakh. It seems to be a new city instead that took the place of Alalakh.</I>Actually, I haven't found anything in these discoveries that overturns the currently accepted view of the Dark Age. As you stated, this kingdom (whether it belonged to the Neo Hittites/Arameans or Sea Peoples) was a new kingdom that emerged immediately following the destruction of the major Bronze Age centers of the coastal Levant by the Sea Peoples. It has long been known that the coastal Levant harbored small newly established kingdoms of the Neo-Hittites, Arameans and various Sea Peoples during the Dark Age. So there is nothing revolutionary with this discovery.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-60515061932519990052009-04-23T17:20:00.000+03:002009-04-23T17:20:00.000+03:00@Onur: we just don't know. It is generally believe...@Onur: we just don't know. It is generally believed that the Philistines were originally one of the "Sea Peoples" (possibly not a single phenomenon but somewhat of a historians' hype on some, diverse, Egyptian accounts). A common belief seems to be that they were original from Crete and might have been Greek speakers (as possibly other but not all Sea Peoples were). <br /><br />...<br /><br />In general: It is notable that this temple is placed at Hatay province, that would be Syria in historical terms, rather than Turkey proper. It's just by ancient Alalakh (800 m., a walk), which was apparently dertoyed by the Sea Peoples, like its metropolis Ugarit. <br /><br />I have not found any date re. Tayinat that places it before the detruction of Ugarit and Alalakh. It seems to be a new city instead that took the place of Alalakh.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-52580301579591324742009-04-23T00:16:00.000+03:002009-04-23T00:16:00.000+03:00What does the Neo-Hittite/Aramean Kingdom of Patin...What does the Neo-Hittite/Aramean Kingdom of Patina (Unqi) have to do with the Philistines? Are they the same people?Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.com