My Reply toI. Finkelstein and N. Na'aman "A Response to David Ussishkin":Section "Van der Veen"(in:
Peter van der Veen: July 2, 2013In their response to David Ussishkin's second rejoinder to O. Lipschits, Israel Finkelstein andNadav Na'aman write concerning my work: "Van der Veen: there is no merit to hiscomplaints. Van der Veen speaks about
jars that continued to be in use after thedestruction of Lachish III ... The debate is whether
..."I would reply to them, however, that there is no merit to what they are saying about my work.For if indeed I had
to say "use" (i.e. of old jars) rather than "manufacture" (i.e. of newly produced jars), I would not have complained. But as I indeed
"manufacture", and so Idid already in my Ph. D. thesis
(cf. especially Excursus 1 on the Tell Goren jar handle of anindividual called "
; this at least the authors did admit
) I cannot simply accept theiraccusation. For those, who have carefully read my thesis, it must have become inevitably clear what I meant by "continued to be in use". Moreover, in articles, which were subsequently published, the issue of "continued manufacture" became even more apparent. Some of these(including the submission of my thesis in 2005
) were written well before O. Lipschits, O.Sergi and I. Koch presented their views on the 7th century B.C.
jar handles in 2010.
Finkelstein and Na'aman also belittle other points in my work, which I find hard to accept.Hence, I decided to personally reply here by presenting what I believe to be the true situation. They state:"It seems that Lipschits received only one chapter of the thesis - a chapter which deals with
." (my emphasis)
P. G. van der Veen,
The Final Phase of Iron Age IIC and the Babylonian Conquest: A Reassesssment with Special Emphasis on Names and Bureaucratic Titles on Provenanced Seals and Bullae from Israel and Jordan
, unpublished PhD thesis, submitted to the University of Bristol,2005. This thesis is currently in preparation for publication in the
series of UgaritVerlag, Münster (scheduled to appear in 2014).
Excursus I, "A Jar Handle from Tel Goren", 128-136.
It remains troubling, however, that they continue to belittle my criticisms as they hadalready done previously in their letter to D. Ussishkin of "20/5/2013" (sic. 2012!). They alsoargue that I took the idea from George Grena. Indeed Grena presented his views in his book back in 2004. But Grena and I had been in touch since some time before his book came out,and as we both agreed that some
jars continued to be produced after 701 B.C., I welcomed his opinion, as it appeared to independently add weight to my own views. It is only natural therefore that I referred to Grena's book, which should be the normal procedure inevery scholarly publication. See G. M. Grena,
Lmlk -- A Mystery Belonging to the King
,Volume 1, 4000 Years of Writing History, Rendondo Beach CA, 2004, esp. 333-338.
On these see below.
Their first article on the subject is: O. Lipschits, O. Sergi and I. Koch, "Royal Judahite JarHandles: Reconsidering the Chronology of the
37 (2010), 3-32.