James: Thanks for the article. It is an interesting read.
Yet it backs up what was claimed a couple of years ago in a Biblical Archaeological Review article, which covered a larger area and number of cities, that the archaeological evidence implies that the Amarna period is incorrectly dated, rather it should be dated to about the ninth century BC. This article didn’t make that statement, just provided the same evidence used in the other article as the basis for that claim. But this is getting in the realm of history, not language, so I won’t say any more. Karl W. Randolph. _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
