Talk:Labaya

Letter Example, Minimum Standards

The example of the "Amarna letter", I don't think reaches, even minimum standards. (Very, tough work if you were to work on it !)

Delisted GA

This article did not go through the current GA nomination process. Looking at the article as is, it fails on criteria 2b of the GA quality standards. Although references are provided, the citation of sources is essential for verifiability. Most Good Articles use inline citations. I would recommend that this be fixed, to reexamine the article against the GA quality standards, and to submit the article through the nomination process. --RelHistBuff 13:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Sheesh. The above is an example why I don't participate in the Good Article project. -- llywrch 05:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Pre-Israelites in Canaan in regard to

"One possible interpretation of his name is "Lion of YHWH", which raises some tantalizing questions about the presence of YHWH-cults in pre-Israelite Canaan."

At least according to the Tanakh, Abraham lived in Canaan for around 100 years. His son Issac lived in Canaan, and his son Jacob (Israel) lived in Canaan. It wasn't - again, according to Biblical accounts - until Joseph reconciled with his brothers, and moved his family to Egypt that the "Israelites" left Canaan in the first place.

So while the Hebrew Bible may be considered an inaccurate historical piece to many, it *does* write that - starting with Abraham for 100 years - four generations lived in Canaan, up to the move to Egypt (the fourth generation), and later the Exodus out of Egypt and back to Canaan. So evidence, or even the concept of pre-Exodus worship of YHWH shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

Actually, some of Joseph's brothers had grandchildren before moving to Egypt, so that brings it up to six generations. From the time of Abraham's entry until Jacob moved his family to Egypt was a bit over 200 years, not 100. ~ MD Otley (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"Pre-Israelite"?

Just what is meant by "Pre-Israelite"? Before the invasion under Joshua? Before the United Kingdom period?

The traditional date for the Exodus is about 1450BC, putting Joshua just before 1400BC. If Labaya was in the 1300's BC, then he was Pre-Israelite only under the second definition. If he were contemporary with the 18th dynasty, then he would not be Pre-Israelite at all!

This article definitely needs some work. I wish I had the background to do justice to it. Mdotley 21:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Pre Israelites in canaan...

No it shouldn't. And the God Ya, or Yahu was worshiped by the southern Shasu as early as 1450 BC. The ancient tribe of Israel was Canaanite, culturally speaking--As the majority of the Bronze age Canaanites were descendants of N. Eastern peoples, the Amorites and Hurrians, with a minority Shasu population from the Southern deserts. --71.222.54.25 23:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

How come only Rohl's revised Chronology get's mentioned on Wikipedia?

All Rohl did was compromise between the traditional chronology and the much more well thought out revisions of Velkovsky and others, Velkovsky has flaws but basically I agree with him and am thus curious as to who his Chronology would Identify these Armana figures with.--JaredMithrandir (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Velikovsky cannot be taken seriously as a scholar due to his nonsensical astronomical theories. A reinterpretation of chronology is one thing but Velikovsky requires the laws of physics to be rewritten.TheMathemagician (talk) 10:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with his Astronomical theories, but I consider that a separate issue. I own Age sin Chaos now, and the problem with the Amarna section is he doesn't address Labaya much at all. But based on what he did get right, I think Labaya could Ahab.--JaredMithrandir (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

But to my original complaint, Rohl isn't taken seriously by the mainstream either. What make him more worthy of whatever Wikipedia's standards are?--JaredMithrandir (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

What are the "discrepancies" claimed by Kitchen?

Kitchen claims there are discrepancies? Really? Can anyone name a couple of them? Das Baz, aka Erudil 16:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Fourteen months later, no one has come up with any of those supposed "discrepancies." Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It has been 16 months already, and still no one has come up with a single of one of those "discrepancies." They do not exist. Das Baz, aka Erudil 20:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The field of Egyptology advances slowly ... one funeral at a time. Far from there being "discrepancies" Rohl's identification of Dadua/David, Ayab/Joab and Yishaya/Jesse was the clinching argument for me that he's completely correct - at least for this era. TheMathemagician (talk) 11:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Problem with Rohl's chronology is Tuthmosis III's campaigns in the region would be during the Judges period. How come their not mentioned? --JaredMithrandir (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)— --JaredMithrandir (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.25.176.92 (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Why would they be? The writer of Judges was under no obligation to include every geopolitical development in the area. He was writing for a specific purpose, and if reporting some event would not serve his purpose, he wouldn't have. To make your "argument from silence" even a little bit convincing, you have to make it a *conspicuous* silence. Not just "He didn't mention it," but "He didn't mention it and here's why he would have." ~ MD Otley (talk) 06:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The entire premise of Judges is record numerous times Israel is conquered by a foreign power. And it does chronicle a pretty unbroken period of 450 years. Egypt was never among those conquerors, unless you believe Velikvosky and Amalak was ruleing form Egypt at this time. But then Rohl's theory is even more wrong.--JaredMithrandir (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Labaya, the central hill country, and the Transjordan

It's commonly claimed that Labaya was a ruler from the central hill country in the Cisjordan. But there's no direct evidence for this assumption. And as David Rohl has pointed out, Labaya's son ruled from the Transjordan. The Amarna correspondance covers a remarkably short period of time, and if Labaya had been attacking the Cisjordanian towns and attempting to expand into that region, his control of Shechem could have been a matter of a temporary occupation. If we had no records from Europe other than correspondance from the years 1938-1945, the map would look very different. The Amarna letters cover roughly the same amount of time. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 01:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Lisa, this is not actually the case these days, though I think you would have been correct a few years ago. A detailed scientific analysis of the clays that make up the Amarna Letters has been completed and the study has been able to locate where the various clay tablets were made. The tablets written by Labaya were made from local clay of the central hill country (actually I believe Ephraim) and not Transjordan. So I think it is perfectly reasonable to maintain, as many scholars have done in the past, that Labaya was a ruler of the central hill country ... the clay analysis confirms this. Besides, just referring to him as a 'local' ruler will mean nothing to the reader.David Rohl (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

David, thanks for that. But it doesn't really change much. No one argues with the fact that he was in cisjordan during this period of time. So it makes sense that he'd have used local clays. Just as Germans in France during WWII would have used French clays if they wrote in cuneiform. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 23:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I get where you are coming from ... but this position opens up a real can of worms. If any archaeological object or collection of objects (even a building) does not 'locate' a ruler, then we might as well forget trying to construct history. George I was king of England but he was not born in England. Same goes for most of the kings following William I. In the ancient world the 25th Dynasty were not 'native' Egyptians but ruled Egypt. The origins of all these rulers does not disqualify them as rulers of particular regions which happen not to be their homelands (Alexander the Great ... was he not ruler of Babylon and Egypt?). The evidence for Labaya is all centred on the central hill country. His tablets were made there; he assigned territory there to Habiru mercenaries. On the other hand there is no archaeological evidence for his sole rule in Transjordan, or that he originated from there. I can't see how you can dispute that he ruled over parts of the central hill country and that is surely information which is useful to this article. On the other hand the term 'local ruler' is meaningless and uninformative. Local ruler of where? Local ruler of the central hill country? Yes. Local ruler in the Levant? Yes ... but hardly useful or informative. Local ruler in the Middle East? Ditto. If one of the functions of this WP article is to give the reader information as to where Labaya operated and where he ruled, then the term 'local ruler' does not do that. On the other hand 'ruler of the central hill country' conforms to the known facts.David Rohl (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Suppose we were to say that he "controlled the central hill country"? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 12:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good ... but maybe you would prefer 'a local Canaanite ruler active in the central hill country'? The reason why we perhaps can't say 'controlled' is because we also have Abdi-Heba in Jerusalem and possibly another ruler in Hebron. So, if you like this phrase, do edit it into the article ... and thank you for this interesting discussion.David Rohl (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Labaya/Shaul ruled in the Cisjordanian hill country, but his son Mutbaal/Ishbosheth ruled in Transjordan. There was a geographical shift from one generation to the next. Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we state only what the ancient records actually do about Labaya. We should keep in mind also that even if his control or rule in Cisjordan was temporary (not incidentally, how are we to define "temporary"?), it still counts. As an analogy, William Henry Harrison was President of the United States for only 31 days, but that brevity doesn't disqualify him from classification as a President of the United States. You Lisa and David Rohl haven't been active here for three years. I've just implemented a solution based on your suggestions. I introduced him as "a 14th century BCE ruler or warlord in the central hill country of Canaan", keeping "warlord", which was there already. Further on I described him as "active in the area of Šakmu", per David Rohl's objection that Labaya is never called king of that city. I omitted the word "local", as the name Canaan by itself indicates the location. I also opted for not calling him 'a Canaanite ruler', lest that be taken as a reference to his ethnicity, which AFAIK isn't known with full confidence, nor is it as important as the role he played. SamEV (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Labaya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060925022755/http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/rohl-1.htm to http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/rohl-1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)