022
Perhaps the most conspicuous omission from Yadin’s article is any reference to his own site, Hazor, where a similar building was found, including shelves between the pillars on which mangers might have been placed. Yet in his Hazor report, despite these inter-pillar installations, Yadin states as to the Hazor buildings, “There is no similarity whatever to the stables at Megiddo, and the characteristic features are entirely wanting.” The problem with any argument that the Hazor building is, or was originally, a stable is that it has a single corner entrance. But if the building at Hazor is not a stable, isn’t it fair to conclude that the buildings at Megiddo and Beer-Sheva may not have been stables.
What has been Pritchard’s reaction to Yadin’s defense of the Megiddo (and Beer-Sheva) stables?
“I can only state my appreciation for the points Yadin raises,” Professor Pritchard wrote to the BAR, “and for the new data which he presents to support his interpretation. I don’t feel that I can add anything to what I have already written on the subject to support my own views. On a question of the interpretation of archaeological remains there is no final word; one can only be grateful for new arguments and a diversity of opinion.”
Perhaps the most conspicuous omission from Yadin’s article is any reference to his own site, Hazor, where a similar building was found, including shelves between the pillars on which mangers might have been placed. Yet in his Hazor report, despite these inter-pillar installations, Yadin states as to the Hazor buildings, “There is no similarity whatever to the stables at Megiddo, and the characteristic features are entirely wanting.”a The problem with any argument that the Hazor building is, or was originally, a stable is that it has a single corner entrance. But if the building at Hazor is not a […]
