Ancient handbags of consistent design emerge across vastly different cultures

 

If ever we needed proof for the common origins of our world civilisations.

 

Andriy Nurzhynskyy has written

 

Ancient Handbags: Mysterious Sacred Objects

Found Across Ancient Civilizations

 

Ancient handbags have puzzled archaeologists and researchers for decades.

 

Mysterious symbols appear in artwork and artifacts from multiple ancient civilizations, from the Sumerians to the Mayans. These peculiar accessories appear in carvings, statues, and paintings dating back thousands of years.

 

Even more intriguing is the striking similarity between these depictions despite vast geographical distances and cultural differences. The bags often appear in the hands of gods and rulers, suggesting they hold significant ceremonial or spiritual importance.

 

Modern researchers continue to debate their true purpose and contents while examining the connection between these ancient accessories and their potential role in human civilization’s development.

 

The Mystery of Ancient Handbags in Early Civilizations

 

Ancient handbag depictions appear across multiple civilizations separated by vast distances and periods, creating an archaeological enigma. Archaeological findings at Göbekli Tepe in Turkey reveal handbag-like artifacts dating to 10,000-8,000 BCE [sic], marking some of the earliest known representations.

 

These mysterious objects demonstrate consistent patterns across civilizations:

….

The distribution of similar handbag symbols extends to:

 

• Mesopotamian stone carvings
• New Zealand Maori artifacts
• Native American petroglyphs
• Turkish archaeological sites
• Mexican ancient ruins

 

Archaeological evidence indicates these handbag symbols transcend purely practical purposes. Their appearance in religious contexts suggests symbolic significance, while their presence in multiple unconnected civilizations points to a shared cultural understanding. The consistent representation of these objects in the hands of deities creates questions about their role in ancient spiritual practices.

 

The repetitive nature of these handbag motifs across different geographical locations challenges conventional explanations of cultural diffusion. Their presence in isolated civilizations without known contact raises questions about independent development versus ancient global connections.

 

Sacred Handbag Symbols in Mesopotamian Art

 

Mesopotamian art features distinctive symbols resembling handbags carried by divine figures. Archaeological evidence reveals these objects appear frequently in Sumerian and Assyrian reliefs dating from 4000-1750 BCE.

 

The Anunnaki’s Divine Handbags

 

Archaeological findings indicate these objects were ritual buckets carried by gods and minor deities called Apkallu. Sumerian texts identify them as containers used in sacred tree-watering ceremonies, particularly for date palms. Consistent depictions show divine figures holding these bucket-like objects in precise positions during ceremonial scenes.

 

Theories About Their Sacred Contents

 

Several interpretations exist regarding the contents and purpose of these ceremonial vessels:

 

• Ritual Water – Archaeological evidence supports their use as containers for purified water in tree-watering ceremonies
• Sacred Offerings – Depictions show the ships associated with religious rituals involving food or plant materials
• Ceremonial Tools – Some reliefs portray the containers alongside other ritual implements used by priests
• Divine Objects – Ancient texts reference these vessels as carriers of divine powers or celestial wisdom
• Agricultural Symbols – The buckets’ association with date palm cultivation suggests agricultural significance

 

The artistic representations maintain remarkable consistency across different periods of Mesopotamian civilization, indicating their established role in religious practices.

 

Ancient Egyptian Handbags and Ceremonial Use

 

Ancient Egyptian handbags served dual purposes as practical carriers and sacred ceremonial objects. These accessories held profound symbolic significance in religious rituals and burial practices.

 

Materials and Construction

 

Ancient Egyptian craftsmen created handbags using Indigenous materials:

 

• Woven grass fibers interlaced with sedges for durability
• Reed stalks combined with flax for structural strength
• Date palm leaves braided with doum palm fibers
• Leather pieces stitched together for elite accessories

 

The construction methods involved:

 

• Intertwining multiple plant materials for reinforcement
• Weaving techniques that created durable carrying surfaces
• Strategic placement of stronger materials at stress points
• Decorative elements incorporated into the weave patterns

 

Royal Accessories in Hieroglyphs

 

Egyptian hieroglyphic depictions feature handbags in significant contexts:

 

• Sacred scenes showing priests carrying ritual pouches
• Royal processions with attendants holding ceremonial bags
• Funerary art displaying protective amulets in bags
• Temple walls adorned with images of deities holding sacred containers

 

• The divine connection between handbags and religious ceremonies
• Specific placement of bags for sacred objects
• Detailed illustrations of bag designs indicating status
• Consistent patterns in depiction across different periods

….

 

Mysterious Handbags in Mayan and Aztec Carvings

 

Ancient Mesoamerican civilizations incorporated distinct handbag symbols in their artistic expressions, mirroring similar motifs in other ancient cultures. These representations appear in various ceremonial contexts, suggesting their significance in religious practices.

 

Cross-Cultural Similarities

 

Ancient handbag symbols transcend geographical boundaries, appearing in multiple civilizations:

 

• Sumerian stone reliefs display identical handbag motifs in religious ceremonies
• Assyrian artworks feature similar depictions in divine contexts
• Dogon tribes of Africa incorporate comparable symbols in wall paintings
• Ancient American petroglyphs contain matching handbag-like designs
• Turkish archaeological sites reveal related symbolic patterns
• Maori artifacts from New Zealand showcase parallel representations

 

1.      A universal cultural understanding of their significance

2.      Possible ancient communication networks between civilizations

3.      Independent development of similar symbolic representations

4.      Common religious or ceremonial purposes

 

Modern Archaeological Interpretations

 

Archaeological studies reveal ancient handbags served multiple functions across diverse civilizations, combining practical utility with profound symbolic significance. Modern interpretations focus on understanding these artifacts through advanced scientific analysis and cultural context studies.

 

Practical vs. Ceremonial Purposes

 

Ancient handbags balanced everyday functionality with ceremonial importance across various societies. Archaeological evidence from Mesopotamian sites shows that these bags contained practical items like tools and ritual objects such as incense or sacred herbs. The craftsmanship of recovered specimens indicates distinct categories:

 

Everyday Items:

 

• Storage containers for personal belongings
• Carriers for trade goods
• Portable vessels for food transportation

 

Ceremonial Functions:

 

• Ritual containers for religious offerings
• Status symbols in religious ceremonies
• Sacred vessels for specific ceremonies

….

 

Dried-up branch of the Nile ran alongside ancient pyramids and capital of Memphis

 

 

“The discovery may explain why pyramid fields were concentrated along this strip

of desert near the ancient Egyptian capital of Memphis, as they would have been easily accessible via the river branch at the time of their construction”.

 

Sean McShee  

 

A new branch of the Nile discovered in Egypt - Africa, Middle East, News, Uncovering the Past, World

 

A new branch of the Nile discovered in Egypt

 

By Sean McShee  | July 10, 2024

 

TWH –  The science journal, Communications Earth, and Environment, published evidence of an ancient, now dried-up and silted-over branch of the Nile. The research is from the Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of North Carolina – Wilmington. The authors of that study, Eman Ghoneim et al., named this branch the “Ahramat Branch.” In Arabic, “Ahramat” means “pyramids.” The discovery may explain why pyramid fields were concentrated along this strip of desert near the ancient Egyptian capital of Memphis, as they would have been easily accessible via the river branch at the time of their construction.

 

During the age of pyramid building, construction supplies moved along this branch. That waterway also brought people to perform the rituals of the Cult of the Dead Pharaoh. Ghoneim and her colleagues found that many of the pyramids had causeways ending at the proposed riverbanks of the Ahramat Branch, suggesting the river was used for transporting construction materials.

 

The Ahramat Branch helps to explain why the Egyptians built the pyramids where they did.

 

The height of the water in that branch varied over time, as did the locations where the pyramids were built. The distance between the banks of that branch and the pyramids also varies.

 

Ghoneim et al. discussed the changes in land and water in North Africa. These changes influenced the Ahramat as well as ancient Egypt.

 

The Cult of the Pharaoh

 

No pyramid was merely the beautifully decorated final resting place of a dead Pharaoh. Pyramids formed parts of ceremonial complexes, which were key elements of the Cult of the (Dead) Pharaoh. Next to the pyramid stood the mortuary temple, where the Pharaoh’s cult continued after death. Egyptians built valley temples on waterways, and a causeway linked the valley temple with the mortuary temple.

 

Many of these causeways ended at and ran at right angles to the bank of the Ahramat Branch. Ghoneim et al. argued that the valley temples functioned as river harbors.

….

“The Ahramat Branch borders a large number of pyramids dating from the Old Kingdom to the 2nd Intermediate Period and spanning between Dynasties 3 and 13.” via Communications Earth, and Environment

 

Climate change in ancient North Africa

 

As the last Ice Age ended around 10,000 B.C.E., [sic] sea levels rose, and the area now known as the Sahara began to transform from an arid desert to a savannah-like environment with large river systems and lake basins. Scientists have labeled this period as the African Humid Period (12,500 to 3000 B.C.E.).

 

….

 

The Old Kingdom of Egypt began around 2700 B.C.E. [Mackey: More like 2000 BC]

 

The Great Sphinx and Pyramids of Gizeh (Giza), 17 July 1839,

by David Roberts [public domain

 

The Ahramat Branch

 

The Nile had a much greater water volume during the African Humid Period, which lessened during the Old Kingdom. This period saw the Nile frequently branching off, including the Ahramat Branch. As northeastern Africa became more arid, the Nile and its branches carried less water. The desert expanded, water levels dropped, and some branches dried up.

 

In the developed world, rivers seldom run free and are often managed, like the Colorado River, which functions as a de facto water management system. The developed world keeps tight control over waterways. Before humans had such control, rivers meandered, branched off, flooded, and changed course naturally.

 

The Ahramat Branch was not a small creek. Before humans began to control rivers, their length, depth, and width varied significantly.

 

Mackey: For the massive technological and infrastructural innovations, dams and waterways, created during the time of Joseph of Egypt’s Famine, see e.g. my article (esp. Part Two):

 

Imhotep Enigma, his pharaoh was not Djoser, and proof for Egypt’s Third Dynasty Famine

 

(1) Imhotep Enigma, his pharaoh was not Djoser, and proof for Egypt’s Third Dynasty Famine

 

Ghoneim et al. reported that the Ahramat had a depth between 2 and 8 meters (6.6 to 26.2 feet), a length of 64 kilometers (39.8 miles), and a width between 200 to 700 meters (656.2 to 2,296.6 feet).

 

Egyptian civilization developed in the context of declining rainfall, which meant less water in the Nile and its branches. As the Sahara grew larger, the risk of sandstorms increased, causing branches of the Nile to silt up. Its banks grew more solid, and marshlands disappeared. The Nile itself and its branches began to move eastward, marking the beginnings of the Old Kingdom ….

 

From west to east, Egypt can be described as three regions: the Western Desert Plateau, the Nile floodplain, and the Eastern Desert. The Western Desert Plateau lies between the western border and the Nile floodplain, which bisects Egypt and provides the main water source. The Eastern Desert lies between the Nile floodplain and the Red Sea.

 

The Ahramat Branch flowed between the Nile and the Western Desert Plateau. According to Ghoneim et al., the volume of water in the Ahramat varied over time. When it carried more water, it overflowed its main banks and covered more ground. The distance between the Ahramat and the pyramids under construction also varied.

 

When the water in the Ahramat rose higher, the Egyptians built the pyramids further west. When the water fell lower, they built the pyramids closer to the Ahramat Branch.

There is no consensus on why the Old Kingdom collapsed. One theory suggests that failures of the Nile to flood adequately over several years led to famine, which in turn led to the collapse of the Old Kingdom.

 

Soil cores extracted from the area around Memphis show 3 meters (9.8 feet) of sand, likely deposited by sandstorms from the growing desert. This sand would have pushed the Nile and its branches eastward, potentially overwhelming the Nile’s low-lying branches.

 

Like political boundaries, rivers can change. In 2007, John K. Hillier et al. estimated that at Luxor in southern Egypt, the Nile had migrated 2 to 3 kilometers (1.2 to 1.9 miles) per 1,000 years.

 

Two factors drove the eastward migration of the Nile and its branches: continued desertification of the Sahara, which increased the amount of windblown sand, and a low volume of water in the river and its branches, which caused more silting. When sandstorms and low water occurred together, the process accelerated. Additionally, northern Egypt sits on a fault line and is prone to earthquakes. Over time, fault line movements caused a relative tilt downwards to the northeast, contributing to the drying up of the Ahramat Branch.

 

The Ahramat Branch disappeared during the New Kingdom, roughly 1550 to 1070 B.C.E. [sic].

 

An early photograph of the Great Pyramid,

taken by Frédéric Goupil-Fesquet in 1839 [public domain]

 

The zone of interest

 

In ancient Egypt, the major cities and monuments straddle the banks of the Nile. The ancient Egyptians built their monuments at the margins of the Nile floodplain. As the volume of water in the Nile and its branches changed, so did those margins.

 

Eman Ghoneim et al. examined a zone of interest west of the Nile, extending from the Lisht Pyramid complex northward to the Giza Pyramid complex. This zone contains the largest concentration of pyramids (31) in Egypt. The Egyptians built these pyramids from the Old Kingdom to the Second Intermediate Period, roughly from 2700 to 1650 B.C.E.[sic]. Memphis, the capital of the Old Kingdom, is located on the Nile across from this zone. Until now, the reason for this dense concentration had never been clear. The Ahramat Branch would have provided transit for building those ceremonial complexes.

“Many of us who are interested in ancient Egypt are aware that the Egyptians must have used a waterway to build their enormous monuments, like the pyramids and valley temples, but nobody was certain of the location, the shape, the size or proximity” to the pyramids, says lead author Eman Ghoneim in a statement. “Our research offers the first map of one of the main ancient branches of the Nile at such a large scale and links it with the largest pyramid fields of Egypt.”

 

The Ahramat branch could have provided transport to major pyramid sites. Those sites include the Giza, Abusir, Saqqara, Dahshur, and Lisht pyramid complexes. That article quoted lead archaeologist Ghoneim. She said the Nile served as a “lifeline in a largely arid landscape.” It provided both sustenance and easy transport of goods and building materials. She continued “For this reason … most of the key cities and monuments were in close proximity to the banks of the Nile and its peripheral branches.”

….

 

 

Middle Bronze I nomads came up from the south hence they could not have been Abraham’s family

 

 

by

 Damien F. Mackey

  

“On the basis of my research, I would suggest that they were a people

who migrated slowly, from the south or southwest,

into the Central Negev of Palestine”.

 Dr. Rudolph Cohen

 

What Dr. Rudolph Cohen wrote here, in his article:

Home > Magazines > BAR > July/August 1983

 

The Mysterious MBI People

Does the Exodus tradition in the Bible preserve the memory of their entry into Canaan?

 

is an improvement, both geographically and archaeologically, on the views of the American rabbi-archaeologist, Nelson Glueck - who had believed that the nomadic Middle Bronze I (MBI) people belonged to the age of the patriarch Abraham - and of those who have identified them as the family of Abraham. Their progression into the Negev from the S or SW is geographically opposite to that of the Abraham-ites, who had entered the land of Canaan from the north, coming from Haran (from the NE).

 

Moreover, the MBI sites are far too substantial and widespread to represent the incipient Abrahamic family.  

 

Dr. Cohen wrote:

 

In his Negev surveys, Glueck found that small MBI settlements had flourished all over the Central Negev, while the area was largely uninhabited during the prior and following periods. …. Since Negev sites like Beer-Sheva and Gerar figure prominently in the patriarchal narratives, Glueck concluded that this age must have been that of the patriarchs and that the MBI people included the patriarchal Hebrew tribes. Glueck’s hypothesis was soon adopted by Albright in his famous and controversial essay, “Abram the Hebrew.” …. 

Albright argued in this essay that the Biblical stories concerning the patriarch had their natural setting in the wide-ranging donkey caravans that conducted trade in the ancient Near East in MBI, which he dated to the early second millennium B.C.

 

The gross mis-dating of Palestinian archaeology – almost a millennium too early – by W.F. Albright and Fr. Louis-Hugues Vincent (OP), had brought the MBI people into chronological range of Abram (Abraham).

 

Dr. Cohen, while rejecting Glueck’s Abraham hypothesis, will, in his article, date the MBI to that approximate early era, to “… 2200 B.C. to about 2000 B.C.”. Yet, despite that, Dr. Cohen was able to convince Australian tour guide, Dr. David Down - who had correctly dated the MBI nomads to “about 1405 BC” - that the two were on the same page. Thus Dr. David Down (“Egal and the Exodus”):

Archive: Egal and the Exodus

 

It all started the previous year when I talked with Dr Rudolph Cohen, then head of the Israel Antiquities Authority, who holds the same view as I do on the identification of the Middle Bronze I people with the Israelites who invaded Palestine under Joshua about 1405 BC.

 

Drs. Down and Cohen were not entirely saying the same thing, however.

How could they have been, if one (Down) had accepted the MBI as the Exodus Israelites according to a close biblical estimation (1405 BC), whilst the other (Cohen) had dated those same people to half a millennium or more earlier?

 

What Dr. Cohen and Egal Israel are really saying, as one finds with deeper probing, is that the biblical Israelites are a dim memory of the real, historical MBI people. These experienced Israeli archaeologists never appear to have (had) any intention whatsoever of re-adjusting the MBI to where Dr. David Down knows they actually belong, to “about 1405 BC”.

 

I have to say at this stage that those archaeologists, who, using the same chronological system as Dr. Cohen and Egal Israel, outright deny that the Exodus ever happened, that Joshua ever existed, biblical minimisers such as emeritus professor Israel Finkelstein and his allies, are the more logical.

 

They know that there is nothing in their (albeit faulty) c. 1400 BC period that would accord with the Joshuan Conquest of Canaan. And they are prepared to admit it - whereas Dr. Cohen (and, presumably, Egal Israel) pushes the distant memory line.

 

Let us follow Dr. Rudolph Cohen through parts of his article, with some comments added wherever deemed appropriate:

 

….

One of the most obscure periods in the history of Palestine is the Middle Bronze I period (commonly referred to as MBI) which extended from about 2200 B.C. to about 2000 B.C. Who were the MBI people? We really don’t know.

 

Mackey’s comment: And you are really going to have no hope of finding out if you mis-date the MBI to c. 2000 BC.

 

On the basis of my research, I would suggest that they were a people who migrated slowly, from the south or southwest, into the Central Negev of Palestine. I would further suggest that the dim, historical memory of their journey powerfully influenced the Biblical author who described Israel’s entry into Canaan. In fact, these MBI people may be the Israelites whose famous journey from Egypt to Canaan is called the Exodus.

 

Mackey’s comment: The Biblical author was influenced by a “dim, historical memory”.

 

On one thing scholars are agreed: The pottery, the settlements, and other aspects of the material culture of the MBI people that have been uncovered over the last 50 years differ significantly from what went before in the Early Bronze period and from what followed in the Middle Bronze II period. The Early Bronze Age (c. 3150 B.C.–2200 B.C.) was characterized by a flourishing urban civilization. The same was true of the Middle Bronze Age II (c. 2000 B.C.–1550 B.C.). In MBI, however, there was a notable absence of urban settlements, although such settlements continued to flourish on the seacoast of Lebanon and Syria.

 

Mackey’s comment: Just the scenario that one would expect from a newly-arrived nomadic people.

 

….

Nelson Glueck, the American rabbi-archaeologist, believed MBI was the age of the patriarch Abraham.

 

In his Negev surveys, Glueck found that small MBI settlements had flourished all over the Central Negev, while the area was largely uninhabited during the prior and following periods.² Since Negev sites like Beer-Sheva and Gerar figure prominently in the partriarchal narratives, Glueck concluded that this age must have been that of the patriarchs and that the MBI people included the patriarchal Hebrew tribes. Glueck’s hypothesis was soon adopted by Albright in his famous and controversial essay, “Abram the Hebrew.”³ ….

 

….

 

I have been studying the MBI sites in the Central Negev for almost two decades now. The result of this study can, I believe, elucidate some of the outstanding issues. My own conclusion is that the MBI culture must be differentiated from those both preceding and following it. MBI is, in this sense, intermediate. But I also agree with Dever that some MBI pottery types represent a continuation of Early Bronze types. In this sense I see clear connections between the MBI and the Early Bronze Age which preceded it. But other new aspects of MBI culture, including burial customs and social structure, imply a new ethnic element.

 

Thus, the MBI culture is also intrusive; migrating peoples who destroyed the existing urban centers must be involved.

 

Mackey’s comment: This reads like a description of the Joshuan Conquest, the “new ethnic element”.

 

But this new ethnic element was neither Amorite nor “Kurgan” peoples who supposedly came from the north and east. In my view, the new MBI population came from the south and the Sinai, the route of the Israelites on that journey known as the Exodus. This is a new hypothesis published here for the first time. I think the latest evidence supports it. Let us look at this evidence, especially the geographic and archaeological discoveries of the last five to ten years.

 

Literally hundreds of MBI sites have been surveyed in the Central Negev¹⁰; many have been recently excavated. As a result, certain generalizations can now be made. The MBI sites in the Central Negev were regularly established on the summits or slopes of high hills, and sometimes on comparatively low hills. Rarely are remains of settlements found in valleys. The sites are widely scattered throughout the Central Negev. Nevertheless, there is a large concentration of sites along the geomorphic line that runs from the Kadesh-Barnea region to north of Dimona. ….

….

 

In 1973, I conducted three weeks of further excavations at this site. …. I was principally concerned with clarifying the relationship between the two strata uncovered by Kochavi and with determining whether a pre-MBI settlement had occupied the site. ….

….

We were able to determine almost the entire settlement groundplan: it consists of some 150 circular rooms. The basic building type is a unit comprising round and rectangular dwelling rooms and smaller installations arranged around a common central courtyard.

 

A single room can serve as an example of the Be’er Resisim groundplan. It is round (about ten feet across) with a central pillar that apparently supported the roof. The roof itself was formed by spanning wooden beams radially from the top of this pillar to the encircling walls, and then placing flat stone slabs over the scaffolding. The slabs were covered with mud or lime. Scattered on the floor made of small stones and beaten earth were typical MBI potsherds. Beneath this floor-level, on the natural rock, we found sherds from the Early Bronze Age II in a thin ash layer, again a critical finding. We found rooms like this, with minor variations, over and over again. Between the units were open-air enclosures used principally for food preparation, as we know from the remains of cooking pots and animal bones, mostly sheep and goat.

 

Apart from pottery, the other artifacts included grinding stones (sometimes of Aswan granite), fragments of ostrich egg shells, Red Sea conches (and the ornaments fashioned from them), “Canaanean” blades … and innumerable flint chips, and (in one building) a hoard of two copper ingots and a copper dagger. Smaller individual buildings as well as cairns (stone piles) were excavated in the area.

 

Mackey’s comment: Note the Egyptian elements, Aswan granite, ostrich shells.

 

….

The basic architectural arrangement, comprising round and rectangular rooms around a common central courtyard, repeats that found in the other two major sites and is generally characteristic of the Middle Bronze Age I. The excavations conducted here also confirm a general pattern I had previously noted from other excavations I conducted at MBI sites. …. The MBI structures had been erected over the remains of EBII settlements.

….

Who were these MBI people? How is their culture to be understood? I would like to suggest an answer.

….

 

The MBI peoples apparently had few technical traditions of their own and adapted those they found in use among the settled population they conquered. Naturally, they adapted the EBII forms to their own way of life, and the result was the characteristic MBI vessels, which recall the earlier models but employ different techniques and decoration.

This hypothesis, of course, contradicts the prevailing assessment, which describes the MBI sites in the Central Negev as a movement that came from the north. It is interesting, however, to note that this migratory drift, as I have reconstructed it, bears a striking similarity to that of the Israelites’ flight from Egypt to the Promised Land, as recorded in the book of Exodus. The concentration of MBI sites in the relatively fertile district east of Kadesh-Barnea recalls the tradition that the Israelites encamped near this oasis for 38 of their 40 years of wandering after leaving Egypt (Deuteronomy 1:46). If the EBII communities were still flourishing in the Negev and Sinai at the time of this MBI incursion, then the capital city of EB Arad with its satellites in the desert no doubt formed a kind of league like that of the Canaanite king of Arad, described in Numbers 21:1, and like that of the Amalekites in Exodus 17:8–13. Both no doubt offered fierce resistance to the northward-advancing MBI Israelites. The establishment of the MBI settlements directly over the ruins of the EBII–EBIII sites in the Central Negev is consistent with the tradition that the Israelites dwelled in the area previously inhabited by their Amalekite foes (Deuteronomy 25:17–19). The northeastward migration of the MBI population into Transjordan has parallels in the Biblical recollection that the Israelites remained in Moab before crossing the Jordan River and laying siege to Jericho (Deuteronomy 3:29). In this connection, it is interesting to note that Early Bronze Age Jericho was destroyed by a violent conflagration, and the site was thinly reoccupied by MBI newcomers, who were apparently unaccustomed to urban dwellings.

 

In the central and northern parts of Israel, the EBIII urban culture flourished. The MBI invaders in the south overwhelmed this urban Canaanite civilization and destroyed their cities but thereafter persisted in a semi-nomadic way of life. This bears a striking similarity to the tradition of Joshua’s devastating campaign against the Canaanite centers in central Palestine and his ban on rebuilding some of them (e.g., Joshua 8:28).

 

Both Jericho and Ai were fortified cities at the end of the Early Bronze Age. According to the Biblical account, they were both destroyed by the Israelites; God specifically instructed that these cities should not be rebuilt.

 

Interestingly enough, after the EBIII destruction of Jericho and Ai, both cities lay in ruins for hundreds of years.

 

Having successfully taken over Palestine, the MBI tribes were profoundly influenced by the mores of the people they conquered, and many of their artifacts and customs have their origin in the Early Bronze Age.

 

I do not necessarily mean to equate the MBI people with the Israelites, although an ethnic identification should not automatically be ruled out. But I am suggesting that at the very least the traditions incorporated into the Exodus account may have a very ancient inspiration reaching back to the MBI period. ….

 

Mackey’s comment: That “dim, historical memory” again.

 

The Mysterious MBI People - The BAS Library