Brit-Am Research Sources
(5 March, 2018, 18 Adar, 5778)
Contents:
1. Gigantic Dolmen in Israel. Artforms like those of Europe
2. Phoenicians in Southwest Spain
3. Do ultra-orthodox Jews drink coffee? by Rabbi Joseph Kolakowski
4. A Gigantic Megalithic City in Ancient Turkey
5. Hugh Mitford Raymond: Early British Proto-Zionists
6. How did the rooster become france's national symbol? by Gerard Briais.
7. The British in Palestine. Arab-Israel Conflict: What role did the British play in the land of Israel?
by Alex Brodie
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
1. Gigantic Dolmen in Israel. Artforms like those of Europe
Archaeological discovery means that maybe the Dark Ages weren't so dark
https://www.fromthegrapevine.com/lifestyle/archaeological-finding-means-ancient-dark-ages-werent-so-dark
This 4,000-year-old artistic monument found in Israel required 'technological knowledge and planning.'
by Ilana Strauss | Tuesday, March 7, 2017
Extracts:
A new archaeological discovery suggests that the "Dark Ages" in Israel's Levant may not have been so dark. Israeli archaeologists uncovered a massive, 4,000-year-old dolmen (a Stonehenge-like tomb) in Israel's Golan Heights. It was thought that people who lived back then couldn't make something that advanced.
After the impressive Bronze Age civilizations of 4,000 years ago disintegrated, the region went through a "Dark Ages" from 2,350 to 2,000 B.C. By "dark," historians mean people abandoned cities and became nomadic tribal societies. (That actually doesn't seem all that dark to me. Nomadic tribal peoples may not have had a lot of impressive structures, but their quality of life might have actually been pretty sweet. But, you know, archaeologists are pretty into digging up old buildings.)
Art like this has been found on dolmens in Europe and Asia, but never in the Levant. Until now.
At least, that's what archaeologists thought. But this discovery might change things. The newfound dolmen would have required ingenuity and organization. It's got lots of chambers and artwork, and the capstone covering it alone weighs 50 tons. According to archaeologists, a nomadic tribal society would not have been able to put together a coffin this complicated. (I've talked to nomadic tribal peoples that built entire houses in a month, but whatever.)
"The fact that we do not see cities and big settlements and monumental building doesn't mean nothing existed at that time," explained Dr. Gonen Sharon, a professor at Israel's Tel Hai College who worked on the dig. "The largest empire in history of the world is the Mongol Empire and it left no traces in archaeology. They were like Bedouin, nomadic. For the dolmens to have been built, they needed enough people to do it, needed to feed them, needed architectural mastery and technological knowledge and planning. The dolmen is monumental and attests to a more significant culture than we had thought."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
2. Phoenicians in Southwest Spain
The Phoenicians and the Ocean: trade and worship at La Caleta, Cadiz, Spain
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1095-9270.12275/full
Aurora Higueras-Milena Castellano
Brit-Am Note:
The Ten Tribes were exiled in the 700s BCE. We have shown how a portion came to the west shortly afterwards. The notes below mention Phoenician settlement beginning in this time in the area facing the Atlantic Ocean and the British Isles.
Extracts:
The area of La Caleta, north-west of Cadiz, is a key location for studies of the relationship between the Phoenician city of Gadir and the ocean. The port channel and the small islets that characterize the area was one the busiest sectors of the city, and there are abundant underwater remains attesting to past commercial activities. The area also had an important religious role: two sanctuaries were located at the western end of the rocky promontories that surround the channel, and many items identified as offerings have been found.
According to certain literary and historiographic traditions, the Phoenician foundation of Gadir occurred during the early stage of Phoenician expansion in the Western Mediterranean. From the start the city appears to have been one of the main places of settlement for Eastern colonists who were endeavouring to open new routes towards the Atlantic Ocean.
Archaeological research carried out in the Bay of Cadiz over the past few decades has confirmed the important role played by the Phoenician presence on the islands of Cadiz.from Cadiz itself to the area of Sancti Petri, and at the mouths of the main rivers. Also, both archaeological and Classical literary sources indicate that the city was from its earlier stages intimately connected with the sea, through activities such as fishing, salt extraction, and maritime commerce. This relationship became stronger over time until it reached its peak with the Balbo family during the Roman-Republican and the Early Imperial periods.
The evidence available for Phoenician settlement in the bay and for its maritime projection is still incomplete, although it seems clear that the northern area of the island of Cadiz was occupied by a small settlement, and that its southern end was chosen for the construction of a sanctuary devoted to Melqart. Probably, the Phoenicians also contributed and populated fortified settlements... at the mouths of the rivers, and rapidly extended their economic and commercial activities upriver into the main valleys (Fig. 1a). The Orientalization of the material culture and the settlement patterns in the bay is obvious by the 7th century BC (Niveau, 2015). At the same time, maritime activity geared towards the Atlantic and other Western Phoenician settlements intensified. It seems that in the 7th and 6th centuries BC, Gadir was consolidated as a political and economic centre, gained control over the hinterland, and grew in international prestige, wealth and influence as a result of a strategy of increased maritime commerce. The bay thus entered a period of expansion, the archaeology of which remains only partially known (Botto, 2014).
During the Punic period, between the late 6th and the early 3rd centuries BC, the bay underwent substantial demographic and economic growth. In the 5th century BC the city's salted fish became internationally known; the archaeological and written sources indicate that it was in high demand in Greece (Zimmerman-Munn, 2003). In contrast with the renown of these preserves, the information available concerning harbour facilities, shipyards and fleets is scarce (Fig. 1b). In any case, these must have been substantial, as the whole city was sea-oriented, even the sanctuaries, and commerce was its key activity throughout the 1st millennium BC. The town was annexed by Rome in the aftermath of the First Punic War (206 BC), and this marked the beginning of a period of renewed economic growth and increased exports to the Mediterranean markets.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
3. Do ultra-orthodox Jews drink coffee?
https://www.quora.com/Do-ultra-orthodox-Jews-drink-coffee?Joseph-Kolakowski
Joseph Kolakowski, I am a Hasidic Rabbi
Extract:
Actually some Hasidic Ultra-Orthodox Jews consider drinking coffee to be somewhat of a religious devotion. The laxative effect of coffee is considered healthy, and to have religious significance because one may not pray if one has need to relieve oneself, to the point where many Hasidic Jews understand that if someone is constipated before prayer they cannot pray. Thus, they drink coffee to achieve the laxative effect so enable use of the restroom before prayer. Some Hasidic groups frown upon eating or drinking before morning prayer, but the overwhelming majority of Hasidic courts encourage drinking coffee before morning prayers.
There are those who find a theological meditation in coffee drinking, as Hasidic tradition attributes to many forms of devotional eating. Coffee with milk mixes cold and hot, black and white. Coffee with sugar mixes bitter and sweet. When mixed together, these ingredients represent the Unity in Creation and the Unity of the Creator.
There is also a devotion of drinking hot drinks on Saturday night after the Sabbath, mentioned in the Talmud. Coffee can be used for this.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
4. A Gigantic Megalithic City in Ancient Turkey
What are some recent archaeological discoveries that rewrite ancient history?
Martin Kovaik,
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-recent-archaeological-discoveries-that-rewrite-ancient-history
Extracts:
Gobekli Tepe, archeologic site in today's Turkey. Cca 12000 ago, mysterious culture built this site using megaliths. These are aligned with astronomical bodies, that proves advanced knowledge of astronomy. According to the archeological consensus, people of that era were hunter-gatherers, but Gobekli Tepe tells quite another story.
Site is huge, only a small portion has been excavated so far - many things remain to be revealed.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
5. Hugh Mitford Raymond: Early British Proto-Zionists
Arab-Israel Conflict: What role did the British play in the land of Israel?
https://www.quora.com/Arab-Israel-Conflict-What-role-did-the-British-play-in-the-land-of-Israel
Hugh Mitford Raymond
Answered Aug 9, 2015
HIDDEN HISTORICAL DETAILS FROM THE MITFORD FAMILY ARCHIVES
Extract:
Edward Mitford was the first British high official to present a plan to the ministers of the British government in 1845, well before Herzl, Balfour or Ben Gourion and before the Zionist movement took form in Switzerland in 1897, to share Palestine with one of the most creative and industrious people in Europe. His plan ultimately led to the Balfour Declaration. It lays out the practicalities and process of achieving an independent state with regards to worldwide opinion, the position of Russia and other European countries and their influence in the Middle East. Edward died five years before the Balfour Declaration of 2 November 1917.
Everything detailed in Edward's appeal and the plan he presented in 1845 took place and happened, it set the framework for the British mandate that followed in 1920 to 1948. His life and work is part of English history and cannot continue to be hidden from public knowledge.
My book entitled "British Policy in the Middle East and the Creation of Israel" is available on Amazon and answers the above question in detail.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
6. How did the rooster become france's national symbol? by Gerard Briais,
https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-rooster-become-frances-national-symbol?-Gerard-Briais
Extracts:
The choice of the rooster as an emblem refers to a roman joke on Gauls playing on the Latin word "Gallus" which is he same for rooster and Gaulish. Although often used as a symbol of France, especially by sports federations, it has never been chosen as the official symbol even if you can find one on the garden gate of Elysees palace:
The symbolism of the rooster is related to the usual behavior of roosters, their panache, and their character. The Gallic rooster is with Marianne, one of the allegorical symbols and one of the emblems of France. The fighting rooster (coq hardi) is also the symbol of the Walloon Movement, the French Community of Belgium and the Walloon Region.
Christian symbol (in the Bible, the rooster is considered the most intelligent animal Job 38,36) it overcomes many church steeples and, because of his valor, many monuments erected to the dead citizens for France during the wars.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
7. The British in Palestine
Arab-Israel Conflict: What role did the British play in the land of Israel?
https://www.quora.com/Arab-Israel-Conflict-What-role-did-the-British-play-in-the-land-of-Israel?_alex-brody
by Alex Brodie (Answered Jun 1, 2013)
Extracts:
... Officially, British policy in Palestine was the Balfour declaration of 1917, and this was written as a vague promise of intent to create a Jewish Home Land. While vague it was nevertheless used as a framework for the Middle East Department and set the terms of the Mandate. More realistically, Britain's interest in Palestine was mostly related to its interest in protecting the Suez canal. Britain after Word war I could see that the canal was a weak point in its links to its empire, notably India. Technically they were not interested in the local population other than seeing themselves as superior, the local inhabitants as backward, and themselves as being a force for good educating and enlightening them. They saw the local population as needing to be ruled by Britain as they were incapable of ruling themselves. ...
Palestine was first governed from 1917, by the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration. Basically the British military. This army in Palestine became 'openly anti-Zionist,' (Huneidi, pp 23) and felt that the Arabs were victims of an unjust British policy imposed on them. The Army considered that the Balfour declaration was a legitimate wartime tactic, ... The military began to consider Jewish colonisation as inflaming an already unstable situation and making the region virtually ungovernable.
... In 1921 Sir Winston Churchill, Britain's Colonial Secretary, created The Middle East Department. This department was to have a direct influence on policy in Palestine (and bypass the military). Churchill was a keen pro Zionist, and the role of the Middle East Department can be seen as maintaining a British pro-Zionist policy, a least to a point. Churchill's choice for Under Secretary of the Colonial Office was Sir John Evelyn Shuckburgh . .... Also in 1921, Churchill transferred the task of command of the army in Palestinian to the Air Ministry, where Air Vice Marshal Salmond was 'very anxious that his officers should not interfere unduly in political matters'. ..Churchill was side-lining Lord Curzon and this can be seen as a political manoeuvre. Lord Curzon was the sole member of Lloyd George's cabinet who disagreed about the policy of a Jewish national home.
With the arrival of the Conservatives British parliament in 1922... Churchill noted that 'in both Houses of Parliament there is growing movement of hostility, against Zionist policy in Palestine'. (Huneidi pp. 31) The British press initially viewed the creating of a national home for Jews positively, but by the 1920's this support had become more and more sceptical. However matters came to a close in September 1923 given that the Mandate for Palestine, which enshrined the Balfour Declaration, was passed by the League of Nations and matters were officially beyond the British Houses of Parliament. Churchill, however, continued to maintain his pro-Zionist credentials; asked in the Peel Commission of 1936-37 if it was not a 'harsh injustice' to have the 'indigenous population' suffer the invasion of a 'foreign race,' Churchill replied that the Jews were there first and planting orange groves where the foreign 'hordes of Islam' had turned the region into a barren desert. (Atran, pp 737 note 1) Although we can dismiss the bigotry in this statement, it is nevertheless revealing that the comparison of Jews and Arabs is made in connection to land improvement.
Land development can be seen as the most visible part of Palestinian policy by Britain. ...Palestine was divided up into either large estates or what was termed mush , a sort of traditional communal land. The British perceived mush to be an outdated system that prevented rural development. ... Mush land was unsuitable for Jewish acquisition as there were too many complications involved with acquiring a one hundred percent share needed to create a Jewish settlement.... British legislation allowed this complication to be eased by allowing the purchaser of a share of mush land to force partition on the rest through the courts. A note from the Director of Lands indicated that "a proper land settlement was also the only way to make lands available for the Jews without political complications". (Atran pp. 725) As the Jewish community managed to purchase more and more land, ideas began to surface of partitioning Palestine into Jewish and Arab zones.
The idea of Partitioning Palestine is generally traced to the Peel Report of 1937, yet prior to this the British had considered a limited form of division and the Zionists had gone as far as to consider complete partition. (Sinanoglou, pp 137) The idea of dividing Palestine up first surfaced in 1929 as a result of Arab revolt and the continual failure to institute a legislature council. The right wing Jewish revisionist movement was the most vocal voice against this, believing that it would 'wreck' any chance of a Jewish home land. In public, both Arab and Jews were opposed to division of any kind, yet in private they were interested in discussing the matter further as a possible solution. The head of the Zionist Organisation, Chaim Wiezmann, from 1933 onwards was discussing the idea of partition with members of the League of Nations and with Benito Mussolini, the Italian head of state, who was favourable to a partition. Britain, however, felt that such decisions were beyond the League's purview, and opposed any interference by Italy.... The mandate set Palestine as the Jewish national home while at the same time as the land of a group of unnamed religious communities.
... The fundamental problem the British had with the Arabs was summed up by T. E. Laurence, they were perceived to be inherently 'feckless and colour blind,' (Atran, pp 720) i.e. they were incapable of a lasting allegiance (to Britain).
The Palestinian Strike of 1946 marks and interesting exception in the usual politics of mutual distrust between Arabs and Jews under British rule. The 1942 in British set about controlling unions and banning strikes in 1942 to keep the situation as 'peaceful as possible,' and this policy was modeled on British war time anti strike policies. (Vries, pp 614) The 1946 strike was not limited to Arabs, and both the Arab and Jewish the press came together in a rare act of union. The Arab and Jewish workers were effectively united against the British.
British policy in Palestine was primarily an imperial venture. With the strategical implications of the Suez Canal, the world tensions and global wars, Britain would not have been in a hurry to resolve the Palestinian situation. What was probably forcing the issue was Britain's growing war debts and financial inability to continue to hold on to its empire rather than any desire to help one side or the other. Yet underlying the policy the Balfour declaration seems to act as a blueprint. The contradictions in the Balfour declaration probably suited Britain's interests. Having a clear agenda would have forced the issue, yet the contradictions allowed time. Colonial attitudes are either against 'seedy Jews' or fearful of Arabs barbaric 'hordes,' this discrimination only indicates the British incapacity to properly evaluate the situation. In this situation of out of touch distant government interference, it seems of little surprise that the Balfour declaration became so important; there seemed little else to go on. Britain may have raised its hands in defense that it was bound by mandate, yet it was Britain who dictated the words of this mandate. It seems probable that the intention of the Mandate was not to help one side or the other but to remove Palestine from parliamentary scrutiny and run it a sort of private country of the Middle East department. The arguments that Britain was using the Jews to colonise and annex a region for its empire are a complex narrative that implies too much planning and more forethought than the British Empire seemed capable of. One is left wondering who was controlling who. The same arguments can see Britain becoming a pawn in Zionist ambitions. British policy was very much set to create a national home for the Jews, yet the policy was designed to be impossible to fulfill, forever building a Jewish National Home, yet never creating an Israel.