MemberMarch 28, 2021 at 10:32 pm
Prof Anati is a prolific publisher, 100s of books, articles, survey reports. Har Karkom is not his main research interest. He is a paleoethnographer, i.e. a rock art and ancient culture specialist so his work is global. In 1955 when he first visited the mount it was still called Jebel Ideid, and his interest was in the huge collection of rock art on and around the mountain. He started surveying the region in 1980, and in 1983, after discovering a set of 12 standing stones in the Western Valley in front of the ‘sphinx’ promontory, conceived of the notion that the mountain may be Mount Sinai. His first ‘public’ (English) proposal was in the BAR, so if you have a BAS Library subscription you can view it here:
Anati, Emmanuel. “Has Mt. Sinai Been Found?” Biblical Archaeology Review 11, no. 4 (August 1985): 42–57. https://www.baslibrary.org/biblical-archaeology-review/11/4/2
Very shortly he developed his proposal further, publishing the large heavy colour-plate book:
Anati, Emmanuel. Har Karkom: The Mountain of God. New York, NY: Rizzoli, 1986.
It seems that the slides he shows in this UCSD presentation are pages from that book. I bought online an old library copy, the postage to Aust was $$, but I have to have one for my research. I have others of his books in hard copy and a 2017 pdf version of his 2013 book:
Anati, Emmanuel. The Riddle of Mount Sinai: Archaeological Discoveries at Har Karkom. 2nd Eng ed. Studi Camuni 21. Capo di Ponte: Atelier, 2017.
Here is his Karkom website: https://www.harkarkom.com/ It needs some maintenance… a few broken links… but there is still a lot there. His article re the moon god Sin is new to me, I will read and save that now.
Anati has surveyed the 200 sq. km concession around the mountain every year for 30 yrs (1980-2011), sometimes twice a year. Unlike many archaeologists, he has published all his data despite very little funding. After Moses, he is *the* old man of the mountain and we/I owe him a huge debt.
I do not agree with Anati’s routes. I think he took a wrong turn twice, once from Egypt at exodus (he went NE), and once from Mount Sinai in the second year (he went SE), and after that nothing worked. But the defence for the mountain’s identity from archaeology and general geography reveals his great Negev-Sinai expertise and his grasp of the archaeological significance of this unusual site. He has been very badly treated by scholars over the decades. For some reason, there seems to be immense hostility to the idea of a ‘real’ Mount Sinai rather than a kind of legendary one, or perhaps because it is within Israel’s borders… I don’t quite understand why.