Larsguy47

I can tell you the Biblical dating for this event. The Exodus occurred in 1386BCE, the day of full moon of Nisan. Period. But we're not discussing that. We're discussing what archaeological evidence there is that harmonizes with that dating. The book in question that relates to this is about $45.00 new so I thought I'd try and get it through the local library. But if you want to buy me a copy of it and send it to me as a gift or a loan, I promise to take good care of it and return it to you!

:>

So basically, we know when the Exodus happened, 1386BCE the first year of Akhenaten. We're just seeing what the archaeology looks like, that's all. We're not trying to establish a plausible date at this point. We have the date already.

LG47

Larsguy47

Finally, we're getting somewhere. What kind of documentation of this is found of nomadic people in the middle East and Arabia?

LG47

TomboyMom

I believe you're mistaken.
"Kathleen Kenyon's excavation in the 1950s redated it to around 1550 BC, a date that most archaeologists support." Jericho

Hex

Once again, I'm likely to repeat myself. So ...

How? Without the archaeologists you wouldn't -have- a chronology. Look at what you do in the next area - you quote archaeologists and dates. Where's the separation?

Archaeology is done by archaeologists, Lars. The archaeological -evidence- is only put in context by archaeologists. And archaeologists care about what's in the ground more than they do your book, or a list of kings. What they deal with is (literally) hard evidence. Your documents are 'soft' in comparison.

And, your criteria for picking and choosing between Finklestein and Kenyon is what? As much as I might have issues with Finklestein, he's got the findings of nearly 50 years of archaeological science being done to give him some authority over Kenyon's quote from 1957. Not to mention that OTHER PEOPLE have worked on Jericho after Kenyon - why don't you mention them?

And please don't try to play the bias card like you're actually being an unbiased scholar here, huh? :wave:

But what about pushing the window on Jericho to 1325-1275? That's the 'modern' date ...

Jericho in the Late Bronze Age (Ancient Near East), by Piotr Bienkowski, Aris & Phillips (May 1986) (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Lars, archaeologists use things like radiocarbon dating and dendrochronology -because- they are independant, unbiased scales of time from 'popular chronology'. You know why there's a 'popular chronology' for your example of David? Because Biblical Archaeologists of the last century have tried to make the archaeological record -fit- the Bible's account of history.


So ... You're advocating that amateurs should be harmonizing the Bible and archaeological record because archaeologists get lots of stuff wrong? :banghead:

Lars, as revisionist as Finklestein might be, archaeological work in the Middle East did not stop in the 1950's. Scientists (of which we archaeologists count ourselves) change as new findings are brought to light. Which means that timelines change. The general rule is that the later (more recent) the findings, the more likely they are to incorporate new data that is meaningful for the change. As a rule, look for recent timelines rather than archaic ones.

But look ... The analysis of what Syncellus quotes from Manetho is assumed to be from a Manetho 'impostor' who knew Manetho's style. And, the idea that you're using Syncellus as a source is also suspect. Yes, even after all this time.

I'm supposed to trust this guy as a scholar. :huh:

I gave the link above to you before, but apparently you glossed over it. And I don't -have- to accept any evidence that you choose to use. But I should be able to tell you why I don't choose to accept it, right? Here:

I refuse to accept the date that LBIIA Jericho fell or was abandonned outside the 1350-1325BCE dating by Kathleen Kenyon on the basis that it is an out-dated, off-hand quote.

Now, back Kenyon's date up with a body of archaeological evidence and I'll change my mind.


Oh, I got it. And you -still- don't. Look. The probabilities that are on that chart are the concordance of the multiple testing. The multiple tests produce redundancies. The more these line up, the better the chance for the center of the sigmas to be located. It is still not a single date with a 98% probability. It's still a range. Perhaps in your studies of that chart you noticed the brackets on the -bottom- of the chart, under the peaks? That's the date range associated with those samples. The weighted average help to reduce the sigma-size, but they -don't- eliminate it.

That's the last time I'm talking about the chart, Lars. If you don't get it after all the times that people have dealt with you about it and after reading about the methodology, I'm afraid you won't ever get it.

This, of course, I dismiss as above. Lars, I do this -for a living-, please don't tell me that I have no clue about how it works.

The chart -explicitly- tells us (those numbers up in the right corner, BTW) that there's a 95% probability that the destruction of that layer dates between 918-823 BC, a 54.8% probability that it occured between 885-845 BC and a 13.4% probability that it occured between 903-892 BC.

You -can't- make it more than that. Deal. :wave:



Maybe it's time to move on to flaming sky chariots? :Cheeky:

-Jay-

Specific point here - a huge pile of organic waste, buried in the ground, decomposing, is going to leave, once again, disturbed soil from the digging to bury it, and, once again, distinct differences in the chemical composition of the soil. It's not as if as the (literal) crap breaks down, the ground settles back into it's original matrix and all the decay products leach away. Anywhere you invoke digging is going to give you the same basic problems.

regards,

NinJay

-Jay-

It most certainly has not. Do you really want me to go back and link to every single bloody post by Febble, Sven, and myself (and any others I missed) that refutes your specious nonsense? I've got the source on my bookshelf. Your ability to quote-mine isn't impressing anyone.

Man, don't do this to yourself again. The chart already includes the best possible corrections available from the sampled material, the sampling techniques, the sampling equipment, and the model parameters. The stated 1-sigma and 2-sigma values are absolutely the best you can claim. Weighted averaging? It's already in there. Using more samples to narrow the standard deviation? It's already in there. To suggest that it isn't implies that the authors of the survey didn't know what they were doing, which raises the question of why you'd be citing them in the first place.

Now whether you're deliberately misrepresenting the data, or simply don't know any better, the fact remains that you're trying to make the data say something they don't. Every quote you've mined out of the source material refutes your position when presented in it's original context. This book is not your friend here.

Yeah, you really are. You've managed to add some terms to your vocabulary, but you have yet to demonstrate that you even begin to understand the techniques and the math behind the chart.

I'd agree the chart represents just what it says. It categorically doesn't represent what you say it says. Your wordplay is interesting. A cynical reader might conclude you were offering a statement that most would readily agree with (i.e. that the chart represents just what it says), but then sneaking in the claim that it says something that it doesn't.

Yep. And what it tells us is that the destruction of the city in Stratum IV of Tel Rehov is 95.4% likely to have occurred somewhere between 918 BCE and 823 BCE. Unfortunately, that's not what you need for it to say.

You also added the title. The chart deals with the date of destruction of the City IV. The authors go so far as to conclude that the destruction was unlikely to have occurred as a result of Shishak's campaign. Thus you're not only twisting the data described by the chart, you're twisting the intent of the chart.

regards,

NinJay

Larsguy47

Sorry, it is you who are mistaken. I noticed you gave me the reference, thanks. You didn't quote specifically from the text, however.

What you are confused about is the dating for a period when some walls of Jericho fell during the MB Period which Kenyon dates to 1550 BC. However, that is not the event she associates with the fall of Jericho by the Israelities. Her dating for the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites is much later at a later occupation of the city in the LBIIA period, specifically dated between 1350-1325 BCE. Thus while he redates the fall of the walls of Jericho during the MB period in 1550 BC, this is not the occupational level she dates the Israelite destruction. Here is her direct quote below. Thus the known city with walls from the MB Period and when Kenyon assigns the Israelite destruction are two different things:


Kathleen Kenyon: Digging Up Jericho, Jericho and the Coming of the Israelites, page 262:

"As concerns the date of the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites, all that can be said is that the latest Bronze Age occupation should, in my view, be dated to the third quarter of the fourteenth century B.C. This is a date which suits neither the school of scholars which would date the entry of the Israelites into Palestine to c. 1400 B.C. nor the school which prefers a date of c. 1260 B.C."

Page 261 of her book, "Digging Up Jericho," in the Chapter called "Jericho And Coming Of The Israelites," she says:

"It is a sad fact that of the town walls of the Late Bronze Age, within which period the attack by the Israelites must fall by any dating, not a trace remains."

It is true that some get this confused because indeed some attempt to link the MB Period fall of Jericho's walls with the destruction by the Israelites and because Kenyon dates this level to 1550 BC, some have become confused that she's dating the Israelite destruction to this level, but she does not. Here is the pertinent exerpt from your article that demonstrates where you have misread this fine point:.

"A destruction of Jericho's walls dates archaeologically to around 1550 BC in the 16th century BC at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, by a siege or an earthquake in the context of a burn layer, called City IV destruction. Opinions differ as to whether they are the walls referred to in the Bible. According to one biblical chronology, the Israelites destroyed Jericho after its walls fell out around 1407 BC: the end of the 15th century. [NOTE 1*]Originally, John Garstang's excavation in the 1930s dated Jericho's destruction to around 1400 BC, in confirmation, but like much early biblical archaeology, his work became criticised for using the Bible to interpret the evidence rather than letting the facts on the ground draw their own conclusions. Kathleen Kenyon's excavation in the 1950s redated it to around 1550 BC, a date that most archaeologists support.[7][8] [SEE NOTE 2] In 1990, Bryant Wood critiqued Kenyon's work after her field notes became fully available. Observing ambiguities and relying on the only available carbon dating of the burn layer, which yielded a date of 1410 BC plus or minus 40 years, Wood dated the destruction to this carbon dating, confirming Garstang and the biblical chronology. Unfortunately, this carbon date was itself the result of faulty calibration. In 1995, Hendrik J. Bruins and Johannes van der Plicht used high-precision radiocarbon dating for eighteen samples from Jericho, including six samples of charred cereal grains from the burn layer, and overall dated the destruction to an average 1562 BC plus or minus 38 years.(Radiocarbon Vol. 37, Number 2, 1995.)[9][10] Kenyon's date of around 1550 BC is widely accepted based on this methodology of dating. Notably, many other Canaanite cities were destroyed around this time."

NOTE 1: Here is a key to this reference. Common chronology of "one" chronology for the fall of Jerusalem, meaning not all, dates this event around 1407. This comes from the dating for the Exodus around 1446BCE. That dating in turn entirely rests on not archaeological dating but on the eclipse dating from the Assyrian eponym. That is, a solar eclipse dated to 763BCE dates the Battle of Karkar to 853BCE believed to be the last year of Ahab since he is mentioned in Shalmaneser III's inscription as being present. In turn, the 5th of Rehoboam is dated to 925BCE, the year of Shishak's invasion, and Solomon's rule dated 5 years earlier based on this from 970-930BCE. This 4th year would be in 966 BCE, which is 480 years from the Exodus, which then gets dated to 1446BCE. But note, this is only one of the two more popular dates for the Exodus. Another popular dating dates the Exodus much later during the reign of Ramses II. So first off, note this is just "one" theory about the dating, there are others. But obviously this dating in 1446 is closests to the time of these known walls at Jericho. Most pertinently in the context of where Kenyon stands on this, per her comment above, her dating does not agree with this 1407 BCE dating for the fall by Joshua. She specifically disagrees with this dating for that association and dates Joshua's overthrow c. 1530-1525BCE.


NOTE 2: Please note "Kathleen Kenyon's excavation in the 1950s redated it to around 1550 BC[/SIZE], a date that most archaeologists support" is specifically talking aout the fall of walls in the late MB period, not the last occupation in the LBIIA Period. This is where you are confused, but understandably so. Again it states: " Kenyon's date of around 1550 BC is widely accepted based on this methodology of dating." Again, this is specifically about the walls at this level and in this context probably it seems Kenyon is supporting the Israelite invasion in 1550 BC rather than later in 1407BCE but she indeed is not associating the Israelite invasion with this level of destruction at all. Since the article doesn't specifically state that Kenyon has her own separate opinion about when the Israelite invasion occurs, it is presumed that Kenyon also is dating the Israelite destruction in 1550 BC, but she is not.

So clearly, I understand the confusion thus it is important to quote her direct reference as above.

Thanks for pointing this out. I can see why there is confusion. But please be corrected on this. It is not me that is confused about this but you, and understandably so based upon Kenyon's position for redating this level without specifically noting her position against this being the level of Joshua's destruction of the city, which she specifically dates elsewhere.

LG47

Larsguy47

I'm beginning to be convinced. And I do know there are occupation levels found associated with earlier times based upon pottery, such as the time of the Hyksos. So I'm still researching as to exactly what more is found from other times other than LBIIA. Your arguments are certainly reasonable, so one would wonder why there is so little or no evidence of an LBIIA occupation in this area if these people actually were there for 38 years.

LG47

Sauron

Because they weren't there at all. Much less for 38 years.

Larsguy47

INTERESTING! Thanks Steven! But if this is the case, where's all the information about treks of a large number of people in Arabia if you know of?

But again, if the Jews cleaned up the place after they had been there for 40 years. Didn't leave any gold lying around, etc. and the shallow soil got displaced in storms over time so that this is a new layer of sand and dirt and not their layer then evidence of their presence might have been eroded completely. I think we have to think of that type of scenario since if this was the original soil they were on it does seem logical that there should be some detectable traces of their presence.

One thing to consider that is unusual, is that there were exceptional winds during this time. That is, special winds drove quail into the area every evening around 3:00 p.m. for the Jews to eat. These winds could have eroded the ground sand and dirt so that whatever footprints were left that day got blown away every evening, so that you don't see the usual accumulation. When the Jews left, these winds ceased and so evidence of later periods remain until today but absolutely nothing from the Jewish occupation because of these winds driving these quail for 40 years. So it's possible the dirt and sand now there is a new accumulation over the next 500 years, etc. in which we find Iron Age occupation artifacts. Artifacts on the gound from the LBIIA Period were thus likely blown away and displaced if there were any of significance.

LG47