Niall Armstrong

Thanks for giving the address!
Here's a quote from the abstract:

The 1 sigma sampled destruction of City V is 924–902 BCE (68.2%). This time range could fit a possible association with the Asian campaign of Shoshenq I (Shishak), solely based on Egyptian criteria (see Shortland [Chapter 4, this volume]). Running the Bayesian model with the IntCal04 calibration curve yielded a slightly older date in the 1 sigma range: 929–906 BCE (68.2%). The latter range does include the date 925 BCE for the Shoshenq campaign as suggested by Kitchen (1986, 2000). The City of Stratum IV had a possible duration of 28–55 years, in the 1 sigma and 2 sigma ranges, respectively. The 1 sigma sampled destruction of City IV is 903–892 (13.4%), 885–845 BCE (54.8%).

So the excavators believe City V was the one destroyed by Shoshenq, not City IV, as suggested by Lars. Remind me not to trust apologists with data in the future!

Niall Armstrong

Dear Lars,

Considering the patience that has been shown in trying to explain the C14 method to you, it is a shock to find that you have been misrepresenting facts all along. You have consistently failed to give the interpretation of Rehov as given by the excavators. In my naiveté I take people’s words on trust, and am saddened to find it abused.

I have pointedly asked for more data, not least more datings, but you even failed to direct me (and the others) towards the source material, where relevant datings are found.

I pointed out to you that the destruction of City IV was not necessarily done by Shoshenq, and you did not mention that that was the conclusion of the excavators as well.

There is a destruction level at Rehov (named City V) that is more securely dated to the late 10th century, of which you've declined to mention. It would be interesting to know why.

I do not know if it was you that added the misleading interpretation of relative probability on the graph. As it is not found in the original report (and would not make sense there, either), I’d be interested in where it comes from.

I’m, as you might guess, rather offended by your withholding of evidence. I will be expecting an apology, both to me and to all other posters on this thread.

Niall

Sven

Well, it's obvious: he does not understand these statistics at all and took the y-axis at face value (do you have an idea why it's labelled in this misleading way?). Now he's not able to admit that he is wrong, because this would entirely sink his argument (well, apart from the numerous other problems with it).

Niall Armstrong

The y-axis is fine in itself (Relative Probability from 0 to 1.0), though it becomes tendentious when used upon a single radiocarbon dating. My experience of RP is that it is used, carefully, when you combine the graphs of several datings. And even then the use of sigma-uncertainties is generally preferred. I've never seen anyone converting RP into percentages before (which neither makes sense statistically nor in a practical sense.)

Larsguy47

I find this amazing. But, with all due respect, folks. Given that you were given a whole liter of burned grain to date via RC14. Not seeds from here and there found at different levels or roof timbers, etc. that is usually used. But a nice large sample to test. What would you expect to find? What should that RC14 give us? No dates more than 50 years accurate one way or the other? If RC14 that incompetent?

The chart is simple. It simply translates their results, post all their curves and best estimates, in terms of dating. We should be fascinated at how expert that has become. I find the graph absolutely amazing because for this level it's like a pyramid pointing to a very narrow range of dates set against the highest probability result.

I understand the caution of how much to weigh this, perhaps, against using it as an ultimate preemptive for other types of dating, but the only other type of dating one would have this specific of a comparison to is historical dating or Biblical dating. In this case though, as it is more and more overwhelmingly apparent, the Assyrian eclipse used to FIX the Assyrian Period is 54 years too early. It misdated to 763 BCE. The better eclipse event for several reasons is 709BCE. So for those historists and chronlogists and Biblical chronologists who have moved on to this more specific alternative dating, we're more fascinated by the accuracy of the RC14 results, since the most precise dating available for Shishak's invasion is 871BCE anyway. When you have a graph giving you the highest probability for the same dating, it simply makes sense.

In the meantime, 925BCE is contradicted again and again in many ways. For instance you have Israel Finkelstein shouting from the rooftops that David and Solomon simply could not have done what they did as early as they did. They do not match the archaeological timing they are placed when the 763BCE eclipse is used. It's just too early. The Philistine pottery period, for instance, reaches "well into the 10th century" which too far into David's reign projected by the 763BCE dating of 1010-970BCE. But think of what just a 54-60 year reduction does? It matches everything that is now very well dated to match the historical reference. That is, it's not that Solomon didn't exist and never built any palaces. They found the palaces! They've dated the palaces! They just can't justify them 54 years earlier to match their own historical misdating based upon that single eclipse. But if you are able to justify changing the Assyrian eclipse to 709BCE, reducing the Assyrian Period, reducing the Greco-Persian Period where it is most weak, then suddenly everything is in place dating wise and history wise from Apophis down to the NB Period, including the precise year Rehov was burned down by Shishak.

So far from the RC14 being used to establish the true timeline, the true trimeline confirms the accuracy of the Groningen process since, amazingly, given enough of a sample which can yield a high consistent probability, it is absolutely accurate to where historians will eventually have to date this event anyway.

Bottom line is, whether archaeologists or historians like it or not, the dating of that eclipse to 763 BCE is based upon Greek chronology. If Greek chronology gets corrected, then so will Persian, Neo-Babylonian and Assyrian, which is based on that. So the true chronology debate, if we so quickly don't want to use RC14 dating, is going to be whether or not Aristotle/Phaedo was Socrates young lover and protege. It will depend upon how absolutely you can depend upon the history of Xenophon. Once you remove 56 years from the Greek Period then everything will drop down 56 years until that Assyrian Eclipse which then will adjust to a 54-year reduction to the much better 709BCE eclipse. When that happens, Shishak's invasion will get redated to 871 BCE regardless. Funny as it may seem, it will not upset anything as far as RC14 dating for that event, which the Groningen chart is clearly already telling you quite loudly at 99% probability this occurs at precisely the same time.

So the chart is quite accurate as far as dating. Quite amazingly so in fact, because the archaeoastronomically correct date is 871BCE anyway.


It's just a matter of time, folks! WAKE UP! Finkelstein at at least two choices for dating Solomon. If the fall of Jericho is considered most accurate between 1350-1325BCE, then that limits the Exodus specifically to 1390-1365BCE. At the very earliest that dates the 1st of Solomon to 914 BCE, Shishak's invasion in his 39th year at the very earliest to 874 BCE. So why isnt 914-874 BCE already a potential alternative dating for Solomon based upon the Egyptian timeline and the archaeological dating for the fall of Jericho?

So once the historical timeline is fully explored and corrected, Shishak's invasion in 871BCE will simply be confirmed by the best-yet sample for RC14 dating. That's all. There's nothing wrong with this sample or the dated results. These results would never be challenged had the timeline been already corrected. It's just a little scarry because people are afraid of that 763BCE eclipse and having to change the history books by 54 years; or finally admitting that the philosophy icons of Western Civilization thought the greatest possible love between two people was between an older man and a younger male protege; father-son sex is the ultimate!


THE DELIAN PROBLEM SOLVED:

Doubling the Cube
Doubling the Cube, the most famous of the collection, is often referred to as the Delian problem due to a legend that the Delians had consulted Plato on the subject. In another form, the story asserts that the Athenians in 430 B.C. consulted the oracle at Delos in the hope to stop the plague ravaging their country. They were advised by Apollo to double his altar that had the form of a cube. As a result of several failed attempts to satisfy the god, the pestilence only worsened and at the end they turned to Plato for advice.

Delian Problem Solved

Interesting that Plato was credited with being consulted for this 430 BCE problem, proving he was amazing indeed since he wasn't born until 2 years later in 428BCE. Now I wonder what's wrong with this picture?


Larsguy47

Hex

Okay. This is my first chance to get back to this. My first post was not meant to concede, but, I admit, to be condescenting to Lars. I apologize. I assumed that, from what you posted, you were merely a troll, not someone willing to undertake an attempt at really defending what you had posted.

And, just for your edification, I do hold a Ph.D. in Anthropology with a concentration in Archaeology, and have been working in the professional field of Archaeology for 15 years. If you have disputes with my credentials, please take it up with the State of New York.

That said, let's truely dismantle this work of suspect archaeological science bit by bit.

Starting here: Even Archaeoastronomers can not conclusively link Egyptian dynasties with celestial occurances with certainty. If you are looking at the 1375 BC eclipse, be wary. As noted in Sawer and Stephenson 1970 ("Literary and Astronomical Evidence for a Total Eclipse of the Sun Observed in Ancient Ugarit on 3 May 1375 B. C.", by J. F. A. Sawyer; F. R. Stephenson, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London © 1970), this should be noted that the date of the Ugritic recording of the eclipse may have actually come from 1365 BC instead. Also, due to the lack of other Ugritic astronomical infromation, there is the possibility that the 'eclipse' was actually due to a dust-storm and -not- a celestial event at all.

As such then, I'd like to hold back on making this a firm part of the arguemnt so far. As much as there is literary evidence, it is hardly firm.

I would like to point out that Manetho is dealing with time periods of history easily 600 years older than himself. Syncellus was 1600 years or more removed from such events. And they were working off of older records. Now, the fact that Manetho's work really only exists through Josephus, and Syncellus was basically working off of other histories, some of which had been, shall we say, embelished. Thus again, as -fact- we have to be suspect of this too.

One might note that Kenyon noted that the walls of Jericho had collapsed and been rebuilt several times (Excavations at Jericho, by Kathleen M. Kenyon
The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland © 1954). Also, during her tenure in the Middle-East doing archaeology, C-14 dating was no-where near as accurate as it is now and her excavations at Jericho ended in 1958. She was interested in the Natufian stuff, origins of civilization - in the range of 9200-6000 BC - not Biblical matters. This is all nicely summarized and explained in Bar-Yosef's article (The Walls of Jericho: An Alternative Interpretation, by O. Bar-Yosef, Current Anthropology © 1986), which also point out that, dating aside, it appears that the walls of Jericho were not for defense from human (or supernatural) enemies, but from flood waters.

Or, did you mean Garstang's 1941 ("The Story of Jericho: Further Light on the Biblical Narrative", John Garstang, The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. 58, No. 4. (Oct., 1941), pp. 368-372.) findings (that were reinterpreted by Kenyon's later pottery studies) which stated:
This, unfortunately undermines your whole tie with Amenhotep III, especially when Kenyon's work pushes the final date of the destruction of Jericho -farther- back into time. Where does your 40 year's wandering go? This, I wonder what exactly you mean by:

:huh:
I guess it's not so well placed in my mind.

And here you show that you don't know about C-14 dating. -All- grains have lives short enough to be closely fixed to a specific C-14 intake. The big thing with this dating is that it's in large quantities and -charred-. The carbonizing of the fire is the important part here, not anything about the growing cycle of the grains. And, we -can't- date to within a -year- using C-14 dating. What we get is a good match +/- a range. C-14 dating is an exact science, but the world's supply of C-14 varies from year to year. As such, we get -close- not -exact- dates.

More on this in a moment.

Okay. Here we have a nice graph and some laughable probabilities. Sorry Lars, it's true. The confidence levels reported are more like:
Note the date ranges. I admit, a range of only 16 to 18 years is impressive. It does bring a fine point to the times in question. But look at the conclusion of "leaves no reasonable alternative but the period 940 to 900 calendar years B.C.E". Compare this with your:
Again, huh. :huh:

Well, seeing as how these dates are no longer valid, we don't need to dwell on these, but we'll keep going 'cause this is fun ...

Except that we've not Egyptian data from Amenhotep III's reign that backs that up. Nothing about any plagues, even in terms of unusual phenomena. And he's not a ruler who needed to be stricken from the record, oh, but wait ... What's this?

Um ... So, if Akhenaten's reign was purged, why wasn't Amenhotep III's reign left intact? And why don't we have 'chiseled out' inscriptions that leave some information, but delete names and places of problem?

Let's fight URLs with URLs, shall we?

The Tomb of Amenhotep III (and possibly Queen Tiy) on the West Bank at Luxor - by Mark Andrews

Tomb KV22

We've got an interesting thing going here:
Or do we have to argue about an empty tomb?

Now, wait. I already brought up EA 26, wherein it was noted that power had shifted from Amenhotep III to Akenaten. So what's the big deal with this? The ruler of the largest gold-producing nation dies and it's supposed to be kept quiet? The concept that some other ruler expressed how much he greived is supposed to be important to show that the ruler died chasing Jews through the Red Sea?

This is merely a classic means of expressing similarity. 'Hey look, I'm missing him too. We're the same in that, unlike those heartless bastards over there.'

And, at the same time, the 10,000 deaths is merely a 'I wish 10,000 of either my or your people had died rather than Amenhotep III'. Again, this statement expresses -how much- the ruler is apparently greiving. Do we see 10,000 deaths to commemorate the death? No, we don't. This is merely a manner of literary somantics. Going through the motions to infer similarities. It is in no way unique.

Am I being perhaps flippant here?

Yes. Why? Because the inference is solely literary and you're blowing it out of importance here. You haven't the archaeology to back that up ...

And, in your arguements here, I only see -less- and -less-, even with the information from the Amarna Letters.

No, it doesn't. And your 'archaeohistorical' study is just so much conjecture and juggling of numbers. When put into an archaeological context with research that integrates with the larger knowledge base of archaeological data, it's worth just as much as the paper it's printed on - oh, sorry, it's an electronic format.

And, some people take this too far, not stopping when the facts indicate that they are obviously wrong. And I won't go into 'dysfunctional theories'. It's just too tempting.

We don't know when (if) the Exodus happened.

We know why Akhenaten became a monotheist. His worship of Aton was there to help solidify himself at the pinacle of power, effectively making himself the 'only game in town'. He could control the military, the economy and, finally, the religious sentiments of the people.

And, finally, we have a mummy for Amenhotep III. How can we have the body if he was 'lost' in the Red Sea?

Face it. Archaeology is -not- your friend here.

- Hex

spamandham

Well, I agree actually. But by the same reasoning, it is irrational for anyone to believe any miracle story they did not experience. By the same token, it is unreasonable for anyone to expect others to believe their miracle stories as well.

So the end effect is the same. All second/third party miracle stories, true or not, are rationally dismissed.

Larsguy47

Yes but that is now qualified because some thing fortelling the future is a miracle. If you perceive the Bible has effectively fortold the future based upon modern experience, then you tend to believe other miracles in the Bible.

Larsguy47

Weltall

If it were possible to demonstrate that the events in the Bible that supposedly fortell future events with sufficient accuracy to impress (meaning no generic 'there will be war in the Middle East' crap) were really written before the fact and that the events that they predicted weren't obviously written in order to make it seem as if they were fulfilling prophecy that would be one thing. Unfortunately, that can't be demonstrated. All we get is a lot of shoehorning, which might be where you get your inspiration from.

Larsguy47

First, just let me say that I'm HIGHLY HONORED you shared your professional views here! I hope you don't mind if I break up the post topically though.

Larsguy47