Larsguy47

Again, be fair. EXACTLY what do you expect to find? shallow graves with bones after all this time?

What did they have that was disposable that wasn't burnable? What?

Pottery? Maybe they repaired their pottery that got broken and otherwise used wood or metal. Things they kept.

Remember, a lot of cultures bought pottery from those who manufactured it in great quantity which is the basis for archaeologists dating certain periods. The Jews weren't going to be buying any pottery on an ongoing basis, so they were not likely to leave it behind.

They lived in tents and didn't write on stone.

So in general, what you'd expect to FIND from their 40 years of wandering is the same thing one would expect to find from some plains native Indian tribes living in America, who were not like the Aztecs, Adobe or Incas who utilized stone.

Dishes? How about a straw basket or straw plate to eat from?

Plus they did have metalware, not something they would likely leave behind. If they did set up a campfire, likely they would reuse the same stones. Why leave them behind?

There might have been logistical reasons as well to travel in a certain way and camouflage their routes. There were enemies not far away. Native American Indian tribes would travel single file to hide their numbers, etc.

So I ask you again. Archaeologically, if you wanted to find evidence of plains Indians in the Americas who lived in tents and cleaned up their camps and traveled in single file to discourage tracking, what would you expect to find?

2000 people can have a wild beach party and leave beer bottles and cans and miscellaneous bathing suits, camp fires and rib bones all over the place. But guess what? If the park service comes and cleans that all up and then combs the sand of the beach, nobody would ever know about that party. But that didn't mean there wasn't 2000 people having sex on the beach two days before.

There is simply no logical expectation of finding anything left by the Jews if they weren't leaving anything and didn't want to be tracked. Any buried bodies left behind in shallow graves would have long ago disintegraded. Eaten by worms or scavenged by wild animals and vultures.

Yeah, that's right, where's all the evidence? Doh.

Larsguy47

Asha'man

Larsguy, you are doing lots of tapdancing around the issue, but it remains the same: you've not got a shred of evidence to support the Exodus. The best you can come up with is excuses.

If you want to deal with real archeology, then you have to face the fact that the entire Exodus and subsequent conquest of Canaan is pure fiction. There isn't a single piece of evidence that the Exodus happened, but there is quite a bit of evidence that Canaan wasn't invaded by the escaping Hebrews.

The biggest piece of evidence you need to deal with is the continuity of culture in Canaan, as represented by thousands of samples of cultural items such as pottery, writing, clothing, etc.

Think about this for a moment: if the Hebrews arrive after spending several hundred years in Egypt, slaughter and replace all the potters in Canaan, wouldn't you expect pottery fragments to show a sudden shift in style? Shouldn't there be a very distinctive influx of Egyptian elements? That didn't happen, not in pottery or in any other area. No cultural shift -> no invasion and conquest.

Mass migrations of people and culture is one of the things that archeology is particularly good at detecting, and the evidence is very clear that such a migration didn't happen. In fact, the evidence actually shows where the Hebrews came from: native Canaanites. Long after the supposed Exodus and conquest, there is clear evidence of the slow development of Hebrew culture within Canaan. Polytheism was slowly replaced with Monotheism, for example, but the two existed side-by-side for centuries.

Dance all you like, but you have no evidence and can't explain away the clear evidence that refutes your position.

Dean Anderson

Sorry. Your numbers simply don't work.

As John Kesler has already pointed out, In the Masoretic text, we have the following:

This makes it clear that, if we are to take the Bible as authoritative, God tells Abram that his people will be enslaved for 400 years, and then they are in Egypt for 430 years - enslaved for most of that time.

Even if we accept the LXX over the Masoretic text, and allow Exd 12:40 to read:

We still have the issue that according to Genesis, 400 of those years were spent in slavery in Egypt - so you can't simply reduce the length of slavery to 215 years by knocking off all the time that the Bible gives from the time of the covenant. At the most you can knock of 30 years, starting the count when Joseph was 10 years old - otherwise you haven't enough time left for the 400 years of oppression.

That passage shows us no such thing. It points out that there was a promise by God to Abram that his people would be freed after about 400 years of oppression - as detailed in Genesis 15. It does not say that the oppression was to start at that moment.

The only way to rationalise Genesis 15:13-14, Exodus 12:40-41 and Galations 3:16-17 is to say that the Hebrews spent 430 years in Egypt (and possibly Canaan, if you prefer the LXX to the Masoretic) and at least 400 of that 430 was spent being oppressed in Egypt.

Any other interpretation must contradict one of those three passages. Your 215-in-Canaan-and-215-in-Egypt interpretation contradicts the Genesis verses.

But at least 400 of those years must be after Jacob got there - since God himself tells Abram that his people will be oppressed in Egypt for 400 years.

This interpretation contradicts what the Bible says.

Are you really saying that when God says that Abram's offspring will endure 400 years of oppression in a foreign land, what he really means is that one of his children (aged 5) will be laughed at in a single incident by his 19 year old half-brother, who is then promptly exiled and never seen again.

This child then lives happily for another 175 years having his own children and grandchildren and never even enters the foreign land.

Once again, your interpretation contradicts what the Bible says.

I don't feel bad at all. Correcting you is quite fun.

By the way, since you seem to want to take the dates in the Bible as being authoritative, I take it that you have no problems with the fact that your proposed dating of 1386 BCE for the Exodus and your shortening of the Egyptian stay from 430 years to 215 years places Noah's Flood in the year 2183 BCE.

You are happy to claim that the entire population of the world (bar 8 people) was wiped out in 2183 BCE, aren't you? You don't have any problem with the Archaeohistorical evidence that shows, for example, that Egypt continued to exist through that date without anyone noticing that the entire country had been drowned?

Larsguy47

Note: 905 + 845 = 1750, divide by 2 and you get 875 BCE. Mid-range. 920 BCE is still high end range 5 years after 925BCE. So the best average is still around 875 BCE in this case. The chart shows 99+% probability for 874-867BCE, basically the same.

The date is not at issue here since the RC14 dating would preempt the historical reference here. That is, we will correct the dating for this event by the RC14 best reference, right now being 875 BCE, or 874-867BCE. This is a NEW DATING process, the purpose of this exercise. Essentially, if you need me to explain it, 921-917 BCE would be considered 1) Inaccuraate and 2) Too early by 45-55 years.

Oh, I like that! since Shishak and Jeroboam were tight buddies. But the archaeological evidence shows destructive levels consistently at Megiddo, Jezreel, Rehov. Did Shishak simply visit and someone else burn the City IV down? Of critical note, though, the 5th of Rehoboam falls close to the end of Solomon's reign, year 39 would be the presumed match, limiting the co-rulership to six years.

YES! That is exactly where they were lifted from! Are you saying the maximum aplitude is totally irrelevant to the dating and that, perhaps some other "conversative" dating in deference to 874-867 BCE is implied? These dates are MID-RANGE even if RC14 is only accurate to a specific range. So in case I've misread this, please let us know WHICH DATES are we supposed to assign to City IV?

The "anomaly" between the popular dates for Shishak's invasion in 925BCE and the RC14 dating from Rehov are not connected. The scientifically confirmed best guess from the RC14 dating should CORRECT and/or CONFIRM the chronological dating. The 925 BCE dating is piggybacked off the "fixed dating" from the Assyrian eclipse dated 763BCE. But the chronology linking the Exodus with the 1st of Akhenaten would date that invasion specifically to 871 BCE.

That's a given, but Rehov seems to be exceptional because of the quality of the sample, plus apparently there was lots of testing and the results, as you can see were quite pointed to a very narrow range of dating. That's why it is probably the greatest opportunity ever for the Middle East for any kind of scientific input and confirmation for the dating issues for this period. LOOK AT THE CHART. 99+% probability for 874-867BCE, and only 5% probability for 925 BCE per this sample. That "peak" dates this event at the same time the Akhenaten/Exodus dating does. That's why it is significant. It suggests the Egyptian/Akhenaten/Jericho dating for Solomon is more accurate than the Assyrian eclipse dating for Solomon, whch is 45-60 years too early.


Rehov changes that. The SAMPLE tested determines that. The RESULT was 99% probability for dates between 874-867BCE and less probability for all other dates, but down to 5% probability for 925 BCE. It's understood that an EXACT date down to the month, day and year is not expected. But in this case a narrow range of just about 7 years is an incredibly "exact" date for dating this event. What happens though, is that the more accurate dating for the Exodus from Biblical dating and the KTU 1.78 eclipse dating for Akhenaten is matched to that very narrow range. Not to be taken lightly.

Yes, yes. But in this case this chart is giving us % PROBABILITY and showing 99% for 874-867, and less for all other dates. That's a RANGE, but that's very narrow. Are we not to trust the STATs? What else could this chart be saying? It is there to point to SOMETHING related to dating. It peaks to this period. Why isn't that relevant?

That is precisely the point here. That is WHY Rehov's RC14 dating is so significant. BECAUSE the short-lived grains are directly connected with the destruction believed to have been caused by Shishak. That's the whole point. That's what makes this so rare! Grains, likely harvested that year were burned when Shishak invaded. Thus the age of the grain is within a year of this event. Simple. Out of all the samples, they found 99% "probability" for the age of the grain roughly between years of 874-867 BCE. That's good enough to compare to SPECIFIC CHRONOLOGY DATES, from chronology. The two specific chronology dates in contention are 925 BCE vs 871BCE. When we compare those specific dates to the chart, 925 BCE falls in the 5% probability range, and 871 BCE falls in the 99% probability range. Could be any clearer than that?

Listen. Why date anything with RC14? Further, this is a specific testing for the samples given. You can check this all out. What was provided for the results of that testing, expressed in a chart contrasting probability with the dating, is a peak of 99% for dates 874-867BCE. Any other dates are of less probability. Now if the 99% probability RANGE were greater, the chart would show it. If that 99% range was actually any date from 925BCE to 840BCE and that's the best the RC14 dating could do, then it would show that. Instead it is showing you the probability range in relation to the years. The highest probability is between 874-867BCE. Why are you second-guessing the RESULTS?

Not quite so. NOT the Egyptian chronology now in place nor the dating for the fall of Jericho by the Israelites dated between 1350-1325BCE, with dates for the Exodus between 1390-1365BCE. That EGYPTIAN dating gives us the dating for Shishak's invasion in 871BCE. So that dating is not in error. But sometime before the reign of Rameses III, there is definitely a presumed error, that is of about 50-60 years of missing chronology. However, at this point the Egyptian timeline and the archaeological dating are out of sync. That is, the archaeological dating for the fall of Jericho, dated between 1350-1325BCE, is in sync with the KTU 1.78 dating for the 1st of Akhenaten in 1386BCE if Akhenaten's 1st year was the same year of the Exodus. Thus ARCHAEOLOGY and HISTORY are in sync. But by the time of Rameses III, you have archaeology related to when the "Sea Peoples" showed up being dated about 50-60 years later than the timeline is dating Rameses III. This comparison suggests that Rameses III, since he mentions this invasion by the "Sea Peoples" is archaeologically about 50 years too early. If you downdate Rameses III down 50 years, however, it adds a 50-year gap in the chronology between he and the Amarna Period. To be investigated further, of course. But Manetho himself assigns up to a 28 year rule for Akhenaten whereas the standard dating for his rule is limited to 18 years, etc.

So when you speak about the "Egyptian" timeline, you must be specific as to whether this is pre Amarna or Post Amarna. The RC14 dating of Rehov, if assigned at the highest probability to 871BCE would AGREE with Egyptian dating now in place for the Amarna Period, but ultimately would expand the chronology between the Amarna Period and Shishak by about 50-60 years. However, evidence as early as Rameses III suggests he is dated too early by 50 years already. So the Egyptian timeline had already had its problems.

Exactly. But that's the CURRENT DEBATE going on. You see 871BCE is too late for those dating Shishak's invasion to 925BCE. But 871 BCE is too early to match it to the next logical historical date for the destruction of this level, which would be by Jehu or by Hazeal. The dating for Hazeal based upon the 763BCE fixed dating for the Assyrian Period, though, dates the Battle of Qarqar in 853BCE. That's FIXED. So Hazeal would not have arrived until some 12 years later ostensibly around 840-841BCE. That's 30 years past the 871BCE 99% probability and 840BCE is only about 54% probability. But archaeologists are not quite comfortable dragging the destruction of Megiddo and Jezreel and Hazor, all linked to this same destructive level, to a compaign by Hazeal when so much points to Shishak, otherwise, not to mention stretching the dating down from 99% probability to 54%. Even so, the OPTION on the table is expressed here:

This is not your OPTION since this is a specific reference which you can check yourself. You're generalizing something that is specific. As far as the "traditional dating" is concerned, it is not the only chronology timeline ascribed to. Without getting into a debate of "traditional" versus non-traditional, a simple COMPARISON is being done here. TWO dates. The "traditional" Egyptian dating for Solomon based upon the Manetho reference for the Exodus, dated to 1386BCE dating Shishak's invasion in 871BCE, and the "traditinal" dating for Shishak, piggybacked on the 763BCE eclipse dating the entire Assyrian Period, dating that event to 925BCE. 925BCE and 871BCE. Those are your two CHOICES, based on two "traditional" timelines that are 54 years apart. These TWO TRADITIONAL DATES are now compared with the RC14 probability chart. What do we get? 925 BCE falls in the 5% probability range. 871BCE falls into the 99+% probability range. You take it from here. If you trust the RC14 dating, then it will preempt the traditional Assyrian 925BCE dating and would suggest that the Assyrian Period be downdated by 54 years. Since it is FIXED by a single eclipse reference, that would mean aligning it with an eclipse close to 54-60 years later. But alternatives eclipses for the this reference have long been suggested when the chronology doesn't fit individual timeline preferences. This is different though. We have some scientific input to consider. It supports the Exodus dating to 1386BCE in line with Egyptian references from Manetho.

Nice try, but I think most of us can read a chart. Plus you must realize if this level City IV, there is also RC14 dating from City V. If you extend too far past the central range you run into another level. Wanna know what the peak 99% range for City IV level is? 917-905BCE. :wave: Meaning, if Solomon's 39th year fell in 871BCE, his rule would be from 910-870BCE. So City V becomes a candidate for destruction by David or Solomon, or possibly Solomon's Egyptian father-in-law who destroyed Gezer for him which was then reoccupied. So you'll have to do better than watering down these 99% probability indicators to appease favorite dating beliefs. IF the RC14 dating is unreliable then lets can all the RC14 dating. What good is RC14 showing you some 99% probability ranges if you are going to ignore them?

How do you know the present sample isn't quite secure? Are you generalizing or is this a specific reference suggesting the samples from Rehov were scanty or perhaps compromised in some way? The REPORT is out, so you can check what options there are to qualify this dating for the samples involved if you wish. You're suggesting that some other samples not yet found or tested would redate level City IV overwhelmingly to 50 years earlier, contradicting the present sample in hand of what summarizes what was found so far, sight unseen. It's nice to hope.

I agree, more discussion and exploration. But the "traditional" dating is a relative term. Because traditional Egyptian dating, that is the current dating for the Amarna Period that dates Akhenaten's reign during the archaeological timeframe suggested by Kenyon's dating for the fall of Jericho, sometime between 1390-1365BCE (for the Exodus/1st of Akhenaten) dates Solomon's rule between 910-870BCE and Shishak's invasion to 871BCE. That is "traditional" for Amarna Period dating used to date Solomon. This is 54 years later than the "traditional" dating for Shishak to 925BCE, based upon a single eclipse event in 763BCE which FIXES the Assyrian timeline. But the RC14 dating, if it can indeed be interpreted as that specific, with 99% probability for dates 874-867BCE, then the RC14 dating supports the Egyptian traditional dating but down-dates the Assyrian traditional dating by 54 years. That's the whole point here. The Egyptian dating is more scientifically and archaeologically correct. But it is also "Biblically correct" by some interpretation of the Biblical timeline as well. But that's another debate.

I would disagree. Why? Because if Rehov's destruction is associated with Shishak, then it suggests the 5th of Rehoboam/39th of Solomon falls between 874-867BCE. That is directly connected with the dating of the Exodus, which occurs 480 years prior to the 4th of Solomon. That's WHY we are all here discussing this and hoping RC14 can shed some light on improving the timeline.

No it wouldn't. The Egytian timeline and all of archaeological dating is augmented by RC14 dating. One compliments the other. It's only a "mistake" if the RC14 dating from Rehov is strategically out of sync with all other archaeological dating. But it's not. Further, this is not the case here. As you note, the archaeological dating for the fall of Jericho is a supplemental archaeological dating that simply is supported by the RC14 dating found at Rehov. That is, the specific dating by Kathleen Kenyon for the fall of Jericho between 1350-1325BCE gives you the earliest possible dating for the beginning of Solomon's rule to 914BCE. Shishak's invasion occurs in his 39th year. So basically the 25-year period for year 39 of Solomon based upon the fall of Jericho is 875-850 BCE. So that timeline is already implied and in place, regardless. Thus the RC14 dating from Rehov simiply suggests that Kenyon's earlier dating for the fall of Jericho is more precise.

NO. You mischaracterize this PROCESS. Here's how it works.

Archaelogists dig up these ancient cities and find pottery and buildings and this and that and they try to date it. Sometimes they find burned beams that they can use for RC14 dating. Only organic matter can be dated. But this gives a large presumptive range since no one knows when the wood was cut or how long the building was there. Short-lived grains is another story. Grains and seeds are presumed to be more specific to dating an event if those grains are burned in connection with a certain event. So archaeologists are hoping to find some good samples of something burned at the destructive level, so they can test it and see what dating they get.

At Rehov, they hit the jackpot! A very large sample of grain burned at City IV, matching the chronology for Shishak's invasion at Mediggo and thus at Jezreel. So they simply send this to some labs and see what dating they get out of this grain sample, presumably harvested the same year of Shishak's invasion. What are the results? Turns out 99% probability for 874-867BCE, with less probability for all other years in the sample, but most pertinently only a 5% probability for 925BCE, the "traditional" Assyrian date for Shishak's invasion, but not the only Biblical dating for this event.

This simply means, to the best of our analysis, if in fact it becomes probable or optional to date Shishak's invasion to the destruction of City IV Rehov, then the "traditional dating" is 54-60 years too early, but the Egyptian "traditional" dating for Shishak's invasion is right on the money.

Anyway, these are the "games" the archaeologists are playing. If this sample had have been more in line with their "traditional" dating they would have been happy. But it's not. Now they are happy it clearly contradicts the alleged 925BCE dating since that is considered to be the Biblically correct dating (which it is only one of many), but if it is taken as a DIRECT reference, then it causes problems with the Assyrian dating, and so the archaeologists now don't want to play the RC14 game any more. Rehov backfired on them since the results were too specific.

In reality, though, since 871BCE is the ABSOLUTE CORRECT HISTORICAL DATE, it shows just how good the RC14 Groningen method is. Unfortunately, academic politics stand in the way of validating how great this scientific method for dating truly is. 871BCE is the absolute correct dating and the RC14 dating from Rehov is confirmatory within 7 years or less of that precise dating, confirming that, indeed, Shishak invaded in 871BCE and that Solomon is currently misdated, which some of us have already surmised because of other research.

At any rate, THANK YOU for analyzing this for me. I'm getting a high percentage of "frustated" ones after all is said and done, which is encouraging. People who can't see around the inevitable become frustrated. Since the RC14 dating challenges traditional chronology, you've decided to dump all RC14 as of any significance? Interesting.

Thanks again. Enjoyed your analysis!

Larsguy47

Chidori

Oh my. Someone didn't look at Hex's profile before they snarked this one off.

Larsguy47

Um. If the Jews didn't want their neighbors tracking them and they cleaned up after themselves, then WHAT would they have left. If they had trash, they would have burned it. The ashes could be used to make soap. Whey were they not an ecologically smart people. The Jews were OBSESSIVELY CLEAN! You know this.

2000, no 4000 people could be on the beach for an all night party. It could potentially be a huge mess! But if they picked up after themselves then what is left to prove they were ever there? NOTHING.

You're superimposing cultural biases on what you think should have happened on what specifically might have happened. Point being, the fact is that the Jews were different. During this period their clothes did not wear out and they were eating manna before the quails came. You can't expect the same "evidence" from these people, especially during this time, as you might with some earlier, ecologically irresponsible people who left evidence of their messiness for all time.

Now FACE REALITY. If Moses said, "Okay, my brothers." We found a very nice wilderness here when we came. We have the reputation of Yahweh upon us, let's clean up our mess before we leave here. Let's leave this place cleaner than we found it to bring honor to our god and to ourselves. Do the best you can. After we leave a special crew will come in and make sure nobody can tell we've ever been here.

Lesson: Don't underestimate a Jewish clean up crew! They did such a good job, no archaeologist YET has been able to find any evidence the Jews were ever at Kadesh-Barnea!! And they were over a million people! That's amazing!

Larsguy47

Cege

Numbers 25 describes 24,000 Israelites dying at Shittim of plague.

Genesis 32 describes 3,000 dying in one day at the foot of Mt Sinai, at the hands of Levite priests who were directed by Moses to kill "brother, friend, and neighbor" with swords as a result of creating the golden calf. A plague created by God followed the slaughter, killing more Israelites.

The Israelites wore "ornaments" according to the OT books, yet have none ever been found from their wanderings of 40 years? No mass graves found, or indicated?

It's hard to imagine that 'neighbors' would have any difficulty 'tracking' a group that was supposed to be a million strong. The million people would take up a VERY large space as they walked day by day, or even as they camped overnight. One 'neighbor' walking should have no trouble tracking a group of one million, even if they cleaned up behind themselves in a way unheard of and unimagined by any group of half that number.

figuer

After reading this I see no point whatsoever in trying to engage this person in a scientific discussion of archeological evidence. This individual lives in a parallel universe of fairies and pixies.

How can he even dare say such a thing as "Now FACE REALITY." and come up with a scenario of his own invention for which there is not even Biblical evidence????

Larsguy47

Your inexperience in Biblical apologetics is showing. The debate over where to apply the 400, 430 years, etc. might have different sides, but it is considered as "resolved" by many groups, and as I quoted, Josephus, a Jew..ish HISTORIAN, interpreting his own 430 years, notes that half the time was before Jacob came into Egypt. So, you are free to interpret the Bible as you wish, but the 215 years is standard understanding for many groups. I won't proprose to debate that further but to note this is not an individual interpretation of the matter.


Ummm, let me see. I wouldn't have thought you would have believed in the Flood. Hmmm. Anyway, in case you want to do the "Global Flood", we can if you want to start a separate thread. I know it helps if you're reassured by the unbelievability of the Global Flood, much easier to dismiss than trying to claim Akhenaten's monotheism had little to do with the Jews or a traumatic experience pushing him toward worshipping an invisible god. But just for this reference, my specific dating for the flood based upon 1386BCE would be 2243 BCE. Hmm! So looks like my date for the flood is earlier than your dating for the flood. So somehow I ended up 60 years earlier than you. So if the flood is dated to early for you in 2183 BCE, then not to worry. How does 2243 BCE work for you?

You're starting a new topic, so I'm presuming you accept that the Exodus occurred in the 1st of Akhenaten, right? Anyway, I don't believe everything in the Bible either, it's just this part I'm focussing on now because of the Groningen dating evidence at Rehov. But, getting back to the flood, to indulge you, I am accepting that yes, everybody on the planet, including half angel-half human "Nephillim" running about were killed with a massive global flood that covered the tops of the mountains, with only 8 people, Noah and his three sons and their beautiful wives, with assorted animals surviving. Those 8 souls becoming the parents of the entire world population. Isn't it apparent that the two-headed people and the three-eyed people all died in the flood since everybody has one head and two eyes? We all look alike! Doesn't that prove Noah is our ultimate most distant common relative? (just kidding! But yes, that part of the Bible's story I believe and am presuming to be true as presented.


Well, that's another topic and I'm sure there are varying opinions. But yes, now that you mention it, I would be adjusting that timeline that might date the Egyptian period substantially earlier than 2243, and in fact, up to 101 years after which would date the time of Peleg when the tower of Babel incident occurred. So I guess I am back to 2143 after all! So yes, I'd have to take the position that the Egyptian dynasties would have to be reduced substantially to fit that timeline. We can pursue this futher if you want in another thread if you like. Just let me know. It's an interesting issue and there may be commentary on it already. It may end up just being a contradiction of histories. But I think for the later pharoah's, particularly from the Hyksos Period on the chronology is pretty much on target. As I noted, the 1386BCE dating agrees with the fall of Jericho in 1346BCE per Kenyon's dating.

Thanks for the comments!

Larsguy47

Larsguy47

Very nice, very nice. But would you mind telling me why if an "ornament" was dropped by someone, why it wouldn't have been picked up? Don't you think the Jews cleaned up after themselves?

As far as graves are concerned, do you think that after 3000 years those bones wouldn't have decomposed by now?

As far as the mass grave, archaeologists might find something if they dig in the right place deep enough.

BUT PLEASE, I'm asking sincerely. Besides some ornaments you presume the clumsy Jews would have left in mass for us to find now with nobody traveling through picking them up, WHAT would you expect to be left by a million people camping in the area that we should find today?

WHAT exactly, say, when the Jews broke camp and left, would have been left behind by them that would have survived down to our day to prove they were actually there?

The only surviving items I would think that would survive would be pottery items or clay items, right? But what of those items would they have left behind in great quantity?

Could you just for fun, describe the camp as you see it, the day after they left for another location? Just what would you expect to see strewn about litering the place? I'd like to know your concept of that?

Thanks.

Larsguy47