Larsguy47

Yes, normally, but this level of the city has all but completely eroded. There is nothing there. So post holes wouldn't be expected in this case.

LG47

RED DAVE

And Arthurius and his cavalry riding out to the Battle of Badon.

A moat! Filled with what, sand?

RED DAVE

Larsguy47

Hmmm, interesting. Everybody else claims they never say any face. Thanks for your help!

LG47

Larsguy47

No, not sand. That destroys the idea of a trench. By the way, they did find trenches at Jericho! So the concept to help defend the walls by trenches was already in place. In fact, even when they had brick walls, enormous amounts of brush was set against the walls and superheated the walls so hot that the timbers inside the walls caught fire and then structures next to the wall as well, setting the interior of the city on fire. I found this interesting so I'll post the reference here.

Page 177, Digging Up Jericho: "So terrific was the destroying fire that the mud-bricks are reddened by it right through the thickness of the wall. Against the outer side of the wall is the great pile of ash from the fire which generated the heat. It still extends out 7 m. from the wall, and its outer edge may have been somewhat eroded, and it is about a metre thick. The ash is powdery white and pinkish, typical brushwood ash. If one thinks of how little ash is derived from a huge pile of, say, hedge trimmings, one realises what an enormous quantity of brushwood must have been required to leave a band of ash three feet thick. The complete burning of the wall therefore does not appear so surprising. A feature in the construction of the wall was also a contributory factor. At intervals in the mud-bricks are transverse and longitudinal timbers, presumably intended to bind the wall together and prevent the collapse of the face which we have found to have occurred so often. But with the great heat of the blazing brushwood against the face of the wall, the timbers caught fire, for they can be traced as lines of charcoal, and they would have helped the fire to penetrate right into the core of the wall.

The actual firing of the town wall may not have done much to destory it, for in fact it hardened and solidified it. What was almost certainly intended was to fire the town inside. The excavations against the inner side of the wall in Site M showed that houses were built right up against the wall, and there are traces of them at other places where the wall is exposed. These buildings would soon be set on fire by the tremendous heat applied to the wall, and the fire would no doubt spread rapidly in the interior of the town."
LG47

yummyfur

houses are built shallowly and usually have foundations on the surface or at most a foot below surface, we do actually find such houses in Late bronze age Jericho.

Defensive walls are built very differently, and have substantial underground portions. In the case of a wooden stockade one needs to build a trench to bury at least 5 ft of the wood, or the wall has very little defensive use, and no one would go through the trouble of building it(even a total novice can figure this out quite fast). This means that a huge trench much deeper than 5ft is dug because you also have to properly prepare the ground below the wood, and also make sure you have good solid fill around the wood. This leaves a fairly massive archaeological presence below ground.

If one can find some remains of shallowly built houses, then not finding any remains of a probably 7ft or more deep trench that encircled the whole city, means that no such structure existed. Besides the fact that such a trench would be going into the Middle Bronze Age levels, which are nicely intact.

gupwalla

You are correct, of course, that the woman in question was a prostitute, whore, harlot, and a proprietress of sex trade. I was, in my manner, trying to be a bit more charitable to her situation, as our present society still frowns on prostitution but merely raises an eyebrow towards sluttishness.

As for the walls, I'm not sure you completely grasped my point. As you mention elsewhere above, there are a couple of types of archaeologists in Israel and Palestine today: those who approach the work from a biblical standpoint, and those who do not. (I do not necessarily agree with your characteristics of their motives, however.)

Now, all of these archaeologists would agree on quite a number of things. They would agree that Jericho exists. They would agree that Jericho has been a population center off and on for many centuries, and they would agree that at least in the late bronze age, it was an established city. Perhaps earlier, but definitely by then. These are not things in dispute, and evidence in support of these facts is (a) expected and (b) thus noncontroversial.

This is where they diverge, though. Those who are motivated by proving the biblical record are looking for a specific layer of settlement corresponding to the presumed time of Joshua. They are also looking for specific evidence within that layer that corresponds to the biblical account as recorded in the book of Joshua.

Now, finding that a settlement layer corresponding to Joshua's presumed time does not in and of itself prove or disprove the biblical account. It just bolsters the fairly reasonable assumption that Jericho did indeed exist as a city during that time.

But to verify the account in Joshua, that layer would have to also correspond in meaningful ways with the story as recorded. (Otherwise, the story as recorded is not an accurate portrayal. That doesn't necessarily disprove that the Hebrew peoples did not invade Jericho, it just disproves the biblical account as being an accurate transcription of that event should it have taken place.)

And what would bolster the biblical account? Finding the appropriate settlement layer is the start. Finding within that layer (a) evidence of a massive fire (which would be present in any stone structures as well as the soil layer), and (b) charred bones of hundreds or thousands of people and livestock. If the city did indeed have major wood components in its walls or furnishings, then also (c) evidence that such wood components were burned to a crisp.

In any event, if the correctly dated layer is found, and any wood portion shows evidence of having slowly rotted over hundreds of years, then the biblical account of Jericho's destruction is not 100% accurate. The text is clear and unambiguous that after Joshua's army massacred (almost) every living thing within the city, the city and all that was within it was destroyed by fire. After such a fire, there just wouldn't be any wood laying around to rot for hundreds of years. There would be only ash and cinder (which should be evidenced in the archaeological record).

And for the record, I am skeptical about archaeology in general when it mashes up against historical or literary works. Especially with works such as the Iliad or the Bible, I start off with the presumption that any original historical truth has been enhanced in the telling. You can be assured that any Trojan archaeologist claiming to have "proved" the existance of a great wooden horse will meet with equal skepticism.

3DJay

"In all the areas excavated, there is considerable evidence of the use of timber. The wood itself survives only when it is burnt...." (Kenyon, page 183)

"Archaeologists find evidence of ancient wooden objects and structures, all the freakin time." ~ Me


Plenty? There's ZERO evidence of a "city". Just a few houses... "independent of the fortifications"


Peace

DISSIDENT AGGRESSOR

See the definitions of fall flat, it means the walls fail utterly; collapse.

It doesn't exclude your scenerio because your scenerio of wood walls fallin' outward collapses before it can even be considered.

But go ahead and make up your own definitions since you rank supreme...


Downward.


If... is why your scenerio falls flat...

What moat? What trench? Kenyon dug trenches, but there is no other mention of a moat or trench as far as I can recall. Do you have a reference?

Well if the imagination falls flat, like your's, then people have to go with the what they really have. The only one's hurt are the "Biblical archaeologists" who have built a wall around themselves, and don't want to admit [or can't in this case] that they are wrong. The collapse of their wall might force them to a conclusion that might lead their tortured mind to a very "scary'' place.
Exactly what you are doing, you are hiding behind your definitions and excuses, which fall through.






I'm not really convinced that is a black man's face... only that you, and the members of the "secret society" are convinced confused that it is what you say it is.

Larsguy47

That's okay, I was being quite biased in the Biblical direction.

Right.

Right.

Definitely earlier and later. They have got Jericho basically worked out with some very specific timelines.

Yes, that would be the first focus for that layer if anything was left of that layer. But with barely nothing left of that layer, we're not expecting much details beyond a confirmation that it was populated at that time.

Right. Sometimes all we can get is the basics and no details. In this case, Jericho doesn't contradict the chronology, as is suggested by some other sites, such as "Ai" where they confirm no LBIIA occupation, even though the archaeologists are looking at the wrong city for the comparison. So non-"Ai" is not a Biblicalist issue. But indeed, there is MORE than just "inconclusive" here because you also have contradiction. That is, there could have been no evidence of an LBIIA occupation at all and that would have tended to be used to contradict the history. So if we were to apply a point system such as:

0, confirmed non-occupation.
1, No evidence of occupation or non-occupation.
2, Evidence of occupation
3, Evidence of specifics, such as destruction by buring etc.
4, More specific evidence, such as a stela taking credit for the destruction
5, Actual records describing the event.

ETC.

IN this case, we are are confidence level "2" here, compared to other possibles.


Yes, if sufficient parts of that layer still existed but it doesn't.

I totally agree! There are going to be LEVELS of confirmation. But in this case, with so little of the city at that level left the lack of some evidence is not considered a contradiction. It's like when an archaeologist goes into a pyramid, likes what he sees on the wall, and chisels that section off the wall to have placed in his private collection or some European museum. If you walk into the pyramid and see the inscription gone, you don't immediately presume that there was no writing or images. Sure it could have been a blank part of the wall, but you don't go there.

Umm, a video recording of the event?

Yes, if you had the entire layer to explore. But nothing is left. One house, that's it. The chronological evidence comes from the tombs where there are cartouches of Amenhotep III. So you're not going to look for any of that evidence except in that one house they found from this level. Kenyon found a pot from that period dropped in the house and imagines the lady dropped it while fleeing from the Israelities. So sorry, no massive bones or anything. That would have been nice. And perhaps if more of the city was left that would have been confirmed. But because that level of the city has eroded, we wouldn't be looking for it.

I agree, there would have been ash and cinder from that level, but not if that level was eroded way so that there's just one identifiable house left reminaing from that period.

Even so, with all the IFs, I'm happy with what we do have. No wall remains, but a difinite occupation during the time of Amenhotep III which confirms both extra-Biblical (Manetho) and Biblical accounts and chronology matching the Exodus to the end of his reign.


LG47

Hex

Okay Lars. We're back in my neck of the woods and you're just being silly.

If you're thinking, for instance, that Kenyon's statement would only apply to stone walls, you're wrong. Your answer is here:

Oh, but wait, you counter with such arguements as:

Wood that is left out does what, Lars? It rots, right? And you know what that becomes? Part of an A-Horizon, or occupation layer. Guess what's in those post-molds? Rotten wood that's gone to soil. So, even if we can't carbon date it, it is darker, richer, and has a different mineral content from the soils surrounding it. Such post molds are what you get for "considerable evidence of the use of timber" when your wood hasn't been otherwise preserved.

Note: Being buried in the ground, underwater, in a bog with lots of tannins, in permafrost, or being desicated in an arid environment can -all- preserve wood.


Now, the Levant area did have a different ecosystem in the past. At times it has been swampy in places, had grasslands and had forests (with lots of oak). So you needn't say apparently, but that doesn't 'get you out of the woods' on it yet.

According to The Natufian Culture and the Origin of the Neolithic in the Levant, by O. Bar-Yosef; F. Valla, Current Anthropology, pp 433-436 © 1990, the forested areas in the Levant peaked areound 11,500 BP, and tended toward becoming wetter (and less good for trees) by 10,000 BP. But, as explained in Prehistory of the Levant, by O. Bar-Yosef, Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 9. (1980), pp. 101-133. and A Four-Stage Sequence for the Levantine Neolithic, ca. 8500-3750 B. C., by Andrew M. T. Moore, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 246. (Spring, 1982), pp. 1-34., somewhere around 6000 BC, the forests were practically gone, due to use of the lands for agriculture and pastoralism and the continued trend toward a drier Levant. So your 'earlier times' ar far earlier than the 1300's date you want to use this justification for.

And, when talking about Jericho, recognize that there are occupations that go back to pre 9000 BC. Might have been plenty of trees then, but by 2000 BC maybe not so much, huh?

Lars, if aspects of the LBIIA occupation layer exist on the site, then there should be at least some reminant of the post molds for a fortification wall. Great huge bits of tree being sunk several feet (or more) into the ground would leave something that archaeologists would notice. The erosion isn't uniform. Jericho is build on an alluvial plain, so the walls weren't there for defense against human enemies, but against floods. But, even when those walls collapsed, the 'upstream' side of the Jericho tel is the side with more protective silt covering the archaeology. So, since a wall would have to ring the city to be protective, we'd expect to find post-molds on that side at least.

And think of how much wood that would require! And if they were replacing the wall destroyed in 1550 BC, where would the wood come from?

Aside: Can you image finding a 2 ft diameter post-mold on a middle-eastern city? You'd be thinking 'feature(!)' only to be sadly disappointed. :Cheeky:

And sometimes I think -you- expect too much of archaeologists. They work with the data they have. And where they have data, they explain what's going on. But, where they don't have data (Jericho's eroision layer, for example), they can extrapolate. They can say 'IF there were people here during this time period, this is probably how they would have lived and what their tools would have looked like'. How could they say that? They look to the -rest- of the archaeological record to give them information from similar times, places, situations, cultures, what have you. Does that make any sense? :huh:


So ... if there's plenty of evidence for LBIIA, why are you crying about erosion above? And you know what archaeologists would likely claim? That it was a city, and with paleoecological data, C14 data and artifactual evidence, the destruction layer propbably dates to about ...

The particulars about the Jericho site don't have that great significance to archaeologists overall. It's a neat city due to the walls, and due to the Natufian occupation and the insights into the origins of agriculture. The stuff you're trying to prove hardly comes up on any archaeologist's radar ...

Oh, I don't think -anoyone- here debnates your ability to imagine. But some of us use our brains rationally, not on spiritual pipe-dreams ...

Trenches are more for drainage. If you look at The Walls of Jericho: An Alternative Interpretation, by O. Bar-Yosef, Current Anthropology, Vol. 27, No. 2. (Apr., 1986), pp. 157-162., Figure 2 (pg. 160), the successive walls are there to brace the big wall. If they were defense-works, they start to become a step-work that would allow invaders betetr access to just climb over the walls.

And as for the Kenyon quote from pg 177 above, what occupation level does that come from, by the way?



*sigh* Okay. I was going to go through the rest, but ... I think this addresses the major points needed for disproving Lars' posit.

If anyone wants me to hit on something specific, let me know ...