Lucretius

Two words

POST HOLES

As Yummyfur says post holes are easily identifiable in archeaology and are indeed a useful piece of evidence
Since we would be talking about a wooden wall surrounding a town/city you would expect to see ample evidence of hundreds of post holes around it

Larsguy47

No. Only that while stone survives or wood that is burned survives, wood that is not burned does not survive:

Kenyon in the same work cited (Digging Up Jericho), page 183 explains: "In all the areas excavated, there is considerable evidence of the use of timber. The wood itself survives only when it is burnt...."

LG47

3DJay

Who said the wood, "itself", has to survive, for there to be evidence.

Your own quote... "considerable evidence of the use of timber" ... but no evidence of a wooden wall.

You're making stuff up, on the fly, yet again.


Peace

DISSIDENT AGGRESSOR

Read Joshua 7:26. That'll tell you what happened to the missing stones.

Larsguy47

This is certainly reasonable, but apparently there was lots of forrest in this region in earlier times. Kenyon comments on page 183-184:

"Thus in the walls and houses of Jericho, in the eight hundred years or so of the Early Bronze Age, a very considerable amount of timber must have been used, deired from the cutting-down of a large number of trees... But environmental specialists assert that once the hill-country of Palestine was covered with forest, and we are reminded that the Lebanon, geographically the same area, was the source from which timber was imported into Egypt from the days of the Old Kingdom onwards... One the one hand, we have the evidence of the very considerable use of timber at Jericho."

Since the Late Bronze Age city, the one Joshua destroyed has all but eroded, there wouldn't be much socket hole evidence remaining. In fact, nothing remains except one house that has been identified, some pottery and cartouches from Amenhotep III in some tombs, confirming the dating to as late as his reign.

What's interesting archaeologically here, is that Kenyon even suggests if there had been another town rebuilt after Joshua it would have been completely washed away, but they have other means of determining long periods of nonoccupation and the city was not occupied for the next 400 years, which is consistent with the Biblical history for Jericho. But the scientific point to remember here, is that once something is destroyed or removed and there is no evidence of it on site any more, archaeologists presume it was never there to begin with. Certainly archaeological sites tell better history than others.

Sometimes I think archaeologists think the entire picture of the past should unfold before them quite nicely and completely, when in fact, the best they can hope for is a basic outline with a lucky fill-in here and there.

LG47

Larsguy47

First of all, the woman was not a "slut" (a nymphomaniac that gives it away), she was a "professional", likely a well-to-do, sophisticated person with a lot of nice clothes. But getting back to Jericho. Here's a quote about how wood doesn't survive over time from Kenyon's book:

Page 183-184 "Thus in the walls and houses of Jericho, in the eight hundred years or so of the Early Bronze Age, a very considerable amount of timber must have been used, deired from the cutting-down of a large number of trees... But environmental specialists assert that once the hill-country of Palestine was covered with forest, and we are reminded that the Lebanon, geographically the same area, was the source from which timber was imported into Egypt from the days of the Old Kingdom onwards... One the one hand, we have the evidence of the very considerable use of timber at Jericho."

LG47

Larsguy47

Actually I didn't think you'd actually get the "Nun" joke, but surprises abound. Anyway, your point about the vulerability of the wall to fire is certainly relevant, I wondered that myself. But perhaps it was not accessible or otherwise protected. Kenyon notes that even the stone walls were protected by several V-shaped trenches that were made in front of the wall. That would make access difficult or piling up a lot of brush along the wall to try and burn it down. Thus IF (and I'm just speculating here) a wood wall was employed, I'm sure the challenge of protecting it from fire would have been overcome by some means. Maybe there was a moat around this city of some sort. When the walls fell, they fell over the deep trench and the moat and that's how they accessed the city.

It seems that if the Jews marched around the city, there was some consistency in wall design around the entire city, and when the walls "fell flat" the men went straight into the city all around directly in front of them. That makes sense if there was a trench/moat around the city, making the walls inaccessible or difficult to burn. Even if they could burn the wall, they would be sitting ducks to wade past the moat. So the fallen walls actually overcame that defense and gave them access to the city all around.

LG47

DISSIDENT AGGRESSOR

Note: click on a word meaning below to see its connections and related words.

The verb fall flat has one meaning:

Meaning #1: fail utterly; collapse
Synonyms: fall through, founder, flop

Nothing about falling in sections outward.

When Larsguy47's attempted to make jokes and convince us he be the messiah, he fell flat on his face. That don't mean he fell outward landing on his face [but then it might explain why the sleeping black face looks like it's been shmooshed, rather than being "bad" artwork] it means failure, simple as that.

Larsguy47

"All the freakin time."? Maybe under certain circumstances where the wood is preserved, but generally....

"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)



Yes, but that's the limit of archaeology.


Nothing in the wash, but maybe there shouldn't have been if there were no stone walls. But there is plenty of evidence of the LBIIA city, including critical finds of cartouches from Amenhotep III. No telling what archaeologists would be claiming, with so little of the city left at that level, if that specific dating evidence wasn't found.

You know it's interesting. You basically have two groups of people interested in Palestine archaeology. The "Biblical archaeologist" who is biased one way, said to "Have a shovel in one hand and the Bible in the other" (that would be me!) And you have the anti-Biblicalist who is desperate to disprove the Bible, even when evidence is inconclusive (i.e. "They didn't find any gold left in the wilderness, they must not have had any!"), these can be said to "Have a shovel in one hand, and a lack of imagination in the other." :notworthy:


Oh, dreams are a piece of cake. You should see my 'delusions of grandeur'!

LG47

Larsguy47

In this fantasy, there are no stones, remember? Just a wodden wall and a trench and moat?

LG47