Freethought & Rationalism Archive

katlynnhow · 04-03-2002, 03:25 PM

regarding alternative chronology. I apologize if this has been covered but I know this is the place to find answers when none are forthcoming on my own.

A fundie is telling me that the reason the evidence for Jericho, Ai, the Exodus, et al. is lacking in support of the Bible is because the chronology is all wrong. She claims that there is some new wave of alternative chronology that will harmonize archaeology with the biblical accounts. I can't find much about this. She claims that it is setting mainstream archaeology on it's proverbial 'ear' and yet I find very little mention of it. I was hoping someone might have some insight into this and perhaps let me know how it is viewed by mainstream archaeology. Some of the info she gave me is:

Aegean Dendrochronology Project: <a href="http://www.arts.cornell.edu/dendro" target="_blank">http://www.arts.cornell.edu/dendro</a>

Saturday, 19 January, 2002, 06:33 GMT Lost city 'could rewrite history' By BBC News Online's Tom Housden

Thanks!

Kosh · 04-03-2002, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by katlynnhow:
<strong>

Saturday, 19 January, 2002, 06:33 GMT Lost city 'could rewrite history' By BBC News Online's Tom Housden
</strong>

<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1768000/1768109.stm" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1768000/1768109.stm</a>

Hancock again...

Much as I'd love to believe his theories of the
Sphinx being built 10,000 years ago....he's
considered a bit of a quack by the mainstream.
He makes a lot of money with his books along
the lines of the old "Chariots of the Gods" type
stuff.

Previously, his "underwater" cities have been
shown to be natural rock formations, but this
is the first time I've heard of artifacts being
recovered. Anyone know if these claims are true?

Edited to add: None of which does bunk to help
the case of the missing Exodus evidence.

[ April 03, 2002: Message edited by: Kosh ]</p>

spin · 04-03-2002, 08:47 PM

katlynnhow:
--------------
A fundie is telling me that the reason the evidence for Jericho, Ai, the Exodus, et al. is lacking in support of the Bible is because the chronology is all wrong. She claims that there is some new wave of alternative chronology that will harmonize archaeology with the biblical accounts. I can't find much about this. She claims that it is setting mainstream archaeology on it's proverbial 'ear' and yet I find very little mention of it. I was hoping someone might have some insight into this and perhaps let me know how it is viewed by mainstream archaeology.
--------------

This is fundie hopeful rubbish. As there is no way to redeem AI through normal chronological means one grasps at new chronologies which are "setting mainstream archaeology on it's proverbial 'ear'". What this actually means is that there are a bunch of people who have rewritten some of the ideas of Immanuel Velikovsky (who had proposed amongst other things that Hatshepsut, queen of Egypt, was the same as the queen of Sheba of 500 years later, for there had been a catastrophic event which screwed up all the ancient chronological indicators). These people refute modern analyses of chronology by saying that it is all based on an erroneous foundation using Egypt as a solid measure with its continuous chronology of pharaohs and dynasties. They claim that some of the dynasties should actually be seen as parallel, thus reducing the effective length of time passed during the Third Intermediate Period in Egypt and stretching all other datings toward our time. The upshot is that our dating of destructions such as that of Ai must also be brought forward some few hundred years as well, making the biblical dating of Ai acceptable!

However, the arguments of these people have been refuted by scholars who have bothered thinking about such stuff. Kenneth Kitchen, who is one of the world's top experts in the Third Intermediate Period (TIP) of Egypt has answered the chronological problems in he preface of his book on the subject (TIP). Others have dealt with it in other ways. In the El-Amarna Letters one finds a letter from an Assyrian king Ashur-Uballit who helps to date the Amarna period to just after 1400 BCE and onward for some decades. The chronological revisionists have to reject this Ashur-Uballit or their chronology is seen to be rubbish. Their attempts are very feeble.

The main proponents of chronological revisions are Peter James and David Rohl, who both have books on the subject. David Rohl is more popularist; Peter James is more scholarly and therefore less followed. A search of the web with each of these names with the added words "chronology new" might get you some information if you really want to know.

katlynnhow:
--------------
Some of the info she gave me is:

Aegean Dendrochronology Project: <a href="http://www.arts.cornell.edu/dendro" target="_blank">http://www.arts.cornell.edu/dendro</a>
--------------

This site is a serious scholarly endeavour, which collects samples of tree rings from all over the Mediterrannean in order to build up a chronology of tree ring growth. There are some sections of the chronology which have no overlaps with other periods, so they are floating somewhere in the gap between one fixed period and another. One such floating period is the Bronze/Iron Ages. There is an article linked to the site provided to you which says:

----------------
the revised best estimate dates for the floating Bronze-Iron Age Aegean dendrochronology now must be shifted to ages ~22 years older -- a matter of no little importance for archaeologists.

"Regional 14CO2 Offsets in the Troposphere: Magnitude, Mechanisms, and Consequences"

Bernd Kromer, Sturt W. Manning, Peter Ian Kuniholm, Maryanne W. Newton, Marco Spurk, Ingeborg Levin
----------------

We are talking of 22 years older. They know that there are small shifts to make period dating more precise. This sort of thing can be seen in chronologies of the ancient near east when one talks of a high or a low chronology. Scholars attempt to cover the options available without making hard lines they won't go beyond.

To get Ai into biblical datings it would have to be several hundred years.

katlynnhow · 04-04-2002, 04:25 AM

Kosh and spin:

Thank you both for the info. I admit I didn't really understand the site regarding dendrochronology and how it fit into what she was claiming. I was certain, however, that mainstream archaeology rejects such ideas and knew this was the place to come for some straightforward answers.

04-03-2002, 03:25 PM	#1
katlynnhow Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 61	I need some help finding info.... regarding alternative chronology. I apologize if this has been covered but I know this is the place to find answers when none are forthcoming on my own. A fundie is telling me that the reason the evidence for Jericho, Ai, the Exodus, et al. is lacking in support of the Bible is because the chronology is all wrong. She claims that there is some new wave of alternative chronology that will harmonize archaeology with the biblical accounts. I can't find much about this. She claims that it is setting mainstream archaeology on it's proverbial 'ear' and yet I find very little mention of it. I was hoping someone might have some insight into this and perhaps let me know how it is viewed by mainstream archaeology. Some of the info she gave me is: Aegean Dendrochronology Project: <a href="http://www.arts.cornell.edu/dendro" target="_blank">http://www.arts.cornell.edu/dendro</a> Saturday, 19 January, 2002, 06:33 GMT Lost city 'could rewrite history' By BBC News Online's Tom Housden Thanks!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-03-2002, 08:47 PM	#3
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	katlynnhow: -------------- A fundie is telling me that the reason the evidence for Jericho, Ai, the Exodus, et al. is lacking in support of the Bible is because the chronology is all wrong. She claims that there is some new wave of alternative chronology that will harmonize archaeology with the biblical accounts. I can't find much about this. She claims that it is setting mainstream archaeology on it's proverbial 'ear' and yet I find very little mention of it. I was hoping someone might have some insight into this and perhaps let me know how it is viewed by mainstream archaeology. -------------- This is fundie hopeful rubbish. As there is no way to redeem AI through normal chronological means one grasps at new chronologies which are "setting mainstream archaeology on it's proverbial 'ear'". What this actually means is that there are a bunch of people who have rewritten some of the ideas of Immanuel Velikovsky (who had proposed amongst other things that Hatshepsut, queen of Egypt, was the same as the queen of Sheba of 500 years later, for there had been a catastrophic event which screwed up all the ancient chronological indicators). These people refute modern analyses of chronology by saying that it is all based on an erroneous foundation using Egypt as a solid measure with its continuous chronology of pharaohs and dynasties. They claim that some of the dynasties should actually be seen as parallel, thus reducing the effective length of time passed during the Third Intermediate Period in Egypt and stretching all other datings toward our time. The upshot is that our dating of destructions such as that of Ai must also be brought forward some few hundred years as well, making the biblical dating of Ai acceptable! However, the arguments of these people have been refuted by scholars who have bothered thinking about such stuff. Kenneth Kitchen, who is one of the world's top experts in the Third Intermediate Period (TIP) of Egypt has answered the chronological problems in he preface of his book on the subject (TIP). Others have dealt with it in other ways. In the El-Amarna Letters one finds a letter from an Assyrian king Ashur-Uballit who helps to date the Amarna period to just after 1400 BCE and onward for some decades. The chronological revisionists have to reject this Ashur-Uballit or their chronology is seen to be rubbish. Their attempts are very feeble. The main proponents of chronological revisions are Peter James and David Rohl, who both have books on the subject. David Rohl is more popularist; Peter James is more scholarly and therefore less followed. A search of the web with each of these names with the added words "chronology new" might get you some information if you really want to know. katlynnhow: -------------- Some of the info she gave me is: Aegean Dendrochronology Project: <a href="http://www.arts.cornell.edu/dendro" target="_blank">http://www.arts.cornell.edu/dendro</a> -------------- This site is a serious scholarly endeavour, which collects samples of tree rings from all over the Mediterrannean in order to build up a chronology of tree ring growth. There are some sections of the chronology which have no overlaps with other periods, so they are floating somewhere in the gap between one fixed period and another. One such floating period is the Bronze/Iron Ages. There is an article linked to the site provided to you which says: ---------------- the revised best estimate dates for the floating Bronze-Iron Age Aegean dendrochronology now must be shifted to ages ~22 years older -- a matter of no little importance for archaeologists. "Regional 14CO2 Offsets in the Troposphere: Magnitude, Mechanisms, and Consequences" Bernd Kromer, Sturt W. Manning, Peter Ian Kuniholm, Maryanne W. Newton, Marco Spurk, Ingeborg Levin ---------------- We are talking of 22 years older. They know that there are small shifts to make period dating more precise. This sort of thing can be seen in chronologies of the ancient near east when one talks of a high or a low chronology. Scholars attempt to cover the options available without making hard lines they won't go beyond. To get Ai into biblical datings it would have to be several hundred years.

04-04-2002, 04:25 AM	#4
katlynnhow Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 61	Kosh and spin: Thank you both for the info. I admit I didn't really understand the site regarding dendrochronology and how it fit into what she was claiming. I was certain, however, that mainstream archaeology rejects such ideas and knew this was the place to come for some straightforward answers.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.