Re: did man walk on the moon...and creationism.

Suzanne wrote:
On Nov 21, 6:31 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 19 Nov, 21:46, Suzanne <leila...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Minna Lönnqvist (2008): Kathleen M. Kenyon 1906-1978, A hundred
years after her birth,The formative years of a female
archaeologist: From socio-politics to the stratigraphical
method and the radiocarbon revolution in archaeology, in
Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on the
Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Madrid, April 3-8 2006,
ed. by Joaquín Mª Córdoba, Miquel Molist, Mª Carmen Pérez, Isabel Rubio, Sergio Martínez, UAM Ediciones: Madrid 2008, Vol.
II, pp. 379-414.
Burkhard, you can also find things that do not agree with these
authors.
Things? What are they? Other opinions? What evidence do they have?
The academci consensus seems clear, and extremely well suported

Yep. quite a few people adhere to this kind of stuff, always have,
always will. Many also supported the earlier things that were shown
to be wrong, too. So what else is new? People that ignore what has been found that refuse to look in the Bible to see what the evidence
should be, top the list of people who follow wrong things. But there
are many who do not agree with this and see a travesty in what they
are claiming.

",When archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon worked at the site of
Jericho in the 1950s, she stated that she had not found
collapsed walls or anything which proved habitation of
Jericho during the time of Joshua. In short, there was no
battle for him to fight. There was... an earlier, fortress
city that around 1550 BC showed signs of destruction. There
were fallen walls and a layer of ash a yard thick, a clear
sign of violent destruction by fire. Her interpretation,
however, was that this happened before the Israelites captured Jericho. "
Burhard, 1550 B.C. is too late for the Israelites to have been at
Jericho. This is a difference of 105 years.
Too early, not to late - we are BC here, so you need to count backwards. And yes, that is _exactly_ the point: The ruins of the
wall are simply too old to have been destroyed by the Israelites.

Yes, I meant early. And no. The walls would not have been built the
day that the Israelites arrived, they would be much older and built
long before.

The _destruction_ of the wall is earlier, not (just) the wall itself.
And you see this, if you actually read Kenyon's work, by the things that
were found on top of the ruins, and thinks things found in the ruins. .

For
example, if I went to visit the big, blue Babylon Gate at the museum
in Germany, and say that I visited it last year, someone could not
disprove that I was there, by carbon dating it. It would turn out to
be hundreds and hundreds of years older than the date in which I
visited it.

I'm unsure what, if any, point you want to make here. If you simply
inspect the gate visually, you can get an idea of how to date it, by
comparing it to already dated works of art. If you then analyse the
building material more closely, you will find lots of incongruencies -
the wood to young etc etc. This is because the Gates is essentially a
rebuild form the 1930, using material from the original dig but also
lots and lots of more recent material to fill the gaps. That gives you a
"not before" point and a "probably not after" point. (the latter to be
treated with care as you can of course use older material) On even
closer inspecting, an archaeologist would be able to tell you with a
high degree of precision which parts are old and which parts are new,
and when they were added.

None of this of course tell says anything about your visits. But if you
during your visits dropped a chocolate wrapper in it, and this then is
found, we can say with a certain degree of certainty in which period the
visitation took place (not before that chocolate bar was produced, and
probably not long after its production stopped)If the gate is destroyed
by fire, and a packet of matches is found, we can again date that
destruction by dating the matches: when produced , where etc - as any
criminalist would do in a crime scene investigation.

Same with the wall: from the artefacts found in the ruins, and from
dating what was on top of them, we can pretty accurately date when they
were destroyed.

Now, to use your analogy: If we found a photograph of you in the rubble
of the fire ravaged Babylon Gate in Berlin, you'd have trouble claiming
that it was destroyed before you were even born.


Everything in a layer of city will
not date with the same date, since they would be built at different
times.

Indeed. that is the point, and because you build one layer on top of
the other and not the other way round, you get a relative date. Which,
again, shows that the wall in question was destroyed long before Joshua
If you dated the buildings in

New York, you would not get the same ages of the buildings at all. K
K did not examine but a small portion for pottery, and that far away
from other parts she examined.

That is a claim Wood made on the basis of a dubious interpretation of
her excavation notes. Her fully published record (with pictures of the
finds) of the dig refutes this already (I gave you a reference to her
book) I also gave you references to other archaeologists who point out
that Wood is factually wrong on this, plain and simple. Kenyon's dig, as
all her digs, was constrained and based on specific sampling techniques, but apart from Wood (who made it clear he does not care about the facts)
everybody believes that the numerous objects she foudn are already
sufficient for confident dating.

And this is a moot poitn anyway, as the Italian dig which was
considerably more extensive confirmed her findings

I've given a website that tells
great details about this.

By, as I remember, Wood again. As I said before, he had a methodological
point after Kenyon's dig_ her method does indeed require very careful
and selective digging, and on this basis one might hesitate to draw
conclusions from the absence of finds. Having said that, the majority
of experts considered even Kenyon's findings sufficient, and in my
opinion Wood grossly underestimates the statistical significance of the
Kenyon-Wheeler methodology. Still, some of his objections were debatable
- note though that at best, it woudl allowed him to dismiss Kenyon, - he
does not offer _any_ alternative evidence for the Joshua dating.

And again, in any case this is moot after the Italian excavation from
the late 1990, that was not only much more extensive, but also benefited
from the much more refined methods developed partly in response to
Kenyons approach, and which are not subject to Wood's criticism

See in particular Herr, Larry G. (2002), "W.F. Albright and the
History of Pottery in Palestine", NEA 65.1 (2002), pp.51-55



Suzanne


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: did man walk on the moon...and creationism.
    ... Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Madrid, April 3-8 2006, ... were fallen walls and a layer of ash a yard thick, ... by carbon dating it. ... to claim that the Babylon Gate is not really the Babylon ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: did man walk on the moon...and creationism.
    ... But the part that claims that she did no connect this to the walls is directly contradicted by her own account. ... This knowledge gave her the idea to dig the holy land. ... She recognises the blackened bricks as part of the wall, and, by means of archaeological analysis, concluded it was burned down long before Joshua- which the later carbon dating confirmed ... to claim that the Babylon Gate is not really the Babylon ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: did man walk on the moon...and creationism.
    ... Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Madrid, April 3-8 2006, ... were fallen walls and a layer of ash a yard thick, ... to claim that the Babylon Gate is not really the Babylon ... finds) of the dig refutes this already (I gave you a reference to her ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Velikovsky - greatest scholar of the 20th Century
    ... Walls of Jericho ... The Biblical account of the destruction of Jericho is found in the ... According to one biblical chronology, ... History and archaeology has long proven the Bible absolutely true. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Kenyon not wrong about Joshua/Jericho!
    ... of the archaeology being needed to prove that the Bible is true but it is ... Amenophis III instead of during the reign of Rameses II or earlier than ... She's not changing the dating to match any timeline. ...
    (sci.archaeology)