Archaeologica.org

i really want to talk about John Garstang initially then branch out from there. this time but to get things started, here are a couple quotes from, 'The Riddle of the Exodus' by James Long pg. 167 then pg. 11:

"Tell-Jericho was first excavated in 1868 by charles warren and then again in 1930 by john garstang. Because of the extensive signs of what he called 'conflagration and destruction', Garstang was convinced the masses of cracked building stones and charred timbers all pointed toone thing: this was jericho of the Bible and it had fallen in the manner described in the book of joshua. In the 1950s, Kathleen kenyon conducted further research. She felt the pottery found in the ruins did not supportthe generally accepted date of the israeli conquest.

Recently, author bryant wood re-exaimined the data from these excavations and concluded that the city's fall was remarkably similar tothe Biblical account."

"Most scholars still maintain that the armies of israel never destroyed jericho. The late archaeologist kathleen kenyon was the foremost proponent of thisview. She believed that the ruins at jericho could not be dated to corresspond with israel's entry into the land. However, her thesis was faulty from the beginning, kenyon's proposed date of this event was pure conjecture and her conclusions were based not on what she found but what she did not find."

I am not interested in c-14 at this time and i am sure we will get to it nor statements that are closed, such as,' c-14 proved him wrong. end of story.' that is not discussion but a refusal to look at the issue from all sides. same with statements, 'there were no israelites. they are fictitious.' etc. such declatory remarks just undermine the purpose of a discussion.

i did place something here to start the conquest discussion but an interloper has gotten in the way.

Doctor X wrote:Religious mass murder never is. . . .

--J.D.

Something we can agree upon, Doc.

As comic Bill Maher said..."crashing planes into buildings was a faith-based initiative."

archaeologist wrote:i did place something here to start the conquest discussion but an interloper has gotten in the way.

Once again, there are no interlopers here. Arch, I suggest you take the time to read what Doc posts as he presents the facts in an un-biased way. Sometimes he makes points for your side. Just take the time to read his posts. Ignore the smartass remarks. You can do that, can't you? You're an adult. .....aren't you?

Ignore the smartass remarks. You can do that, can't you? You're an adult. .....aren't you?

you're the moderator here, that is your job to see such remarks and posters are kept under control.

i could care less if he makes points for the man in the moon. he has messed up threads and has been allowed to go off topic without restraint. this place is quickly going downhill.

i will repost my topic starter to get it past the trolls that keep clogging up the threads with junk:

"Tell-Jericho was first excavated in 1868 by charles warren and then again in 1930 by john garstang. Because of the extensive signs of what he called 'conflagration and destruction', Garstang was convinced the masses of cracked building stones and charred timbers all pointed toone thing: this was jericho of the Bible and it had fallen in the manner described in the book of joshua. In the 1950s, Kathleen kenyon conducted further research. She felt the pottery found in the ruins did not supportthe generally accepted date of the israeli conquest.

Recently, author bryant wood re-exaimined the data from these excavations and concluded that the city's fall was remarkably similar tothe Biblical account."

"Most scholars still maintain that the armies of israel never destroyed jericho. The late archaeologist kathleen kenyon was the foremost proponent of thisview. She believed that the ruins at jericho could not be dated to corresspond with israel's entry into the land. However, her thesis was faulty from the beginning, kenyon's proposed date of this event was pure conjecture and her conclusions were based not on what she found but what she did not find."

I am not interested in c-14 at this time and i am sure we will get to it nor statements that are closed, such as,' c-14 proved him wrong. end of story.' that is not discussion but a refusal to look at the issue from all sides. same with statements, 'there were no israelites. they are fictitious.' etc. such declatory remarks just undermine the purpose of a discussion

Arch, your boy Wood was perfectly willing to rely on C14 when he thought it helped him. He's a phony, too.

http://www.netours.com/2003/jericho-debate.htm

3. Wood says: "One Carbon-14 sample was taken from a piece of charcoal found in the destruction debris of the final Bronze Age city. It was dated to 1410 B.C.E. plus or minus 40 years." (Wood, p. 53)



Problems: The British Museum later re-dated this sample to about 1550 BC. In 1995, when methods of radiocarbon dating had become more efficient, Hendrik J. Bruins and Johannes van der Plicht conducted C-14 tests on eighteen samples from this same destruction layer at Jericho. They did this not in order to refute Wood, but "as a contribution toward the establishment of an independent radiocarbon chronology of Near Eastern archaeology." (Radiocarbon Vol. 37, Number 2, 1995.) They included six samples consisting of charred cereal grains (more reliable for dating than wood, which might have been used over a long period). The samples, it turned out, had lived and died in the 16th century BC. This confirmed Kenyon's dating.

From the same source:

Problem: Since Kenyon's dig at Jericho, archaeologists have found evidence of numerous destructions throughout the country, all dated to around 1550 BC. (To name just some of the better-known cities that fell: Hebron, Shiloh, Jerusalem, Gezer, Aphek -- in addition to Sharuhen.) The destroyers may have been local people, taking advantage of the collapse of Hyksos control. Or they may have been, pace Wood, the Egyptians, who established control over Canaan during the next hundred years. (See Mazar, pp. 226-27.)

That is how one cites a source.

--J.D.

Arch, your boy Wood was perfectly willing to rely on C14 when he thought it helped him. He's a phony, too

why go to the topic that i didn't want to get into , first?/

i was hoping we could look at Garstang and his conclusions then move on to kenyon. but with this troll running around interfering it as hard to get a conversation going.

i don't know that much about Wood except that he is re-analyzing all the data from jericho. to you he may be a phony but i haven't been overly exposed to his work or conclusions.

again minimalist, if you can get past this troll so we can have an actuall discussion, it would be nice to start with garstang and not c-14.