Archaeologica.org

Lightcatcher productions

If you are happy listening to some jerkoff make shit up so you feel vindicated, who am I to quibble?

"i have not written this book for those happy in the conceit thateverything taught by the rank and file of archaeology is the truth and cannot be challenged. i have undertaken this task ever since i doscovered thatthe whole studyof antiquity is simply a house of theoretical cards built upon shaky ground. it is a modern framework superimposed onthe span of the centuries that is ill fitting and often incomprehensible."

it is not i who listen to made up garbage but people like you who have decided that those who do not tell the truth are what you want to listen to.

"however, her thesis was faulty from the beginning. kenyon's proposed date of this event was pure conjecture and her conclusions were not based on what she found-but what she did not find at jericho, those who march lockstep with ms. kenyon have created an archaeological maze further complicated by a dating system that is terribly flawed."

(remind you of what i have said?)

Besides, Kenyon's dating has been verified by carbon 14 dating.

but science says otherwise.

Don't forget that Kenyon's dates also coincide with the Egyptian military campaign against the Hyksos.

After Ahmose I's campaigns in Nubia, he once again returned to Palestine during his 22nd year in power and may have fought his way as for as the Euphrates, according to information on a stela of Tuthmosis I.

Conservative archaeologist Dr. Bryant Wood, one of the few remaining defenders of a literal conquest, has put forward his own argument with regard to Jericho (Wood 1990). Wood's rather audacious claim is that the chronology of the site is substantially mistaken, and that the destruction of the city currently assigned to the Middle Bronze actually happened in the Late Bronze as a result of Joshua's conquest.

Less clear is how Wood's hypothesis accommodates the fact that there was a Late Bronze settlement, though a small one, at Jericho. According to the Bible, following Joshua's destruction Jericho was not rebuilt until the time of Hiel the Bethelite (1 Kings 16:34), a contemporary of King Ahab, whom we know to have reigned during the Iron Age and more specifically around 850 BCE. But as already stated, a LB resettlement does exist, although sparse; the one ceramic juglet found in situ is of "14th century BC type" (Bartlett 1982, p. 97). LB remains are also known from tombs associated with the site (Holland and Netzer 1992, p. 736). If MBII Jericho was destroyed by Joshua, who rebuilt and occupied it in the Late Bronze? Wood's hypothesis does not answer these questions.

Additionally, Wood's argument falters on an important point having to do with updated data that has become available since he first proposed it. One of Wood's arguments for dating the final MB city (which he calls City IV) to the Late Bronze has to do with carbon-14 dating; a sample of charcoal, labeled BM-1790, taken from the destruction layer of City IV was radiocarbon dated to 1410 BCE plus or minus 40 years (Wood 1990, p. 53). This would indeed fall within the Late Bronze Age. However, unfortunately for Wood's argument, this date is now known to be in error. The British Museum has issued a correction for radiocarbon dates published between 1980 and 1984 (Bowman et al. 1990, p. 59) - an error in equipment calibration made these dates, one of which is BM-1790, too young. The revised date falls within the range 1740 to 1440 BCE, which, while not ruling out Wood's dating, is also fully consistent with a Middle Bronze destruction.

Worse for Wood's argument, however, is the fact that additional radiocarbon dates have been published for Jericho City IV. If a tree is cut down and later burned for charcoal, the C-14 date will reflect the date the wood was cut rather than the date it was burned. However, this is not a problem with short-lived cereal grains, of which six samples were found in City IV. High-precision radiocarbon dates of these cereal samples yielded a date range from 1601 to 1524 BCE (Bruins and van der Plicht 1995, p. 218) - solidly contradicting Wood's chronology, which requires City IV to have been destroyed circa 1400 BCE.

The British Museum has issued a correction for radiocarbon dates published between 1980 and 1984 (Bowman et al. 1990, p. 59) - an error in equipment calibration made these dates, one of which is BM-1790, too young. The revised date falls within the range 1740 to 1440 BCE

But as already stated, a LB resettlement does exist, although sparse; the one ceramic juglet found in situ is of "14th century BC type" (Bartlett 1982, p. 97). LB remains are also known from tombs associated with the site

Kenyon used stratigraphy to make her determination not c14. I don't know where you got that idea.

i would not trust the british museum.