Archaeologica.org

Posted: **Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:53 pm**

Tiompan wrote:
E.P. Grondine wrote: It appears Professor Zanger does not think too highly of Cline's 1177.

Not that it matters what his opinions of others are , but where does he actually refute Cline ?
That's what matters .

Zangger refutes Cline throughout his entire lecture, tiompan.

The core issue for most Israeli archaeologists as they try to build their national myth focuses on the date for Exodus.
Since Cline has a late date in line with theirs, his book is very "acceptable".

That is not my problem, and given its highly controversial nature, I try to avoid Israleli Bronze Age archaeology in general.

I deal with hard data concerning impact events. Such as the "Joshua" Impact Event, and the end of LM 1B.

Posted: **Wed Nov 22, 2017 1:43 pm**

[quote="E.P. Grondine"[/quote]

Zangger refutes Cline throughout his entire lecture .[/quote]

Refute :prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove..
Provide examples where Zangger refutes Kline .

Posted: **Wed Nov 22, 2017 8:33 pm**

Tiompan wrote:
E.P. Grondine wrote:
Zangger refutes Cline throughout his entire lecture .
Refute: prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove..
Provide examples where Zangger refutes Kline .

Hi tiompan-
if you watched the videos, then you'll see the differences in chronology, peoples, and events throughout.
Zangger gives well dated specifics, while Cline entertains with vague handwaving.

But to cut through the crap here, the real issue is Joshua and his actions.
His genocide of the people of Canaan is something that conflicts with
the modern Israeli national myth, where everything starts with David.
In Israel you generally have this argument between Biblical literalists and the "minimalists",
and both sides can waste your time.

One real question is "Where did the Hyksos go to?"
If you work with the archaeology of Turkey,
you have the Kizzuwadna arrival as data.

I myself am interested in the period when Calliste was the capitol of the Lycian Trade Federation, prior to 1628 BCE.

Posted: **Thu Nov 23, 2017 1:13 am**

[quote="E.P. Grondine"[

Zangger refutes Cline throughout his entire lecture .[/quote]

[quote="E.P. Grondine"[if you watched the videos, then you'll see the differences in chronology, peoples, and events throughout.
Zangger gives well dated specifics, while Cline entertains with vague handwaving.[/quote]

To cut through the crap ,"Provide examples where Zangger refutes Kline" .i.e. "Refute: prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.."

Posted: **Thu Nov 23, 2017 7:54 am**

I'll deal with Cline's nonsense myself when I'm ready to, tiompan.

If you'll notice, there were no less than Hittite chronologies that were built, and all of them relied on Egyptian chronologies that are known to be off by 50 or 75 years themselves. In the Hittie texts, we have identities in King's names, difficulties in placing some key documents, and new documents showing up.

In astron0my, and specifically that sub-field of it dealing with impact events, work is expected to be done at least to the year.
(I even managed to miss the iron asteroid impact at Ephesus in my earlier passes through these materials.)

In the meantime, what both the literalists and minimalists try to walk on by is why G*d would demand the genocidal slaughter of the earlier Canaanites.

On a deep level, perhaps what we're looking at here is a fundamental flaw in Judae-Chrstian belief systems.

Posted: **Thu Nov 23, 2017 8:20 am**

E.P. Grondine wrote:I'll deal with Cline's nonsense myself when I'm ready to,

Why can't you support your contention that Zangger refuted Cline .
If he had done so , all you have to do is provide the relevant quotes .
Not very difficult , if the refutations exist .

Posted: **Thu Nov 23, 2017 10:31 am**

The core issue for most Israeli archaeologists as they try to build their national myth focuses on the date for Exodus.
Since Cline has a late date in line with theirs, his book is very "acceptable".

Then Cline is no help to them as he regards the "exodus" as bullshit.

Posted: **Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:53 pm**

Minimalist wrote:Then Cline is no help to them as he regards the "exodus" as bullshit.

Of course that makes Cline very very acceptable both to them and many other people.
But I note that it is most unusual for the Judeo-Christian holy book
to have a tale included in it in which
G*d gives very explicit instructions to an individual named "Joshua"
to conduct a genocide of the inhabitants of southern Canaan.

Posted: **Fri Nov 24, 2017 3:01 am**

E.P. Grondine wrote: But I note that it is most unusual for the Judeo-Christian holy book
to have a tale included in it in which
G*d gives very explicit instructions to an individual named "Joshua"
to conduct a genocide of the inhabitants of southern Canaan.

It would be most unusual to find a Bible that didn't have it .

Posted: **Fri Nov 24, 2017 5:45 pm**

But I note that it is most unusual for the Judeo-Christian holy book
to have a tale included in it in which

I wouldn't brag about copying their tales.

As archaeologist Bill Dever once noted: "The miracle of joshua is that he conquered a city that didn't exist."

Now that is quite a trick!

Posted: **Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:10 am**

E.P. Grondine wrote: G*d gives very explicit instructions to an individual named "Joshua"
to conduct a genocide of the inhabitants of southern Canaan.

Further evidence of an impact , eh?

Posted: **Sat Nov 25, 2017 7:48 am**

Hi min -

Now you have to come up with reasons why such an odd tale would be created and included in their holy book.

tiompan -

I have a hypothesis as to the end of LM1B:
"Thunderbolt steers all things" - Heroclitus of Miletus

Posted: **Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:21 am**

E.P. Grondine wrote:
I have a hypothesis as to the end of LM1B:
"Thunderbolt steers all things" - Heroclitus of Miletus

" It was Zeus wot did it " is not heard so much these days .

Posted: **Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:54 pm**

We are getting well away from the thread title.
But I have to defend the Bible.

Re:
Joshua's genocide command.

The Canaanites were notorious for their cruelty, which included burning children alive in sacrificial fires.* (2 Kings 16:3) The Canaanites also knew that God had commanded Israel to take possession of all their land.

Therefore those who chose wage war were taking a deliberate stand against not only the Israelites but also God, who had given powerful evidence that he used his people to full fill His decrees

And it was not without it's exemptions.
God extended mercy to some Canaanites who abandoned their wickedness and accepted God’s high moral standards.

For example, the Canaanite prostitute Rahab was saved, along with her family.

Also, when the inhabitants of the Canaanite city of Gibeon sought mercy, they and all their children were preserved alive.—

In the end, an act of divine justice is not comparable to a human war. Because unlike humans, God is able to read hearts—that is, what humans are on the inside.

But that assumes you accept the concept of a greater than human intelligence.

Posted: **Sat Nov 25, 2017 4:18 pm**

E.P. Grondine wrote:Hi min -

Now you have to come up with reasons why such an odd tale would be created and included in their holy book.

No, I don't. It's already been done.

However, I do have my own reductionist version.

What Is More Likely?

A) That ‘god’ tapped moses on the shoulder and told him to get his ass back to Egypt to free his chosen people from slavery; “I could do it myself, of course, said ‘god’ in fact, I could kill every motherfucking Egyptian with a thought and let my chosen people live at the only reliable water source in the region but, fuck it. I want you to lead them through the desert to an arid shithole.”
Or,
B) That some time towards the end of the first millennium the people who found themselves living in the aforementioned arid shithole invented a story to explain why they were there.

But, why stop there?

What is More Likely?
A) That ‘god’ having utterly fucked up the first time decided he had to knock up a virgin Palestinian girl so he could have a son who would then mouth a lot of silly platitudes and then get himself killed so that god could forgive mankind for a sin they never committed and after getting killed came back to life and flew up to fucking heaven.”

Or,

B) That a bunch of people took an existing myth and created a supposedly real hero to personify their desires for their godboy?

But – it continues….
A) Having fucked up twice already (some ‘god’ this guy is) decides they he has to pick another schlepper who likes to sleep in caves and fuck 9 year olds and have one of his ‘angels’ tell this illiterate carpet merchant the real scoop which he then wakes up and tells to other people. Eventually some other schmucks write it down and claim that it is completely identical to the verbal version delivered in the cave.

Or,

B) A bunch of fucking nomads with a serious inferiority complex make up a whole pile a shit to justify their rule over an empire which fell into their lap when the Byzantines and Persians ripped each other to shreds.

Yet…even more

A) ‘God’ who by now looks like a first-class fuck up, forgets what he told the last guy about there being no more changes and sends some golden tablets to a 19th century American con man who invents a whole pile of shit about Planet Kolob and cons Mitt The Shitt Romney to run for president.

Or,

B) Joseph Smith was a fucking criminal who conned a shitload of stupid people and was righteously shot by an angry mob.

I submit that in every case, the answer is B

Archaeologica.org

Luwian notes

Re: Luwian notes

Re: Luwian notes

Re: Luwian notes

Re: Luwian notes

Re: Luwian notes

Re: Luwian notes

Re: Luwian notes

Re: Luwian notes

Re: Luwian notes

Re: Luwian notes

Re: Luwian notes

Re: Luwian notes

Re: Luwian notes

Re: Luwian notes

Re: Luwian notes