Which was exactly my point. A good site for a city, which remains VITAL (ie, it is not covered by the sands of the desert, or similar great environmental shifts), is never abandoned permanently. Perhaps you did not undersatnd what i meant by “vital”. Jericho has been a good city for habitation for some 10,000 years.
The surprising think, for me, is that I used to think that his problem was just shoddy scholarship and a juvenile sense of entitlement. Now, however, it turns out he is actually genuinely dishonest: in the “Historical records agreeing holy books?” thread he repeated his longstanding claim that the Internet Infidels are unreliable and take quotes out of context. He’s been quite vehement on this point in the past, on several occasions. When we asked him to prove it, he could only point to one single essay that he could claim had out of context quotes. This is already problematic, since he said that the Infidels site was riddled with errors; repeated requests that he discuss more essays were met with typical DITWDian silence. But get this: once we demanded cites from him, we found out that actually the Internet Infidels didn’t misrepresent their sources at all- it was DITWD who was taking quotes from the Infidels out of context in order to lie about what they were actually saying. His response, of course, was to ignore all the evidence and start saying things like “tough noogies” to everyone who disagreed with him. And it gets better! He then started launching personal attacks against me in a separate (and totally unrelated!) thread (and in GD, not the Pit!) and when I asked him when he was going to retract his false accusations against the Infidels, he replied that everyone in the old thread agreed with him that the Infidels were biased! I mean, come on! How baldfaced can a lie get?
What’s particularly ludicrous is that after having shot his credibility entirely to hell, he still maintains that any attempt to get a cite out of him can only be motivated by personal animus or bigotry against Christianity, rather than an understandable unwillingness to take a known liar at his word. Best of all, he directed a long rant at Gaudere accusing her of using “tricks” and crowing that he was going to turn her tricks against her, because “SAUCE FOR THE GOOSE IS SAUCE FOR THE GANDER!” The funny part? He concluded by telling Gaudere, “it wouldn’t kill you to act nicer.”
-Ben
(1) Insofar as it does seem to have ceased to be an urban agglomeration according to what has been posted, it seems to have lost its vitalness
(2) As Gaudere, I understood your weasely comment in the context of trying to argue that Jericho must never have been abandoned, in order to argue that it must not have been abandoned when the Israelites wandered by. If you’re simply making a comment that useful urban sites tend to get reused, well yes, but that’s not terribly relevant to the Q now is it?
(3) See my working definition of populated. Where are you in re this definition.
Ben & Gaudere: “DITWD, you said that the Infidels said something they didn’t say.”
DITWD: “Oh, puh-leeze! I PROVIDED EVERY CITE YOU ASKED FOR on the destruction of Jericho!”
B&G: “Yes, but you were wrong about the Infidels.”
D: “You’re being completely unreasonable- I gave extensive references to Kenyon’s research which support my claims about Jericho.”
B&G: “But what about your claims about the Infidels?”
D: “Look, what more do you ask of me? I provided cites from Asimov, and it wasn’t good enough. I provided cites from archaeologists, and it wasn’t good enough. No matter what I do, it’s just not good enough for you. :rolleyes: I guess you guys are pretty desperate to disbelieve the Bible.”
B&G: “But we were talking about the Internet Infidels…”
Folks, don’t expect him to talk about the Infidels. Time and again, DITWD has used the diversionary tactic of talking about the archaeology of Jericho so he won’t have to face one simple fact: he took quotes from the Infidels out of context in order to support the false accusations he made against them. Like I said, the only time he addressed the Infidels at all after his hypocrisy was exposed was when he went to another thread and tried to claim that everyone had agreed with him.
And to think he called me a weasel…
-Ben
Read kenyons quote again. It says- there was a TOWN there, (well after the destruction of the great City earlier), and that that town COULD have been attacked by Joshua- but there is no archeological evidence he did so. Exactly my point. There was a town- (not a small village, a big difference), which existed well after the Great Jericho was destroyed. It was destroyed ABOUT the time that Biblical Authorities say that Joshua did it. However, if those same Biblical authorities are exactly correct as to their dating (which I have always disputed, note) then Joshua could not have destroyed it. So, then my theory is simply that the Biblical dating is off. It is not impossible tho, with the margin of error in Archeological dating, that they are right- but this is doubtful.
Now, my point about cities not being abandoned for long- is that the site of Great jericho, destroyed hundred of years prior- was likley re-inhabited after. And Kenyon says yes to that. Kenyon never stated that Joshua did attack that town, or that the dating of the Bible was wrong. She said that if the dating of the Bible was correct (and she never accepted, or specifically disputed that), then that town was not the one attacked by Joshua. Thus- either that town was not attacked by Joshua- OR the dating of the Bible is wrong.
You keep harping on that “no evidence” as if she meant that it did not happen. NO- she said there was no archeological evidence that the town was attacked by Joshua. Lack of evidence, especially in an area with poor archeological evidence (that era was obscured by other eras) is not the same as “it did not happen”.
Yes, the cite I gave thinks that the dating problem would solve the whole thing, and that Great Jericho was destroyed by Joshua- but the dating is way off. Maybe so. Does answer a lot of questions. But, it is not my theory.
The insinuation I read into the infidels site, was that Kenyon proved that great Jericho was destroyed hundreds of yeras before Joshua- Thus & ipso facto (again, my interpretation of what was said) Joshua had nothing to attack (except perhaps a “small village”)- thus the Bible is wrong.
My point was that, yes, Great Jericho was destroyed- and likely not by Joshua. But as that was a “vital” site for habitation, there were more towns & cities on that site. PERHAPS, it was one of those that Joshua attacked. Now, Kenyon stated there was a later TOWN there, rebuilt on the Great Jericho site- which was there at ABOUT the right time for Joshua. Ie- it was a “useful urban site”, and yes, it got reused. Was that later town actually attacked by Joshua? There is insuffiecient archeological eveidence to say yea or nay. But- that “reasonable doubt”, which is all i am saying is there- is way off from “There was absolutely no city there & then, thus the entire story is proven a myth”.
As to your city at the oasis. There has been habitation there for thousands of years- after all, it is a source of good water in the desert. It was made a capital, and then destroyed. Thus, as there was no longer any political reason for a large city- no large city was rebuilt. But, as the site still remained a good one, environmentally, human habitation came back. Thus- the political changes which occured cannot overrule the fact that no major environmental changes happened- thus no abandonment.
Oh, I see. So if someone is quoted as saying “my grandmother could have burnt down 352 Main, but there is no evidence she did so and that is difficult to reconcile that with her birth 60 years previously”, we just ignore the rest of the sentence and say “See! this person says she could have burned it down!”
So she never specifically disputed the currect dating of the Bible, which said he could not have conquered it. Thanks.
Y’know, Daniel, all the established archeologists I have read seem to agree with pretty much the same sort of dating system. I suspect to completetly redate the Bible would screw things up more than it fixes; I kinda trust that they know what they’re talking about when they try to date the various Biblical events, and if the could get everything hunky-dory by moving the dates around, they would. I’ve seen arguments both pro and con for 1260BC v. 1440BC for Exodus, and neither fit the Biblical accounts perfectly (if one accepts the validity of the archeology). You are apparently tossing all their work out the window and telling them they’re wrong, just based on your opinion. I genuinely trust established Biblical archeologists ability to date various events far, far more than I trust you when it comes to this sort of thing, for manifestly obvious reasons.
AS for your remarks about cites being abandoned, I see we have gone from
to
Not to mention, wasn’t Jericho supposed to be abandoned until Hiel in 9th cen. BC after Joshua’s “conquest”? So first you have to argue that cities were never abandoned for a long time, then you have to argue that they were. ::bewildered shrug::
OK, who let J Peterman into the BBQ Pit? And did you bring Eve back any clothes?
I can’t speak for dropzone, but blindfold or no he’d better shave before I’m biting anything.
Collounsbury, you were too nice and polite and genteel with our guest of “honor.”
No, it was one of the most astonishingly ignorant things I’ve ever read: “There are no abandoned cities!”
Oh, Daniel! Come here, you skunk-felcher!
:slaps Daniel upside the noggin:
Aren’t you aware that both North and South America is littered with abandoned cities? Have you never heard of the Inca city Machu Pichu in Peru? The Mayans’ Chichen Itza in Mexico? Hell, the Mayans abandoned several cities by themselves! Some of those cities were so over-grown with vegetation, they couldn’t be seen from the air and had to be hacked out of the rain-forest with hand tools!
Have you ever heard of Pueblo Bonito in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico? It’s an old Anasazi settlement that’s very much unoccupied, I assure you. (I’ve been there myself. It’s a fuckin’ National Monument!) Then there’s Mesa Verde in Colorado and Canyon de Chelley in Arizona. All abandoned.
Have you never heard of Angkor Wat? An abandoned city in Cambodia. Did you know archaeologists used Space Shuttle photos to locate what appears to be the city of Ur, the city that gave us the word “urban”? Guess what: IT’S ABANDONED!! In fact, it looks like there’s little left of it above the surface, but there may be remains buried deep beneath the sands. (Shades of Indiana Jones…)
Hey, there’s another city that was abandoned: Petra, the city located in Jordan, carved from the walls of a canyon, that Spielberg used as a location for the ending of the third Jones movie.
These are just the ones off the top of my head. (I didn’t even mention the Egyptians.) Want me to go on?
Trust me, you DON’T want me to go on.
Actually, vituperous exchanges like are going on between the OP and her subject are why I was never interested in bar fights. So boring, by comparison. But even a married guy’s mind can wander, sometimes.
I regret that it has been so nasty because I am interested in the topic. But who can follow charges and countercharges? It does remind me of the letters column in Biblical Archeology.
Of course, this is nothing compared with a battle for first chair, first violin.
OK- it is time for me to ask YOU to back THAT up- you see Archeologists cannot agree on any accurate dates fof Pre-Kingdom Isreali history. The dates we commonly use are those set by Theological experts. They take an established date- then figure back & forth based upon times mentioned in the Bible. The Oxford History of the Biblical World does not accept any such dates. They will barely stand behind estimates like “about 1200BCE, Iron Age I, Iron Age II, Late Bronze etc” without caveats & demurrers. The “date” they have come up for the “conquest” is “about 1200BCE” or “Iron Age I”. Pottery shard analysis & carbon dating is only good to within a century or so. So there is certainly 40 years leeway. Not to mention that Isreal was already a “people” with an army in 1209BC.
Now, the date for the Exodus, ie 1260BCE, with a Conquest then that starts in 1220BCE or so, takes into account the famous “40 years” of “wandering in the wilderness”. I beleive, and so do others, that the 40 year figure is not a reality based number- that it only has mystic or gematria significance. You take 40 years off those calculated dates- and you get very close to Dame Kenyons period. However, check GD- there has been a “recount” on the Jericho issue.
:amused: Back up what? That the established archeologists I have seen pretty much agree on similar sorts of dating systems? Would you like a list of my links so that you can see that all the websites I have checked all have pretty much the same dates? Or do you want a cite that shows that I do not trust that you are correct and established biblical archeologists are wrong? I think this thread conclusively proves that. 
FWIW, if any archeologist has had serious problems with the current common dating system, I haven’t heard it; some very few apparently like the 1440BC date, but it appears to have serious problems with the archeology. http://www.cresourcei.org/exodusdate.html The only truly funky dating system I’ve seen is from that first site you linked to; and even you don’t really buy it, and I suspect most archeologists would laugh their ass off.
In case you missed it, the point of my previous post was to chastise you for hubris. I mean, look at what we’ve gone through with your claims: “cities were never abandoned” (wrong) “er, good city sites were never abandoned” (wrong) “er, good city sites cities were never abandoned for long” (also, apparently, wrong). (Are you going to address Jab1’s and Collunsbury’s and my remarks regarding this?) Now we’re supposed to believe you when you say that the Biblical authorities and Biblical archeologists are all wrong in their dating, and you have the right of it? (I don’t think your knowledge of the Bible is all that impressive, either, particularly for a Christian.) I’m sorry, but I don’t buy that you’re right and everyone else is wrong. Your knowledge of history and the Bible itself is not significant enough that I can lend any credence to your claims; find archeologists who back you up and I’ll listen, but simply saying “they’re wrong” when YOU’VE been wrong so many times is utterly unconvincing. You remind me of creationists who can’t tell DNA from a hole in the ground claiming that scientists are all wrong. Hell, at least the creationists have lots of cites supporting them–all I can get from you is a few quotes from a secondhand source, and given your evident inability to properly comprehend many of the things you read, I’m not sure I accept that you have the correct interpretation of what you do cite!
I’m moving quotes from your last post in GD so I can speak more freely. You’re posting in the wrong flippin’ thread for a post about Jericho, anyhow–we were discussing that in a different thread.
That’s your own “out-of-context” quote, dude. I also like how “no evidence” gets magically transmuted to “little evidence”. Can you teach me how to do that too?
How so? Infidels said there was a flippin’ village there, same as you said she did. YOU, Daniel, claimed that Infidels said there was nothing there when Joshua got to it. You repeatedly said that the small village that Kenyon said (in your quote) was too early for Joshua in 1260BC was the one she claimed Joshua conqured. REPEATEDLY and VEHEMENTLY said that.
Let’s go back over this; you said:
Infidels says:
You were WRONG, dude. Just 'fess up and admit it, OK? I don’t think I even trust your reading of the “The Oxford History of the Ancient World”, either; you have an amazing ability to misread things, often citing thinsg to support you that actually hurt your argument. Apparently, now you are arguing that not only were you wrong about the Infidels site, but you were wrong about your vehement claims of Kenyon’s belief in Joshua’s conquest of the small Bronze age village. Why should I trust anything you say, when you can’t get your own sources correct?
What a load of horse-hockey. That quote says it was rebuilt many times. No shit, WE KNOW THAT. That does not prove that the late bronze age village was attacked by Joshua; saying there “could” have been a village there tells us nothing. We’re pretty sure there was a village there, it’s just that the village appears to have been destroyed 40 years before Joshua got there. If you want to say “well, there’s no evidence there was a city in 1260BC, but I believe it anyway because people sometimes rebuild cities,” fine, be my guest.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Gaudere *
**
:amused: Back up what? That the established archeologists I have seen pretty much agree on similar sorts of dating systems? Would you like a list of my links so that you can see that all the websites I have checked all have pretty much the same dates?>1
“cities were never abandoned” (wrong) “er, good city sites were never abandoned” (wrong) “er, good city sites cities were never abandoned for long” >2
) Now we’re supposed to believe you when you say that the Biblical authorities and Biblical archeologists are all wrong in their dating, and you have the right of it?>3
>1. Go ahead- show me that Archeologists, in general, accept the 1260 date, or similar dates for the Exodus/conquest as SOLID. I just went thru the Oxford History- they accept no such dates. Go back to that link I posted, and a quote you like of Kenyons: “In one fell swoop she proves the Biblical account of Joshua to be a myth, DISCOUNTS BOTH THE ACCEPTED XVIIIth & XIXth DYNASTY THEORIES FOR THE EXODUS…” (caps mine). ie, Kenyon did not accept EITHER of the 2 THEORIES which date the Exodus/Conquest. Note, the word “theories” and the 2 different DYNASTIES (which last for some time) which were 'accepted" by archeologists. Note also that Kenyon did NOT accept the “traditional"dating. Quotes for Oxford: “The archaeological data relating to the Exodus are subject to differing interpretations. But at no point in the known archaeological sequence for Egypt, Sinai and palestine does the extant archaeological record accord with that expected from the Exodus (or for that matter, conquest) account in the Bible”. Later; “Compromise and selectivity ar thus the keys to all hypotheses that have been advance to date the Exodus events. Most often these hypotheses correlate aspects of the biblical narrative with particular historical settings and events and selected archaeological evidence”… “None is entirely satisfactory from the point of view of critical historiography, archaeological evidence, or biblical testimony”. Later still: “Dates proposed for the Exodus range from the third millenium to the 11th centuries BCE”. Finally: " The 3rd and most widely accepted hypothesis places the Exodus in the 13th century BCE”. They go one & on as to the difficulty of dating the Exodus, and the varying theories, and why one may be better than the other. At no time do they posit an exact date, not even get closer than a century. I could (and will if nessesary) quote more, but then i would be running into copyright problems. Gaudere- face it- you are dead wrong- archeologists do not generally accept a given, solid year for the Exodus/conquest. Those “dates” are posited from Theological sources, not Archeologists.
>2 I said 'vital" city sites are never permanently abandoned. Still stand by that.
>3 Another quote from Kenyon, form that link I posted earlier: “…that almost all traces of the late bronze age town of the time of Joshua had been destroyed by erosion”. TOWN, TIME OF JOSHUA, ALMOST ALL. Note the other quote i give you, from Oxford “erosion had deprived history of the…City that Joshua captured.” It is very clear from these that Kenyon accepted that there was a “town” and that Joshua captured it- but that erosion had destroyed the evidence.
>4 I did not, and do not accept infidels statement that Jericho was a “small village” about the time of Joshua. Kenyon repeatedly calls it a “TOWN”. Kenyon believed said town was taken by Joshua.
>5 No, repeat NO date of the Conquest/Exodus has been pinned down to within 40 years- by archeologists. Theories abound. Estimates abound. Pottery shard & C-14 dating is not that accurate. Archeologists still cannot agree on which Pharaoh was the one of the Exodus.
You pissant. If you are going to attack my theory, at least quote mr correctly. I never said there are “no abandoned cities”, of course there are, lad. What I claimed was that “No VITAL site for a city is abandoned permanently”. If there is a good, sound reason for humns to live there- then humans WILL live there.
There are different theories of why the Anasazi abandoned their settlements- the most widely accepted being a drought & water shortage. Ie the site was no longer VITAL, oh mung- for-brains. Yes- Ur is “covered by sand”- gosh darn it, it is rather hard to live in a city covered with sand. The river shifted course, you maroon, leaving that site no longer VITAL.
Goodness gracious, I don’t have to. You said it yourself: “The 3rd and most widely accepted hypothesis places the Exodus in the 13th century BCE”. I never said anything like “precisely November 13, 1260 BC”. I said: archeologists “pretty much agree on similar sorts of dating systems”. Most of 'em fall in the 1260 range, as you yourself cite. I trust the archeologists more than I trust you. Hell, I’m not even sure what you’re arguing anymore; are you genuinely saying that all the Biblical archeologists are wrong, and YOU have the correct dating system?
[from the site I linked to in my previous post] “…there is very little direct biblical evidence for a later 13th century date. Most of the support comes from archaeological and historical evidence.”
So, are you claiming Jericho was such a vital site, and was therefore never abandoned permanently/for a long period of time? What makes a site ‘vital’? You can’t just say “well, if it was never abandoned permanently it is ‘vital’”; that’s circular logic. Not to mention, simply saying “no site has ever been permanently abandoned” does not support your argument that there was someone in Jericho when Joshua ran across it; to argue that you’d have to argue that a “vital” city can never be abandoned at any point. Are you just posting this to give Collunsbury and Jab1 something to do?
Ahem. You ever get tired of snipping quotes to make your case appear stronger than it actually does? Full quote: “Kathleen Kenyon, the British archaeologist who pioneered stratigraphic excavations at the site, thought that erosion had deprived hitory of the Late Bronze Age city that Joshua captured…” What’s the rest of that sentence, by the way? Or the next three sentences? It’s hard to tell with no context; you know, it wouldn’t kill you to post a complete sentence once in a while when you’re quoting from I book I have no access to. Now, I must admit I’m confused. Town, City, Town, City, Walls, No Walls…What the hell are you claiming Kenyon thought Joshua “captured”?
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=47897&pagenumber=2
DITWD states: “I postulated a smaller town, surviving in the ruins or the much greater former city. Thus, indeed, there WAS no “city” there, at that time- there was a 'town”, or perhaps even a village…I will leave you with these quotes from the books I have on hand- (Don’t know much About the Bible)= “In the 13th century BC, the likely date of entry of the israelites into Canaan, jericho was an unfortifeid village. In other words, the familar tale was most likely embroidered upon in later tellings”.
Such vehemence. But your original claim was vague and implied … Well as Gaudere notes your logic, such as it is, is circular. You’re using abandoment as proof of non-vitality, while ignoring interruptions etc. As such, your statement is at best, and I do stress best, analytically meaningless.
This is almost, I say almost, as bad as arguing with that clueless rude fuck peace --who might drive me into wasting hours on a comparative chart of hla frequencies by region. Worht it? Probably not come to think of it.
Before getting into name calling you might reflect on the illogic of your argument.
However, DanielintheWEASELSden, you are WRONG about Jericho, according to the article in the Encyclopedia Britannica:
Here’s the most damaging quote of all:
Other interesting tidbits:
-
In 8,000 BC, the population was between 2,000 and 3,000.
-
Not only did they have agriculture, it was irrigated agriculture.
-
For 1,000 years, between 6,000 BC and 5,000 BC, “there is little evidence of occupation at Jericho.” (So, Jericho looks to have been abandoned at least TWICE.) “Over the next 2,000 years, occupation was sparse and possibly intermittent.” So, it looks as though that Jericho, while one of the oldest settlements in all of history, it has NOT been occupied CONTINUOUSLY.
-
Modern Jericho exists about a mile east of the Old Testament site.
Here’s the part you’re gonna hate, Daniel, old boy: The article in question was originally written by…
DAME KATHLEEN MARY KENYON! (At the bottom of the article is the link (K.M.K.). Click on that, and tells you who the author was. Next to that is (Ed.), meaning it was edited.)
Do you have anything to say?
*I find it rather interesting that Jericho apparently dates back to 9000 BC, because the Young-Earth Creationists insist the Earth itself is only 6,000 years old! (No, Daniel, I’m not saying you are a YEC.)
OK, I went and read the original thread. I didn’t even try to reconcile all the dates in my head, it makes my brain hurt. I am trying to understand something here, and am having trouble. Your part in that thread (and now dragged against your will out here) revolved mostly around the quote above. I looked back over Daniel’s posts from when he first mentioned Kenyon, and I can’t see a point where he actually says she believed in Joshua conquering Jericho. All I can see is his struggle to keep the possibility open. The closest thing to it I can see was this:
Which can be taken to mean that the entire statement is paraphrasing her. I don’t think that’s what Daniel meant, I think the first half was Kenyon, and “the destruction…” side of the sentance was entirely Daniel’s. Bolstered, in part, by the next sentance:
Emphasis mine.
Daniel, I think the point everyone here is trying to get across to you (and I believe it’s a valid one) is that your not communicating yourself very well. You’re mixing your cites and your own comments so closely together it’s difficult to tell them apart, and it’s destroying your credibility. Kind of reminds me of the student who constructs an entire report out of encyclopedia quotes. One the one hand it does contain an original thought on behalf of the student, on the other hand it’s all made up of factual information, but the combination of fact and opinion without any buffer results in the message getting lost.
deep breath
I hope that’s all clear to all of you, because I don’t see the current direction of this thread as being fruitful in the near future. Daniel believes he’s debating correctly, using cites to back up his opinions. Everyone else* is getting frustrated because they’e having difficulty in picking out the facts from his opinion.
Of course, my favorite quote so far is still, “How was I supposed to know you misinterpreted me?” But then I always was a warped child.
InkBlot
*for significantly high values of “everyone”
Well, well, well. Even that must be wrong. I looked at EB’s biographical entry for Kenyon and found this:
So if the Exodus happened in the 13th century BC and the conquest of Jericho happened in the 15th century BC, that would mean the Israelites conquered Jericho 200 years BEFORE they left Egypt. (Remember, when counting centuries BC, one must count backwards.) Now, that’s a miracle for you. God must’ve given them a time machine or somethin’.
However, the EB ALSO makes these same mistakes. As I quoted above, in the Jericho entry, it says Jericho was destroyed in the second half of the 14th century BC (1350 BC or later). But in the Kenyon entry, it gives the date as “c. 1425 BC,” at least 75 years earlier. And yet, in the Exodus entry, it says the Exodus happened in the 12th century BC. Should we notify the EB about their mistakes?