evidence confirms biblical depiction of Edom

Just a question from the peanut gallery on this thread.I dreamed of being an archaeologist as a pre-teener, and once excavated a sqaure meter grid at the local creek to a depth of one meter: the things I found did not lead me to grid out more meters, since I figured I'd find the same condoms and rusted cans I found in the first one.Anyway, given the absence of evidence/evidence of absence divide, can we draw on other regional finds to determine how many major settlements/forts/etc. we should find if Edom were a kingdom/large scale organizing polity at the time in question? Is there a people from that time in an adjacent region for which we have multiple such finds, and, if so, how many of what type?Edited by Omnivorous, : typo

I want to keep this one going, Spidey, and I figure you'll provoke somebody if I nudge you...The claims of Levy et al. seem to rest primarily on radiocarbon dating. Ignoring as best I can this irony, I'd like to visit the other side of the controversy: not the other evidence, textual or artifactual, outside their recent analysis, but the actual radiocarbon dating techniques they employed.First, from the NY Times article linked in the OP: Here is a link that connects to the original article in Antiquity, the critique from Bienkowski and van der Steen, and subsequent exchanges at the Wadi Arqabah Project website. The NY Times article link has expired, but the others are still good.My layman's understanding of what I've read there is that Bienkowski and van der Steen suggest that Levy's radiocarbon statistical analysis is front-loaded with data normally intended to narrow the probable range of dates: stratigraphic relationships between finds in the same dig, etc., with variable parameters for levels of confidence.Essentially, Bienkowski and van der Steen seem to be suggesting that the calibration was circular, using assumptions that yield the dates preferred. As a red flag, they cite the fact that the calibration performed by Levy, et al. widened the possible date range rather than narrowing it, while the "most probable" date was pushed to the older end of the range.I'm still re-reading all this, but I hope we can discuss the science side of this controversy further.Also, here are some further listserv discussions at U.Chicago between Bienkowski & van der Steen and Levy, et al's defenders.Edited by Omnivorous, : Clarity

Heh. The most second guessing about radio-dating has come from the religious quarter, so, yes, LOL, indeed! Role reversals are carnival-like.I do not consider academic or scientific controversy within the framework of a pitched battle between monolithic point-of-view camps. I am happy to look at any critic's challenges to anyone's work. That's the way it's supposed to work, yes?Archaeology fascinates me, but I am largely ignorant. I raised the issue of there being a degree of circularity written into Levy's analysis because his critics raise those issues: the quirky outcome of the widened rather than narrowed calibrated date ranges begs for explanation, and it seems that none has been forthcoming.Although an agnostic, I have no dog in the Bible-as-history fight: I would expect some historical correspondence in any ancient text (see Troy), but the lack or presence of it neither disproves nor proves anything about faith or doubt--I don't sacrifice my kids for fair winds before I sail just because there really was a Troy.This controvery has been an eye-opener for me. I had no idea the statistical analysis behind radiocarbon dating allowed for so many digger-defined parameter values, enough to shift the dating significantly. Who knew?The challenge is precisely as you describe it: were "the Edom dates...pushed back (to help support the Bibles dates)?" It seems to me that Levy's critics have made a good case for there being something out of kilter about the radiocarbon statistical analysis, specifically the values plugged into the calibration process.If you disagree with Bienkowski's critique of Levy's calibration values, could you explain why?

Thanks for the reply. I'm trying to familiarize myself with the relevant calibration and statistical techniques, and that looks to be a long process!It would be more fun to dig.