Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   evidence confirms biblical depiction of Edom
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 31 of 91 (324854)
06-22-2006 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by John Williams
06-21-2006 2:17 PM


Re: Israel 1020?
My claim of a [c.]1020 bc establishment of Israel's kingdom is based off the biblical chronology of king Saul and David, aswell as the common view among scholars [who believe he existed] that David reigned c. 1000-970 bc.
So, it is based entirely on information from the Bible and you have no external confrimation? Am I correct here?
As for hill settelments of c. 1200-1100 bc, I have no absolute proof these were Israelite
Do you have ANY proof, absolute or not?
but I feel that the biblical stories combined with Israel being mentioned in the Merenptah stele give reasonable probability that Israel was beginning to sprout fourth in the hill countries of Judah and transjordan, the very areas wich the bible mentions.
Okay, a feeling is all well and fine, I'd say that a high percentage of historical hypotheses begin with a 'feeling'. However, what do you have to support this 'feeling' that would persuade someone that you were on to something?
For example, these new settlements in the hill country, what is it at these settlements that make you feel that they were Israelite? Is there any new material culture there? Is there a break in local material culture? In short, what is it at these sites that suggest they were Israelite settlements?
What evidence do you have that the Apiru were any different than how I described?
Well, this is the thing, all you did was just say they were raiding Palestine, how do I know if you are correct or not?
Take this example:
Sethos I mentions Apiru attacking a local city from mt. Jarmouth (1300 bc) he responds to these attacks and brings back some of these Apiru as slaves. Also, during his reign he responds to raiding Shasu along the via maris.
This is nothing more than you just 'saying' something. I am not saying that what you present is untrue, but where was it said, can I go examine it for myself? IOW, do you have a reference?
The Amarna letters c. (1360-1330) are very descriptive concerning the Apiru who are causing civil problems among the vassal cities of Canaan. How do you see this differently?
But, weren't the 'Apiru in the Amarna Letters simply local mercenaries hired by the local cheiftans who were trying to expand their territory? The way you described it (and I cede that I may be misreading), it sounds as if there were parties exclusively of 'Apiru randomly attacking kingdoms in Palestine.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by John Williams, posted 06-21-2006 2:17 PM John Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by John Williams, posted 06-22-2006 10:20 PM Brian has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 32 of 91 (325001)
06-22-2006 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Brian
06-21-2006 7:43 AM


Re: edom, in genesis
When Cohen excavated Kadesh-Barnea to virgin soil and found no evidence of settlement there before 10th century BCE, does this mean that there is a possibility of 2.5 million Israelites camping there before this date?
2.5 million? no.
So, the old 'absence of evidence' apology is very strained in this instance.
of course it is, but it's still a logical fallacy.
The last bastion of the fundy Arach, I am surprised at you.
i'm not very good at devil's advocate arguments, am i? ah well, i tried.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Brian, posted 06-21-2006 7:43 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Omnivorous, posted 06-22-2006 8:06 PM arachnophilia has not replied
 Message 36 by Omnivorous, posted 06-26-2006 3:31 PM arachnophilia has not replied
 Message 44 by Brian, posted 06-29-2006 8:56 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 33 of 91 (325021)
06-22-2006 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by arachnophilia
06-22-2006 6:42 PM


Re: edom, in genesis
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by arachnophilia, posted 06-22-2006 6:42 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
John Williams
Member (Idle past 4998 days)
Posts: 157
From: Oregon, US
Joined: 06-29-2004


Message 34 of 91 (325062)
06-22-2006 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Brian
06-22-2006 12:35 PM


Re: Israel 1020?
Yes my claim of Saul is based off the biblical account.
I have no absolute proof that the hill settlements were Israelite or not. I just thought that it was fairly well established--my error.
Sethos I campaigns of Mt. Jarmuth: - -
Against Shasu of N. Sinai, at the fortress of Tharu: The Military Campaigns of Seti I
I agree the Apiru were largely hired by local rulers as the Amarna letters indicate, but the Apiru also compromised wandering semi-ethnic bands of their own with different motives (King Idrimi of Alalakh among such a group c.1450 bc).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Brian, posted 06-22-2006 12:35 PM Brian has not replied

  
Nimrod
Member (Idle past 4915 days)
Posts: 277
Joined: 06-22-2006


Message 35 of 91 (325182)
06-23-2006 5:14 AM


Historical "firsts"(?) plus "absence of evidence"
The first semi-undisputed reference to Israel is the Merenptach Stela.
I am going to mention just some things from Bible and Spade Vol 18 no.3 and Journal For The Study Of The Old Testament #49. (Bible and Spade is the most detailed and informative of any Magazine or Journal IMO , plus back issues are dirt cheap).The Bible and Spade article typically has endless pictures, and this 18 page article by Bryant Wood has over 50 pictures (which are highly visible, right down to every last Egyptian letter in texts)and drawings, which are required to be able to understand much of the detailed commentary.Ill just sum up some of the less detailed parts.To even quote a single sentence can be tough because Wood has about 5 footnotes, references to journals, and parenthesis per sentence lol.
Wood's area of specalty is Late Bronze Age pottery and I think part of his very detailed dissertation was in placing the start of the Iron Age at 1177 BCE.He places almost all of the destruction at the hands of the Sea Peoples and Egyptians.He is interesting in that (and his magazine with is loaded with PHD candidates) promotes Israel as being in the land from around 1400 BCE based on what he views as Biblical chronology.
Though, its the details of his article that are most interesting , his spin is what I will sum up.
He mentions that almost all investigators agree that the Canaan section has a chiastic structure (poetic format that has matching image elements before and after a focal point)But how it should be laid out has been an issue of heated debate.
He uses an arrangement roughly similar to Bimson from 1991.
A- All the rulers are prostrate, saying "Peace!"
Not one among the Nine Bows dare raise his head.
B-Plundered is Libya.
Hatti is at peace.
Caried off is Canaan with every evil.
C-Brought away is Ashkelon.
D-Taken is Gezer.
C-Yenoam is reduced to non-existence.
B-Israel is laid waster, having no seed.
Khurru has become widowed,
because of the Nile land.
A-All lands together are (now) at peace.
Everyone who roamed about has become subdued.
Wood mentions that the format has several aspects that are significant.A "ring" nature proceeding from the general to the particular.A and A are global terms telling of domination. B and B are boasts of Merenptah's boast over nations of the eastern mediterranean while C,D, and C are individual city-states claimed to have been conquered in Canaan.
Merenptah called himself "Binder of Gezer" after this , so it seems to have been his focal battle.Wood says Khurru is a general term for the Hill country of Palestine (which Israel would represent as the main people there) , and is parallel with Libia, Hatti (Asia Minor and northern Syria) and Canaan (South Syria and coastal Palestine). Wood gives about 12 references to scholars who feel this suggests Israel was a significant power at this time.
Wood mentions that contrary to typical Egyptian practise, Israel was written in the masculine when other cities and nations are written in the feminine.Wood wonders how well informed Egyptian scribes were as to Israel being names after a male Jacob/Israel.Wood mentions that Israel would have been inbetween a 40 year period of "peace" (doesnt mention the irony of his comment)after a battle with Jabin of Hazor.I myself wonder if Israel decided that mentioning Egyptian battles and entries into Canaan would make the Exodus (whether real or not) look like a non definitive event.Clearly , the Bible isnt meant to be a complete record of every event and very little of Egypts attention was ever devoted to the hilly interior of Israel.Egypt could be irrelevent.Donald Redford doesnt think Merenptah's account is "historical" and feels he only made a minor penetration into Gezer and no further. (all the more significant if Israel was mentioned to "pump up" Egypts boasts , it means Israel was an important entity by 1210 BCE)
Wood then menions the determinative that describe Israel as a community and not a foreign territorial state.Like the Judges period describes.I myself feel Israel could have been in the land since as far back as 1600 BCE , and in many places didnt even come close to a genocide on Canaanites but infact lived alongside them(with much archaeological evidence of pagan practise and temples).Perhaps the "command" of genocide never was intended to be that except as standard military practise in the Ancient Near East to reduce the defeated party as much as possible.The Bible's textual emphesis on "utterly destroying" Canaanites was simply a later way of describing the Israelites falling to "peer pressure" and that they couldnt handle popular pagan practises hence they would have been better off as being isolated from pagans (ie killing off any near neighboors).Israel was seen as an important enough power (perhaps THE power in Palestine's unimportant hill region) for Merenptah's victory him but werent exactly the territorial majority population.Israel seemed to be a type of power for their isolated region around where the action was which Israel isolated itself from.
Bimson describes Woods PHD thesis in 1985 describing the transition from Late Bronz Age to Iron Age (1177) as a tremendous advance which rendered much speculation on Israel's origins as obsolete (a modelf of Israels origins that required several evolutionary scenarios that depended on the Iron Age having already started) though it did not seem to disrupt too many budding schools of thought.
Bimson described the effort by some to deny Merenptah's Israel refered to Biblical Israel as falling apart.Bimson also refered to prominent Egyptologists who wondered what Wood wondered (though not mentioning Wood)with regards to Egypts possible knowledge of Jacob/Israel due to the masculine gender.Bimson also menioned that some tried to make Merenptahs Israel as a single tribe but Bimson then mentioned the Song of Deborah (said by scholars to be an old fragment that descibes a tribal confederation) and the fact that Israel never saw itself as a single tibe in its textual records.
While, going over some budding theories describing the hill region of Palestine seeing its peoples pastoralist existence (what is said to later become) transition toward a sedentary society (in the context of Israels origins), Bimson mentions....
"Finkelstein refers to Merenptah's inscription merely to say: 'One should not ignore the fact that a group of people living in Canaan at the end of the 13th century BCE was described in the Merenptah Stele as 'Israel'" " "Infact, however, he ignores himself throughout the rest of his book"
Clearly , much modern scholarship does not want to overlook only the "absent evidence" (assuming Israel never amounted to anything based on scant secular textual references) but the needle's that have been found in the haystack (represented by the Israel Stela being treated in a small way like so many other evidences) .
Bimson goes on to mention that the 3 theories on Israels origins (including Finkelsteins) we hear about so often depend on assumptions that the early Iron Age was an abequate basis for reconstruction.It may only be relevent for the date and nature of Israel's sedentarization not origins.Israel was mentioned as a significant tribal confederation perhaps 3 decades before the Iron Age began.
It is ironic that the ONLY menion of "Israel" ever in Egyptian records was back well before the Monarchy period.In 1209 BCE (though there MAY have been a mention in the 15th century,Ill mention later)I also think that the hill country towns wouldnt even be mentioned in Egyptian records but once.That being in Shoshenks campaign around c925 BCE.
Talk about "absence of evidence"!
Take away those 2 references (which survived on solid rock) and Israel isnt mentioned ever by its powerful neighboor. And The Victory poem of Merneptah was 1 of 3 records that Mernptah would have menioned Israel at that time.Ill cover the battle reliefs in Karnak temple later.Aside from the short 28 line "Israel Stela" or "Merenptah Stela", the larger hymn of victory in the Karnak temple is mostly destroyed.Only 1/6 has survived.Composed of 39 lines.Israel is missing , but gezer, Ashkelon , and Yenoam is present. More "absence" on the Bibles part.Shame shame. And whats more freaky , the "Israel Stela" ,while 100% intact, ouldnt have room to spare as the "Israel" mention occupies only the last 2 lines on the extreme.Whew!
Israel got its 2 lines of fame in Egypts 3000 year history and in a period where the minimalists say Israel didnt exist!
Bimson sums up.
"Before the beginning of the Iron Age , Israel must have been a semi-nomadic people......When the Stela's structure is properly understood, it implies that Israel was an important and geographically extensive tribal coalition by the late 13th century BCE."
Wood mntions tht the most "striking aspect" is the statement that Khurru (Paletine) as wiowed because of the bombastic defeat of Israel. It seems that Israel was the major power of the highlands in 1210 BCE.
Bimson mentioned
"In Redford's view , Merenptah probably achieved no more than a minor punitive action against Gezer....and the rest on the Israel Stela was "quite unhistorical".
"Suffice to say that if the coda is not a reliable source for Merenptah's military activity , it is all the more striking as evidence of Israels importance in his day.For if Redford is correct,Israel had become well know to Egyptian scribes an encounter on the battlefield to make it an object of their attention."
We know that no Israelite king was ever mentioned in Egyptian records due to "absence of evidence".We know that the Shoshenk wall inscriptions have fallen into mostly ruins, right? It was the only mention of the Israelite Monachy days where towns were listed,right (Im not sure about these things honestly, correct me if Im wrong)?David Rohl said he snapped a picture of part of it (a location he was interested in) and a few years later it wasnt there anymore as it was ruined."near absence of evidence" fits that description and the description of the "Israel Stela" from 1208 here "Israel" was inches from the border of the Stela which was uncommonly complete with no parts missing or destroyed.We know the Karnak victory hymn , which it was based was 80%+ destroyed including a part that we thankfully know would have mentioned Israel.There is another location where Israel is mentioned.
There are battle reliefs in Karnak also showing scences from the battles of the "Israel Stela" and naming (whats left however is just one name)the location of the battle.
Ashklon is the one names in scene 1.Gezer seems to be scene 2.Yenoam may be scene 3.Israel may be scene 4.Byrant Wood's really showed alot of major scholarship on this issue.
Yurco was the Egyptologist who identified the unnamed scene 4 as Israel.The first 3 scenes showed a fortress but the 4th did not indicating that there was not a fortified urban center.Thus it could be Israel.Though it was much destroyed (upper 50%) , Merenptahs chariot is in the center and thus there is little room for a fortress.Though Wood admits it is possible, the evidence is "absent" for a fortress, so it could be Israel.A critic said that Israelites wouldnt have chariots , but in Amarna letter 197, the king of Ashteroth (city in Bashan) gave chariots to the Apiru who were social outcasts and outlaws.Wood also mntions that "just a short time before Merenptah's campaign , Barak fought Jabin King of Hazor.Sisera, commander of Jabins army had 900 chariots.Barak "pursued the chariots" so he himself must have had one.
Another objection was the fact that "Canaanites are portrayed so they cant be Israelites" (my paraphrase).But looking at the southern end of the Second Pylon of the Hypostyle hall nearby,we can see clearly how Egyptians portrayed Israelites.Shishek is seen smiting the Israelites who are depicted with short pointed beards, shoulder-length jair with headband and sashes around their wastes, exactly as Canaanites are portrayed. Egyptians depicted all the settled inhabitants of Canaan the same way regardless of ethnic group.
"Israel" on the Merenptah war reliefs didnt make the cut based on "absence of evidence" (60% destroyed including the name) though it clearly seems to be Israel based on the other scenes peoples relating to the "Israel Stela" which we are also lucky to have.
This concludes the Bible&Spade 18 #3 Wood material and JSOT #49 Bimson material material, which I based my posts on plus some thought of my own.
Now, Im going to base some comments on Michal Coogan's review of Finkelsteins book with relation to an issue I noticed before, the "absence of evidence" regards to Jerusalem archaeology of the monarchy peiod (I always wondered about the Amarna letter references an this review puts it into stunning perspective by simply mentioning it).
We all know that Finkelstein and Silberman (I have books from these 2 FYI) descibe 11th-10th century Jerusalem as some small tribal backwater with just dozens of people.Illiterate and with no proof of urbanization. Before the 9th and maybe even the 8th century, Jerusalem never amounted to anything in terms of buildings or inhabitants.
Coogan points out that from the Late Bronze age (1550-1200), there is "little evidence from Jerusalem excavations of public architecture or ven of significant occupation"No evidence of literacy either based on archaeology.Based on archaeological evidence alone, Jerusalem was just an unimportant rural village at best during the Late Bronze Age."Absence of evidence" excusers will need to be Pagan Jerusalem residents of c1350 BCE because the Amarna archives are rare testimony from residents of Palestine during what has otherwise been a dark region for texts.Among, the major powers of the day , there are about a half-dozen letter of correspondence between Egypt and Ebdi-Heba , ruler of Jerusalem.
"It was, infact , the most important city-state of the southern hill country, and it had an etablished trabal tradition.We would guess at none of this is we look only at the archaeological evidence from Jerusalem."
The fact that there "absence of evidence" for Jerusalem in the form of absent archaeological discoveries (though its finally starting to change)despite being the most famous location on Earth may be something we should consider.
The fact that Egypt menions Israel by name more in the far back Bronze Age than ANY other time maye be a wake up call to nay sayers.
If no for the Assyrian empire coming of age in the 9th century and later mentions of Biblical events ( "Ahab of Israel" in c850 BCE and others)then where would the Biblical "evidence" be while totally absent. The Mesha Stele was a rare artifact due to its non papyrus nature.What if it never was made? What if the Shoshenk campaign didnt happen or what if it wasnt recorded? What if it was recorded but it Karnak inscription got destroyed, as many parts of it have been?
What if the Tel Dan inscription was not found? What house of David evidence?
What if the Amarna letters never made during an odd period in Egypt? What other periods have records from Palestine? What would we think of Jerusalem then? Wht kind of a clue would we have as to Palestine and its literary abilities?
The rare Shoshenk recordings of towns in the highland regions of Palestine seem to indicate a confirmation of the Biblical chronology that Solomon and the developing divided monarchy were situated in.
Anyway, here are some interesting possible "firsts" mentioned by Bryant Wood in Bible And Spde Volume 18#4.
The first non Biblical reference to the conquest (which perhaps isnt of of much value, depends).
Wood refers us to Frendo,Anthony J. 2002 Two Long-Lost Phoenician Inscriptions and the Emergence of Ancient Israel. Paestine Exploration Quarterly 134:37-43
A Greek historian Procopius of Caesarea wrote in the 6th century AD
"They (the canaanites) also built a fortress in Numidia , where now is the city called Tigisis (probably in Algeria). In that place are two columns made of white stone near the great spring, having Phoenician letters cut in them which say in the Phoenician toung: "We are they who fled from before the face of Joshua , the robber , the son of Nun"
An Armenian Moses of Khoren mentioned them around 400 AD also.
The origional Greek text dates to 234 BCE.Why would the Phoenicians of North Africa invent such a demeaning tradition?
The 2nd reference mentioned by Wood is stunning. As with every artifact of importanc, Wood has a highly visible glossy color picture o the text, so I am wondering what some Egyptian Hieroglyphic scholar would say when he/she saw it.Its simple alphabetical Egyptian writtings.
Anybody know German?
Wood references Gorg, Manfred 2001 Israel in Hieroglyphen , Biblischen Notizen 106:21-27
Wood mentions that many cant figure out where skeptics expect the extra-Biblical evidence to come from.The dearth of texts from Canaan dont give many opportunities.The amarna letters are just from a single small window in an early period. The few limited references to campaigns in Palestine from Egyptian sources dont offer the moon and the stars by any means.
Wood does mention tht the Merenptah Stela does attest that israel was an important entity.The King of the greatest nation on earth boasted of defeating israel as if it was the most powerful entity in central Canaan at the time of 1210BCE.
Then its gets interesting.....
"...another apparent reference to Israel is an Egyptian text (Gorg 2001). A colum base fragment , now in the Egyptian Museum in Berlin, is inscribed with a portion of a name list. The surviving names are ashkelon , Canaan , and a 3rd name that is only partially preserved. Gorg interprets the third name as Israel.He dates the inscription to the reign of Rameses II , earlier than the Merenptah Stela."
"Even more important is the fact that Gorg maintains , based on the spellings , that the names were copied from an even earlier name list from around the time of Amenhotep II , who ruled ca. 1453-1419 or 1427-1401 BC, depending on which Egyptian chronology one uses.....But, like nearly all important archaeological discoveries , there is an element of uncertainty about Gorg's conclusions. Since the name of Israel is only partially preserved , and the spelling is slightly different than on the Merenptch Stela , there is room for doubt. To dat, however , no one has challenged Gorg's interpretation."
Honestly, the crystal clear large photo in Woods magazine seems to be enough for people to see.The necessary characters are at least 80% intact and enough to make out what is said.
Anyway, there is "absence of evidence" with regards to Israel's existance post 10th century based on Egyptian records, but maybe we have another Bronze Age appearance of Israel.Israel already forgot its absent-T in the Bronze Age once and the inscription barely survived to tell about it.
Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : Add much more,told everybody that at the time.
Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.
Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : Keep spotting spelling errors.

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 36 of 91 (326509)
06-26-2006 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by arachnophilia
06-22-2006 6:42 PM


Let's look at the science in Levy's paper
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:
NY Times writes:
Piotr Bienkowski of the University of Manchester, England, and Eveline van der Steen of East Carolina University in Greenville, N.C., who have excavated the Edomite highlands, criticized the statistical analysis of the new dating and suggested that the data had been used to support an unjustified interpretation.
"One 'fortress' does not make a kingdom," they argued in a paper. Dr. Levy said the most advanced statistical methods were applied in analyzing the radiocarbon dates, and the laboratory work was conducted at Oxford and the University of Groningen, the Netherlands.
"We realize that our work is far from complete, " Dr. Levy said, and a large team from the University of California will return this fall to Khirbat en-Nahas for a deeper look into the early history of the Edomites.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by arachnophilia, posted 06-22-2006 6:42 PM arachnophilia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Nimrod, posted 06-27-2006 12:46 AM Omnivorous has replied

  
Nimrod
Member (Idle past 4915 days)
Posts: 277
Joined: 06-22-2006


Message 37 of 91 (326703)
06-27-2006 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Omnivorous
06-26-2006 3:31 PM


I thought the same thing.
I have never trusted radiocarbon as a means of dating archaeological artifacts at all, based on everything (however little) I have read. Ted Stewart in his Exodus book (forget the exact title, buts its similar to Rohl, Velivoksky , etc.)shows that most radiocarbon dates related to Egyptian history have come out with much, much later dates (such as 2350 BCE for Dynasty 1)than conventional history suggests.Only through tree ring dating have the dates been brought back into alignment.Stewart lowers the chronology about 300 years but (prior to doing just that) says the Jericho Middle Bronze Age walls fell c1700 BCE , which would be as many as 150 years before the conventional carbondates show.Carbon dates have been the main means to date Jericho.Stewart ignores , like nearly everybody else, the pottery issues that place the Jericho destruction at c.1400 BCE.
David Rohl lowers the conventional chronology of Egypt during the 3rd Intermediate period about 300 years(but doesnt tell people exactly how due to it being related to his PHD thesis, but mainstream Egyptologists have agreed to about 75-125 years so far based on the most recent ISIS Journal I just got)but extends the 13th dynasty a tremendous amount. Its obvious why he said something like "mainstream Egyptologists ignore Radio carbon dating as non-reliable and so will I".Rohl also, assumes the Judges period was around 350 years long consistent with the Bible though others have said the period from the Exodus till 1 Kings 6:1 can be as many as "632" (I read somewhere)years if you add everything up.
Peter James is honest (read his http://www.centuriesofdarkness.com FAQ page)about which carbon dates support his revised chronology and which do not. They seem to be all over the place and all questionable.
I wondered if people would argue with the Carbon dating in relation to this Edom issue , figuring that since it was an issue that helped the mainstream conservative view of Biblical history, maybe carbon dating would get some critical treatment.
I never cared for Bryant Wood's pottery findings , because I felt the Exodus should be a destructive event to Egyptians , and the 18th dynasty Exodus would not fit the description. His conclusions have been easy to ignore because, except for William Stiebing (who mentioned it as possibly holding up) in his mid-90s Exodus book, everybody has chosen to look at the carbon dating conclusions as opposed to pottery finds.
If Woods, pottery evidence is correct , then the carbon dates push everything back 150 years from 1400 BCE to 1550BCE or later.Ted Stewart says in his book that Israeli archaeologists seem to put Jericho's destruction at 1700 BCE.
Of the 3 towns burnt (I think there were 3 towns described as burnt and destroyed in Joshua) and destroyed in Joshua, Wood has found pottery evidence to date all at c1400BCE.Jericho , Hazor (maybe based on other peoples archaeological work here),and Ai (not Et-Tell but Khirbet Al Maqatar or something spelled similar).Ive seen DVDs showing multiple camera angles of video from various locations around where Ai could be and Khirbet Al Maqitar does indeed seem like it could be Biblical Ai.
Carbon dating has been relied upon heavily to undermine what is considered to be pottery finds(c.1400 pottery) consistent with the Bibles chronology.I dont really think c1400 BCE is a good date for the conquest due to Egypt's 18th dynasty , but I have decided that I will have to swallow all evidence even if it is hard and painful (ie might not solve many problems without creating just as many if not more).
Its ironic that now, with the Edom dates being pushed back (to help support the Bibles dates) mainly due to carbon dates , we see a lot of 2nd guessing carbon dates lol.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Omnivorous, posted 06-26-2006 3:31 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Omnivorous, posted 06-27-2006 8:55 AM Nimrod has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 38 of 91 (326755)
06-27-2006 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Nimrod
06-27-2006 12:46 AM


Re: I thought the same thing.
Its ironic that now, with the Edom dates being pushed back (to help support the Bibles dates) mainly due to carbon dates , we see a lot of 2nd guessing carbon dates lol.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Nimrod, posted 06-27-2006 12:46 AM Nimrod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by ramoss, posted 06-27-2006 3:10 PM Omnivorous has not replied
 Message 40 by Nimrod, posted 06-27-2006 9:55 PM Omnivorous has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 39 of 91 (326867)
06-27-2006 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Omnivorous
06-27-2006 8:55 AM


Re: I thought the same thing.
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.
That is the thing about science. Sometimes, people make changes/assumptions. These have to stand up to the scrutiny of peer review, to try to eliminate bias as much as possible. People will examine the evidence, methodlogy, and conclusions, and often challenge it. Hopefully, that filters out individual bias, and poor techniques.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Omnivorous, posted 06-27-2006 8:55 AM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Nimrod
Member (Idle past 4915 days)
Posts: 277
Joined: 06-22-2006


Message 40 of 91 (326982)
06-27-2006 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Omnivorous
06-27-2006 8:55 AM


I wasnt refering to Bienkowski.
I dont think any carbondates can make me 100% confident that they are error free (not to within so tight a time period as say, 1550 and 1400 for example).Im sure he is doing the best job he can with what data he has.I honestly cant say I have a clue as to what makes a "good" or "bad" carbon date measurement.
I was just saying that this Edom issue& the carbon dates will have alot of 2nd guessers from folks such as who commonly post at places like this.Im glad it will, though I cant really say I know much about the technique to form any type of conclusion.That is except to say that it seems that the readings are always all over the place based on several different samples often.My conclusion is that I much prefer pottery dating whenever it is possible.
If it takes a series of carbon dates, that help prove parts of the Bible, to get poeple suspicious of the method, then fine with me. Its just a little amusing considering the same folks are the ones who ignored pottery finds at Jericho once the carbon dating procedure "settled the issue".
But anything that forces people to consider all the evidence is VERY good, because it will help circulate all evidences including ones hastily discarded (or more likley ignored which leads to discarding whether conscious or not) in the past.
Also, I may have over exagerated David Rohls motives for ignoring carbon dates.They actually would seem to support in many ways, his reconstruction.But infact he doesnt shorten Egyptian history enough (not evn close) to fit the majority of raw uncalibrated carbon dates.I think his main reason for rejecting them is because he honestly does not trust them.FWIW, I would prefer that the alternative chronologies of Rohl, James, Stewart , etc. are incorrect because the weak link in conventional Eyptian chronology they all seem to be taking shot's at (good ones too) is the 3rd Intermediate Period and that IMO only hurts (in a devestating way too IMO) the Bibles historical value since the Bible seems to fit in so well at that point.
Here is (FA)Question 2 for Peter James.
http://www.centuries.co.uk/faq.htm#q2
Q2: Can Radiocarbon Dating prove CoD right or wrong?
Although this method has the potential to do so, C14 results from the relevant areas are at present generally unsatisfactory. For prehistoric cultures earlier than, or unrelated to, the Egyptian dynasties, archaeologists regularly test dozens of samples. By contrast, for the Late Bronze and Iron Ages, they have tended to assume that, as the chronology is 'known', radiocarbon tests are not really needed. As well as the shortage of results, inappropriate samples have usually been chosen, mostly of wood and charcoal which, unless selected with extreme care, will give dates much older than the context they come from. There have also been many problems at laboratory level, such as varying degrees of pretreatment to remove contamination. Calibration raises further difficulties, as the statistical variables involved are often poorly understood. Consequently most C14 dates for the period in question amount to little more than 'window dressing' for a site report.
From another perspective, it is also well known that numerous radiocarbon dates from sites in the Aegean, Egypt and the Near East, have never been published because they do not suit preconceptions - a phenomenon we have dubbed the 'publishing filter'. Though it is rarely admitted in print, there are documented cases from at least three sites (see James et al. 1998, 36).
Given all this, we strongly feel that the radiocarbon dates currently available are not adequate to judge the CoD theory. New series of tests need to be performed on good materials from secure contexts, with the samples divided between at least three laboratories for cross-checking as results can differ between them. In one case in the 1970s the same Egyptian samples were tested by the Pennsylvania, British Museum and Uppsala labs (Olsson & El-Daousay 1979). The dates from the first two generally fitted the conventional chronology but those from Uppsala were consistently lower and fit well with our chronology. Had Uppsala alone done the tests it would have looked as if radiocarbon had proved CoD correct! The Uppsala laboratory took pride in its careful pretreatment of samples to remove contaminants, a fact which may perhaps explain the divergent results. We would not, however, use these old tests to reinforce our case. There is increasing realisation, due to enormous improvements in the method, that all determinations from before the 1990s should really be discarded.
So until new series of good quality dates are produced we simply cannot say whether radiocarbon can prove CoD right or wrong. The C14 database from Greece is, like that from Egypt, a shambles, and we would fully agree with the following statement made by Sturt Manning (1990, 37) of Reading University:
... new series of highly quality dates from sealed stratigraphic contexts from all the Aegean periods are required. The current corpus consists of dates from very different technical processes, and dates usually lacking carbon-13 normalization, or alkali pre-treatment! This is unacceptable... The pressing need is therefore for Aegean radiocarbon dates with the contextual and measurement quality to match the precision of the current radiocarbon calibration curves.
Yet only two years later, with no new C14 dates (but not without a degree of hypocrisy), Manning and his colleague Weninger (1992) attempted to use the available results from the Aegean to show that CoD was wrong! Their article, published in Antiquity, has been repeatedly cited. This is unfortunate, as it contained a number of serious methodological errors. Most of the C14 results they used, some going back to the 1950s (!), came from unsuitable samples of wood and charcoal. We have published a detailed response (James et al. 1998, 36-38) showing that if due attention is paid to the context of the samples, the presently available radiocarbon dates for the end of the Late Bronze Age in Greece fit comfortably with our model.
His FAQ 3 on tree ring dating is even more interesting.I'll go ahead and quote the entire thing, but if the MODs feel I am violating copyright , then please feel free to edit it to shorten it. (Peter James seems tolerant enough,even making fun of U.K. publications for not granting permission to copy cartoons, Im sure he wont have a cow)
Actually, maybe I better not.Buts its in the link.Very interesting. Peter James has written what seems like dozens of books, and even single books like this one have such scholarly detail from multiple disciplines that it almost overwhelms you. The Centuries Of Darkness project is one I hope he stays on top of.
People around here would LOVE him too, because his 2 most viscious critics (read his reviews section for many dozens of quotes from reviews) are Kenneth Kitchen and William Dever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Omnivorous, posted 06-27-2006 8:55 AM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by John Williams, posted 06-29-2006 2:49 AM Nimrod has replied
 Message 43 by Omnivorous, posted 06-29-2006 8:46 AM Nimrod has not replied

  
John Williams
Member (Idle past 4998 days)
Posts: 157
From: Oregon, US
Joined: 06-29-2004


Message 41 of 91 (327380)
06-29-2006 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Nimrod
06-27-2006 9:55 PM


Re: I wasnt refering to Bienkowski.
Carbon 14 dating and dendrochronology has really been a smacker to the standard chronology. The well known Thera erruption of course, being a very controversial example.....something like 120 years difference from conventional dates. : (

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Nimrod, posted 06-27-2006 9:55 PM Nimrod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Nimrod, posted 06-29-2006 5:15 AM John Williams has not replied

  
Nimrod
Member (Idle past 4915 days)
Posts: 277
Joined: 06-22-2006


Message 42 of 91 (327394)
06-29-2006 5:15 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by John Williams
06-29-2006 2:49 AM


I missed the Dendrochronology PDF.
Its the latest update too! Infact, 2 of the last 3 since August 2005 have been on tree ring dating.
http://www.centuries.co.uk/whatsnew.htm
What's New on this Site
14 May 2006
Now readable online - P. James, "The Dendrochronology Debate" [ 691K].
21 April 2006.
"The Uluburun Shipwreck - a Dendrochronological Scandal"[ 151K] added to the Internet Notes and Papers section in The Continuing Debate.
7 March 2006.
Abstract of new article by P. James added to The Continuing Debate:- "Archaic Greek Colonies in Libya: Historical vs. Archaeological Chronologies?" (2005).
Also, I made some errors in earlier posts of mine. The Stiebing book I have on the Exodus was from 1989 not the mid-90s like I said. So his comment that Bryant Wood's Late Bronze Age dating for Jericho was before the issue got "settled" in the early 90s.Also, his evidence for the 1200 BCE Conquest was not too flattering to Bible believers. I think I mistook the "80%" agreement with Middle Bronze Age conclusions of David Rohl related to Biblical areas. Infact ,if not for the 2 old possible locations of Ai, Rohl showed that Middle Bronze Age (2B I think)destructions fit very well with the Biblical evidence.Khirbet el Maqatir (ruin of ascending sacrificial smoke) is a site Wood came to for Ai after he relocated Bethel, which Rohl want aware of when he wrote his book.
Rohl mentioned Bimson and his work but I dont think he mentioned Wood. Rohl mentioned that there may infact be possibilities that Middle Bronze Age pottery had a delay in making its way to Palestine, perhaps with regard to poorer areas or the interior of Palestine where the Israelites lived.Rohl mentioned examples of mainstream archaeologists who have reached similar conclusions.Ill go and find it.Ill quote as much as I maye be allowed.
Rohl mentions that Bimson (in his PHD thesis)dates the Israelite entry into Canaan according to the widespread city destruction usually assigned to the end of the Middle Bronze Age.Rohl mentions how impressed he is with the evidence since nearly every city destroyed around c1550 (my words, Rohl uses code words , plus Rohl assigns much to around c1650 but the MB periods mentioned seem to be c1550)fit the Bibles text in Joshua while cities not mentioned in Joshua werent touched.
Jeicho, Debir, Lachish, Hebron , Bethel , Gibeon , Arad, and Hazor all suffer destruction according the MBA.Rohl is refering to "Bethel" is the generally accepted site of Beitin.The site Wood considers Bethel is El-Bireh and Rohl actually mentions that in his chart (but not explaining anything about the site) on page 306 (in the large hardcover edition which is much much better than the UK paperback edition). Rohl has a "?" for destruction there for all 4 periods in his chart (Extant in LB2B,Destroyed at end of LB2B , Extant in MB2B, Destroyed at end of MB2B )for "Bethel (el-Bireh)". El-Bireh was visible in the Wood DVD I saw.It is a very populated modern town and I wonder how much could possibly be excivated.Im sure Wood will try some day.
Hormah (as Tell el-Meshash) is uncertain with regards to destruction at the end of MB2B , but it was extant in that period.Rohl lists the destruction as "uncetain".Aside from that and 2 locations for "Ai" , 8 of the 10 sites Rohl mentions from Joshua were destroyed at the end of MB2B.
Rohl compares the situation to the Late Bronze Age where only Hazor and Lachish were destroyed.Rohl show that recent archaeological work also puts the destruction of Hazor back to about a century before the c1200 conquest.
I know Hazor's destruction near the end of LBA was generally dated at c1230.Many use it to support a c1200 conquest but Wood often makes the point that it is a bias on the part of "late Exodus" believers and that this is a battle from Judges and not Joshua.Wood says there was c1400 destruction at Hazor too , though much of what Wood describes as c1400 , most say was c1550. This c1300 date for the LBA Hazor destruction (as opposed to c1230) Rohl mentions may support the argument (Rohl doesnt touch or consider this)that the Exodus period- Temple completion was longer than 480 years. Maybe David and Solomon reigned for LONGER than 40 years each plus several 40 year periods of "peace" in Judges could actually be longer.Even without such, the 1 Kings 6:1 period of 480 years could be under from 100-150 just by Textual evidence alone.
Back to Rohls book.He is mentioning John Bimsons work and redating the MBA2B destructions generally dated at 1550 to c1447 BCE to fit in with the Bibles "480 years" and 966 Temple date.
"In doing so, he was obliged to place the Exodus event in the mid 18th Dynasty when most scholars would assert the LBA was well underway. This meant that he was forced to argue for a resolution of the MBA destruction horizon from the very beginning of the New Kingdom (c 1550) down to the reign of Thutmose 3 or thereabouts (c 1447 BC). This in turn required either a century long overlap of the late MBA with the early LBA or a radical reduction the length of the LB1 phase. Neither proposal has been widely accepted although Bietak has also recently argued for an overlap of MB2B and LB1 based on the Tell-ed-Daba evidence.My feelings are that there may well be some mileage in this second hypothesis.It does appear likely that the population of the hill country of Canaan in the period of the early 18th Dynasty (LB1) continued to use pottery which was indistinguishable from that used in the latter part of the Middle Bronze Age."
Wood seems to feel that "bi-chrome" (something like that)ware evidence found in small amounts in places like Jericho (which Kenyon missed) proves such.I however seem to rember reading elsewhere (though I may be wrong) that bi-chrome ware was also used in the late MB age also.Ithink it is Cypriot pottery.Wood says Kenyon only excivated poorer areas of Jericho and missed a small area where more wealthy residents would live and thus they would have had more exotic pottery where there would be a general lag in many other areas of the hilly interior. I think thats his position.Plus he says it is LB pottery.
Itis interesting that many who attack the Bimson idea here this all started , ignore the MB-LB overlap.I seem to remember Halpern attacking Bimson's thesis (in a 1987 BAR issue) , but not mentioning the overlap issue. Halpern spent several pages speaking as if a draconian chop in the length of LB1 from about 150 years down to 20 was the only possibility Bimson's thery could offer. Maybe that was all Bimson mentioned , I dont know. I never read his book as it is OOP and expensive used ($200+).Halpern easily proved that LB1 had to have lasted over 100 years due to successive building constructions that took on average 43 years each.He did not mention the overlap issue.
Halpern might have made a good point in mentioning (Im not sure though , needs lots more debate)that Joshua didnt mention too many cities being burnt and destroyed, and much of the MBA destruction was burnt and destroyed.I cant remember if he made any good pottery arguments such as the new pottery being Hurrian pottery (Im not saying it was , nor am I saying Israelites couldnt have lived among Hurrians and included many , just saying that many may claim "pottery wasnt Israelite").
I would rather Wood be wrong about the c1400 date (New Kingdom according to conventional chronology)and would prefer the 1550 destructions be dated as such. There was no Exodus in the 18th dynasty IMO but the dark period in the Delta from dynasties 13-16 (which the later ones were were parallel to the Thebian 17th dynasty)were a genuine dark age where the Exodus could have happened.The Ipuwer Papyrus also is a likley parallel to the Exodus plagues, written from a Thebian pespective if it (Exodus) was from the Hyksos period (early Hyksos could be the new Pharoahs in Exodus 1).Or it was a 13th dynasty writting before the Hyksos, or a writting looking back at the Exodus plagues as the Hyksos were taking over.
I think the Pharoah's of the Exodus were from the 13th dynasty or possibly Hyksos Pharoahs.Thankfully, there has been alot of Delta archaeological ruins found, despite the fact that most sink deep into the marshy surface.Texts are ruined as well as mummies. Bob Brier says he doesnt know if the Hyksos mummified their remains because all have been destroyed like nearly everything else perishable including texts.Also, thanks to the "400" and "430" years mentioned in Exodus (though the stay was clearly 215 years or maybe 210)mainstream chronologists who support the Bible (thinking the Exodus was 1446 due to the 480years of 1 Kings 6 , though it was longer IMO) have looked in the 12th dynasty for evidence of Semitic settlements.Many good books and magazine articles have been written including Charles Aling books , plus Pro-Bible magazines like Bible and Spade.The fact that around the time of the Hyksos, the 12th dynasty Semitic settlements were replaced by new peoples (Hyksos?)seems to further support the c1600 Exodus.
On ironic note is that my first study Bible was Bullinger's Companion Bible. He had the Israelites enter Egypt in what would today be c.1650 and stay 215 years till what would today be c1450 (back in his day , the chronology was slightly different , so his dates were about 40 years different both ways).Today , everybody who has Israelites enter Egypt c1650 support a c1250 Exodus.Plus Bullinger showed why the "480 years" of 1 Kings 6 should really be 573 years. I would prefer it be even longer to reach back to c1600 BCE.
I also thought the Thera erruption of c1630 may help support it a c1600-1650 Exodus , but maybe not.Again, the irony of Bible date amazes me. William Stiebing, in his 1989 Exodus book, mentioned the earlier dating of Thera (from c1500 to c1630) as hurting the argument that it could support the Exodus.He did make good points though, in showing that it's effects wouldnt have reached the Delta.
Anyway, Steibing found that a c1400 Conquest seems to be ruled out with almost no sites even being occupied in the LBA and the c1200 Exodus only faring slightly better.Stiebing did at least mention some of Woods new finds though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by John Williams, posted 06-29-2006 2:49 AM John Williams has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 43 of 91 (327429)
06-29-2006 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Nimrod
06-27-2006 9:55 PM


Re: I wasnt refering to Bienkowski.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Nimrod, posted 06-27-2006 9:55 PM Nimrod has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 44 of 91 (327431)
06-29-2006 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by arachnophilia
06-22-2006 6:42 PM


Re: edom, in genesis
2.5 million? no.
Bible claims there were:
Exodus 12:37 The Israelites journeyed from Rameses to Succoth. There were about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children.
of course it is, but it's still a logical fallacy.
Yes, but just like any other logical argument its validity depends on its premises.
For example, we haven't found any evidence of humans living on Mars yet, but that doesn't mean humans haven't lived on Mars.
But, the burden of proof is on the person making the positive statement, which is a pisser for the fundies.
i'm not very good at devil's advocate arguments, am i? ah well, i tried.
I'm crap at it myself, I think the sensible head kicks into play.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by arachnophilia, posted 06-22-2006 6:42 PM arachnophilia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by ramoss, posted 06-29-2006 11:03 AM Brian has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 45 of 91 (327467)
06-29-2006 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Brian
06-29-2006 8:56 AM


Re: edom, in genesis
Yet, sometimes, the absence of evidence OF something is evidence becomes increasingly the evidence of absence. The more one looks for evidence that SHOULD be there if the hypothesis is correct, and does not find it, the higher the probability that the hypothesis is incorrect.
SOmetimes, other evidence can promote the absence of something. For example, when doing an analysis of the fish population in the Loc Ness, there isn't enough fish to be able to support even a small population of
a large predator. That is strong evidence against the existance of Nessie.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Brian, posted 06-29-2006 8:56 AM Brian has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024