Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [ANE-2] Digest Number 98

Expand Messages
  • Peter M. Fischer
    Response to Tomas Marik Correct. There was a conference in Vienna 2004, Ash and Ice , where I presented a paper on the SIMS-analysis (with a CAMECA IMS 1270,
    Message 1 of 1 , May 4, 2006
      Response to Tomas Marik
      Correct. There was a conference in Vienna 2004, "Ash and Ice", where I
      presented a paper on the SIMS-analysis (with a CAMECA IMS 1270, placed in
      Stockholm) of particles from the GRIP ice core from Greenland. We - Martin
      Whitehouse and myself - analysed numerous particles in the size of approx. 5
      micron from the ice core level which corresponds to 1645 +/-4 years
      (according to Hammer). We could not demonstrate any particles of volcanic
      origin. The analysed particles can (simplified) described as "continental
      dust". The previously (by Hammer et al.) reported results were obtained by a
      modified CAMECA IMS3F which in our opinion is an ion probe not suitable for
      particles as small as approx. 5 micron (not good enough mass separation
      etc.; I have used this instrument for many years).

      Peter M. Fischer
      Gothenburg University and Austrian Academy of Sciences
      email: peter.fischer@...


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: <ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
      To: <ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 12:28 PM
      Subject: [ANE-2] Digest Number 98



      There are 7 messages in this issue.

      Topics in this digest:

      1. the date of the Pentateuch
      From: "Niels Peter Lemche" <npl@...>
      2. Re: Santorini
      From: Gene Greenwood <gwoodgeno@...>
      3. SV: Santorini
      From: "Niels Peter Lemche" <npl@...>
      4. Re: R. Gmirkin on the date of the Pentateuch
      From: Don Mills <donmillion@...>
      5. SV: R. Gmirkin on the date of the Pentateuch
      From: "Niels Peter Lemche" <npl@...>
      6. Re: SV: Santorini
      From: Tomas Marik <tomas.marik@...>
      7. SV: SV: Santorini
      From: "Niels Peter Lemche" <npl@...>


      ________________________________________________________________________
      ________________________________________________________________________

      Message: 1
      Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 08:32:00 +0200
      From: "Niels Peter Lemche" <npl@...>
      Subject: the date of the Pentateuch

      Summing up--perhaps--from my vantage point.

      In my Prelude to Israel's past (Hendrickson 1999), I sketched 4 different
      ways of dating the Jahwist, ranging from early monarchy (say, 10th or 9th
      century) to the Hellenistic Period, and it all made sense. It is possible to
      present a well-founded defense of all dates (the oldest one is today,
      perhaps, the most difficult to defend). After that I more or less lost
      interest in the subject.

      However, a lot of people will today ask for the Josianic Period, but here we
      are in trouble because the argument is mainly circular. Maybe this period is
      also popular for the simply reason that it is the last opportunity to think
      of something like 'old Israel' (whatever this is) as the base of
      composition.

      The Persian Period is popular because we know next to nothing from this
      period (of course some archaeology, some half-mythical figures, a Jewish
      national legend etc.). The Hellenistic period is generally unpopular among
      biblical scholars because it makes the OT historiographers dependent on
      Greek tradition.

      Then we have linguistic arguments, mainly diachronically arranged, and based
      on a very limited source material. We were told that we have the Lachish
      letters (c. 600), Arad inscriptions, 7th century and more, and that is true
      but little in comparison with what I write in one afternoon.

      6th century virtually nothing, 5th century same situation (Elephantine is a
      kind of diaspora example that is hardly very helpful when it comes to the
      situation in Palestine). From the 4th century very little.

      Then internal evidence: here the last and youngest information will be
      decisive and not the oldest one.

      George made the mistake of assuming that the presence of the Philistines in
      the OT is decisive. It is not. He could just as well have mentioned the
      Assyrians who did not exists after 612/605 BCE. The Babylonian tradition
      tried to extinguish also the memory of Assur by calling Assyria Subartu, but
      Assyria survived, also in Greek sources of the 5th century.

      The OT references to the Philistines only tell us that there was a living
      tradition when these narratives were composed of the Philistines.
      Assimilation was an ongoing process, and it is old 'knowledge' that in Iron
      II it was almost complete. Thus the Ekron inscription is written in Hebrew.

      That old ethnicities should exist or even reappear a long time after the
      political demise of, in this case, the Philistines, is nothing new,
      particularly to a person who lives in Europe and have over the last twenty
      years seen a lot of such examples.

      By the way: Garbini's idea of Sicily isn't particular new. Reminds me of
      ideas in circulation a hundred years ago: e.g., Max Müller.

      How slippery the theme really is can be illustrated by Numbers 24:24, and I
      would like to see George's dating of this verse, and I will reply with Karl
      David Ilgen's interpretation from the late 18th century.

      Niels Peter Lemche





      ________________________________________________________________________
      ________________________________________________________________________

      Message: 2
      Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 23:28:32 -0700 (PDT)
      From: Gene Greenwood <gwoodgeno@...>
      Subject: Re: Santorini

      Is it not reasonable that the first in a series of many eruptions of Thera
      occurred around 1645 and it wasn't all that earth shattering? And then a
      bunch more occurred in the 16th-12th centuries. And none of them per se were
      huge. But stacked together they left a huge pile of debris on Santorini. If
      there was one super-blast, then where is the evidence? Why is there so much
      confusion?
      This of course insinuates that Thera had nothing to do with Moses'
      plagues.
      Gene . . . .

      Niels Peter Lemche <npl@...> wrote:


      A mail on the Aegeannet just mentioned that the previous date of the
      eruption based on samples from the ice core on Greenland said 1645 BCE,
      so the new date is not sensational as it was presented but--as the
      writer of this mail also says--rather confirms the earlier dating.
      Nothing about moving around with the beginning of the LBA, at least not
      in this connection.

      Niels Peter Lemche


      SPONSORED LINKS
      Near Columbia university University of helsinki

      ---------------------------------
      YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


      Visit your group "ANE-2" on the web.

      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      ANE-2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


      ---------------------------------





      ---------------------------------
      Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates
      starting at 1¢/min.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






      ________________________________________________________________________
      ________________________________________________________________________

      Message: 3
      Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 08:40:20 +0200
      From: "Niels Peter Lemche" <npl@...>
      Subject: SV: Santorini

      Now, we have to be clear about what we are talking about. The ice core from
      Greenland points at a certain date, not a number of different years. Also
      the usual reconstruction of the events (as I have seen and read them) is of
      a huge explosion that tore the island apart and left us with buried Acrotiri
      and its amazing findings.

      I would never relate anything here to a mythical figure like Moses. His
      historicity is not an ANE-2 theme as his existence is solely a biblical
      supported theme.

      Here as a moderator I must mention the rules: Evidence means evidence. If
      something is only evidence of itself, and any use thereof a circular
      argument, it is not legitimate for the ANE-2 to discuss. Moses is such an
      example.

      Finally, dear gene, I approved your mail, but you (as well as every list
      member) must sign their mails with a proper and complete signature.

      Niels Peter Lemche

      -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
      Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Gene
      Greenwood
      Sendt: 4. maj 2006 08:29
      Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      Emne: Re: [ANE-2] Santorini

      Is it not reasonable that the first in a series of many eruptions of Thera
      occurred around 1645 and it wasn't all that earth shattering? And then a
      bunch more occurred in the 16th-12th centuries. And none of them per se were
      huge. But stacked together they left a huge pile of debris on Santorini. If
      there was one super-blast, then where is the evidence? Why is there so much
      confusion?
      This of course insinuates that Thera had nothing to do with Moses'
      plagues.
      Gene . . . .

      Niels Peter Lemche <npl@...> wrote:


      A mail on the Aegeannet just mentioned that the previous date of the
      eruption based on samples from the ice core on Greenland said 1645 BCE,
      so the new date is not sensational as it was presented but--as the
      writer of this mail also says--rather confirms the earlier dating.
      Nothing about moving around with the beginning of the LBA, at least not
      in this connection.

      Niels Peter Lemche


      SPONSORED LINKS
      Near Columbia university University of helsinki

      ---------------------------------
      YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


      Visit your group "ANE-2" on the web.

      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      ANE-2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


      ---------------------------------





      ---------------------------------
      Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates
      starting at 1¢/min.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]








      Yahoo! Groups Links









      ________________________________________________________________________
      ________________________________________________________________________

      Message: 4
      Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 01:44:22 -0700 (PDT)
      From: Don Mills <donmillion@...>
      Subject: Re: R. Gmirkin on the date of the Pentateuch

      Russell Gmirkin wrote:

      -----<snip>-----
      The authorship of the Pentateuch by the Seventy at Alexandria fully explains
      the historical context for the multiple voices interwoven in the Pentateuch.
      -----<snip to end>-----

      With the rushings of fools and the treadings of angels echoing in my mind, I
      ask: What are the historical and archaeological evidences for the existence
      of the Seventy?

      Regards,

      -- Don

      [Don Mills, London, England]


      ________________________________________________________________________
      ________________________________________________________________________

      Message: 5
      Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 11:24:13 +0200
      From: "Niels Peter Lemche" <npl@...>
      Subject: SV: R. Gmirkin on the date of the Pentateuch

      About as strong as the evidence for Snow White and her seven dwarfs.

      Niels Peter Lemche

      -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
      Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Don
      Mills
      Sendt: 4. maj 2006 10:44
      Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      Emne: Re: [ANE-2] R. Gmirkin on the date of the Pentateuch

      Russell Gmirkin wrote:

      -----<snip>-----
      The authorship of the Pentateuch by the Seventy at Alexandria fully explains
      the historical context for the multiple voices interwoven in the Pentateuch.
      -----<snip to end>-----

      With the rushings of fools and the treadings of angels echoing in my mind, I
      ask: What are the historical and archaeological evidences for the existence
      of the Seventy?

      Regards,

      -- Don

      [Don Mills, London, England]




      Yahoo! Groups Links









      ________________________________________________________________________
      ________________________________________________________________________

      Message: 6
      Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 11:37:31 +0200
      From: Tomas Marik <tomas.marik@...>
      Subject: Re: SV: Santorini



      Niels Peter Lemche wrote:

      >Now, we have to be clear about what we are talking about. The ice core from
      >Greenland points at a certain date, not a number of different years.
      >
      What I remember, is a vivid description of a rude quarrel between
      geologists on the date of the Greenland material on a conference years
      ago in Vienna. Perhaps someone else knows more about it, and perhaps we
      tend to be too confidential about data supplied by the so-called exact
      sciences.

      Tomas Marik
      tomas.marik@...






      ________________________________________________________________________
      ________________________________________________________________________

      Message: 7
      Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 11:47:59 +0200
      From: "Niels Peter Lemche" <npl@...>
      Subject: SV: SV: Santorini

      I heard about the discussion but am not in a position to interfere.
      Basically (or from an ideal point of view), the evidence from the Ice cap is
      indisputable. They--Danish geologists--simply cut out a section--a probe--of
      the ice right down to bedrock (a number of kilometres). Then it a matter of
      counting years. This is in principle 100% safe, and as I remember their
      dating of the Thera explosion, it is 1645 BCE. And it is definitely a safe
      assumption that we are not moving say +/- 50 or 100 years away from that
      date.

      The discussion may be about the relevance of the evidence from the ice.

      The new evidence seems to support the Greenlandic one, and that is great
      news.

      Niels Peter Lemche


      -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
      Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Tomas
      Marik
      Sendt: 4. maj 2006 11:38
      Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      Emne: Re: SV: [ANE-2] Santorini



      Niels Peter Lemche wrote:

      >Now, we have to be clear about what we are talking about. The ice core from
      >Greenland points at a certain date, not a number of different years.
      >
      What I remember, is a vivid description of a rude quarrel between
      geologists on the date of the Greenland material on a conference years
      ago in Vienna. Perhaps someone else knows more about it, and perhaps we
      tend to be too confidential about data supplied by the so-called exact
      sciences.

      Tomas Marik
      tomas.marik@...








      Yahoo! Groups Links









      ________________________________________________________________________
      ________________________________________________________________________



      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Yahoo! Groups Links




      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.