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

Low Iron II chronology debate

Expand Messages
  • Graham Hagens
    For those interested in the Low Iron II chronological debate, and who may not yet have perused The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating (eds. Levy & Higham, Equinox,
    Message 1 of 14 , Apr 2, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      For those interested in the Low Iron II chronological debate, and who may
      not yet have perused "The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating" (eds. Levy & Higham,
      Equinox, 2005):
      Mazar (and supporters)and Finkelstein (and friends) appear to have reached a
      compromise.
      The 'high' proponents will take the upper end of the 980-920 BCE range for
      the commencement of Iron IIA, while the 'low' party will assume the lower
      end of the range.
      Which is just fine: a mere 60 year spread for a transition which probably
      didn't occur simultaneously everywhere anyway.

      Graham Hagems
    • driver40386
      I m not so sure many scholars would have the time nor the inclination to devote to Wikipedia. One criteria I would endorse, one that does not limit every
      Message 2 of 14 , Apr 2, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        I'm not so sure many scholars would have the time nor the inclination
        to devote to Wikipedia.
        One criteria I would endorse, one that does not limit every
        contributor to have a degree of some such, is that every definitive
        statement submitted to Wikipedia on any given subject "requires" a
        reference.

        References can also be debated but at least the reader knows from
        where the opinion has emanated and that it is not some product of the
        imagination. The reader can also judge for themselves whether they
        have come across a more viable or recent reference on the subject.

        Provided even the lay-person has done his homework then his/her
        contribution has some sound basis when supported by a scholarly reference.

        Just two cents from the peanut gallery.
        Jon Smyth
        Toronto.


        --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, Paul James Cowie <editor@...> wrote:

        > As regards reliability, well, there are a number of things that can
        > be done immediately to enhance the value of user contributions....
        > Not all of these are always in common practice, unfortunately, but
        > hope for the future is high....
        >
        > First of all, a far greater number of scholars and academics could
        > get behind the project, making contributions within their specialist
        > areas. Keeping an article on your "watchlist" allows you easily to
        > monitor any negative changes.
      • K L Noll
        Graham wrote: Subject: Low Iron II chronology debate Mazar (and supporters)and Finkelstein (and friends) appear to have reached a compromise. The high
        Message 3 of 14 , Apr 6, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Graham wrote:
          Subject: Low Iron II chronology debate
          Mazar (and supporters)and Finkelstein (and friends) appear to have reached a compromise. The 'high' proponents will take the upper end of the 980-920 BCE range for the commencement of Iron IIA, while the 'low' party will assume the lower end of the range.
          Graham Hagems


          The compromise is nice, but the implications of the research represent something of a defeat form Mazar's side, nevertheless. Or do you not agree?

          K. L. Noll
          Religion Department
          Brandon University
          270- 18th Street
          Brandon, Manitoba
          R7A 6A9 Canada
          (204) 727-9701

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Doug Petrovich
          Graham and All, The high proponents will take the upper end of the 980-920 BCE range for the commencement of Iron IIA, while the low party will assume the
          Message 4 of 14 , Apr 6, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Graham and All,

            "The 'high' proponents will take the upper end of the 980-920 BCE range for
            the commencement of Iron IIA, while the 'low' party will assume the lower
            end of the range. Which is just fine: a mere 60 year spread for a transition
            which probably didn't occur simultaneously everywhere anyway."

            In addition to K. Noll's penetrating question, I would like to add that I am
            not so sure there is call for such celebration. I mean, even if Mazar has
            not compromised his position, I do not know if we can refer to this 60-year
            expansion as "a mere 60" years.

            Sure, I can buy the idea of a transition that was not completely
            simultaneous everywhere, but 60 years is a great deal of time for a period
            to begin in some places but be halted in a time-warp in others. So please
            don't count me among the celebrants!

            Doug Petrovich
            NBTS
            Siberia, Russia
          • Graham Hagens
            ... the commencement ... range. ... something of a defeat ... Y know I would argue the opposite. Mazar has given up a measly 20 years (1000- 980) and retains
            Message 5 of 14 , Apr 6, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              K L Noll wrote,Thursday April 06:

              >>The 'high' proponents will take the upper end of the 980-920 BCE range for
              the commencement
              >> of Iron IIA, while the 'low' party will assume the lower end of the
              range.


              >The compromise is nice, but the implications of the research represent
              something of a defeat
              >form Mazar's side, nevertheless. Or do you not agree?


              Y'know I would argue the opposite. Mazar has given up a measly 20 years
              (1000->980) and retains the core concept that the transition from
              'Canaanite' to 'typical Iron IIA' culture (burnished red slip etc) took
              place some time between mid-Davidic, and perhaps mid-Solomonic periods.
              Finkelstein et al. appear to have made a more significant move from their
              previous stand that this change was early-mid 9th century, to now being
              immediately post-Solomonic. If one accepts that the transition probably
              occurred somewhere within that range, the implication is that the United
              Hebrew Monarchy did indeed have a measurable impact on the material culture
              of the 10th century.

              Graham Hagens
            • siaxares
              ... who may ... & Higham, ... reached a ... range for ... lower ... probably ... I must say, I don t quite understand this! That s because the actual graphic
              Message 6 of 14 , Aug 17, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, "Graham Hagens" <rgrhagens@...> wrote:
                >
                > For those interested in the Low Iron II chronological debate, and
                who may
                > not yet have perused "The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating" (eds. Levy
                & Higham,
                > Equinox, 2005):
                > Mazar (and supporters)and Finkelstein (and friends) appear to have
                reached a
                > compromise.
                > The 'high' proponents will take the upper end of the 980-920 BCE
                range for
                > the commencement of Iron IIA, while the 'low' party will assume the
                lower
                > end of the range.
                > Which is just fine: a mere 60 year spread for a transition which
                probably
                > didn't occur simultaneously everywhere anyway.
                >
                > Graham Hagems


                I must say, I don't quite understand this! That's because the actual
                graphic CHART showing the radiocarbon dating forms a very specific
                POINT, like a pyramid aimed at a specific time just before 870BCE!!
                It's not a RANGE but a very, very clear POINT!


                http://www.rehov.org/Rehov/publications/Chapter15%20Bayesian%
                20Analysis%20Tel%20Rehov%20-%20Bruins%20et%20al.pdf#search=%22rehov%
                20radiocarbon%22

                The actual graphic for level IV at Rehov is located above. If you
                can't paste this, just Google "Rehov radiocarbon" and it will show up
                under:

                The Groningen Radiocarbon Series from Tel Rehov


                There is a definite PEAK pointing to 875-870BCE!

                When the Assyrian Period is correctly redated by the 709BCE eclipse
                (vs 763BCE, which does not occur in month 3!) then Shishak's invasion
                gets downdated by 54 years from 925 to 871BCE; precisely where the
                radiocarbon dating is pointing the most.

                The result is, that Shishak's invasion is quite accurately dated by
                the Rehov sample to 871BCE, and since this level is associated with
                the palace level/destructive level for both Megiddo and Jezeel, it
                proves that Solomon built the palaces at both these sites, both
                destroyed by Shishak in 871BCE, which by the way, was during the
                reign of Solomon during a 7-year co-rulership between Rehoboam and
                Solomon, not recognized generally by archaeologists when making
                comparisons with the Shishak inscription (compare 2 Chron 12:1,6).

                >
                L. Wilson
                Astrochronologist
              • Tory Thorpe
                ... Any destruction layer at Rehov linked to Sheshonq I (Shishak) without epigraphy is a plausible guess, not a proof. So you cannot use this argument as a way
                Message 7 of 14 , Aug 17, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- siaxares <lars1950@...> wrote:

                  > The result is, that Shishak's invasion is quite
                  > accurately dated by
                  > the Rehov sample to 871BCE, and since this level is
                  > associated with
                  > the palace level/destructive level for both Megiddo
                  > and Jezeel, it
                  > proves that Solomon built the palaces at both these
                  > sites, both
                  > destroyed by Shishak in 871BCE, which by the way,
                  > was during the
                  > reign of Solomon during a 7-year co-rulership
                  > between Rehoboam and
                  > Solomon, not recognized generally by archaeologists
                  > when making
                  > comparisons with the Shishak inscription (compare 2
                  > Chron 12:1,6).
                  >
                  > >
                  > L. Wilson
                  > Astrochronologist

                  Any destruction layer at Rehov linked to Sheshonq I
                  (Shishak) without epigraphy is a plausible guess, not
                  a proof. So you cannot use this argument as a way of
                  revising Israelite, Egyptian, and Assyrian dates all
                  in one shot. The 763 eclipse is a good match with
                  eponym chronicles B1 and B2, like it or not.

                  Tory Thorpe
                • David Hall
                  To L. Wilson: What eclipse record are you referring to? Ptolemy was supposed to have recorded an eclipse from the records of Merodach-Baladan c. 719 according
                  Message 8 of 14 , Aug 17, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    To L. Wilson:

                    What eclipse record are you referring to?

                    Ptolemy was supposed to have recorded an eclipse from the records of Merodach-Baladan c. 719 according to Evetts (1892); another from the time of Nabopolassar in the seventh century and another from the time of of Cyrus in the sixth century.

                    Sennacherib of Nineveh was supposed to have conquered Merodach-Baladan of Babylon c. 704 according to George Smith, I realize that these dates were decided more than a hundred years ago.

                    From, History of Sennacherib by George Smith (1878) based on his translations from the Bellino Cylinder, Cylinder B, fragments from Cylinders C & D, numerous bull inscriptions, Taylor Cylinder, and various epigraphs). See also Ancient History from the Monuments, Assyria from the Earliest Times to the Fall of Nineveh, George Smith, 1875.

                    More recently Joan Oates published Babylon in 1979 & 1986, and listed the regnal years of Merodach Baladan II as ruling twice, once from 721-710 and a second time during 703 not in conflict with dates published more than 100 years earlier cited above.

                    David Q. Hall
                    d.q.hall@...


                    siaxares <lars1950@...> wrote:
                    --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, "Graham Hagens" <rgrhagens@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > For those interested in the Low Iron II chronological debate, and
                    who may
                    > not yet have perused "The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating" (eds. Levy
                    & Higham,
                    > Equinox, 2005):
                    > Mazar (and supporters)and Finkelstein (and friends) appear to have
                    reached a
                    > compromise.
                    > The 'high' proponents will take the upper end of the 980-920 BCE
                    range for
                    > the commencement of Iron IIA, while the 'low' party will assume the
                    lower
                    > end of the range.
                    > Which is just fine: a mere 60 year spread for a transition which
                    probably
                    > didn't occur simultaneously everywhere anyway.
                    >
                    > Graham Hagems

                    I must say, I don't quite understand this! That's because the actual
                    graphic CHART showing the radiocarbon dating forms a very specific
                    POINT, like a pyramid aimed at a specific time just before 870BCE!!
                    It's not a RANGE but a very, very clear POINT!

                    http://www.rehov.org/Rehov/publications/Chapter15%20Bayesian%
                    20Analysis%20Tel%20Rehov%20-%20Bruins%20et%20al.pdf#search=%22rehov%
                    20radiocarbon%22

                    The actual graphic for level IV at Rehov is located above. If you
                    can't paste this, just Google "Rehov radiocarbon" and it will show up
                    under:

                    The Groningen Radiocarbon Series from Tel Rehov

                    There is a definite PEAK pointing to 875-870BCE!

                    When the Assyrian Period is correctly redated by the 709BCE eclipse
                    (vs 763BCE, which does not occur in month 3!) then Shishak's invasion
                    gets downdated by 54 years from 925 to 871BCE; precisely where the
                    radiocarbon dating is pointing the most.

                    The result is, that Shishak's invasion is quite accurately dated by
                    the Rehov sample to 871BCE, and since this level is associated with
                    the palace level/destructive level for both Megiddo and Jezeel, it
                    proves that Solomon built the palaces at both these sites, both
                    destroyed by Shishak in 871BCE, which by the way, was during the
                    reign of Solomon during a 7-year co-rulership between Rehoboam and
                    Solomon, not recognized generally by archaeologists when making
                    comparisons with the Shishak inscription (compare 2 Chron 12:1,6).

                    >
                    L. Wilson
                    Astrochronologist






                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.