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

yet again Re: [ANE-2] Wikipedia and the sum of all knowledge

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.