Toby Anderson
re: Jericho
Mon Jun 4, 2018 23:17
2600:8801:901:4610:c161:7b79:bcac:471e

Hello Rich,

You:
"....archaeology says no city existed from 1550BC-1100BC"

Only 1 archeologist says that, who ignored the Egyptian Scarabs containing 3 pharoahs who lived during the earlier part of this period you just mentioned (1500 to 1400).

Why did you ignore the scarabs in your posting.

These are the primary evidence.
Wikipedia ignores the scarabs.
Kenyon ignores the scarabs.

What about you?

Toby

  • re: JerichoRich McQuillen, Sun Jun 3 23:43
    So the reason we are discussing Jericho... is that the archaeology says no city existed from 1550BC-1100BC... So there was no city for Joshua to conquer. If there are scarabs of pharoahs here, then... more
    • re: Jericho — Toby Anderson, Mon Jun 4 23:17
      • re: JerichoAnonymous, Tue Jun 12 00:40
        https://books.google.com/books?id=c_tDCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=Garstang+middle+building+scarabs&source=bl&ots=F5x6Pfzd5-&sig=RUYOjjihQeYfoqYyAa3bacSZeVQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwju__jfs83bAhWs64MKHbv... more
        • re: JerichoToby Charles Anderson, Wed Jun 13 15:51
          Hello Anonymous, After giving the link to a page in a book, you concluded. You wrote: "The scarabs come from an administrative palace built later. But there was no city there." That is NOT what your... more
          • re: JerichoAnonymous, Fri Jun 15 09:49
            Toby: My trivial mistake, already conceeded, changes nothing. The necropolis is a separate site from the city. A curse was put on rebuilding the city, but not on continued use of the necropolis. So... more
        • re: JerichoAnonymous, Tue Jun 12 15:50
          Pardon my error. The scarabs came from the Necropolis, which is not the city. //From the pottery and scarabs found at the necropolis, Garstang concluded that its use was continuous from the third... more
        • re: JerichoMarianne Luban, Tue Jun 12 11:43
          Anonymous wrote: "The scarabs come from an administrative palace built later. But there was no city there." I am of the opinion that "Anonymous" is nothing more than a trolling sock-puppet, who... more
      • re: JerichoRich McQuillen, Mon Jun 11 22:34
        "Why did you ignore the scarabs in your posting." -- Toby "If there are scarabs of pharoahs here, then the 1550BC date turns into 1435BC." -- me -- We're in agreement, the scarabs are absolute. I... more
        • re: minor date correctionRich McQuillen, Sun Jun 17 12:27
          "If there are scarabs of pharoahs here, then the 1550BC date turns into 1435BC." -- me I misread Amenhotep ii instead of 3. Amenhotep 2 would have ended in 1435BC. I have Amenhotep 3 ending around... more
        • JerichoToby Charles Anderson, Wed Jun 13 15:55
          "Why did you ignore the scarabs in your posting." -- Toby "If there are scarabs of pharoahs here, then the 1550BC date turns into 1435BC." -- Rich -- We're in agreement, the scarabs are absolute. I... more
        • re: JerichoMarianne Luban, Tue Jun 12 12:02
          Rich wrote: "-- We're in agreement, the scarabs are absolute." They are absolute in that they provide a terminus for scarabs among the burials--that terminus being the reign of Amenhotep III.... more
Click here to receive daily updates