Rich McQuillen
re: Jericho
Mon Jun 11, 2018 22:34
73.205.221.1

"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 didn't ignore it. I moved the date 115 years forward. We're in complete agreement, with the exception that it's only 1 archaeologist, and only wiki. I saw a tv special on Jericho, with 3 other experts repeating the wiki dates. :)

My argument is that if the margin of error on the carbon dating is known to be at least +/- 115... then the 1100BC Date could also be wrong. It could be 1215BC(much better) or 1000BC(much worse).

My unproven thoughts... sometimes when a city gets destroyed, it gets rebuilt at a different site nearby... like the other side of the river. And then sometimes it gets moved back. I wouldn't be surprised to see a second nearby city of Jericho eventually turn up. It's in the realm of possibilities, even if unlikely(10%).

  • re: JerichoToby Anderson, Mon Jun 4 23:17
    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... more
    • 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: Jericho — Rich McQuillen, Mon Jun 11 22:34
      • 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