Tuesday, June 23, 2015

BBS Jericho


BBS Jericho

Introduction

The generic comment about “well-fortified city-states, each with its own king” is true, but fundamentally irrelevant to Jericho.  It does introduce the general nature of Canaanite government and social structure.  It is equally true that the Canaanites had strong alliances with Egypt from antiquity: this is supported by the Table of Nations.  It is less true that the Canaanites worshiped many Gods: as a whole this may be true; but each individual city-state seemed more focused on a single deistic pair.

The Bible’s Buried Secrets will develop the idea of Joshua’s so-called blitzkrieg later.  In the process of contrasting Joshua with the Nazis, the idea gets greatly exaggerated.

Our real complaint in this section is with the way that archaeology and statistics are handled.  Too much research is avoided as if it were trivial.  When we examine the archaeological and statistical information ourselves, it appears to contain reporting errors.  We conclude that there is at present no good archaeological or statistical reason to reject the biblical claim that Joshua entered the Promised Land in 1406, and Yahweh caused the fall of Jericho at that time.  Neither, is there any archaeological or statistical proof that Garstang’s Jericho is not that same city.  Doubts have been raised, but no proofs are possible.

Script[1]

Jericho (time 25:40)

N: Following the Exodus the Bible says God finally delivered the Israelites to the Promised Land, Canaan.  Archaeology and sources outside the Bible reveal that Canaan consisted of well-fortified city-states, each with its own king, who in turn served Egypt and its pharaoh.  The Canaanites, a thriving near-eastern culture for thousands of years worshiped many gods in the form of idols.  The Bible describes how a new leader, Joshua takes the Israelites into Canaan in a blitzkrieg military campaign.

R: “So the people shouted and the trumpets were blown.  As soon as the people heard the sound of the trumpets, they raised a great shout, and the walls fell down flat.” — Joshua 6:20

N: But what does archaeology say?  In the 1930s, British archaeologist John Garstang[2] excavated at Jericho,[3] the first Canaanite city in Joshua’s campaign.  Garstang uncovered dramatic evidence of destruction, and declared he had found the very walls that Joshua had brought tumbling down.[4]

Commentary

Our date for the fall of Jericho is 1406.  This fits perfectly with the claim that the city fell in the late Bronze Age and remained unoccupied during the Iron Age.  This would include the period from 1425 to1400 and afterward for centuries.[5]

However, Kathleen Kenyon[6] dates the fall of the Bronze Age site to 1550.  Since this date was confirmed as 1573 by 14C methods, this is the date with which we shall have to contend.  Since this date is 167 years earlier than our date of 1406, we cannot pass over this without comment.[7]

If the Kenyon and 14C dates will stand, we are left with some ugly choices.  a. We have failed to find Joshua’s Jericho: it is most likely gone, beyond recovery.  There is no remaining evidence for Joshua’s entry into the Promised Land.  b. There is a considerable dating error in the Bible: an error of roughly 167 years.  c. There is no invasion by Joshua, and therefore no Exodus.

Kenyon’s method of narrow trench excavation is instrumental in exposing and dating layering, for which it has proved to be a superior method.  Its weakness is that it does not manage sufficiently large areas in an orderly and scientific way.  So important datable artifacts may be missed, until much further area excavation can recover them.  Broader excavation may provide a slightly different story.  We are left with a puzzle, and in the words of Amnon Ben-Tor, “Who else could have done it?”  Joshua (or rather Yahweh) is guilty of destroying Jericho, until he (He) is proved innocent.

The work of Bryant G. Wood[8], specifically contests and contradicts the 1550 date held by Kenyon, and the 1573 date produced by 14C methods.  Since Wood’s views are generally rejected we shall be compelled to examine the 14C results directly.

“In 1995 Hendrik J. Bruins and Johannes van der Plicht used a high precision radiocarbon dating test on 18 samples from Jericho, including six samples of carbonized cereal from the burnt stratum. The results of these tests gave the age of the strata as 1562 BC, with a margin of error of 38 years. These results therefore confirm Kenyon's estimate and cast doubt on the biblical story.”[9]

In other words after correction with the 2004 calibration scale:

“In 1995, Bruins and van der Plicht announced radiocarbon dating of the city destruction to between 1617 and 1530 BC, agreeing with Kenyon.”[10]

And again:

“Bruins, HJ and van der Plicht, J (1995).  Tell es-Sultan (Jericho): Radiocarbon results of short-lived cereal and multiyear charcoal samples from the end of the Middle Bronze Age, Radiocarbon Vol. 37, pp. 213-220.  A radiocarbon date of 3306 ± 7 BP was obtained for grains probably remaining from the final few years.  This corresponds to a date range (2 sigma) of 1617-1530 BC by the 2004 calibration scale.”[11]

This is more than a bit confusing, so let us hunt down and examine the original data if we can.


The half-life of 14C is 5,730 ± 40 years.  Using the standard of the Margin of Error at a 95% confidence interval, we take this to mean a standard deviation of 10: which gives the error calculation, the benefit of the doubt.  This must be added to the measurement error by vector addition.[12]  For the purposes of this analysis we have neglected this error.  Other errors may also be involved.

 

Bruins, HJ and van der Plicht, J (1995). 
No.
Lab no.
14C date
(yr BP)
σ
min at
95%
max at
95%
1
GrN-18539
3,312
14
3,284
3,340
2
GrN-18542
3,288
20
3,248
3,328
3
GrN-18543
3,331
18
3,295
3,367
4
GrN-18544
3,312
15
3,282
3,342
5
GrN-19063
3,240
18
3,204
3,276
6
GrN-19064
3,375
25
3,325
3,425
7
GrN-18363
3,365
25
3,315
3,415
8
GrN-18365
3,360
25
3,310
3,410
9
GrN-18367
3,350
20
3,310
3,390
10
GrN-18368
3,393
17
3,359
3,427
11
GrN-18370
3,380
25
3,330
3,430
12
GrN-18536
3,342
17
3,308
3,376
13
GrN-18537
3,384
15
3,354
3,414
14
GrN-19068
3,350
16
3,318
3,382
15
GrN-19223
3,388
16
3,356
3,420
16
GrN-18538
3,614
20
3,574
3,654
17
GrN-18721
3,385
20
3,345
3,425
18
GrN-18722
3,368
17
3,334
3,402

In this table we calculated the confidence interval for each sample at 95%, which is the same as ± 2 σ.

 

INTCAL 13 "wiggles"
0
200
400
No.
Lab no.
14C date   (yr BP)
min
wiggles
mean
wiggles
max
wiggles
1
GrN-18539
3,312
3,284
3,512
3,740
2
GrN-18542
3,288
3,248
3,488
3,728
3
GrN-18543
3,331
3,295
3,531
3,767
4
GrN-18544
3,312
3,282
3,512
3,742
5
GrN-19063
3,240
3,204
3,440
3,676
6
GrN-19064
3,375
3,325
3,575
3,825
7
GrN-18363
3,365
3,315
3,565
3,815
8
GrN-18365
3,360
3,310
3,560
3,810
9
GrN-18367
3,350
3,310
3,550
3,790
10
GrN-18368
3,393
3,359
3,593
3,827
11
GrN-18370
3,380
3,330
3,580
3,830
12
GrN-18536
3,342
3,308
3,542
3,776
13
GrN-18537
3,384
3,354
3,584
3,814
14
GrN-19068
3,350
3,318
3,550
3,782
15
GrN-19223
3,388
3,356
3,588
3,820
16
GrN-18538
3,614
3,574
3,814
4,054
17
GrN-18721
3,385
3,345
3,585
3,825
18
GrN-18722
3,368
3,334
3,568
3,802

In this table we applied the wiggle correction from:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/Radiocarbon_calibration_error_and_measurement_error.png

Because the INTCAL 13 curve is difficult to read and because anything above 3300 is off the chart we chose a fixed error of 200 for the mean wiggle.  We chose this in preference to a percentage of error, because the slope of the graph has so radically changed in this area.  This slope is quite horizontal and does not line up with the slope of the curve running through (3100, 2940).  We estimated the min and max wiggle by observing that similar curves have a wiggle span of about 400 years.  The min wiggle of 0 was added to the lower confidence limit.  The mean wiggle of 200 was added to the mean data point.  The max wiggle of 400 was added to the upper confidence limit.

 

BC standard wiggled dates
Base year
1950
No.
Lab no.
14C date   (yr BP)
min
date
mean
date
max
date
1
GrN-18539
3,312
1334
1562
1790
2
GrN-18542
3,288
1298
1538
1778
3
GrN-18543
3,331
1345
1581
1817
4
GrN-18544
3,312
1332
1562
1792
5
GrN-19063
3,240
1254
1490
1726
6
GrN-19064
3,375
1375
1625
1875
7
GrN-18363
3,365
1365
1615
1865
8
GrN-18365
3,360
1360
1610
1860
9
GrN-18367
3,350
1360
1600
1840
10
GrN-18368
3,393
1409
1643
1877
11
GrN-18370
3,380
1380
1630
1880
12
GrN-18536
3,342
1358
1592
1826
13
GrN-18537
3,384
1404
1634
1864
14
GrN-19068
3,350
1368
1600
1832
15
GrN-19223
3,388
1406
1638
1870
16
GrN-18538
3,614
1624
1864
2104
17
GrN-18721
3,385
1395
1635
1875
18
GrN-18722
3,368
1384
1618
1852

In this table we calculated the BC date by subtracting 1950 from each wiggle calculation in the previous table.  We realize that there is an error of 1 year in this calculation, because the standard calendars have no zero year.  This error is a nuisance to track and does not change the outcome.  In a matrix involving errors of 100 years or more, 1 is simply not a significant figure.

Finally, our biblical date for a 1406 fall of Jericho was compared to the BC standard wiggle date data table.  In only one case does the 1406 date fall outside of the 95% confidence interval as calibrated.  From the law of large numbers and the central limit theorem, we conclude that the null hypothesis was not disproved.  1406 does not fall outside of the 95% confidence interval in 17 of 18 instances.  Therefore, on the basis of this data alone there is no good statistical reason to reject 1406 as a reliable date for Jericho.  Moreover, as other causes of error are considered the confidence in 1406 can only increase.  This seems to indicate that Kathleen Kenyon made an error in judgment.[13]

Observing from the angle of averages and grouped averages we get the following results.  For grains an average of 3310 ± 18, a 95% confidence interval of 3,273-3,510, and wiggled dates of 1796-1323.  For charcoal an average of 3,390 ± 19, a 95% confidence interval of 3,351-3,429, and wiggled dates of 1879-1401.  For the overall statistics we get an average of 3363 ± 19, a 95% confidence interval of 3,325-3,401, and wiggled dates of 1851-1375.  These figures do not correspond exactly to the commonly reported numbers of 3306 ± 7 for grains.  The commonly reported range of 1617-1530 is simply miles from our calculation.  Granted, we used the INTCAL 13 calibration scale rather than the 2004 calibration scale.  The numbers commonly reported may reflect typographical or other editorial errors.  Nevertheless, these wide divergences indicate that perfection of 14C dating, its statistical implications, and understanding still have a long way to go.[14]

On the other hand, our mean date is still 1613, 207 away from 1406, which may demonstrate that Joshua’s Jericho has not yet been found, at least not at the Tell es-Sultan, City-IV destruction layer.  If the Kenyon, Bruins, Mook, et al theory that this is due to an “Egyptian army at the beginning of Dynasty XVIII” holds water; then the destruction under Joshua may have been so complete that any evidence of rebuilding circa 1613, up to 1406 was completely obliterated, which opens up the possibility that both destructions could be historically accurate.  On the other hand stronger 1406 evidence could be located a few yards away.[15]

Conclusion

The generic comment about “well-fortified city-states, each with its own king” is true, but fundamentally irrelevant to Jericho.  It does introduce the general nature of Canaanite government and social structure.  It is equally true that the Canaanites had strong alliances with Egypt from antiquity: this is supported by the Table of Nations.  It is less true that the Canaanites worshiped many Gods: as a whole this may be true; but each individual city-state seemed more focused on a single deistic pair.

The Bible’s Buried Secrets will develop the idea of Joshua’s so-called blitzkrieg later.  In the process of contrasting Joshua with the Nazis, the idea gets greatly exaggerated.

Our real complaint in this section is with the way that archaeology and statistics are handled.  Too much research is avoided as if it were trivial.  When we examine the archaeological and statistical information ourselves, it appears to contain reporting errors.  We conclude that there is at present no good archaeological or statistical reason to reject the biblical claim that Joshua entered the Promised Land in 1406, and Yahweh caused the fall of Jericho at that time.  Neither, is there any archaeological or statistical proof that Garstang’s Jericho is not that same city.  Doubts have been raised, but no proofs are possible.



[1] What is for the most part an exact copy of the script follows.  There are a few places where individual speakers could neither be heard nor understood: for this we apologize.  Every effort was made to be precise: there were just spots that defeated us.  Since this is a quote in its entirety it seemed unnecessary to mark it with quotation marks.  The notation for each speaker is tedious enough: Narrator, Reader, etc.  If you discover bothersome errors please reply to this Blog and point them out.  You may verify the script more easily by starting to replay it where the “time” stamps indicate discussion begins.  The second of these links is free from advertising and thus easier to use.
This blog is found at:
http://swantec-oti.blogspot.com/
[2] John Garstang (1876-1956), a British archaeologist.  Works: various Roman sites (1897-1914), Ashkelon (1920), Tell es-Sultan (1930, Garstang’s Jericho).  Garstang earned himself a reputation for less than meticulous work.  In part, this is what subjects his dates to correction by Kenyon.  Had the Garstang work been conducted in a more orderly manner, the evidence from his work may not have escaped us.
[3] We are not even sure that Garstang’s Jericho is Joshua’s Jericho.
“Archaeologists have unearthed the remains of more than 20 successive settlements in Jericho.”
We will focus on the Bronze Age and Iron Age settlements.
“Jericho … was destroyed in the Late Bronze, after which it no longer served as an urban [center].”
“Tel es-Sultan remained unoccupied from the end of the 15th to the 10th-9th centuries BCE, when the city was rebuilt.”
This is adduced to prove that there is no Exodus; that the roots of the Israelites are found in the indigenous Canaanite population.
[4] The Bible’s Buried Secrets reveals a conspicuous absence of intellectual honesty in limiting this discussion to Garstang.
[6] Dame Kathleen Mary Kenyon (1906-1978), a British archaeologist.  Works: Zimbabwe (1929), Verulamium (1930-1935), Samaria (1931-1934), Jewry Wall (1934), Southwark, The Wrekin, Shropshire, elsewhere in Britain, Sabratha, West Bank (1951), Jericho (1952-1958), Jerusalem (1961-1967).  In terms of the volume of work, she may be the most impressive biblical archaeologist since Sir Flinders Petrie.  That being said, as the article points out, her methods are not without weak points.
[8] Bryant G. Wood (biographical dates were not found), an American mechanical engineer and archaeologist.  Works: pottery dating, Kirbet el-Maqatir.
[10] This source was inadvertently misplaced and cannot be found.
[11] This source was also inadvertently misplaced and cannot be found.  We will correct this defect from new sources, and attempt to analyze the raw data from scratch.  14C methods are improved every year; better calibration curves and methods are developed; the data has been subjected to additional analysis and peer review.  We are a long way from the last word in this technology.
[12] You can do this graphically.  Lay out one error on the horizontal.  Lay out the other error on the vertical, at perfect right angles to the first error.  Measure the distance across the tips (the hypotenuse) of the triangle that is formed.
[16] If you have been blessed or helped by any of these meditations, please repost, share, or use any of them as you wish.  No rights are reserved.  They are designed and intended for your free participation.  They were freely received, and are freely given.  No other permission is required for their use.
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)