Talk:Jericho/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Confusion Around "Oldest city"

We have two links within the first few paragraphs of this article to another article called "List of oldest continuously inhabited cities" and yet the page we link to does not contain Jericho as an entry. One of two things needs to happen: 1) the "List of oldest continuously inhabited cities" needs to be updated to include Jericho as an entry, or 2) The link needs to be removed. If option 2 is selected, I think it's important to remove the second link as it's redundant to say "Jericho is believed to be one of the oldest continuously-inhabited cities in the world" in two different paragraphs and citing two different footnotes. I don't know enough about the subject to make these edits myself but felt they should be brought to attention to be resolved.Deleteyourself16 (talk) 13:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It's troubling....The history section of the article currently says that The Canaanite city (Jericho City IV) was destroyed c.1550 BC, and the site remained uninhabited until the city was refounded in the 9th century BC.--if that's true, I don't see how it qualifies as "continuously inhabited" except since the 9th century BC--which would not be enough to put it in the running for oldest city. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The last Canaanite city city (city iv) was destroyed in the late bronze i period. The date of this period is greatly disputed across all ancient near eastern archaeology and history, with archaeologists and historians placing the period much lower than those who preform radio carbon studies. It is a very well known and document issue with rc dating that materials in this period from all over the ANE produce inconsistent results. So, Bronk Ramsey produced an example of a date of short lived grains from Anatolia burned in Theran ash that dates over 100 years earlier than short lived grass materials from the reign of Hatshepsut (who ruled Egypt when Thera erupted) that were also associated with Theran ash. Until RC can produce a more reliable result, it's not a precise enough measure for dating Bronze Age remains. After the destruction of city 4, an administrative building was built on the tell. Those who choose to use the biblical narrative in interpreting the site would identify this building as the palace of the Edomite King Eglon which was described as being built on the site after the city was burned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.239.16.46 (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

So not 11000 years old? All references from [7-15] seem to state 9000 BC but article states 11000 to 9000 BC. AndresMP.wiki (talk) 01:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Bad link 2

Under PPNA: Pulse => Pulse (legume) Thanks. 2001:1C03:3B11:DD00:31C7:A174:1179:507 (talk) 12:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done - Tri@l (talk) 08:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Radiocarbon

Anon 108.217.108.193 is trying to question the validity of the radiocarbon dates published by Bruins and der Plicht in 1993. It is true that the 1993 paper says that the calibration curves were in the process of revision, but it does not say that "new refinements continually give younger dates". It only says that the 1993 revisions gave younger dates than the 1986 revisions, with no mention of an overall trend. These edits will mislead readers into thinking that a bible-consistent calibration of the dates in that paper might be possible. Since the calibration curves have been updated multiple times since 1993, this is not a matter of speculation but just a matter of checking. The following cannot be put into the article since it is probably on the wrong side of the NOR rule, but it does settle the issue of whether the calibration process has trended towards giving younger dates.

The calibration curves are statistical in nature and the results are usually quoted as either "1 sigma" (the most likely range), or "2 sigma" (a wider range covering less likely possibilities). Since the calibration curve wriggles up and down, it is possible for the calibrated result to have more than one contiguous period. Bruins and der Plicht give two weighted averages for the "final destruction layer" near the 17th/16th century boundary. Here are what the IntCal13 calibration curve provides for them. (IntCal13 is the 2013 calibration recommended for non-marine samples.)

Charcoal. Raw 3370±6 BP (now 3389±6 BP). Calibrated 1 sigma: 1728-1723,1692-1663 BCE; 2 sigma: 1738-1714,1695-1657,1653-1645 BCE.
Cereal. Raw 3306±7 BP (now 3325±7 BP). Calibrated 1 sigma: 1628-1612 BCE; 2 sigma: 1639-1608,1582-1559 BCE.

Bruins and der Plicht say "The age of the short-lived cereal samples is likely to be within a few years of the destruction date of the last MBA city at Tell es-Sultan." The 1 sigma dates given by the 2013 calibration curve are not younger but actually 10-20 years older than the 1993 calibration dates. So the scare quotations (and incorrect paraphrase) are misleading, as I wrote. The reference to Quaderni di Gerico that anon mentioned in an edit summary is just copied from a paper of Bryant Wood and anyway does not refer to the same samples. Zero^talk 01:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I never tried questioning the validity of the dates as of the 1993 paper - only their accuracy which the authors themselves say are not absolute for many reasons, not just the recalibration curve of 1993 or whichever year. The paper says, "The 1993 version of the bidecadal calibration curve by Pearson and Stuiver give somewhat younger ages than the 1986 calibration curve. The 1993 version of Stuiver and Becker produces considerably younger dates than their 1986 decadal calibration curve. The 1993 versions of both the bidecadal and decadal calibration curves produce similar dates, buthe 1986 versions of these two curves do not give comparable results. Calibrated dates may change with furtherefinement of both calibration curves and calculation procedures. Therefore, the uncalibrated original BP date must always be mentioned with the calibrated result." Obviously if the 1993 curve gave younger dates than the 1986 this is going to happen for other dates given by the 1986 one. Furthermore, the Italian research, not influenced by "biblically-consistent" archaeologists gave an even younger curve extending into the 14th century BC. If you feel that is misleading, I should have just stated the obvious: the more recent research tends to get, the younger the dates are for the excavation of Jericho. As far as it being "just copied" from a Bryant Wood paper, I don't see how this matters, as if this removes any of the validity of the Italian archaeologists' research. The middle 2 of your 4 paragraphs are irrelevant as you are just summarizing what the calibration curve is and what it said, a bit incorrectly. Dates of 10-20 years older is an amateurish and absurd thing to stay with any definitive certain from C14 dating 3500 years ago, and I feel like if a recalibration produces 100 years younger (1986 vs 1993), then certainly there are a lot of assumptions in the C14 dating method. No one ever uses C14 readings purely on their own and archaeologists try to correlate them with historical information as much as possible, as in this case. The pottery evidence by Bryant Wood, who for some reason you feel cannot be cited and one is making "scare quotations" if doing so, conclusively shows that there was occupation in the 15th century BC but not later. A lecture of his notes how the scarabs found at Jericho are from 15th century BC Pharaohs (Hatshepsut). Although scarabs were reused for many years after, Hatshepsut's became unpopular at the end of Thutmose III's reign, and she was censured afterwards. For a record such as Joshua to describe the ruins of Jericho so accurately, it cannot be mere coincidence unless it was accurate history. More over, I don't know where you change the 3306±7 BP to 3325±7 BP. Moreover, the authors themselves state that more evidence is needed:

It would be extremely valuable to have new sets of high-precision 14C dates from short-lived material of the Second Intermediate period and the XVIth Dynasty in Egypt, to investigate a possible Egyptian connection with the destruction of MBA Jericho. However, the problem and the extent of regional variations between calibration curves needs to be addressed. Development of a new high-precision calibration curve for the Eastern Mediterranean region would be ideal, if only the logs could be found. (p.218)

The uncalibrated original BP date must always be mentioned, because calibrated dates may change with further refinement of both calibration curves and calculation procedures. The preliminary calibration data of the destruction of Tell es-Sultan at the end of the MBA constitute valuable new chronological information, based on detailed and precise 14C measurements. More definite statements about the calibrated dates can be made only after accuracy tests of existing calibration curves and further assessment of regional variability. (p.219)

So I have no idea why you decided that the cereal dated to 3306 +/- 7 BP is now 3325. The cereal grains are assumed to be from around that time period, but 1) that could be untrue as the Italian research shows, and it could have been a previous fire that burnt them up, or other such (the charcoal dates to 64 years earlier and in one case to 300 due to such factors), or 2) The missing material they don't have could give a different date.

The archaeologist who dated the destruction of Jericho to the 16th century BC, Kathleen Kenyon, did not consider pottery ostraca. This is a problem that she has had at least in two other places: she dated some terraces found in excavations at Jerusalem to the 14th century BC, the time of the Amarna letters, whereas now a few scholars are reevaluating the structures' date to the early Iron Age, 150 years later based on, guess what: the pottery evidence (Avni and Galor. Unearthing Jerusalem (2011), pp.180, 192-193). The one time she dated something based on the pottery evidence, Level III of Lachish, she was off by 100 years again, though in the other direction (David Ussishkin. Answers at Lachish, BAR 5:06, Nov/Dec 1979).

Bruins and der Plicht say "The age of the short-lived cereal samples is likely to be within a few years of the destruction date of the last MBA city at Tell es-Sultan." The 1 sigma dates given by the 2013 calibration curve are not younger but actually 10-20 years older than the 1993 calibration dates. So the scare quotations (and incorrect paraphrase) are misleading, as I wrote. The reference to Quaderni di Gerico that anon mentioned in an edit summary is just copied from a paper of Bryant Wood and anyway does not refer to the same samples.

Well obviously these are not the same grains and the Italian ones date later, when the city was actually destroyed. Therefore, the original conclusion was possibly incorrect regarding their tested grains being within a few years of the city's destruction or being in the 16th century BC. Who is being misleading now? I suspect you simply don't understand the data you're reading and trying to assess, probably due to your blind bias.

I don't see why my scholarly citations have to be removed (Italian source), simply because for some reason you feel that Bryant Wood's sources he cited are not admissible, or that I have been "discovered" just "copying" him (what you said: The reference to Quaderni di Gerico that anon mentioned in an edit summary is just copied from a paper of Bryant Wood and anyway does not refer to the same samples. - in other words "he just copied Bryant Wood" - and? What is the problem? Your references are "just copied" from the Calibration article (and badly at that) plus your own imagination (and faulty interpretation). Why does it have to be the same sample?). So please feel free to remove any "misleading data" and biblical connections in archaeology that you don't seem to like. There are many, few of them stated on wikipedia, probably because of people like you who seem to have a problem with it and people "copying" conservative archaeologists' citations such as Bryant Wood's. In light of this, I'm going to add the findings of the Quaderni di Gerico and let the readers judge for themselves and not have a one-sided discussion.108.217.108.193 (talk) 01:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me of this discussion, since I recently realised that the results of the IntCal13 calibration that I gave before were incorrect. (This is why we don't allow OR into articles.) Here are a revised set of numbers:

Charcoal. Raw 3370±6 BP. Calibrated 1 sigma: 1682–1673,1667–1642 BCE; 2 sigma: 1688–1630 BCE.
Cereal. Raw 3306±7 BP. Calibrated 1 sigma: 1616–1606,1583–1558,1553-1546 BCE; 2 sigma: 1620-1599,1586-1533 BCE.

These ranges are hardly any different from those given by Bruins and der Plicht (1995). Now regarding the "Italian samples", the reason that Wood's claims about them should not just be copied is that Wood's letter to BAR was an obvious polemic with a non-archaeological motive. The best approach, as usual, is to consult the original source. So we get a copy of Quaderni di Gerico Vol. 2 (2000), editors Nicolò Marchetti and Lorenzo Nigro and look at the pages Wood mentions. On pages 206–207, Marchetti writes "the first one (Rome-1776) fits the chronology of the traditional end of Middle Bronze II, towards 1650 BC, while the second one (Rome-1775) is for some reason too low". So Marchetti thinks one of the samples supports the traditional dating and the other is an outlier. To confirm this we turn to the other pages 330,332 mentioned by Bryant, where we find the technicians' report on the dating. Lombardo and Pilotto write there "On the contrary, samples Rome-1175 and Rome-1176 (1432-1262 and 1688-1506 cal. yrs BC, respectively aged), also collected from the same level in Area A, are not coeval; furthermore while the second is coherent with the archaeological context from which both the samples come from (Middle Bronze Age II, 1800-1650 yr BC circa; Marchetti, Nigro 1998), the first shows a younger age. Subsequently we may suppose at first glance, that a contamination by a younger organic material has taken place, but to explain correctly this data we think necessary to increase the measurements on new samples from the same level." So they also think the young one is suspicious. Incidentally, there have by now been at least 5 additional seasons of excavation by the Italian team at the site. Nigro's opinion (check his papers at academia.edu) remains that a reduction in the size of the city occurred around 1650 BCE and complete destruction around 1550 BCE. It is not true that the accepted dates keep getting younger. It may be ok to quote a qualified person stating a different opinion, but it isn't ok to quote someone claiming support from a source that doesn't provide support, and even less ok to silently quote an intermediate source making such a false claim. Zero^talk 05:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It is true, the 2013 dates do not diverge in any significant way from the 1993 ones. However the assumptions that are used could certainly use fine tuning as the authors of the 1993 article themselves state. I wouldn't care if the ancient trees they find and use to recalibrate happen to support a date in 1550 BC or 15,000 BC, but I do care that Kenyon's opinion is so universally accepted when she has been often so wrong, especially without said trees. Moreover, it is perhaps possible that the section of the wall tested was one that was torn down earlier for a new to be rebuilt, if I'm reading correctly this link: http://www.academia.edu/7322013/MB_III_Rampart_and_Cyclopean_Wall_of_Tell_es-Sultan_Jericho .

As for Bryant Wood having a "polemical motive," I feel that's a bit of a move beyond OR and one that goes straight into just ad hominems: one can have a vested interest in something and still be correct (examples include heuristic discoveries like Max Planck's). You shouldn't discount a pottery expert's opinion just because of suspicions of an agenda. Also, his citation of the Italian journal is not his only evidence at all, but only one piece of independent confirmation that I was citing, so I don't believe I was guilty of quoting "someone claiming support from a source that doesn't provide support, and even less ok to silently quote an intermediate source making such a false claim". Pottery analysis is what has corrected Kenyon at least twice by 100-200 years, and the many archaeologists since Kenyon who have agreed with her on Jericho have done so because they were generally following her findings which were limited (she didn't excavate much). This Italian team clearly will not go against the flow because of this same trend so quoting the opinion and reinterpretation of the evidence serves nothing but the very polemic you detest (which if you think is absent in archaeology, you will find is not the case 99% of the time). These grains are specifically said to be short-lived by the 1993 article so how some "younger" material found its way on the same level at a site that was abandoned for hundreds of years (which would make it a mound and not on the same level) is not to be explained away with the magic wand of their editors' "somehow some younger material appeared". I can see how OLDER material can contaminate a sample, like the 3600+ BP charcoal sample of the 1993 analysis, but not younger, unless the sample or someone carrying it had a time machine. So maybe those C14 dating methods do need some calibration after all. At any rate, I earnestly await this Italian excavation's results and may they find the truth with those (apparently priceless) burned grains. 108.217.108.193 (talk) 08:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly, I unwittingly found an article that points out the very issue I was talking about. From the 15th century BC and earlier, at least in some places, there is a Radiocarbon error of 100-150 years regarding Egyptian chronology, and basically impacts the whole of that area: http://www.academia.edu/226890/Bietak_M._and_F._H%C3%B6flmayer._2007._Introduction_High_and_Low_Chronology._In_The_Synchronisation_of_Civilisations_in_the_Eastern_Mediterranean_in_the_Second_Millennium_B.C._III_edited_by_M._Bietak_and_E._Czerny_13_23._CChEM_9._Wien._Verlag_der_%C3%96sterreichischen_Akademie_der_Wissenschaften . It concludes with this very interesting and important for our purposes observation:

In summation, the agreement between C14 and historical chronology in the 14th century and the sharp rise of an offset a century earlier of up to 100 to 150 years as well as in the preceding centuries only shows that the calibrated radiocarbon dates present-ed by Manning, Bronk Ramsey et al. cannot be considered as a series of chronometric precision, but as a series where the precision seems to deviate considerably from the 15th century backwards. This conclusion is the more cogent one as within the historical chronology of the 18th Dynasty with its dense network of regnal and genealogical data nobody could claim that a mistake of more than 100 years could have mounted up from the Amarna period to the early Tuthmosides (within a century). Under such auspices, one has to ask if it would not be worthwhile to investigate if a systemic failure in the Mediterranean C14 evaluation could be discovered,or if the absorption of C14 was, for environmental reasons, different from the 15th century BC backwards. Probably, we do not know enough about what may affect radiocarbon and its evaluation process. For this reason it, would be very important to close the gaps in Anatolian dendrochronology and to do the same with the cedar tree from Lebanon. Such new standards could be used to build up regional calibration. [p.20]

Of course, I don't expect this to be allowed to be reflected in the main article, so may the fortunate reader who casually stumbles here be informed.2602:306:CD96:CC10:5081:3D56:21F4:1F06 (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

(1) You aren't allowed to copy citations from intermediate sources without acknowledging the intermediate source. This is Wikipedia policy, end of story. (2) This article is not about radiocarbon but about Jericho, so general material about dating is not admissible. (3) In archaeology it is perfectly common for strata to be contaminated with younger material. All it needs is for a human or an animal to dig a hole, which both humans and animals do all the time. New plants send down roots into older soil. Etc, Etc.. Your comments about that are factually incorrect. Zero^talk 09:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Zero0000. Right on all counts. Dougweller (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

(1) What are you talking about - I've cited all my sources. (2) The article I cited above pertains to Jericho as it is in the part of the Mediterranean that it talks about. Did you not know Jericho is in the Mediterranean/Middle East? (3) In archaeology, younger material can certainly contaminate but in this case, we'd have to have a second destruction of the city around the time to explain the burnt grain, which by the way is obviously part of the first destruction. Not only that, but it's special pleading and a human/animal digging a hole and a burnt grain finding its way there is simply an ad hoc explanation. Not only are my comments not factually incorrect, but make much better sense than your ignorant and prejudicial views, which conveniently ignore the above evidence cited. Until you deal with the evidence cited above, you should refrain from making one-paragraph blanket responses that have no substance. Anyone with a touch of objectivity would have agreed that the above-mentioned evidence not only has merit to be included in the article (which it most certainly does), but ought to. Since you are obviously too ignorant for this, I'm going to enter this information as it rightfully belongs in a (supposedly) neutral encyclopedia and remove all of your censorship whenever you do it.

To Dougweller, feel free to contribute something of substance to the discussion instead of just tag-teaming with your comments of support.2602:306:BC37:4DA0:3865:CF06:9715:B2B9 (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Anon, what you just added is exactly why the rule WP:SYNTH exists. If there is properly qualified literature about dating in Jericho you are welcome to introduce it. What you are not allowed to do is to apply other literature that does not mention Jericho according to your own analysis of how it applies. Such inferences have to be made by reliable sources, not by you. The source you added would be a fine addition to an article about chronology in the western Mediterranean in general, but it does not belong here. Zero^talk 02:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreeing that an editor is correct isn't tag-teaming. Zero0000 is correctly reflecting what our policy says. And I'm not ignorant about dating, stratification, etc. You're also making personal attacks and threatening to add badly sourced material. Dougweller (talk) 09:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I have already introduced properly qualified literature about the dating of Jericho in at least 3 scholarly articles, which you have rejected in a very obviously biased manner. When an article mentions the southern Mediterranean, where Jericho is found, it applies to it. These are not inferences made by me at all - read what the article actually has to say about the whole of the southern Mediterranean (the Bietak et al article). The source is also very reliable and actually mentions huge problems with Egyptian (undisputed) chronology that C14 dates create, starting from 1400 BC and earlier (again not an inference). I think the source is very relevant to Jericho, especially since it is a pretty popular item (it is not western Mediterranean - Egypt is in the Southeastern Mediterranean).

The bietak paper came from a conference on the topic of the issues with RC for MB dating. RC currently produces dates for the MB that are higher than any historian or archaeologist would accept. Jericho was indisputably destroyed (city iv) early in the reign of Amenhotep III as his scarabs are found on the mound and in graves associated. But, no historian would accept a date of 1550 for Amenhotep III. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.239.16.46 (talk) 00:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

To Dougweller: when all your comment has is: "Very good point", you are simply providing empty content messages for moral support. And don't accuse me of personal attacks as if they have no evidence. If you removed my "personal attacks", you'd be left with a lot of good evidence. If I removed you and your best friend's empty assertions, this page would be left only with my comments. Do you see the difference? The above mentioned user whom you defend accuses of the same things, but without actually providing any rationale but simply abusing their power. You shouldn't invite yourself to a conversation, especially one where you provided no relevance to the topic at hand (yes you have actually ignored dating, stratification and etc by not mentioning anything at all about our subject). Also I don't see how your empty assertion is justified in that my material is badly-sourced.

I didn't even revisit this topic for almost a year and probably wouldn't have had I not accidentally stumbled upon this a few days ago, which is obviously very relevant. So it's not like I'm looking for anything anywhere so I can include it. Since even the Talk section is being mishandled with false accusations of "irrelevance" and "badly-sourced" material, I am not going to waste my time trying to prove the obvious anymore here so that someone like you can come in and make empty assertions in tag-teaming contest and pretend via special pleading that a certain piece of FACTUAL evidence has no relevance and that the moderator abusing their power isn't biased.2602:306:CD96:CC10:8DE3:ECEF:179D:4174 (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

If the calibration process is giving younger and younger dates, then it's getting further and further away from the biblical dates.PiCo (talk) 06:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

No, the issue is that radiocarbon dates for the destruction of Jericho are older than traditional biblical chronology. Zero^talk 08:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Anon, if two editors with vastly more experience than you think that your edits are in violation of the rules, you should listen. Zero^talk 08:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

That's not the issue. The issue is that you insist on not adding relevant information to a certain topic simply because you disagree with it. Not to mention there are plenty of misleading statements such as in the link to "Battle of Jericho". As Zero stated, the younger dates go closer to 1400 BC: the original dates are at c.1550 BC +/- 50 or so years, so younger dates would push it closer to 1400 BC. Of course, the remains of the Late Bronze Age have been "washed away" by the centuries of the city being uninhabited until Ahab's time because there are tombs there yielding Mycenaean pottery (again, arguments out of pottery giving solid results) of a thirteenth century type (Albright, 'The Biblical Period' (4th ed - 1963), p.100, n.59 and in 'Bibliotheca Orientalis' 21 (1964), p.69). The rarity is due to the inland location of Jericho, like Hamath whose 13th century occupation was determined from just two potsherds. (Kitchen. Ancient Orient and Old Testament (1966), p.63, n.22). Also the usage of Middle Bronze Age ramparts by Late Bronze age inhabitants is possible (ibid, p.62, n.20), though the C14 dating, if correct would contradict that. And it's unlikely that a second wall was rebuilt 150 years later, but completely eroded, so if the wall is from 1550, then either there was no Conquest or the Exodus is to be placed in the 13th century BC.

But what really calls the whole C14 dating into question (and in addition goes against Kenyon's dating instead of supporting it), is the fact that as the Bietak article above states, undisputed Egyptian chronologies are thrown off by 100-150 years starting from 1400 BC and earlier up until around 1800 BC or so. After and before that, the C14 dates are in perfect harmony with the chronology, hence why the authors say that a reevaluation of how C14 works around that time period in the Southern Mediterranean is needed. I was personally surprised when I found this article and its conclusions. By the way, the new link to the Battle of Jericho contradicts itself in saying Kenyon demonstrated the city was deserted in the mid-13th century yet later says the site was vacant from the late 15th until the 10th/9th. Also on that page, it is misleading to say that "Kenyon...demonstrated that the destruction occurred c.1500 BCE during a well-attested Egyptian campaign of that period," as if it's known from Egyptian records that one of the first three 18th dynasty Pharaohs destroyed it. Is anyone going to take that down? Of course not. Why? The same reason they ignore the above evidence.2602:306:CD96:CC10:F4FB:A179:CD1E:4797 (talk) 08:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I removed references to the battle and added a hatnote redirecting readers to the separate article (Battle of Jericho); my thinking is that the battle is just a single incident in a long history, and moreover the overwhelming consensus is that it never happened anyway. Other than that, if you find apparent contradictions in sources, by all means mention it, but we need to stick with sources, not come up with our own analyses.PiCo (talk) 09:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I only opted to add the single sentence: "However, C14 dating has known problems in that part of the world as Bietak et al note." per the Bietak article. There is actually a lot more to add that's fact and not my own analysis (the late-dated grain is definitely one of them), but I think turtlenecks will make a comeback before anything other than that one sentence passes. I was not trying to insert my conclusions - the statement is a summary of the Bietak article that has relevant as well as very interesting information. If even that one little statement of fact above is too much, then is this web-encyclopedia is useful only for completely undisputed facts (e.g. the melting point of iron)? I only felt that people have a right to know (the point of Wikipedia), something they probably won't stumble upon by accident like I did, but that's obviously not going to happen.2602:306:CD96:CC10:F4FB:A179:CD1E:4797 (talk) 09:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I've got nothing against turtlenecks. Where's the Bietak article? PiCo (talk) 09:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for showing interest after a pretty frustrating experience. You might have to login through google or facebook but you can download the whole article for free: http://www.academia.edu/226890/Bietak_M._and_F._H%C3%B6flmayer._2007._Introduction_High_and_Low_Chronology._In_The_Synchronisation_of_Civilisations_in_the_Eastern_Mediterranean_in_the_Second_Millennium_B.C._III_edited_by_M._Bietak_and_E._Czerny_13_23._CChEM_9._Wien._Verlag_der_%C3%96sterreichischen_Akademie_der_Wissenschaften - feel free to see what's fit from it for yourself both here and in the "Battle for Jericho" page if anything - p.20 is especially noteworthy, and the results are quite unexpected :). 2602:306:CD96:CC10:F4FB:A179:CD1E:4797 (talk) 09:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I gather that the dispute is this: carbon from a volcanic eruption on Thera (Aegean island) dates the eruption to (call it X - the precise date doesn't matter). Found with the plant material that gave this result was some Cypriot pottery that's

been dated, by more traditional methods, to Y. As the Cypriot pottery is also used to date Egyptian sites, this matters - if the pottery dating is wrong, then so is the entire Egyptian chronology. Whole conferences have been held about it, and books are still being written - for a recent one, see "Radiocarbon Dating, Second Edition: An Archaeological Perspective"(2014).

I honestly don't think it's relevant to Jericho - the argument put forward by the traditional Egyptologists seems to relate specifically to the Thera dates. A volcanic eruption at Thera wouldn't effect plant material at Jericho (too far away, and relates to cereals, so that the cereal would have to have grown in the same year as the Thera event, which is unlikely). PiCo (talk) 10:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And no academic source has used this article to discuss the Battle of Jericho? Interesting. But you've been told before about WP:SYN, the paper doesn't mention the battle so it can't be used to discuss the battle. Dougweller (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct that the article seems to focus on Cyprus, thus no longer really relevant. While the paper does focus on Cypriot pottery, and more broadly the coasts of the Levant and Egypt, I do feel that the authors suggest that a general re-evaluation of C14 dating irrespective of Thera is needed (p.20 last 3 paragraphs (right column)), but nothing more can be said. It is, however, known that radiocarbon dates do produce older results by 100+ years at around this period (anywhere). This was cited by another user at the Talk:Battle of Jericho section, the source: Handbook of South American Archaeology (found at Google Books), p.xix. Dougweller dismissed this as a misunderstanding/cherry-picking but the page is abundantly clear that C14 dates are simply unreliable - Thera-related or not. Nevertheless, I suppose the Bietak article is better left unused since it seems to focus on Cyprus and a more vague Mediterranean.

To Dougweller: you'd be surprised what scholars don't know about. A good example with Babylonian cuneiform is given by Kitchen (data that supports the OT) in his Ancient Orient and Old Testament pp.24, 51. One can be forgiven for thinking that the title of "scholar" entitles one to an unerring opinion or that these issues are settled amongst the scholarly community (so J.A.T. Robinson in the introduction to his Redating the New Testament). Even in issues that aren't controversial there isn't a final word: as recently as the 1960's, the development of dendrochronology shifted entire civilizations by 1000+ years. (Just so there's no confusion Anon above is the same as me, this username).Cornelius (talk) 11:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Please, Renassault, Cornelius, IP, once again this is not a forum. See WP:FORUM. This sort of discussion doesn't belong here. Discussion of sources which mention Jericho does. Dougweller (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

This 2012 article claims to solve the problem for Egypt by identifying it as caused by poor sample selection for carbon dating. As before, Jericho is not mentioned and we are not entitled to decide for ourselves how the problem or the proposed solution apply in the case of Jericho. Until we find a reliable source that makes that judgement, the material remains SYNTH. Zero^talk 13:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. 8 years later. what do you think about this article.

Please note two things before I quote: cambridge.org and Radiocarbon (peer-reviewed) journal article:

"It is suggested here that the high chronology, dating the Middle Bronze Age between 2000 and 1600 BC is difficult to reconcile with dates from many sites. In contrast, a more localized chronology should be adopted, with the Middle Bronze Age continuing into the early 15th century BC in certain parts of the southern Levant, such as the region of Jerusalem." Cornelius (talk) 21:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)