Lars Wilson
2008-01-26 04:02:21 UTC
Here is a brief general reference regarding "density of strata" problems
with the theories of Finkelstein, et al:
""The density of strata argument, raised by Mazar (1997: 163) and Ben-Tor
(2000). If the date of 10th-century BCE strata is lowered to the early 9th
century, too many strata are left in northern Israel for the relatively
short period of time until the Assyrian takeover in 732 BCE. There are
several answers to this argument: first, the traditional dating does the
same to earlier strata; second, the number of strata depends on the quality
of excavations; third, the history of border sites (such as Hazor-the
subject of Ben-Tor's complaint) was more turbulent then that of inland sites
(such as Megiddo)."
Both sides of the argument for Low and High Chronology claim there are
strata density problems. Case in point, Israel Finkelstein clearly notes
that the Philistine pottery period reaches "well into the 10th century BCE."
This conflicts with David following on the heels of that pottery period when
he is dated from 1010-970 BCE. One solution is to end the Philistine
pottery period earlier c. 1010 BCE, but Finkelstein would claim "density of
strata" for this period.
On the other end "density of strata" is charged against Finkelstein for his
solution for Low Chronology when he assigns Megiddo strata VA-IVB and Rehov
City IV to an invasion by Hazeal c. 835 BCE, rather than 925 BCE by Shishak.
Here is an explanation of what is occurring.
Basically, the conventional chronology for the Assyrian Period is set by the
Assyrian Eponym. There are about 249 years from the battle of Qarqar to the
beginning end of the Assyrian Period (853-604BCE). Likewise the
conventional dating now in place from the end of the Assyrian Period to
Shishak's invasion in 925 BCE is 321 years.
The 321 years is "relative" chronology. When Israel Finkelstein moves the
relative chronology normally assigned to Shishak from 925 BCE to 835 BCE and
assigned to Hazeal, he is moving that specific strata down in time 90 years!
That is, Finkelstein is removing 90 years from the 321 years, reducing that
period from 321 years to 231 years! This makes the various strata which
had fit rather comfortably over the 321-year period rather dense when
squeezed into a period some 90 years later.
DENSITY PROBLEMS RESOLVED BY RC14 AND GREEK HISTORY CORRECTION: However,
the "strata density" issue disappears completely when you combine RC14 from
Rehov and a corrected Greek timeline. Howso? Because when you correct the
Greek timeline, the eclipse used to date the entire Assyrian Period changes
from 763 BCE to 709 BCE. That means Shishak's invasion in 925 BCE drops
down to 871 BCE, but the same 321-year interval remains in place. There is
no "strata density" issues for the Assyrian Period.
Likewise, once David's reign is moved down from 1010 to 950 BCE by this same
adjustment, there is no "strata density" issue for that period either, since
the Philistine pottery period can indeed easily extend "well into the 10th
century BCE" (1000-975BCE) without any conflict with David.
Therefore, again, there is really no *archaeological* issue going on here,
just a chronology issue, but one that cannot be solved unless it is
understood by archaeologists that the discrepancy of about 54 years that
they are seeing when comparing the absolute dating from stratigraphy and
RC14 compared to the timeline, are extra years added by the Greeks during
the reign of Artaxerxes II.
Xenophon, who edited Thudycides, added 30 years between the two wars
(Persian and Peloponnesian) and moved an eclipse event beginning the PPW
from 402 to 431 BCE. This added 28 additional fake years to the Greek
timeline, a total of 58 years. This pushed back events in time by 58
years, but when the Battle of Salamis, which occurred at the time of Xerxes'
invasion ended up in 482 BCE, which was a non-Olympic year, it got adjusted
down to 480 BCE where it is now. That reduced the gross 58-year expansion
down to 56 years.
This, in turn, impacted the dating of the Neo-Babylonian Period, also
distorted by these 56 years. The VAT4956, though, confirms a 57-year
distortion for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar. This is likely due to the
reduction of Nebuchadnezzar's reign by 1 year since the events occurring
during his accession year were combined with his first first year events in
the revised "Babylonian Chornicle" which itself notes it was copied in the
22nd year of Darius (II), likely shortly after the death of Artaxerxes I
(father of Darius II). The VAT4956, created much later during the Seleucid
Period, hides the references to the original chronology in a text that was
made to reflect the new chronology for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar in 568 BCE.
It was a "hide in plain sight" tactic where the 511 BCE references appear as
errors of several hours for two lunar observations in Lines 3 and 14. The
casual reader would ignore the "errors" but when critically examined, they
point to the same lunar cycle and year of 511 BCE. The references are too
technical and astrocorrect to have been an unintentional error. This
confirms the original dating for the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. This
57-year distortion became a 54-year distortion when the 763 BCE eclipse was
substituted for the "Simanu" (month 3) eclipse of 709 BCE. Thus the entire
Assyrian Period and Shishak's invasion which is based on this fixed dating
is 54 years too early. Shishak's invasion is dated to 925 BCE.
But as noted, when archaeologists digging in various places and using RC14
dating to assist them were able to improve upon the timeline for this
period, then it was clear the buildings associated with Solomon and the
destruction associated with Shishak was occurring much later. However,
precisely 54 years later! When grain samples from Rehov's destructive
level City IV were tested, they pointed to the highest probability c. 871
BCE. This is the level associated with Shishak's invasion. When the
timeline is corrected and the 709 BCE eclipse is replaced to date the
Assyrian Period, then Shishak's invasion in 925 BCE drops down to 871 BCE,
precisely to where the probability RC14 testing is pointing.
CONCLUSION: The improvement in RC14 technique and pottery dating have
become specific enough to effectively show up the 54-year distortion
resulting from Greek Period revisions. Therefore, has little to do with
actual archaeology, but historical revisionism and not recognizing this.
Thus once an effective dismissal of Xenophon and his revisions takes place
by scholars dealing with the Classical Greek Period, then the extra years
will automatically be removed. Xerxes and Artaxerxes will be confirmed to
be the same king, as the Bible has always indicated, and the NB and Assyrian
tiemlines will be readjusted by astronomical texts, dropping Shishak's
invasion to the RC14-correct time of 871 BCE. All the while, though, the
Egyptian timeline and the fall of Jericho will remain dated where they
already are, as they were not affected by the Greek Period revisions.
Those additional 54 years only affect chronology back to the time of
Shishak. Between Shishak and the 18th and 19th Dynasties there is a break
in the Egyptian timeline. Thus the earlier Dynasties are dated based upon
stratigraphy and RC14 dating rather than a fixed historical timeline based
on an eclipse, as the Assyrian through the Persian Period timeline is. Only
now we have corrected eclipses and astronomical data to restore the original
timeline.
Lars
(New!) Corrected Timeline Outline:
http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/709guide.html
with the theories of Finkelstein, et al:
""The density of strata argument, raised by Mazar (1997: 163) and Ben-Tor
(2000). If the date of 10th-century BCE strata is lowered to the early 9th
century, too many strata are left in northern Israel for the relatively
short period of time until the Assyrian takeover in 732 BCE. There are
several answers to this argument: first, the traditional dating does the
same to earlier strata; second, the number of strata depends on the quality
of excavations; third, the history of border sites (such as Hazor-the
subject of Ben-Tor's complaint) was more turbulent then that of inland sites
(such as Megiddo)."
Both sides of the argument for Low and High Chronology claim there are
strata density problems. Case in point, Israel Finkelstein clearly notes
that the Philistine pottery period reaches "well into the 10th century BCE."
This conflicts with David following on the heels of that pottery period when
he is dated from 1010-970 BCE. One solution is to end the Philistine
pottery period earlier c. 1010 BCE, but Finkelstein would claim "density of
strata" for this period.
On the other end "density of strata" is charged against Finkelstein for his
solution for Low Chronology when he assigns Megiddo strata VA-IVB and Rehov
City IV to an invasion by Hazeal c. 835 BCE, rather than 925 BCE by Shishak.
Here is an explanation of what is occurring.
Basically, the conventional chronology for the Assyrian Period is set by the
Assyrian Eponym. There are about 249 years from the battle of Qarqar to the
beginning end of the Assyrian Period (853-604BCE). Likewise the
conventional dating now in place from the end of the Assyrian Period to
Shishak's invasion in 925 BCE is 321 years.
The 321 years is "relative" chronology. When Israel Finkelstein moves the
relative chronology normally assigned to Shishak from 925 BCE to 835 BCE and
assigned to Hazeal, he is moving that specific strata down in time 90 years!
That is, Finkelstein is removing 90 years from the 321 years, reducing that
period from 321 years to 231 years! This makes the various strata which
had fit rather comfortably over the 321-year period rather dense when
squeezed into a period some 90 years later.
DENSITY PROBLEMS RESOLVED BY RC14 AND GREEK HISTORY CORRECTION: However,
the "strata density" issue disappears completely when you combine RC14 from
Rehov and a corrected Greek timeline. Howso? Because when you correct the
Greek timeline, the eclipse used to date the entire Assyrian Period changes
from 763 BCE to 709 BCE. That means Shishak's invasion in 925 BCE drops
down to 871 BCE, but the same 321-year interval remains in place. There is
no "strata density" issues for the Assyrian Period.
Likewise, once David's reign is moved down from 1010 to 950 BCE by this same
adjustment, there is no "strata density" issue for that period either, since
the Philistine pottery period can indeed easily extend "well into the 10th
century BCE" (1000-975BCE) without any conflict with David.
Therefore, again, there is really no *archaeological* issue going on here,
just a chronology issue, but one that cannot be solved unless it is
understood by archaeologists that the discrepancy of about 54 years that
they are seeing when comparing the absolute dating from stratigraphy and
RC14 compared to the timeline, are extra years added by the Greeks during
the reign of Artaxerxes II.
Xenophon, who edited Thudycides, added 30 years between the two wars
(Persian and Peloponnesian) and moved an eclipse event beginning the PPW
from 402 to 431 BCE. This added 28 additional fake years to the Greek
timeline, a total of 58 years. This pushed back events in time by 58
years, but when the Battle of Salamis, which occurred at the time of Xerxes'
invasion ended up in 482 BCE, which was a non-Olympic year, it got adjusted
down to 480 BCE where it is now. That reduced the gross 58-year expansion
down to 56 years.
This, in turn, impacted the dating of the Neo-Babylonian Period, also
distorted by these 56 years. The VAT4956, though, confirms a 57-year
distortion for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar. This is likely due to the
reduction of Nebuchadnezzar's reign by 1 year since the events occurring
during his accession year were combined with his first first year events in
the revised "Babylonian Chornicle" which itself notes it was copied in the
22nd year of Darius (II), likely shortly after the death of Artaxerxes I
(father of Darius II). The VAT4956, created much later during the Seleucid
Period, hides the references to the original chronology in a text that was
made to reflect the new chronology for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar in 568 BCE.
It was a "hide in plain sight" tactic where the 511 BCE references appear as
errors of several hours for two lunar observations in Lines 3 and 14. The
casual reader would ignore the "errors" but when critically examined, they
point to the same lunar cycle and year of 511 BCE. The references are too
technical and astrocorrect to have been an unintentional error. This
confirms the original dating for the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. This
57-year distortion became a 54-year distortion when the 763 BCE eclipse was
substituted for the "Simanu" (month 3) eclipse of 709 BCE. Thus the entire
Assyrian Period and Shishak's invasion which is based on this fixed dating
is 54 years too early. Shishak's invasion is dated to 925 BCE.
But as noted, when archaeologists digging in various places and using RC14
dating to assist them were able to improve upon the timeline for this
period, then it was clear the buildings associated with Solomon and the
destruction associated with Shishak was occurring much later. However,
precisely 54 years later! When grain samples from Rehov's destructive
level City IV were tested, they pointed to the highest probability c. 871
BCE. This is the level associated with Shishak's invasion. When the
timeline is corrected and the 709 BCE eclipse is replaced to date the
Assyrian Period, then Shishak's invasion in 925 BCE drops down to 871 BCE,
precisely to where the probability RC14 testing is pointing.
CONCLUSION: The improvement in RC14 technique and pottery dating have
become specific enough to effectively show up the 54-year distortion
resulting from Greek Period revisions. Therefore, has little to do with
actual archaeology, but historical revisionism and not recognizing this.
Thus once an effective dismissal of Xenophon and his revisions takes place
by scholars dealing with the Classical Greek Period, then the extra years
will automatically be removed. Xerxes and Artaxerxes will be confirmed to
be the same king, as the Bible has always indicated, and the NB and Assyrian
tiemlines will be readjusted by astronomical texts, dropping Shishak's
invasion to the RC14-correct time of 871 BCE. All the while, though, the
Egyptian timeline and the fall of Jericho will remain dated where they
already are, as they were not affected by the Greek Period revisions.
Those additional 54 years only affect chronology back to the time of
Shishak. Between Shishak and the 18th and 19th Dynasties there is a break
in the Egyptian timeline. Thus the earlier Dynasties are dated based upon
stratigraphy and RC14 dating rather than a fixed historical timeline based
on an eclipse, as the Assyrian through the Persian Period timeline is. Only
now we have corrected eclipses and astronomical data to restore the original
timeline.
Lars
(New!) Corrected Timeline Outline:
http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/709guide.html
