Ancient Civilizations

[Earthling]

Which is why it's adjusted using different techniques, such as the use of tree rings. It has its limitations, which researchers always keep in mind.

The researchers do, I have no doubt, but atheists? Well, that's another story. It seems.

 

[Earthling]

The Hebrews borrowed myths and stories from all the cultures around them.

No, they didn't. And if they did it wouldn't have mattered much they did a lot of stupid things. Baal worship, sacrificing their children to fire etc.

Ras Shamra is a tel on the North Coast of Syria.. much older than any Hebrews. Called Ugarit, precursor of the Phoenicians and a very sophisticated culture.

Yahweh is the son of on of their gods.

Now according to the Ras Shamra texts who was Baal, the son of Dagon or the son of El? Both, wasn't he? All of that actually means nothing, don't you? Legends and myths mix with truth. Look at the more recent atrocious scholarship of people like Acharya S (Link) and all of the Christ Myth nonsense.

In the earliest stage Yahweh was one of the seventy children of El, each of whom was the patron deity of one of the seventy nations. This is illustrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls and Septuagint texts of Deuteronomy 32:8–9, in which El, as the head of the divine assembly, gives each member of the divine family a nation of his own, "according to the number of the divine sons": Israel is the portion of YHWH.

Dead Sea Scrolls (4QDeutj) Deuteronomy 32:8-9

"When El Elyon gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. For Yahweh's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance."

"The later Masoretic text, evidently uncomfortable with the polytheism expressed by the phrase, altered it to "according to the number of the children of Israel"."

The Bible and Interpretation

Evidently, you say! That's powerful stuff.

I think that Ernst Wurthwein had some good advice in his book The Text of the Old Testament: "When faced with a difficult passage we cannot simply gather together the various readings and select the one which seems to offer the simplest solution, at times preferring the Hebrew text, at other times the Septuagint, and yet other times the Aramaic Targum. Textual witnesses are not all equally reliable. Each has its own character and its own peculiar history. We must be familiar with these if we hope to avoid inadequate or false solutions."

 

[gnostic]

You, uh . . . you really take this sort of thing seriously don't you? This sort of thing always incites me to question. How do they come to that conclusion? How do they date this sort of thing? No other civilizations existed simultaneously with the Mesopotamian Civilization's origin? What constitutes a civilization?

Take . . . England for example. Is that a civilization? When did it start? How long did it exist before qualifying as a civilization? Is it still a civilization?

Civilizations as listed and described in sooda’s quoted article, points to periods of urbanization, hence city-states, cities, towns, where population shifted from rural villages and rural cultures to that of urban sites, such as towns and cities.

Urbanization and civilization required even greater cooperation than that of village-leveled farming cultures (Neolithic cultures and industries) or the older hunters-and-gatherers cultures (Palaeolithic cultures and industries).

Another factor in civilisation is trade. Objects made, goods, such as pottery, were often exported and imported, give indication of the levels of civilisation.

What you need to understand that human culture have longer history before civilization “happened”, so they predated metallurgy industry and predated writings.

And since writings didn’t exist in Neolithic period (10,000 - 4000 BCE), and they were scarce in the Chalcolithic period (4000 - 3150 BCE), writings became more abundant in the Bronze Age, and even more so Iron Age, they are more often than not, not writing history. Which is why archaeology is so important, when it come to learning about history before writings.

Example of the earliest writings were discovered in Uruk, which you may know as Erech (Genesis 10), as one of the cities SUPPOSEDLY BUILT by mythological Nimrod. It was archaic form of cuneiform, pre-Sumerian cuneiform; the inscriptions were found at one of the Uruk IV temples (c 3400 - c 3300 BCE).

Uruk have far longer history than the Bible (Genesis 10) give credits for, and predated the Bronze Age (which started in the Jemdet Nasr period, 3150 - 2900 BCE) by at least 2000 years. The earliest level or strata of Uruk (Uruk XVIII) was dated to around 5000 BCE, known as the Eridu period or Ubaid period (6500 - 3800 BCE).

The Roman numerals (eg Uruk XVIII, VI, IV, etc), indicated which each level of city's period of existence. Like many cities throughout the Near East, people would built their city on top of the older ones, like Ur, Damascus, Meggido and Jericho.

Jericho for example, have over 20 layers of settlement.

Anyway, back to Uruk. The oldest cuneiform writings were found in Uruk IV, in which later Sumerian cuneiform evolved from. Sumerian civilisation didn't start until around 3150 BCE, which coincide with making bronze tools, hence the start of the Bronze Age.

The Nimrod's story (Genesis 10) is a myth, because Uruk (Erech), Akkad (Accad), Babylon, Nineveh, Calch have all originated in different times in history, which datings have proved. They weren't built by one man.

Likewise, prehistoric Egypt, along with cultures predated the Bronze Age (hence before the 1st dynasty), by at least a thousand year (eg Chalcolithic Egypt, making use of copper tools, have been dated from c 4400 to c 3150 BCE).

One of the oldest cities in Egypt was Nekken. Its earliest Neolithic settlement dated to around about 4500 BCE, but it was around 3500 to 3400 BCE, that Nekken became a major city in Upper Egypt, reaching its zenith in the next two centuries (c 3300 to c 3150 BCE), when it became political capital of Upper Egypt, as well as religious capital, mostly sacred to Horus. Around 3400 BCE, there were as many as 10,000 residents in Nekken.

Nekken have artefacts that demonstrated the Egyptian culture slowly evolve from the older and more primitive culture to the more distinctive “Egyptian” quality that Egypt is known for. The evolution show the continuity of Egypt’s history was developed in stages.

The notion that Egypt didn't exist until after the Flood (see Genesis 10, where Egypt is sometimes translated to Mizraim), is not only wrong, but a myth.

Like Uruk and Nineveh, Egypt is far older than Genesis 10 gives credit for. So it is clear to me, that the author of Genesis have no idea of the history of Egypt and Mesopotamia.

 

[cladking]

Please, making false claims about others is not only against the rules, it is very telling. You appear to be accusing others of your flaws. There is a way that ideas are tested. It is part of the scientific method and keeps ideas from being accepted only because they agree with a person's preconceptions. You may work that way. I do not. And do not accuse me of that it you cannot support those claims. An honest person that was skeptical and does not understand the science would ask how they know. Why did you not do that? Why did you rush to false conclusions?

Right...

So Egyptology tossing out C14 results because the charcoal mustta come from "old wood" because it didn't agree with their models is good science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Right...

So Egyptology tossing out C14 results because the charcoal mustta come from "old wood" because it didn't agree with their models is good science.

Source please. Claims of this sort without a valid source are worthless.

 

[cladking]

Source please. Claims of this sort without a valid source are worthless.

What reason do you have to doubt it?

Did you try googling it?

I might try "old wood egypt" if I were curious about Egyptological pronouncements.

How Old Are the Pyramids | Mark Lehner's Team Finds Out | Ancient Egypt Research Associates

Of course, now you see Egyptologists believe it it makes perfect sense.

 

[siti]

So Egyptology tossing out C14 results because the charcoal mustta come from "old wood" because it didn't agree with their models is good science.

Not because it didn't agree with their models but because they found dates that did not agree with other archaeological evidence. In any case, correct me if I am wrong, but would this not only be reflecting a difference of 1 to 4 centuries for the dates of the construction of the pyramids? And isn't it quite likely that building materials were indeed recycled - timber from old buildings being either reused or burned for use in mortar preparation?

My own house is about 60 years old and certainly has some of the original timber members still intact as well as more recently harvested wood that has been incorporated in extensions and repairs. Give another two or three decades and I shouldn't wonder that it would have timber spanning more than a century of harvesting...and if somebody in a couple of thousand years were to attempt to date the construction of my house they could very easily - even with far more accurate techniques than were available in the 1980s and 90s (which is what you are referring to) get a span of results covering 150 years. But my house would still be about 2000 years old - no-one would seriously be able to suggest that it had been built only a few weeks earlier or that perhaps it was really 5,000 years old.

And that is the problem in this discussion - dating techniques are not perfect - but when you find measurable differences in (for example) the ratio of two radioactive isotopes in the same radioactive decay series that indicate ages of mineral deposits in the tens or hundreds of thousands of years, you cannot seriously just poo poo it all on the basis that "well...some early attempts to date historic and prehistoric artifacts got the wrong answer - and anyway the Bible says the earth is only few thousand years old"...to refute the dates entirely and suggest that the 40,000 year old cave paintings (for example) that have been discovered were really painted within the last 6,000 years, you would have to account for a sea change in the fundamental constants that govern the way the universe works (and which the 'creationist' side often depend on in their 'design argument' arguments) that is not borne out by any scientifically observed phenomenon in the entire history of scientific observation.

What you guys should be learning from all this is that science is incrementally learning from past mistakes, erroneous measurements and failed hypotheses and gradually refining both its techniques and its understanding...religion on the other hand...

...'nuf said?

 

[cladking]

Not because it didn't agree with their models but because they found dates that did not agree with other archaeological evidence. In any case, correct me if I am wrong, but would this not only be reflecting a difference of 1 to 4 centuries for the dates of the construction of the pyramids? And isn't it quite likely that building materials were indeed recycled - timber from old buildings being either reused or burned for use in mortar preparation?

My own house is about 60 years old and certainly has some of the original timber members still intact as well as more recently harvested wood that has been incorporated in extensions and repairs. Give another two or three decades and I shouldn't wonder that it would have timber spanning more than a century of harvesting...and if somebody in a couple of thousand years were to attempt to date the construction of my house they could very easily - even with far more accurate techniques than were available in the 1980s and 90s (which is what you are referring to) get a span of results covering 150 years. But my house would still be about 2000 years old - no-one would seriously be able to suggest that it had been built only a few weeks earlier or that perhaps it was really 5,000 years old.

And that is the problem in this discussion - dating techniques are not perfect - but when you find measurable differences in (for example) the ratio of two radioactive isotopes in the same radioactive decay series that indicate ages of mineral deposits in the tens or hundreds of thousands of years, you cannot seriously just poo poo it all on the basis that "well...some early attempts to date historic and prehistoric artifacts got the wrong answer - and anyway the Bible says the earth is only few thousand years old"...to refute the dates entirely and suggest that the 40,000 year old cave paintings (for example) that have been discovered were really painted within the last 6,000 years, you would have to account for a sea change in the fundamental constants that govern the way the universe works (and which the 'creationist' side often depend on in their 'design argument' arguments) that is not borne out by any scientifically observed phenomenon in the entire history of scientific observation.

What you guys should be learning from all this is that science is incrementally learning from past mistakes, erroneous measurements and failed hypotheses and gradually refining both its techniques and its understanding...religion on the other hand...

...'nuf said?

No!

The problem is that relative dating of ancient Egypt is all quite sound. But there is nothing in terms of absolute dating other than C14 that doesn't agree with it. Then most ancient dating is based of Egyptology.

It simply appears absolute Egyptian dating is off by a couple of centuries or more. Unfortunately Egyptologists are linguists and they don't do much science. When they do do science they don't release results any longer unless said results agree with their assumptions. They haven't done much carbon dating in years now.

It is highly illogical to suppose that there would be vast quantities of old lumber or timber in a place that is desert and treasured wood. There might be some possibility that a dead and desiccated forest had been harvested but no such records or evidence exists. The scant evidence that does exist implies much of the wood used in the pyramids came from Lebanon. "Science" is supposed to use evidence and do testing. It supposed to accept results whether they agree with current dogma or not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What reason do you have to doubt it?

Did you try googling it?

I might try "old wood egypt" if I were curious about Egyptological pronouncements.

How Old Are the Pyramids | Mark Lehner's Team Finds Out | Ancient Egypt Research Associates

Of course, now you see Egyptologists believe it it makes perfect sense.

According to your article it is not clear if it is a problem or not. But I can see that one would have to worry about it.

There is another way that they could have dated the pyramids using C14 besides using trees. And the "old wood" problem almost certainly would not exist. Can you figure it out?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No!

The problem is that relative dating of ancient Egypt is all quite sound. But there is nothing in terms of absolute dating other than C14 that doesn't agree with it. Then most ancient dating is based of Egyptology.

It simply appears absolute Egyptian dating is off by a couple of centuries or more. Unfortunately Egyptologists are linguists and they don't do much science. When they do do science they don't release results any longer unless said results agree with their assumptions. They haven't done much carbon dating in years now.

It is highly illogical to suppose that there would be vast quantities of old lumber or timber in a place that is desert and treasured wood. There might be some possibility that a dead and desiccated forest had been harvested but no such records or evidence exists. The scant evidence that does exist implies much of the wood used in the pyramids came from Lebanon. "Science" is supposed to use evidence and do testing. It supposed to accept results whether they agree with current dogma or not.

I saw nothing in that article that supports that claim. It is a possibility but it did not seem to be strongly supported.

 

[siti]

It supposed to accept results whether they agree with current dogma or not.

Its not the results that are being questioned - its the interpretation. Carbon-14 dating gives a date for the death/harvesting of the trees...there is no way it can tell you how long after that the timber was incorporated into a structure. That is just a fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Its not the results that are being questioned - its the interpretation. Carbon-14 dating gives a date for the death/harvesting of the trees...there is no way it can tell you how long after that the timber was incorporated into a structure. That is just a fact.

I am not sure if @cladking will be able to think of another material. You probably can think of one where the "old tree problem" would not exist. One thing to remember is that a very small sample can be dated today.

 

[cladking]

There is another way that they could have dated the pyramids using C14 besides using trees. And the "old wood" problem almost certainly would not exist. Can you figure it out?

There are no bodies, no mummies, no linen wrappings, no coffins and no direct evidence that the great pyramids were intended or used as tombs.

Whatchha got?

 

[siti]

Treat me nice, treat me good...

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are no bodies, no mummies, no linen wrappings, no coffins and no direct evidence that the great pyramids were intended or used as tombs.

Whatchha got?

That may be half true. It appears that looting was a perpetual problem for the pyramids.

 

[cladking]

Its not the results that are being questioned - its the interpretation. Carbon-14 dating gives a date for the death/harvesting of the trees...there is no way it can tell you how long after that the timber was incorporated into a structure. That is just a fact.

All results must be interpreted. The carbon on the inside of a tree is fixed after it is added. In other words the inside of a tree dates older than the outside. But this is mostly all beside the point because anything date-able has been dated (including the boats) and everything is older than our beliefs suggest. Indeed, so few samples come back close to the expected time frame they are outliers. Yet archaeology is dependent on the current Egyptological models.

There are obvious flaws in the logic, methodology, and assumptions of Egyptology yet they are not being addressed.

 

[siti]

There are no bodies, no mummies, no linen wrappings, no coffins and no direct evidence that the great pyramids were intended or used as tombs.

OK - so we don't know what the Great Pyramids were really for and they may have been built 200-400 years earlier than previously supposed - what does that indicate? That there are important things we don't know about the ancient civilization(s) of Egypt - or that no such thing existed - or what? I am not seeing where you are coming from with this.

As far as dating is concerned, the 'old wood' problem is a real one for radiocarbon dating because, as I said, it can only tell us how long ago the tree stopped living - not when it was subsequently incorporated into a building or burned for charcoal. Its not the science that is faulty (although there are always - in any scientific measurement - margins of error) - its the historical interpretation of the data that is difficult. Isn't it?

 

[cladking]

That may be half true. It appears that looting was a perpetual problem for the pyramids.

One man sees a "robbers tunnel" another sees ancient archaeologist tunnels.

People have believed these were tombs and known Egyptian kings were buried with gold for a very long time. Tunnels do not prove they were looted of anything. The Caliphate Al Mamuun was the first man in the Great Pyramid and reported there was no loot and no king. Other sealed sarcophagi have been opened and found empty. No forensic testing has ever been performed on any great pyramid.

But there's still no direct evidence any great pyramid was a tomb.

 

[Shad]

The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1976, Macropædia, Vol. 5, p. 509): “Hope rather than accomplishment mainly characterizes the status of thermoluminescence dating at the present time.”

Science (August 28, 1981, p. 1003) reports that a skeleton showing an age of 70,000 years by amino acid racemization gave only 8,300 or 9,000 years by radioactive dating.

Copy paste from apologist sites. I bet you never read a single one of those sources for yourself. Otherwise you would of known it was addressing one dating method not all C-14 dating methods.

 

[cladking]

OK - so we don't know what the Great Pyramids were really for and they may have been built 200-400 years earlier than previously supposed - what does that indicate? That there are important things we don't know about the ancient civilization(s) of Egypt - or that no such thing existed - or what? I am not seeing where you are coming from with this.

...its the historical interpretation of the data that is difficult. Isn't it?

I'm merely suggesting that "science" is wrong. I have a theory about what's right but that's irrelevant. What is relevant is that archaeology is founded on what are apparently erroneous assumptions and misconceptions. Assyrian dating is wrong since it's principally founded on Egyptian dating and other dating is founded upon it.

The real problem with interpretation is that they've put the cart before the horse. We already see what we believe and archaeology adopted their beliefs even before they gathered the evidence they are misinterpreting. I can't settle the argument between science and religion and won't take part in it beyond pointing out facts and logic. Frankly I believe we all have it wrong and can't see it because too many of our fundamental beliefs are wrong. Neither science nor religion have the answers and neither are likely to any time soon on this dead end path.

I'm not rejecting science or religion but am saying they are both misinterpreted and the only tools we have are reason and facts.

The implications of just the error in the time-line are very far reaching.