Exodus Archeology Evidence

[River Sea]

First of all I wanted update Exodus evidence since I discover few more evidence for exodus and I made error in establishing chronology of who pharaoh of exodus. So this is updated version of 5 point and 6 and also common objection overruled. If you wanna read this thread read first prieviously part Exodus Archeology Evidence otherwise you will be confused of what are my points.
5 Slaves in egypt

 

[River Sea]

First of all I wanted update Exodus evidence since I discover few more evidence for exodus and I made error in establishing chronology of who pharaoh of exodus. So this is updated version of 5 point and 6 and also common objection overruled. If you wanna read this thread read first prieviously part Exodus Archeology Evidence otherwise you will be confused of what are my points.
5 Slaves in egypt

The Brooklyn Papyrus; From the earlier Middle Kingdom (13th Dynasty- (c. 2000–c. 1600 B.C.E.) there is evidence of Semitic settlements all across the northeast Nile Delta. The Brooklyn Papyrus contains a list of the names of 95 slaves. 70% of the names are Hebrew, including Asher and Issachar. 10 of the names have direct links to other passages in the Bible. The majority of whom were Semitic. Menahema, a feminine form of Menahem. 2 Kings 15:14

On two stelae at Memphis and Karnak, Thutmose III's son Amenhotep II boasts of having made 89,600 prisoners in his campaign in Canaan (around 1420 BC), including "127 princes and 179 nobles(?) of Retenu, 3600 Apiru, 15,200 Shasu, 36,600 Hurrians", etc.

• Pyramids built of mud-and-straw bricks (Exodus 5:7–8), and both written and physical evidence that Asiatic people were enslaved in Egypt.

The City of Avaris was originally founded by Amenemhat I on the eastern branch of the Nile in the Delta.[12] Its close proximity to Asia made it a popular town for Asiatic immigrants. Many of these immigrants were from Judea and they were culturally Egyptianized, using Egyptian pottery, but also retained many aspects of their own culture, as can be seen from the various Asiatic burials including weapons of Syro-Judean origin. One palatial district appears to have been abandoned as a result of an epidemic during the 13th dynasty.[13]

In the 18th century BC, the Hyksos conquered Lower Egypt and set up Avaris as their capital. Kamose, the last pharaoh of the Seventeenth Dynasty, besieged Avaris but was unable to defeat the Hyksos there. A few decades later, Ahmose I captured Avaris and overran the Hyksos. Canaanite-style artifacts dated to the Tuthmosid or New Kingdom period suggest that a large part of the city's Semitic population remained in residence following its reconquest by the Egyptians. NOTE: Both Ramesses and Avaris were located in the land of Goshen, mentioned in the Bible as having been given by Pharaoh to the Israelites.

Settle your father and your brothers in the best of the land. Let them settle in the land of Goshen…

– Genesis 47.6 (ESV)

All of us (or, at least, most of us) are familiar with the story of Joseph, yes? Well, in Egypt there is a river diversionary which is called “Bahr Yussef” which dates back to about 1800 BC. It is a tributary river created around 1800 BC with a pooling area at the end of it, specifically well designed for farming. Bahr Yussef translates to “River of Joseph” in English.[1]

Now I hear critics thinking “so what?” There’s a river named after a biblical character. However, this gets more interesting. There’s an archeological site in Egypt named Avaris. There we have found a house that was built in the early Semite style of house building (very different from Egyptian style houses), which was later expanded upon to be built like an Egyptian palace, similar to those built by leaders of districts in ancient Egypt.[2]

Going deeper into this, there were 11 Semite tombs and 1 Egyptian pyramid style tomb (saved for the Egyptian elites) found on the premises. The Egyptian tomb attracts the most attention because there was no remains left in it (which matches the request of Joseph/Jacob for his final resting place to be in Israel), except for a state of a man with a yellow face (to indicate a foreigner), the hairstyle of Semites at the time, and a coat with lots of colors (not typical at the time in Egypt).[3]

6 Explains Problems of egypt.
Since armana letters are written to amenhotep 3 and akhenathen and we know Akhenathen shared co rulership with his father going back 40 years from armana letters description of Caanan conquest it would mean Amenhotep 2 was pharaoh of Exodus. Beacuse of it there are more evidence for Exodus during his period.
- Massive abandonment
The same is true of his monuments, none of which, as Petrie wrote, can be “dated above the fifth year.” Furthermore, of the monuments we do have from Amenhotep ii’s reign, some of them are clearly only partially complete. “Nothing strikes us as more extraordinary than the condition of injury and confusion in which the most important buildings of Egypt seem to have remained,” Petrie wrote. “The most imposing works stood amidst half-ruined and unfinished halls for a whole reign; other parts were walled off to hide offensive memorials; other structures were either incomplete or half-ruined” (ibid). (Add to this the destruction of of Hatshepsut’s monuments at this time.)tying back to the above-mentioned Hyksos/Semites who immigrated into northern Egypt from Canaan. A site known as Avaris/Tell el-Dab’a has long been identified as a chief location of their occupation, from which they ruled during earlier centuries, and within which they continued to live following their overthrow at the start of the New Kingdom period. Dr. Manfred Bietak, chief excavator of Tell el-Dab’a, stated that following their overthrow in the 16th century b.c.e., “there is mounting evidence to suggest that a large part of this population stayed in Egypt and served their new overlords in various capacities” (article, “From Where Came the Hyksos and Where Did They Go?”).

But even more notable, for our purposes here, is when this city ceased to function—when it was finally abandoned by its Semitic inhabitants. Archaeologist Dr. Scott Stripling highlights the following in Five Views on the Exodus: Historicity, Chronology and Theological Implications: “Bietak’s stratigraphic analysis [of Tell el-Dab’a] reveals a clear abandonment in the mid-18th Dynasty, during or after the reign of Amenhotep ii. … [T]he latest identifiable pottery dates to the reign of Amenhotep ii. … Much of Avaris Stratum d/1 (in Area F/I) to Stratum c (Area H/I-VI) points to the presence of a Semitic population until the mysterious abandonment.”
- sickness
n 1907, when Amenhotep ii’s mummified body was examined, scientists noticed the presence of unusual tubercles all over the body. Grafton Elliot Smith, who studied the corpse, wondered whether the tubercles developed during the embalming process or were, rather, the product of disease. As he wrote in “A Note on the Mummies in the Tomb of Amenhotep ii at Bibân el Molouk” (1907): “The skin over the whole body [of Amenhotep ii] is thickly studded with small projections or tubercles from 0 m. 002 mill. to 0 m. 008 mill. in diameter. At present I am unable to determine whether they are the results of some disease or merely the effects of the embalmer’s salt-bath, but they are.
- Death of Firstborn
Why was Thutmose iv son of Amenhotep 2 compelled to publicly declare that he was divinely installed? Because he was not the firstborn, presumptive heir to Egypt’s throne. “It is unfortunate that the events surrounding the accession of Thutmosis iv
are so obscure,” writes Egyptologist Peter Der Manuelian, “especially since his Dream Stele between the paws of the Great Sphinx suggests that he was not the originally intended heir to the throne“ (Studies in the Reign of Amenophis ii)
- Decrease in military power.
There is also much more decrease in military power of Egypt. Many pharaohs in from that time are having much more peacefull politics. Not to mention Amenhotep 3 made a lot of statues to the goddess of healing as opposed to war.


Common objections debunked
-Habiru did conquer Lebanon and Israel didn't. I never said all Habiru were Israelits but that those Israelits who attacked those specifically cities at this time frame were Habiru. Habiru was social term used for nomads, bandits and outcast which fits to definition of Israelits from that time frame. Some of Habiru were also hitties. We know it from later Egyptians conquest.
-Wouldn't later conquest of Israel debunked conquest. Well no it was focused on Hitties and recapture cities while Israelits were nomadic society that mostly was living outside city. + Egyptians would often lying about their victories and twist truth.
-Pithom and Ramses was build later so Exodus didn't happened.But what about this biblical reference to “Raamses”—how to explain it? Fifteenth-century proponents identify it as a later scribal edit known as an “anachronism”—a more familiar, later term used for a more obscure, earlier name (for example, our common anachronistic use of the term “France” when describing ancient “Gaul”). Such a scribal edit could conceivably have been accomplished by the Prophet Samuel (who lived at the end of the Ramesside period)—an individual traditionally ascribed to part of the early compilation of the biblical texts (particularly Joshua, Judges and 1 Samuel), which put an emphasis on place-names as they are “to this day.”
-Many archeologists disaggrees with Exodus being historical. Opinions are not facts. Evidences are facts and we should look at the evidence instead of simply relaying on opinion. It was consensus that Jesus and king David didn't exsisted but with new discovery historians changed their minds. Biblical literalism is actually growing.
Sources
-https://armstronginstitute.org/881-the-amarna-letters-proof-of-israels-invasion-of-canaan
-https://www.biblehistory.net/joshua.html
-https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habiru
-https://biblearchaeology.org/research/conquest-of-canaan/3865-jericho-does-the-evidence-disprove-or-prove-the-bible
-https://nypost.com/2021/10/02/archaeologist-claims-mount-sinai-found-in-saudi-arabia/
-https://www.quora.com/Why-are-the-excavations-of-Avaris-Egypt-not-accepted-as-evidence-for-the-biblical-period-of-Joseph-to-the-Exodus
-https://theconversation.com/the-history-of-israel-and-palestine-alternative-names-competing-claims-163156
-https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aton
-https://armstronginstitute.org/882-who-was-the-pharaoh-of-the-exodus

 

[River Sea]

40 year desert wanderings to less than twenty.

late Middle Kingdom

Aidan Dodson's "Amarna Sunrise" and Dominic Perry's History of Egyot podcasts

things

 

[River Sea]

Are you literate?

 

[River Sea]

Canaan located in Ghuram India

Did the Canaanites live in Ghuram India?

repeat because can't have in one thread, repeat due to @Mrpp got to start a new thread because can't show where made a mistake as @Mrpp thinks did, yet i don't know where mistake is

 

[blü 2]

Historians didn't believed in Jesus or David

To the extent that reputable historians didn't believe in Jesus or in David, in each case they would have been able to make reasoned arguments for their case.

I haven't come across doubts expressed by experts about David, beyond the obvious that very little in the archaeological record so far discovered fits the magnificence ascribed to him. By contrast there appears to be reason to doubt the historicity of eg Abraham, or at least an Abraham who fits the description in the Tanakh.

The doubts about the Exodus, as I understand it, have various bases ─ the lack of any suitable date or pharaoh who would fit the story, the failure of Egyptian records to mention anything like the Egyptian captivity or the Exodus, the fact that the story of Moses being found in the bulrushes is copied from from an earlier story about a Mesopotamian king in antiquity, the fact that the name Moses is simply the ancient Egyptian word for "son" (eg as in Ramses = Ra mases = son of Ra) &c; and of course the absence of any archaeological evidence in Egypt, Sinai or the Levant that accords with the story. Seems a reasonable best opinion based on the available evidence, but like the rest of historiography it doesn't claim to be an absolute infallible determination.

As for Jesus, at one stage I was of the view that it was more likely than not that there was no historical Jesus (not least because it's possible to account for the gospels without one). However, these days I think it somewhat more likely than not that there was one. However, the gospels are Mark's constructed story and two further versions of it in Matthew and Luke, and finally John's Jesus, who like Paul's, but unlike the synoptics', is somewhat colored by gnosticism.

Here's a thought for your consideration ─ you have to approach the bible, both Tanakh and NT, the way you'd approach any other ancient writing ─ what, where, when by whom, for what reason? Can you cross-check with other facts from the period? And of course, miracles are claims of magic, and ancient writings have a good deal of such things, so if you allow the bible's miracles, you have to give equal credence to all the other records of magic. I've never seen a satisfactory demonstration of magic, so like the great majority of people who favor reasoned enquiry, I have no reason to think such reports are true.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Google “Archaeologist Titus Kennedy”; he’s got some good info.

So pleased you found your very own apologist.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

It is not just based on similarites but based on dates and perticular events. Things like sudden invasion of Caanan, change into single god or abandonment doesn't happens always happen. And fact that they happened specifically when Exodus is around dated clearly prooves it did happened. Again if you read armana letters you will find out that it was not small group of rebels but big army. Small number would not be able to capture multiple cities. And caanan would not be full lost to Pharaoh.

Let us consider Amarna letter in detail. First of all, these are dated to about 14 to 13th century BCE, after the Exodus. So, the mention of Mitsrayim in Amarna tablets may only indicate that the word had been brought from somewhere else. If Egypt was actually known as Mitsrayim earlier, then we should have found such mention of this name earlier as well. The fact that Exodus took place around the 14th or 13th century, and that is when Amarna letters were sent. Therefore, the mention of the word Mitsrayim could be an imported name which was imported from the Indus Valley. The basic point we are considering is whether the biblical name Mitsrayim refers to Egypt or to the Indus Valley. Here, I think Amarna letters do not establish the mention of Mitsrayim in Egypt, because these could be importation from Indus Valley. We should remember, that there is always a tendency amongst people to capture names and places. So, it is possible that in order to glorify their homeland of Mitsrayim, the Amarna people may have appropriated the name Mitsrayim for Egypt.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Well, the Exodus specifically states that the children of Israel wandered in Sinai for 40 years. If you dismiss this, you may as well dismiss the whole Exodus.

So, what's wrong with that? Aren't you looking for the nearest possible truth?

I am not dismissing. The fact that Israel wandered in Sinai for 40 years. I am saying that this Sinai was located in Iran and not in Egypt. If one travels from Indus Valley to Israel, one would pass near Taftan volcano, which lies on the southeast corner of Iran. So, this was Mount Sinai even looks at the description of the volcanic eruption in the Bible. It matches very much with the sulfuric eruptions that are taking place in Mount Taftan even today. So, the question is not whether they wandered for 40 years. The question is, where did they wander? And here I'm simply saying that the correct interpretation is that they wanted in Iran, near Isfahan.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Actually the human migration out of Africa is documented as over 300,000 years ago.

It is documented that the Pentateuch was compiled after 600 BCE with no known texts dated earlier than 600 BCE.

There is absolutely no evidence for any such event in the Indus valley.

We have plentiful evidence of outmigration from Indus Valley. The Yadava Empires of Indus Valley had spread to Afghanistan and Iran. Secondly, the Out of India theory says that people of the Indus Valley migrated westward after the Indus Valley collapsed around 1500 BCE. Third, in terms of written evidence, the Mausala Parv of Mahabharata says that Krishna left for an unknown country and this could very much be the Exodus. So, it is not correct to say that there is no evidence for any such event in the Indus Valley. Thank you.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

You are arguing a classic "arguing from ignorance" making the argument that one has to prove something did not happen before it can be accepted that the evidence of the historical
events happened or not,

Appeal to Ignorance

This fallacy occurs when you argue that your conclusion must be true, because there is no evidence against it. This fallacy wrongly shifts the burden of proof away from the one making the claim.

Evidence documents that Minor conflicts between Hebrews, Canaanites, and Egyptians But the overwhelming archaeological and Egyptian records and other evidence demonstrates the the account as written in Exodus and Joshua is that these accounts do not have a basis in history.

We not only do not have absolutely no Hebrew languages, but absolutely no other records of the time of an invasion of Canaan by the army of Joshua. In fact no independent evidence that Joshua nor Moses ever existed as claimed in the Pentateuch.


Reformed Judaism is growing in recent history. It is widely accepted among reformed Jews that the Pentateuch is not a literal historically accurate document and the sciences of evolution is widely accepted,



Exodus and the rest of the Pentateuch is snot simply shrugged off. There is over one hundred years of archaeological and scientific research published on the topic. The fact that ancient texts without provenance are foundation of 'traditional' Jewish beliefs, but this as with all ancient religions does not justify the religion alone. Religions by their nature are subjective beliefs based on faith and not factual history of ancient scriptures.

I accept the evidence of the Bible regarding Joshua's conquest of Canaan, in fact, I accept the evidence of Exodus as given in the Bible in altogether. My dispute is not about the evidence of Exodus or the evidence from Bible. My dispute is that the specific places where these events are located are different than Egypt. So, in terms of Joshua's conquest, my understanding is that Moses led the exodus from the Indus Valley around 1500 BC. He spent 40 years in wilderness in Iran, and then he entered Canaan, where Joshua's conquest took place. So, in this manner, I do not challenge the narrative of the Exodus. I only challenge the location of the narrative.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

The Exodus is not like that.
The primary source is the book of Exodus.

I agree with you that the primary source is the book of Exodus, but all I am saying is that we will find evidence for Exodus if we look for the same in the Indus Valley, for example, the plague of river becoming blood is entirely understandable because the Hakkra River near which Mitsrayim was located, had stopped flowing due to tectonic uplift in central India, and it had become pools which would have stagnated and hence the plague of blood like that what I am saying is that we have to look at the proper place to find evidence for Exodus. I am not challenging the dating of Exodus at 1500 BCE. I am challenging the location of the Exodus in Egypt at 1500 BCE.

 

[Audie]

To the extent that reputable historians didn't believe in Jesus or in David, in each case they would have been able to make reasoned arguments for their case.

I haven't come across doubts expressed by experts about David, beyond the obvious that very little in the archaeological record so far discovered fits the magnificence ascribed to him. By contrast there appears to be reason to doubt the historicity of eg Abraham, or at least an Abraham who fits the description in the Tanakh.

The doubts about the Exodus, as I understand it, have various bases ─ the lack of any suitable date or pharaoh who would fit the story, the failure of Egyptian records to mention anything like the Egyptian captivity or the Exodus, the fact that the story of Moses being found in the bulrushes is copied from from an earlier story about a Mesopotamian king in antiquity, the fact that the name Moses is simply the ancient Egyptian word for "son" (eg as in Ramses = Ra mases = son of Ra) &c; and of course the absence of any archaeological evidence in Egypt, Sinai or the Levant that accords with the story. Seems a reasonable best opinion based on the available evidence, but like the rest of historiography it doesn't claim to be an absolute infallible determination.

As for Jesus, at one stage I was of the view that it was more likely than not that there was no historical Jesus (not least because it's possible to account for the gospels without one). However, these days I think it somewhat more likely than not that there was one. However, the gospels are Mark's constructed story and two further versions of it in Matthew and Luke, and finally John's Jesus, who like Paul's, but unlike the synoptics', is somewhat colored by gnosticism.

Here's a thought for your consideration ─ you have to approach the bible, both Tanakh and NT, the way you'd approach any other ancient writing ─ what, where, when by whom, for what reason? Can you cross-check with other facts from the period? And of course, miracles are claims of magic, and ancient writings have a good deal of such things, so if you allow the bible's miracles, you have to give equal credence to all the other records of magic. I've never seen a satisfactory demonstration of magic, so like the great majority of people who favor reasoned enquiry, I have no reason to think such reports are true.

It's hard to say just what's meant by
a "historical jesus".

There was nobody by that name, nor
is the nativity story historic.

No person referred to as Jesus
can be identified to time of place of
birth or death.

A real person apparently displeased the
Romans and was killed, then said to
have come back to life.
As for anything else-
The deeds and sayings of said person have
very dubious provenance.

How real a person is / was if virtually nothing
actually known and most of it is fictional can
be debated of course.

But I'd say the character represented by the name
Jesus in Christian mythology did not exist.

" Lono" cult may have started with a real person
but by the time Captain Cook showed up there was
nothing real remaining.

 

[Audie]

To the extent that reputable historians didn't believe in Jesus or in David, in each case they would have been able to make reasoned arguments for their case.

I haven't come across doubts expressed by experts about David, beyond the obvious that very little in the archaeological record so far discovered fits the magnificence ascribed to him. By contrast there appears to be reason to doubt the historicity of eg Abraham, or at least an Abraham who fits the description in the Tanakh.

The doubts about the Exodus, as I understand it, have various bases ─ the lack of any suitable date or pharaoh who would fit the story, the failure of Egyptian records to mention anything like the Egyptian captivity or the Exodus, the fact that the story of Moses being found in the bulrushes is copied from from an earlier story about a Mesopotamian king in antiquity, the fact that the name Moses is simply the ancient Egyptian word for "son" (eg as in Ramses = Ra mases = son of Ra) &c; and of course the absence of any archaeological evidence in Egypt, Sinai or the Levant that accords with the story. Seems a reasonable best opinion based on the available evidence, but like the rest of historiography it doesn't claim to be an absolute infallible determination.

As for Jesus, at one stage I was of the view that it was more likely than not that there was no historical Jesus (not least because it's possible to account for the gospels without one). However, these days I think it somewhat more likely than not that there was one. However, the gospels are Mark's constructed story and two further versions of it in Matthew and Luke, and finally John's Jesus, who like Paul's, but unlike the synoptics', is somewhat colored by gnosticism.

Here's a thought for your consideration ─ you have to approach the bible, both Tanakh and NT, the way you'd approach any other ancient writing ─ what, where, when by whom, for what reason? Can you cross-check with other facts from the period? And of course, miracles are claims of magic, and ancient writings have a good deal of such things, so if you allow the bible's miracles, you have to give equal credence to all the other records of magic. I've never seen a satisfactory demonstration of magic, so like the great majority of people who favor reasoned enquiry, I have no reason to think such reports are true.

Cross checking of purported miracles generally
gets either a zero- no evidence one way or
the other- or you get, as with 6 day poof- n- flood,
very solid disproof of the accounts.

 

[shunyadragon]

I accept the evidence of the Bible regarding Joshua's conquest of Canaan, in fact, I accept the evidence of Exodus as given in the Bible in altogether. My dispute is not about the evidence of Exodus or the evidence from Bible. My dispute is that the specific places where these events are located are different than Egypt. So, in terms of Joshua's conquest, my understanding is that Moses led the exodus from the Indus Valley around 1500 BC. He spent 40 years in wilderness in Iran, and then he entered Canaan, where Joshua's conquest took place. So, in this manner, I do not challenge the narrative of the Exodus. I only challenge the location of the narrative.

You may accept these accounts as based on your beliefs, but there is no independent evidence or known facts to support your claims, Your addition to the account as Exodus originated in the Indus Valley contradicts the known evidence of the history of the Hebrews in the Levant and Babylonia, and the known history of Egypt,

The Pentateuch cannot be considered evidence, because it is a compilation after 600 BCE without provenance, You may teat a hypothesis that the accounts of Exodus and Joshua are historically accurate, but there is no evidence to confirm this,

 

[shunyadragon]

I agree with you that the primary source is the book of Exodus, but all I am saying is that we will find evidence for Exodus if we look for the same in the Indus Valley, for example, the plague of river becoming blood is entirely understandable because the Hakkra River near which Mitsrayim was located, had stopped flowing due to tectonic uplift in central India, and it had become pools which would have stagnated and hence the plague of blood like that what I am saying is that we have to look at the proper place to find evidence for Exodus. I am not challenging the dating of Exodus at 1500 BCE. I am challenging the location of the Exodus in Egypt at 1500 BCE.

"Will find evidence' is hypothetical and what you presented is even more hypothetical and at present there is no independent evidence, You have failed to present any evidence to support your case. The only thing that may have happened is that some slaves migrated out of Egypt when there was a famine. Actually the historical evidence demonstrates no such Exodus ever happened as describe. What is well documented is the exile in Babylonia,

Again scriptures and letters are not evidence in and of themselves without independent evidence to confirm them. There is abundant evidence of conflicts, wars and slavery involving Hebrews, Canaanites, and Egyptians in the history from the 16th century and 6th century BCE that he Exodus and Joshua stories can be loosely based on. There are pictures of Hebrew slaves in Egyptian carvings, The dominant wars documented are between Egyptians, Canaanites, The Northern Egypt kingdom with Egypt colonizing Canaan and no sign of Jacob or his army. There are Egyptian letters and writings that describe a history of the Levant region that is completely in conflict with the Exodus and Jacob version of the history.

As documented the Hebrew tribes were minor pastoral Canaanite tribes in the Hills of Judah until after ~900 BCE when they became a major player and a Kingdom.

There are absolutely no independent references, nor anything written by Hebrews to confirm the Pentateuch accounts nor your version.

See post #135

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The Pentateuch cannot be considered evidence, because it is a compilation after 600 BCE without provenance,

Did I mention 1-trick pony?

 

[shunyadragon]

Did I mention 1-trick pony?

I did not know you were putting on a dog and pony show. Only 1 trick?. Is it on You tube?

 

[River Sea]

By Stephen Knapp said: Israel derived from Sanskrit word Ishwaralaya, which means Isha or Krishna God

Israel derived from Sanskrit word Ishwaralaya, which means Isha or Krishna God

https://www.facebook.com/Vedicfacts/photos/a.306046219507880/1347732528672572

 

[metis]

Technically, the "star of David" is not actually a star but is two interlocking triangles.