|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Biblical camels
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
I think that most of us have long been taught that the mention of camels in Genesis is anachronistic.
A CNN blog two days ago reiterates this idea, asking "Will camel discovery break the Bible's back?"
It refers to an article in the February 10, 2014 New York Times "Camels had no business in Genesis":
quote:
"The archaeologists, Erez Ben-Yosef and Lidar Sapir-Hen, used radiocarbon dating to pinpoint the earliest known domesticated camels in Israel to the last third of the 10th century B.C. — centuries after the patriarchs lived and decades after the kingdom of David, according to the Bible. Some bones in deeper sediments, they said, probably belonged to wild camels that people hunted for their meat. Dr. Sapir-Hen could identify a domesticated animal by signs in leg bones that it had carried heavy loads."
This is all fine with me. It's easy to believe that camels would have been inserted into the story as the oral tradition was written down, whenever that took place.
But when I glanced at the article on camels in Wikipedia I saw that camels were domesticated in the Middle East long before Abraham is thought to have existed:
quote:
Dromedaries may have first been domesticated by humans in Somalia and southern Arabia, around 3,000 BC, the Bactrian in central Asia around 2,500 BC,[14][62][63][64] as at Shar-i Sokhta (also known as the Burnt City), Iran.[65]
In accord with patriarchal traditions, cylinder seals from Middle Bronze Age Mesopotamia showed riders seated upon camels.[66][67]
The Middle Bronze Age extended from 2100 - 1550 BC. And of course Genesis claims that Abraham journeyed to Canaan from Mesopotamia.
So it seems that the evidence is flimsy that domestic camels would not have been found in Canaan in the second millennium BC. They clearly existed in both Arabia and Mesopotamia at that time.
Rather than confirming the accepted idea that the mention of camels in Genesis is anachronistic, this makes me wonder if it isn't perfectly reasonable to think that Abraham had camels.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
Sorry, so is your argument that although a) biblical archaeologists who are experts in identifying the bones of domesticated camels have found none in Israel before the 10th century, b) Wikipedia tells you that camels were domesticated in Somalia (about 5000km away) much earlier, and therefore that A is likely incorrect?
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Seems odd to make such a sweeping statement (no camels) based on what you HAVEN'T found (yet). Especially in the case of an animal used for long distance travel and for meat. How could you ever reliably say where the creature hadn't gotten to, yet? It's not like there's an ocean barrier or something.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Seems odd to make such a sweeping statement (no camels) based on what you HAVEN'T found (yet). Especially in the case of an animal used for long distance travel and for meat. How could you ever reliably say where the creature hadn't gotten to, yet? It's not like there's an ocean barrier or something.
It's not about where the animal had gotten to, but the technology -- they make a distinction between the wild camels (definitely present in Israel at the time) and domesticated (not found to be present).
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence is a common refrain in archaeology, particularly in the religio-political hotbed of the Middle East.
Unfortunately, if the events had happened in Northern Siberia, we might have frozen proof one way or the other - but (as far as I understand) fossilisation in desert is a difficult phenomena at the best of times.
When we get down to the question of whether camels existed in a very small area, when it is known that they existed elsewhere in the region - I think one would need very strong evidence in either direction.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
My view is that the events in Genesis are recorded a lot later than when they are purported to have happened and are therefore not a reliable historical source.
Nonetheless I wouldn't advance the dating of camel bones at one site as an argument for that position. Professor Kenneth Kitchen uses the domestication of camels during that period as an argument for the historicity of the Abraham narrative and whilst I disagree with him he is no fool and has forgotten more about the ANE than I will ever learn. If such excavations repeatedly turn up no camels then we can come to a conclusion that any narrative involving Abraham and camels is ahistorical. But one site proves not very much. It's an interesting finding but until it's replicated it suffers from the tendency of biblical archeologists to inflate the value of their research by claiming great things that are not actually validated by the research.
In any event, if it were found to be the case it would not necessarily invalidate the case for a historical Abraham. Dante assumes that the Eagles carried into battle by the Roman Legions were medieval banners rather than the metal statuettes that were actually used but if the only account of Rome we had was the Divine Comedy we would know much less but wouldn't be the case that Brutus and Cassius, say, didn't exist. It would rather nix innerancy but that wouldn't bother inerrantists who are always happy to repeat a PRATT until the cows come home.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
Sorry, so is your argument that although a) biblical archaeologists who are experts in identifying the bones of domesticated camels have found none in Israel before the 10th century,
I have every confidence that the biblical archaeologists are experts and accept their conclusion that no domesticated camels have been found in Israel before the 10th century.
This works for me. At the very least it means that domesticated camels were not common there.
This would fit with the Bible testimony because camels are only mentioned 40 times, mostly in the one story in Genesis. More significantly, all of the other times camels are mentioned they belong to peoples other than Israelites - such as the Queen of Sheba coming from southern Arabia.
By contrast horses and mules are frequently mentioned.
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
b) Wikipedia tells you that camels were domesticated in Somalia (about 5000km away) much earlier,
Somalia is in Africa, a whole continent away and not easily reached. Southern Arabia and Mesopotamia are more likely to have been in contact with the Levant.
More importantly, the proof that domesticated camels existed in Mesopotamia at that time seems conclusive. This is where Abraham is said to be from.
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
and therefore that A is likely incorrect?
The point is that it is not a strong case, for these reasons as well as the ones others have mentioned.
It just seems as if these articles are using an interesting factoid (no camels found in recent dig) to play on the public interest in things that supposedly prove or disprove the Bible.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence is a common refrain in archaeology...
Yes. This.
The other problem I see, just off the top of my head, is that Abraham is a known migrant. If he had camels in Ur or Haran, what are the odds he left them behind when he moved to Canaan? Existence of a camel herd controlled by one extended family is not the same thing as saying that everybody all over Canaan had them, and therefore we should be finding bones. And AFAIK all the references to camels come from Abraham's extended family, and within three generations. I suspect you could keep such a herd going for that length of time without leaving easily findable evidence of their existence for archaeologists to come across 4000 years later.
Tangent, maybe, but--right now in my windowsill I have two tiny Vietnamese New Year's flower shrubs (sorry, don't know the English or scientific names--these are the yellow flowers that symbolize the lunar new year in Vietnam). I am told that these are unobtainable in America. Mr Lamb was astonished to be given two specimens, grown from seed by a friend who apparently smuggled the seed back from Vietnam. I gather there is some sort of legal restriction.
Anyway, there they are, and they exist, despite the fact that to all intents and purposes they do not exist in America--certainly not in the Midwest. But nobody's ever going to be able to sift through this vast world of things carefully enough to spot the evidence of their existence, held by a single family, where they ought not to be. Certainly not thousands of years from now.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
I agree with what others have said about absence of evidence not being evidence of absence. There are a number of places on the web which refer to other extra-biblical evidence for the presence of camels in the general area and at the right time for Abraham. This is not my favourite website on the question, and is evidently a source that takes a particular view, but I have chosen it because for each of the following statements it cites a reputable source: quote:
- Dated 2000-1400 BC: from Egypt, a camel skull from the Fayum "Pottery A" stage of occupation.
- Dated 1900-1700 BC: from Byblos, a figurine of a kneeling camel.
- Dated 1900-1550 BC: from Canaan, a camel jaw from a Middle Bronze Age tomb at Tell el-Far'ah North.
- Dated 1800-1700 BC: from northern Syria, a cylinder seal with deities on a camel.
- Dated 2000-1700 BC: mention of camels in the Sumerian Lexical writing HAR.ra-hubullu.
- Dated 1300-1200 BC: from Egypt, a figure of a kneeling camel loaded with jars, from a tomb. <9>
- Dated 1300-1150 BC: from northwest Arabia, a broken figure of a camel on painted pottery from Qurraya.
- Dated 1300-1200 BC: from Pi-Ramesse, a camel on a pottery shard.
- Dated 3000-2000 BC: from Egypt and Arabia, other indicates of presence of camels.
Against that kind of evidence, the statement that we have not found the bones of a domesticated camel that are as old as the Abrahamic period does not make a convincing case that there were no domesticated camels in the area at the time.
I think these archaeologists are stating more than their data warrants. They need to say why we should so strongly expect bones of domesticated camels at the site they have excavated, that the absence of bones leads to the conclusion they have made - especially in the face of other archeological evidence.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Somalia 5000km away? Someone needs to learn to read maps.
As already said, the camels in the earlier part of the OT are used to cross the desert, not being kept on farms in Canaan. Nomads not farmers.
So as long as we can ignore Chronicles, inerrantists is safe ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
There were certainly trade links betwixt Egypt and Somalia (Punt) during the Bronze Age but it would not be safe to say that there were camels in Somalia therefore there were camels in Canaan. My general impression, as an amateur, is that camels were extant in Bronze Age Canaan but I submit that judgement to anyone with a Ph.D in Camels and Ass Nomads.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Somalia 5000km away? Someone needs to learn to read maps.
According to google maps, it is a journey of 5,300 km from Jerusalem to Somalia via Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia.
Sea travel might be an option, but that might be interesting with camels.
Why were we talking about Somalia again?
Cos it's possible the place where domestic camels come from originally. And certainly the place that has most of them now.
Route to the Middle East probably short sea journey to Arabia and then inland
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
For what its worth Aden to Aqaba is about 2200 km. by land sea or air. Which is the probable route. Not that anyone is suggesting the first domestic camels in Mesopotamia were walked all the way from one end of the Red Sea to the other. After all they had a few thousand years to get there in time for Abraham's servant to use them to get a wife for Isaac.
Anyway, OT certainly gets horses right. At first none, then later for pulling chariots only - donkeys were beasts of burden - then donkeys and mules for riding. Horse riding turns up late in the period of the kings.
And Israel had no smiths at first. Bronze Age nomads bumping into the Iron Age. I think its genuine history from contemporary documents.
Except for Chronicles of course. Which really doesn't fit. Which is maybe why the Tanakh has it as part of the Writings, not the Prophets. Which this inerrantist is quite happy to go along with. After all its the Hebrew Scriptures that are the inspired word of God, not the English ones ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
God entrusted his written word to the care of those chosen to write it, the Jews, just as he entrusted his Living Word to the care of those among whom he came to be born, the Jews.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
If camels were domesticated in Iran, circa, 2500 BC, as per Freddy's original post then there is no reason they should not be extant in Canaan circa 1800BC, or whenever Abraham is supposed to have been knocking around. Egyptian trips to Punt tended to pick up aromatic spices and the like, IIRC. Aromatic spices and lengthy sea voyages tend to go together, if not like a horse and carriage, then at least reasonably well. Camels, I imagine, not so much. There's a reason Noah got drunk when he emerged from the Ark.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
.
I don't understand what it is that you're trying to prove. Are you saying that a journey of that distance would have been easy for someone of Abraham's era?
No, of course not. Its not easy now.
I'm just trying to stress that fascinating as this is (and it is fascinating) it is neither news, nor or relevance to the historicity of the Scriptures.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
But they had thousands of years...
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
So? Any two points more than a thousand years apart by definition involve a gap of a thousand years. That doesn't therefore mean that one led to the other. There could be plenty of reasons why the one thing never in a thousand years led to the other - not least that between the two geographic points there are massive deserts.
It took Moses 40 years of walking in the desert to see the promised land, and he was only starting from Egypt. Magnify that my x times to get how long it would have taken to have human migration from Somalia to Samaria across one or other of the world's greatest deserts or via the red sea using boats that - oh, they haven't invented yet.
It might have happened. But without evidence it can't be proven either way. As it stands, if the only source of camels was Somalia, the migration of them to Samaria seems highly unlikely.
[ 13. February 2014, 21:13: Message edited by: pydseybare ]
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
It seems most plausible to me that someone wrote down the oral-tradition stories associated with Abraham several hundred years later, and when they had to write scenes involving people travelling around with beasts of burden, thought, "Oh, well, they must have been using camels, that's what people use when they need to travel and carry stuff." The later writer wouldn't have known how far back the use of camels went, and the specifics of what animals were used wouldn't have been preserved in the oral tradition, so it seems the most natural thing in the world that they'd get it wrong (if indeed it is wrong; as this thread shows there's still some room for debate about that).
I come from a tradition where our view of the accuracy of Scripture is pretty high, but seriously -- does anyone really think Abraham had a scribe following him around writing down these stories in detail? And if they were written down later, does anyone's view of the reliability of Scripture really hinge on something as flimsy as a writer inserting camels into a scene where there were actually mules?
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
I come from a tradition where our view of the accuracy of Scripture is pretty high, but seriously -- does anyone really think Abraham had a scribe following him around writing down these stories in detail? And if they were written down later, does anyone's view of the reliability of Scripture really hinge on something as flimsy as a writer inserting camels into a scene where there were actually mules?
But surely God was following Abraham around, and then inspired the authors of Genesis when they finally got round to writing it all down. If He couldn't tell them what animals were being used in those stories, what else did He allow them to get wrong?
If you're constantly lecturing others that they "can't pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe", surely you can't then pick and choose which parts are accurately inspired by God and which are interpreted by the authors.
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
As it stands, if the only source of camels was Somalia, the migration of them to Samaria seems highly unlikely.
Why do we keep mentioning Somalia? Southern Arabia and Mesopotamia are much more likely sources. Both of them figure into the biblical account as well:
- 1. Abraham coming from Ur of Chaldea in Mesopotamia. Genesis 11:31 "And Terah took his son Abram and his grandson Lot, the son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, his son Abram’s wife, (and a whole bunch of domesticated camels because they were common there in Mesopotamia) and they went out with them from Ur of the Chaldeans to go to the land of Canaan."
- 2. The Queen of Sheba came to Solomon from southern Arabia: I Kings 10:2 "She came to Jerusalem with a very great retinue, with camels that bore spices, very much gold, and precious stones; and when she came to Solomon, she spoke with him about all that was in her heart."
Somalia was not the only source of camels, and if it was, how would they get the camels to Mesopotamia without following the standard route through the Levant and across the Fertile Crescent?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I don't know, Freddy. I think the argument is that camels were only found of that era in Somalia, but it strikes me as being a pretty vacuous argument.
But nobody made the argument that camels were only found in Somalia. There is also southern Arabia and Mesopotamia.
The Wikipedia article on camels says:
quote:
Dromedaries may have first been domesticated by humans in Somalia and southern Arabia, around 3,000 BC, the Bactrian in central Asia around 2,500 BC,[14][62][63][64] as at Shar-i Sokhta (also known as the Burnt City), Iran.[65]
In accord with patriarchal traditions, cylinder seals from Middle Bronze Age Mesopotamia showed riders seated upon camels.[66][67]
The Middle Bronze Age extended from 2100 - 1550 BC.
Abraham is thought to have lived anywhere from 1800 to 1300 BC, placing him well within the time when there is very good evidence for domesticated camels in Mesopotamia.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
Certainly by the period 1600-1200 BC there was frequent regular trade between Egypt and Mesopotamia. We know this because archaeologists have found cuneiform letters in Egypt.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Flubb
Shipmate
# 918
|
Posted
Having done a fair amount of work on this before, I'll chime in.
Most of the camelid remains we have that go back into the 2nd millennium and beyond is problematic in that it simply says camels existed, not that they were domesticated. This is the tricky part, because you can't tell what is a domesticated camel or not when you dig it up. Proximity to settlements is not helpful either, as sometimes wild camels were herded close to be butchered.
So far there are no camelid remains before the Iron Age in Israel, which is seen as a problem first mentioned by Albright quite some years ago (who put the date at 1400BC iirc). Consequently, Abraham wandering about on his camels, moving about with lots of camels, having packs of camels, was all seen as a Wellhausean ploy - the writing of Genesis says more about the time it was written, rather than the time it refers to. The minimalist camp has played on this (Van Seters and Thompson to name a few) who argued that the anachronisms were signs of the late composition of Genesis.
However, things have moved on from the 70's, but we're still dealing with the question of domestication. Bactrian camels go back probably to the 3rd millennium for domestication, 4th millennium in Turkmenistan, Harrapan and the Iranian plateau around the 2nd-3rd millennium, and Egypt is still hotly debated- Rowley-Conway argues for a 1st millennium, Ripinsky for a pre-Dynastic domestication, so nobody agrees there.
What is somewhat interesting is that Abraham goes outside of the immediate Levant and that's where he gets his camels - Egypt in Gen 12, and Harrapan (Syria) in Gen 24 and 30-31 - assuming the dates for domestication in Egypt are old, he gets them there, then the other mentions are also outside - Syria has has 2nd millennium mentions and possible depictions. There is some new information coming out of Anatolia which might show bronze-age camels, but the authors of the paper are cautioning not to get enthusiastic about it until more study has been done. This doesn't solve the domestication issue (how did Abraham keep his camels going long enough to pass them down to Isaac etc.,) but it does present a plausibility structure for it which is primarily what Kitchen is arguing for.
I think the Biblical Archaeology Review put this out put this out some time ago, which covers the main arguments and presents the main pro-Camel front, and the bibliography is reasonably recent, although the original paper that caused this furor can be read here and has an even more up to date bibliography. As I have argued on Reddit, this paper actually is a great argument against the Conquest narratives rather than Abraham, as it's possible Abraham could have gotten a pack of camels outside, as the text states, but Judges 7:12 indicates that the Midianites and Amalekites have camels like the sand of the sea - and if domestication cannot be put before the Iron Age, then this is likely to be incorrect.
This by no means shows the historicity of Abraham, simply that the story isn't as far fetched as is commonly argued (Seters and Thompson both argued that people living in tents was anachronistic and fitted a 1st millennium date, but nobody uses that argument anymore after they discovered that they did in fact happily exist in the 2nd).
--------------------
In cyberspace everyone can hear your spleen...
Posts: 234 | From: St. Androos | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Thank you Flubb. That's a great addition to the conversation. I look forward to reading the links.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Flubb:
quote:
So far there are no camelid remains before the Iron Age in Israel, which is seen as a problem first mentioned by Albright quite some years ago (who put the date at 1400BC iirc).
1400 BC seems a bit early for the beginning of the Iron Age. Have I got the wrong end of the stick?
Good post, btw.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Flubb
Shipmate
# 918
|
Posted
I forgot to throw in Heide's paper from Ugarit-Forschungen which covers a lot of historic camel discoveries and their relation to Abraham and domestication issues.
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
1400 BC seems a bit early for the beginning of the Iron Age. Have I got the wrong end of the stick?
No, you have the right stick for the Iron Age, I was trying to remember off the top of my head and thought Albright put a terminus ad quem at 1400BC but he actually put it at 1100-1000BC (the putative start of the Iron Age unless you follow Finkelstein's low chronology).
--------------------
In cyberspace everyone can hear your spleen...
Posts: 234 | From: St. Androos | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Flubb:
I think the Biblical Archaeology Review put this out some time ago, which covers the main arguments and presents the main pro-Camel front, and the bibliography is reasonably recent
This paper, if the evidence presented in it holds up to scrutiny, makes the articles interpreting the discoveries of Erez Ben-Yosef and Lidar Sapir-Hen look ridiculous.
I suspect that the real value of their work is about definite local evidence in Palestine itself. It is absurd to think that if domesticated camels existed in Syria, Egypt and Mesopotamia in 1800 BC they would be unknown in Palestine, even without that physical evidence. But having the evidence pinpointed to the 9th century BC in Palestine itself is interesting and useful. Local evidence for a later date may someday be found.
The interest in the articles, though, is obviously about public interest in the Bible and in things like pointing out anachronisms.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Flubb
Shipmate
# 918
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
This paper, if the evidence presented in it holds up to scrutiny, makes the articles interpreting the discoveries of Erez Ben-Yosef and Lidar Sapir-Hen look ridiculous.
I'm rescinding my BAR attribution as I'm not sure it is anymore (they tend to put their name at the bottom of their ebooks), but the information in it is pretty much replicated elsewhere. I prefer academic papers, but as a layman's start it's fine (and the pictures are interesting), if a little too pro-camel friendly. Heide is a much better treatment ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
In cyberspace everyone can hear your spleen...
Posts: 234 | From: St. Androos | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Actually, I'd never heard of any camel controversy until the last few days.
I pretty much agree with Lamb Chopped. I wonder what they've found in the way of remains of sheep and goats?
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
It took Moses 40 years of walking in the desert to see the promised land, and he was only starting from Egypt. Magnify that my x times to get how long it would have taken to have human migration from Somalia to Samaria across one or other of the world's greatest deserts or via the red sea using boats that - oh, they haven't invented yet.
But it only took Moses 40 years because the Israelites were prevented by God from entering and were made to wander for those 40 years until that generation had died out!. It wasn't a journey of 40 years! They were walking in circles.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So, in a highly fertile, densely populated region a camel dies.
Was it domesticated?
What happens to its remains?
A camel falls in the desert. If no one's there ...
I'd LOVE to see a map of camel finds and whether they were pack animals or not.
And don't you just love the false dichotomy of inerrancy? It covers SUCH a vast multitude of sins still, on this site.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
And don't you just love the false dichotomy of inerrancy? It covers SUCH a vast multitude of sins still, on this site.
So true.
But without it, who would read the article? And without the article, who would fund the research?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Thank you Martin. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
As for camel bones, unless there were a shedload of camels around, I expect they would salvage the bones. Lots of uses for bone in a land where wood is scarce. I imagine the long bones of the legs would be in particular demand, as they could be used for anything needing framework, as a reaching or fire tool, as part of a tent or travois strucure... but of course those are the very bones that would be needed to tell whether a given dead camel was domesticated or not.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
