Announcement

Collapse

Archeology 201 Guidelines

If Indiana Jones happened to be a member of Tweb, this is where he'd hang out.

Welcome to the Archeology forum. Were you out doing some gardening and dug up a relic from the distant past? would you like to know more about Ancient Egypt? Did you think Memphis was actually a city in Tennessee?

Well, for the answers to those and other burning questions you've found the right digs.

Our forum rules apply here too, if you haven't read them now is the time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Camels in Genesis

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    You do realize that you're now making no sense at all, right?
    It's easy to dismiss disagreement as "making no sense." It seems to be far more difficult to answer a direct question. But as with QW, if you are comfortable letting belief over-ride evidence, then enjoy your comfort.

    And enjoy your day.

    Comment


    • #17
      If they aren't finding heavy pack camels then they probably didn't have pack saddles - more likely than they didn't have camels at all given that the animals were known (according now to you and QW's quote) in period. Forget the saddle weight - without the tree it's hard to impossible to get an animal to carry really heavy loads (hard to fasten safely, chafes like crazy, distribution is difficult - pack animals can carry more with a pack saddle than without one and more safely as well).
      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

      My Personal Blog

      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

      Quill Sword

      Comment


      • #18
        And if you prefer blindly presuming evidentiary sufficiency where it is clearly lacking, then enjoy your comfort.

        Have a nice day.
        "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

        "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

        My Personal Blog

        My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

        Quill Sword

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
          This is relevant. N.B.

          Quote
          " This entire process, it has been argued, took place without the benefit of camel transport, the camels making their appearance only at a much later date from parts unknown. But it has been demonstrated that the camel was already in use during the period in question and that its probable homeland was southern Arabia. It is much more reasonable, therefore, to assume that the camel was the main carrier on the incense route from the very beginning, or nearly so, and that the Semitic tribes of the north came to know the camel in this way in very small numbers. In other words, the presence of camels in the Abraham story can be defended and the story treated as primary evidence of camel use without disputing Albright's contention that camel-breeding nomads did not exist in Syria and northern Arabia at that time."
          And here is a more scholarly article that supports the same thing. To summarize: evidence from inscriptions, drawings, and figurines show that camels had been domesticated in the ancient near east (ANE) by 2000 BC. Domesticated camels were known in Iran, Turkmenistan, and Egypt by this time. It is reasonable to assume that they would have been used on the major E-W trade routes that passed through Palestine. If so, it is reasonable that the Patriarchs could have purchased domesticated camels from these traders, even if there were no camel breeding and domestication efforts in Palestine itself. The Patriarchs were few in number and were nomadic, so there is no expectation that we would find archaeological evidence of camel use specifically from them.
          "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Outis View Post
            Best to go to the original.

            People can come up with arguments to justify anything. Whether those arguments are sensible, logical, or remotely realistic is another matter. But this is yet another case where faith is impervious to evidence. If you are comfortable with that, then all is well. If you ever become uncomfortable with that, it is still quite feasible to discard literalism and yet retain your faith. Plenty of others have done so.
            He quotes Bulliet a fair bit and points to some other scholars who support an earlier domestication of the camel. As far as I know, Miller isn't known to misrepresent the data of scholars.

            Quoting Miller

            " Bulliet is carefully skeptical of most ancient artifacts that allegedly purport to demonstrate the early usage of the camel, as a couple of quotes will show:

            "To be sure, one or two representations of camels from early Mesopotamia have been alleged, but they are all either doubtfully camelline, as the horsy looking clay plaque from the third dynasty of Ur (2345-2308 B.C.), or else not obviously domestic and hence possibly depictions of wild animals, as in the case with the occasional Ubaid and Uruk period (4000-3000 B.C.) examples" [HI:TCAW:46]

            "These five pieces of evidence, needless to say, may not convince everyone that the domestic camel was known in Egypt and the Middle East on an occasional basis between 2500 and 1400 B.C. Other early depictions, alleged to be of camels, which look to my eyes like dogs, donkeys, horses, dragons or even pelicans, might be more convincing to some than the examples described above." [HT:TCAW:64]

            So, in light of this careful approach, the pieces of strong evidence that he advances that he does consider convincing are all the more substantial. He describes the evidence on pp. 60-64 of his book.

            A 3.5 ft cord of camel hair from Egypt, dated around 2500 BC. Buillet believes it is "from the land of Punt, perhaps the possession of a slave or captive, and from a domestic camel"

            The bronze figurine from the temple of Byblos in Lebanon. It is in a foundation with strong Egyptian flavoring, and is dated before the sixth Egyptian dynasty (before 2182 BC). Although the figure could be taken as a sheep, the figure is arranged with items that would strongly require it to be a camel (e.g., a camel saddle, camel muzzle, etc.)

            Two pots of Egyptian provenance were found in Greece and Crete, both dating 1800-1400 BC, but both in area so far removed from the range of the camel as to suggest its presence in the intermediate areas (e.g., Syria or Egypt) during an earlier time. Both have camels represented, and one literally has humans riding on a camel back.

            A final piece of strong evidence is textual from Alalakh in Syria, as opposed to archaeological: a textual ration-list. There is a entry for 'camel fodder' written in Old Babylonian. "Not only does this attest the existence of camels in norther Syria at this time, but the animal involved is clearly domestic." [HI:TCAW:64].


            Other ANE/Egyptian expert's advance other/similar evidences for early domestication as well, such as Cyrus Gordon and Kenneth Kitchen:


            "Abraham did not want his son to marry a Canaanite, so he sent his servant to Paddan Aram (as the Haran region of north Mesopotamia is called) to secure a bride for Isaac. With ten camels and adequate personnel, the servant heads the caravan towards his master's Aramean kinsmen. The mention of camels here and elsewhere in the patriarchal narratives often is considered anachronistic. However, the correctness of the Bible is supported by the representation of camel riding on seal cylinders of precisely this period from northern Mesopotamia" [Gordon/Rendsburg, in BANE:120-12]. (They refer the reader to the illustrations in the journal Iraq 6, 1939, pl. II, p. And to the general discussion in Journal of Near Eastern Studies 3, 1944, pp. 187-93.)

            "It is often asserted that the mention of camels and of their use is an anachronism in Genesis. This charge is simply not true, as there is both philological and archaeological evidence for knowledge and use of this animal in the early second millenium BC and even earlier. While a possible reference to camels in a fodder-list from Alalakh (c. eighteenth century BC) has been disputed, the great Mesopotamian lexical lists that originated in the Old Babylonian period show a knowledge of the camel c. 2000/17000 BC, including its domestication. Furthermore, a Sumerian text from Nippur from the same early period gives clear evidence of domestication of the camel by then, by its allusions to camel's milk...For the early and middle second millennium BC, only limited use is presupposed by either the biblical or external evidence until the twelfth century BC. " [Kitchen in AOOT:79-80]


            One of the earliest pieces of data comes from Northeast Iran:
            "The period [EB, NMG IV, 3000-2500 BC] is marked by technological advances in pottery production, including the introduction and dominant utilization of the fast wheel and the appearance of efficient, tow-tiered pottery kilns; metallurgy with deliberate alloying and evidence for local production in the form of copper smelting furnaces on the outskirts of Khapuz-depe; stone working; and a development of wheeled vehicles drawn by Bactrian camels and possible bulls as indicated by terra-cotta models." [COWA1:186


            Bulliet agrees: "This conclusion serves to corroborate the inference made by Soviet archaeologists from their discovery of camel-headed wagons that as early as the first half of the third millennium B.C. two-humped camels were used in Turkmenistan for drawing wagons..." [HI:TCAW:155]
            "As has already been mentioned, this type of utilization [camels pulling wagons] goes back to the earliest known period of two-humped camel domestication in the third millenium B.C." [HI:TCAW:177, 183] "
            End Quote

            And I'm not so sure I can get that book.
            -The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
            Sir James Jeans

            -This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
            Sir Isaac Newton

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
              He quotes Bulliet a fair bit and points to some other scholars who support an earlier domestication of the camel. As far as I know, Miller isn't known to misrepresent the data of scholars.
              Miller isn't known for misrepresenting the scholars that he selects, but he exclusively selects from scholars that support his presuppositions. This is his privilege, but it does not give an accurate understanding of the scholarship on the issue.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Outis View Post
                Miller isn't known for misrepresenting the scholars that he selects, but he exclusively selects from scholars that support his presuppositions. This is his privilege, but it does not give an accurate understanding of the scholarship on the issue.
                Ok so what about the evidence that Miller presents?
                -The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
                Sir James Jeans

                -This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
                Sir Isaac Newton

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
                  Ok so what about the evidence that Miller presents?
                  QW, look at things from my side for a moment if you will.

                  You have 100 scholars (just an example number) on one side of a debate, and they say one thing. You have one scholar on the other side of the debate, and he or she says something else. And you have folks like Miller who only cite the one scholar, because that scholar supports his presuppositions.

                  In this, Miller is not even wrong. The historical existence of Abraham has already been discarded by the historical and archaeological community ... save amongst the small minority of scholars who insist on a literal reading of the narratives.

                  Asking me to engage Miller's evidence is every bit as unproductive as asking me to weigh in on the arguments of Paracelsis in the context of a discussion of alchemy. I reject alchemy as a valid method of discovery. Why would I be concerned about a small detail within an argument about a discipline I reject?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Outis View Post
                    QW, look at things from my side for a moment if you will.

                    You have 100 scholars (just an example number) on one side of a debate, and they say one thing. You have one scholar on the other side of the debate, and he or she says something else. And you have folks like Miller who only cite the one scholar, because that scholar supports his presuppositions.
                    I usually look at the evidence more though.

                    Originally posted by Outis View Post
                    In this, Miller is not even wrong. The historical existence of Abraham has already been discarded by the historical and archaeological community ... save amongst the small minority of scholars who insist on a literal reading of the narratives.?
                    Why?
                    Originally posted by Outis View Post
                    Asking me to engage Miller's evidence is every bit as unproductive as asking me to weigh in on the arguments of Paracelsis in the context of a discussion of alchemy. I reject alchemy as a valid method of discovery. Why would I be concerned about a small detail within an argument about a discipline I reject?
                    Well it is about the time of camel domestication in the ANE. Why not check around for other scholars who think these arguments are bad and list their reasons?
                    Last edited by Quantum Weirdness; 02-12-2014, 05:42 PM.
                    -The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
                    Sir James Jeans

                    -This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
                    Sir Isaac Newton

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
                      Well it is about the time of camel domestication in the ANE. Why not check around for other scholars who think these arguments are bad and list their reasons?
                      Remember when we were talking about Christ Mythers, and I advised you that very few people had bothered to refute them (until recently) because they were ridiculous? It's the same thing here. Folks like JP Holding and Glenn Miller and some of the other apologists referenced here are strictly small-fry, small market interests. Don't get me wrong, they're probably wonderful as people, but they simply don't matter in academics.

                      If you want a good, introductory-level analysis of the current state of academics on the historicity of Abraham, check out "Who were the Early Israelites, and Where Did They Come From" by William Dever.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Outis View Post
                        Remember when we were talking about Christ Mythers, and I advised you that very few people had bothered to refute them (until recently) because they were ridiculous? It's the same thing here. Folks like JP Holding and Glenn Miller and some of the other apologists referenced here are strictly small-fry, small market interests. Don't get me wrong, they're probably wonderful as people, but they simply don't matter in academics.
                        .
                        But they do quote academic sources well. And as for the same thing here, what is this same thing? The domestication of camels or the Historicity of Abraham.

                        Originally posted by Outis View Post
                        If you want a good, introductory-level analysis of the current state of academics on the historicity of Abraham, check out "Who were the Early Israelites, and Where Did They Come From" by William Dever.
                        I try to get a preview online.
                        -The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
                        Sir James Jeans

                        -This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
                        Sir Isaac Newton

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
                          But they do quote academic sources well.
                          Selectively. Very selectively.

                          I try to get a preview online.
                          If you have a good local library, this one should be available. It sold well, and is fairly popular.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Outis View Post
                            If you have a good local library, this one should be available. It sold well, and is fairly popular.
                            I dunno if these kinds of books would be in my local library (They would probably have more Caribbean literature)
                            -The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
                            Sir James Jeans

                            -This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
                            Sir Isaac Newton

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
                              I dunno if these kinds of books would be in my local library (They would probably have more Caribbean literature)
                              Ouch. Yeah, I just checked COSTAATT's library ... there ain't much there. :(

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
                                But they do quote academic sources well. And as for the same thing here, what is this same thing? The domestication of camels or the Historicity of Abraham.



                                I try to get a preview online.
                                Also, don't ignore or overlook the paper that I recommended on page 2:
                                http://moodle.tau.ac.il/pluginfile.p...tion%20ANE.pdf

                                I don't know who wrote it, but it is well footnoted and seems to have a good bibliography.
                                "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 09-21-2021, 03:47 AM
                                90 responses
                                398 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 08-11-2021, 08:14 AM
                                7 responses
                                65 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X