>Dick wrote:
>>Of course it's false. There are clay layers analyzed as "water-laid"
>>at Ur, Shuruppak, Kish, Lagash, and Uruk (the biblical Erech). I don't
>>know about a "300 foot-deep flood" though. Sounds arbitrary to me.
>Dick I thought that the Flood stratum of each city had a different age
>to all the others - how can they a record of the same event? Your dating
>of the flood is probably correct, but the data seems against it being a
>one-off. Or has a minor archeological revolution passed me by?
Dating archeological digs in the absence of deposits of volcanic ash lacks
the kind of precision archaeologists prefer, but nevertheless, the thick
flood
stratum Woolley found at Ur was placed at the early fourth millennium, about
3800 BC. Notwithstanding, a higher flood level also was uncovered dated to
about 2700 BC, but it had been discounted as too little and too late.
Langdon and Watelin excavated Kish in 1928-29. They dated the bottom layer
which amounted to about one foot in thickness to 3300 BC. This seemed to
lend support to Woolley's claim, even though the dates were 500 years
apart. The
thickest layer at Kish was at a higher level, however, and assigned a
similar date
to the thinner layer found at Ur.
Mallowan, who excavated the more northern city of Ninevah, uncovered several
strata of mud and riverine sand totaling six feet in depth.
Diplomatically, he called
this not a flood, but a "pluvial interval," and placed it at the fourth
millennium,
similarly dated to Woolley's layer. But then, flood deposits at Kish,
Shuruppak,
Uruk, and Lagash were considered and a consensus put all of these layers at
nearly a thousand years later than Woolley's renowned find, averaging around
2900 BC.
Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orisol.com
"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago."
Sincerely,
Dick Fischer
Office: (703) 633-3853 Mobile: (703) 963-0426