Does history support the bible?

[CJvR]

Perhaps the little fact that all the major ancient civilizations started on river plains have something to do with the "global" spread of flood myths. To ancient peasants on a lonely hill top watching the water wash away their huts and livestock it would be the end of the world, hardly surprising that floodmyths pop up around rivers.

[Knife]

Most of the even somewhat arcahelogically useful parts of the Bible suffer from a phenomenon known as backward projection. That emasn that at the time the oral history was written down, the writers looked around them and assumed that the situation in the past had been much the same (cities as large, prosperous and well fortified etc) when it was not the case. That's where you get the walls of Jericho myth and a lot of others.

Archaeological evidence also suggests that the Israelites were a group that fled one of he outer settlements of Egypt north of the Sinai and the supposed Pharaoh of the Bible was just a regional governor. The Sinai wanderings myth could well be the result of stories by escaped mine slaves grown in the telling (Egypt had mica mines in Sinai where the presence of Hebrew slaves was confirmed). Mix, match and add a few centuries and you easily get the Exodus myths.

So, no, it's not reliable unless you can verify through outside sources.

Edi

Hmm, I watched an History Channel thingy a week or so ago. Based off of a book I'm going to have to hunt down and read, I thinnk. Anyway, the basis was that Exodous makes more sense viewed through a military point of view.

The Hebrews as a more or less nomadic/tribal group with a military arm that was allowed to settle inside Egyptian boarders and used by the Pharao's as a kind of armed sentry on those boarders so his army could focus else where. The Hebrew people would also have worked as laborers, not necessarily as slaves.

Come the Exodous, Mosses marched his people out of Egypt and Ramses was a bit mad at the loss of an asset so set out to punish them or some such. It had a nice bit about a tactical withdraw over the Reed Sea and such.

I really need to read the book, since I didn't get to watch the show all the way through. But it also went on to speculate about Mosses going to Siani for (two?) years to build an army for his march to Caanan.

[hawkwind]

The Problem of the Exodus Story and the First Great Revision of Judaism about 1200 B.C.E. The fact is that with all that is known of Egyptian history from this time (since scholars can now read the records the ancient Egyptians with the ease of a modern newspaper), and the fact that the history of Egypt in this period is well documented, there is no evidence from the records of Egypt itself that the events of Exodus ever occured, either archaeologically or documentarily in the manner in which the Bible describes the events. The reality is that if a series of plagues had been visited upon Egypt, thousands of slaves escaped in a mass runaway, and the army of the Pharaoh were swallowed up by the Red Sea, such events would doubtless have made it into the Egyptian documentary record. But the reality is that there isn't a single word describing any such events. Instead, what we do have from Egyptian sources is a remarkably different story of the Exodus. From about the beginning of the second millenium B.C.E., through about 1200 B.C.E., Egypt ruled the region known today as Palestine. How do we know this? We know it not only from Egyptian records themselves, which talk about tribute taken from the various towns and cities in Canaan, but from archaeological evidence within the region itself, which shows a number of settlements which were clearly Egyptian military outposts. During this time, the region which was to become the land of Israel, occupying the northern highlands between the coastal plain and the valley of the Jordan river, was sparsely populated and densly forested with stands of oak and terebinth trees. This land was populated by one of two groups (we're not sure which), either the Apiru or Shoshu peoples. The former were known to have originated as intinerant nomads, largely on the fringes of lowland society, who may have taken refuge in the highlands, or the Shosu, a more cohesive, well-defined group. The linguistic association of Apiru (sometimes Habiru) with the word, "Hebrew" had long, in the minds of scholars, been considered good evidence that this was the group that gave rise to the Hebrews, but we now know that the association wasn't quite that simple. The name may have been from that source, but the people probably weren't. In any event, the highlands of northern Palestine which was home to the Kingdom of Israel has a highly variable climate. Agricultural productivity, and the ability of people to sustain trade with the lowlands, was subject to varying climatic conditions, meaning that famine was a frequent occurence. When crops failed and trade could not be sustained, it was not uncommon for people to flee the region and head for refuge where crops were dependable. The nearest such place was the Nile delta in Egypt. So many of the "Hebrews" (culturally indistinct from the Canaanites at this time), who were citizens of Egypt, fled to the Nile delta. Time and again. Every time there was a famine in Judah, Israel or Canaan, refugees headed for Egypt. The event was so common, and the refugees so numerous, that they eventually became a substantial minority group, influential in Egypt, where they were known as the Hyksos, as is now very clear from the archaeological record. The story of the expulsion of the Hyksos is easily the closest parallel we have from either the Egyptian record or the archaeological record to the story of the Exodus as recorded in the Bible. There are problems, though. Besides the Exodus story line, the biggest problem is the dates: the Bible places the Exodus at about 1200 B.C.E., yet the story of the Hyksos culminates in 1570 B.C.E. It is quite likely that the story of the Hyksos is the story that eventually, through generations of revisionistic retelling, became the myth of the Exodus example of history being rewritten to flatter the storytellers rather than to record the unvarnished truth. Anyway, the Hyksos grew in influence until they eventually took control of Egypt, which they ruled, with considerable cruelty and tyrrany during the Fifteenth Dynasty, beginning in 1670 B.C.E. The Egyptians had finally had enough, though, and rebelled against the rule of the Hyksos and drove them out a century later in 1570 B.C.E. They weren't just driven out, either; the Egyptians pushed them back into Canaan with considerable force, driving them all the way to the Syrian frontier, sacking and burning Canaanite cities along the way. Sometime later, the Hyksos capital in Egypt, Avaris, in the eastern Nile delta, was razed to the ground by the Pharoah Ahmose, who chased the last remnants of the Hyksos back into Canaan and even laid siege to Sharuhen, the main Canaanite citadel, destroying it and ending Canaanite influence there. At least one historian claims (a millenium after the fact) that the Hyksos refugees settled in Jerusalem and built a temple there, but the archaeological record does not support the claim of either a temple or large numbers of refugees in Jerusalem from this period. It is quite clear from the archaeological record, as well, that there never was a "wandering in the desert for 40 years," either. Extensive archaeological surveys of the Sanai desert have never shown any encampments dating from the time of the Exodus, either before, during or after the time of the Ramsean pharoahs. At least two sites mentioned in the exodus story have been positively identified and carefully and extensively excavated, but no evidence of late bronze-age occupation or encampment has been found at either site. Additionally, the Sanai Desert was literally dotted with Egyptian military outposts, and nowhere in the Sanai could the Hebrews have been more than a day's travel from one of them. It is inconceivable that they could have remained undetected in the Sanai for forty years. The story of the Exodus is clearly mythmaking designed to portray a possible forced expulsion of oppressors as an escape of victims.

From the essay I wrote before......

[Molyneux]

OW! Goddamnit, break up your text, please! Trying to read that was like a medium-large brick to the head.

[Guardsman Bass]

From what I can remember from the Bible Revealed, by Israel Finkelstein (on archaeology done in the area), what they found out, archaeologically speaking, is that three times in the period from 3000 BC to about 1000 B.C., two different groups of settlements appeared on the highlands that made up Israel and Judaea. Although the first two surges ended up shrinking away, in the beginning, they all resembled each other rather closely in terms of settlement design, and even had the same 'centers', with the last two surges both having the southern settlements centered around the Jerusalem area. The last surge became Israel and Judaea.

[Surlethe]

Reposted with paragraph breaks for easy reading.

The problem of the Exodus Story and the First Great Revision of Judaism about 1200 B.C.E. The fact is that with all that is known of Egyptian history from this time (since scholars can now read the records the ancient Egyptians with the ease of a modern newspaper), and the fact that the history of Egypt in this period is well documented, there is no evidence from the records of Egypt itself that the events of Exodus ever occured, either archaeologically or documentarily in the manner in which the Bible describes the events.

The reality is that if a series of plagues had been visited upon Egypt, thousands of slaves escaped in a mass runaway, and the army of the Pharaoh were swallowed up by the Red Sea, such events would doubtless have made it into the Egyptian documentary record. But the reality is that there isn't a single word describing any such events. Instead, what we do have from Egyptian sources is a remarkably different story of the Exodus. From about the beginning of the second millenium B.C.E., through about 1200 B.C.E., Egypt ruled the region known today as Palestine. How do we know this? We know it not only from Egyptian records themselves, which talk about tribute taken from the various towns and cities in Canaan, but from archaeological evidence within the region itself, which shows a number of settlements which were clearly Egyptian military outposts.

During this time, the region which was to become the land of Israel, occupying the northern highlands between the coastal plain and the valley of the Jordan river, was sparsely populated and densly forested with stands of oak and terebinth trees. This land was populated by one of two groups (we're not sure which), either the Apiru or Shoshu peoples. The former were known to have originated as intinerant nomads, largely on the fringes of lowland society, who may have taken refuge in the highlands, or the Shosu, a more cohesive, well-defined group. The linguistic association of Apiru (sometimes Habiru) with the word, "Hebrew" had long, in the minds of scholars, been considered good evidence that this was the group that gave rise to the Hebrews, but we now know that the association wasn't quite that simple. The name may have been from that source, but the people probably weren't.

In any event, the highlands of northern Palestine which was home to the Kingdom of Israel has a highly variable climate. Agricultural productivity, and the ability of people to sustain trade with the lowlands, was subject to varying climatic conditions, meaning that famine was a frequent occurence. When crops failed and trade could not be sustained, it was not uncommon for people to flee the region and head for refuge where crops were dependable. The nearest such place was the Nile delta in Egypt. So many of the "Hebrews" (culturally indistinct from the Canaanites at this time), who were citizens of Egypt, fled to the Nile delta. Time and again. Every time there was a famine in Judah, Israel or Canaan, refugees headed for Egypt. The event was so common, and the refugees so numerous, that they eventually became a substantial minority group, influential in Egypt, where they were known as the Hyksos, as is now very clear from the archaeological record.

The story of the expulsion of the Hyksos is easily the closest parallel we have from either the Egyptian record or the archaeological record to the story of the Exodus as recorded in the Bible. There are problems, though. Besides the Exodus story line, the biggest problem is the dates: the Bible places the Exodus at about 1200 B.C.E., yet the story of the Hyksos culminates in 1570 B.C.E. It is quite likely that the story of the Hyksos is the story that eventually, through generations of revisionistic retelling, became the myth of the Exodus example of history being rewritten to flatter the storytellers rather than to record the unvarnished truth. Anyway, the Hyksos grew in influence until they eventually took control of Egypt, which they ruled, with considerable cruelty and tyrrany during the Fifteenth Dynasty, beginning in 1670 B.C.E. The Egyptians had finally had enough, though, and rebelled against the rule of the Hyksos and drove them out a century later in 1570 B.C.E. They weren't just driven out, either; the Egyptians pushed them back into Canaan with considerable force, driving them all the way to the Syrian frontier, sacking and burning Canaanite cities along the way.

Sometime later, the Hyksos capital in Egypt, Avaris, in the eastern Nile delta, was razed to the ground by the Pharoah Ahmose, who chased the last remnants of the Hyksos back into Canaan and even laid siege to Sharuhen, the main Canaanite citadel, destroying it and ending Canaanite influence there. At least one historian claims (a millenium after the fact) that the Hyksos refugees settled in Jerusalem and built a temple there, but the archaeological record does not support the claim of either a temple or large numbers of refugees in Jerusalem from this period.

It is quite clear from the archaeological record, as well, that there never was a "wandering in the desert for 40 years," either. Extensive archaeological surveys of the Sanai desert have never shown any encampments dating from the time of the Exodus, either before, during or after the time of the Ramsean pharoahs. At least two sites mentioned in the exodus story have been positively identified and carefully and extensively excavated, but no evidence of late bronze-age occupation or encampment has been found at either site. Additionally, the Sanai Desert was literally dotted with Egyptian military outposts, and nowhere in the Sanai could the Hebrews have been more than a day's travel from one of them. It is inconceivable that they could have remained undetected in the Sanai for forty years. The story of the Exodus is clearly mythmaking designed to portray a possible forced expulsion of oppressors as an escape of victims.

From the essay I wrote before......

[Molyneux]

Well...that's fairly disturbing to read. Kinda like the whole bit about Jebediah Springfield's silver tongue from the Simpsons.

[Majin Gojira]

Ya know, I thought the exact same thing when I read it.

But will you convince the faithful of it? NoOOooo!

[Darth Raptor]

If you're already in Exodus and still searching for historical unreliability, you're reading too hard. Genesis has a global flood and humanity originating in the Middle East instead of Africa. Anyone who sees the Bible as anything more than poorly-written fiction is deluding themselves.

[Surlethe]

Genesis has a global flood and humanity originating in the Middle East instead of Africa.

... not to mention a God making everything except water 6,000 years ago.

[wolveraptor]

Notice that one of the few civilizations who settled near a river (the Nile) which flooded on an exact timetable doesn't have a flood myth? That's because they were never surprised and killed by some horrendous flood. The Egyptians were always expecting the annual flooding of the Nile.

On the other hand, the early Chinese, who settled near the Yellow river (which flooded eratically and chaotically), have a flood myth. Gee, how about that.

[Coyote]

There is 100% zero evidence of a half-million mass group of people travelling the Sinai as stated in ther Exodus; I know from having been there myself and been trained on what to look for by a University Archaeology professor from Ben-Gurion University in Israel, where I studied for 2 years. The professor's name is Steve Rosen.

We learned from a book specifically geared towards checking the Biblical vclaims and the Bible, I forget the title but the author was Dr. Amnon ben-Tor. He found a great deal of similarities or things that would allow people to project mythologies but few direct links.

The Hebrew conquering of Jericho at the hands of someone is verified by the destruction layers, but the next town conquered by the Hebrews against the Canaanites was (IIRC) Hazor, which according to the destruction layer recorded by the Kathleen Kenyon expedition was 250 years after Jericho...

[defanatic]

History supports the Bible, in the same way a backyard cabbage patch would support Beijing.

I mean... What kind of book would describe a 1000 BCE tribe as having 1.5 million people in its army? And having a similar opposing force from another tribe? wtf?

[Max]

Ok... so this whole topic has now evolved into a discussion about evolution and god. Let me show you what I'm dealing with.

Me- I mean...sure, I could accept a book that has a talking snake and talking shrubbery as evidence of a higher being. However, I'm a lot more educated than that.

"There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any
profane history."--Sir Isaac Newton

Oh, but I suppose you are more intelligent that the man who forumalted some of the most fundamental theories about our existence? [sarcasm]Yeah, that's right, you're MAX, and you are always right.[/sarcasm]

it's a "fact" in that it has stood up against rigorous testing again and again and again and continues to be consistent with observations

perhaps I can reference you to the definition of the word dogma=An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. (courtesy of Dictionary.com)

You're a sheep with cookie cutter responses.

A sheep is a creature who accepts the need for guidance, is that not correct? I think for myself, but I accept guidance.

(regarding Isaac Newton) That just shows he was a religious person. So? I don't recall his theories including 'God did it' in them.. do you?

By your wording, you were saying that it is base to have belief in the Bible, but by Isaac Newton's own words, it is quite the opposite. And by your words, you were claiming to be so more intelligent that people who subscribe to the Bible.

Not only did you take the second entry, you are spinning out of context.

it matters how that I took the second entry? I used the appropriate definition to suit my purpose. you're just *****ing because I used a word that has negative connotation, normally in a religious sense, to describe science.

But then...this is the clincher... he referenced some scientist for NASA.

Originally Posted by Robert Jastrow, acclaimed scientist and recipient of the NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement
At present, science has no satisfactory answer to the question of the origin of life on the earth. Perhaps the appearance of life on the earth is a miracle. Scientists are reluctant to accept that view, but their choices are limited; either life was created on the earth by the will of a being outside the grasp of scientific understanding, or it evolved on our planet spontaneously, through chemical reactions occurring in nonliving matter lying on the surface of the planet. The first theory places the question of the origin of life beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. It is a statement of faith in the power of a Supreme Being not subject to the laws of science. The second theory is also an act of faith. The act of faith consists in assuming that the scientific view of the origin of life is correct, without having concrete evidence to support that belief.

that is where some of the 'dogma' and 'faith' come in.

OMG.. s;elifgoigohi'ash'iosgai'hl

See what I did there? That was me banging my head against the keyboard. HELP!

If anyone wants to join me in this...because he just keeps going and going..pm me for the link.

[Max]

Can't believe I forgot this one.

DrDino at www.drdino.com is offering 25 thousand dollars to anyone who can prove evolution. There is no Proof that evolution is real. http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php go here and listen to these!!

[defanatic]

Yeah. Right now, I'm going holy crap. This guy has missed the correct amount by $225,000. And it's rigged so that no one can actually win.

Also, Mr Hovind wants you to "prove" everything from the Big Bang to evolution. This just goes to show that he doesn't understand scientific enquiry nor evolution.

Pfft.

[Darth Wong]

Yeah. Right now, I'm going holy crap. This guy has missed the correct amount by $225,000. And it's rigged so that no one can actually win.

Also, Mr Hovind wants you to "prove" everything from the Big Bang to evolution. This just goes to show that he doesn't understand scientific enquiry nor evolution.

Pfft.

He also defines Big Bang and Evolution theory incorrectly and demands that you prove his incorrect versions to be true.

[Wyrm]

"There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any
profane history."--Sir Isaac Newton

Oh, but I suppose you are more intelligent that the man who forumalted some of the most fundamental theories about our existence? [sarcasm]Yeah, that's right, you're MAX, and you are always right.[/sarcasm]

it's a "fact" in that it has stood up against rigorous testing again and again and again and continues to be consistent with observations

It's also a fact that Newton had some rather goofy ideas. This included alchemy, of all things. In fact, dismiss entirely the notion that Isaac only dabbled in it; his famous Principia pales in comparison to his notes on alcemy alone. He kept this substatial work to himself, though.

What it shows is that even the great Isaac himself believed what we now consider patent nonsense. This is why arguing from authority is considered a fallacy.

perhaps I can reference you to the definition of the word dogma=An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. (courtesy of Dictionary.com)

"Dogmas" are something science most certainly does not have, although some well-founded principles may be referred to as dogmas (the "Central Dogma of Biology," for instance). Otherwise, special creation would be the biology word for the day today, not evolution. Before Darwin, every serious biologist was a creationist. Therefore, if science were ruled by dogma, this would still be true. But evolution overthrew special creation as the better theory, because the mounting evidence of an old earth and of changing life throughout the geological column all pointed to that conclusion.

Established scientists in good standing still have to supply evidence for their conclusions. They have to argue their cases. The reason why scientists of notible standing tend to lead the establisment is because they talk sense. Over the years, they've learned to make their ideas gel firmly in the minds of their fellow scientists, and those ideas they put forth are, more often than not, well formed and reasoned.

Unlike our friend, whose "information" goes from eyes to fingers (or ear to mouth) without passing through the brain, evolutionary biologists take the time to learn about evolution. They study it, wrestle with it, mull over it, discuss it with each other, their professors, and other people in the field, and examine it in the face of the published data, and eventually make it their own. This is real learning, not the garbage-in, garbage-out that your friend does.

A sheep is a creature who accepts the need for guidance, is that not correct? I think for myself, but I accept guidance.

Semantics whoring. "Sheep" here means following a chosen authority figure blindly and without critical thought. Graduate students learning evolution also seek guidance from others, but eventually, they put everything together inside their heads and they understand, unlike the sheep who is wandering about in a fog of confusion claiming that it's understanding.

By your wording, you were saying that it is base to have belief in the Bible, but by Isaac Newton's own words, it is quite the opposite. And by your words, you were claiming to be so more intelligent that people who subscribe to the Bible.

Not only did you take the second entry, you are spinning out of context.

Even if he wasn't taking the quote out of context, so what? Dispite his brilliance, Isaac was a confirmed religious nutball who happened to churn out a few ideas worth keeping. In remidial science classes, you only hear about the diamond, but not the cruft that was also produced. Again this is why appealing to authority, no matter what the authority, is a fallacy.

But then...this is the clincher... he referenced some scientist for NASA.

Originally Posted by Robert Jastrow, acclaimed scientist and recipient of the NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement

At present, science has no satisfactory answer to the question of the origin of life on the earth. Perhaps the appearance of life on the earth is a miracle. Scientists are reluctant to accept that view, but their choices are limited; either life was created on the earth by the will of a being outside the grasp of scientific understanding, or it evolved on our planet spontaneously, through chemical reactions occurring in nonliving matter lying on the surface of the planet. The first theory places the question of the origin of life beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. It is a statement of faith in the power of a Supreme Being not subject to the laws of science. The second theory is also an act of faith. The act of faith consists in assuming that the scientific view of the origin of life is correct, without having concrete evidence to support that belief.

that is where some of the 'dogma' and 'faith' come in.

OMG.. s;elifgoigohi'ash'iosgai'hl

See what I did there? That was me banging my head against the keyboard. HELP!

Easy. It's bullshit, by the fact that the so-called "Supreme Being" explanation... quite simply isn't. The "explanation" that 'Goddiddit' explains nothing! If you have an phenomenon that you can't explain, then after using 'Goddiddit', you still have a phenomenon you can't explain; the 'Goddiddit' hypothesis add absolutely no understanding! So, scientifically speaking, it's worthless. Worse than worthless, as it discourages inquiry.

Well, science has no use for non-explanations like 'Goddiddit', so it's consigned to the rubbish bin.

Hope this helps.

[Max]

Just in case you guys want to see the new generation of fundi's at work...

++http://forums.advancedmn.com/showthread ... 203&page=6

Feel free to add anything to the conversation.

[Lord Woodlouse]

The Bible is a localised view of history. Sometimes it's utterly incorrect, sometimes it's confused. Sometimes it's right.

It should be viewed as any other historical source.

[Lord Woodlouse]

* I should add, alongside other historical sources.

[scythewielder]

I'd guess that the Bible, as well as most religious texts written "after the fact", is basically limited to telling us more about the historical circumstances and perspectives surrounding its particular writers than about the specific events that it's supposed to be chronicling (or just inventing, where appropiate).

Most of the quantities involved, especially those dealing with supernatural events (or highly exaggerated retellings of natural/real ones, as may well be the case with the flood and the exodus), are definitely of little direct use (except for proving how gullible and aloof many fundies can be).

[Surlethe]

I'd guess that the Bible, as well as most religious texts written "after the fact", is basically limited to telling us more about the historical circumstances and perspectives surrounding its particular writers than about the specific events that it's supposed to be chronicling (or just inventing, where appropiate).

More importantly, it exists to justify the decisions of the people ruling the writers; it certainly makes no attempt to be fair and equitable in its reporting of events (thousands of Egyptians babies dead, e.g.).

[Zaia]

Allow me to return to the OP for just a moment to pimp this book, Isaac Asimov's Asimov's Guide to the Bible.

In Asimov's Guide to the Bible he utilizes this skill to pare down and untangle the many intertwined threads of biblical history and mythology. He views this guide as a way to illuminate the world of the Bible by incorporating the secular aspects of history, biography, and geography into a deeper understanding...Situating the writers of the various books of the Bible in time and space, Asimov gives its writings context and also explains how that context has morphed with time...his aim is not to tear it apart but to flush out some of its mysteries, give it a context that the average Bible reader can understand, and therefore make it more real. --Jodie Buller

Link for more info. I've found it to be a most interesting read, and anyone wishing to have a secular look at the Bible should definitely check this book out.

[scythewielder]

More importantly, it exists to justify the decisions of the people ruling the writers; it certainly makes no attempt to be fair and equitable in its reporting of events (thousands of Egyptians babies dead, e.g.).

I agree. Many of the writers clearly would have had to work keeping in mind what their rulers (whether they were the earthly kings of an entire nation or simply spiritual leaders of a small sect), benefactors and would-be audiences expected to hear, most of which quite probably had strong preconceived notions about what was supposed to be "politically correct" in their own context (which, following what you've mentioned, had nothing whatsoever to do with accuracy, fairness or balance).

As the balance of political/religious power changed, those versions of history which disagreed with the new standards, whether in whole or in part, would come to be considered heretical, incorrect, or simply subject to extremely doubtful reinterpretations in order to justify what had come to pass (ie: Cyrus of Persia being seen as one "annointed by God" in order to "free" the Jews after they had suffered the appropiate punishment for what was perceived as their past sins, or the Pharaoh "hardening his heart" due to God's power...something which, without resorting to additional documents, is of little immediate use for those that might want to provide a plausible explanation for whatever degree of factual truth exists behind those same events).

This isn't only a Jewish/Christian thing, as such historical tampering was not uncommon throughout the ancient world (to a greater or lesser extent, depending on the specific civilizations involved), though comparing and contrasting the different sources and physical evidences does help to provide a clearer picture.