HN Explorer

21 comments

[ 0.21 ms ] story [ 60.0 ms ] thread
wslh
> They used Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy—which measures the absorption of infrared light to determine to what degree a sample had been heated—and archaeomagnetic analysis, which determines whether samples containing magnetic minerals were sufficiently heated to reorient those compounds to a new magnetic north

Awesome, it is crazy to be an archeologist these days! But you need to have a lot of patience before you discover something to apply the existing technology.

andsoitis
I find it jarring that the article says there’s no historical account other than the one from the Bible, but then gets into detailed geopolitical dynamics which I’m going to guess is not in the Bible.
saxonww
The "no historical account" applies only to the second siege of Jerusalem. The first siege and other events surrounding the second siege are recorded elsewhere.
wslh
I assume because this is the best account found by archeologists of the first temple destruction? It seems there were no previous historical account so this is a breakthrough. There is a previous article with other findings [1] [2]. Also related to technology it is interesting: "Israeli Archaeologists Enlist Cosmic Rays to Unveil Underground Secrets of Jerusalem" [3]

[1] https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/2023-08-21/ty-article-ma...

[2] https://archive.is/kZ9QL (2017)

[3] https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/2023-07-02/ty-article/is...

kasey_junk
Most of what they described comes directly from the Bible.

2 Chronicles 36 outlines this stuff almost directly.

nicklecompte
I am a little confused what you mean by "detailed geopolitical dynamics" - the paragraph beginning "Zedekiah also chafed under Babylonian rule and revolted in turn" is literally what the Bible story describes! See [1]. Are you referring to something specific?

I agree the presentation of the article was a bit sloppy, but there's evidence from Babylonian records[2] that

1) Judah was a client state of Babylon during Nebuchadnezzar II's reign

2) Jerusalem was sieged in 597BC

3) Afterwards Babylon installed a client king

The Babylonian records are weak but it is consistent with the Hebrew Bible[3] and agrees with the archeological evidence. Sadly we don't have Babylonian records of any second siege of Jerusalem. So it is reasonable to treat the Hebrew Bible story of the second siege as being a plausible treatment of the history, partially validated by the recent archeological evidence.

[1] https://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt09b24.htm#1 and https://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt09b25.htm#1 for instance

[2] E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebuchadnezzar_Chronicle

[3] https://www.biblica.com/bible/?osis=niv:2%20Kings%2024:10%E2...

[dead] gotoeleven
[flagged]
ahazred8ta
It became popular among some English protestants who didn't like to use Anno Domini because it's Latin.
satiric
I think it's also popular among some Jewish people, because they're OK with giving dates in terms of Jesus but they don't believe he was Christ/the Messiah.
pdonis
> it will happen to coincide with the birth of ... Jesus Christ.

More precisely, it will happen to coincide with what somebody incorrectly calculated to be the birth of Jesus Christ, but which we now know wasn't.

francisofascii
Which is now calculated to be between 6 BC and 4 BC.
pdonis
That seems to be the current consensus, yes, although I don't think later years can be conclusively ruled out.
genman
What is it with the raise of religious fanatics here?