evidence confirms biblical depiction of Edom

what? no. i think you misunderstood. edom was a kingdom before israel was a kingdom. but they are not mutually exclusive. edom was a kingdom WHILE israel was a kingdom as well. i quoted the one reference that refers to edom as a kingdom well before the date provided in the article. all i'm trying to do is say that there's still a ways to go. where? what, you think — and — are unrelated words? or, for that matter, their english equivalents, "king" and "kingdom?" i would say having a king counts. but, um, i checked the genealogy, and it doesn't matter. esau's genealogy goes no deeper than grandchildren. it seems there was a group already in edom, the family of a guy name seir. esau goes and lives on a mount seir (relation?), and one of esau's sons knocks up seir's daughter.and then the kings just suddenly appear in the text, with no relation. there are eight generations. i don't know what this means. it seems that there were edomite kings... when edom got there. can anyone make sense of this? i just graphed out genesis 36, and i can't figure it out.

---

I think what is in dispute is when they both became Kingdoms. Israel didn’t become a Kingdom until Saul became King, which, if true, would be around 1050 BCE.The problem, which hasn’t been addressed yet, is the Bible’s claims that Edom was a kingdom long before the 12th century BCE.If we again mention the biblical chronology of the Exodus, we see that it places the Exodus at around 1446 BCE (1 Kings 6:1), we also learn that the Exodus group allegedly encountered the king of Edom in Numbers 20:14: Moses sent messengers from Kadesh to the king of Edom, saying:
"This is what your brother Israel says: You know about all the hardships that have come upon us.The problem is, this encounter occurred before the end of the 15th century BCE, by biblical chronology. However, it was shown beyond all doubt that there was no Kingdom of Edom (or Moab) before the 13th century BCE.The Rabbi Nelson Gleuck, whose quote: It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference. (Glueck Nelson, 1969 Rivers in the Desert: History of the Negev.: Jewish Publication Society of America, Philadelphia, page. 31.is frequently taken way out of context on creationist websites, has stated that:” Had the Exodus through the southern Transjordan taken place before the thirteenth century BC, the Israelites would have found neither Edomite and Moabites who would have given or withheld permission to traverse their territories” (Glueck. 1940, The other Side of the Jordan ASOR, New Haven, page 146)So, we can see that the great archaeologist and fundie scholar Glueck has debunked the possibility of Moses’ group meeting the King of Edom.We can also see that people who use Glueck as a source to prove that the Bible is to be taken literally, really haven’t done their homework. Could you be confusing Moses with Joseph, who is said to have risen to a very high rank?Genesis 41:41-45So Pharaoh said to Joseph, "I hereby put you in charge of the whole land of Egypt." Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his finger and put it on Joseph's finger. He dressed him in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain around his neck. He had him ride in a chariot as his second-in-command, and men shouted before him, "Make way !" Thus he put him in charge of the whole land of Egypt.

​

Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, "I am Pharaoh, but without your word no one will lift hand or foot in all Egypt." Pharaoh gave Joseph the name Zaphenath-Paneah and gave him Asenath daughter of Potiphera, priest of On, to be his wife. And Joseph went throughout the land of Egypt. Dictionary.comKingdom: A political or territorial unit ruled by a sovereign. It is possible that the Esau fable was produced to defame the Edomites.Brian.

Really? You don't really believe that, do you?Nothing has been shown at all to contravene the Bible here. Why make such a statement? There is a belief among certain people that Edom was not a kingdom, but we can look at kingdoms and nations from very recent history and still not see a lot of evidence for them other than historical accounts. Take the Apache nation. Without historical accounts and without photos, it would be difficult to say a separate nation/kingdom existed, but it did. We might find Indian sites, but we would have a difficult time determining if they were a separate nation with their own language, etc,....or not, if we did not have some historical accounts to rely on.

That's what the archaeological evidence demonstrates. There is no good reason to believe that there was a kingdom of Edom during Moses' time. I'll keep an open mind on the subject, but at the moment there's no evidence to support the biblical account.Glueck was a real fundamentalist, intent on proving the Bible true, it was his excavations in the transjordan that led to this conclusion. There is no sign of any kingdom of Edom, or kingdom of Moab before the 13th century BCE. This is a simple, cold, hard fact. But, there is nothing to be found before the 13th century BCE at the areas of Edom and Moab, so it does contravene the Bible. If the Bible was true and accurate, where is the evidence of settlements in Edom and Moab?No one is saying that Edom and Moab were never kingdoms, we are saying that the biblical chronology is incorrect.The apache analogy is invalid and irrelevant because there is evidence of settlements, there are no pre-15th century BCE settlements constituting a kingdom of Edom, or Moab.The very best that inerrantists can do is to say that they have no evidence of a Kingdom of Edom during the time of Moses, but it may just be that the evidence has not yet been found, even given that Glueck extensively excavated the area.Brian.

tisk tisk, brian. abscence of evidence ≠ evidence of abscence.we can, say, for instance, when a particular settlement started (abouts), but seeing how far down the layers go, archaeologically. but it's hard to say that there was no settlement anywhere in the entire region -- maybe we just haven't found it. of course. but that's hardly proof of the bible.

---

You think 1000 years from now, we will be able to see any evidence of Apache settlements and be able to distinguish them, say, from Navaho settlements?The more nomadic the people, the less likely there will be a lot of evidence for them.Are you claiming no one lived in the area during that period?

Why not? We find indian camp sites that have been dated 13,000 years old. Perhaps not all of them, but then again, the appalcian mountains are not desert, which as a preserving quality.

I think c. 1200-1100 bc is the earliest Edom could have really had a serious kingdom established. By 1200, Egypt and the Hittites had largely diminished in influence over Palestine and transjordan. But the area of Edom was indeed a cultural center for nomads & Shasu long before the Egyptians controlled palestine.The people of Israel established their kingdom around 1020 bc, and it seems very plausable that Edom and Moab established their kingdoms 100-200 years earlier, amidst the shrinkage of Egyptian power.The biblical tradition of wandering Israelites passing through the kingdom of Edom c. 1200's bc isn't really that problematic if Edom was just beginning to form it's monarchy at this point, but would have probably been a coalition of powerful tribes.Around 1200-1100 bc, all sorts of foreign peoples and nations began to stake claims for their share of greater Palestine. Philistines,Amorites, Canaanites, Moabites, and Edomites would have all carved out their portions of the land. And on top of this we have the Israelites and Hebrews who are another addition to this new era.It's probable that there would have been more than one exodus of Hebrews and slaves from egypt during this time period of Egypt's decline.Palestine was constantly under rural warfare even from the beginning of Egypt's 400 year dominance. In the 1400-1300's there were raiding parties of Shasu and Hapiru who attacked the cities of Canaan. many of these Hapiru and Shasu were captured and sent back to Egypt as slaves
(literally thousands at a time). By 1250 under Rameses rulership, Egypt was already beginning to Weaken, and Merenptah's campaign into Palestine had little affect, though it may have offset Israel's development for a generation or two.

Sure, without any problem.Remember that some digs in Palestine (jericho for example) have remains going back 10 000 years. We aren't talking about nomads, we are talking about a kingdom, complete with settlements, which cannot be found at Edom or Moab in the 15th century BCE. I am claiming there is no evidence of settlements at that time (15th century BCE).The thing with historical/archaeological enquiry is that you need to justify your inferences, Binford calls it 'inference justification'. No archaeologist has ever provided justification from the evidence to infer that there was a kingdom of Edom in the 15th century BCE.Historical research requires that the person claiming the existence of something has the burden of proof, in this instance they would have to say "we know there was a kingdom of Edom during the 15th century BCE because........"There is no evidence, at this time, that a King ruled over the area of Edom during Moses' time.Brian.

How do you know this John?I keep asking you to provide evidence to support many claims you make, but you keep blanking these requests.I am not asking you just for the sake of it, I genuinely wish to know how you know that the new settlements in the hill country were Israelite, I ask this because it is an unusaul claim to make.So, how do you know that Israel established their kingdom around 1020, is it based solely on the Bible or do you have external evidence? I'd really like some support for this as well, because the amarna letters do not descibe the 'Apiru this way.What is your source for raiding parties of Shasu?Brian.

You have heard of negative evidence?When Cohen excavated Kadesh-Barnea to virgin soil and found no evidence of settlement there before 10th century BCE, does this mean that there is a possibility of 2.5 million Israelites camping there before this date?Negative evidence is a big part of archaeology, and it depends on the plausibility of what is being claimed. For example, it is unreasonable to expect archaeology to provide evidence for the existence of Abraham, but it isn't unreasonable to expect to find the remains of human activity in an area where huge numbers of people were said to have lived.Regarding the Kingdom of Edomand Moses' encounter we are told that:Numbers 20:20-21:Again they answered:
"You may not pass through."
Then Edom came out against them with a large and powerful army. Since Edom refused to let them go through their territory, Israel turned away from them.Now Israel had a fighting force of 600, 000 men, so the Edomites must have had an incredible amount of soldiers for Israel to crap itself.So, the old 'absence of evidence' apology is very strained in this instance. I am going on Glueck's findings and he excavated extensively in the area of Edom and found nothing before the 13th century BCE.Also, you do not need to excavate the entire area because it isn't everywhere that is suitable for a settlement. The last bastion of the fundy Arach, I am surprised at you.The thing is with archaeology, we have to decide what is it we can 'reasonably' expect from it. In this case, it would be unreasonable to expect the biblical version of Israel's encounter with Edom not to have left at least a fingerprint in the archaeological record. Huge armies are not nomadic, nomads as far as the ANE is concerned were in the main pastoralists. Huge armies did travel across the ANE, but nothing anywhere near the size of Israel's army has been reported.Pharaoh's army, which was probably at most about 20,000 men.? (Mendenhall 1958: The Census Lists of Numbers 1 and 26 Journal of Biblical Literature, 77, pp. 64-65)Egypt never had an army anywhere near the size of Israel's, and Israel was concerned about the size of the Edomite army!It is just a little too much of a stretch not to expect any evidence of settlements that would be home to the Edomites, if the biblical claims are true.But don't fall into the 'absence of evidence' trap. Negative evidence is a valid argument.Brian.

I require a little clarity of terms in the present discussion.
How are we distinguishing "kingdom" from "tribe"? If it is based on the installation of a leader over a group of people, then how is a "king" in the biblical language at all distinct from a tribal chief? Based on the archaeological evidence, we have reason to believe that the Iron Age settlements in Palestine were little more than fiefdoms; certainly not the centralized powers that the Bible presents them to be.
Even if the Edomites had formed a society by the 12-10 cent. BCE, so what? This only confirms that the biblical accounts are correct regarding their presence and nothing more.

My claim of a [c.]1020 bc establishment of Israel's kingdom is based off the biblical chronology of king Saul and David, aswell as the common view among scholars [who believe he existed] that David reigned c. 1000-970 bc.As for hill settelments of c. 1200-1100 bc, I have no absolute proof these were Israelite, but I feel that the biblical stories combined with Israel being mentioned in the Merenptah stele give reasonable probability that Israel was beginning to sprout fourth in the hill countries of Judah and transjordan, the very areas wich the bible mentions.What evidence do you have that the Apiru were any different than how I described? Sethos I mentions Apiru attacking a local city from mt. Jarmouth (1300 bc) he responds to these attacks and brings back some of these Apiru as slaves. Also, during his reign he responds to raiding Shasu along the via maris. The Amarna letters c. (1360-1330) are very descriptive concerning the Apiru who are causing civil problems among the vassal cities of Canaan. How do you see this differently?

Early Edom and Moab:The Beginning of the Iron Age in Southern Jordan
by Pitor BienkowskiPage 21-36 The Egyptian evidence on Ancient Jordan
by Kenneth KitchenOne interesting area mentioned under the article "Early 2nd Millennium" is KUSHU. References abound in the actual texts for anybody who wnts to follow up , endless textual locations are mentioned.Ill avoid too many direct quotes to avoid copyright violations.KUSHU waas mentioned in the Story of Sinuhe (c. 1900 BC) and in something called the "Brussels texts".In Sinuhe text , Sinuhe summonss the leader Ya'ush from Kushu. The name is identicle to the Ya'ush (Jeush) in Genesis 36 verses 5,15 , 18 among sons of Esau mentioned as perhaps camping in Edom in the patriarchal age.In the Brussels texts (c 1800 BCE) , not rulers but chiefs of clans of Kushu are mentioned.The names are too damaged Kitchen says.Kitchen mentions that "an archaic biblical" reference is "generally admitted to indicate" the most likley location of those clans in Hab 3:7 which places Kushan parallel with Midian.Kushu/Kushan is set south of Shutu (which Kitchen did an excellent job of showing to be Moab in an earlier section)then , in what would become Edom in the middle of what would later become Moab and Midian.Kitchen describes that there would be clans from then till the period till Rameses III , and refers to later articles.He goes on to add that tribal chiefs in the area seem to be what is described in the Execration Texts, the Shutu list , and Edomite King Lists of Genesis 36:1-39.The family succession ,Kitchen says, should be compared to the Egyptian 13th dynasty with little more than 6 out of 60 kings with familt succession.The Execration Texts, says Kitchen , have not just urban centers but tribal groups linked with them (this in western Palestine).Kitchen shows counterparts in contemporary Old Babylonian Mesopotamia where there are lines of kings ruling over tribal confederations or groups in given areas alongside urban rulers in the same place."Such would also have been the Assyrian King List's early 'kings who lived in tents', and not merely fictions" (Ktchen references)."Clearly, if it were not for the attestations of such tribal kings in cuneiform documents with their urban counterparts , we would (archaeologically)know nothing of them.Thus, the relatively poor, even fugitive attestation of material evidence for the Middle and Late Bronze Ages in (later) Edom and Moab is equally unreliable as negative evidence, if (as is most probable) the rulers of Shutu and clan-chiefs of Kushu were agro-pastoralists and largely nomadic pastoralists respectively."That was section 2 in "Early 2nd millennium BC" titled "KUSHU" , the first was SHUTU , he has a 3rd section then a summary before moving on to the mid 2nd millennium.Later , he mentions.Page 26
The El-Amarna correspondence, mid-14th century BC
by Kenneth Kitchen"This archive is Egyptian only by find-spot , except for Egyptian 'file-copies'.Hence it can be dealth with here only summarily, especially as little of it affects Jordan. With one exception, noted below , all letters from east of the Jordan come from (or refer to) places north of a line from Pella across to Busruna (Bosra , Busra Eski Sham) of EA 197:13 , 199:23. This includes seven towns in Ge(shu)r (EA 256),(footnote), the land immedediately east of the Sea of Galilee. Then there is Ashteroth , now Tell 'Astara (EA 197:10; 256;21) and Siri-bashani (EA 201:14), 'Rock of Bashan', the Biblical Har-Bashan in the Jebel Druze.The one seeming exception to an entirely northern locale is the land of Seru, in EA 288.26.Here, Abdi-Khepa , ruler of Jerusalem , claims: 'I was as war (all the way) from the land of Sheru (up) to Gini-Kirmil'. The latter is in North Canaan , probably nar the Carmel range (Schmitt 1987:43-48), so the former (Sheru) would correspondingly symbolize the southernmost pole of Abdi-Khepa's vision , and hence the fairly general inclination to accept an identification of Sheru with Seir(footnote."(1 more short paragraph in that short section)From page 21-31 with about 5 pages of footnotes from 31-36 is Kenneth Kitchens contribution.This above only took up about 1/4 of a page. His late 2nd millennium BC: 19th-20th Dynastys, c. 1300-1170BC covers over 3 pages and seems to have a ton of textual mentions of Edom/Sier and Moab.Sier would be called Edom by Egyptains around 1200BCE it seems.I bought this book about 6 months ago (used for like $10 and it sounded interesting) , but never read it yet.I randomly scanned some pages in the back by the editor , and it seems to be a very detailed archaeological pottery dating responce to claims of Israel Finkelstein, with many full pages representing drawings of pottery remains.Nearly every paragraph starts like "Finklestein provides no real evidence to dat the pottery in question to Irin I, but apparently regards it as a self-evident truth." or "In fact, there is very little resemblance between the store-jar rims from Edom which Finklestein has sited...." nearly the whole chapter(a dozen or so pages).The current Biblical Archaeology review seems to have a pretty good 5+ pages devoted to this Edom topicin their current issue (written by the archaeologists).On top of that , they have about 4 pages devoted to a pretty good critique of the Finkelstein book.Every other magazine I read (like Smithsonian and many others)present Finkelstein as the middle, near last, and last word on everything.They give maybe 1 short paragraph to "conservatives" then pages to Finkelstein. Slate magazine and many others also never failed to promote Finkelstein in major puff peices but I cant find anything refering to impressive books by Kenneth Kitchen that are a breath of fresh air.Biblical Archaeology Review seems very biased and misleading on Pre Monarchy days but they get much more fair closer the the 1st millenium. On the Patriarchal issues , Biblical Archaeology Review needs a half decent editor that is up to date.The previous issue had a good 5 pages devoted to the Patriarchal issue and it was unreal. I have only did a little reading for maybe 6 months on these issues , and I couldnt believe how out of date their scholarship was. The article author kept refering to 40 year old conservative scholarship as if it was current.I am shocked I even knew nearly who the scholars were who (which he didnt even gebin to name)some 40 years ago promoted the old views he tried to pass off as the last word on those who accept the patriarchal text as true.The article author metioned the Patriarchal days in Genesis as proven fabrications when the Hurrian and Amarna Age parallels were proven false.He refered to the 1960's Interpreters Dictionary Of The Bible , with its disproven parallels , as evidence that the patriarchs were proven false.The Negev had no archaeological remains from either the mid 2nd millenium (Hurrian parallels)nor from the Amarna Age (c.1350 promoted by C H Gordon , which again , he didnt mention). He didnt mention that It was mainly E A Speiser from 1964 (Anchor Bible Commentary) who promoted the Hurrian parallels , and even by 1971(!) William Hallo mentioned in his History of The Ancient Near East that Hurian parallels were outdated scholarship but the archaeology supports the c1700-2000 wanderings consisten with the Bible anyway.Whats amazing is that the BAR issue mentioned that Hallo was just hired as an editor , yet he couldnt have presented his 1971 book to help get the article author up to speed?The Biblical Archaeology Review author said that (not exact quote) "because we have discovered so-called Hurrian parallels to not be unique to just c1500 then it proved the Bible to be wrong on the patriarchal age".Better check out a 1966(!) book by Kenneth Kitchen. He is a conservative scholar who said that LONG ago , plus showed that nearly every archaeological issue there is points to the patriarchal days to only fit into c1700-2000 BCE period , which also happens to be the Bibles near literal dates anyway (not 1500 BCE).And much of the Biblical circumstances only fit into the c1700-2000 period in a unique way.here is the FULL text for those to read.BiblicalStudies.org.uk: Kenneth A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old TestamentThe 1966 book will be released updated in print form soon.Not that anybody will pay any attention to 2006 scholarship when they cant get past the early 60s.Anyway, hope my first post didnt break any rules. Im new to this area of study.Already fustrated at OLDDDDDDD outdated scholarship lol.And I dont know jack.Kenneth Kitchen seems the most grounded in reality though.Hope this place can likewise be a sane up to date voice to cheer me up.There arent too many it seems.Every google search I try on Archaeology always leads to people screaming "Finkelstein Finkelstein Finkelstein" like he "proved the world to be false afterall".I am a little shocked the BAR author critiqued Finkelstein the way it did though.Have they ever done that before? This is the first real critique I have ever heard on his work (aside from Kitchen quotes some Christians mention) till I just picked up the Edom archaeological book I quoted.EDIT:My beef was that the March/April BAR author (who was a PHD no less!) didnt even mention the c1650-2000 BCE period AT ALL. Just kept shooting down the "Amarna Parallels" an especially "Hurrian Parallel's". He presented Wellhausen as the last word (I didnt even mention this outdated scholarship from the "liberal" or "minimalist" side that he rpeseneted as current)which didnt bother me. I just didnt like the false presentation of the "conservative view" especially when it was conservatives themselves who corrected the incorrect scholarship.And nearly a half century ago! Now I see why so many non professionsals (like me)on the web keep trashing the Pre Monarchy Bible history in endless fashion.Its all you hear about from popular culture and popular magazines.The false presentation of conservative views not to mention non ideological scholarship (see Kenneth Kitchen)that shows leading indicators for accurate historical details.Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : Reason for edit: poorly worded paragraphs.Just want to add some things at bottomI type so slow it effects my typing grammar.Not flowing well.Need to get sentences put together better in future.

This is 13 pages not 5 as I thought earlier.Ive read it at least 3 times today.Ill try and quote some of the parts that are relevent to what people have been saying and paraphrase other parts to avoid breaking copyright laws.Edom and Copper:The Emergence of Ancient Israels rival.
Thomas Levy and Mohammad NajjarIt seems clear that these 2 did the archaeological work listening to their comments, so they have credibility.They explain alot about past mistakes in dating Edom.
They mention very careful preparation of organic samples then sending them to seperate high precision dating facilities for seperate witness. They mention pottery dating like comparing Egyptian scarabs.They havnt dated everything, includinh 4 large towers southeast of the Khirbat en Nahas (Ruin of Copper in Arabic they said , I remember Nachosheth meaning Bronze or Copper in Hebrew from my studies) fortress. They think they could date from 1400-1200 or to various points in the Iron Age.They have dated the earliest levels of a worker building (built for significant metalurgical activites) during the 12th to 11th centuries.Carbon dates and Egyptian scarabs confirmed this.So that puts building activities at least back to 1100.A gatehouse and fortification walls were built at the start of the 10th century.By the middle of the ninth century, it went out of use.The lowest stratum("A4a")was on the bedrock before the gate was founded was radiocarbon dated to the later 11th or early 10th century.Above that is their "A3" stratum (gatestructure surface) dtes to early 10th century.The gate is contmporaneous to similar Negev fortifications in the Negev.They describe later layers and relate it to Biblical events.The metal workers from the early part of the Iron Age must have had tremendous organizational skill as they mass produced copper at a level that left thousands of kilograms of black opper slag waste still clearly visible from even the air.They go on to mention that it appears that the Bible is describing a complex society with a king before Israel had its king.An archaic state of some kind seems to have evolved prior to Israel's."Anthropologists, archaeologists, and historians have struggled mightily to define and identify from archaeological remains what makes a state level society.They are doggedly looking for the litmus test that will distinguish a state from a chiefdom."They go on to mentions assumptions we like to make when a king is mentioned with regards to how he ruled, how much land , and ability to field an army."However ,it isnt so simple".From the anthropoligical record, the societys cannot be easily divided between "kings" and "chiefs" and they "fall along a continuum" that is complex.There is no simple dividing line and neat categories.They mention how much more difficult it is to draw a distinction based on a "mute archaeological record".The question is not whether Edom or Israel were states or chiefdoms "but whether, based on the archaeological evidence , those societies had the levels of social complexity needed to field armies , contruct monumental buildings and carry out technologically intensive industrial activities".They mention that the "chief" "king" issue is "relatively unimportant"."What seems clear is that,at least by the beginning of the Iron Age , Edom was a complex society with the ability to construct major buildings , defend itself with strong fortifications , and create a technologically sophisticated organization to draw copper ore and thereafter to manafacture objects with it.If it could do this there is no reason to doubt that it could also ield an army.They go on to mention that Edom was ALWAYS a kind of tribal society even when it reached its most advanced stage in the 8th to 6th centuries.Just like it was a complex society from the Iron age if not Late Bonze age.They descibe it as the tail end of this period, I wonder if it doesnt go much further back considering that we only see the Copper production required as the industry collapsed in Cyprus in the Late Bronze Age.Perhaps Edom was "complex" before then just without many buildings?Anyway, Solomon was described as having ruled for 40 years but that seems like a neat Biblical number rounded up from perhaps 20-30 years, say 25.Ive seen history books describe the Shishek invasion as around 920, and he finished the temple in 4 years so say 940 BCE. The Septuagint says there was 440 years from the construction till the Exodus so thats around 1375 then the 40 years of the wandering makes around 1340 when there Israel had to avoid going through Sier.Sier was what Edom's area was called in Egyptian records up till around 1210 hwen it was clearly called Edom.Edom was in archaeology "complex" it seems with buildings and everything close to that time (1200).They had Dukes or "Kings" according to the Bible though non-fundamentalist's need not worry about a single word.There is perhaps 100-150 years then to get back to around 1350 (assuming the Israelites came in around that time) when the Israelites might have needed to pass by them. I think they could have had an army that would have caused them the Israelites consider it. Clearly by 1220 BCE , in the late Exodus, Edom was archaeologically "on the verge" of the point if not already there. Even if the Exodus was around 573-594 years before the temple being buily (as early as 970) then that would be around 1600BCE and it seems that tribes could have been there even then despite the "absence of evidence" in archaeology. Textual evidence could indicate tribes (not necessarily Edom) were there as far back as 1900 BCE with names that later descendents of Esau took.Jericho was destroyed around 1550-1600 based on carbon dating and as recently as 1370 (1410 +or- 40 years)based on pottery finds that Bryant Wood combed over.The Ipuwer papyrus has linguistic features that fit the 13th Dynasty or slightly later (close to 1600-1650) and sound an awful lot like the Exodus (to put it mildly).Plus it has been described as historical not fictional by scholars.ForbiddenEven the Amarna letters arent a total slam dunk against Israelites being in the land those they would seem to indicate it at first.Nealy every text in the Delta and Palestine has been destroyed and Kenneth Kitchen said that 99% of archaeological relics underground havnt been unearthed though Im sure it isnt as bad in Palestine and Egypt.Due to Papyrus and not stone being used.Doesnt last except in dry (upper Egypt) conditions)From the 12th dynasty , there is overwhelming evidence of North West Semites being in the delta.David Rohl does a good job of showing the large amount of Asiatic slaves with NWS names also.He gives strong evidence (linguistic and other) to locate Goshen and shows the Semites lived there from the 12th to 2nd intermediate period.Pehaps including Israelites (or settlement founded by)Then a new group (Hyksos or other semites , or israelites according to Kitchen)came in.This fits in with all possible Exodus periods as the Israelites were in Egypt from anywhere from 210,215 or 430 years.It works for the "215" year period from the Middle Kingdom "bondage" to around 1600 Exodus.The 430 works for the Middle kingdom Bondage to 1400-1500 Exodus.The 400-430 works for the 2nd intermediate period to 1215 conquest (1250-1260 Exodus).Ill keep an open mind up for all possibilities.But Edom clearly isnt a problm at all anymore for a 1215 Exodus and perhaps further back. And aside from Jericho , Ai, and a few others William Steibing shows that around 80% of cities described in Joshua were destroyed c1200 BCE.Not that he accepts the Conquest mind you. Kitchen is even honest in that he admits that at least 1 of the cities destroyed c1200 seems to have been from the Sea Peoples not Israelites.Edom isnt a problem anymore though.Anyway.Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : Adding a few comments on North West Semites in Egypt.