Vorkosigan

As subsequent discussion showed, the article was in error. In fact, I believe the word we're looking for is "misleading." Yes, that's right, the article was misleading.

Agnos1

Some interesting discussion developing. Thanks, K.A. for the link to the archaeology book; does everyone agree it is un-biased? Call me prejudiced, but anything containing the words "biblical this or that" in science makes me think of creation science. I hope I'm wrong because I'm really thinking about buying the book.

OneEye: I was thinking along those lines (hypothetically) as well. These hominids could have come from out of town, and it is safer to say today that Cro-Magnon Man or whatever doesn't exist and any bones found must be ancient, but back then they would still consider the fact that none of these brutish chimp-boys were seen hanging around their stomping ground (they certainly would have noticed them!) and they might start thinking about the properties of preservation (lime?) and time. What did ancient Egyptians use to preserve mummies? Understanding of these properties could have existed. Natural parallels could be identified and studied.

I make this observation as well: Religionists will always use archaeology as ammunition when it suits their interests and will point to how inadequate it is when it doesn't.

King Arthur

There was no one who showed the article to be "in error". The article was perfectly fair and scholarly. If it had been in error, it would not have been published in such a prestigious scholarly journal as Biblica.

Everything it stated about Finkelstien's book was true. Dever and others talk about Finkelstien's abrupt about-face inspite of a lack of new data to back his change. Other scholars were left dumbfounded at his change. As a matter of fact, several of them have said that the believe he was "taken in" by the minimalists' rhetoric.

I recently found another article in an issue of BAR that talks about how silly is the notion that the Tel Dan stele does not refer to the House of David because there is no dot between the two words (as pointed out in the erroneous and biased article someone posted). The proof was from another stele from a completely different location that had another comparable, "combined title" which did not have a dot between the two words.

To bad Finkelstien and his minimalist sidekicks can't get their act together and present some real archaeology to the public. All they can come up with is popular junk scholarship which the public just eats up because it is so wonderfully outrageous.

[ August 04, 2002: Message edited by: King Arthur ]</p>

King Arthur

Funny, but that's what many of us atheists do as well. It's kinda hard not to be threatened by information one feels goes against what one is trying to uphold.

King Arthur

You're not much of an amateur archaeologist if you can't spell the word correctly and don't even know about the pottery, pits, leveling of tels, etc., and think it is "laughable".

If you've only read a book or two on archaeology, you might think again.

Here is yet another great book on archaeology that one could read and is mentioned by many great archaeologists today:

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385425902/qid=1028463376/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/103-0393488-7299064" target="_blank">Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000 - 586 B.C.E.</a> (The Anchor Bible Reference Library! - if anyone knows what that is ).

I'll help straighten you guys out yet. Perhaps if people read enough, they'll come to the light. Though actual schooling is better.

King Arthur

You're welcome.

You're probably not going to get a straight answer here because I doubt that anyone here has ever heard of this author or this book.

With the link that I provided, you can see a few pages of the book (but they are not the best and most involved pages). You can also see the table of contents.

It is a worthwhile read at a very cheap price. As a matter of fact, if $10 is too steap, go to Half-Price Books if you have one near. I've seen it there recently for about $6. Half-Price Books can be a great friend. I just recently bought a rare book on Greek and Roman palaeography which has apparently been republished. <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0890050945/qid=1028464389/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-0393488-7299064" target="_blank">Edward Maunde Thompson's An Introduction to Greek and Latin Palaeography</a>. Before, I had to go to the library for this one because it is old and rare. Now I have my own copy though it cost me an arm and a leg. Now, I can date ancient Greek handwriting more easily. This is probably one of the books to which Richard Carrier turned when he needed to translate that papyri that he has so proudly posted on his website.

Don't trust these other guys. They ain't got nuthin' on me. You just have to get past my crap talk. Perhaps it was the military. Perhaps it was sports. I dunno. I just love acting like an idiot and then having people find out (after much study) that I was truly correct.

King Arthur

Here is an archaeological website (I believe free from theological bias) which lists Currid's book in recommended reading list for preparing people for a dig as well as some of Dever's stuff and the Mazar book I mentioned.

<a href="http://www.abila.org/diginfo.html" target="_blank">DigInfo</a>

Perhaps this will help you see that, once again, I'm not just blowin' smoke as I keep getting accused by others.

BTW, the above website is endorsed by the Near Eastern Archaeological Society (NAS) if you know anything about them. They provide the scholarly journal Near Eastern Archaeology (NEA) (a real archaeological journal). I used to have a subscription to them but let it run out. I'm thinking about getting a new one though because the most recent issue has an excellent article which contains info on the minimalists and the Tel Dan stele. Great stuff!

[ August 04, 2002: Message edited by: King Arthur ]</p>

Amen-Moses

Originally posted by King Arthur:

You're not much of an amateur archaeologist if you can't spell the word correctly and don't even know about the pottery, pits, leveling of tels, etc., and think it is "laughable".

Well conversing with yanks as much as I do I have switched to using their spellings, it saves having too many pedants picking my posts apart.

I didn't actually specify which of your statements I found laughable and find it interesting that you should claim a lack of knowledge on my part with no evidence of such.

If you've only read a book or two on archaeology, you might think again.

A book or two? Maybe if you went on a dig or two you might not sound so laughable.

Here is yet another great book on archaeology that one could read and is mentioned by many great archaeologists today:

I'll help straighten you guys out yet.

Very doubtful.

Perhaps if people read enough, they'll come to the light. Though actual schooling is better.

Aha, so you are schooled in Archeology, where was that btw? What digs did you go on?

Amen-Moses

[ August 04, 2002: Message edited by: Amen-Moses ]</p>

King Arthur

Notice, Amen, that I said "if" before the things I said. With your short, ambiguous statement, I couldn't figure out exactly what you were talking about. What, then, do you find laughable? My attitude? Ok... It's laughable.

If you have truly been on a dig, then you know that the stuff I'm saying is true. You are probably familiar with the books I have listed as well. You may recognize others from the list the I presented above.

I'm noticing that you're not giving any useful book or website references. I'm not telling you what digs I've been on because you might be able to figure out who I am. What dig did you go on?

Amen-Moses

Originally posted by King Arthur:
What, then, do you find laughable? My attitude? Ok... It's laughable.

Well this:

"People tend to forget that ancient people sometimes cleaned up after themselves as well and repaired what had been destroyed thus screwing up any record of an event that we might otherwise have found."

or this:

"Archaeology cannot write history. Finds can support history, but a lack of finds says nothing definitive as tomorrow something might be found."

Archeology can disprove history by the method already outlined, i.e finding something that shouldn't be there, obviously taking into account stratification of finds and continuity of strata.

It can also do the same thing with a lack of finds, i.e on one of my digs we could demonstrate that a village had been uninhabited for several centuries due to a layer of natural sediments completely covering the site. As long as you can discount erosion at the site, which in most cases you can, then this sort of evidence is perfectly acceptable. (and is exactly the evidence found at "Jericho" which indicates that the largest walled city was already deserted at the time of the supposed Biblical wall tumbling story)

If you have truly been on a dig, then you know that the stuff I'm saying is true.

Some of it rings true, but you seem to be taking it further than warranted. Archeological finds can indeed rewrite history but you are correct that they cannot really write it in the first place except in some exceptional cases. Archeological finds can also debunk history and I myself have done this on several occasions. (historians hate Archeologists )

You are probably familiar with the books I have listed as well. You may recognize others from the list the I presented above.

Yep, and I have even read some of them, unfortunately if you have 20 Archeologists in a room then you get at least 21 opinions, a bit like theologians.

I'm noticing that you're not giving any useful book or website references. I'm not telling you what digs I've been on because you might be able to figure out who I am. What dig did you go on?

Digs plural. Mostly local, i.e Milton Keynes area where I grew up, but I have been on a few around the country whilst serving in the Air Force, one of the Roman floors I helped excavate is on display in the MK City Centre Mall, by the fountain if you really want to be specific. That was my biggest dig and took two summer seasons to complete (it is a real pain in the arse excavating a site for two months only to have to fill it in again knowing full well you have to come back next year and do it all again).

I also have many fossil and mineral finds displayed in the areas museums from my rock bashing days.

Amen-Moses