Agnos1

I think I have an interesting query (any archaeology or anthropolgy buffs out there?):

Could people living in Palestine 2000 years ago, or in Syria for that matter have had the resources, deductive capacity, etc. in order to 1) recognize geological patterns and what they mean and 2) dug up fossils from this strata to determine relative ages of extinct species? Could someone within the Roman Empire had the wherewithal to conduct such an inquiry?

Would this have had an affect upon ancient superstition, and if in theory this type of monumental insight had occurred (effectively negating the claims of the O.T.) would Christianity have been nixed at the get-go, and science be given somewhat of an early boost?

King Arthur

Don't know if they knew how to do this in particular, but don't think they were dummies.

Read Strabo's geography or Vitruvius' works. They were some pretty smart dudes. Matter of fact, go back even farther to the Chaldeans who calculated the length of a year to within a 30 minute error.

Finally, archaeology today is not "negating the claims" of the Old Testament. Rather, there are many finds that appear to support it. Otherwise, there is simply a lack of information for other parts, for instance Jericho. That does not mean however that things did not happen there as portrayed in the Bible, but merely that we cannot tell if they happened any more because the evidence that we are specifically looking for does not seem to be there. 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.

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

Saying that archaeology has disproven the Bible is dogmatic atheism at best and moronic at worst.

King Arthur

Here, <a href="http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0073" target="_blank">Vitruvius</a> is particularly interesting, especially if you're an engineer. Read the chapter on Sound in an Amphitheatre. They actually understood harmonics and used strategically placed jars to resonate and carry the sound farther than it would normally go. Cool stuff! BTW, if you've ever seen Leonardo DiVinci's "Man" drawing? He drew it based on ratios of the human body mentioned in the above book by Vitruvius. Do a web search if you doubt me.

Here is <a href="http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0198" target="_blank">Strabo</a> and his geography, a somewhat dry read, but kind of interesting if you know the city of place he refers to.
Anyway, this should tell you a little more about what kinds of things they were capable of back then. If it had come to their minds to do such a thing as you mention, then I'm sure they did or would/could have.

[ August 03, 2002: Message edited by: King Arthur ]</p>

GunnerJ

Maybe not, but paleontology, which is what Agnos is describing, sure as hell is.

One-eyed Jack

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

Minor quibble: If, say, Biblical history says that such-and-such city was burned and became wilderness, never to be reinhabited, then archeology could certainly disprove this on definite evidence: excavation could, for instance, by showing that the city was indeed inhabited during and after the period when it was supposedly destroyed.

Mind you, I have no specific examples; I just wanted to make the point that it is indeed entirely possible for archeology to give definitive evidence disproving Biblical (or other) accepted history.

One-eyed Jack

On the main point: I think that a lot of the understanding of modern science is synergistic--to understand the full significance of fossils I think one needs at least some understanding of geological strata and how they relate to age, and of things like biodiversity, speciation, and extinction so that one can appreciate that the funny-looking clam in the rock is not simply a clam from somewhere beyond Egypt.

But I've seen clamshells embedded in sandbanks, in partially hardened semi-sandstone, in fully indurated solid stone, and as agatized casts in mineralized stone; I expect at least some people in ancient times saw similar things and drew intelligent conclusions from them. I dunno that they could infer speciation or the full range of geologic time from those observations, though.

King Arthur

He mentioned, specifically, archaeology and anthropology and "2000 years ago". This has nothing to do with palaeontology. However, if one takes the early part of Genesis literally, then yes, palaeontology can give one headaches.

[ August 03, 2002: Message edited by: King Arthur ]</p>

Agnos1

I guess it is paleantology I'm driving at. K.Arthur, I'd like you to "dig deeper" (thanks for the referrals by the way). I'm not saying excavations would reveal the merits or claims of cities destroyed or events taking place during biblical times, I'm going back much further in time, million of years, that is. Could excavations have revealed the incredibly more ancient Earth than the O.T. describes, for one, and as one poster was mentioning-- clams, what about dinosaurs, or other obviously extinct species being discovered in sediment layers that could be deduced using the available resources (and a little ingenuity) of the times? I realize these disciplines in actuality were not invented till the 15th-19th centuries, but is my hypothesis plausible? Could anyone have known, when could they know it, and how much could they know?

Could human awareness have taken a giant leap and bipassed some of the superstition coming down the pike due to plausible and fortuitous circumstances? It's one of those "what if" questions about which historians, for instance, are always conjecturing about and I find interesting.

King Arthur

There is so much more to archaeology. You see, dates are determined mostly through pottery remains. If the strata are intermixed for some strange historical reason like an ancient trash pit or like the moving of lots of earth from the top of a tel to provide fortification or leveling of the tel, then the strata can get mixed up. The pottery can fall into a strata it shouldn't be in. There are so many variables.

It is very difficult to say conclusively that something did or did not happen via archaeology. Archaeologists cannot write reliable history, especially without the help of ancient documents.

King Arthur

From your original questions, it did not seem that you were referring to palaeontology. However, if that is truly what you are referring to, then who knows? Since at that time, there was no way to know nearly all the creatures on earth, who knows what they would have made of finding dinosaur bones.

Even if they had found them and understood them (which I think might have been at the edge of their capabilities), then would it have really mattered to them? After all, this ancient evidence really only affects belief in the earliest parts of Genesis. Many early Christians and Jews around 2000 years ago took parts of the Old Testament to be allegorical - Origen, Philo, and I think Josephus. I don't think it would have made a difference.

Sure. After all, it happened somewhere along the way to our generation. Even some religious people throw off enough dogmatism to look "outside the box" now and then. It could have happened earlier. However, discoveries like this wouldn't have and won't destroy the notion of God. I think "God" will be around for a very long time indeed.

[ August 03, 2002: Message edited by: King Arthur ]</p>