Agnos1

Let's say someone uncovers a pre-historic hominid or two, and they find tools and the remains of a burial site. They know these beings don't exist "today," so they could conclude they preceded all known history, as nothing can be found in their historical records indicating anything like these people (toolmakers) ever existed. Could they not conclude something about Evolution from this? Wouldn't it conflict with the "God's Image" belief? If it's a headache now, think of the headache back then. These days religionists rationalize as myths and allegory that which was taken verbatum in ancient times, heck even up through the 19th century, like the age of the Earth and perfect creation.

Let's say they had something like the Grand Canyon in their midst. Couldn't something of geology be discerned? Looking at it, couldn't some thoughtful person have said something as simple as, "How could a world-wide flood have occurred with all those elegant and fragile rock formations still standing there in the middle of the canyon?"
Is there anything like the Grand Canyon in the Mediterranean region that could give insight on sediment layers and the like?

Agnos1

K.Arthur,

Don't you think archaeologists can identify a trash pit and take it into account?

Vorkosigan

It is unlikely, because the necessary social, technical and proto-scientific preconditions for the kind of dispassionate inquiry you speak of, Agnos, did not exist. No standardized measurement system, no zero, no idea of progress in knowledge and nature, no mathematical modeling, no values like openness of information and peer review, etc. No really good theoretical models about geological and cultural change. I could list lots more.

King Arthur

Maybe you were posting while I was writing... I don't think it would have cause Christians or Jews much of a problem because it seems as if many Jews and Christians thought of at least some of the OT as being allegorical way back when. It just wouldn't have made a difference. Humans rationalize things today. They would have rationalized things then. People needed "God" then. They need "God" today. Like it or not, the concept of "God" will not go away because some archaeologist finds dinosaur bones. We'd better learn to live with people who "know God". And putting their religion down and hammering on them ain't gonna do the job. It turns them inward, mad, and likely fundamentalist.

King Arthur

Sure. Sometimes. The problem is that when ancients dug pits they disturbed the layers underneath and occasionally dumped the remains somewhere else on the tel. Stuff gets rearranged all over the place. An experienced archaeologist can spot and understand many of these kinds of things, but not always.

Tell you what. Here is an excellent intro to archaeology that will give you an idea of how they do things and some of the problems involved. It's great and informative read.
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0801022134/qid=1028420282/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-0393488-7299064" target="_blank">Doing Archaeology in the Land of the Bible: A Basic Guide, John D. Currid</a>

King Arthur

What? They certainly knew what ZERO was even if they didn't have a figure to represent it. They did quite well at calculating things without it. Read Vitruvius above. Without standards of measure and ideas of mathematics they would not have been able to achieve the things Vitruvius wrote about.

Finally, I suppose this all depends upon exactly what time period you're talking about again. If you're talking farther back than 2000 years ago, then they had somewhat less knowledge. However, the ancients understood a lot more than we give them credit for today. They were as smart as any of us. They just had a different set of world knowledge with which to work.

Iasion

Greetings all,

King Arthur said :

Wrong.

Archeology is increasingly showing that the early stories of the OT are mythical, not historical.

e.g. Finkelstein and Silberman's "The Bible Unearthed" adduce much evidence to show that the Exodus and the Conquest of Canaan did not happen as outlined in the Bible.

They say the archeology and documentary evidence from the period argues that :[*] the Exodus never took place[*] the conquest of Canaan never happened[*] Abraham and Moses and Joshua were myths[*] the Israelites were local Canaanites


Jericho is a classic case in point - the faithful like to trumpet that the destoyed walls of Jericho have actually been found! (or pretend there is a lack of evidence)

This is rubbish - sure, some faithful believers like Albright found something they BELIEVED was the fallen walls of Jericho and true believers now repeat this ad nauseum...

BUT,
what archeology actually shows is that during the late bronze age[*] Jericho was unoccupied,[*] Canaanite settlements were UNWALLED[*] Egypt kept tight control over Canaan

In short, the Exodus and the Conquest of Canaan could NOT have happened as the OT portrays.

They argue all these early stories, even the united monarchy, David, Solomon - are myths formed in the 7th century as part of the reforms of the Deuteronomist school (Josiah period).

I have only just got my hands on this book after seeing much discussion over the past year - it seems fairly credible and informative.

Iasion

King Arthur

You didn't read a farggin' thing I said. Hello? McFly?

First, go back and re-read the stuff I wrote about archaeology. I know what I'm talking about. Archaeologists cannot write reliable history for the reasons I gave above. Go read some basic works on archaeology (no not Finkelstein), I mean about how archaeology is done. Then read Dever. He should set you straight on holding up Finkelstein's latest book.

You also apparently have not read my other threads. Finkelstien's book is his lone thesis. Read Dever and read the post I put up recently with an article from the scholarly biblical journal called Biblica which mentioned that Finkelsteins book misleads the very people it is directed at---beginners.

Ultimately, I'm afraid you are wrong.

Amen-Moses

Can you prove that statement?

As an amateur Archeologist I find some of your statements distinctly laughable.

Amen-Moses

One-eyed Jack

Back briefly to Agnos1's speculation about ancients discovering a hominid site: the problem is, they don't know that the strange bones are not from an ape-human that was alive somewhere in the world--maybe it migrated from the unknown lands south of Egypt, they might speculate. The great collectors and cataloguers of the 18th and 19th centuries made it possible to say that there are (almost certainly) no Australopithecines alive in the world, and the cataloguers depended in turn on the 15th and 16th century explorers who brought the world into view; and they in turn depended on the Renaissance technologies which made possible the manufacture of large numbers of (relatively) reliable ships...

Just my opinion, of course. I have no doubt that many people in ancient times figured out that sandbanks might eventually harden into sandstone, and that anything embedded in the sand might turn to stone too. But there were just so many unknowns that I think it would have be perhaps unreasonable to expect them to make all the right guesses about a fossil hominid given all the information they lacked.