Archaeological Report

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 3:20 pm

I picked this up from another web site.

A couple of years ago, Archaeologist Eilat Mazar claimed to have found "David's Palace" in Jerusalem. Now comes a rebuttal from Tel Aviv University's Archaeology Department. Not as sexy as some of the stuff we usually see posted here but this is the kind of stuff that real archaeologists do, I suppose.

http://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/archaeo ... _David.pdf

Ishtar · Post by **Ishtar** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:05 pm

It is interesting, though, because even just in that first paragraph, you can see how easily these Bible-conditioned archaeos jump to conclusions - i.e. that it was David's Palace - and then their first thoughts get set in stone. It's like they use science, which is supposed to impartial, to try to prove their own prejudices and they probably don't even know they're doing it. Then a whole other study has to take place to show well...actually, there's no real evidence for what's being claimed. But until then, you've got people like Arch claiming that David's Palace has been found.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:34 pm

I picked this up from Koreabridge and I have no doubt that Arch will be howling like a stuck pig as soon as he sees it. He's already denounced Finkelstein just from hearing a rumor that an article had been written which said the E. Mazar was stuffed full of wild blueberry muffins. Now that the entire article has been posted, Arch will lose it. I can't wait to go back and check the damage.

kbs2244 · Post by **kbs2244** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:47 pm

Slow down some Min.
Israel Finkelstien is just as much a member of his “club” as the guys we regularly deride.
They have an agenda also.
Just because you agree with it, doesn’t make it correct.
Time will tell.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 5:53 pm

Finkelstein is trying to establish a middle ground between the extremists on both sides of the argument. The fact that he has a bevy of co-authors for the piece speaks volumes. From reading the piece, even Eilat Mazar seemed to doubt her own evidence and I saw her interviewed two years ago when she said that a final determination would require an inscription or some other such piece of textual evidence. Obviously, she hasn't found one yet.

The problem which was pointed out at the end was the idea of the pre-conceived notion. She set out looking for "David's Palace" and damn...she claimed to find it. Similar to Columbus heading for the Indies and swearing he found them too. How her technique differs from that of Robinson and Albright, a century or so ago, is not apparent to me. Those guys set out to "prove" the bible correct and so they mis-represented every rock they found in order to advance that goal. It is, in large measure, their fault that the bible is now under attack as a historical document. If they hadn't claimed it was "historical" in the first place it would not have to have defenders today swearing that science is wrong and the bible is right.

Ishtar · Post by **Ishtar** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:41 am

I'm with Noble Savage. Tell Archie that the burden of proof falls on them, not us, and explain to him why, as per Hercules, Ulysses, Arthur and so on.

See what he and Stevie boy do with that.

I think I can hear the mellifluous sound of the screeching of stuck pigs!

What is a 'stuck pig', btw?

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:44 pm

What is a 'stuck pig', btw?

Those nice pink little porkers that get converted in to rashers before they are old enough to reach any size give a totally false impression of Pigs and Boars Ish.
The Wild Boar in Britain was considered to be suitable prey for hunting from horse back and was killed with a lance.
In addition, untill the PC, Beeding hearts, animal libbers got in on the act Pigs were normally killed on the farm.
They were strung up by the hind legs till clear of the ground then the slaughterer used a long knife to cut through the aorta to kill it, the blood was collected in a large basin and used to make black pudding.
The animal bled to death! It squealed mightily, as I imagined the hunted boars did. Killing a pig in both these manners was known as 'Pig Sticking'.
Make no mistake about it Ish, a large Pig can be a very nasty animal indeed. By large I mean as big as a small pony!

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:58 pm

Thanks for the graphic description.

I'm going to feel guilty the next time I have bacon and eggs.

But not too guilty.

Ishtar · Post by **Ishtar** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 1:03 pm

My Dad used to like black pudding for breakfast, but none of us girls will cook it for him. Yuk!

Anyway, thanks Digit, for the explanation!

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 1:43 pm

Wanna talk about egg production Min?

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 4:11 pm

Urp.

No.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 4:45 pm

Coward!

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 4:56 pm

You know what Bismarck said about laws and sausages.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:00 pm

Nope!

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 6:18 pm

“The less people know about how sausages and laws are made, the better they'll sleep at night”

Otto Von Bismarck