what are we missing?

[Guest]

i know i said this:

this is most likely the last topic i will start

but the words 'most likely' leaves an open door for this topic to form. i started reading k.a. kitchen's book, 'the Bible in its world' and there is one passage that got me thinking.

so i decided to start a topic for all those who like to speculate and this topic is not limited to just Biblical sites but for all the archaeological discoveries around the world. hereis the idea to get started and direct the thread:

1. pg. 17 "It was upon papyri that fine literature, religious texts, and all administrative records were wrttien. Thus as 90% of Egyptian papyri are lost forever, our losses of knowledge here are enormous."

2. pgs. 11-12 "Problems of other kinds can affect the results reached by excavations. The gaps in the record caused by erosion were notedabove. And normally, only a minute area of an entire site can ever be dug, especially if explored to any great depth. Thus ancient ashod comprises...some 90 acres in all- but only 1 1/2 acres of thissurface {less than 2%} has been excavated. ...At Tell el-Areini, the excavated areas cover barely 4% of the whole site and like wise in the early brinze city at Arad...If one digs 5% of a site, one must expect to miss 95% (and 100% if it is the wrong site)."

so what are we missing? what ramifications would there be if discoveries were made in the larger undug portions? what would happen to many of the conclusions that have been passed off as scientifically accurate?

would reputations suffer? would the new conclusins have any effect on our modern world or thinking?


have fun speculating, it should be interesting to hear some of your thoughts on this fact.

[bandit]

"So what are we missing?"

A tremendous amount of information will never be know for "fact". By definition, archaeological exploration is defined by the limitations it faces. While sound, reasoned, educated correlations can and do produce a factual scenario/timeline, the findings must be tempered by the absence of complete definitive proof.

What is now accepted as scientifically accurate, will stand until and unless evidence arises to either add to or dispute it.

Case in point - while I realize this is not an earthbound example, it does indicate that what was previously thought of a "already figured out" can be thrown a curve ball.
Besides, it was the only thing that readily came to mind.

"Would reputations suffer?"

It would depend on the scope of any new information that was uncovered.
There may be those with egg on their faces or those propelled to even loftier levels.

"Would the new conclusions have any effect on our modern world or thinking"

Of course it would, that goes without saying. Any time something new is discovered, it will have an effect on allready established conclusions. The degree and type of impact it would have is what would determine the extent of the effect. By either bolstering what is already known or by punching a few holes in it.

[oldarchystudent]

We have to be careful here though.....

Yes the archaeological record is incomplete, we have not and will never be able to excavate every square inch of the planet. And while speculation is OK, it is important to always remember that incomplete evidence for one thing does not constitue proof of something for which no evidence exists at all.

[Donna]

I think you have brought up an interesting question. I think this is why archaeology is so interesting. We all know there are so many things undiscovered yet each new discovery adds another piece to the unsolved puzzle of our past. As more evidence of the past is revealed it is almost certain that some ideas and conculsions made in the past will change. I think we are so lucky to live in an age where we have the ability and method to find so much and the technology to study these new finds.
Donna

[Minimalist]

We are missing a great deal, which is why one must approach archaeological remains without an ideological agenda. The things are what they are and trying to pound them into neat little categories is counterproductive.

[Starflower]

As I pointed out previously in another thread Catalhoyuk is an example of this in action. It was at first believe to be a purely ceremonial site until the latest dig which began in 1993.
http://www.catalhoyuk.com/

And there is an article in the recent issue of Archaeology magazine about the Mayan Tazumal pyramid which was excavated and then 'conserved' by Stanley Harding Boggs in the 1950's. They covered the pyramids in concrete blocks and shaped them the way he assumed they should have looked. I realize he thought he was saving a national treasure for El Salvador and it was probably all they could do at that time, but I must say I was horrified.
http://www.archaeology.org/0609/abstracts/pyramid.html
Boggs believed he had found everything that needed to be found, but since the rains of 2004 caused some of the concrete to fall off of the smaller pyramid there have been a number of new finds that are changing ideas about the Maya.

Two years later, the cement enclosing Tazumal's pyramid has been almost completely removed and a team of Salvadoran and Japanese archaeologists have made some startling finds. Led by Fabricio Valdivieso, chief of archaeology at Concultura, they have found burials where none were thought to exist, an intriguing array of ceramics, and architectural elements that suggest a vastly more complex history of occupations, invasions, and Mexican influences than previously realized.

The complete article was better and well worth finding and reading. It pointed out that Boggs was not alone in 'conserving' sites with concrete. So who knows what fascinating knowledge has been buried under tons of concrete slabs.
I am sure there are multitudes of other examples out there, all over the world. I feel like a child stomping her foot and saying "But I want to know it all NOW". Kind of silly I know, but my curiosity always gets the better of me.

[stan]

Thanks, stoneflower.

So should we thank Boggs for preserving the old stonework, or
criticise him for hiding it?

Interesting.

[Minimalist]

Thanks, stoneflower.

So should we thank Boggs for preserving the old stonework, or
criticise him for hiding it?

Interesting.

Stoneflower?

[Starflower]

1. pg. 17 "It was upon papyri that fine literature, religious texts, and all administrative records were wrttien. Thus as 90% of Egyptian papyri are lost forever, our losses of knowledge here are enormous."

Found this link some time ago
http://www.papyrology.ox.ac.uk/
I am not sure if anyone has already posted it. I think it is wonderful that they are now able to read some of these 'ruined' papyrii.

By the way, Stan is more right than you might think. With all the different meds I'm taking right now I should be signing these posts Stonedflower

[oldarchystudent]

I kinda wondered about the change to the doodle - wubba sig!

Hope you are soon over whatever the meds are for.

Jim

[Guest]

i tend to think that many conclusions would have to be scrapped and pre-history as well as some history would need to be re-written.

With all the different meds I'm taking right now I should be signing these posts Stonedflowe

sorry to hear you are so sick. will you get better?

[Frank Harrist]

We always go back. Every day you hear of sites which were dug in the early days being re-visited. We find things with todays technologies that they missed back then and in the future they'll find stuff we missed. It's why we only dig parts of the sites. To presevre the rest for the future archaeologits to find. Archaeology is an on-going process. We are only buliding on the outline our predecessors wrote and our children and grandchildren will add to it even more. We revise the archaeological record as we find more information. It will never be complete, but it grows with time. It took millenia for the record to be built and it will take millenia to unravel the mysteries, and we still won't know it all, but we'll know more than we do now. Then something catostrophic will happen and we'll forget it all again.............and then it will start all over, providing the human race still exists.

[Guest]

It's why we only dig parts of the sites.

this style of digging i disagree with as it leaves too much information buried and lends to mistakes being made in conclusions and publications. it also leaves too many questions unanswered.

[Beagle]

What can you say?

[CuriousGranny]

Maybe you should be out there doing the digging, arch...then we will surely get the good stuff and the right information