the dominance of religion in the ancient world

[Leona Conner]

Wasn't Capernicus considered a weirdo by "the club" (a.k.a. the Church) until Galileo proved him correct? Still the club would not accept Galileo's findings because they did not follow the long-held beliefs as established by them. It took many years, not to mention other astronomers and scientists to prove that those long-held beliefs were in error.

So maybe we should just accept what some of these non-conformist have to say with a grain of salt and see what happens down the road. Because eventually, even if it takes two thounsand years, the truth will come out.

[Frank Harrist]

I guess my point is that all humans do this. People don't abandon their beliefs easily. But we can't go changing the books every time someone comes up with something new. It has to pass the tests and peer review. Sure there are some stubborn old farts who will stand by what they've been taught for years but in time and with lots of study and evidence things do come to light. People just want it to happen quickly and when that happens there are more mistakes made and the books have to be re-written more often. If I found a Phoenician artifact I'd have it authenticated and try to figure out where the hell it came from, but I wouldn't hide it. I'd put it out there and let people study it. I wouldn't, however go on a crusade to re-write all the history books to match my artifact. I'd match my artifact to history and if the books needed to be re-written after that then so be it. I'd work with "the club" not against them. I'd find someone who would be receptive to new ideas and avoid the stodgy, stubborn old school guys. You may not believe it but as young blood comes into the field, new ideas are given a fair hearing. Archaeology is changing all the time. Right now it is changing faster than it ever has. New technologies are pushing out the old school people and replacing them with young, imaginative, well-educated people who 20 years ago would have been considered mavericks. I say just be patient and let the evidence prove the stubborn ones wrong. The reason we only excavate sites partially most of the time is so we don't destroy evidenc which might be better understood later with new technologies. Archaeology is destructive so we try to do it only as much as needed and save some for later. That's forward planning. I don't think that would be part of any "club's" plan.

In summary, there are good and bad people in ewvery field. There are stuuborn old farts and then there are the young ones...the future. IF there is a club then it is on the way out. Everything in archaeology moves slow to avoid mistakes and that is as it should be. I know things don't change fast enough to suit some of you, but that is the nature of the field. Proceeding with caution prevents costly mistakes like the Bosnian "pyramid" fiasco. We do need freethinkers like Os and Hancock, but we also need someone to keep their kind reigned in. It's all about balance I guess. Did this make any sense at all? Still early for me.

[FreeThinker]

Frank Harrist wrote:

"Sure there are some stubborn old farts who will stand by what they've been taught for years..."

Sadly, all too often, the favorite vehicle for intellectual progress is the hearse.

[Leona Conner]

[quote] If I found a Phoenician artifact I'd have it authenticated and try to figure out where the hell it came from, but I wouldn't hide it. I'd put it out there and let people study it.[/quote]

Yes, but you would still be considered a weirdo until all the studying was done and your point proven.

I have to agree with how fast archaeology is changing. I have many books on early America and first N.A. (they were pretty good ones when I bought them) but since they are 20 or so years old they are obsolete. I mean they still have some good stuff in them but they all talk about the Bering Land Bridge as being the only way people got here.

[Frank Harrist]

I'm already considered a weirdo by some.

[Leona Conner]

I hope you don't consider that bad. A lot of great people have been thought to be weird, that is the free-thinking ones, look at history. Some of my best friends were thought to be weird, if only because they were my friends. Maybe I just lean in that direction myself.

[Minimalist]

Frank Harrist wrote:

"Sure there are some stubborn old farts who will stand by what they've been taught for years..."

Sadly, all too often, the favorite vehicle for intellectual progress is the hearse.

Great line!

[Minimalist]

I hope you don't consider that bad. A lot of great people have been thought to be weird, that is the free-thinking ones, look at history. Some of my best friends were thought to be weird, if only because they were my friends. Maybe I just lean in that direction myself.

I wouldn't want to be listed with any other group.

[Frank Harrist]

No chance of that, Bob. I liked the hearse line too. It didn't hit me the first time I read it, but when I saw it in the quote it struck me as very funny.

[Guest]

We do need freethinkers like Os and Hancock

maybe not Os as he is kind further out there than sanityallows.

I wouldn't, however go on a crusade to re-write all the history books to match my artifact.

yet, isn't that a danger we all face when dealing with archaeology? there is always some young buck who wants to make his mark on the world and doesn't learn enough to behave in a manner conducive to good research and wants to re-write all the books for their 15 minutes of fame?

Everything in archaeology moves slow to avoid mistakes and that is as it should be.

i agree with this to a point asthere are times they move too slowly and information takes decades to receive a public viewing. the dead sea scrolls is one fine example, how many decades did it take to get them published? 4 or 5? that is just too slow and if you are an expert i think you have a good idea how the evidence reads truthfully and one can moce a little quicker

when one has experience and knowledge one does not move at a beginner's pace and that is one of the problems facing archaeology. all archaeologist do not want to be wrong so they avoid moving at a pace that would provide up-to-date theories and information which would eliminate the problem of older and wrong theories being taught year after year.

I'm already considered a weirdo by some

join 'the club'. ha.

[Guest]

i decided to go through that debate and post those comments by Shanks to illustrate this topic and the prevailing current thinking on archaeology:

I start from the very fact that you cannot get any scholars to say they agree

These are very complex and difficult subjects, about which scholars have had long discussions and brought much complicated evidence to bear. Of course, it is impossible for a TV production to consider all this. But the fact that you cannot get major scholars to express agreement creates some doubt. Then, too, I get suspicious when you rely too much on a guy identified as an “author”—Charles Pella-something. The same goes for your reliance on John Bimson—a scholar who has very little support (if any) in academia and is generally considered outside the mainstream. In other words, you are going against the trend of responsible scholarship—not once, but time after time

I tend to disagree with you. Beginning with the Hyksos. This is an old idea. It’s hard to find a scholar today who subscribes to it.

On the other hand, you purport to solve a fistful of problems that scholars have analyzed and argued about without solving them. It comes across as a little chutzpahdik [Yiddish for nervy] to think that a layperson could come in and solve not one, but a dozen of these scholarly conundrums—especially when you don’t consider the opposing scholars’ views.

The Exodus narrative bristles with uncertainties. You admit none of them.

I think responsible scholarship concludes that there is a historic core to the story, but that not all details are historic

To my mind, trying to find natural explanations for miracles degrades them. They have a meaning. The meaning is not how clever God was in using natural means to create what seem to be miracles—and that is eventually your point. The meaning is much deeper than that.

Our differences are theological. You are a believer; I am not. There is nothing wrong with that. But, by definition, theological issues are not subject to rational argument or proof. They are matters of faith.

Many great scholars whom I know are also men of faith. But in their scholarly work they treat the Biblical text just the way they would any other ancient text, subjecting it to exactly the same kinds of questions they would pose to a non-Biblical text and applying the same kinds of tests as to the Bible’s historicity. There are still matters of faith, but these are recognized as not being subject to rational proof or disproof.

You may deny this, but you do do it. As a kind of test, let me ask you if you would apply the same presumption of historicity to other ancient texts, such as Homer and Gilgamesh

And how did he walk on water? Some have suggested that the northern part of the Sea of Galilee is shallow with a lot of marshes and that it might appear that someone walking in the marshes was walking on water

The hallmark of modern religion is tolerance and respect for other religions. This requires an acceptance that we cannot rationally prove or disprove the truth of someone’s else’s faith. And if this is true, it must apply to our own. It is an acceptance of the fact that faith is beyond rational proof—just as miracles are, and, by extension, details of history recounted in books considered by various communities (but not by others) as sacred. In short, I may believe in my God, but I cannot say that if you believe otherwise you are wrong—as long as your religion does not want to destroy me.

The corollary of all this is that, except on matters of faith (that are not subject to ordinary tests of historicity), we must treat the Bible just as we treat any other ancient text. We cannot affirm our own sacred texts with any more of a presumption of historicity than we would give to Homer or Gilgamesh

i hope i did that right as there was a lot of information in those letters. if you want to read the responses and full contexts, the link is posted below. the interchange is interesting as the directer of the documentary was able to hold his own and not back down from his perspective. hopefully there is food for thought and discussion here:

http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbOOexodus.html

[Minimalist]

And how did he walk on water?

[marduk]

how did he feed the 5000 with just bread and fishes

[Guest]

you know minimalist, marduk is looking and acting more like you everyday. are you his mentor??

[Minimalist]

you know minimalist, marduk is looking and acting more like you everyday. are you his mentor??

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.