Archaeologica.org

wtrfall wrote:guys/gals
I am sooo confused.
I can not begin to count how many documentaries
I have watched/read about on Nova, National Geographic,
history, science etc
that discuss religion and archaeology.

the ancient Egyptians were like TOTALY religious
How ling did they live?
How long did Israelites live?
Greeks?

and I would like to know the exceptions too.

so can you present some particular examples for
discussion one by one? Arch?

I am interested to learn

National Geo and Nova know a good racket when they see one. To be fair National Geo's Science of the Bible series is designed to explain possible answers to bible fictions....without necessarily hammering home the point that the most logical explanation is that these things never happened at all. (Too many letters from arch-types to station management about the antichrist, you know!).

Otherwise, I'm not remotely certain what you are asking for?

What do you mean by how long did they live?

wtrfall wrote:PS; I dont know if biology is allowed?
Isn't biology and archaology used together?


If not I am sorry

Gov studies have confirmed a direct correlation between
state of mind and age.

A good archaeologist had better know something about other sciences and other fields. If you are going to dig in the ME, a fair understanding of Egyptian. Akkadian and Hebrew would be quite useful, for example.

Even more than becoming an expert by oneself in all these other fields a good archaeologist had better develop working relationships with scholars who can bring a different point of view to his/her work.

Otherwise, I'm not remotely certain what you are asking for?

OK
I was wondering if some people lived longer because they
were healthier, and which civilizations they were that did?
And if their form of worship had any correlation to that.

For example people did not live very long at all in the
not to distant past, and I would be considered ANCIENT at 45

On the other hand, ancient Greeks maybe lived longer
(I think I remember seeing something on that) correct me
if I am wrong.

But I suspect that generaly it had more to do with,
the quality of food available???

I remember how much info they had from the bog man,
ie: how old he was, health condition etc...

so can they only determine age of skeletons,
if they are mummified ?

Okay, I've got you now.

I approached Google on your question with a sense of trepidation, however, it did come up with this for the Romans.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/gi/dyna ... /Life.html



It's a life expectancy at birth site and gives this chart.




It assumes a median average life expectancy at birth of 25 years (and promptly notes that some scholars think that far too high.) It does include people who are stillborn and the relatively high rate of mother mortality involved in child birth.

Now, consider battle casualties, the occasional plague (which could be something like measels not necessarily small pox) the lack of antibiotics, the generally poor hygiene given to food preparation, etc and you begin to wonder how anyone ever lived.

On the other hand, compared to many societies, the Romans were quite advanced as regards sanitation. The habitually built sewers in their cities and provided fresh water via aqueducts. So even though they had no understanding of disease organisms their attempts to drain the land by building sewers had the happy by product of improving the environment to a degree unmatched until modern times.

I'll see what else I can find but a life expectancy at birth of 25 seems to me on the long side of reasonable even for a Roman citizen and positively unattainable for any other culture.

wtrfall,

a little scholarly work on Egypt.

http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/people/index.html

An analysis of the bodies found in the Graeco-Roman cemetery at Teucheira showed that there were no great differences between Jews and Gentiles as far as death rate, family size, infant mortality (deaths at birth or shortly afterwards are not reflected in the following table) etc are concerned. Slightly more than half of those who survived the first critical months after birth did not live beyond twenty.

The key line is the last.

wtrfll-- i posted the topic knowing what kind of response there would be but i ad hoped that there would be a good discussion that could come out of it.

as for leona's comments, they mean nothing as the evidence supports me especially the lack of intelligence comment. since they are the ones who do the personal attacks, that comment really describes their inability to defend their position and describes their posts to a 't'

they want to wallow around 'like the blind leading the blind' and do not want someone to upset their little fun by providing answers.

they compare me to jean marie but jean marie could not provide any facts or sources for her points. she was just trying to evangelize. i am just trying to discuss from my point of view

Jean Marie was an archaeological whiz compared to you.


I kind of miss her!


We should have a general amnesty on this board.

wow thanx for all that info.
I know the poor bog man had a rough life.
and it must have been hell for woman.

good night

know the poor bog man had a rough life.
and it must have been hell for woman

life is always hard for the poor whether it was 5,000 years ago or yesterday.

yes the insults keep coming, the constructive input just flows--it is amazing that minimalist hasn't been banned yet for his obvious rule breaking, but that is life..................

Do archaeology instead of magic and you'll be less of a target. Meanwhile, don't whine.

It's unbecoming.

Arch, I said one derogatory line to you and you have since had two lengthy diatribes against me and the others which were hateful and insulting. It's the pot calling the kettle black. You're nothing but a liar. You have shown no proof, no facts, no evidence to support your points. You just piont to the bible and your faith that god started all this. And then you have the nerve to claim time and again that you have proven your point of view. You can claim it all you want. The facts and the posts show otherwise. You never answer any intelligent question you are asked. You constantly show your vocabulary, but not your intelligence. I honestly don't like you as a person. Not just because you're on the "opposite side", but because you are a lousy human being.

You're a smug, self-righteous, self absorbed, arrogant, self-assured, ignorant, childish, fanatic, who thinks he has all the answers. You're a stubborn, pig-headed, obtuse, zealot who is blind to anything but your own views. Arguing with you is a waste of time, because you fail to even acknowledge evidence which is given to you. You don't answer any questions. You show no evidence and certainly no proof of anything. You just come here and spout off all your religious crap and I don't even know why. You can't possibly hope to convert anyone here to christianity. You must be stupid to keep coming back here with no allies and no evidence. You just love playing the martyr and being persecuted by us heathens. You see yourself as a champion of good against the evil beings that we are. I wish one thing for you, arch. I hope and wish that you get to see firsthand, and soon what really happens after life.

Frank Harrist wrote:You're a smug, self-righteous, self absorbed, arrogant, self-assured, ignorant, childish, fanatic, who thinks he has all the answers. You're a stubborn, pig-headed, obtuse, zealot who is blind to anything but your own views.

Were you looking in a mirror when you wrote that, by any chance?

MAN!!!
it is STEAMY in here

RK Awl-O'Gist wrote:

Frank Harrist wrote:You're a smug, self-righteous, self absorbed, arrogant, self-assured, ignorant, childish, fanatic, who thinks he has all the answers. You're a stubborn, pig-headed, obtuse, zealot who is blind to anything but your own views.

Were you looking in a mirror when you wrote that, by any chance?

Nobody pulled your string RK.