Archaeologica.org

Although I'm not involved in this current exchange, I'd like to respond to the original post. In most early societies there is an oral history, passed from generation to generation. At a later time they may become written down, if we are lucky. Example: the Iliad was such a historical account of a major war. In the written text by Homer many years later, it was embellished with accounts of various deities being involved. We regard it as a great literary work. Schliemann gleaned a lot of insights from it because he believed it was fact based and of course discovered Troy. We have learned much from early Sumerian culture from the Epic of Gilgamesh. Now the early Old Testament is the same - nothing more. But to say that archaeology based on ancient oral history is bunkum would not be accepted by most people, whether in the "club' or not. Now, those few fringe folks trying to fit a square peg into a round hole is bunkum, but your statement paints with too wide a brush.

This is probably the basis for a great new thread but the actual history behind the Iliad seems a bit shaky. The most common date for the Trojan War is usually around 1200 BC which, coincidentally or not, seems to be around the time that the Sea People become prominent players on the international stage. As Mycaenean civilization declined, along with the other Bronze Age cultures of the Hittites, Egyptians, Canaanites, etc (but not the Israelites who weren't doing anything more than sweeping sheep shit) it seems unlikely to represent a real historical event. The diplomatic correspondence of the time is full of examples of these bronze age cultures warning each other about the depredations of the Sea People. It seems illogical (granted, not always the best basis for international politics) that they would have been fighting each other instead of the apparent common enemy.

Yes, it would make a nice new thread. And I've heard both sides of the debate about the Trojan war. Nevertheless, prior to HSs' discovery mainstream archaeology thought the city was just a fable. I have a few thoughts of my own (nothing to back it up) about how extensive the land mass in the Aegean sea must have been before sea levels reached their present level. Probably made for some homeless people. But again that might be for a future thread.

it would make a nice new thread

feel free to change the scope of this one. i certainly do not need to participate in all topics nor do i need to stretch myself thin.

i most definately do not have minimalist's ego where i feel the need to put the stamp of my opinion upon everything that comes onto this board.

but not the Israelites who weren't doing anything more than sweeping sheep shit)

such blatant bias no wonder no one believes those archaeologists who keep trying to undermine the Bible. (or their adherents).

I think i have gone as far as i can in this topic considering the bias, the misrepresentation of opinions and so on. further participation would not help matters and i will limit my participation to those topics that have hope of procession and developement.

You know, historians have made a pretty convincing case for the Arthurian legends actually dating to the 5th century AD after the departure of the Romans from Britain. Native British nobles would have been resisting the seaborne invasions of Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Picts, etc.
As you said, the tale was not written down for centuries and when it was it was overlaid with castles and knights and all such other medieval flourishes but the germ of truth behind the legend would have been brutal fighting in Basic Viking Tactics.

If you think about it just a bit it isn't hard to equate the situation in 1200 BC with that of Europe in the the 5th century. The civilization that everyone had known was coming to an end and tales of heroes who resisted the 'fall' were bound to be celebrated.

Just a thought.

I just enjoy rubbing your nose in it, arch.

Beagle wrote: ... to say that archaeology based on ancient oral history is bunkum would not be accepted by most people, whether in the "club' or not. Now, those few fringe folks trying to fit a square peg into a round hole is bunkum, but your statement paints with too wide a brush.

One of the issues that concerned me as the first post was being composed was this very one. It worried me that one possible reading of the post would be as you have done.

I did not seek to discredit the value of any oral history - including the Bible - as a reference source showing clues to invstigation of the past. The implementation of my argument was that practitioners of "Biblical archaeology" who only accept information or interpretation that coincides with their understanding of the bible are not practicing "science" and certainly not practicing "archaeology."

In fact, my professional life now is driven almost ENTIRELY by using oral history - or in a related vein, reports of journalists - to plan archaeological expeditions at various places around the world. One of the reasons this topic may have plucked at my Grouch Gland is that among those associated with these projects is an enthusiast who loves to spin fantastic tales out of the slightest evidence - and often plants a Gucci-clad foot in all of our mouths. I often find myself cleaning up afterward and bringing the report of results back to a much more mundane - but ultimately more interesting - real world. But my tolerance for people who pervert the work of archaeologists to their own ends is now at zero.

To give him a little credit, even arch has expressed agreement about the regrettable tendency of biblical scholars to jump to conclusions about anything that comes out of the ground.

Minimalist said:

"To give him a little credit, even arch has expressed agreement about the regrettable tendency of biblical scholars to jump to conclusions about anything that comes out of the ground."

Turning over a new leaf are we, eh?

Emphasis on "a little credit."

Turning over a new leaf are we, eh?

Emphasis on "a little credit."

i just recognize the fact that not all christians tell the or look for the truth. many are not honest. even one of my christian professors pointed this fact out and some of the worst culprits are the so-called evangelicals.

i just recognize the fact that not all christians tell the or look for the truth. many are not honest.

Is that even a requirement?

Is that even a requirement?

for me it is and for me it is important. i think it is wrong tomislead anyone and that is one reason why i read so many non-religious books. most christian books are sans information unless you find those few academic professors who write beyond the lines of of accepted christianity.

it is not easy.

It just reminded me of the old joke where a guy arrives in Sydney, Australia, and finally gets to the head of the immigration line. The Inspector looks at him and says:

"Do you have a criminal record?"

And the guys answers....



"I didn't think that was still a requirement."