Archaeologica.org

it seems to me that the area of defining what time age covering time frames has gottenoverly complicated and far too specific.

when i was growing up the categories were quite simple and easy to follow; there was the stone age, the bronze age and the iron age to name a few and peole were content and able to date fairly accurately.

now there are so many divisions that it is easy to get lost and not know what time period another is talking about. as an example:

(EBIII, MBI, MBIIA, MBIIBC, LBI, LBII, Iron I, Iron II)

these newly added divisions makes it easier to manipulate the events in question and for one to confuse the subject and its proper place in history. i think that this category system is far to refined and needs to be lessened somewhat as it doesn't seem to take into account any overlap, possible trade endeavors and so on and leads to other weaknesses that can be exploited for whatever reason or motivation.

(now when i say newly added, i do not mean in the last 5 years)

i think it is almost impossible to get a good picture of what took place in the past because of this need to be so specific. this desire for extreme detail hinders good archaeology in my opinion as we cannot, in looking back over such a length of time, be that confident that we are corrct in our assessments of the activities taking place back then.

your thoughts...........

Not sure what is wrong with this. There is a difference in the assemblages from paleolithic, mesolithic and neolithic, for example. It's just a way of describing the changes that occurred. I can tell you I read a book last week, or last Wednesday. Both are correct, one is more informative than the other. Neither obscures the fact that I read a book.

If it were up to arch there would only be two categories....

Pre Flood and Post Flood.

I'm learning about Crete right now. There are two major chronological systems for the Minoan civilization, one fairly easy to grasp and the other pretty complex. It makes it harder to learn, but once you understand it (I hope I do someday ) it makes it easier to know what you are dealing with and more precise to describe art, artifacts and architecture.

Jim

not a very good nor legitimate explanation as it becomes very selective in what you want to highlight.

i do not see the need for the sub categories per ad nauseum as where would the divisions stop and how abused would the catagorizing become. plus how easy it becomes to manipulate placing events at certain time periods.

archaeologist wrote:not a very good nor legitimate explanation as it becomes very selective in what you want to highlight.

i do not see the need for the sub categories per ad nauseum as where would the divisions stop and how abused would the catagorizing become. plus how easy it becomes to manipulate placing events at certain time periods.

Well I knew we were going to debate.....

your point 1:

We're talking about dividing vast amounts of time into manageable chunks. What does that have to do with highlighting anything?

your point 2:

It's much easier to manipulate events in a one million year timespan than it is in a 10,000 year or 300 year timespan. By subdividing major chrolological scales you better define where an artifact or event belong.

Science is complicated

It's much easier to manipulate events in a one million year timespan than it is in a 10,000 year or 300 year timespan

here is where i am going to disagree with you. when dealing with the past broader catagories allow for misinterpretations, mistakes, and so on which can be ammended quite easily while maintaining a belief in the event.

a narrower defined category makes it a lot easier to move an event into the 'did not' 'could not' take place frame of mind, making it easier to dismiss an account because it could not fit the accepted time frame. thus a person's belief is subjected to more criticism than the former division.

We're talking about dividing vast amounts of time into manageable chunks. What does that have to do with highlighting anything

though well intended this lends more to allowing confusion to reign than clarity

i'm sorry but your reply makes absolutely no sense to me. I can't even decode it to formulate a reply as I have no clear idea of what point you are attempting to make here.

sorry it makes sense to me; all i am saying is the more defined we get the easier to discount or omit events one does not want to deal with or accept.

nope - I'm still not getting it. I really have no clue what you are trying to impart here.

He thinks that by referring to the "New Kingdom" science deliberately omits his precious Israelites....who did not exist at that time.

Well I knew there had to be a specific agenda behind all the generalities. Obviously I don't know all the personalities here yet, but I'm really learning fast about one or two!

Arch is very upset that 200 years of digging in Egypt has not turned up any evidence that his Israelites were ever there.


He even has a theory about it. I'm sure if you ask him nicely he'll tell you about it.







(Or even if you don't ask about it.)

I'm still not getting it. I really have no clue what you are trying to impart here.

sleep on it.

He thinks that by referring to the "New Kingdom" science deliberately omits his precious Israelites....who did not exist at that time

it isn't limited to the israelites but again this shows the mentality of those who advocate their expulsion from the historical and archaeological record. i was trying to be nice and not point fingers and get into an argument.