Khamudy

Well, as I said at the top of the thread, many of the people studying the archaeology of the Near East are doing so from a perspective of someone looking to proof the veracity of the Bible and as a result tend to read into the evidence with preconceived conclusions, rather than beginning with the evidence itself and discussing what it actually shows. This was particularly a problem with 19th century archaeologists, but more modern scholars tend to be better trained to avoid huge conjectural leaps - however, there are still cases where things are "fudged" to create a desirable answer (the most famous case of which is the excavation of the Tomb of St. Peter, that was a closed excavation done by Vatican insiders, began then very quickly concluded they'd found the tomb of St. Peter and some bones, which the Pope then declared to utterly prove beyond any doubt that it was St. Peter buried there. The tomb was then sealed shut and most of the documentation about the excavation locked away).

The Naked Archaeologist is problematic, perhaps firstly because he is a journalist concerned with a good story rather than good archaeology. In the second instance he tends to adopt positions and present them as truth which are wildly at odds with other archaeologists, scholars and indeed, the evidence itself.
The example of his folly that I came across was to do with a particular alphabet, the Proto-Sinatic script, which is believed to be the ancient ancestor of our modern, Western, alphabet today and the first known script to have consonants. It is a very important script in understand the evolution of written language.

There are only two examples found, so far, of this script. One in Sinai and one somewhere in Southern Egypt-ish and both dating from around the same period of history. It is generally thought that the script was developed as a convenient shorthand version of Egyptian hieratic script for use by the community of merchants who ran trade between Egypt and cities in the Levant/Middle East and for the significant community of mercenaries who had come from places like Byblos to settle in Egypt.

The Naked Archaeologist stated on his show that the script was invented by Hebrew slaves and that the one text from Sinai clearly referred to the god of the Hebrews.

The script is actually untranslated. It can be transliterated, but it is difficult to then turn this into words and statements. The only section agreed on says "to Ba'alat", a generic Semitic word that can refer to any female deity (lit. meaning 'to the Lady'). The origins of the script are more closely tied to those administrators and Egyptianised officials who had to deal with non-Egyptian reading individuals doing business with the Egyptians.

So yes, he is a journalist who makes large of conjecture with little factual justification and whatever conclusions he does reach and best taken with a wheelbarrow of salt.

__________________
Egidius Eel: You are a little 'odd' is what they think indeed. But as I said: I am here to pimp your gay credibility

Circle Widdershins

Tell us more Khamudy.

__________________
Garden Isles Estate
My Treasures Blog

Khamudy

This is not true. All history is essentially conjecture, bound up in the interpretations of the scholar involved - however, the relationship between historian and archaeologist is not quite as you state.

Historians generally make more mistakes of interpretation than archaeologists because historians primarily work with written documentation that, particularly prior to the 20th century, often does not reflect the evidence on the ground. Historians, too, tend to be concerned with presenting the 'grand picture' and will tend to create narratives with broad brush strokes.

The archaeologist is a scientist who goes out to find data and it is his job to find out as much data as possible and to apply scientific methodology to the data he is uncovering. He or she brings in quantitative data which then can be analysed to produce hypotheses that take into account the 95% of a situation which is not represented in the historical record.

The archaeologist is a scientist concerned with collecting physical data, asking hypotheses of this and then forming conclusions from it. No scientific study will ever state that it has successfully shut the case on a particular issue and claim to have learned all that can be learned. Therefore the archaeologist will usually present a primary argument and interpretation, but then will discuss the areas of weakness. They can get carried away with interpretation too, but quite often the archaeologist has found data that seriously challenges an established narrative history set up by historians. The archaeologist isn't just indulging in blind conjecture, he is establishing the physical proof of what historians argue and indeed, actually going outside of what a historian can do - looking at instances where written documents do not exist.

Thus the historian once stated that Troy was a legendary city, but an archaeologist found it. The historian stated that civilization arrived in Egypt via northern invaders, archaeology has established that Egypt's cultural impulse came from the south and pushed northwards.

Historians argued that Rome fell predominantly because of Germanic barbarians, archaeologists have substantiated that it was the Persian empire's pressure on the East that lead more to the collapse of the empire than anything else. Historians argued that the collapse of the empire in Britain brought chaos, archaeological evidence is now showing that once the Romans left, their taxation went too and settlements became more prosperous and grew, the violent chaos was not widespread and indeed the Saxon conquest might be more of a historical narrative fiction than anything else.

Archaeologists have also found new civilizations whose existence was not known before and whose scripts remain difficult or impossible to translate, yet through analysis of data, open these cultures up to the speculations of historians, such as that of the Indus Valley.

The two are completely complementary, but it is incorrect to state that historians are less conjectural than archaeologists.

Khamudy

The question might be asked "So what? Who cares about who developed a minor language, it doesn't make a difference". These things always become politicised. The Proto-Sinatic script is thought to be very strongly connected to the Phoenician script that is the route of all European scripts. The time that the script appears is about the same period that Phoenician city-states emerged and the Phoenicians began their trade-based empire. It is entirely possible and not at odds with the evidence of the scripts and the evidence of scripts that developed later to say that Proto-Sinatic developed as a result of the Phoenicians trading heavily with Egypt.

The Phoenicians are the ancestor population of the people of Lebanon, an offshoot of them and are also thought to be connected to the Sea Peoples, appearing in and around the areas where the Seas Peoples swept through. The Seas Peoples are in turn believed to include a confederation of people called the Pereset (by the Egyptians), who settled into the population of Canaan. The Pereset and the local Canaanites became the Philistines, who are held to be the ancestors of the Palestinians.
Much of this interrelationship rests on cultural similarities and the kinds of over-arching historical narratives we mentioned earlier.

However, one can see how controversial and dangerous it is to start making conjectural Hebrew origins on the basis of weak evidence. It is possible that the journalist may be right on the origins, however he has no convincing evidence beyond his assertion and nothing that challenges the stronger Levantine connection. These sorts of things feed into the accusations and counter-accusations of "Zionisation" / "anti-Zionisation" of historical sites in order to prove that one population was the indigenous one and the other is a later interloper to be expelled. Both sides in the ongoing struggle seek to use the past to construct their own historical narratives to justify current political positions.

It can be a very dangerous game.

Rev Eponym

So wait, I just want to make sure of one thing.

Politics and religion aside, are they saying that the Dead Sea is in a meteor crater?

.

__________________
MadScience Laboratories: Theoretical and applied fetish research
The MadScience Blog, unsafe for any workplace. Magnetic soundtrack shielding currently untested.

Darkley

I remember seeing this documentary a few years ago Times Higher Education - Making a soup out of Sodom

Where they theorised that Sodom slid into the sea through liquifaction

__________________
Si hoc signum legere potes, operis boni in rebus Latinis alacribus et fructuosis potiri potes

My Flickr stream.....http://www.flickr.com/photos/darkley/

Rev Eponym

What happened to, "Hey now, wait a second... the Dead Sea is probably millions of years old, no one could have built a city here... What if they just made up the smiting story to explain why there's a huge salt pit lake out here in the middle of the plain?"

--???

.

Taco Rubio

I appreciate this thread, I hadn't listened to V13 in years!

CaleVinson

Well, like, "duh" Chip.

If they can afford to fly people around the middle-east, I'm sure the show producers can afford one lousy MystiTool for the host !!!!111!!!!

Evil Cale

Cincia Singh

Hey ... it was on the History Channel! We all know they're a trusted and confirmed network that's not dependant on hyperbole to draw viewers and raise ratings to increase revenue so they can all keep their jobs. Fox news uses the same methods of "anal"ysis.

__________________
*My concern can be measured in micro give-a-shits, and I'm working on nanotechnology!*

Chip Midnight

The History Channel used to be pretty good. Now every time I turn it on it's a show about Jesus, UFOs, or monsters. Last night I fell asleep to some ridiculous show about whether or not aliens taught ancient man engineering, cuz ya know, how else could they have lifted those very heavy stones?!

Lourdes

Ya know that idea is not as far fetched as you think. I actually like watching shows like that on the History Channel.

__________________

Chip Midnight

Without any empirical evidence to support the existence of extraterrestrial life visiting Earth it's not only far fetched, it's fundamentally dishonest and no different than the kinds of claims made by Creationists (even if I think alien visitors would be way cooler).

Phoenix Psaltery

The History Channel is my favorite thing to watch during long hours of dialysis.

But yeah, there is a lot of stuff on there that I just LOL about: MonsterQuest and all the UFO shows in particular, though I did enjoy the MQ about the Piasa Bird. I'm interested in any legends that have to do with giant birds. Can't imagine why.



P2

__________________
Five59 Online Graphic Design
Phoenix's Plurk | Phoenix's Flickr| Phoenix's Rarely Updated Blog

Asher Bertrand

Are you familiar at all with Jewish ritual? The area would have been riddled with mikvot back in the day. About as common then as Starbucks are today.

__________________

Chip Midnight

Not familiar at all, so thanks. That doesn't surprise me at all. Stuff like that show and its ilk are why we have so many religious people who believe most of the Bible is backed up by archeological evidence when quite the opposite is true currently.

Asher Bertrand

Chip, I agree with you on the overall tenor of History Channel and the like. The Science Channel seems to be a bit better. It's really too bad.

I've watched the Naked Archaeologist and I take it with a huge grain of salt. He often does seem interested in proving that this or that is true as reported in scripture. Other times, when he's discussing things such as faked artifacts or what organism was used to create a certain dye, though, are more tolerable.

I came across this list of questionable claims he made via Wikipedia:
The Orthodox.

Colette Meiji

I disagree with you on a fundamental level. There are issues with some of your stated facts but I really don't think they are relevant to this thread.

If you made the statement that Historians are as *wrong* as often as Archaeologists, I might be able to agree.

But by definition Archeology is Conjecture based on often incomplete physical evidence. Artifacts.

History on the other hand generally deals with sifting through large amounts of evidence. Most of it in the form of written records. The problem is that the evidence is often unreliable. History by definition is based on things that were written down.

Yes, the two are complimentary. That is why the 300/400 level Archeology courses are recommended electives at most colleges of History.

An Archaeologist will say things like. "This may have been used for X. Or that building may have been for Y.

A Historian will say things like "According to this source its probable that X. Or according to Mr Z it it was Y."

Before the flame war, please understand that I do have a BA in History.

Colette Meiji

Is that the fault of the Archaeologists being Archaeologists?

Which basically means brainstorming on what their evidence means.

Or the fault of members of the audience jumping to conclusions?

Colette Meiji

Yet you don't like one of the shows that actually deals in relevant material of Historical interest.




I'd like them to get rid of the Sci-Fi shows, And the Modern Marvels junk. And Ice Truckers or whatever that mess is.

But they can keep the Archaeologist shows. Even the ones that deal with the "holy land".

For what its worth, I really have yet to see any show that came to the conclusion that there is Archaeological or Historic evidence that God actually exists.

Colette Meiji

The whole show is a bunch of "Maybes" its pretty clear that its highly speculative.

I think people expect too much from an hour long program on such subject material.

No one would watch any of these shows if the Host had to slow down to the level of "Remember folks, if you haven't been following along .. we really aren't *proving* anything here." every 5 minutes.

Chip Midnight

All I want is for a show that purports to be educational to be balanced and objective. They're free to throw out any theory they want about a certain archeological site or artifact as long as they also present an objective view of the evidence used to support the claim. That means if someone throws out something on a show like that they're 500 yards from where Jesus lived they should be justifying that claim with whatever evidence exists for it or stating plainly that there isn't any. It should be clear that the claim is the speakers opinion and that it isn't representative of any kind of consensus. When they present someone as a learned expert and don't qualify the claims made then people take it as an authoritative statement. That's a disservice to viewers, and it's also no doubt completely intentional. That doesn't make the show educational. It makes it a vehicle to comfort and reinforce people's preconceived notions, not challenge them with objectivity. As one of their viewers I think it'd be swell if the integrity of their programming could aspire to something more than Chariots of the Gods or Alien Autopsy.

I thought Ice Road Truckers was entertaining, and I like Deadliest Catch. Those are the only two reality shows I can stomach. But whoever at The Science Channel decided that it'd be a great idea to run How It's Made 40 times a day needs to die a horrible death. Preferably in some sort of Rube Goldberg contraption.

Surreal

Colette Meiji

I like those shows too. I even like all the Alien shows. I just want them on a different channel.

Kind of like how I wish MTV had music videos still.

io Kukulcan

Modern Marvels is great!
Where else are you going to learn how wire hangers are made?

But yeah, I'm tired of the alien shit on History Channel.
I'm sick of hearing about Roswell.
And how the Mayans couldn't have possibly built the pyramids, no it was aliens!
Shut up, please.

They should just stick to wars and battles and ancient civilizations.

Their new series Battle 360 is pretty good.
They've created great 3D animations and maps explaining who, what, where, when, why.