arqueologia

Hoje, em um post meu de 6 de abril de 2006, um anônimo visitante deixou um comentário sustentando não existir ainda Nazaré quando Jesus nasceu.

Confesso que li muito pouco sobre o assunto, mas pude perceber que a tese da não-existência de Nazaré na época do nascimento de Jesus não se sustenta, apesar de ter seus defensores.

Considero, porém, que esta pode ser uma boa oportunidade para se ver como especialistas usam argumentos literários e arqueológicos em uma discussão desta natureza. E também para se inteirar da bibliografia existente na área.

E o óbvio: a discussão foi deflagrada pela “descoberta” da Tumba de Talpiot!

Circula na web, entre egiptólogos e curiosos, uma persistente discussão sobre “novas teorias” acerca da construção das pirâmides egípcias, mais especificamente, sobre como teria sido construída a Grande Pirâmide de Quéops.

Segundo alguns especialistas, estas teorias não são assim tão novas, mas esta pode ser uma boa oportunidade para se ler um pouco sobre o assunto.

No blog Egyptology News, Andie recomenda, no post Bob Brier on pyramid construction, o artigo do egiptólogo Bob Brier, How to Build a Pyramid, no site da revista Archaeology, publicação de respeito da AIA.

Segundo Andie esta é a melhor síntese que ela conhece sobre novas e velhas teorias acerca das possibilidades de construção de pirâmides.

Quem não acompanhou a discussão, leia primeiro, por favor, a notícia abaixo, da BBC.

 

Francês diz que desvendou mistério de pirâmide egípcia

O arquiteto francês Jean-Pierre Houdin afirmou ter encontrado a chave para desvendar os mistérios da construção da pirâmide de Quéops, a maior das pirâmides do Egito.

Houdin diz que a construção de 4,5 mil anos, nos arredores do Cairo, foi executada com o auxílio de uma rampa interna para elevar os enormes blocos de pedra até os seus lugares.

As outras teorias afirmam que os 3 milhões de pedras – cada uma com 2,5 toneladas – foram empurradas até os locais em que se encontram por cima de rampas externas.

Houdin passou oito anos estudando o assunto e construiu um modelo computadorizado para ilustrar a sua teoria sobre a construção da pirâmide.

“Esta é melhor que as outras teorias, porque é a única que realmente funciona”, disse o arquiteto ao divulgar a sua tese com o auxílio de uma simulação em três dimensões.

Rampa externa

Ele acredita que uma rampa externa foi usada apenas para construir os primeiros 43 metros e que, então, foi construída a rampa interna para transportar os blocos até o cume da construção, de 137 metros de altura.

A pirâmide foi construída para servir de tumba ao faraó Khufu, também conhecido como Quéops.

A grande galeria no interior da pirâmide, outra fonte de mistério para egiptólogos, teria sido usada para abrigar um enorme contrapeso que teria suspendido as 60 lajes de granito que ficam acima da Câmara Real.

“Essa teoria vai contra as duas principais teses aceitas até hoje”, disse o egiptólogo Bob Brier à agência de notícias Reuters.

‘Erradas’

“Faz 20 anos que as ensino, mas no fundo, sei que elas estão erradas”, admitiu o especialista.

De acordo com Houdin, uma rampa externa até o alto da pirâmide teria tapado a vista e deixado pouco espaço para trabalhar, enquanto uma longa rampa frontal necessitaria de pedras demais.

Além disso, há muito poucos indícios de que jamais tenham sido montadas rampas externas no entorno da pirâmide.

Houdin disse ainda que, usando a técnica postulada por ele, a pirâmide pode ter sido construída por apenas 4 mil pessoas, em vez das 100 mil calculadas por outras teorias.

O arquiteto espera reunir um grupo de especialistas para comprovar a teoria com o auxílio de radares e outros métodos não invasivos.

Fonte: BBC Brasil – 31 de março, 2007

---

How to Build a Pyramid

by Bob Brier

Hidden ramps may solve the mystery of the Great Pyramid’s construction.

Of the seven wonders of the ancient world, only the Great Pyramid of Giza remains. An estimated 2 million stone blocks weighing an average of 2.5 tons went into its construction. When completed, the 481-foot-tall pyramid was the world’s tallest structure, a record it held for more than 3,800 years, when England’s Lincoln Cathedral surpassed it by a mere 44 feet.

We know who built the Great Pyramid: the pharaoh Khufu, who ruled Egypt about 2547-2524 B.C. And we know who supervised its construction: Khufu’s brother, Hemienu. The pharaoh’s right-hand man, Hemienu was “overseer of all construction projects of the king” and his tomb is one of the largest in a cemetery adjacent to the pyramid.

What we don’t know is exactly how it was built, a question that has been debated for millennia. The earliest recorded theory was put forward by the Greek historian Herodotus, who visited Egypt around 450 B.C., when the pyramid was already 2,000 years old. He mentions “machines” used to raise the blocks and this is usually taken to mean cranes. Three hundred years later, Diodorus of Sicily wrote, “The construction was effected by mounds” (ramps). Today we have the “space alien” theory–those primitive Egyptians never could have built such a fabulous structure by themselves; extraterrestrials must have helped them.

Modern scholars have favored these two original theories, but deep in their hearts, they know that neither one is correct. A radical new one, however, may provide the solution. If correct, it would demonstrate a level of planning by Egyptian architects and engineers far greater than anything ever imagined before.

According to the new theory, an external ramp was used to build the lower third of the pyramid and was then cannibalized, its blocks taken through an internal ramp for the higher levels of the structure. (Dassault Systemes) [LARGER IMAGE]

The External Ramp and Crane Theories

The first theory is that a ramp was built on one side of the pyramid and as the pyramid grew, the ramp was raised so that throughout the construction, blocks could be moved right up to the top. If the ramp were too steep, the men hauling the blocks would not be able to drag them up. An 8-percent slope is about the maximum possible, and this is the problem with the single ramp theory. With such a gentle incline, the ramp would have to be approximately one mile long to reach the top of the pyramid. But there is neither room for such a long ramp on the Giza Plateau, nor evidence of such a massive construction. Also, a mile-long ramp would have had as great a volume as the pyramid itself, virtually doubling the man-hours needed to build the pyramid. Because the straight ramp theory just doesn’t work, several pyramid experts have opted for a modified ramp theory.

This approach suggests that the ramp corkscrewed up the outside of the pyramid, much the way a mountain road spirals upward. The corkscrew ramp does away with the need for a massive mile-long one and explains why no remains of such a ramp have been found, but there is a flaw with this version of the theory. With a ramp corkscrewing up the outside of the pyramid, the corners couldn’t be completed until the final stage of construction. But careful measurements of the angles at the corners would have been needed frequently to assure that the corners would meet to create a point at the top. Dieter Arnold, a renowned pyramid expert at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, comments in his definitive work, Building in Egypt: “During the whole construction period, the pyramid trunk would have been completely buried under the ramps. The surveyors could therefore not have used the four corners, edges, and foot line of the pyramid for their calculations.” Thus the modified ramp theory also has a serious problem.

The second theory centers on Herodotus’s machines. Until recently Egyptian farmers used a wooden, cranelike device called a shadouf to raise water from the Nile for irrigation. This device can be seen in ancient tomb paintings, so we know it was available to the pyramid builders. The idea is that hundreds of these cranes at various levels on the pyramid were used to lift the blocks. One problem with this theory is that it would involve a tremendous amount of timber and Egypt simply didn’t have forests to provide the wood. Importing so much lumber would have been impractical. Large timbers for shipbuilding were imported from Lebanon, but this was a very expensive enterprise.

Perhaps an even more fatal flaw to the crane theory is that there is nowhere to place all these cranes. The pyramid blocks tend to decrease in size higher up the Great Pyramid. I climbed it dozens of times in the 1970s and ’80s, when it was permitted, and toward the top, the blocks sometimes provide only 18 inches of standing room, certainly not enough space for cranes large enough to lift heavy blocks of stone. The crane theory can’t explain how the blocks of the Great Pyramid were raised. So how was it done?

The Internal Ramp Theory

A radical new idea has recently been presented by Jean-Pierre Houdin, a French architect who has devoted the last seven years of his life to making detailed computer models of the Great Pyramid. Using start-of-the-art 3-D software developed by Dassault Systemes, combined with an initial suggestion of Henri Houdin, his engineer father, the architect has concluded that a ramp was indeed used to raise the blocks to the top, and that the ramp still exists–inside the pyramid!

The theory suggests that for the bottom third of the pyramid, the blocks were hauled up a straight, external ramp. This ramp was far shorter than the one needed to reach the top, and was made of limestone blocks, slightly smaller than those used to build the bottom third of the pyramid. As the bottom of the pyramid was being built via the external ramp, a second ramp was being built, inside the pyramid, on which the blocks for the top two-thirds of the pyramid would be hauled. The internal ramp, according to Houdin, begins at the bottom, is about 6 feet wide, and has a grade of approximately 7 percent. This ramp was put into use after the lower third of the pyramid was completed and the external ramp had served its purpose.

The design of the internal ramp was partially determined by the design of the interior of the pyramid. Hemienu knew all about the problems encountered by Pharaoh Sneferu, his and Khufu’s father. Sneferu had considerable difficulty building a suitable pyramid for his burial, and ended up having to construct three at sites south of Giza! The first, at Meidum, may have had structural problems and was never used. His second, at Dashur–known as the Bent Pyramid because the slope of its sides changes midway up–developed cracks in the walls of its burial chamber. Huge cedar logs from Lebanon had to be wedged between the walls to keep the pyramid from collapsing inward, but it too was abandoned. There must have been a mad scramble to complete Sneferu’s third and successful pyramid, the distinctively colored Red Pyramid at Dashur, before the aging ruler died.

From the beginning, Hemienu planned three burial chambers to ensure that whenever Khufu died, a burial place would be ready. One was carved out of the bedrock beneath the pyramid at the beginning of its construction. In case the pharaoh had died early, this would have been his tomb. When, after about five years, Khufu was still alive and well, the unfinished underground burial chamber was abandoned and the second burial chamber, commonly called the Queen’s Chamber, was begun. Some time around the fifteenth year of construction Khufu was still healthy and this chamber was abandoned unfinished and the last burial chamber, the King’s Chamber, was built higher up–in the center of the pyramid. (To this day, Khufu’s sarcophagus remains inside the King’s Chamber, so early explorers of the pyramid incorrectly assumed that the second chamber had been for his queen.)

Huge granite and limestone blocks were needed for the roof beams and rafters of the Queen’s and King’s Chambers. Some of these beams weigh more than 60 tons and are far too large to have been brought up through the internal ramp. Thus the external ramp had to remain in use until the large blocks were hauled up. Once that was done, the external ramp was dismantled and its blocks were led up the pyramid via the internal ramp to build the top two-thirds of the pyramid. Perhaps most blocks in this portion of the pyramid are smaller than those at the bottom third because they had to move up the narrow internal ramp.

There were several considerations that went into designing the internal ramp. First, it had to be fashioned very precisely so that it didn’t hit the chambers or the internal passageways that connect them. Second, men hauling heavy blocks of stones up a narrow ramp can’t easily turn a 90-degree corner; they need a place ahead of the block to stand and pull. The internal ramp had to provide a means of turning its corners so, Houdin suggests, the ramp had openings there where a simple crane could be used to turn the blocks.

There are plenty of theories about how the Great Pyramid could have been built that lack evidence. Is the internal ramp theory any different? Is there any evidence to support it? Yes.

A bit of evidence appears to be one of the ramp’s corner notches used for turning blocks. It is two-thirds of the way up the northeast corner–precisely at a point where Houdin predicted there would be one. Furthermore, in 1986 a member of a French team that was surveying the pyramid reported seeing a desert fox enter it through a hole next to the notch, suggesting that there is an open area close to it, perhaps the ramp. It seems improbable that the fox climbed more than halfway up the pyramid. More likely there is some undetected crevice toward the bottom where the fox entered the ramp and then made its way up the ramp and exited near the notch. It would be interesting to attach a telemetric device to a fox and send him into the hole to monitor his movements! The notch is suggestive, but there is another bit of evidence supplied by the French mentioned earlier that is far more compelling.

When the French team surveyed the Great Pyramid, they used microgravimetry, a technique that enabled them to measure the density of different sections of the pyramid, thus detecting hidden chambers. The French team concluded that there were no large hidden chambers inside it. If there was a ramp inside the pyramid, shouldn’t the French have detected it? In 2000, Henri Houdin was presenting this theory at a scientific conference where one of the members of the 1986 French team was present. He mentioned to Houdin that their computer analysis of the pyramid did yield one curious image, something they couldn’t interpret and therefore ignored. That image showed exactly what Jean-Pierre Houdin’s theory had predicted–a ramp spiraling up through the pyramid.

Far from being just another theory, the internal ramp has considerable evidence behind it. A team headed by Jean-Pierre Houdin and Rainer Stadlemann, former director of the German Archaeological Institute in Cairo and one of the greatest authorities on pyramids, has submitted an application to survey the Great Pyramid in a nondestructive way to see if the theory can be confirmed. They are hopeful that the Supreme Council of Antiquities will grant permission for a survey. (Several methods could be used, including powerful microgravimetry, high-resolution infrared photography, or even sonar.) If so, sometime this year we may finally know how Khufu’s monumental tomb was built. One day, if it is indeed there, we might just be able to remove a few blocks from the exterior of the pyramid and walk up the mile-long ramp Hemienu left hidden within the Great Pyramid.

Bob Brier is a senior research fellow at the C. W. Post Campus of Long Island University and a contributing editor to ARCHAEOLOGY.

Fonte: Bob Brier – Archaeology: Volume 60 Number 3, May/June 2007

…I’m skeptical. Whatever the authors say about their statistics, this is rather like having a family burial plot with John and Mary Smith and their son John in it…

Leia o post de Jim Davila: The moral is: Don’t leave your inscribed ossuaries out in the courtyard. – February 24,2007

Mysterious bones of Jesus, Joseph and Mary – By Tim Butcher in Jerusalem (The Telegraph)

In a scene worthy of a Dan Brown novel, archaeologists a quarter of a century ago unearthed a burial chamber near Jerusalem.

Inside they found ossuaries, or boxes of bones, marked with the names of Jesus, Joseph and Mary.

Then one of the ossuaries went missing. The human remains inside were destroyed before any DNA testing could be carried out.

While Middle East academics doubt that the relics belong to the Holy Family, the issue is about to be exposed to a blaze of publicity with the publication next week of a book.

Entitled The Jesus Tomb and co-written by Simcha Jacobovici and Charles Pellegrino, the book promises the inside story of “what may very well be the greatest archaeological find of all time”.

[…]

The 10 ossuaries were taken initially to the Rockefeller Archaeological Museum outside the Old City of Jerusalem. Nine were catalogued and stored but the tenth was left outside in a courtyard.

That ossuary has subsequently gone missing.

[…]

I’m skeptical. Whatever the authors say about their statistics, this is rather like having a family burial plot with John and Mary Smith and their son John in it. Rather difficult to claim that they must be a particular Smith family.

 

Para quem não sabe: na Inglaterra, Smith é o sobrenome mais popular que existe. Equivale ao nosso Silva!

Vá até a página da newsletter Explorator e clique sobre explorator 9.42-43, de hoje, (February 18, 2006). Percorra os links até a frase [I’m trying to give the following the attention it merits, hence the somewhat strange presentation]. E prossiga consultando os links.

Estes links tratam das várias notícias sobre as obras na Esplanada das Mesquitas e a confusão que está suscitando. O modo como David Meadows expõe o problema é excelente para revelar o “imbróglio” que é a arqueologia em lugares sensíveis como Jerusalém!

Etimologia de imbróglio: it. imbroglio (c1311) ‘mistura desordenada’, p.ext. ‘questão confusa ou complicada’, (c1529) ‘engano, fraude’, regr. do v. imbrogliare ‘confundir, dar a entender coisas não verdadeiras’, der. de in- + brogliare ‘agitar-se, falsificar’ (Dicionário eletrônico Houaiss da língua portuguesa – versão 1.0, dezembro de 2001).

Obs.: Explorator is a weekly newsletter representing the fruits of the labours of ‘media research division’ of The Atrium (…) Explorator is Copyright (c) 2007 David Meadows. Feel free to distribute these listings via email to your pals, students, teachers, etc., but please include this copyright notice. These links are not to be posted to any website by any means (…) Past issues of Explorator are available on the web via our Yahoo site…

Visite a página oficial da Autoridade Israelense de Antiguidades, órgão encarregado da arqueologia em Israel. O site está em hebraico e inglês.

 

The Israel Antiquities Authority – Vision and Goals

The Israel Antiquities Authority is in charge of the country’s antiquities and antiquity sites, their excavation, preservation, conservation, study and publication thereof, as well as the country’s antiquity treasures.

The Israel Antiquities Authority will serve as the leading professional body for the study of the archaeology of Eretz-Israel. It will preserve, conserve and study the archaeological heritage of the country at the highest scientific level, and will maintain a balance between development needs and antiquities preservation.

The Israel Antiquities Authority will aim to increase public awareness and interest in the country’s archaeological heritage.

The Israel Antiquities Authority will encourage the professional capabilities of its employees and their obligations to the organization and its goals.

Ontem, Duane Smith comentou o post de Christopher O’Brien em A Note on an Abnormal Interest, com fortes elogios a este arqueólogo que ousa desafiar as “certezas” de determinados grupos.

Chamo a atenção dos interessados no debate sobre a arqueologia da Palestina e a História de Israel para as suas considerações. Tem muita gente precisando parar e refletir sobre o que ele diz.

No seu post, ele procura classificar e explicar a postura das pessoas quando confrontadas com os resultados da arqueologia da Síria-Palestina.

Ele reflete sobre algo muito sério: há arqueólogos que tratam o assunto com profissionalismo e há um pequeno grupo de pessoas que, embora leigas no assunto, têm uma visão esclarecida sobre a arqueologia e seus resultados. Mas a maior parte das pessoas – talvez por não terem uma visão mais ampla do mundo do Antigo Oriente Médio e da história da pesquisa na região – falam do assunto com outras perspectivas, visões, objetivos. E é isso: apenas “falam”. Falam muito mais para confirmar a si mesmas – na verdade, seu sistema de crenças – do que para entender o tema. São pessoas com vista curta e boca grande. Em bom português: não enxergam além do próprio nariz. Como poderão entender a perspectiva da pesquisa científica?

Em certo ponto ele diz que

Myriads of folks who deeply desire that the conclusions of the archaeologists support either their religious or their political perspectives, sometimes both, make up the larger of the other two groups. Perhaps they need to have their religious or political beliefs confirmed; perhaps they hope that archaeology will provide a “scientific” basis for evangelism. Perhaps they fear the loss of faith in themselves or others if archaeology does not support their beliefs. Many identify this group with Biblical fundamentalism and while it includes most fundamentalists, it is in reality much larger than that. One of the hallmarks of this group is their almost universal failure to acknowledge controversy among experts and to suppress or more commonly massage evidence that is not supporting of their position.

Duane Smith está dizendo que há milhares de pessoas que desejam ardentemente que as conclusões dos arqueólogos ofereçam suporte para suas visões religiosas ou políticas, ou para as duas simultaneamente. Talvez essas pessoas tenham necessidade de ver suas crenças religiosas ou políticas confirmadas, talvez elas acreditem que a arqueologia possa oferecer uma base ‘científica para seu evangelismo, ou ainda, talvez elas tenham medo de perder a fé em si mesmas ou nos outros se a arqueologia não confirmar suas crenças… Muitos identificam este grupo com os fundamentalistas bíblicos, mas, além de incluir muitos fundamentalistas, na verdade, ele é muito maior (cont.)

Ou:

I will note that classical archaeologists occasionally debate their finding and their hypotheses in strong and sometimes derisive tones. But in general, none of them thinks their immortal soul or anyone else’s depends on the outcome of these debates. Their honor or prestige may be on the line but not their religious beliefs. It is on the issue of religious belief that much of the talk, but little of the real archaeology, rests.

Quer dizer: os arqueólogos profissionais, quando se confrontam, debatem seus achados e suas hipóteses de maneira bastante dura. Mas, em geral, nenhum deles acredita que a salvação de sua alma dependa do resultado de seus debates. Sua honra e prestígio podem estar em jogo, não suas crenças religiosas. Mas é no campo das crenças religiosas que muito se bate boca, deixando a verdadeira arqueologia de fora, reflete Duane Smith.

O post completo diz:

A Note on an Abnormal Interest

February 11, 2007 Duane Smith

Chris O’Brien at Northstate Science has a second post on “apologetics archaeology” in which he offers further reflections on Syro-Palestinian archaeology. He again makes several important points and tells of a couple of his own experiences in a very instructive way. I am very sympathetic to Chris’ points in this recent post. I guess I need to write something meaningful on this topic too, but right now I’m just too worn out from bringing our library back into the house from the garage where it was being stored while our new carpet was installed, to be very coherent. What a pain.

One thing that I will note is that, except for those who work directly in the field (and not all of them) plus a very small group of interested laypersons, a high percentage of the talk in this area is just that, “talk,” with not the slightest reference to the real issues in all of their complexity. Today I will contribute a little to that “talk.” Discounting those whose main interest is selling magazines, the world of Syro-Palestinian archaeology seems to divide into two larger camps of unequal size and one much smaller camp. The smaller camp contains those professionals who struggle with the difficult evidence and develop interesting and useful, even testable, hypotheses that advance the field. Dever, Mazar, Gitin, Finkelstein, and Herzog, as well as many other professional archaeologists and a very few laypersons, are part of this group. In what follows, I write in generalities. One can find exceptional cases everywhere.

Myriads of folks who deeply desire that the conclusions of the archaeologists support either their religious or their political perspectives, sometimes both, make up the larger of the other two groups. Perhaps they need to have their religious or political beliefs confirmed; perhaps they hope that archaeology will provide a “scientific” basis for evangelism. Perhaps they fear the loss of faith in themselves or others if archaeology does not support their beliefs. Many identify this group with Biblical fundamentalism and while it includes most fundamentalists, it is in reality much larger than that. One of the hallmarks of this group is their almost universal failure to acknowledge controversy among experts and to suppress or more commonly massage evidence that is not supporting of their position.

The second of the two larger groups hopes that archaeology does not confirm the historicity of the Bible. There are many differing and often opposing motivations for this view: fear of some form of idolatry; fear of misuse of archaeological evidence to support political agendas; hope that archaeology will prove the Bible wrong with sufficient authority to also prove all or some religious beliefs wrong; a desire to separate western theology from its historical roots. I find all of these positions as equally wrong headed as fundamentalist religious positions. Members of this group will often acknowledge legitimate controversy but tend to fixate on evidence or individual archaeologists that seem most supportive of their own non-archaeological positions. They also often promote low probability explanations of evidence where the highest probability explanation does not suit the cause. Neither this group nor the one outlined in the previous paragraph seems much interested in proposing testable hypotheses or in having their own hypothesis tested.

I will note that classical archaeologists occasionally debate their finding and their hypotheses in strong and sometimes derisive tones. But in general, none of them thinks their immortal soul or anyone else’s depends on the outcome of these debates. Their honor or prestige may be on the line but not their religious beliefs. It is on the issue of religious belief that much of the talk, but little of the real archaeology, rests. My goal as a secularist with a strong (abnormal) interest in the field of Syro-Palestinian archaeology is to discuss the issues as if little or nothing were at stake. Shocking little really is. I think that a dedicated interest in this area of human inquiry should be as abnormal as is the same level of interest in any other branch of archaeology. I’m not claiming that the larger public shouldn’t have an interest in Syro-Palestinian archaeology. I am claiming that they shouldn’t have an opinion.

PS One subject that needs to be discussed more than it is, is how archaeological research of all kinds is funded. There are dragons and monsters in these waters.

Arqueólogos acham sarcófagos raros no Egito – BBC Brasil – 10 de fevereiro de 2007

Arqueólogos anunciaram neste sábado terem descoberto três sarcófagos de madeira ao sul do Cairo – dois deles considerados raros devido ao período da história do antigo Egito que representam.

De acordo com o chefe do conselho supremo de antiguidades do Egito, Zahi Hawass, os dois sarcófagos mais antigos estão entre os poucos artefatos já encontrados do chamado Reino Médio da civilização egípcia, há cerca de quatro mil anos.

Um dos sarcófagos do Império Médio é incrustado com pedaços de vidro preto, enquanto o outro é coberto apenas com pinturas.

O outro sarcófago data do Reino Novo (cerca de 1500 a.C.) e continha uma múmia. Ele foi decorado com imagens dos quatro filhos do deus Hórus.

Hawass disse que a descoberta dos sarcófagos representou algo único e importante.

Os sarcófagos foram encontrados por uma equipe de arqueólogos do Japão em câmaras mortuárias no complexo arqueológico de Saqqara.

A equipe japonesa vinha trabalhando na região desde o final da década de 90.

A Japanese archaeological team has discovered three painted wooden coffins in Egypt, including two from the little-known Middle Kingdom period dating back more than 4,000 years.

Na arqueologia da Palestina, história, religião e política se encontram…

Você certamente leu, ou pelo menos viu, o meu post Uma brilhante defesa de Finkelstein. Escrito em 28 de janeiro de 2007, relato ali os argumentos do arqueólogo Christopher O’Brien, em seu blog Northstate Science, a propósito do trabalho arqueológico de Israel Finkelstein e de seu livro The Bible Unearthed, escrito com Silberman.

Agora, leia Apologetics Archaeology? Round Two, do mesmo Christopher O’Brien, que traz a continuação do debate. Especialmente as reações provocadas pelo primeiro post.

 

Apologetics Archaeology? Round Two

Saturday, February 10, 2007

As many of you read in the comments section on my post, Apologetics Archaeology?, the discussion drew a number of comments that I felt needed a response. I also received a couple of emails on the issue. The topic of Syro-Palestinian archaeology necessarily brings strong opinions to the table, largely (perhaps exclusively?) because it directly involved the origins of sacred texts so many around the world believe to be the embodiment of TRUTH (however one might choose to define that term). I also have strong opinions about the nature of Syro-Palestinian archaeology, although I have never worked there in the field, nor have I worked on assemblages from that area. I would suggest that my interest in the region’s archaeology certainly stems from an academic interest in the human history and prehistory of the region. I find the work being conducted there fascinating from an archaeological standpoint. But my interest is also driven by concern over the nature of archaeological work that is so clearly tied to belief systems and the potential biases introduced by those belief systems. This is not simple idle curiosity on my part. It is itself driven by first hand experience with the public outreach “aftermath” of Syro-Palestinian archaeological projects here in North America. Because of its theological connections, the reach of Syro-Palestinian archaeology is long and the manner in which it is conducted reflects on issues of archaeology and science here in the United States certainly, but also in other areas of the world. I sincerely believe that Syro-Palestinian archaeology is exporting a growing problem that professional archaeologists elsewhere have to confront.

Before attempting to demonstrate this connection, let me dispense with some personal issues. First, I will try to follow Abnormal Interests lead and limit my discussion to those topics of archaeological relevance and not side-step into issues of a more personal nature. Duane has shown much professional decorum in discussions of so-called “biblical archaeology” and his example is one we should emulate. I would further note another calm voice in the discussions that I greatly admire: Christopher Heard at Higgaion (read this post for one of the most lucid discussions of interpretive issues in archaeology that I have read). Second, several individuals communicating to me through email requested that I not quote their emails directly. I will honor this and try to refer to the general issue and not specific arguments made by an individual. I will, however, quote directly from the comments left on the original post. Finally, I was taken to task for calling into question the professional “credentials” of some individuals, specifically Dr. Joe Cathey. Fair enough. It is clear that Dr. Cathey has a Ph.D. from the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. We’ll leave it at that.

Although I discussed a number of issues in my blog post, apparently the most bothersome to folks was that I called into question the methodological integrity of evangelical Christians conducting archaeological research in the Middle East. That particular post was prompted primarily by my reading of several recent news accounts regarding the current director of the Gezer excavations, Dr. Steven Ortiz and his statements about the nature of archaeology. In his comments, Dr. Cathey seemed to think I had somehow derived my thoughts on the matter solely from Duane at Abnormal Interests and through discussions with Jim West. Dr. West and I have never communicated on this issue and while I was vaguely familiar with one of Duane’s blog posts on the issue, I was not aware of Dr. West’s apparent concerns with the Gezer excavations except as they are alluded to on another of Duane’s posts (both West’s and Cathey’s links from here don’t come up anymore). There was some concern expressed, however, that my questioning the integrity of archaeological work conducted at “biblical” sites originates solely with a few blog statements, news articles, or specific conversations with a few individuals. This is most definitely not the case, although each of these collectively adds to my growing apprehension about the reliability of archaeological work in the region, at least as far as it involves sites of biblical importance and is conducted by those with a theological stake in the outcome. Nor is this the first time I have suggested that “biblical” archaeology has a negative impact on the public’s perception of archaeology in general or that Evangelical Christian “archaeologists” maybe shouldn’t be trusted with archaeology. My issues with Syro-Palestinian archeological integrity have a history that began not only before the “Apologetics Archaeology?” post, but even before I started the Northstate Science blog.

Joe Cathey asked whether I had consulted any Israeli Antiquities Authority (IAA) staff in making my comments about the Gezer excavations. Let me tell you a little story about my experiences with the IAA and other Syro-Palestinian archaeologists. When several residents from my home town here in Susanville accompanied Carl Baugh and members from the Creation Evidence Museum to excavate at the Pool of Siloam in 2004, the local paper practically wet itself over the opportunity to extol the virtues of Baugh as an archaeologist who was “proving the Bible correct” by his important archaeological work in Jerusalem. But Baugh is not an archaeologist; he has no legitimate degree; he has never written a peer-reviewed article on any of his so-called “field research”; he has faked evidence and been accused of sloppy, if not incompetent, field methodology. However, the paper locally led the rest of us to believe that “Dr.” Baugh was actually directing the excavations at the Pool of Siloam (no mention was made of Dr. Ronnie Reich or Dr. Eli Shukron of the IAA, the actual directors of the Pool of Siloam excavations). The paper also went out of its way to indicate that the IAA “commissioned” Baugh’s group to work at the site. When I questioned this in the paper, I was told that the IAA’s Eli Shukron not only invited Baugh to come excavate, but also “blessed” the group for its participation. I did email an archaeologist in Jerusalem asking for further information, who forwarded my email to an IAA archaeologist (not Shukron). The short story is that although they were both helpful and provided some clarification, neither could confirm or deny the relationship between Baugh and the IAA. My email inquiries to Ronnie Reich on the matter went unanswered. In 2005 I even wrote Hershel Shanks at Biblical Archaeology Review:

Dear Dr. Shanks,

The recent Biblical Archaeology Review on the Siloam Pool was fascinating. Dr. Ronnie Reich and Dr. Eli Shukron certainly have a major discovery on their hands. However, why was credit for the excavation at the Pool not shared with Dr. Carl Baugh and his team from the Creation Evidences Museum in Glen Rose, Texas? According to articles in my local newspaper and recent radio broadcasts by the Southwest Radio Church Ministries in Bethany, Oklahoma Baugh and his team were invited to participate in the excavations and partner with the Israel Antiquities Authority to excavate at the Pool in November 2004 and on some occasions since. Two implications from these reports are clear: 1. that Baugh’s “team” comprises himself and others as professional archaeologists with the credentials necessary to excavate important archaeological sites, and 2. that the Israel Antiquities Authority not only invited, but officially sanctioned them as such.

“Dr.” Carl Baugh has no professional credibility as an archaeologist specifically, nor as a scientist in general. His Ph.D. is not from an accredited university, nor is it quantitative, nor is it in archaeology. He and his museum organization are known to have falsified data, botched excavation of legitimate paleontological resources and misrepresented their credentials. Further, neither he nor any person in his group have published a single research report, article or even short communiqué discussing methods and results, let alone submitting anything for peer-review. As far as I can tell, neither does any member of his group possess any formal training, experience or degrees in archaeology. Yet the local conservative Christian communities here are awe-struck by the idea that their members are granted special access to Holy Land sites, that they are invited to participate in archaeological excavations and scientific research, and more importantly, that they share the same professional stage (and hence earn the same professional respect) with experienced and published archaeologists.

Is the Israeli Antiquities Authority in the habit of legitimizing individuals with no valid archaeological credentials as professional archaeologists? Perhaps more to the point, are they aware this is occurring?…

…That they participated in these excavations is not doubted. However, I suspect that Baugh and others functioned as volunteers rather than esteemed colleagues as they portray. I understand the important use of volunteers for archaeological excavations. We use them frequently for excavating archaeological sites on federal lands. The USDA Forest Service Passport In Time program is wildly successful and the volunteers provide a significant contribution. But I have never had a volunteer return to his or her home town and portray themselves as a co-director of the project!

I understand the emotional attachment people have with Biblical archaeology in particular. However, many of these American conservative Christian groups seem to be participating in order to gain a measure of professional authenticity that they then parade in front of home audiences. Baugh’s group is not the only one. This is a growing issue that needs to be addressed in some official venue. Nor are these simply sour grapes on the part of a Darwinian archaeologist concerned with the broader issues of whether evolution or the Bible is true. As a Forest Service Heritage Program Manager, I am tasked with the same mission as the IAA: to oversee the preservation of archaeological sites on public lands and to ensure professional research is undertaken, by legitimate archaeologists with valid credentials. I would no sooner grant a research permit to Baugh and the Creation Evidences Museum than to a group of kindergarten children. But how am I to respond to “But we were allowed to excavate in Israel, why can’t we do it here?”

I would appreciate your comments on this issue, particularly any additional light you might shed on Baugh’s relationship with the Pool of Siloam excavations.

Thanks for your time and consideration.

To which Shanks replied (indirectly, via a staff member’s email) something to the effect that he didn’t have time for my concerns. Neither the IAA nor any archaeologist directly associated with these issues has ever responded to my inquiries. Perhaps I’ve contacted the wrong people. Perhaps they are too busy to respond. That may be the case, but it does not put me in a position to offer too much “benefit of the doubt”. In the case of my inquiries regarding Baugh’s relationship with the IAA, there are only two conclusions I can draw:

One, Carl Baugh is being typically less than honest in describing the actual relationship between himself and members of the IAA – which is what I actually suspect. However, the very fact that groups like Baugh’s are using IAA connections to gain some kind of professional legitimacy (at least in the eyes of local communities back home) should be of serious concern for the IAA, particularly as it relates to their mission of insuring the integrity of archaeological research and protection of antiquities. They should publicly condemn groups that inappropriately claim their activities are sanctioned by the IAA. At minimum, the IAA should be actively educating the public worldwide that their excavations are directed by those with professional credentials and a professional concern for the integrity of archaeological research…

or…

Two, Carl Baugh is not exaggerating (or downright lying) and the IAA does actually recognize him as a professional archaeologist with professional credentials. If so, then as a professional archaeologist I have serious reservations about the integrity of the IAA and perhaps some of the others conducting archaeological research in that region.

Were this just an isolated case from a small town in northern California I could understand being ignored. But it is a growing issue. As a professional archaeologist I increasingly encounter people who go to the Middle East, participate in an excavation, then come home and wax eloquent on the nature of archeology, how archeology “proves” the bible, and sometimes how they themselves should be considered “archaeologists”. This is an issue I and others have to constantly confront…and correct. It is further an issue for which the IAA and Syro-Palestinian archaeologists need to take some responsibility. Dr. Ortiz and Dr. Cathey are not Carl Baugh or Willie Dye, but their comments regarding the nature of archaeology cause me some concern…and they need to understand that the activities of Baugh and others who would falsely claim a profession in archaeology derived from their experiences in the Middle East, adversely affects their own research: I did not derive my concern for the integrity of archaeological work at Gezer in a vacuum.

I am mollified somewhat by Dr. Sam Wolff’s comments that the Gezer excavations are being conducted within the full neutrality of archaeological methods. I would also point out that he is the first member of the IAA to specifically address a concern and point-blank answer a question. I am grateful to him for that. However, in all honesty, and considering the totality of my experience with the issue thus far, I remain skeptical. I think it is a fair question to ask if religious conviction has a place in scientific research. Is it possible for Christian Syro-Palestinian archaeologists to maintain “methodological naturalism”, at a time when so many of their counterparts in the United States are demanding that scientists abandon that philosophical approach in favor of non-scientific alternatives sympathetic to existing religious expectations?

Dr. Wolff also insists that Dr. Ortiz’s comments regarding “apologetics” archaeology were made in the context of a specific audience. Again, fair enough and I’ll be happy for the moment to take him at his word. Nonetheless, the field is sufficiently charged ideologically and there are enough charlatans floating around that some of us are more inherently suspicious of some motives for engaging in Syro-Palestinian archaeology than we are of archaeological work in other areas. And I believe those concerns to be well grounded. That is all the more reason for Ortiz and others to devote time to establishing their work as legitimate archaeology and distance themselves from “apologetics” archaeology.

In Jerusalem archaeology is politics

…Here history, religion and politics meet. Nothing in Jerusalem can be understood without all three.

The very stones of Jerusalem are political weapons in the age-old struggle for possession of the Holy Land.

And nowhere is more sensitive than the great platform built by King Herod, known to Jews as the Temple Mount and to the Muslims as the Haram al-Sharif, the Noble Sanctuary.

To understand the current row over excavation and repair work just outside one of the gates onto the compound, it is important to know that here history, religion and politics meet. Nothing in Jerusalem can be understood without all three.

Fonte: BBC News – Friday, 9 February 2007.

“Finkelstein está usando a arqueologia para interpretar os textos bíblicos e não os textos bíblicos para interpretar a arqueologia. Eu penso que este é o modo correto para se fazer pesquisa arqueológica em regiões e épocas onde há documentação histórica disponível…”

Quem está dizendo isto não sou eu, mas o arqueólogo Christopher O’Brien em seu blog Northstate Science, no post Apologetics Archaeology? onde ele aborda, entre outras coisas, a discutida questão da baixa cronologia proposta por Israel Finkelstein.

 

Quem é Christopher O’Brien ?
Adjunct Professor of Anthropology at California State University, Chico and Adjunct Faculty at Lassen Community College, Susanville. His day job is as the Forest Archaeologist for Lassen National Forest in northern California. He received his BS in Anthropology from the University of California-Davis and a MA and PhD in Anthropology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is currently working on the zooarchaeology of several cave and rockshelter sites in northern California, and the historical ecology of several species. He has also been directing archaeological excavations in western Tanzania since 2002.

Consciente de minha incompetência no assunto – quando obtenho uma resposta, ela só me serve para fazer outras maiores perguntas! – limito-me a transcrever alguns trechos do post de Christopher O’Brien. Claro que recomento a leitura de todo o texto. E do livro de Finkelstein & Silberman, The Bible Unearthed, ou, pelo menos, de sua resenha.

 

O que é a Baixa Cronologia?

Briefly, for readers unfamiliar with the “Low Chronology” debate, archaeologist Israel Finkelstein has suggested, among other things, that strata at many archaeological sites in the Middle East originally dated to the 10th century BCE should be “lowered” to the 9th century BCE. This may seem an innocuous adjustment in dates, but in fact it wreaks absolute havoc with the idea that the bible has any but the most minimal historical validity. It pretty much removes the epoch of David and Solomon from historical consideration, at least as it is represented in the biblical texts. As such it is one of the issues at the heart of the minimalist/maximalist debate in bibical…ah, excuse me, Syro-Palestinian archaeology.

O que faz Finkelstein?

I was struck more with Finkelstein’s focus on explaining the archaeology of the region in the context of issues more familiar to me as a research archaeologist: population increase, adaptation, migration and population displacement, environmental context, etc. Finkelstein is an archaeologist whom I expect would feel comfortable in the realm of hunter-gatherer archaeology. I think he ultimately gets what archaeology is all about: understanding past human behavior. More to the point, I think he does what a good archaeologist should: he puts the archaeology ahead of the history as the primary source of explanatory power. And I get the feeling that his critics are ultimately more concerned with the methodological and theoretical approach he uses, than with the archaeological validation of the Low Chronology, per se.

O que Finkelstein faz que é diferente de seus críticos no debate minimalista/maximalista?

What Finkelstein does differently from his critics, is to approach archaeological interpretation of the region on basis of, well…the archaeology. His hypothesis testing is based upon questions of understanding past human behavior in the context of the material culture left behind by extinct human populations, without the theoretical crutch of assuming historic texts have already captured those behaviors and events. Textual evidence is at best a secondary source of information, another interpretive tool in the archaeologist’s box, if you will. It may come in handy some time down the road…after the chronology has been worked out…after the subsistence and settlement patterns have been worked out…after some questions of culture change have been addressed. Now in actual practice we archaeologists tend to run all those together…no one is going to wait for the perfect chronology before developing explanations of culture change; what I am referring to is how you approach the archaeological record from the very beginning.

Mas e o uso seletivo que Finkelstein faz de textos bíblicos para sustentar suas hipóteses e que é visto como um problema por seus críticos?

I have always been curious about the criticism leveled at Finkelstein that he “selectively” uses biblical text to support his contentions. But this is exactly the level of interpretive power expected by historical texts – the written record of the human past is plagued with error, perspective, limited vantage, experience (or lack thereof), political and economic motivation, and outright deception. The range of interpretive “help” provided by historical texts will range from absolutely zero to some textual fragments that may be very useful; with a whole lot of text of dubious quality either way. I would expect only “selected” text to be of any value in interpreting the archaeological record. In fact, I would argue that the archaeological record provides greater benefit at the interpretation of historical text than the other way around. This is ultimately the crux of biblical minimalism: Finkelstein is using the archaeology to interpret biblical texts; not the biblical texts to interpret the archaeology. I think this is the appropriate way to approach archaeological research in regions and time periods where historical documentation is also available. If my understanding of the minimalist/maximalist debate is even remotely correct in this regard, I must obviously count myself among the minimalists.

Por que os críticos de Finkelstein devem ser olhados com desconfiança?

I am nonetheless suspicious of Finkelstein’s critics, largely because most of them seem to give biblical texts far greater interpretive weight than is justified, at least relative to the actual archaeology. This is not to say that I think all of them are raving biblical literalists, chomping at the bit to use archaeology to “prove the bible”. Some simply see greater interpretive value in historical texts (be they biblical or any other) and reflect this perspective in their archaeological work. I’ve got no issue with this (other than it is not a methodological approach I would favor – I think it puts the “interpretive” cart before the “data” horse) – for those conducting responsible archaeology, it is simply another approach that ultimately can be tested with additional archaeological data. However, I have a growing concern with the ethical framework in which some Syro-Palestinian archaeological projects are being conducted, and this has to do with many of Finkelstein’s critics for whom biblical texts are not simply invoked as a valid interpretive tool, but are viewed a priori as historically accurate. I think this is a serious integrity issue for the future of archaeological research in the region.

Além disso, ele faz duras críticas ao Dr. Joseph Cathey – chega a duvidar de sua qualificação como arqueólogo – e a Steve Ortiz que está escavando Gezer e que chegou, segundo ele, a escrever: “God has called me to do archaeology”, e “the solution to doubts about the bible’s authenticity is to do your own archaeological work”. Diz, de modo direto, Christopher O’Brien:

The Gezer excavations are being led by someone whose sole purpose at doing archaeological work is to “affirm bible history”, leading me to have serious reservations about the integrity of the archaeological work being conducted there. I am particularly distressed in hearing discussions of Ortiz’s work under the title of “Archaeology As Apologetics”. This is a completely asinine description of the real goals of archaeological research – and it completely devastates any authority archaeology may have to tell us about the past. How much evidence at Gezer that doesn’t confirm Ortiz’s preconceived notions of biblical history will see the light of day?

Entretanto, seria bom lembrar aqui que a classificação de minimalista, atribuída a Finkelstein, não é de todo correta. Ele mesmo já recusou, mais de uma vez, esta classificação. Assim como alguns dos chamados “minimalistas”, como Philip Davies e Thomas Thompson, se me recordo bem, não concordam – pelo menos parcialmente – com Israel Finkelstein. As questões relativas à baixa cronologia também não estavam na agenda dos minimalistas. O que ocorre é que algumas conclusões coincidem, mas os estudiosos de Sheffield e Copenhague chegaram a elas por caminhos diferentes e independentes daqueles de Finkelstein. A confusão nasce da classificação de Finkelstein como minimalista por seus críticos. O que eles, os críticos, odeiam mesmo é que os resultados conseguidos pela arqueologia de Finkelstein fortaleceram algumas das posturas dos minimalistas!

---

Leia o post de Christopher O’Brien na íntegra.

Apologetics Archaeology?

Posted by Christopher O’Brien – Saturday, January 27, 2007

I have been reading with intense interest the discussions on Finkelstein’s Low Chronology taking place at Jim West’s blog, Stephen Cook’s blog, and at Abnormal Interests. Jim West has also reviewed the Bible Unearthed DVD, based on Finkelstein and Silberman’s book of the same name. Briefly, for readers unfamiliar with the “Low Chronology” debate, archaeologist Israel Finkelstein has suggested, among other things, that strata at many archaeological sites in the Middle East originally dated to the 10th century BCE should be “lowered” to the 9th century BCE. This may seem an innocuous adjustment in dates, but in fact it wreaks absolute havoc with the idea that the bible has any but the most minimal historical validity. It pretty much removes the epoch of David and Solomon from historical consideration, at least as it is represented in the biblical texts. As such it is one of the issues at the heart of the minimalist/maximalist debate in bibical…ah, excuse me, Syro-Palestinian archaeology.

I have read Finkelstein’s book and found his reconstruction of the traditional biblical chronology rather interesting. There is clear disagreement on the archaeological validity of the “Low Chronology” and I don’t claim to have sufficient knowledge to comment, although I find myself reading more on the subject. However, I was struck more with Finkelstein’s focus on explaining the archaeology of the region in the context of issues more familiar to me as a research archaeologist: population increase, adaptation, migration and population displacement, environmental context, etc. Finkelstein is an archaeologist whom I expect would feel comfortable in the realm of hunter-gatherer archaeology. I think he ultimately gets what archaeology is all about: understanding past human behavior. More to the point, I think he does what a good archaeologist should: he puts the archaeology ahead of the history as the primary source of explanatory power. And I get the feeling that his critics are ultimately more concerned with the methodological and theoretical approach he uses, than with the archaeological validation of the Low Chronology, per se.

In this respect, I believe I am coming to a different appreciation of the “maximalist/minimalist” debate in Syro-Palestinian archaeology. Probably naively, I had considered this issue solely within the context of interpreting the archaeology in terms of the bible. If you interpret the archaeology in parsimony with the bible, you’re a maximalist; if you interpret the archaeology at variance with the bible, you’re a minimalist. But in either case, my assumption had been that the archaeology was the same and it is only the differential interpretive weight placed upon one or more archaeological components that leads to the split between minimalist and maximalist. Now I’m not so sure. What Finkelstein does differently from his critics, is to approach archaeological interpretation of the region on basis of, well…the archaeology. His hypothesis testing is based upon questions of understanding past human behavior in the context of the material culture left behind by extinct human populations, without the theoretical crutch of assuming historic texts have already captured those behaviors and events. Textual evidence is at best a secondary source of information, another interpretive tool in the archaeologist’s box, if you will. It may come in handy some time down the road…after the chronology has been worked out…after the subsistence and settlement patterns have been worked out…after some questions of culture change have been addressed. Now in actual practice we archaeologists tend to run all those together…no one is going to wait for the perfect chronology before developing explanations of culture change; what I am referring to is how you approach the archaeological record from the very beginning.

I have always been curious about the criticism leveled at Finkelstein that he “selectively” uses biblical text to support his contentions. But this is exactly the level of interpretive power expected by historical texts – the written record of the human past is plagued with error, perspective, limited vantage, experience (or lack thereof), political and economic motivation, and outright deception. The range of interpretive “help” provided by historical texts will range from absolutely zero to some textual fragments that may be very useful; with a whole lot of text of dubious quality either way. I would expect only “selected” text to be of any value in interpreting the archaeological record. In fact, I would argue that the archaeological record provides greater benefit at the interpretation of historical text than the other way around. This is ultimately the crux of biblical minimalism: Finkelstein is using the archaeology to interpret biblical texts; not the biblical texts to interpret the archaeology.

I think this is the appropriate way to approach archaeological research in regions and time periods where historical documentation is also available. If my understanding of the minimalist/maximalist debate is even remotely correct in this regard, I must obviously count myself among the minimalists. And this is not a perspective I would consider limited to the archaeology in the Land of the Bible. Interestingly, we have a similar issue here in California with the use of ethnographies. Ethnographic sources (historical accounts of Native American lifeways) are considered by some archaeologists in the region to be the focal context for interpreting the archaeological record. I have even heard the Smithsonian’s Volume 8 (California) of the North American Indian series referred to as the “Bible” of archaeological interpretation (with a devotion among some archaeologists approaching that of Middle Eastern biblical texts!). I would argue that these “historical” ethnographic texts suffer from the same problems I listed above, are of limited value in archaeological interpretation, and that much of northern Californian archaeology remains provincial because of an uncritical allegiance to this “tyranny of the ethnographic record”. But that’s a post for another time.

While I certainly do not claim a sufficient knowledge of the archaeological material in question (and in reading additional material, I have my own doubts regarding the validity of the Low Chronology), I am nonetheless suspicious of Finkelstein’s critics, largely because most of them seem to give biblical texts far greater interpretive weight than is justified, at least relative to the actual archaeology. This is not to say that I think all of them are raving biblical literalists, chomping at the bit to use archaeology to “prove the bible”. Some simply see greater interpretive value in historical texts (be they biblical or any other) and reflect this perspective in their archaeological work. I’ve got no issue with this (other than it is not a methodological approach I would favor – I think it puts the “interpretive” cart before the “data” horse) – for those conducting responsible archaeology, it is simply another approach that ultimately can be tested with additional archaeological data.

However, I have a growing concern with the ethical framework in which some Syro-Palestinian archaeological projects are being conducted, and this has to do with many of Finkelstein’s critics for whom biblical texts are not simply invoked as a valid interpretive tool, but are viewed a priori as historically accurate. I think this is a serious integrity issue for the future of archaeological research in the region. In a series of replies to Jim West’s discussion of Finkelstein’s positions, “working archaeologist” Dr. Joseph Cathey (who further describes himself as an archivist and professor of Hebrew, but with no location specified – a bit suspicious)absolutely rails against West and Finkelstein, suggesting they are compromised by bias, and in doing so, belies a serious bias on his own part. Cathey claims that he doesn’t do archaeology with “a bible in one hand” but I quite frankly see nothing to suggest that criticism is invalid. He then levels this against Jim West:

Lastly, I am happily ready to go where the evidence takes me. It seems that it is just the opposite with you – you are the one who has invested whole heartily in a bankrupt 19th century liberal belief which has long ago been cast aside by the advances made in archaeology.

“…bankrupt 19th century liberal belief” seems to be more a political accusation than an archaeological argument – the kind I hear from fundamentalists lacking any sort of reasoned position on an issue (they always trot out the “liberal” label when they’ve run out of ideas). His last sentence is also a red-herring – my suspicion is that Cathey actually knows very little about archaeology, or what anything but a selective reading of it has suggested. He seems to be one of a growing number of people who begin to call themselves archaeologists after they’ve schlepped buckets of pottery from Point A to Point B for a while, or spent a couple of weeks clearing debris. If he has professional credentials in archaeology I’d sure like to see them. So I doubt Cathey would go “wherever the evidence leads” unless the evidence substantiates a literal interpretation of the bible. Cathey’s blog on the excavations at Gezer leads me to further think he is a biblical literalist disguising himself as an archaeologist in order to attain an air of professional respectability:

If you read the book of Revelation you will notice the Last Battle – the Battle of Armageddon. In this photograph you will see the valley of which the biblical text speaks. If you were standing in the place of the photographer – me – and looked to your right you would see Megeddio. In John’s apocalypse he notes that the battle will take place at har-megeddio a phrase which we have brought into English as Armageddon.

If that is not enough, Cathey’s involvement with the excavations at Gezer reminded me of a major concern I have with the integrity of the Gezer excavations as they are currently being conducted. The current excavations are being directed by Steve Ortiz of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and “…will continue in 2007 with consortium members that include Southwestern, Midwestern Seminary, Lancaster Bible College, the Marian Eakins Archaeological Museum, Lycoming College and Grace Seminary”. Read articles on Ortiz and you see things like “committed evangelical”, “God has called me to do archaeology”, and “the solution to doubts about the bible’s authenticity is to do your own archaeological work”. The Gezer excavations are being led by someone whose sole purpose at doing archaeological work is to “affirm bible history”, leading me to have serious reservations about the integrity of the archaeological work being conducted there. I am particularly distressed in hearing discussions of Ortiz’s work under the title of “Archaeology As Apologetics”. This is a completely asinine description of the real goals of archaeological research – and it completely devastates any authority archaeology may have to tell us about the past. How much evidence at Gezer that doesn’t confirm Ortiz’s preconceived notions of biblical history will see the light of day?

Everyone has their biases in approaching archaeological research. But some threaten the integrity of archaeology much more than others. Jim West got to the heart of the problem in responding Joe Cathey:

Joe is doing his Joe best to suggest that the “high chronology” upon which he depends for his exegetical presuppositions must be the one and only right chronology. Should that chronology fall, Joe knows that the basis for his understanding of the Old Testament as “historical” text will crumble like the walls of Jericho under the trumpet blast of Joshua’s circling army of musical priests. Joe, in other words, has too much invested in his presuppositions to be objective. And he wants everyone else to be as “un-objective” as he is, and if they are not, then they are “bowing” to the views of someone Joe disagrees with.

Regardless of biases, those of us in the field need to at least be comfortable that the likelihood of contradictory archaeological evidence will not be destroyed in the fervor to demonstrate one’s position. I don’t think we can be claim that level of comfort for the excavations at Gezer.