Re: Pyramids in Sudan is a trivial topic but Qumran Archaeology has world-shaking implications for Christian Origins

Carl wrote:

You showed your inadequacies as a historian by refusing
to examine the Thiering hypothesis on Slavonic Josephus
and Josephus' attitude towards the Christians on SHA
not too long ago. This attitude on your part could be
easily rectified by zeroing in on my SHA reference and
spending 30 minutes studying it.

As for Qumran archaeology, you are not aware of my
efforts to publicize Jodi Magness and Prof. Galor's Qumran
Conference.

Why don't you open your eyes and reverse your wrongful
attitude on what motivates me in my posting? In reality,
your illusion is deep because of your prejudice. Again,
you would gain a fresh and more positive perspective by
actually reading my most recent important messages
on sci.arch. For example, take careful note on how I
was publicizing the topic of the origin of war from an
archaeological perspective -

"The origin of war: New 14C dates from ancient Mexico"

...

David Christainsen


ci.Archaeology, established in May 1991, is an
unmoderated Usenet newsgroup dedicated to the
discussion of archaeology in its many aspects.
=======================================
*Charter Sci.Archaeology*
=======================================
1. To exchange information on various concerns
in archaeology, including method and theory, pot
hunting, egyptology, typology, dating, and other
related topics.

2. To facilitate ongoing debates and comments on
ideas or research that may not necessarily be in a
publishable form.

3. To query other interested archaeologists about
resources which could be made generally available.
(e.g. programs, images, data, references, but not
exact site locations).

4. To keep each other informed on upcoming events
of interest to social science researchers and
computing in the field of archaeology.

=======================================
End of charter
=======================================


*What is archaeology*?


"Archaeology is usually defined as the study of the human
past through material culture, although archaeologists are
increasingly arguing that a better definition would be the
study of human behaviour through material culture, making it
a much broader discipline and one of relevance to the
contemporary world. The most important aspect of the
discipline is that archaeologists study the physical changes
human beings have made to their world. Archaeology looks at
the artefacts (the tools, ornaments and other objects), the
structures (buildings, tombs and other enclosed spaces) and
landscapes (field systems, settlements, communication
routes and so on) that people have been creating for the
seven million or so years we have been creatures distinct
from the other great apes."
http://www.kmatthews.org.uk/cult_archaeology/index.html

=======================================

"Archaeology is concerned with cultural development
and variation through time. It involves the reconstruction
of past human behaviour through the study of material
remains recovered by field survey and excavation.
Archaeology encompasses a wide variety of analytical
and experimental methods and techniques which draw
on both the natural and social sciences."
http://www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/departments/index.cfm?P=9142

=======================================


"Archaeology is the study of past cultural
behaviour, from the beginnings of the human
species to events that happened yesterday,
through the material remains, or artefacts, that
people leave behind. By carefully applying
scientific techniques in excavation and analysis
of their findings, archaeologists attempt to
reconstruct past lifeways and understand why
different customs developed and evolved.

Archaeology is a part of anthropology, because
it studies individuals and their different cultures,
even if limited to the past. This is the most
interesting aspect of archaeology: it is a way to
understand humanity and ourselves. Archaeology
is also a part of history, but it is more reliable
sometimes because while history uses essentially
written documents, archaeology uses material
evidence.
A description of facts can be very precious, but if
we have only one description, or descriptions
from only one point of view, we can not be sure to
know a true part of the past. Individuals in fact
can lie or simply see things in a convenient way."

"History is an interpretation of the past based on
ancient/old writings. Archaeology is different from
history especially for the methods used. It can
help and complement history by offering studies
on materials to be compared with documents to
have a clearer idea of how the interpretation was
done. But also archaeology, when beginning from
an evidence arrives to an inference, interprets
data; for this reason archaeologists must be
careful trying to explain the background culture in
the present they have and which part of the
evidence they focused: an objective interpretation
is impossible. History uses archaeology also for
the periods when written documents were not
available, particularly prehistory, but more
extensively for any period for which there are no
documents available."

Andrea Vianello
http://www.geocities.com/andreavi/1.htm
Università Ca' Foscari ,Venezia. Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia
<http://lettere.unive.it/materiale_didattico/archeologia_egea/1.htm>

=======================================

*Three Basic Principles of Archaeological Research*
by Garrett Fagan
<http://www.hallofmaat.com/modules.php?name=Articles&file=article&sid=5>

=======================================


.