For PERSPECTIVES Vol. 1 No. 2 [November-December 1998]
Please feel free to submit short questions or your comments. We reserve the right to answer and publish those we believe to be in the public interest. We reserve the right to use or not use submitted material (in whole or in part), to include your name, and to edit or condense your questions for clarity and space. Click here to submit a question or comment to the editor.
On Our Website
Great site.
–John Kevlin, North Carolina
Stopped by your website. Very impressive start!
–Tom Delamater, Ohio
Nice job! Looks very interesting. In the now famous words of Arnold Swartzenegger (spelled something like that), "I'll be back" ( I know, that's really corny).
–J. Elder
Congratulations on your site. This site allows the visitor to grasp archaeological concepts without any pontificating (quite a feat in my book).
–Rodrigo Silva, Phoenix, Arizona
Congratulations on your new Web Site, Biblical Archaeology. I have just spent some time visiting and browsing it. Your wife did a beautiful job of layout and your content is excellent. I did have trouble using some of the page links in the photography section. However, the problem may have been in the telephone lines or my server here.
–Richard E. Walther, Texas
Looks pretty good--maybe you should collaborate with Hershel Shanks? My only recommendation (for what it's worth!) would be to watch out for the pedantry--it can turn some people off. Otherwise, looks like you're off to an auspicious start. All the best!
–Reg Killingsly, Texas
I must tell you how impressed I am with the websites you and your family have created. Now I know why Brenda is majoring in media technology and why you are so busy at home. When do you find time to write a book that is to be published next year? I just may send you a question on High Top Media one of these days after you get it constructed. It all looks great! Of course, that's just the opinion of a kiss'n cousin. I have always been interested in archaeology - even wrote a paper once on the Essenes and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Sometime after that, during the Shroud focus in the 1970's, wrote a paper on The Shroud of Turin. Surprisingly, a colleague of my uncle, Mel Warrick, was one of those who helped in the first carbon dating of the threads.
–Marianne Morfoot, Georgia
Nothing wrong with family support is there?
–editor
Just-a-note to let you know I just ran on to your web page. I am also interested in 'dirt digging' in that region of the globe.
–P. Harris, Colorado
Hey Peg, we always want to hear from "ol" friends. Please visit our site again. We are constantly adding material.
–editor
I enjoyed browsing your web site, and this is a subject I would like to know more a about. I watch the A&E channel and the other programs about this subject. Any information I could receive from you would be helpful. The computer I am using is at my military command so I don't have one at home yet.
–Mark Hoffecker
We will add you to our e-mail list for special notices and announcements. We suggest that you subscribe to the Biblical Archaeology Review for well-written, up-to-date articles on biblical archaeology. You might want to consider enrolling in Anthropology 210 by distance learning at Haywood Community College. This on-line WWW course, to be taught by BIBARCH™ editor Dr. Michael Germano, should provide you with a good foundation for further study in this area. Classes begin January 5, 1998. Get more information from Hal Lander, Director of Distance Education at HCC.
–editor
Another New Biblical Archaeology Site
You might want to add a link to Bible Archaeology, Search & Exploration (BASE) Institute. It's a great new site!
–Sig Swanstrom
Consider it done. Viewers can find the BASE Institute at http://www.baseinstitute.org/. The site promotes the pop-archaeology of adventurer and explorer Bob Cornuke.
–editor
Ernest Martin Comments
Hey, you have a nice Web Page. Keep up the good work. Finding the mikvaot at the bottom of the stairs is no problem. There were mikvaot all over Jerusalem. And remember, Fort Antonia is where the Garments of the High Priest were kept, which could only be carried by men who were "purified."
–Ernest L. Martin, Portland, Oregon
Viewers can review Martin's views on the location of the Temple built by Herod the Great at the ASK Web Site. Martin, in his well-reasoned speculative style, presents his interesting new theory. We recommend its reading but do not necessarily endorse Martin's conclusions. His theory, as it becomes more well-refined, will need to face scholarly scrutiny and testing against the archaeological record. Absent hard scientific evidence his theory will remain an interesting idea but of little impact in academia.
–editor
Egyptian Dynasties
I am thinking through some ideas about Biblical syncretism and Egyptian third intermediate chronological period (ala David Rohl) to me its an attractive idea. I am open to any suggestions you might have, being new to this area of the WWW. Thank you for your consideration.
–TAH
Conventional wisdom places the Third Intermediate Period (Egyptian Dynasties 21-25) from ca. 1069 to 664 BCE (the sacking of Thebes by Ashurbanipal). David M. Rohl, in A Test of Time: The Bible from Myth to History, republished in the USA as Pharaohs and Kings: A Biblical Quest, aggressively reinterprets Egyptian chronology. You can visit Rohl's Test of Time Web Site for more information. We suggest Pharaohs and Kings: A Biblical Quest as a classic example of the hermeneutic approach to archaeology.
We agree with Rohl that the biblical date for an Exodus "was entirely at odds with the dates for the 19th Dynasty (1295-1186 BC)." The historical and archaeological evidence concerning the 18th Dynasty, however, is overwhelmingly consistent with a 1443 BCE Exodus. We question Rohl's arguments in redating the 13th Dynasty, his 1447 BCE Exodus, and his rejection of the identification of Shoshenk I with Shishak. The calculated beginning of the 21st Dynasty stems from the equating of the 20th year of Shoshenk I with the 5th year of Rehoboam. Rohl's new chronology requires the rejection of the Shoshenk = Shishak identification. His evidence is neither scientific nor compelling. In scientific terms he did not present adequate "evidence" to falsify the Shoshenk = Shishak hypothesis. His shuffling of the chronological dynastic deck is a matter of hermeneutic interpretation and not science. This junk science approach makes good television and interesting fiction but is of little, if any, scholarly merit. It merely confuses the public and only produces more questions and confusion. We find Rohl's work consistent with the more or less historic British armchair approach to biblical archaeology.
–editor
Where is the Ark of the Covenant?
I had heard that supposedly the Dead Sea Scrolls tell where the ark of the covenant is buried and archaeologists now are digging for it. Is there any truth to these claims and if so, where is the Ark of the Covenant buried according to the scrolls?
–Carol Mauriello
The Ark of the Covenant is indeed hidden. It disappeared from history in First Temple times. The ark never was part of the inventory of the Temple built by Herod the Great (see Josephus Wars 5.5). The copper Dead Sea Scrolls are from the Second Temple period. Some seek in the copper scrolls clues that would lead them to Second Temple treasures hidden before the Romans took Jerusalem in 70 CE. Presumably, if found, these treasures would join other items at the Temple Institute in Jerusalem. The staff at the institute have assembled various tools, pots, jars, and the like to reinstate the Levitical offerings in a Third Temple or national altar on the Temple Mount. The collection is incomplete and each item is quite costly. The time of manufactures of each of these items is our own day and you may view them, and have an explanation of each, at the Temple Institute.
Imagine the excitement the discovery of a cash of Second Temple ceremonial offertory utensils would create. It would likely be the stimulus for an excited Jewish populace to storm and seize the Temple Mount from the Muslims and the Israeli military to reinstate morning and evening sacrifices. At this time such an event would be catastrophic. If Temple ceremonial items from the Second Temple Period could be so problematic imagine what the discovery of the Ark of the Covenant would produce. One leading Israeli archaeologist told me that it is better for the Ark to remain lost since its appearance could bring about World War III. We agree for such would fuel Jewish zealots and extremists and Arabic opposition but there are other problems.
In Christian thinking the Ark is no longer vested with power as the Old Covenant ended at Jesus' death and this is the time of the New Covenant. In traditional Jewish and messianic Jewish thinking the Old Covenant continues in force and the Ark remains the focus of just as much power as it ever was. The discovery of an Ark charged with the supernatural power of God or void of such power would challenge many theologies. An Ark devoid of power would be confirming to Christians, problematic for Jews, and compelling to skeptics. Yet the net result would likely be the further undermining of the confidence of many in the Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament). Perhaps the disruption of any number of theologies would not be all that bad would it?
While we are not into pop-archaeology we found Graham Hancock's The Sign and the Seal quite entertaining. This work details Hancock's quest for the lost Ark of the Covenant in Ethiopia and raises some interesting questions about the Knights of the Templar. The Templars dug for the Ark on the Temple Mount many centuries ago. You might find it of interest. We assume you have seen the Steven Spielberg film Raiders of the Lost Ark, a Lucasfilm Ltd. production, by Paramount Pictures. Both Sign & Seal and Raiders place the Ark in Egypt on different theories. The movie ended with the Ark of the Covenant remaining lost by assignment to a U.S. federal warehouse where the world would not have to deal with it. In Hancock's book the Ark also remains "lost" to the world in a Coptic church . Perhaps it is just as well.
–editor
How Old is the Urn?
Can you
identify this urn? |
|
|
|
|
I have a bronze urn that is approximately 1,500 years old. I was told that it is from the Levant. I don't know anything else about this urn. I was hoping that you may lead me in the right direction. I am attaching a few pictures of the urn.
–Frank Anzaldi
We checked our catalogs but were not able to place your urn. Since our limited library specializes in the biblical period this is not surprising. If the urn is from ca. 500 CE it would be from the Byzantine period but it does not appear to be Byzantine. It seems to have a more Eastern character. If any viewer has a suggestion or can identify the piece please let us know. You might want to check with an art dealer specializing in Asian antiquities. I would start with a WWW search.
–editor
Does Archeology Tell of the Lost Ten Tribes?
For several years I have been interested in the histories of Assyria and Babylonia, especially as they contact the Israelite nations. During the eighth century BC, Assyria conquered the northern Kingdom of Israel and, according to the biblical record, removed the Israelites to several north Mesopotamian and Median locations; the Assyrian records detail only the removal of a relatively small number of dwellers in the capital of Samaria. Does archeology provide us with any more information about the deported Israelites, their numbers, culture in captivity, and their fate?
–David Medici
The hypothesis that northern European peoples have the lost ten tribes of Israel as ancestors remains unfalsified. The historical, linguistic, and archaeological evidence is illusive, largely speculative, and by no means conclusive. Assuming the hypothesis is tenable scientifically, an issue in and by itself, arguments on this subject usually go to showing the inadequacy of proffered proofs. This is quite different from falsifying a research hypothesis. We suggest it is time to take another approach and so argue in our editorial . We think the answer lies in the DNA molecule. Such research could put the matter to rest.
The spin placed on the sparse amount of extant historical, linguistic, and archaeological evidence is political and religious. It is theology, particularly prophecy, which prompts present-day speculation concerning the fate and modern identity of the lost ten tribes of Israel. This effort usually proceeds along ideological lines, e.g., rabbinical scholars seeking to find more members of the Diaspora, the Latter-Day Saints, the British Israel World Federation, and the like, for persons of deep religious conviction and internalized denominational dogmatism project their belief systems on the biblical text and read the Bible in ways that are consistent with and which maintain their beliefs and way of life. The dogmas of a denominational or theological frame of reference, or paradigm, all too often result in oversimplification of issues and in perpetuation of myths. Such an approach is detrimental to unbiased biblical study and to the search for fact and truth.
People make sense of their world through their belief systems. By forming and reforming their beliefs they seek to know, to understand, and to explain their world and why it is the way it is. Ideally people would seek to develop beliefs that are as accurate as possible, but unfortunately, the constraining quality of culture mitigates against their doing so. The problem in developing accurate beliefs is one of epistemology. The epistemological question with respect to the lost ten tribes is then—what can we know and how can we know it? This is an important, controversial, and divisive matter. On the archeological side very little is known or can be known for a number of reasons--the political and religious realities existing in Iraq and bordering states; the fact that slave peoples do not leave extensive, ethnically identifiable, material culture in their wake; lack of serious scholarly interest; and the millions of dollars scientific investigations of this kind cost. We suggest that for the time being, probably for our generation, we are at an archeological dead-end. This is why we suggest in this issue's editorial a new and different approach to the investigation.
–editor
Advanced Degree in Biblical Archaeology?
I recently found your WebPages on biblical archaeology and enjoyed looking at it. I am interested in biblical archaeology as a career. I am currently an undergraduate studying at Huntington College, a small liberal arts Christian school in Indiana. I am writing to you to ask for some advice and information. I am graduating this spring and am in search of a graduate school to attend in the fall of 1999. I am having trouble finding good universities with a masters program or Ph.D. program in biblical archaeology. I was wondering if you could recommend some quality graduate schools in this area of study. I would really appreciate any help you could give me in my search for a grad school. Or if you could at least point me in a direction to look for a grad school.
–Jeremy Wolfe
If you really want to become grounded in this field we suggest you explore the programs at Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the University of Tel Aviv. In the USA we doubt you will find a regionally accredited institution with a masters degree in this specialty. Stay away from diploma mills displaying themselves on the WWW claiming that some accrediting association has accredited them. Avoid them like the plague.
The research strategy we suggest is for you to explore area studies programs such as Middle Eastern Studies and Anthropology at large universities. We like Texas A&M at College Station, the University of Arizona, Harvard University, and the University of Chicago. As long as Drs. Lewis R. Binford and David A. Freidel remain at Southern Methodist University we recommend SMU for doctoral studies in archaeology. You might explore other anthropology programs at schools we list on our Useful Links page. We see the preoccupation of theological schools with their own denominational biases and hermeneutic much too constrictive for them to deliver a credible scientific approach to biblical archeology but there are exceptions.
If you take the anthropology route you can emphasize old world archaeology in your program and undertake a biblical archaeology thesis topic. If you proceed in a doctoral program you can elect an archeology option and use biblical archaeology as a specialty. In any case, get a second and third opinion.
–editor
Page last edited: 01/02/06 05:17 PM
|
starting web/internet resource by the
