One can divide archaeological science into the following areas

• Physical and chemical dating methods which provide archaeology with absolute and relative chronologies.
•     Artefact studies incorporating (i) provenance, (ii) technology, and (iii) use.
• Environmental approaches which provide information on past landscapes, climates, flora, and fauna as well as diet, nutrition, health, and pathology of people.
• Mathematical methods for data treatment also encompassing the role of computers in handling, analysing, and modeling the vast sources of data.
• Remote sensing and geophysical survey applications comprising a battery of non-destructive techniques for the location and characterisation of buried features at the regional, microregional, and intra-site levels.
• Conservation sciences, involving the study of decay processes and the development of new methods of conservation.

Techniques such as lithic analysis, archaeometallurgy, paleoethnobotany, palynology and zooarchaeology also form sub-disciplines of archaeological science.

Archaeologists can obtain significant additional data and information using these techniques, and archeometry has the potential to alter the understanding of the past. A good example of this is the so-called “Second radiocarbon revolution”, which significantly re-dated European prehistory in the 1960′s (the first radiocarbon revolution was the original introduction of the method to archaeology).

As indicated, one of the most important applications of archaeological science come with the absolute dates it can provide for archaeological strata and artefacts. Some of most important of these include:

• Radiocarbon dating – for dating organic materials
• Dendrochronology – for dating trees, but also very important for calibrating radiocarbon dates.
• Thermoluminescence dating – for dating inorganic material including ceramics.
• Optically Stimulated Luminescence – for absolutely dating and relatively profiling buried land surfaces in vertical and horizontal stratigraphic sections, most often by measuring photons discharged from Quartz grains within sedimentary bodies, although Feldspars are also able to be measured through this technique, complications caused by internally induced dose rates often mean Quartz-based analyses are favoured in archaeological applications.
• Electron spin resonance
• Potassium-argon dating – for dating fossilized hominid remains.

However, archaeologists have applied archaeological science in many other ways as well. A variety of methods have been used to analyse artefacts, either to determine more about their composition, or to determine their provenance. These techniques include:

• X-ray fluorescence (XRF)
• Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS)
• Neutron activation analysis (NAA)
• Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM)
• Laser Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy (LIBS)

Lead, strontium and oxygen isotope analysis can also test human remains to estimate the diets and even the birthplaces of a study’s subjects.

Provenance analysis has the potential to determine the original source of the material used, for example, to create a particular artefact. This can show how far the artefact has travelled and can be used to indicate systems of exchange.

The use of remote sensing has enabled archaeologists to identify many more archaeological sites than they could have otherwise. The use of aerial photography remains the most wide-spread remote sensing technique, but this has been supplemented by the use of satellite imagery, especially with the declassification of images from military satellites. Ground-based geophysical survey is most often used to identify and map archaeological features within identified sites.

The post Archeology Course 3, Lesson 1 appeared first on Biblical Archeology.

Biblical Archeology Free Bible School Course 2, Lesson 2
Milestones in Biblical Archeology

Milestones prior to 1914: Biblical Archaeology is thought have started after publication by Edward Robinson (American professor of Biblical literature; 1794–1863) of his travels through Palestine during the first half of the 19th century (a time when the oldest complete Hebrew scripture only dated to the Middle Ages), which highlighted similarities between modern Arabic place-names and Biblical city names.

The Palestine Exploration Fund sponsored detailed surveys led by Charles Warren during the late 1860s (initially financed by Angela Georgina Burdett-Coutts in 1864 to improve Jerusalem’s sanitary conditions), which culminated with the formal publication of “The Survey of Western Palestine” from 1871–1877.

The highlight of this period was Warren’s work around the Temple Mount of Jerusalem, where he discovered the foundation stones of Herod’s Temple, the first Israelite inscriptions on several jar handles with LMLK seals, and water shafts under the City of David.

• 1890 Sir W.M.F. Petrie noticed strata exposed by waterflow adjacent to Tell el-Hesi (originally believed to be Biblical Lachish, now probably Eglon) and popularized details of pottery groups excavated therefrom. F.J. Bliss continued digging there in 1891–2.

Subsequent highlights of major sites mentioned in the Bible where excavations spanned more than one season:

• 1898–1900 Frederick J. Bliss and R.A.S. Macalister excavated 4 major sites in the Shephelah region of Israel:
  • Tell es-Safi (probably Biblical Gath)
  • Tell Zakariya (probably Biblical Azekah)
  • Tell ej-Judeideh (possibly Biblical Moresheth-Gath or Libnah)
  • Tell Sandahannah (probably Biblical Mareshah)
• 1902–3, 1907–9 R.A.S. Macalister excavated Gezer, where the oldest Hebrew inscription (Gezer Calendar) was found on the surface
• 1902–4 Ernest Sellin excavated Taanach
• 1903–5 Gottlieb Schumacher excavated Megiddo
• 1905–7 Herman Kohl, Ernest Sellin, and Carl Watzinger surveyed ancient synagogues in Galilee
• 1907–9 Ernest Sellin and Carl Watzinger excavated Shechem
• 1908, 1910–1 David G. Lyon, Clarence S. Fisher, and George A. Reisner excavated Samaria
• 1911–3 Duncan Mackenzie excavated Beth Shemesh

Milestones during 1914–1945: Following World War I, during the British Mandate of Palestine, antiquities laws were established for Palestinian territory along with a Department of Antiquities (later to become the modern Israel Antiquities Authority) and the Palestine Archaeological Museum in Jerusalem (now named the Rockefeller Museum).

John Garstang was instrumental in these accomplishments. W.F. Albright dominated the scholarship of this period and had long-lasting influence on Biblical historians based on his analysis of Bronze Age and Iron Age pottery.

• 1921–3, 1925–8, 1930–3 Clarence S. Fisher, Alan Rowe, and Gerald M. Fitzgerald excavated Beth Shean
• 1922–3 William F. Albright excavated Tell el-Ful (probably Biblical Gibeah)
• 1925–39 Clarence S. Fisher, P.L.O. Guy, and Gordon Loud excavated Megiddo
• 1926, 1928, 1930, 1932 William F. Albright excavated Tell Beit Mirsim (possibly Biblical Eglon or Debir–Kirjath Sepher)
• 1926–7, 1929, 1932, 1935 William F. Bade excavated Mizpah
• 1928–33 Elihu Grant excavated Beth Shemesh
• 1930–6 John Garstang excavated Jericho
• 1931–3, 1935 John W. Crowfoot excavated Samaria
• 1932–38 James L. Starkey excavated Lachish (the excavation terminated when he was killed by bandits near Hebron while on his way to the opening ceremonies of the Palestine Archaeological Museum)
• 1936–40 Benjamin Mazar excavated Beit She’arim.

Milestones during 1945–1967:

• In 1945 the Nag Hammadi library—a collection of early Christian Gnostic texts also known as the “Gnostic Gospels”—was discovered near the town of Nag Hammadi. Twelve leather-bound papyrus codices buried in a sealed jar were found by a local peasant. Some of these documents, such as the Gospel of Thomas, were specifically rejected by Eusebius and others in the early Catholic Church from inclusion in the New Testament.
• 1947 and later: The Dead Sea Scrolls are an important testimony to the antiquity of the texts. The first seven scrolls had initially appeared on the antiquities market, but when their enormous importance was recognized, archaeologists eventually found their source in a series of caves above the Dead Sea, and subsequent searches located thousands of similar fragments. Following the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 and the declaration of the state of Israel in 1948, Biblical Archaeology gained new momentum. The science of archaeology had been digested and refined by new excavators who conducted numerous surveys of smaller sites during the second half of the 20th century, and re-excavations at major sites using modernized techniques.
• 1948–50, 1952–5 Jacob Kaplan excavated Jaffa
• 1954, 1959–62 Yohanan Aharoni excavated Ramat Rahel
• 1955–8, 1968 Yigael Yadin excavated Hazor
• 1956–7, 1959–60, 1962 James B. Pritchard excavated Gibeon
• 1961–7 Kathleen Kenyon excavated Jerusalem (City of David)
• 1962–7 Yohanan Aharoni and Ruth Amiran excavated Arad
• 1962–3, 1965–72 Moshe Dothan excavated Ashdod
• 1963–5 Yigael Yadin excavated Masada
• 1964–74 G. Ernest Wright, William G. Dever, and Joe Seger excavated Gezer
  • This was the first Palestinian excavation to operate as a school by granting academic/college credit.

Milestones after 1967: Following the Six-day War, archeologists conducted more extensive excavations within the city limits of modern Jerusalem. One highlight in particular came from Ketef Hinnom just southwest of the Old City: two small silver scrolls uniquely preserve Biblical texts older than the Dead Sea Scrolls. Both of these amulets contain the Priestly Blessing from the Book of Numbers; one also contains a quote found in parallel verses of Exodus (20:6) and Deuteronomy (5:10 and 7:9). The same verses appear again later in Daniel (9:4) and Nehemiah (1:5).

A major development of Processual and Post-processual archaeology has been the development of settlement studies in the highlands, which suggest that a process of state development only occurred after 950 BCE, possibly with the development of Omride Israel

• 1968–78 Benjamin Mazar excavated Jerusalem (southwest corner of the Temple Mount)
• 1969–76 Yohanan Aharoni and Ze’ev Herzog excavated Beersheba
• 1969–82 Nahman Avigad excavated Jerusalem (Jewish Quarter)
• 1973–94 David Ussishkin excavated Lachish
• 1975–82 Avraham Biran excavated Aroer
• 1977–9, 1981–9 Amihai Mazar and George L. Kelm excavated Timnah
• 1978–85 Yigal Shiloh excavated Jerusalem (City of David)
• 1979–80 Gabriel Barkay excavated Ketef Hinnom
• 1979, 1981–2, 1984–7, 1990–1, 1993–2000 David Livingston excavated Khirbet Nisya
• 1981–2, 1984–8, 1990, 1992–6 Trude Dothan and Seymour Gitin excavated Ekron
• 1989–96 Amihai Mazar excavated Tel Beit-Shean
• 1994–2007 Israel Finkelstein and David Ussishkin excavated Megiddo (ongoing annually)
• 1996–2002, 2004–2008 Aren Maeir excavates at Tell es-Safi (identified as Biblical Gath) of the Philistines
• 1997– Amihai Mazar excavated Tel Rehov
• 1999–2001, 2005 Ron Tappy excavated Tel Zayit (Zeitah)
• 2005 Oded Lipschits excavated Ramat Rahel
• 2005 Amir Gorzalczany and Gerald Finkielsztejn excavated Nahal Tut
• 2007 Yosef Garfinkel and Saar Ganor excavated Khirbet Qeiyafa

The post Biblical Archeology Free Bible Course 2, Lesson 2 appeared first on Biblical Archeology.

Biblical Archeology Course 2, Lesson 1
Biblical Archaeology, A Detailed Introduction

Biblical archaeology is the archaeology that relates to, and sheds light upon, the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament. It was given its theoretical framework, and enjoyed its most influential period, in the early to mid 20th century through the influence of William F. Albright; the American “biblical archaeology” school which he founded had a profound influence on both biblical scholarship and evangelical theology of the time, cementing the view that archaeology had demonstrated the essential truth of the Old Testament narrative, especially that part relating to the Biblical Patriarchs, the Exodus, and the conquest of Canaan. Many theological radicals tried to overthrow this stand, but despite this, the reliance of American field excavation on denominational support has meant that the Albrightian paradigm continues to influence contemporary archaeology in the region.

Background: The foundations of biblical archaeology were laid in the 19th century with the work of scholars such as Johann Jahn, whose manual of biblical antiquities, Biblische Archäologie, (1802, translated into English 1839) was immensely influential in the middle years of the 19th century, and Edward Robinson, whose Biblical Researches in Palestine, the Sinai, Petrae and Adjacent Regions (1841) became a popular best-seller, demonstrating that scientific research could verify the accuracy and trustworthiness of the bible. In 1865 the Palestine Exploration Fund was established by a group of English clergymen and scholars “to promote research into the archaeology and history, manners and customs and culture, topography, geology and natural sciences of biblical Palestine and the Levant”; it was followed by the Deutscher Palästina-Verein (1877), the École Biblique (1890), the American School of Oriental Research in (1900), and the British School of Archaeology in (1919). The research these institutions sponsored, at least in these early days, was primarily geographic; it was not until the 1890s that Sir Flinders Petrie introduced the basic principles of scientific excavation, including stratigraphy and ceramic typology.

William F. Albright and the Biblical Archaeology school: The dominant figure in 20th century biblical archaeology, defining its scope and creating the mid-century consensus on the relationship between archaeology, the bible, and the history of ancient Israel, was William F. Albright. An American with roots in the American Evangelical tradition (his parents were Baptist missionaries in Chile), Director of the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR), (now the W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research) through the `1920s and 1930s, editor of ASOR’s Bulletin until 1968, and author of over a thousand books and articles, Albright drew biblical archaeology into the contemporary debates over the origins and reliability of the bible. In the last decades of the 19th century Julius Wellhausen put forward the documentary hypothesis, which explained the bible as the composite product of authors working between the 10th and 5th centuries BC. “This raised the question whether the Genesis through 2 Kings material could be regarded as a reliable source of information for Solomon’s period or earlier.”

Post-Wellhausen scholars such as Hermann Gunkel, Albrecht Alt and Martin Noth were suggesting that the written texts studied by Wellhausen rested on a body of oral tradition which reflected genuine history, but which could not themselves be regarded as historically accurate accounts of events. Albright saw archaeology as the search for the physical evidence which would test these theories through the comparative study of ancient texts (notably those from Ebla, Mari, the Tel Amarna and Nuzi) and material finds. In his conception biblical archaeology embraced all the lands mentioned in the Bible, taking in any finds which could “throw some light, directly or indirectly, on the Bible.” By the middle of the 20th century the work of Albright and his students, notably Nelson Glueck, E. A. Speiser, G. Ernest Wright and Cyrus Gordon, had produced a consensus that biblical archaeology had provided physical evidence for the originating historical events behind the Old Testament narratives: in the words of Albright, “Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details of the Bible as a source of history.” The consensus allowed the creation of authoritative textbooks such as John Bright’s History of Israel (1959). Bright was a theological radical but archeological discoveries forced him to believe that the stories in Genesis reflected the physical reality of the 20th–17th centuries BC, and that it was therefore possible to write a history of the origins of Israel by comparing the biblical accounts with what was known of the time from other sources.

Biblical archaeology today: The Albrightian consensus was attacked by many theological radicals in the 1970s. Since radicals have been gradually able to take over the control of funds and educational institutions, they constantly try to attack the historicity of the Bible. However, there is such an accumulation of hard facts by now that they have not been successful. Currently, the Biblical Archaeology Society, founded in 1974, remains the primary organization publishing and discussing discoveries and issues relating to Biblical Archaeology. There are many minor periodicals also devoted to this subject. New books keep being issued on this topic, popular as well as technical. [GFDL Article and Copyright]

The post Biblical Archeology Bible School Course 2, Lesson 1 appeared first on Biblical Archeology.

Archeology Course 2, Lesson 4
Post Excavation Activities

In archaeology once the archaeological record of given site has been excavated, or collected from surface surveys, it is necessary to gain as much data as possible and organize it into a coherent body of information. This process is known as post excavation analysis, and is normally the most time-consuming part of the archaeological investigation. It is not uncommon for the final excavation reports on major sites to take years to be published.

At its most basic, the artifacts found are cleaned, catalogued and compared to published collections, in order to classify them typologically and to identify other sites with similar artifact assemblages. However, a much more comprehensive range of analytical techniques are available through archaeological science, meaning that artifacts can be dated and their compositions examined. The bones, plants and pollen collected from a site can all be analysed (using the techniques of zooarchaeology, paleoethnobotany, and palynology), while any texts can usually be deciphered.

These techniques frequently provide information that would not otherwise be known and therefore contribute greatly to the understanding of a site.

Post excavation analysis of the stratigraphic sequence: Since the end of world war two there has been a growing understanding and consensus that good practice treats all the deposits and layers of the site representing a history of activity as discoveries of importance on par with artifact and structures. One task of post excavation work will be to examine this recorded sequence of deposits and contexts by stratigraphic analysis aided by the sites’ Harris matrix. This role is usually undertaken by the senior archaeologist who was in charge of the site as his anecdotal knowledge is invaluable to interpret the information and help logically phase contexts into patterns of changing land use.

To support this task a different matrix may be created “post ex” called a plan matrix by overlaying Single context plans. This plan matrix is often compared to the Harris context matrix for discrepancies and insights. During this process other post excavation disciplines will be brought to bear on the constantly refining model of the sequence to test its validity, mainly using dating evidence cross referenced with a phased model of the site. The goal at this stage is produce a solid dependable body of data and identify areas of the sequence that are less understood of have a higher degree of error so poorly supported or false conclusions are not drawn from unreliable data. Once this is achieved to a satisfactory level this model is available to support other disciplines concerned with information and artifacts gathered during excavation.
Post excavation bone washing
Post excavation bone washing

Finds processing: Following excavation all the artifacts recovered must be cleaned and catalogued in some archive. this work involves disciplines form archaeological science and conservation techniques. [GFDL Article and Copyright]

The post Archeology Free Bible School Course 2, Lesson 4 appeared first on Biblical Archeology.

A strategy for sampling the contexts and features is formulated which may involve total excavation of each feature or only portions. It is preferred goal of excavation to remove all archaeological deposits and features in the reverse order they were created and construct a Harris matrix as a chronological record or “sequence” of the site. This Harris matrix is used for interpretation and combining contexts into ever larger units of understanding. This stratigraphic removal of the site is crucial for understanding the chronology of events on site. It is perhaps easier to think of this as “archaeological deposits should leave the site in the reverse order they arrived”. A grid is usually set up, dividing the site into 5 m squares to better aid the positioning of the features and contexts on the overall site plan. This grid is usually tied into a national geomatic database such as the Ordnance Survey in the UK. In urban archaeology this grid becomes invaluable for implementing single context recording.

The single context recording system: Single context recording was developed in the 1970s by the museum of London and has become the de facto recording system in many parts of the world and is especially suited to the complexities of deep urban archaeology and the process of Stratification. Each excavated context is given a unique “context number” and is recorded by type on a context sheet and perhaps being drawn on a plan and/or a section. Depending on time constraints and importance contexts may also be photographed, but in this case a grouping of contexts and their associations are the purpose of the photography. Finds from each context are bagged and labelled with their context number and site code for later cross reference work carried out post excavation. The height above sea level of pertinent points on a context, such as the top and bottom of a wall are taken and added to plans sections and context sheets. Heights are recorded with a dumpy level or total station by relation to the site temporary benchmark (abbr. T.B.M). Samples of deposits from contexts are sometimes also taken, for later environmental analysis or for scientific dating.

Stratigraphic excavation in practice: Best practice of stratigraphic excavation in its basic sense involves a cyclical process of cleaning or “troweling back” the surface of the site and isolating contexts and edges which are definable in their entirety or part as either

   1. Discreet discernible “edges” that form an enclosed area completely visible in plan and therefore stratigraphically later than the surrounding surface or
   2. Discrete, discernible “edges” that are formed by being completely separated from the surrounding surface as in 1 and have boundaries dictated by the limit of excavation.

Following this preliminary process of defining the context, the context is then assessed in relation to the wider understanding of the site, for considerations of reduction of the site in phases, and then removed and recorded by various methods. Often, owing to practical considerations or error, the process of defining the edges of contexts is not followed and contexts are removed out of sequence and un-stratigraphically. This is called “digging out of phase”. It is not good practice. After removing a context or if practical a set of contexts such as the case would be for features, the “isolate and dig” procedure is repeated until no man made remains are left on site and the site is reduced to natural.

Physical methodology of excavation: The process of excavation is achieved in many ways depending on the nature of the deposits to be removed and time constraints. In the main, deposits are lifted by Trowel and Mattock and shovelled or carried from the site by wheel barrow and bucket. The use of many other tools including fine trowels such as the plaster’s leaf trowel and brushes of various grades are used on delicate items such as human bone and decayed timber. When removing material from the archaeological record some basic guidelines are often observed.

1. Work from the known to the unknown. This means that, if one is unsure of the stratigraphic boundaries of the material in question, the removal of material should start from an area where the sequence is better understood rather than less.
2. Work from the top to the bottom. As well as working from the known to the unknown, also as far as possible, remove material at the physically highest level in the context and work towards the lowest. This is best practice because loose spoil will not then fall onto and contaminate the surface being worked on. In this way blurring detail that might have been instructive to the excavator is avoided.
3. In archaeology, we use our eyes. Excavation of contexts correctly often relies on detailed observations of minute differences.
4. If in doubt, bash it out. This rather cavalier-sounding maxim is a concise way of expressing the need to progress. There is always more to be done on a site, than there is time in which to do it. At times the next feature or context to be removed in the sequence is not clear even to an experienced archaeologist. When it is not possible to proceed in an ideal manner, the excavation must be continued in a more arbitrary way, with temporary sections, until discernible stratigraphy is again encountered. An area of the site is reduced leaving arbitrary, temporary sections as a form of stratigraphic control to provide early warning of “digging out of phase”. If the arbitrary area for excavation is wisely chosen, the sequence should be revealed and excavation can return to a truly stratigraphic method. It is important to realise that “bash it out” is not a totally random act but a best guess based on logical deductions, observation and experience.

Common errors in excavation: Common errors during excavation fall into two basic categories and one or the other is almost inevitable because excavation is a destructive process that removes the information it seeks to record in real time and mistakes cannot be rectified easily.

   1. Under-cutting. Under cutting occurs where contexts are not excavated fully and some remainder of the context is left in situ masking the nature of the underlying contexts. This is especially common among inexperienced archaeologists who have a tendency to be timid. The consequences of undercutting are quite serious as the nature of the archaeological sequence is obscured and subsequent recording and excavation is based on a flawed reading of the deposits on site. Unchecked, what follows from under-cutting is the production of false data often from the failure to spot intrusive finds and in turn, serious ramifications for the ability to interpret the sequence post excavation. Entire sites can be “thrown out of phase” where relationships recorded in the Harris matrix bear no genuine association with any understandable phase of occupation. If a regime of under-cutting is allowed to progress its effects multiply as the site is reduced.
   2. Over-cutting. Over-cutting occurs when contexts are unintentionally removed along with material from other deposits and contexts. Heavy over-cutting represents reckless removal of the sequence. However some degree of over-cutting is almost impossible to avoid and is certainly preferable to unchecked under-cutting even though over-cutting represents a loss of information.

Over-cutting represents the loss of information whereas undercutting represents false information. One role of an archaeologist is to avoid false information and minimize the loss of information.

Finds and artefacts retrieval: Finds and artefacts that survive in the archaeological record are retrieved in the main by hand and observation as the context they survive in is excavated. Several other techniques are available depending on suitability and time constraints. Sieving and flotation is used to maximize the recovery of small items such as small shards of pottery or flint flakes. The use of sieving is more common on research based excavations where more time is available. Some success has been achieved with the use of cement mixers and bulk sieving. This method allows the quick removal of context by shovel and mattock yet allows for a high retrieval rate. Spoil is shovelled into cement mixers and water added to form a slurry which is then poured through a large screen mesh.

Flotation is a process of retrieval that works by passing spoil onto the surface of water and separating finds that float from the spoil which sinks, this is especially suited to the recovery of environmental data such as seeds and small bones. Not all finds retrieval is done during excavation and some especially floatation may take place post excavation from samples taken during excavation. One important role of finds retrieval during excavation is the role of specialists to provide Spot dating information on the contexts being removed from the archaeological record which can provide advance warning of potential discoveries to come by virtue of residual finds redeposited in contexts higher in the sequence which should be coming offsite earlier than contexts from early eras and phases. This spot dating also forms part of a confirmation process of assessing the validity working hypothesis on the phasing of site during excavation. For example the presence of an anomalous medieval pottery sherd in what was thought to be an Iron Age ditch feature could radically alter onsite thinking on the correct strategy for digging a site and save a lot of information being lost due to incorrect assumptions about the nature of the deposits which will be destroyed by the excavation process and in turn, limit the sites potential for revealing information for Post excavation specialists. Or anomalous information could show up errors in excavation such as “undercutting”. Dating methodology in part relies on accurate excavation and in this sense the two activities become interdependent.

Mechanical diggers: There is an increasing use of machine diggers especially in developer lead excavation due to time pressures. This is an area of controversy as their use inevitably results in less discrimination in how the archaeological sequence on a site is recorded. Machines are used primarily to remove modern overburden and for the control of spoil. In British archaeology mechanical diggers are sometimes nicknamed “the big yellow trowel”.

Organisation of workforce: A group of archaeological excavators will generally work for a supervisor who reports to the site director or project manager. He or she will have ultimate responsibility for interpreting the site and writing the final report. Most excavations are eventually published in professional journals although this process can take years. This process takes place Post excavation and evolves a myriad of other specialists. [GFDL Article and Copyright]

The post Archeology Course 2, Lesson 3 appeared first on Biblical Archeology.

The term archaeological excavation has a double meaning:

   1. Excavation is the best known and most commonly used within the science of archaeology. In this sense it is the exposure, processing and recording of archaeological remains.
   2. The term is also used for an example of the application of the technique to the study of a given site. In this sense, an excavation may sometimes be referred to as a “dig” by those who participate, this being a concise, if over-simplified description of the process. Such a site excavation concerns itself with a specific archaeological site or a connected series of sites, and may be conducted over a number of years.

Overview: Within the practice of excavation, numerous specialised techniques are available for use, and each dig will have its particular features which will determine the archaeologists’ approach. Resources and other practical issues do not allow archaeologists to carry out excavations whenever and wherever they choose. These constraints mean many known sites have been deliberately left unexcavated. This is with the intention of preserving them for future generations as well as recognising the role they serve in the communities that live near them. In some cases it is also hoped that improvements in technology will enable them to be re-examined at a later date, with more fruitful results.

The presence or absence of archaeological remains can often be suggested to a more or less high degree of probability, by remote sensing, such as ground-penetrating radar. Indeed, grosser information about the development of the site may be drawn from this work but the understanding of finer features usually requires excavation though appropriate use of augering. Retrieval of information from artefacts can be achieved only by the invasive method of excavation.

Historical development: The development of excavation techniques has moved over the years from a treasure hunting process to one which seeks to fully understand the sequence of human activity on a given site and that site’s relationship with other sites and with the landscape in which it is set.

Its history began with a crude search for treasure and for artefacts which fell into the category of ‘curio’. These curios were the subject of interest of antiquarians. It was later appreciated that digging on a site destroyed the evidence of earlier people’s lives which it had contained. Once the curio had been removed from its context, most of the information it held was lost. It was from this realization that antiquarianism began to be replaced by archaeology, a process still being perfected.

Site formation: Archaeological material would, to a very large extent, have been called rubbish when it was left on the site. It tends to accumulate in events. A gardener swept a pile of soil into a corner, laid a gravel path or planted a bush in a hole. A builder built a wall and back-filled the trench. Years later, someone built a pig sty onto it and drained the pig sty into the nettle patch. Later still, the original wall blew over and so on. Each event, which may have taken a short or long time to accomplish, leaves a context. This layer cake of events is often referred to as the archaeological sequence or record. It is by analysis of this sequence or record that excavation is intended to permit interpretation, which should lead to discussion and understanding.

Excavation Types

Basic types: There are two basic types of modern archaeological excavation:

   1. Research excavation – when time and resources are available to excavate the site fully and at a leisurely pace. These are now almost exclusively the preserve of academics or private societies who can muster enough volunteer labour and funds. The size of the excavation can also be decided by the director as it goes on.
   2. Development-led excavation – undertaken by professional archaeologists when the site is threatened by building development. Normally funded by the developer meaning that time is more of a factor as well as its being focused only on areas to be affected by building. The workforce is generally more skilled however and pre-development excavations also provide a comprehensive record of the areas investigated. Rescue archaeology is sometimes thought of as a separate type of excavation but in practice tends to be a similar form of development-led practice. Various new forms of excavation terminology have appeared in recent years such as Strip map and sample some of which have been criticized within the profession as jargon created to cover up for falling standards of practice.

Trial excavations and evaluations in development led archaeology: There are two main types of trial excavation in professional archaeology both commonly associated with development-led excavation: the test pit or trench and the watching brief. The purpose of trial excavations is to determine the extent and characteristics of archaeological potential in a given area before extensive excavation work is under taken. This is usually conducted in development-led excavations as part of Project management planning. the main difference between Trial trenching and watching briefs is that trial trenches are actively dug for the purpose of revealing archaeological potential whereas watching briefs are cursory examination of trenches where the primary function of the trench is something other than archaeology, for example a trench cut for a gas pipe in a road. In the USA a method of evaluation called a Shovel test pit is used which is a specified half meter square line of trial trenches dug by hand.

Concepts in excavation

Stratification: In archaeology, especially in the course of excavation, stratification is a paramount and base concept. It is largely based on the Law of Superposition. When archaeological finds are below the surface of the ground (as is most commonly the case), the identification of the context of each find is vital to enable the archaeologist to draw conclusions about the site and the nature and date of its occupation. It is the archaeologist’s role to attempt to discover what contexts exist and how they came to be created. Archaeological stratification or sequence is the dynamic superimposition of single units of stratigraphy or contexts. In archaeology, the context (physical location) of a discovery can be of major significance. More precisely, an archaeological context is an event in time which has been preserved in the archaeological record. The cutting of a pit or ditch in the past is a context, whilst the material filling it will be another. Multiple fills seen in section would mean multiple contexts. Structural features, natural deposits and inhumations are also contexts. By separating a site into these basic, discrete units, archaeologists are able to create a chronology for activity on a site and describe and interpret it. Stratigraphic relationships are the relationships created between contexts in time representing the chronological order they were created. An example would be a ditch and the back-fill of said ditch. The relationship of “the fill” context to the ditch “cut” context is “the fill” occurred later in the sequence, i.e., you have to dig a ditch first before you can back-fill it. A relationship that is later in the sequence is sometimes refereed to as “higher” in the sequence and a relationship that is earlier “lower” though the term higher or lower does not itself imply a context needs to be physically higher or lower. It is more useful to think of this higher or lower term as it relates to the contexts position in a Harris matrix which is a two dimensional representation of a sites formation in space and time.

Combining stratigraphic contexts for interpretation: Understanding a site in modern archaeology is a process of grouping single contexts together in ever larger groups by virtue of their relationships. The terminology of these larger clusters varies depending on practitioner but the terms interface, sub-group, group and land use are common. An example of a sub-group could be the three contexts that make up a burial; the grave cut, the body and the back-filled earth on top of the body. In turn sub-groups can be clustered together with other sub groups by virtue of their stratigraphic relationship to form groups which in turn form “phases”. A sub-group burial could cluster with other sub group burials to form a cemetery or burial group which in turn could be clustered with a building such as church to produce a “phase”. A less rigorously defined combination of one or more contexts is sometimes called a feature.

Phase and phasing: Phase is the most easily understood grouping for the layman as it implies a near contemporaneous Archaeological horizon representing “what you would see if you went back to a specific point in time”. Often but not always a phase implies the identification of an occupation surface “old ground level” that existed at some earlier time. The production of phase interpretations is one of the first goals of stratigraphic interpretation and excavation. Digging “in phase” is not quite the same as phasing a site. Phasing a site represents reducing the site either in excavation or post excavation to contemporaneous horizons where as “digging in phase” is the process of stratigraphic removal of archaeological remains so as not to remove contexts that are earlier in time “lower in the sequence” before other contexts that have a latter physical stratigraphic relationship to them as defined by the law of superposition. The process of interpretation in practice will have a bearing on excavation strategies on site so “phasing” a site is actively pursued during excavation where at all possible, and is considered good practice. [GFDL Article and Copyright]

The post Archeology Course 2, Lesson 2 appeared first on Biblical Archeology.

A special type of field survey is the rescue survey, used when an area of possible archaeological importance is under threat. This is usually connected to construction work, and is undertaken to decide whether an excavation is necessary or not before work can commence on the site.

Archaeologists use a variety of tools in survey, including GIS, GPS, remote sensing, geophysical survey and aerial photography.

Research and planning: A field survey is usually the result of a long period of research and planning. The process will normally start with the notion that an area is worth further investigation, or that a site requires excavation (or that it should at least be recorded in some way).

Rationale: There are several reasons that an area may be considered to be worth surveying. In no particular order, they are:

• Artifacts found: Locals have picked up artifacts, sometimes found in the local museum but more often in private homes or old buildings such as churches, and it is unclear where they are coming from.
• Literary sources: Old literary sources, in some cases ancient Roman or Greek texts, have provided archaeologists with clues about settlement locations that have not been archaeologically documented. Sometimes the texts may be quite recent; a book on local history that mentions an interesting area.
• Oral sources: In many locations, local stories contain some hint of a greater past, and there is often some truth to them. It is not uncommon for someone to remember that a grandfather who used to walk the hills around a town as a shepherd used to talk about columns from an old temple, without having actually seen these themselves.
• Local knowledge: In many cases, locals actually know where to find something that is of interest to archaeologists. They may not have reported it, either because it’s simply a part of their world, or because they fear intrusions on their land.
• Previous surveys: In some places, a survey was carried out in the past, and is recorded in an obscure academic journal. It may have been disregarded at the time, but more recent technologies and finds from other sites might cast a different light on it.
• Previous excavations: Excavations carried out before the middle of the 20th century are notoriously poorly documented. They were also often carried out in a way that left much of the evidence the modern-day archaeologist is looking for behind, preferring to carry away only fine pottery, jewelry and statues.
• Lack of knowledge: Many areas of the world have little known about the nature and organisation of past human activity at the regional level (even when one or more ‘sites’ may be known from an area, often little is known about the wider distribution of contemporary settlements, and how settlement patterns may change over time). Archaeological field survey is the primary tool for discovering information about previously uninvestigated areas.

Aerial photography: Aerial photography is a very good tool when planning a survey. Remains of older buildings often show in fields as cropmarks, as they are often just below the topsoil and therefore affect the crops or grass. There should preferably be photographs of the same area at different times of the year, allowing the analyst to find the best time to see cropmarks.

Previous work on the site: If the indicator that started the process was not a record of previous work, the archaeologists will need to check if any work has been done. As many older surveys and excavations were published in papers that were not widely spread, this may be a difficult task. A common way to handle this is through a visit to the area, to check with local museums, historians and older people who might remember something.

Permissions: It is usually a simple matter to gain permission to perform a survey, especially a non-intrusive one. If the area is privately owned, the local laws may or may not require the landowners’ co-operation. Permission for an intrusive form of survey may be more difficult to acquire, due to the fear of destroying evidence.

Intrusive vs. non-intrusive surveys: In a non-intrusive survey, nothing is touched, just recorded. An intrusive survey can mean different things. In some cases, all artifacts of archaeological value are collected. This is often the case if it is a rescue survey, but less common in a regular survey.

Another form of intrusive research is bore holes. Small holes are drilled into the ground, most often with hand-powered bores. The contents are examined to determine the depths at which one might find cultural layers, and where one might expect to strike virgin soil. This can be valuable in determining the cost of an excavation – if there is a build-up of several meters of soil above the layers the archaeologist is interested in, the price will obviously be much higher than if artifacts are found only centimeters below ground.

Extensive vs. intensive survey: Archaeological field survey can be divided into two types: intensive survey and extensive survey. The former is characterised by the complete or near-complete coverage of the survey area at a high-resolution, most often by having teams of survey archaeologists walk in a systematic way (e.g. in transects) over parcels of the landscape in question, documenting archaeological data such as lithics, ceramics and/or building remains. Extensive survey, on the other hand, is characterised by a low-resolution approach in which (e.g.) only samples of a larger study area (often in excess of several sq km) are visited. Extensive surveys are quite often designed to target the identification of archaeological sites across a large area, whereas intensive surveys are designed to provide a more comprehensive picture of the location of sites and the nature of off-site data (e.g. field systems, isolated finds, etc.). Intensive survey is the more costly, timely, and ultimately informative of the two approaches, although extensive survey can provide important information about previously unknown areas.

Field walk: An important part of the survey is normally the field walk (or transect). The common way to perform it is to construct a grid, place the survey team on a line and then walk slowly through the area looking for artifacts or other indications. This works best on either ploughed ground or surfaces with little vegetation. On ploughed surfaces, as the soil is turned regularly artifacts will move to the top. Erosion and soil loss on uncultivated and lightly vegetated soil (e.g., in semi-arid environments) may cause artifacts to also ‘rise’ to the surface.

Modern technology such as GPS has made survery recording much easier, as positions can be taken well within the limits necessary for survey work.

In some areas, the field walk is quite different. When searching in dense jungle, buildings may be covered by vegetation, and are therefore virtually invisible even at short distances. The team will then need to look for unnatural changes in the vegetation and landscape to decide if a building is hidden below the vegetation.

Narrowing it down: At this stage, the problem is often that one knows the approximate distribution of archaeological material, but it needs to be more precisely mapped. During the field walk, the members of the team are likely to miss minor pieces of artifacts hidden in vegetation. However, if they are all trained to look for the same thing, it is likely that they will miss the same amount of artifacts, and the results of the survey can therefore still be used to draw a map of find frequencies within the grid system. This might in turn make it possible to identify an archaeological site.

Geophysical survey: Geophysical survey is used for subsurface mapping of archaeological sites. In recent years, there have been great advances in this field, and it is becoming an increasingly useful and cost-effective tool in archaeology. Geophysical instruments can detect buried archaeological features when their electrical or magnetic properties contrast measurably with their surroundings. In some cases individual artifacts , especially metal, may be detected as well. Readings taken in a systematic pattern become a dataset that can be rendered as image maps. Survey results can be used to guide excavation and to give archaeologists insight into the patterning of non-excavated parts of the site. Unlike other archaeological methods, geophysical survey is not invasive or destructive. For this reason, it is often used where preservation (rather than excavation) is the goal.

The geophysical methods most commonly applied to archaeology are magnetometers, electrical resistance meters, ground-penetrating radar (GPR) and electromagnetic (EM) conductivity. These methods provide excellent resolution of many types of archaeological features, and are capable of high sample density surveys of very large areas and of operating under a wide range of conditions. While common metal detectors are geophysical sensors, they are not capable of generating high-resolution imagery. Other established and emerging technologies are also finding use in archaeological applications.

Although Geophysical survey has been used in the past with intermittent success, good results are very likely when it is applied appropriately. It is most useful when it is used in a well-integrated research design where interpretations can be tested and refined. Interpretation requires a knowledge both of the archaeological record, and of the way it is expressed geophysically. Appropriate instrumentation, survey design, and data processing are essential for success, and must be adapted to the unique geology and archaeological record of each site. In the field, control of data quality and spatial accuracy are critical.

Analysis: The most important part of the survey is the analysis. The types of questions typically asked of survey data include: what is the evidence for first occupation of an area; when was this area occupied; how are sites distributed; where are sites located; what evidence is there for a settlement hierarchy; what sites are contemporary with each other; how has the modern landscape interfered with the visibility of archaeological remains; what sorts of activities can be recognised (e.g. dwellings, tombs, field systems); how many people lived in this area (at any given time); why did people choose to live in this area; how has the landscape changed over time; what changes in settlement patterns have there been?

At times, one part of the survey may not have yielded the evidence one wanted to find. For instance, very little may have been found during a field walk, but there are strong indications from geophysical survey and local stories that there is a building underneath a field. In such a case, the only way to decide if an excavation is worth the cost is to carefully analyze the evidence to determine which part to trust. On the one hand, the geophysics might just show an old and forgotten waterpipe, but it might also show the wall of just the building the archaeologists were looking for.

The analysis therefore includes careful examination of all the evidence collected. A method often used to determine its value is to compare it to sites of the same period. As the number of well-documented surveys grow, this becomes a slightly easier task, as it sometimes is easier to compare two survey results that a survey result and an excavated site. [GFDL Source & Copyright]

The post Archeology Course 2, Lesson 1 appeared first on Biblical Archeology.

As seen above no sooner attacks began coming against the historical aspects of the Christian faith, tools of Legal and Historical Apologetics were developed to counter it. These developments had many advantages in addition to providing a defense of the Christian faith. Some of these are: 

1-Insights Into History/Chronology: Most people do not realize that the way history is written, and the way in which chronologies are constructed, vary from culture to culture. Thus the historical and chronological records produced by people of one culture can be understood only if we understand the presuppositions and methodologies of those people. Legal and Historical studies have furnished much information to help us understand Biblical history and chronology more accurately. 

2-Insights Into Culture/Customs/Manners:  Culture, customs, and manners vary from place to place and time to time even within a single country. So much so that what is considered as appropriate and even desirable behavior in one part of a country can be interpreted as undesirable in another part of the same country. Since that is the case, the Biblical history covering a span of 4000 years, having taken place in dozens of countries, contains many things related to these things that might perplex people today. Some of the Biblical statements can even be misinterpreted today. However, historical investigation furnishes insights into these things, eliminating confusion. 

3-Insights Into Languages/Meanings: As mentioned before, Biblical languages are dead today. They are not spoken anywhere. Thus it is difficult for the twentieth century reader to understand all the finer nuances of these languages when they were used by people for whom it was their native language. Historical investigations, however, have produced tens of thousands of writings of all kinds in these languages, enabling linguists to understand vocabulary, word usage, and idioms of these languages more accurately. 

4-Insights Through Reconstruction/Investigation of Biblical Histories/Incidents: Many events become more meaningful to the readers when the background is reconstructed more fully to them. This is the reason why popular magazines sometimes carry detailed reconstructions of historical events like the sinking of Titanic, or the fist voyage to the North Pole. Historical and Legal investigations have helped Bible scholars to perform similar reconstructions of many Biblical events (siege of Jericho, fall of Persian Empire, etc), providing greater insights into the significance and impact of these events. 

Other Values Of Historical Investigations

Though the purpose of Apologetics is defense of the Christian Faith, Apologetical investigations always help the entire spectrum of Biblical studies. For example, in addition to the benefits mentioned previously, Historical investigations provide help in many other areas of Bible studies and research. Some of them are: 

1-A Better Understanding of Biblical Text/Transmission: The way the Biblical Text was produced, preserved, and transmitted has an exciting history of itself. Often this can shed much light for those who investigate the accuracy of the current text of Bible. Further, when radicals and rationalists claim that the present text is unreliable, such studies help scholars to refute them. For example, when a radical claims that a certain translation of the Old Testament contained the Apocrypha Books also, such studies help scholars to show that they were not part of the Canon. 

2-Better Appreciation Of Reliability Of Scriptures: The historical nature of Bible and the Christian faith has prompted radicals and rationalists to attack all historical aspects of the Christian faith, including the reliability of the Hebrew and Greek Texts that are available today. However, venturing into the history of these things not only vindicates the accuracy of the present texts, but also fills Christians with awe about the ways in which God caused this text to be transmitted so reliably for His children. 

3-Better Appreciation Of Prophecy: Most of the prophecies recorded in the Bible have already taken place. Thus it is often very difficult for the present-day reader to appreciate their apologetic value. But when historical studies demonstrate how incredible these prophecies were at the time of their giving, our appreciation for prophecy increases manifold. (This subject is discussed in detail in another portion of this series). 

Summary

Unlike the major world religions, the Christian faith is firmly rooted in history. There is no way to separate the historical portions from doctrinal ones. Either both of them stand together, or they fall totally. This is why the historical narratives in the Bible have become favorite targets of attack for theological radicals and rationalists. Legal and Historical Apologetics is the answer to these people. History has turned out to be a great friend of the Bible and the Legal and Historical apologetics have turned out to be very strong answers against all objections !

The post Biblical Archeology Course 1, Lesson 5 appeared first on Biblical Archeology.

Even in those places where other religions claim to be presenting actual histories, the philosophy and theology of those religions do not depend upon the historical narrative. Thus even if those historical narrative are false, or even if they are eliminated, it makes no difference to the philosophical and theological claims of those religions. This is particularly true of all Oriental religions. But the same is not true of Bible or of the Christian faith.

The Christian faith is solidly and inseparably based upon history. If Adam, Eve, Eden, Flood, Moses, Prophets, Jesus, Pentecost, and the Apostles are eliminated from the Bible, then nothing substantial remains of Christian faith. Ultimately all the foundational, cardinal, and major Biblical doctrines depend upon the historicity of the events recorded in the Bible.

The historical nature of the Bible has been recognized by radicals and atheists much more than the Christians. They know that if this foundation can be destroyed, then the Christian faith would automatically crumble without additional effort. They have been shown to be right in the liberal churches. In these churches pastored by theological radicals, the members were told for decades that there is no historical basis for the Bible.

About five decades of such teaching, and all these churches reached the lowest level of spiritual decadence. There is today no spiritual perversion which is considered wrong by the laity or the clergy of the liberal churches. It is their offspring who that ushered in the era of promiscuity and infidelity, illegitimate children, divorce, abortion, serial marriages, and all conceivable and inconceivable sexual orgies in the western nations.

Bible-believing Christians have recognized the perils befalling the Christian if the historical basis of this faith can be shown to be invalid. Consequently, for the last two centuries many thousands of brilliant scholars have devoted their entire lives to examine, clarify, and defend the historicity of the Biblical narratives. So much so that entire disciplines of study and research have come up in seminaries, colleges, and Universities around the world as a consequence of all this. Such is the importance of historical studies for the Christian faith, and Historical Apologetics is only a small part of these historical studies. We would look the following subjects in this and the following lesson:

1-Tools Of Legal Method/Apologetics
2-Tools Of Historical Apologetics
3-Application Of The Tools
4-Other Values Of Historical Investigations

Let us study each of them in greater detail:

Tools Of Legal Apologetics

Each branch of learning has its own tools of study, methods of evaluation, and approaches to deduction. Often the methods that work in one branch do not work in another, though all of them are based upon the common foundation of logic.

Thus the tools of physics are not that of medicine, and that of mathematics are not that of history. Only in interdisciplinary studies do some of the tools overlap, and even here things are not often easy. That is the reason why very few people opt for research/teaching in interdisciplinary fields. Even many areas of Christian Apologetics are interdisciplinary in nature, and it is here that very few people work. Most of those who are interested in Apologetics prefer single disciplines like Pure Philosophical Apologetics (say, Philosophy Of Religions) or Pure Rational Apologetics (say, Bible And Science).

Legal Apologetics is a combination of Legal and Historical Reconstruction. Since it involves the Legal and Historical processes, it is necessary to understand the tools used for both of these methods. The tools of Legal Method are as follows:

1-The Legal Reconstruction Method: Legal Apologetics deals with the legal investigation of whether a certain thing has taken place or not. Thus in court cases a large chunk of time is spent in deciding whether a certain event has taken place or not.

Information is collected from the available witnesses. They are then cross-examined to determine both their personal integrity and also to determine the integrity of their descriptions. Once all the available witnesses are cross-examined, and once all unacceptable and unestablished information is ruled out, the rest of the information is compiled into a coherent story. This story is then accepted as a reliable reconstruction of the things that transpired in relation to the events under investigation. This is the way in which Courts of Law reconstructs alleged events, and then punishes or acquits the accused.

Since the events of the Bible are historical in nature, the method of legal and historical reconstructions apply to the historical events recorded in the Bible. Further, since the historical narratives have become the favorite target of attack for radicals and rationalists alike, the legal/historical reconstruction becomes an important tool in the hands of the Christian Apologist.

2-Sufficient And Total Proof In The Legal Method: Most people who talk of “proof” have only the so-called “scientific proof” in their mind. However, the field of investigating truth is much broader than that of physical sciences, and therefore the methods of obtaining and assessing proof is also much broader. What is ample proof in one discipline might be totally worthless in another field, and thus it is essential to look at a few types of proofs.

In mathematics and geometry, proof consists of showing that a certain set of conditions are true of certain objects, irrespective of the type of object selected. For example, if a certain property is demonstrated to be true for a number “n” (where n can have any value whatsoever), then it is accepted as proof that this property is true for any number whatsoever. Similarly, if a certain property is shown to be true for a triangle chosen arbitrarily, then this property is assumed to be applicable for all triangles in the Universe. The same is the case with all proofs of geometry.

In scientific proof the event under consideration is repeated under various conditions and in various laboratories. If the event repeats itself under the same set of circumstances, it is assumed to be true.

In legal/historical proof it is necessary to demonstrate that an even has probably taken place beyond all doubt. It is also necessary to demonstrate that taking place of this event is the best explanation of the data available.

In all three cases above, something is accepted as true or proven if the proof available is sufficient. “Total” proof of an event means that one examines each and every conceivable possibility and establishes each one of them to be true. This is humanly never possible. Thus in a court of law, once the general truthfulness of a witness is established, his individual statements are accepted to be true. Similarly, in the case of the Bible, it is humanly not possible to verify each of the tens of thousands of historical statements. Thus, what the legal expert or the historical looks for is the general trustworthiness on those points that can be checked. If those are found to be true, it is considered sufficient for accepting the rest are to be true.

For example, it is not possible to verify whether Abraham uttered each one of the statements attributed to him. However, if the historical existence of Abraham, the cities mentioned in connection with Abraham, and the information in general are found to be true, this is considered sufficient proof that the narratives related to Abraham are true. This is the standard procedure for proof followed in all legal and historical practices.

On the above count, the existence of Abraham, Moses, the kings of Israel and Judah, the prophets, the proclamations of the Gospel narratives, etc. are found to be sufficiently proved and demonstrated.

Tools Of Historical Apologetics

Though Legal and Historical Apologetics are intimately connected with each other, for the sake of clarity it would still be helpful to look separately at those aspects of the Apologetics where the historical aspect is very prominent.

1-Archeology: Archaeology is a recent science and it deals with the study of ancient civilizations. Though some people had been collecting ancient artifacts for some centuries, archaeology had its birth in 1798 when Napoleon conducted a systematic study of the ancient monuments and artifacts of Egypt. From there it had a slow development till it reached its zenith and scientific form in the twentieth century.

Biblical/Secular Archaeology: Initially there was not distinction between Biblical and secular archaeology, but soon scholars realized that the archaeological discoveries in lands where Biblical history took place are of immense importance to studies of Biblical history. Thus Biblical Archaeology developed as a subset of General Archaeology. Today Biblical Archaeology has grown to such levels that several societies and journals are devoted totally and exclusively to this discipline. More details of Bible and archaeology is included in another section of this work.

Chronologies/Histories: Interest in correlating secular history and corresponding Biblical history grew towards the middle of the nineteenth century. The growth was fueled partly by the attacks of the radical theologians and rationalists who tried to use secular history to attack the reliability of the Bible. These attacks prompted Bible believing scholars to investigate the subject further. Consequently, today a vast amount of Biblical history and chronology has already been correlated with the corresponding secular history. If any uncertainty remains, it mostly because of the still incomplete knowledge of the secular history.

One area of interest has been the chronologies of kings given in the book of Kings and Chronicles. Often the statements seem to contradict each other, and this has perplexed Bible-believing scholars. Rationalists gleefully point to these apparent contradictions, and even today their handbooks against the Bible mention these as the strongest points of attack against the Bible. However, research from the middle of the twentieth century have clarified these problem.

During the time of the Kings, Israel and Judah used at least five different types of calendar reckonings. Thus the same date would give different values according to different calendars, and this was the reason for these conflicting dates. After decades of research, often with the aid of powerful computers and algorithms, now researches have solved the riddle and there is no serious calendar problem in the books of Kings and Chronicles. This is another area in which Historical Apologetics has come to the aid of Bible believing people.

2-Dating Techniques: Discovering exactly how old an archaeological find is helps in accurate reconstruction of history. Determination of the age helps the Bible in more than one way. For example, a shroud claiming to be the burial cloth of Lord Jesus was recently shown to be only about 600 years old. Thus all false claim to its authenticity has been repudiated, and the Bible believing Christians have been saved from a historical hoax.

Age Determination takes place in many ways. One is Historical Dating. The dates of many artifacts or kingdoms are known historically, and therefore the dates of the items associated with them is assumed to be the same. Another method is Comparative Dating. The pottery shapes and styles, the use of metals, the use of building materials, etc. have changed with age. Thus by comparing these things with similar items of a known date the approximate age can be found out. The third methods is Scientific Dating. By using many scientific method, including the Radiocarbon Dating, the date of many items can be determined. This is how the date of the disputed shroud mentioned above was determined.

Date-determination is a very complex science and art, and the above paragraph has tried only to give a glimpse into this field. Suffice to say that date determination of ancient artifacts and civilizations has played a very significant role in reconstructing past history. This in turn has helped scholars to correlated Biblical history with the secular. As a consequence of all this work, today Bible stands as historically most accurate ancient book.

3-Linguistic Studies: Bible is written in two ancient languages (Hebrew and Greek) which are no longer spoken today. Some chapters in Daniel are written in Aramaic. Ancient Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic are totally different from their modern counterparts. Consequently much linguistic investigation has been needed to understand these languages to a sufficient degree. These studies, in turn, have been greatly beneficial for Christian Apologists.

a. Biblical Languages: A History Of Studies: Eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were periods when a study of Biblical languages was revived. Much groundwork was done both by conservative as well as by radical theologians. Then the twentieth century brought a flood of literary material from the ancient world.

The Code Of Hammurabi (300 paragraphs of written material), hundreds of written clay tablets found in Ugarit, several thousand Nuzi Tablets, 20,000 written tablets at Mari, hundreds of Old Testament scrolls discovered near Dead Sea, the 22,000 written tablets and fragments found at Ebla near modern Syria, the hundreds of scrolls found at Oxryrhynchos in Egypt, etc. are some examples of the abundant written material found from Biblical lands. Written in Biblical languages and their cognates, this material helped scholars to study Biblical languages in great depth and breadth.

b. The Value Of Linguistic Studies: Linguistic studies helped a better understanding of the meaning of ancient Biblical texts like Job which contain many words used by man during the earliest period succeeding the time of Noah. Usages like “sister” for wife by Abraham, Isaac, the love in Songs of Solomon, have become clear. Similarly, much light has been thrown on word meanings.

Many of the ancient customs were totally different from what we see today. For example, Sarai’s adoption of Ishmael, Abraham’s unwillingness to send him out after Isaac’s birth, the ritual used by Eliazar to make a covenant with Abraham, etc. are things that can be understood only when their customs are understood. Only written material help in such understanding. Thus the discovery of written material and their studies have helped not only linguists, but also those who would like to study ancient customs and cultures.

Another benefit of linguistic studies has been our ability to evaluate the accuracy and authenticity of ancient manuscripts. An entire branch of science called Textual Criticism has developed for this activity. It has helped Conservative scholars to defend the authenticity of Biblical books. For example, the book of Daniel was a favorite target of radical and rationalist attacks. One of their contentions was that the presence of certain Persian words indicated that this book was written only in 100BC and not in 600BC. Scholars like the late Robert Dick Wilson were able to refute these charges using their linguistic researches.

Prof. Wilson was fluent in almost 50 languages, and could easily handle another 50. He challenged any contender to show any proof against the Bible in any language, current or dead. He even promised to learn that language if it was at that time unknown to him. Today Bible stands as a vindicated book as a consequence of these linguistic investigations.

Any manuscript that is hand-copied for thousands of years, and that also in the most unfavorable circumstances, is bound to develop some errors of copying. These include omission of a line when two lines start with the same word, repetition of words, etc. Linguistic studies have helped scholars to discover and classify the problems of copying common in Biblical languages. Then with the help of tens of thousand of manuscripts available today, they are able to reconstruct the originals with great confidence.

4-Present Status Of Manuscripts: Critics often argue that an ancient book like the Bible cannot be reliable. They compare Bible with other ancient books, and claim that all other books contain gross errors of science, philosophy, and of concept. They also point out to the ten to twenty percent of material in these manuscripts that have become corrupt beyond recognition. They attribute the same limitations to the Bible also. But historical studies have shown that this allegation is not correct.

Conservative Christian scholars have always been conscious of the need to keep investigating the Bible at the manuscript level. They felt the need for two reasons: for a better understanding of the text, and for a stronger defense of the Bible. Due to these concerns, they have been able to discover tens of thousands of ancient manuscripts.

Today there are more than 5,300 Greek manuscripts, over 10,000 Latin manuscripts, 9,300 other early manuscripts, and more than 24,000 manuscripts of portions of the New Testament. In addition, there are thousands of Old Testament manuscripts. Portions of the New Testament manuscripts available today were produced less than two decades after Pentecost. Portions of Old Testament manuscripts available today were produced very close to the time of Malachi. There is no other ancient book in the world which has produced this kind of a witness to its reliability.

The post Biblical Archeology Course 1, Lesson 4 appeared first on Biblical Archeology.

Archaeology is the science that studies human cultures through the recovery, documentation, analysis and interpretation of material remains and environmental data, including architecture, artifacts, features, biofacts, and landscapes. Because archaeology’s aim is to understand mankind, it is a humanistic endeavor.

The post Biblical Archeology, Free Course 1, Bible And Archeology appeared first on Biblical Archeology.