« Ah! Bach
Main
Not Quite the 'God Spot' »
March 10, 2009
On Having No Better Solution
Or "When Evidence Conflicts or Is Missing"
I was about half way through writing a post on Hershel Shanks’s First Person column, “The Palace of Solomon’s Daughter?” in the most recent Biblical Archaeology Review when I found that Chris Heard had written a better one at Higgaion. Go read his.
But I do want to comment on a couple of paragraphs from Shank's piece. Referring to the proposed identification of a first century CE building as the palace of Queen Helena, Shank's has this to say,
Cautious archaeologists are often reluctant to make these kinds of identifications. It can become a case of “I’m more cautious than you,” however. It seems to me that the public is entitled to reasonably grounded, properly qualified speculation from archaeologists. Archaeologists have no hesitancy speculating about whether a pottery vessel was brought to the site by an immigrant from another culture or was a local adaptation by the descendants of immigrants. It’s mostly Biblical connections that strike fear in an archaeologist’s heart. [Emphasis added]
His example of imported or locally made pottery is particularly strange. On the one hand, it is true that there is sometimes speculation about the origins of a piece of pottery. Until forty years or so ago, there was little other choice but learned speculation. With some exceptions, there need not be such speculation now. Archaeologists can use neutron activation to resolve this issue with a high degree of probability. Sure, it isn't always used and it doesn't always answer the question. But I find it strange that Shanks would use an example of speculation where speculation is not a necessary part of the picture.
I do agree that "the public is entitled to reasonably grounded, properly qualified speculation from archaeologists." But the devil is in the words "reasonably grounded" and "properly qualified." Noting that some feature aligns in some vague way with a story in some ancient literature does not, on its own, make it reasonably grounded and properly qualified. Even saying that speculation is involved does not make it reasonably grounded and properly qualified. There not being a better solution doesn't make speculation reasonably grounded and properly qualified. What makes any speculative position reasonably grounded and properly qualified is its being reasonably grounded and properly qualified. When other options, including any the degree of ignorance, are clearly and unambiguously stated; when counter evidence is given its full due and other speculations are honestly and fully explained then one may have provided a reasonably grounded and properly qualified speculation. In the end, it's those nasty details that make any speculation reasonably grounded and properly qualified.
Allow me to look at just one example of something that does not reasonably ground and properly qualify a speculation, an example that Chris also took up. Speaking of Eilat Mazar’s suggestion that a building or building complex she excavated on the ridge south of the Temple Mount between the Tyropoeon Valley and the Hinnom Valley might be King David’s palace in Jerusalem, Shanks wrote,
The dating of the structure is not 100 percent certain, but that is often the case in archaeology. She has yet to find a datable floor that connects to a wall of the structure, but the pottery makes it likely that the building, or at least part of it, dates to King David’s time, according to the conventional chronology. [Emphasis added]
Being unable "to find a datable floor that connects to the wall of the structure" is not a detail that one can easily dismiss. I believe that Mazar is a careful excavator, but sealed loci, particularly datable living surfaces, floors, are important controls against intrusive pottery. And yes, older pottery can be above installations that are more recent. I don't know if this happen here but I do know that ancient people were not careful archaeologists and every time they dug for whatever reason, and they did dig things like foundation trenches and garbage pits, they brought up older material from below. Mazar may have controlled for this without there being sealed associated floors. What I am saying is that you can't just brush-off the lack of datable floors associated with the walls as if it were some unimportant detail. While I sure that, for several reason, the excavation site is extremely difficult the lack of datable floors requires an explanation. In fact, the very complexity of an archaeological site that yields walls without associated datable floors makes such an explanation all the more necessary. And good explanations may exist. But I sure haven't heard any. Might Mazar find associated living surfaces in the future? Sure, but as yet, she hasn't.
Arguing for extraordinary claims with loosely grounded and largely unqualified speculations is just not helpful to anyone.
Posted by Duane Smith at March 10, 2009 2:16 PM | Read more on Archaeology |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2809
Comments
Post a comment
Please read Abnormal Interest's Comments Policy.