0
Why do modern archaeologists now say that there is no archaeological evidence of a Solomonic Empire in Jerusalem?
Wiki User
∙ 7y ago
Another answer from our community:
Modern archaelogists have selected a chronology which makes the evidence not fit The Bible. They know there is evidence there, such as the gates that Solomon built in three different cities, all identical and all discovered. Then there is King Solomon's mines etc etc. The evidence is there. They just can't have the Bible be right. Anything but that. So they shift the chronology so the bible looks out of place in time. What is actually out of place is their chronology.
Wiki User
∙ 7y ago
Wiki User
∙ 7y agoModern archaeologists are more than willing to have the Bible proven right. I suspect that if an archaeologist could really do so, the speaking engagement fees alone would make him a wealthy man. However, at least as far as the great empire of the Solomonic era is concerned, the evidence simply is not there. The gates that 'biblical archaeologists' too readily attributed to King Solomon have been compared to similar architecture elsewhere in the ancient Near East and as a result have been attributed to a time more than a century after the time of Solomon.
How can they accept the existence of a great empire if the evidence in the ground indicates that the entire population of Judah was no more than about 40,000 people - a small crowd for an important football match?
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What kind of evidence is used to tell the Bantu were farmers?
Archaeological
Where did the Koreans originate from?
The Koreans are believed to have originated from ancient China. This is gathered from the archaeological and linguist evidence.
Archaeological studies of the indus Valley cities of harappa and mohenjo-Daro show evidence of?
urban planning
What kinds of evidence do archaeologists anthropologists and paleontologists study to find out how prehistoric people lived?
ruins mostly.
What is historical evidence?
Archaeological evidence is not just a stele, piece of pottery or foundation of an ancient building. It is also provenance, context and analysis. Provenance includes evidence of the exact location where a find was made, with its removal preferably witnessed by reliable persons. This is particularly important for Near Eastern finds, because of the potential monetary value and the opportunity for religiously inspired misrepresentation. Knowing the exact location of the find enables archaeologists to place it in context with other finds in terms of age and influence. Much more can be ascertained by looking at sherds of pottery in situ than by looking at the same material displayed in a museum. Analysis can include carbon dating, microscopic, ultra-morphological, chemical, mineralogical or microbiological analysis. Paleographers can date the letters in an inscription by their shape, while language experts can provide an opinion on whether the language is appropriate for the time at which the object is otherwise dated. The flip side of archaeological evidence is archaeological fraud. Professor Eric Meyers of Duke University said, "Estimates are running as high as 30 or 40 percent of all inscribed materials in the Israel Museum [in Jerusalem] have been forged."
Why do archaeologists sometimes disagree about how to interpret archaeological evidence?
Archaeologists may disagree about interpreting archaeological evidence due to several reasons. Firstly, interpretation often relies on fragmentary and incomplete evidence, leading to multiple plausible interpretations. Secondly, archaeologists have differing theoretical perspectives, which can influence their interpretations. Lastly, biases, personal perspectives, and subjective opinions can also contribute to disagreements among archaeologists when interpreting the past.
Why does archaeological evidence often fail to provide a complete picture about culture?
Archaeological evidence is limited by what has survived over time, which may not accurately represent the full diversity of practices within a culture. Additionally, biases in the preservation of certain materials can skew the archaeological record. Interpretations of evidence can also be influenced by the biases and perspectives of the archaeologists themselves.
What are the types of archaeological evidence?
Archaeological evidence can include artifacts (objects made by humans), ecofacts (natural materials used or modified by humans), features (non-portable structures or remains), and sites (locations where evidence of past human activity is found). These different types of evidence help archaeologists piece together information about past cultures and societies.
What scientist Study oral histories archaeological evidence and cultural histories?
Anthropologists and archaeologists are scientists who study oral histories, archaeological evidence, and cultural histories to understand human behavior, society, and culture throughout history. They use a combination of methods to analyze artifacts, excavations, and narratives to piece together the past and shed light on different aspects of human civilization.
When did archaeologists find evidence of clovis people in America?
Archaeologists found evidence of Clovis people in America dating back to approximately 13,000 years ago, making them some of the earliest known inhabitants of the continent. The Clovis culture is known for their distinctive stone tools, such as fluted spear points, which have been found at various archaeological sites across North America.
Where do most Scientists and archaeologists agree that nomadic hunters and seafarers migrated to the Americas from?
Most scientists and archaeologists agree that nomadic hunters and seafarers migrated to the Americas from Asia, specifically crossing the Bering land bridge around 15,000 years ago. This theory is supported by genetic, archaeological, and linguistic evidence.
What did archaeologists use to study the first Americans?
Archaeologists study the first Americans using archaeological evidence such as tools, pottery, artwork, and burial sites. They also analyze genetic data, ancient DNA, and carbon dating to understand the migration patterns, lifestyles, and interactions of early human populations in the Americas.
Why do historians rely on the work of archaeologists to write the history of ancient America?
Historians rely on archaeologists to study ancient America because archaeologists unearth physical evidence such as artifacts, structures, and human remains that provide valuable insights into past civilizations. This material evidence helps historians piece together the complex narratives of ancient societies that may not be documented in written records. By integrating archaeological findings with historical accounts, a more comprehensive understanding of ancient America can be achieved.
What is a sentence for archaeological?
There is an archaeological dig in our own town.This site is of archaeological importance.Archaeological evidence suggests that the Celts never knew what a banana is.
When did the systematic recording and development of collections of archaeological evidence begin?
The systematic recording and development of collections of archaeological evidence began in the early 19th century with the emergence of modern archaeology as a discipline. This period saw the establishment of professional standards for excavation, documentation, and preservation of artifacts and sites. Archaeologists such as Sir Mortimer Wheeler and Sir Flinders Petrie were instrumental in shaping these practices.
What evidence found by archaeologists that Sumerians were not prehistoric?
a a a
Why should you reject the findings of Biblical Archaeologists?
The findings of Biblical Archaeologists should not be rejected out of hand, although like any branch of archaeology it is important to view interpretations in a critical way. Ask yourself how a researcher came to their conclusions, how they have considered the evidence and where this evidence may have come from.Biblical archaeology received a lot of bad press because of the a perception that archaeologists in this field are aiming solely to find archaeological evidence to prove the events and chronology described in the Bible, possibly at the expense of a fair consideration all the evidence to reach a neutral (and as such more likely to be accurate) conclusion. This does not mean that all researchers in this field practice in this way.
