#11839: — 12/24  at  01:17 AM
I am very sure that I´ve seen variations of this expedition "story" and "pictures" since the sixties or earlier. I am very, very sure.
I suspect this expedition and pictures are another journalistic urban myth which the media nonchalantly and lazily (at best) continues to perpetuate decade after decade.
Projectile vomit shame on National Geographic. When`s the expedition leaving to rediscover Eden?

#11842: — 12/24  at  07:36 AM

Neurode wrote:

Very well then. Tigerbear, no doubt an amateur or professional archaeologist with a deep understanding of archaeological methods, may be just the right person to explain to everybody why all real-life archaeologists, unlike Indiana Jones, roundly ignore religious mythology in their investigations. I know that I, for one, very much want to dispel my longstanding confusion on this point, of which suprisingly few archaeology buffs have so much as an inkling.

I hereby yield the podium to tigerbear.

It is simply a false dichotomy to assume that archaeologists ignore religious mythology. It merely isn't relevant to a great deal of what they do (how, for example, could they use religious mythology to study the Stone Age?).
Second, what does "identify and seek out lost civilisations" refer to? If it means uncovering a mysterious citadel every other weekend, then you've got a pretty odd idea about what actual archaeological research looks like (it involves lots of mud and endless filing, as I recall). If you mean it in a very very general sense - studying the Romans perhaps, I still don't see how studying religious mythology (especially when there are many Classical period writers who are incredibly more relevant)has particular relevance to a dig, for example, on Hadrian's Wall. Plus, many archaeologists study sites of extant civilisation (industrial archaeology in Britain, for example).
Finally, although much archaeological work comes out of land surveying and aerial photography, this does not mean that scouring images of Mt Ararat for Noah's Ark is anything like serious archaeology - and to argue that it is demeans archaeology as a discipline just as readily as assuming that all workers in Egypt are after the location of The Ark of the Covenant, those in Jerusalem are after The Holy Grail and those in Northern India are after the Sankara Stones.

#11843: — 12/24  at  09:18 AM
Eden? Isn't it in Kansas? I'm sure I stopped by the site once while driving cross-country . . .

#11845: Visiting from the Wine — 12/24  at  10:19 AM
Not everyone is convinced that McGivern and his group have found Noah's ark. There is still no proof that the ark exists.

"We think that, with the hundreds of explorers who have visited the region, if the ark was jutting out of the ice, it would be obvious," said Rex Geissler, president of ArcImagining, an organization that has surveyed Mount Ararat.

You've pointed out an impressive lie, appreciate your kindness in warning me against such terrible things.

#11846: — 12/24  at  11:39 AM
In responding to tigerbear, it suffices to offer a sampling of professional opinion. Nelson Gluek was a Biblical archaeologist who made the cover of Time in 1963. Here's an encyclopedia entry on him (from encyclopedia.com):

"(glook, glĬk) , 1900-1971, American archaeologist and educator, b. Cincinnati, grad. Univ. of Cincinnati, 1920, Ph.D. Univ. of Jena, Germany, 1926. Among the more than 1,000 sites in the Middle East that Glueck uncovered were the copper mines of King Solomon and the ancient Red Sea port of Ezion Geber. In 1947 he became president of Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati; from 1950 he served as president of the merged Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion. He wrote several books on archaeology, including Explorations in Eastern Palestine (4 vol., 1934-51), The Other Side of the Jordan (1940), The River Jordan (1946), Rivers in the Desert: A History of the Negev (1959), Deities and Dolphins (1965), and Hesed in the Bible (1968)."

Now, here's what Dr. Glueck had to say about Old Testament archaeology:

"It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference."

This is no surprise, really, particularly with regard to an ancient culture which saw itself and its history as having religious significance. In such societies, the distinction between history and religious mythology is apt to become blurred. Archaeologists are aware of this, and often read religious texts as quasi-historical accounts. As William F. Albright (namesake of the W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research) observed regarding the Old Testament,

"There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament traditions."

The effect is cumulative; as noted Biblical scholar Merrill Unger has stated,

"Old Testament archaeology has rediscovered whole nations, resurrected important peoples, and in a most astonishing manner filled in historical gaps, adding immeasurably to the knowledge of biblical backgrounds."

In other words, archaeology has discovered, and continues to discover, much of what we know about the Middle East by using the OT as an historical framework.

Attacking a science periodical for recognizing this fact, or praising one which attempts to make a joke out of it, is asinine from a scientific standpoint. As a scientist, pz needs to realize that his outburst against National Geographic for "lying to children" runs egregiously afoul of standard scientific boundaries (whether or not NG was merely trying to be funny).

#11847: — 12/24  at  11:49 AM
(Of course, that's assuming that pz himself wasn't merely trying to be funny, in which case his present infraction is limited to off-color and possibly self-deprecative humor...)

#11849: — 12/24  at  12:32 PM
As far as I'm aware, the Old Testament is actually a rather unreliable text for Middle Eastern archaeology (it in no way compares to the record from Egypt, for example). I find your sources rather dubious, Neurode, and their closer connection to theological learning rather than to archaeology as a discipline is unsurprising.

#11850: — 12/24  at  12:40 PM
Very good then, tigerbear - accepted sources on Middle Eastern archaeology, including world-renowned cynosures of twentieth century archaeology, are "dubious". Forgive me if I'm forced to dispute your opinion, which flies in the face of archaeological fact and tradition.

I'm afraid that despite your arguments, if I may loosely refer to them as such, pz still has some answering of his own to do.

#11851: mattH — 12/24  at  01:16 PM
I hate posting here sometimes. I just lost a post to the ether. Suffice it to say Neurode, you certainly like the argument from authority. Also I wouldn't consider Glueck's statement a "world-renowned cynosures of twentieth century archaeology". Perhaps early 20th centurey, but even that is questionable.

As for myth and archaeology, archaeologists certainly use myth as a source for furthering understanding. For example, in light of the Popul Vuh, interpretation of offerings at caves and cenotes take on extra religious significance, and the importance, politically and religiously, of the Mesoamerican ball game is much more evident, but we don't see archaeologists looking for the One True entrance to Xibalba, simply because it doesn't SS nything by doing so. Searching for the One True Ark is much the same. It's not going to add to the understanding of a site or cultural phenomenon that a general understanding of the myth already provides. These kinds of searches are "tourist archaeology", having more in common with the plunder archaeology of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, typefied by the stories of Alan Quatermaine and Raiders of the Lost Ark, than anything remotely scientific.

Besides, when are the religious going to admit that evidence or no, it doesn't really matter to whether or not they find their faith valid?

#11853: — 12/24  at  01:39 PM
Neurode wrote in various messages:

no doubt an amateur or professional archaeologist with a deep understanding of archaeological methods

Yo. Well, not a deep understanding, but clearly more than you. I've at least been on a dig. I still have a pint of dirt from it. I'm thinking about selling it as magical preservation medium to gullible people.

may be just the right person to explain to everybody why all real-life archaeologists, unlike Indiana Jones, roundly ignore religious mythology in their investigations. I know that I, for one, very much want to dispel my longstanding confusion on this point, of which suprisingly few archaeology buffs have so much as an inkling.

That last bit should tell you something. First, no one said anything about ignoring religous mythology. You invented that, not PZ or tigerbear. Second, myths are generally useless. "They lived between two big rivers" won't do you a damn bit of good. At most, mythology hints that a vagely-described somebody was somewhere between within this hundred-square-mile radius if it's really, really specific, around maybe five to twenty thousand years ago. If the entire story wasn't just made up, or elaborated to such an extent that it might as well have been.

Yup. The Bible sure is a useful archaeological tool, boy howdy.

Very good then, tigerbear - accepted sources on Middle Eastern archaeology, including world-renowned cynosures of twentieth century archaeology, are “dubious”.

No. You did not cite an accepted source. You cited a wannabe who interpreted everything he found to agree with his religious views. Biblical archaeololgy is not archaeology, any more than creation science is real science. You're damn right that's a dubious source.

PZ has nothing to answer for. He did not discount the article for describing the work of Christian "archaeologists" (ha), but for telling children that the ravings of an idiot nutjub have some credence. They don't. McGivern found some dirt on a mountain and convinced himself that it's a holy object. On the off chance that is really is a structure, the odds of it being Noah's ark (rather than absolutely anything else) are so infinitesimal as to be absurd.

#11854: — 12/24  at  01:50 PM
When one talks about accepted methodology in a discipline, as opposed to specific findings or their interpretations, what you call "arguments from authority" are quite acceptable. How better to learn about the methods employed by archaeologists than to ask a few? As it happens, the vast majority of archaeologists who study the area in which Noah's Ark reportedly existed use the Old Testament as one of their primary sources. Now, as it happens, Noah's Ark is prominently mentioned in the OT, a repository of "religious mythology" which has been found substantially accurate regarding certain lines of Middle Eastern history, which lends a certain amount of historical credence to its existence. These are facts, and it really wouldn't pay for you to argue otherwise.

By the way, regarding your own style of argumentation - it is quite common, particularly among those of atheistic or materialistic persuasions, to resort to attacking or casting doubt on the reputations of specific scientists (et cetera) with whom they disagree. Such arguments are called "ad hominem", and are widely regarded as both unacceptable and reprehensible. So I hope you're not trying to insinuate that Drs. Glueck and Albright were anything but what they are widely recognized as being, namely, renowned authorities on Middle Eastern archaeology, as this would cast considerable doubt on the value of your opinion.

You say that "Searching for the One True Ark is much the same. It’s not going to add to the understanding of a site or cultural phenomenon that a general understanding of the myth already provides." That's incorrect. Archaeology studies not just how the people of ancient cultures lived, but the important events that influenced ancient cultures as a whole. The Flood event, such as it may have been, purportedly corresponds to the destruction of an entire civilization, and arguably exterted a profound influence on the civilizations which followed.

You do understand this, don't you?

#11855: — 12/24  at  01:56 PM
(By the way, Megan, your professed participation in an archaeological dig means that you have a profound understanding of that aspect of archaeological methodology which involves operating a garden spade. Unfortunately, I see no indication that your understanding goes any farther.)

#11856: mattH — 12/24  at  02:47 PM

The Flood event, such as it may have been, purportedly corresponds to the destruction of an entire civilization, and arguably exterted a profound influence on the civilizations which followed.

You do understand this, don’t you?

Certainly better than you would, or so it seems. The Biblical Flood myth was not just the destruction of "a civilization" but of the entire world. There is no hydrographic or other geologic evidence that such an event ever occured, making this whole thing a story, not a fact, therefore it gets treated as such.

Archaeology studies not just how the people of ancient cultures lived, but the important events that influenced ancient cultures as a whole.

Hence the use that I described, with archaeologists examining the uses of such mythological structures in the culture, both in the day to day and under special conditions, and across cultures, with things like cross-cultural examinations of numerous flood mythologies, like the Gilgamesh epic, which by the way (textually) predates the Biblical version by centuries.

So I hope you’re not trying to insinuate that Drs. Glueck and Albright were anything but what they are widely recognized as being, namely, renowned authorities on Middle Eastern archaeology, as this would cast considerable doubt on the value of your opinion.

I'm not the one taking a statement out of context from 1960 and claiming it is representative of work done over the entire century, nor am I the one claiming that the quote is an accurate portrayal of archaeological methodology, especially modern methodology in light of the revolution in archaeology in the mid 60's.

Of course, I'm willing to bet that he wasn't talking about the Ark or the Flood when he said that, considering his emphasis is in the Iron Age II period, not a bit of which stands as uncontested and absolutely authoritative.

Biblical archaeololgy is not archaeology, any more than creation science is real science. You’re damn right that’s a dubious source.

Don't let Neurode's tactics fool you, Megan. There is good Biblical archaeology, of which some has been done by Glueck and his mentor Albright.

By the way, Megan, your professed participation in an archaeological dig means that you have a profound understanding of that aspect of archaeological methodology which involves operating a garden spade. Unfortunately, I see no indication that your understanding goes any farther.

Said by someone who has never been on a well-run field school. In any field school worth their salt, no help is allowed out in the field without some basic understand of why they are there, how they are doing things, and how it's not about treasure hunting. At most institutions this menas at least one mid-level archaeology class that discusses methodology and site excavation planning. Without that kind of background, mistakes are bound to be made.

#11857: — 12/24  at  03:06 PM

Neurode wrote:
When one talks about accepted methodology in a discipline, as opposed to specific findings or their interpretations, what you call “arguments from authority” are quite acceptable. How better to learn about the methods employed by archaeologists than to ask a few? As it happens, the vast majority of archaeologists who study the area in which Noah’s Ark reportedly existed use the Old Testament as one of their primary sources.

Really? I'd always been taught that the primary source for archaeological research was actual empirical evidence discovered in the field. I'm obviously not familiar with the Biblical approach, then. I would suspect mainstream archaeology isn't familiar with it either.

Now, as it happens, Noah’s Ark is prominently mentioned in the OT, a repository of “religious mythology” which has been found substantially accurate regarding certain lines of Middle Eastern history, which lends a certain amount of historical credence to its existence. These are facts, and it really wouldn’t pay for you to argue otherwise.

Hmmmm: "certain lines of Middle Eastern history"? So that they lend "certain amounts of historical credence"? I wouldn't attempt to argue with "facts" that come with that many qualifications. It would be entirely redundant.

<style of argumentation - it is quite common, particularly among those of atheistic or materialistic persuasions, to resort to attacking or casting doubt on the reputations of specific scientists (et cetera) with whom they disagree. Such arguments are called “ad hominem”, and are widely regarded as both unacceptable and reprehensible. So I hope you’re not trying to insinuate that Drs. Glueck and Albright were anything but what they are widely recognized as being, namely, renowned authorities on Middle Eastern archaeology, as this would cast considerable doubt on the value of your opinion.</blockquote>

How lovely you know what an ad hominem is. As you do, perhaps you could take Megan up on the points of her argument, rather than dismiss her with an offhand insult.

You say that “Searching for the One True Ark is much the same. It’s not going to add to the understanding of a site or cultural phenomenon that a general understanding of the myth already provides.” That’s incorrect. Archaeology studies not just how the people of ancient cultures lived, but the important events that influenced ancient cultures as a whole. The Flood event, such as it may have been, purportedly corresponds to the destruction of an entire civilization, and arguably exterted a profound influence on the civilizations which followed.

The primary source for any inferences about a physical event such as you describe would still be the archaeological (and also geological) record. Unless you consider the Flood to be a myth; in which case the Old Testament would be only one amongst many sources that would be possible to use to trace the myth's cultural transmission.

In the paragraph above you lump the search for a specific artefact mentioned, and important to, a religious text (one of countless many at the time) with the investigation of a presumably geological event with widespread impact.
They quite obviously aren't the same sort of thing at all.
MattH's critique remains entirely valid.

#11858: — 12/24  at  03:21 PM
MattH says that "The Biblical Flood myth was not just the destruction of 'a civilization' but of the entire world."

Matt is no doubt to be commended for his punctilious attention to the wording of the story. However, it has often been noted that the ancients, who lacked a knowledge of modern geography, tended to equate localized parts of the world with the world as a whole.

Matt continues: "I’m not the one taking a statement out of context from 1960 and claiming it is representative of work done over the entire century, ... "

No such claim was made; I merely claimed that in the history of modern archaeology, and 20th century Middle Eastern archaeology in particular, Glueck's name and achievements are widely renowned, and that his methods were well within the accepted standards of his science.

"...nor am I the one claiming that the quote is an accurate portrayal of archaeological methodology, ... "

It most certainly IS an accurate portrayal of an important aspect of archaeological methodology, namely, the aspect demanding that all available sources be duly considered, particularly textual sources with many well-established points of historical accuracy.

Lastly, I fail to understand the relevance of this:

"Said by someone who has never been on a well-run field school. In any field school worth their salt, no help is allowed out in the field without some basic understand of why they are there, how they are doing things, and how it’s not about treasure hunting. At most institutions this menas at least one mid-level archaeology class that discusses methodology and site excavation planning. Without that kind of background, mistakes are bound to be made."

Students are used on archaeological digs all the time, and some of them never succeed in graduating. Sometimes (but not always), this is because they turn out to lack a sufficient understanding of what they are doing. In fact, some students who actually succeed in graduating do so in spite of serious shortcomings, which subsequently limit their career advancement in the field. In any case, we're talking about a higher level of archaeological investigation than lending manual labor on a dig.

When all is said and done, pz still owes an apology for impudently popping off at a venerable scientific publication. You can't excuse that kind of misbehavior by empty rationalization alone.

#11859: mattH — 12/24  at  04:04 PM

No such claim was made; I merely claimed that in the history of modern archaeology, and 20th century Middle Eastern archaeology in particular, Glueck’s name and achievements are widely renowned, and that his methods were well within the accepted standards of his science.

[...]

It most certainly IS an accurate portrayal of an important aspect of archaeological methodology, namely, the aspect demanding that all available sources be duly considered, particularly textual sources with many well-established points of historical accuracy.

Glueck's work is certainly not well within the historic framework of modern American archaeological methodology, nor even by Levantine archeological methods. The introduction and wholesale adoption of the Wheeler-Kenyon method in Near Eastern archaeology in the mid 50's through the early 60's changed the way archaeology was done there. Glueck's work is not the same, nor does it meet current methodological standards. As for textual sources, they are to be taken into account, but they are not the prime shaper of archaeological investigation. Too many times an historical text, or even set of texts, has been found to be incorrect through archaeological investigation. For example, the earliest known historical record of gold procesing in West Virginia is at least a few decades later than the archaeological evidence for it. Further, your knowledge of Levantine archaeology seems to end with Glueck's work, ignoring half of an entire century. The scholarly work done since casts serious doubt on the work he has done, work shaped in large part by a methodology that relies entirely too much on the "historic" works he would've liked to have proved true, and digging methods that are nowhere near as reliable.

When all is said and done, pz still owes an apology for impudently popping off at a venerable scientific publication. You can’t excuse that kind of misbehavior by empty rationalization alone.

It's not like they are an authoritative entity or anything, now is it? Nor was he impudent for doing so. If they are implying soemthing is scientific and it isn't, more power to him.

#11860: — 12/24  at  05:49 PM
MattH, I provided the short biography of Glueck for an important reason: it refers to his amazing scientific productivity. In short, he was responsible for the discovery of many hundreds of archaeological sites in the Middle East, some of them quite important.

As (I assume) we both know, what speaks the loudest in science are results, and Glueck was an extremely productive scientist. Virtually all of his material discoveries were made within the bounds of archaeological methodology as defined by a large percentage of archaeologists in his own day, and modern methodological refinements notwithstanding, many of his interpretations remain credible. That some fraction of his interpretations have since been questioned is quite beside the point, since any archaeologist must expect to be second-guessed as new facts are uncovered and new methods employed.

In any event, the need to pay close attention to available textual sources, and to the potential for those sources to contain archaeologically relevant information, has not changed and will never change. It is an incontrovertible fact that the Old Testament, being an exceptionally informative and well-preserved artifact in its own right, contains a wealth of valuable archaeological information.

Thus, when you state summarily that

"It’s not like they [National Geographic] are an authoritative entity or anything, now is it?",

you need to be reminded that such publications are typically very careful to ensure that their contents are scientifically and historically accurate, and are arguably even more vulnerable to attacks on their reputations than textbooks or primary research publications. To attack such a publication without careful justification is to risk damaging it unfairly, and thus opens the attacker to charges of impudence and much worse.

I've read enough of pz's writings to know that he's probably a capable (if highly opinionated) research biologist. However, I've noticed that he tends to be rather a junkyard dog on occasion, and if one is going to make it a habit of acting that way, one needs to have all his ducks lined up in a row at all times. Having found this not to be true of pz, I have regretfully concluded that when it comes to archaeology and certain other fields, there is no good reason to believe that the only ducks in his range are not waddling around in drunken circles, deprived of flight by excessive cargos of antireligious bigotry.

Therefore, I must finally conclude that pz lacks sufficient justification for his outburst, is badly out of line, and owes National Geographic a sincere apology.

Merry Chrismas.

#11861: — 12/24  at  07:58 PM
So is there an ark or not?

#11862: — 12/24  at  09:03 PM
Wasn't there an expedition to Mt Ararat like 30 years ago? And another one between then and now? Is this not a regular scam to gull the gullible, akin to expeditions to find the holes at the poles?

#11864: — 12/24  at  09:47 PM

it has often been noted that the ancients, who lacked a knowledge of modern geography, tended to equate localized parts of the world with the world as a whole.

Ancients also lacked a knowledge of contemporary common sense, and tended to equate their own (physical) thoughts and feelings with the existence of a omniscient god.

It's not good practice to take advantage of the obvious flaws in the Bible in some cases, and then ignorantly brush them aside in others cases.

#11865: Jan Theodore Galkowski — 12/24  at  10:17 PM

Therefore, I must finally conclude that pz lacks sufficient justification for his outburst, is badly out of line, and owes National Geographic a sincere apology.

Merry Chrismas.

As do you, Mr Neurode. See Geographic in September.

I would also like to heartily recommend this site for, um, modern, scientific, and objective work on Biblical archaeology.

#11866: mattH — 12/25  at  01:05 AM

I provided the short biography of Glueck for an important reason: it refers to his amazing scientific productivity. In short, he was responsible for the discovery of many hundreds of archaeological sites in the Middle East, some of them quite important.

As (I assume) we both know, what speaks the loudest in science are results, and Glueck was an extremely productive scientist. Virtually all of his material discoveries were made within the bounds of archaeological methodology as defined by a large percentage of archaeologists in his own day, and modern methodological refinements notwithstanding, many of his interpretations remain credible. That some fraction of his interpretations have since been questioned is quite beside the point, since any archaeologist must expect to be second-guessed as new facts are uncovered and new methods employed.

Paul S. Martin was one of the most prolific archaeologists in the early part of the 20th century, discovering hundreds of sites, including one of my favorites, Lowry Pueblo, yet even he considered his earlier work limited and incomplete in light of the shift in archaeology in the 1960's. Glueck likely didn't recognize the changes because they refuted much of his work, not a fraction. In fact, Glueck's most cited interpretations, those of Tell el-Kheleifah, have been shown to be incorrect. The work of Glueck that has stood the test of time is same kind of general information that any excavation will bring, pottery types, settlement patterns, structural diagrams; basic data in other words, while it's that same data that has refuted his interpretations.

#11867: — 12/25  at  03:09 AM
Again, MattH, while many of Glueck's interpretations have come under scrutiny with improvements in dating methods, pottery reappraisals and so on, this was only to be expected as the field has evolved and data have accumulated, particularly given the sheer volume and importance of his work.

Even if one grants the unpleasant fact that Glueck's scholarship was questioned by Gary Pratico ("Nelson Glueck's 1938-1940 Excavations at Tell el-Kheleifeh: A Reappraisal", which halves Glueck's estimate of the period during which Tell el-Kheleifeh was occupied), this is a far cry from accepting your assertion that most of Glueck's interpretations have been definitively "refuted". Questioned, perhaps; that was inevitable. But proven erroneous...so strong an accusation would merely imply that the accuser overestimates the levels of certainty that archaeology can generally achieve.

It seems considerably more likely that the only archaeologists with a blanket mistrust of Glueck's work are those with religious allergies complicated by sour grapes. Unfortunately, pz can't be vindicated merely by pointing to others who share his beef with religion.

#11869: Jan Theodore Galkowski — 12/25  at  09:55 AM
How did Glueck earn center stage here? McGivern was the one mentioned in the original Nat'l Geo article he complained about.

Incidently, the current issue of Science offers a report on a really old American civilization, dating from around or before the creation of the the world, by some so-called Christian sources.

The methdological problems I have with people like Glueck and McGivern is that, Biblical text in hand, they charge forward looking for evidence to verify it. They are thereby blinded to evidence which might contradict and refute it. They, as I've said in other contexts, repeatedly confuse absence of evidence with evidence of absence.

I need no more evidence of this propensity on the part of religious sources than their own translations of the Bible itself. I've written on this elsewhere here. Another example, one I thought of at synagogue last night: Exodus 15:11. Most translations, even Judaic, gloss it as "Who is like You, LORD, among the gods that are worshipped?" or "Who is like You, LORD among the gods men worship?" or "Who is like You, LORD among the mighty?" In fact, it reads literally "Who is like you among the gods, O YHWH!" (See Everett Fox's translation and commentary, 1995, page 337.)

As is well known to Biblical scholars, translation is the first and most important form of commentary. Let's wish they act in accordance with that realization.

And that is why the Bible and Interpretation site I quoted is so valuable. They post research which isn't constrained to using only texts but any evidence which shouts at them from the ground, even in their understanding of Christian texts.

#11872: mattH — 12/25  at  11:55 AM
This is simple. Glueck's work is a scientific failure. The very data he produced refuted his contetnion, not C-14 dating, not newer excavations, not some other dating technique. Glueck allowed his preconceptions regarding the inerrancy of the Bible to bias his conclusions. Bad science. Besides, even if he did the best work possible, in science we don't rely on authority, not even archaeology. And ton't give me the tripe that it's about methodology, because it's not. It's only his interpretation that you're arguing about. His methodology is horrible.

How did Glueck earn center stage here? McGivern was the one mentioned in the original Nat’l Geo article he complained about.

Sorry, my fault. I should have just said he's using an argument from authority and been done with it.