Aren’s reaction to Burleigh’s aforementioned essay is soundly negative. It seems to me on the basis of her using the term ‘archaeologist’ of Jacobovici and Zias.
He’s entitled to his reaction and I do understand it. Truly. But it raises questions for me which I’ve posed to Aren and which I reiterate here in hopes that actual dirt archaeologists will answer them:
So, to Aren and all:
Don’t you think that to the extent that Jacobovici portrays himself as an archaeologist (albeit naked), in the view of the larger public he is perceived as such? And, consequently, worth refuting on the basis of his claims to such knowledge?
I’m not trying to start a feud, just interested in how arcaheologists think Simcha and other non experts ought to be dealt with- or do they think they should just be ignored? And if so, then isn’t the public just left with a false impression and misinformation? And isn’t it the job of actual archaeologists to say something to disabuse the public of falsehood?
What i’m really interested- genuinely interested in knowing is – what is their view concerning archaeology’s obligations to the public which funds it?
Eric Meyers has already offered his reasoned viewpoint in Nina’s piece. Anyone else?
- A Feud Between Biblical Archaeologists Goes to Court (world.time.com)