Hey
On Sunday Tom drove us to the “Falls of the Ohio”. It was a fascinating sight though we could not go down to the fossil beds. Later, telling Bob about it, Bob mentioned that there were Roman coins found on the site that were in the museum (which I did not enter on Sunday.) Curious, I looked up what could be found on-line concerning these coins. One page is at http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/coins/fallsoh.htm
A couple of things on this page were also curious, namely, the other coins found in Kentucky and a Mexican artifact. While uncertainty will always surround such discoveries I was even more fascinated by a comment on the web page above. It reads,
For several years, the Falls of the Ohio Museum had an exhibit about the find that displayed several casts of both sides of the two originals, so as to reflect the approximate number of coins originally in the hoard. The two original coins, depicted above, are in storage and were not on public display. McCormick has informed me that the exhibit has recently been removed from public display, because the Museum belongs to the state of Indiana, and the exhibit conflicted with the state’s archaeological policy that there is no documented evidence of pre-Columbian contacts.”
So they don’t display possible evidence of pre-Columbian contact because there is no evidence of such contacts. And what is an “archaeological policy????”
To me that is just strange but it doesn’t surprise me. I know that in Australia “inconvenient” archaeological investigations have been shut down as a result of Aborigines objecting to them. The underlying problem for the Aborigines is that some see evidence that the so-called “Tasmanian Aborigines” were a distinct group of people whom the current-day Aborigines wiped out on the mainland. This undermines the “victim” status that some among the Aborigines cultivate very carefully to their material advantage.
Anyway, it is just another pointer into what goes on in science. In history and archaeology it has often seemed to me that modern scholars first spend their efforts in debunking what primary sources exist so that they can then build academic careers interpreting secondary and tertiary sources. I suspect that geology and evolution is another area full of such things.
Damien
P.S. I happened to flick on the TV Sunday morning to see a British historian discussing some major Roman architectural achievements – triple arch aqueducts and the “Baths of Caracalla” were shown in that segment. The historian was speaking about the motivation behind constructions such as the baths (which were available to the general population) was the desire for glory, honor and an enduring fame. It was neat to hear a scholar saying just what we had read about the previous evening.
=============
Hi Damien:
There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that such archaeological policies as you mentioned above can be found in every discipline, including theological. There is no telling what really has been discovered by archaeologists around the world but has not been released to the public because those finds contradict accepted doctrines and theories.
jdc