Writing in its earliest form was in the form of pictures. For example, the ancient Egyptian writings were in the form of hieroglyphics and the writings of the Sumerians were cuneifom. When one looks at artifacts from ancient civilizations of the Western Hemisphere such as the Mayan, Aztec, and the Incan civilizations also used pictures in their writings. In these civilizations, the pictures that were drawn were a representation (symbol) of something else. In other words, in order to be able to really know how to communicate effectively by writing, one would have to learn over hundreds of characters. During this time, very few people (the elite as we may call them today) were able to read and write. Writing at this time was mainly used for economic reasons.
The pre-classical Greeks began the invention of the alphabet. The Phoenicians completed it in the 11th century. Cadmus invented the alphabet that we use today. He was from Phoenicia. The practice of using a pictograph to stand for the first sound in the word it stood for is called acrophony. This was the first step in the development of the alphabet. Alphabet alters culture from oral to written. Writing freezes thought. Alphabet gives more classes of society access to these ideas. Greece developed philosophy, logic, and skepticism.
references: http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1065.htm
http://www.historian.net/hxwrite.htm
Dr. Homan’s powerpoint notes
One way that the alphabet democratized civilization was that it gave more people the chance to be able to read and write. Compared to the overwhelming thousands of pictures that the people would have to learn, there are only 26 alphabets that people would have to learn. The easier to learn, the more people would be able to learn it. The more people that learn it, the more that people are knowledgeable because they would be able to read and write; and therefore, know more about what is going on around them.
Archaeology played a major role in interpreting many ancient languages. For example, the Rosetta Stone is bilingual and demotic. It interprets hieroglyphics and Greek. Now, modern archaeology is exploring somethings that are in the bible. For example, modern archaeologists are exploring the remains of Noah’s arc on Mount Arat. The theologians are exploring the dead sea scrolls and the septuagint.
Archaeology has been a method of proving that the Bible was true. According to Bible Dudes on http://blackboard.xula.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab=courses&url=/bin/common/course.pl?course_id=_450_1, proving the Bible was true was sometimes unsuccessful. For example, we cannot prove that Abraham married Sarah nor can we prove God’s covenants that He made with the Israelites. We can prove what certain relics of the Bible looked like, for example, the horned altars that are mentioned in the Bible. The archaeologist consider the Bible to be a very valuable tool in helping in their archaeological findings in the Holy Land. On the flip side, they consider the Holy Land to be a valuable place where they could clarify and have a better understanding of some of the events of the Bible.
I would love to participate in an archaeological excavation of a biblical cite. I really believe in the Bible wholehardedly and I would like to actually see what I believe. I think it would be an awesome privilege to actually walk the same ground as Jesus walked. I would also like to be able to actually prove the Bible. I am a person who fully believes the Bible (whether or not if there is proof of its manifestation in this world) because I have faith in God and His words. My faith allows me to believe the Bible although I may not have all of the physical evidence of the events that were mentioned in the Bible. I also believe even the books like Esther and Job which are not on the scrolls. I realize that not everyone has the same views as I do. Many people I know still have their skepticisms about the Bible which is another reason for my wanting to excavate a Biblical site. I believe that if I could physically and visually prove the Bible to my skeptical friends, they would probably believe it.
The horizontal stratigraphy debate concerns the broader exposure of the object found whereas the vertical stratigraphy looks at the layers. In horizontal stratigraphy, whole rooms are dug out to have of a wide, horizontal area. In vertical stratigraphy, narrow trenches are dug to view the details in relationship to each other. Both, in combination, are used today.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 30th, 2006 at 7:31 am and is filed under Class Comments, Week 03: Your Project. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.