Chris DeBoe in his blog Laserlight writes:
1. They like to find things, but they don’t like to publish. Of potential archaeological sites in Iraq, less than 1% have been examined and published. The percentage is even lower in Israel and Egypt. The collection Dr Carroll is working with has 11,000 cuneiform tablets; he said it would take about 150 years to publish them all.
2. They need funding, and that affects what they announce and when. You’ll hear about things which could be a spectacular find, but it won’t make news when it turns out to be a mistake or a forgery. "The bone box of James the brother of Jesus? Forgery. Shroud of Turin? I’d love for it to be the real thing but I think it’s probably from a crusader in the late Middle Ages. The idea that the ark of the covenant is hidden in Ethiopia is preposterous. As for Noah’s ark, I wouldn’t waste a second or a dollar trying to find it; it’s not "on top of Ararat", it’s "somewhere in the Ararat range" and the wood wouldn’t have survived this long anyway. The chariot wheel on the floor of the Red Sea? When a diver went to look, it had miraculously transformed into the steering wheel of a 1971 Jeep.
3. Archaeologists have political and religious biases, and that affects how they interpret data.
Yes, I agree with everything in #2 except the remark about the Shroud of Turin. Did Carroll say why?
Read the full posting: Laserlight: Stones and Scriptures Notes