Posted: Oct 25, 2016 11:04 pm
Bias based archaeology has been around since the term archaeology was coined. It's no different than biased History, biased Science, biased psychology, and so on.
Every now and then, someone who sets out to prove their biases accurate, accidentally come up with relatively good archaeology, or at least the biased reports they make, end up being corrected by other less biased people later. Some of the efforts to prove that old Greek myths, for example, were actually based on real events, have paid off by leading to real discoveries of the actual past that resembled the stories.
But yes, of course if you look to a religion-based publication, you aren't likely to find a balanced scientific description of whatever research may have occurred.
Every now and then, someone who sets out to prove their biases accurate, accidentally come up with relatively good archaeology, or at least the biased reports they make, end up being corrected by other less biased people later. Some of the efforts to prove that old Greek myths, for example, were actually based on real events, have paid off by leading to real discoveries of the actual past that resembled the stories.
But yes, of course if you look to a religion-based publication, you aren't likely to find a balanced scientific description of whatever research may have occurred.