> There are some board members who try to remain
> evidence based. Attempting to weave in an
> allegorical tale into archaeological research will
> always raise eyebrows.
That's quite a convoluted sentence.
By classifying Gilgamesh as allegorical you attempt to invalidate all information it contains. You tell us that archaeology, not being a science, has no interest in ancient tales? Apparently we should be conscious of raised eyebrows, and not historical data.
> The ruins at Baalbek may well be older than Roman
> times, and most probably are, but I doubt that you
> will get much traction through any reliance on the
> Epic of Gilgamesh as source material. Separating
> the two topics would lead to more serious and
> worthwhile discussions.
He is not relying on Gilgamesh. Jesus Christ people, he's using more than 3 different sources.
By separating the two topics, which two are you referring too? I assume one is mythology. The other being archaeology maybe?
Do you mean separate in a similar manner as the Turin Canon has been separated from physical evidence?
The first two columns of Turin deal with gods and fantastically long time spans. Those columns have been 'separated' from the rest of the canon so to give validity to the so-called king's list that Egyptology relies heavily on.
A historical document, the Turin is the almost the sole source for the king's list. Yet it begins as a mythical accounting of gods. According to you, it should be separated.
I would have to call your separation - selective. Separate what is acceptable. Gilgamesh's story of a great flood is not acceptable because it contradicts evolution. No? Isn't this what is at the heart of everyone's objection to Gilgamesh?
What would we know of history without the texts? What would we know if all we had was what archaeologists have dug up? Not very much. There are not two topics as you say. History is one topic, it includes artifacts and texts.