Does History matter?

[moono]

Rachamim;

Moono: Wrong, as usual. Also wrong on the comedian thing, I am a Ladino stand up comedian, not Yiddish.

I'm sure the difference must be important to somebody.

Tell us the one about the Palestinian schoolgirl in your 'killing zone'.

 

[ska invita]

Wow - rachamim18 - somehow ive managed to miss you on these boards till now -I think I can guess what Ive been missing.

Regarding your account of early israelite history, I wonder if you have any kind of source for your version. I'd like to know where you got that version of history from.

It is interesting - my father in law is a seventh day adventist - and as such affiliates himself to some extent with Judaism (He was also a war survivor, but thats another story). He has studies the bible thoroughly, even teaching himself to read Hebrew. He has visited many of the key bible sites in and around Egypt and Turkey.

His version of Jewish history correlates with the one i presented - is he right? is my source right? well, even my source said it was impossible to be certain. This particular chapter of history is always going to be subject to conjecture.

What ever you propose rachamim18, do so humbley and with the dignity that you might be completely wrong.

PLease give me a source for your account - book or link or whatever - I would love to run it past my father in law who gets a kick out of new information.

 

[Gmart]

Sorry if "history makes life comlicated" but that is, as they say, life.

I'm sorry that you over complicate life with your obsession with all history going back forever.

Where do you draw the line? And how do you draw it?

How do you decide what is important and what is not?

How do you ensure that your existing mindset doesn't lead you towards evidence that backs you up rather than the evidence which is 'true'.

All history is unable to be backed up by 1st hand experience, and thus can be put into the 'don't know' section of your brain.

Talking to people with 1st hand experience, or who talked to other people with 1st hand experience is not so good but obviously has merit. The rest has to be stories which might have a moral but which cannot be put forward as proof for anything. It's just common sense really.

This natural limit to history leads to it being important for about 100 years and then everyone has died and we live in another completely new world.

I'd rather live in the present and to some degree the future, than live in the past.

 

[rachamim18]

Niksativa: My "version" is the most widely accepted version among scientists. It is backed by archaeology, etc.

Yes, I know many Adventists as well. As for christains, they most closely follow early [i.e. original] Christianity. Big difference though with the emphasis on vegan diets.

The version of Jewish history that you posted is partly right. first, it was the Nile Delta [that would be in the north] as far as Egypt goes. Secondly, from a scriptural perspective, the Jews were a people when they entered Egypt. They entered of course from Canaan. from a scientific viewpoint, there were Jewish slaves in what is now Egypt and they did leave and make their way to what is now Israel. the bible's account though is for all intensive purposes good fiction [no offense to those that believe]. The numbers listed, years listed, just do not make sense and of course there is no historical evidence of it. Red Sea is a mistranslation, and so on and so on.

Might I be completely wrong? Of course, I am not infallible. However, in this case I would not bet against me. I am the product of a religious [Jewish] upbriniging so i am certainly up on my Scripture [started at age 3]. From the secular perspectiove I have studied for years [from my very early 20s]. I did receive some secular education on it in school but most was done on my own.


If you want a good book, try "Heritage" by the late Abba Eban. It is a good history of the Jews. Also "Wanderings" by Chaim Potok.

GMathews: Where do I draw the line with history? Well, in this case I draw it at roughly 2000 BCE/BC because that is the dawn of Jewish life in what is now Israel. When talking about the land, and its relation to Jewish people, where else would I draw it?

"Deciding what is important." All factors concerning the subject are important. I do not limit my infomation or research. Anything that proves or disproves my beliefs is crucial.

"How do I guard aginst inherent bias?" good question. It is never an easy task. however, I am a pretty rational person. First, I avail myself to sources representing all viewpoints. Instead of just relying on IDF or Israeli Governmnental websites, I utlise the PA's, HAMAS', and PIJ's sites [among many others].

For example, in researching the latest missile strikes, besides my subjective advantages [kids in IDF, my squadmates, etc], I go to the Arab sites mentioned [and a few others], as well as the Israeli media and foreign media [american, European, etc.]. From all those disparate sources I list all facts given [statistics, names, ages, locations, etc.]. I compare and cross reference. then, when facts match from at least 3 disparate sources, I am confident that what I am digesting is valid.

First off, first hand info is not always valid. As stated, people always have an inherent bias. Take Josephus for example. He is quoted by so many. He was present at the siege of Masada, on the side of the conquering romans. however he was a Jew who had taken part in the rebellion against rome before joining with the romans to save his skin. Most agree that he still took enormous pride in Jewish accomplishments and often embellished his work to reflect this. This being what it is, how could you take his account at face value?

So, first hand accounts coupled with scientific evidence is the way to go.

Living in the present, or for the future has nothing to do with ackowledging the past.

 

[dylanredefined]

Well both groups are on the land and arent going any where so they have to live together history can be a useful tool or it can be used as a weapon.

 

[nino_savatte]

Zoltan: Aside from again reminding you that my personality or posting style is never the issue here, I will point out that I thoroughly reply to each and every post directed toawards me. As such, it takes time and words. If you do not like it, place me on ignore. Stop wasting both our times with useless criticism. Thanks.

You have this tendency to accuse others (including me) of the very things that you, yourself, are guilty of. Try being a little more honest for a change.

 

[nino_savatte]

What ever you propose rachamim18, do so humbley and with the dignity that you might be completely wrong.

R18 is never, ever wrong. Everyone else is wrong.

 

[nino_savatte]

I sincerely doubt linguistics can be classed as a social science. It is more a natural science, like cognitive science.

It is a social science.

 

[tangentlama]

Never get trapped on a mountain with no good options ...

First off, first hand info is not always valid. As stated, people always have an inherent bias. Take Josephus for example. He is quoted by so many. He was present at the siege of Masada, on the side of the conquering romans. however he was a Jew who had taken part in the rebellion against rome before joining with the romans to save his skin. Most agree that he still took enormous pride in Jewish accomplishments and often embellished his work to reflect this. This being what it is, how could you take his account at face value?

So, first hand accounts coupled with scientific evidence is the way to go.

Living in the present, or for the future has nothing to do with ackowledging the past.

For example, The Deparment of Sociology and Anthropology at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem gives this article on Masada, and the (mis)use of Archeology(snipped for brevity):

New questions about an ancient tale of Jewish defiance–and about the uses of archaeology
By Betsy Carpenter

Stand atop the wind-swept plateau known as Masada, and you can almost picture the last desperate hours of the Jewish rebels who retreated there after the Romans burned Jerusalem in A.D. 70. For two years, the freedom fighters harried the Romans from this mountain redoubt near the Dead Sea. But then the 10th Legion constructed huge siege walls around Masada and built a massive earthen ramp up the plateau's western side. The night before the final assault, the Jews faced an awful choice: Deliver their families to the tender mercies of the legionnaires below, or commit collective suicide.

After an impassioned speech by their leader, Elazar Ben-Yair, the decision was made: suicide. Each of the rebels lay down beside his family. [...] At dawn, the Romans poured through Masada's breached walls, only to discover 960 corpses--mute testimony to the Jews' final act of defiance.

Higher truth? This tale of courageous resistance gained an international audience in the early 1960s when Yigael Yadin, Israel's most celebrated archaeologist, excavated the Masada site. His detailed documentation of the story, first told by the first-century Jewish historian Josephus Flavius, cemented Masada as a potent symbol of the fledgling state's resolve in the face of its many enemies. But now an Israeli scholar is raising questions about Yadin's account.

In a new book, Sacrificing Truth: Archaeology and the Myth of Masada (Prometheus Books), Nachman Ben-Yehuda, a professor in the department of sociology and anthropology at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, accuses Yadin, who died in 1984, of deliberately distorting his findings to "provid[e] Israelis with a spurious historical narrative of heroism." Yadin ignored damning information about the rebels, Ben-Yehuda charges, pointing out that they belonged to a radical sect known for assassinating both Romans and Jews.
{...} {...} {...}

Nor did Yadin own up to the dark side of Masada's defenders. According to Josephus, the rebels belonged to a Jewish sect known as the Sicarii, from the Greek word for dagger. During the battle for Jerusalem, they had gained notoriety for killing not just Romans but also moderate Jews--whom they viewed as collaborators. Josephus also wrote that Masada's Sicarii massacred over 700 women and children in the nearby town of Ein Gedi. Yet Yadin described the rebels as defenders or patriots.

"That was a mistake," acknowledges Lawrence Schiffman, chair of New York University's department of Hebrew and Judaic studies. But giving a partial picture, he says, is different from "sitting around and thinking of ways to fake-up a story." Magness agrees that Yadin didn't deliberately distort evidence. But she concedes that his nationalism "colored" his interpretations. Adds Ehud Netzer, a Hebrew University archaeologist who helped excavate Masada, "I don't think this deserves such attention 30 years later."

Yadin isn't the only national icon getting a closer look these days. Israel is in the midst of a broader reassessment of its Zionist past. This questioning extends to those first archaeologists, like Yadin, who hoped to provide pioneers with heroic tales or document Zionist settlers' claims to the land. As for Masada, Ben-Yehuda doesn't deny the power of the place. But for him, it is no longer a symbol of courageous resolve but a cautionary tale of the consequences of extremism: "Never get trapped on a mountain with no good options," he says. "Instead, make alliances; negotiate your way."

Copyright © 2003 U.S. News & World Report, L.P. All rights reserved.

http://sociology.huji.ac.il/truth2.html

 

[astronaut]

But for him, it is no longer a symbol of courageous resolve but a cautionary tale of the consequences of extremism: "Never get trapped on a mountain with no good options," he says. "Instead, make alliances; negotiate your way."

Good words to remember.

 

[tangentlama]

"But for him, it is no longer a symbol of courageous resolve but a cautionary tale of the consequences of extremism: "Never get trapped on a mountain with no good options," he says. "Instead, make alliances; negotiate your way."

Good words to remember.

I'm a big fan of the Hebrew University's Sociology Department
This on the other hand, is hopelessly biased. I'm sure any children would be quite unforgiving of the mistruths being told here: http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:UCc2IaZOaZsJ:www.jafi.org.il/education/100/places/masada.html
The truth as we know it today 'story' seems far more useful, and appropriate for 'now': http://sociology.huji.ac.il/truth2.html

 

[laptop]

Israelites were a semi nomadic people that originated between the Tigris and Euphrates

Which is disputed - but either way nicely illustrates the fatutity of the abuse of history to make territorial claims. Unless... could it be... the invasion...

* Looks for picture of tinfoil hat sinking in the Euphrates *

 

[moono]

I find it a very depressing story. There is nothing noble about suicide.

 

[tangentlama]

At Masada itself there is no evidence of mass suicide, but the Masadim were held by Josephus as responsible for a massacre of over 700 people - which might be where the 'noble suicide' tale comes from - as a cover up for a massacre by the Masada rebels - a Jewish group that murdered moderate Jews and Romans alike, and known to the Romans as the Siscarii (from the Greek, for dagger or as as symbol, would it perhaps look like this? : † (now that does make you think, doesn't it!!).

Masada - last stand of the Jewish 'Siscarii/Iscariot/Daggermen/Assassins' Patriots(Nationalists) (before their exile ?), and through the Siscarii, a link to the betrayer of 'Jesus' , 'Judas Iscariot'. Is it possible two tales were mixed together here? Wasn't one event happening (Masada) as the NT was being 'scribed' in Greek¿ (see http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0029195551/103-7741730-9732612?v=glance&n=283155)

Read about the appropriation of an historical event for symbolic and propaganda purposes: http://sociology.huji.ac.il/truth.html

 

[astronaut]

At Masada itself there is no evidence of mass suicide, but the Masadim were held by Josephus as responsible for a massacre of over 700 people - which might be where the 'noble suicide' tale comes from - as a cover up for a massacre by the Masada rebels - a Jewish group that murdered moderate Jews and Romans alike, and known to the Romans as the Siscarii (from the Greek, for dagger or as as symbol, would it perhaps look like this? : † (now that does make you think, doesn't it!!).

Two points:

1) There is evidence of the long seige and battle at Masada, plenty of it, unless it was all planted by Zionist agents. Perhaps Josephus' account is incomplete or innaccurate, but he was there, we were not.

2) Josephus said 970 people killed themselves, so the 700 and 970 probably are not the same people. Moreover, he was actually at the siege itself, and wrote one of the few actual eyewitness accounts from the ancient world to survive, so that is worth something.

3) Nevertheless, it is well known that ancient authors inflated figures to make their work more sellable. At a guess, I would say that 970 and 700 people might also be 97 and 70, or even 9.7 and 7, for all we know.

Masada - last stand of the Jewish 'Siscarii/Iscariot/Daggermen/Assassins' Patriots(Nationalists) (before their exile ?), and through the Siscarii, a link to the betrayer of 'Jesus' , 'Judas Iscariot'. Is it possible two tales were mixed together here? Wasn't one event happening (Masada) as the NT was being 'scribed' in Greek¿

Read about the appropriation of an historical event for symbolic and propaganda purposes: http://sociology.huji.ac.il/truth.html

On the other hand, the traditional story might well be closer to the truth, and this revisionist version might be the propoganda version.

This revisionist version sits very well, might I add, with the conspiraloon perspective of Zionism followed by more than a few people here.

I'm not however dismissing this version, merely pointing out that it seems to be as equally politically motivation as that spread by Yadin, and in fact, we don't really know the truth because we weren't there.

That is the problem, by the way, with all archeology, not just this case.

 

[Roadkill]

I think that Gmarthews is seeing, if you will, two different versions of "history" being put into play.

On the one hand many people use academically-researched history to inform their thinking, to give them clues as to the nature of societies and cultures.

On the other hand some people use "history" as from myth and folk tale as a sweeping justification for brutality and ignorance.

The one is not the same as the other.

That's absolutely fair comment IMO.

In answer to the original question, though, of course history matters. History always matters. The world we live in today was shaped in the more or less distant past, so understanding the present situation involves an understanding of its history. Plus, to some extent everyone bases their opinions, beliefs, theories etc on what's gone before.

Saying history doesn't matter is like saying that total memory loss doesn't make a difference to someone's life.

 

[astronaut]

On the one hand many people use academically-researched history to inform their thinking, to give them clues as to the nature of societies and cultures.

On the other hand, all academic research is subjective, even those that attempt to achieve objectivity.

Anyone who denies this is being dishonest.

 

[Roadkill]

On the other hand, all academic research is subjective, even those that attempt to achieve objectivity.

Anyone who denies this is being dishonest.

This is true, but there are degrees of subjectivity. Saying 'it's all subjective' is effectively accepting the postmodern mantra that everything is infinitely open to interpretation and one narrative is always as good as another. And that position is obviously untenable.

 

[laptop]

Saying 'it's all subjective' is effectively accepting the postmodern mantra that everything is infinitely open to interpretation and one narrative is always as good as another. And that position is obviously untenable.

Not only is it untenable, but it's self-destructive.

That kind of "postmodernism" is a Grand Meta-Narrative and therefore self-refuting

 

[moono]

And that position is obviously untenable.

Right. It's a position which promotes ignorance under the banner of the pursuit of certainty. It's the position adopted by those unable to come to a conclusion, make a decision or align with a direction ( Dumpties ) Also those who seek to bend history with confusion.

Astronaut;

On the other hand, all academic research is subjective, even those that attempt to achieve objectivity.

Anyone who denies this is being dishonest.

Only 'dishonest' ? Surely you can squeeze some accusation of 'anti-Semitism' ( misnomer ) in there ? Lol.

 

[astronaut]

Saying 'it's all subjective' is effectively accepting the postmodern mantra that everything is infinitely open to interpretation and one narrative is always as good as another. And that position is obviously untenable.

Well obviously some fields are more susceptible to this than others. Some fields rely totally on judgment based on existing mental models, and it is literally impossible to form a fully objective view. It is possible to modify or change a mental model, obviously, but this too requires subjective assessment of the validity of the old mental model.

 

[Roadkill]

Well obviously some fields are more susceptible to this than others. Some fields rely totally on judgment based on existing mental models, and it is literally impossible to form a fully objective view. It is possible to modify or change a mental model, obviously, but this too requires subjective assessment of the validity of the old mental model.

Of course, but acknowledging that is a fair few steps short of saying 'it's all subjective.'

 

[astronaut]

Of course, but acknowledging that is a fair few steps short of saying 'it's all subjective.'

Personally, I'm of the view that there is a single reality out there, but bounded rationality (cognitive limitations and embeddeddness within an environment) combines to generate subjective views of that single reality. It is all subjective, but based on a single reality.

 

[Roadkill]

Personally, I'm of the view that there is a single reality out there, but bounded rationality (cognitive limitations and embeddeddness within an environment) combines to generate subjective views of that single reality. It is all subjective, but based on a single reality.

I'd largely go along with that. Certainly, I don't believe that there is no such thing as reality, but it's also true to say we all see thigns slightly differently. Cliche it may be, but I think there's a lot of truth in the saying that a mountain may look different depending on where you view it from, but it's there nonetheless.

 

[Gmart]

There MAY be a single reality, but i accept that i don't and could ever know.

I agree with Astronaut, It might be difficult to accept and evidently Roadkill, Laptop and Moono indeed do find it so, but actually everything IS subjective, just because we all can only see the world through our own senses which is obviously limited. No one is thus objective.

I would argue that losing one's memory would be only marginally disruptive. The important things would come up.

Subjectivity dilutes truth, and truth gets even more diluted the further one is from the event, so history becomes more useless the further one is from it. Not only does it become second or third hand, with countless interpretations, but it stops being relevant to our culture in all but the most general way.

It is ignorance (from the point of view of ignoring), but it is also accepting that any view is going to be prejudicial, in that it will not be the full picture.

I can accept some relevance in contemporary history, but only within the last 100 years, beyond that it becomes moralistic stories which should have no more than a minor effect on society.

It is only self-refuting from an objective point of view. Seeing as this is what is impossible this is not relevant.

 

[moono]

It might be difficult to accept and evidently Roadkill, Laptop and Moono indeed do find it so, but actually everything IS subjective, just because we all can only see the world through our own senses which is obviously limited. No one is thus objective.

It's not a matter of finding it difficult to accept. It's a matter of taking a mature and responsible attitude and getting on with life without one's head up one's Jaxie of Uncertainty.

Pick oop spade lad, and get stook in.

 

[laptop]

It might be difficult to accept and evidently Roadkill, Laptop and Moono indeed do find it so...

I'll thank you not to attribute simplistic positions to me.

All I said here is that the cod-post-modern "everything is subjective maan" position is self-negating. At the simplest level of argument it includes the word "everything". How can they tell?

You cannot deduce naïve realism from that.

Gi's a book advance and I'll write down what I really think

 

[Roadkill]

There MAY be a single reality, but i accept that i don't and could ever know.

I agree with Astronaut, It might be difficult to accept and evidently Roadkill, Laptop and Moono indeed do find it so, but actually everything IS subjective, just because we all can only see the world through our own senses which is obviously limited. No one is thus objective.

Of course we all perceive things through our own senses, but I think the fact remains we are all perceiving the same reality, albeit in slightly different ways.

How could society function otherwise, if there's no shared experience? Is urban75, perhaops, merely a figment of your imagination and we're not actually having this argument? In that case, how come you're responding to my posts?

Besides, laptop is absolutely right: the 'everything is subjective maaaan' position is self-negating.

I would argue that losing one's memory would be only marginally disruptive. The important things would come up.

Nonsense. If you lost your memory tomorrow the world would become a very confusing and frightening place because, whether or not you choose to recognise it, your views are formed with reference to your own experiences and those of others you know about. History is just that: collective experience.

Subjectivity dilutes truth, and truth gets even more diluted the further one is from the event, so history becomes more useless the further one is from it. Not only does it become second or third hand, with countless interpretations, but it stops being relevant to our culture in all but the most general way.

It is ignorance (from the point of view of ignoring), but it is also accepting that any view is going to be prejudicial, in that it will not be the full picture.

I can accept some relevance in contemporary history, but only within the last 100 years, beyond that it becomes moralistic stories which should have no more than a minor effect on society.

It is only self-refuting from an objective point of view. Seeing as this is what is impossible this is not relevant.

You are, I'm afraid, completely wrong. History is very relevant to our culture in a great many ways. Again, most of our views are formed to some extent with reference to history, and it remains true (again, no matter how much nyou might wish to deny it) that the world we live in today was shaped in the past, and to understand what it is now we must understabnd how it developed.

Your contention that since history is all subjective it's worthless is both wrong and dangerous. If one interpretation is always as good as another, is holocaust denial okay? After all, it's just another narrative, isn't it?

 

[moono]

When do we get to torch the Ministry of Hasbara ?

( after removing all people, pets and works of art, naturally )

 

[tangentlama]

Two points:

1) There is evidence of the long seige and battle at Masada, plenty of it, unless it was all planted by Zionist agents.* Perhaps Josephus' account is incomplete or innaccurate, but he was there, we were not.

Josephus was not there. He retold the story told by two female 'eye witnesses', who hid in the cistern with 5 children.

Please note that I mentioned only that there was no evidence of 'mass suicide' at Masada, not that there was 'no evidence of a 'seige'. You state that their is evidence for the seige/battle as though I had said otherwise. I had made no mention of 'no evidence of seige'.

I suspect there are two reasons the Talmud omits the story of Masada. First, many rabbis still felt a lingering anger toward the extremist Zealots who died at Masada. We know that Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai had to flee Jerusalem secretly to avoid being killed by the sort of people who died there. Furthermore, at a time when the rabbis were desperately attempting to reconstruct a Judaism that could survive without a Temple and without a sovereign state, they hardly were interested in glorifying the mass suicide of Jews who believed that life without sovereignty was not worth living.

The story of Masada survives in the writings of Josephus. But not many Jews read Josephus, and for well over fifteen hundred years, it was a more or less forgotten episode in Jewish history. Then, in the 1920s, the Hebrew writer Isaac Lamdan wrote "Masada," a poetic history of the anguished Jewish fight against a world full of enemies.

According to Professor David Roskies, Lamdan's poem, "more than any other text, later inspired the uprising in the Warsaw Ghetto." In recent years, Masada became widely known through the excavations of the late Israeli archaeologist Yigael Yadin. In addition to finding two mikvaot (ritual baths) and a synagogue used by Masada's defenders, he uncovered twenty-five skeletons of men, women, and children. In 1969, they were buried at Masada with full military honors.
(source)

2) Josephus said 970 people killed themselves, so the 700 and 970 probably are not the same people. Moreover, he was actually at the siege itself, and wrote one of the few actual eyewitness accounts from the ancient world to survive, so that is worth something.

What Josephus said, and what might have happened are two different things. Maybe the Siscarii extremists slaughtered 970+700. Most likely they killed more. They were leading the Jewish Uprising at the time. Perhaps they just slaughtered 700 women and children, and turned their swords and fought each other for the remaining 270, and the number includes both En Gedi and Masada. We do know that 25 were found and slaughtered by Romans after the seige had ended, and another 7 allegedly survived by hiding in the cistern. Either way, the Jewish Extremists weren't popular, and assassinated Jews whom they thought were collaborators with Rome. Masada is important, but probably not in the way in which Lamdan or the Warsaw Resistance found it back under the shadow of Industrialised Slaughter Machine.
Jospehus himself wasn't at the siege from the inside, and only recorded the tale. He may have added some embellishments of his own, for example, the perspective of massacre/suicide depends on whether you support/collaborated with Rome (it would be massacre) or whether they were 'extremists' (their tactic might be described politically as 'suicide').

3) Nevertheless, it is well known that ancient authors inflated figures to make their work more sellable. At a guess, I would say that 970 and 700 people might also be 97 and 70, or even 9.7 and 7, for all we know.

I quite agree

On the other hand, the traditional story might well be closer to the truth, and this revisionist version might be the propoganda version.

Yadin's was the only revision.

This book, which reads almost like a detective novel, documents the falsifications and concealed facts in Yigael Yadin's report of his excavations at Masada (1963-1965) and speculates as to why and how Yadin did so. It is a sequel to Ben-Yehuda's The Masada Myth: Collective Memory and Mythmaking in Israel (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1995) and repeats much of the argument found in the earlier book but then views these misrepresentations against sociological theory of truth and falsehood.

According to Ben-Yehuda, Yadin, while professing admiration for Josephus' account, has actually transformed a tragic historical event into a heroic fable, calculated to appeal to patriotic feelings. This is a case, he says, where archaeology became mixed up with politics. The revolt is transformed into a heroic war waged for three years by soldiers, who are referred to as Zealots rather than by Josephus' term of Sicarii, engaged in battle. The suicide at Masada is transformed into a brave last stand of the heroic few against the many Roman troops. On these matters Ben-Yehuda generally trusts Josephus, who, to be sure, was not present at Masada
http://muse.jhu.edu/cgi-bin/access.cgi?uri=/journals/shofar/v022/22.3feldman_l.html

I might I add, with the conspiraloon perspective of Zionism followed by more than a few people here.

Might you, now? There's no conspiraloon perspective on Zionism here apart from the many many disproved 'myths' that have been manipulated in the media for propaganda and other 'rousing' purposes which crop up from time to time - but no Zioloonazis or Conspiranisms write here that I know of, so I just see this as a snide insinuation and a 'nameless' call out from a faceless name. You're only just getting away with it, you know.

I'm not however dismissing this version, merely pointing out that it seems to be as equally politically motivation as that spread by Yadin, and in fact, we don't really know the truth because we weren't there.

Hahaha. Of course, and neither was Yadin there, however, archeology is still a precise science with a set methodology, which Yadin ignored. He embroidered myth and bolted on supposition.

That is the problem, by the way, with all archeology, not just this case.

The problem does not lie with Archeology itself, but those who claim some scientific knowledge of Archeology, and who are willing to bend their findings to suit the political cause of the day.

One ought not to be too concerned at getting closer to the truth, since there is still plenty of metaphorical mileage to be had from Masada.

If there was ever a good time to mention 'extremism' astronaut, now would be it.*
*Instead he uses Boo-words such as 'revisionist' and 'conspirazionaziagent'.