Being an archaeologist myself, something about this article troubles me. It demonstrates the way many people look at archaeology--eagerly hoping that it will connect them to some mythic past, whether it be the past of the Iliad or of the Torah.

By using archaeology only to confirm or disprove the textual record, people effectively blind themselves to information the archaeological record could give them that has nothing to do with a given text--how everyday people actually lived, rather than how a potsherd relates to a legend. Responsible archaeologists avoid focusing too much on texts, looking instead at what the material evidence can tell them directly. This helps us get a more complete and realistic picture of life in biblical times. Texts can be helpful, but they should not dictate one's attitude to the evidence one unearths. That has been a major failure of most interpretations of the ruins at Qumran, for example.

Especially in places where archaeology can have such an effect on modern politics, it is irresponsible to draw hasty and tenuous connections between material and mythology, when careful study shows little evidence for such a connection.