no, no it isn’t noah’s winery: how the media screw up archaeology to sell copies

From BAR: Discovery of the earliest known wine-making operation in an Armenian cave near the southern border with Iran. Courtesy Gregory Areshian.

There was no worldwide flood. The human genome does not bottleneck at Noah. And while a legitimate archaeological expedition may have found evidence of wine production in the Areni-1 cave complex, located near the village of Areni in the Vayots Dzor province of Armenia (map), it certainly is not evidence of “Noah’s winery.”

Unfortunately, most people outside of the archaeological field won’t pay much attention to a respected archaeologist like UCLA’s Dr. Hans Barnard arguing for “Chemical Evidence for Wine Production Around 4000 B.C.E. in the Late Chalcolithic Near Eastern Highlands,” in a respected, peer-reviewed journal like the Journal of Archaeological Science (Volume 38, Issue 5, May 2011, Pages 977-984). It is also important to point out that at no time in the stellar article are “Noah” or a “flood” ever mentioned. In fact, the article’s conclusion is rather methodologically compelling to archaeologists:

With an improved method to determine the presence of malvidin we obtained positive results, indicating the possible former presence of grape products, for two Late Chalcolithic (around 4000 BCE) potsherds found in the cave complex Areni-1 in present-day Armenia. It is important to note again that the presence of malvidin, the anthocyanin that gives pomegranates, grapes and wine their red color, is not necessarily associated with the former presence of wine, but only indicates the remains of grapes, pomegranates, or both. Fermentation, although likely, can only be assumed and other products (such as defrutum) should not be excluded. The fact that in Armenia the ceramic samples were collected from a context resembling a grape pressing installation with the preserved remains (seeds, stems, skins) of crushed or pressed grapes supports the interpretation that this part of the cave was a site where wine was produced. Another potsherd from Late Akkadian (around 2200 BCE) deposits in an elite context in Tell Mozan in Syria preserved a red interior, initially interpreted as the remnants of red wine, but proved negative for malvidin. Our research thus produced an improved method to identify malvidin in archaeological materials that can, however, only provide supplementary arguments for or against the presence of wine in specific vessels. Like any other scientific technique, biochemical research alone can never create conclusive evidence concerning anthropological issues (Barnard et al., 2007), much like archaeological research alone cannot irrefutably prove wine production. Instead, both should be part of a larger research program, aimed at addressing a specific anthropological or archaeological research question (McGovern, 1995). As the interests, sample materials and experience of analytical chemists and other scientists will always be different from those of archaeologists, a substantial amount of method development should be expected before a viable protocol will be available. We hope to have illustrated this and to have at the same time added to the discussion regarding the presence or absence of wine in the archaeological record. (html of pdf)

That is, there may be evidence for wine making (or at least storage vessels for grape products) in present day Armenia from around 4000 BCE. That is fascinating research brought about by a well-detailed methodology that suggests, “a better chemical indicator for the former presence of red wine is malvidin, the anthocyanin that gives grapes and wines their red color.” This research adds evidence to previous research which concludes that wine making in the Near East may be much older than we previously thought, and we have improved means by which to detect it.

This is excellent archaeology!

Unfortunately, many newspapers and magazines can’t sell copies reporting on improved techniques for indicating the former presence of red wine. So, they take the credible research and attempt to use it to supply evidence for an incredible claim: that the biblical Noah existed and that we can know this because an archaeologist found evidence of ‘his’ winery. Never mind that no such claim was ever made by the researcher. Just mentioning the possibility of Noah and merely asking the question about his biblical winery (Gen. 9:20) will get your story certain media attention and thereby allow the publisher to sell a far greater number of copies than he/she would had Noah’s name not been invoked. And, because publishers can then use this unverifiable, sensational suggestion to sell said newspapers and magazine copies to folks who will actually spend cash on such a speculation, “Is this Noah’s winery?” translates into cash for publishers.

It’s a technique that has been used for decades to make money: use sound archaeology to make unintended, ridiculous claims, and sell it to the public, which wants to believe it and reinforce their preexisting beliefs. It is an example of good archaeology being used by money-hungry publishers to create bad science in the name of faith, and it’s wrong.

About these ads

12 Responses

  1. If the Bible says there was a worldwide flood – then there was a worldwide flood. This is because the Bible is the word of God and is
    therefore inerrant. No genuine Christian can reject a central tenet
    of the Bible.

  2. [...] Also, just in time for the mind numbing experience, is the discovery of Noah’s wine cellar. [...]

  3. Since when has the Flood been a ‘central tenet of the Bible?’

  4. BAR, one step from the Weekly World News.

  5. [...] details from a much sharper mind can be found here. Share this:ShareStumbleUponFacebookRedditDiggTwitterLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]

  6. hey:you removed my comments. Too intelligent for dogs of Satan (J 8:44)?
    You have just a monkey brain for doing just a monkey computer duties without philosophical thinking.
    rightly Moses@Elijah did not have mercy for such idiots (Ex 32:30, Lb 25:7, 1Kg 19;18)
    From the Angel of Death!

  7. what that archaeologist’s work does do is show that the Bible was NOT incorrect when it said Noah planted a vineyard and made wine. it may not be noah’s winery but the evidence is there to support the biblical record.

    now as to your claim about no worldwide flood or no genetic bottleneck at the time of Noah–were you there to see it and to disprove it? making claims 5000 years later is pretty easy given th elimitations of science and archaeology not to mention the lack of physical evidence.

    i think woolley hit the flood layer and i do not need uniformity to support his discovery. uniformity would be impossible given the amount of time and life events to make the coverage of the flood layer uneven.

    also, since there was only 1 global flood what would you expect the flood evidence to look like? would it include sunken cities? we have those. would it include sea life on tops of mountains? we have those. would it be human and animal bones mixed together in confusion in caves and other fissures? we have those and they are all located around the world. we also haveunwxplained ancient monuments with no evidence for their buildrs and salt water animals in fresh water lakes.

    when will you honestly open your eyes to the evidence and take a real look?

  8. It is hard to believe how any christian could say there was no world flood. God tells us there was one and gives the reason for it. Jesus and his diciples reiterate the Noachin flood.
    Billions of fossils encased and quickly killed in sediment is the evidence.

  9. to Mr. Lee:
    Noah’s flood is just a literary device to express the main idea: God works in the history also through natural events@does not tolerate a global wickedness
    As you check at nearest library: the first historical person in Bible is..Abraham, chapter 12 of Genessis; therefore, talking about the “historicity” of previous chapter is anti-logial@logic is governed by absolute,therefore God’s, laws.

  10. So you believe that when billions of people were drowning they were
    doing so because of a “literary device”. Jesus made no mistake or lie when he recounted the flood.

  11. Jesus just used the knowledge he learned in Nazareth’s school@home training, therefore he made an accidental (secondary)mistake – like in any science in the past- but not substantial one (acc. to: Aristotle)- he rightly warned the whole generation about upcoming destruction for being so stubborn as based on the experience of prophets@afterwards (not only Israel; see the fate of …Athens chasing his own philosophers starting from Socrates); he@other NT authors treated the authorship of OT books literally- for example, Moses-it is 50%percent surety that he really existed, he could just a personification of two persons from the time of liberation- according to present state of knowledge by biblical scholars. It is not so much important. Check how were some persecutors of martyrs dying: of Thomas Moore, Joan d”Arc,… even Pilate, 10th Roman Legion torturing Jesus- all whipped out by insurgency

    Now, again the world is in global ignorance (theological one) like in “Noah’s”-Jesus’s time; from pagans to Vatican except the biblical Rest: 1-13% of population

    your “billions of drowning” is just a fancy

  12. Krzy – what a strange God you seem to believe in – Jesus was God’s
    son and he makes no mistakes when he prophecies. A prophet
    had to be 100% correct .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,001 other followers

%d bloggers like this: