One of the things that has always bothered me with archaeological theories, conclusions and archaeologists themselves is the trend to label every unknown structure a temple or a holy site and every artifact as worship tool or god. These conclusions make it seem that the ancient world only had time to sleep and pray and only worked when the king felt like building something.
Anyone can look around their house and see objects they have purchased or have been given and think that in a thousand years (if the world survives that long) archaeologists will think that our modern age homes were filled with religious artifacts. This mistaken identity leads to mistaken ideas about the past civilizations and provide the people with false pictures of what went on 2-7,000 years ago.
Why can’t some structures be sports arenas, restaurants, and little shops and so on? Why must they almost always conclude that these non-houses were always a place of religious ceremony? One thought is that, similar to TV. and the movies where sex sells, the archaeological world has found that religion sells and thus must make every interpretation fit that idea to keep the interest and funding continuing.
I disagree heartedly with this trend and with the idea that the ancients were oppressed to the point that they could not move unless they bowed in worship somewhere along the street. Granted some ancient regimes were quite totalitarian in nature but not all were and it would be ridiculous to even suggest that the entire ancient world functioned the same as them. Different cultures had different rules and behavior and it is not difficult to see ancient man’s ideas at work.
Another source for such trends and fads is the idea, held by many archaeologists, that the ancient world was and people were vastly different than our modern age thus we need to view the relics in a different light. This different light, of course, is their own conjectural, fantasy of how they would like the ancient world to be and not what it was really.
Again i disagree with this line of thinking mainly because we have the God factor on our side and not the evolutionary line of thinking where man developed differently. God created all men the same. All humans, both past and present, were affected by the ‘fall of Adam’, so all men are affected by sin. God gave all men the same characteristics, emotions, thinking capabilities, learning abilities and so on. There is nothing that modern man has that ancient man did not possess. (Not talking technology here).
Thus it is safe and correct that ancient man did most things the same as modern man does now. They eat, sleep, choose to worship or not, love, hate, get angry, lie, copy, plagerize, care for their families, work, play and you get the idea. Life in the past in essence was not that much different than it is now.
If one takes time to look through museums they would see beauty aids, farm implements, pots, dishes and a host of other items we take for granted in this age. Attitudes were not different from now and those archaeologists who think the ancient world was different need to re-think their position for they are just wrong.
Granted life may have been simpler, harsher, but in reality we have that today in what we call third world countries. The modern world is not equal and the ancient is just as diverse, dependent upon the rulers and their underlings. It would be a grave error to think that ancient man thought, lived or operated any differently than we do now.
We need to re-think many ideas about the past and put God into the picture and see man for who he is–man, created by God & given the same attributes as anyone else. We do not see a special creation for the ancient world and another special creation for the modern world. The secular arena would love to have us think that, for then they get to spin their tales of their version of what might have been and not be locked into the truth and declaring what it really was which in turn lends more credibility to the Biblical accounts.