This is what I meant when referring to "faith based archaeology".If you, and your colleagues want to eventually produce a work of convincing evidence that this IS the Hill Cumorah, this work needs to proceed along the lines of currently accepted archaeological method and theory. Allowing someone to fall to their knees at the prompting of the Holy Spirit and "dig like a dog" to miraculously unearth a stone tablet automatically compromises the integrity of the site. Archaeologically speaking the context in which items are recovered from an archaeological site during excavation is as important, or more important than the actual object itself. I am speaking of factors such as stratigraphy and the spatial relationships between and among individual artifacts or groups of artifacts. This information is vital in making any kind of conclusion from an excavation, up to an including whether or not this was a battlefield. And, this type of "single artifact based conclusions" were what has eventually invaildated the similarly faith based archaeology done under the auspices of BYU in the 1950's and 1960's. So, scientific method and rigor is perhaps MORE important in excavating and analysing sites that may have religious significance than it is when working at/on sites not presumed to have any such connections. Archaeology is a science, "having the Spirit with them" , if these promptings are true and good, should compel those engaged in a suspected or presumptive Book of Mormon related site (or a Biblical site) if they want their work to be accepted both by the scientific community within which they work and by the community of faith whom they hope to illuminate, to adhere even more strictly to the procedural confines of good archaeological practice. And, IMO, for those of faith, the kind of archaeological and/or historical validation of any scripture may be interesting and perhaps affirming, but faith itself must ultimately stand alone. And again, could you addresss my inquiry as to the necessity of the serial transliteration of the "Ogam" on this stone? And, may I ask what formal training or background in field archaeology and arcaheological method and theory?? What about the fellow whho fell to the ground and "dug like a dog"? Was it not noted at the time that this action could so seriously compromise the integrity of the whole project as to invalidate any conclusions which could eventually be made?? And, you are, of course, correct, that it is my opinion is that the grooves on the La Venta heads are simply that, grooves. But it is also the opinion of the great majority of the scientific archaeolgical community, and if it is expected for this project to ever be accepted as anything but a few fanatics digging like dogs, the opinion of that community matters.
