<HTML>Yes, look at all of the evidence and draw conclusions by all means. That makes perfect sense. However, we ought to understand that our views of the past need to be flexible in order to allow for further evidence. Just dismissing new evidence out of hand because it does not follow the current idea of the past is very wrong. And it happens. I am not generalising in any way here. The fact remains that SOME historians, archaeologists, etc. tend to ignore certain evidence.
An example is the finding of ancient lenses such as the Layard Lens. There are well- fasioned lenses present in museums today that are dated back to ancient Greek times and beyond. However, many historians just ignore that they are in existance as they would alter their perception of history. They put these lenses down as "burning lenses" and ignore the fact that they magnify well and, in the case of the Layard Lens, are ground in such a way as to correct astigmatism. There are cases of ancient craftmanship which demonstrates the use of such magnifying lenses. If you want to know more, read "The Crystal Sun" by Robert Temple as it lists countless cases of ancient lens use.
Now this dismissal of new evidence is a factor in what leads to people rejecting many views of eminent archaeologists and historians. The backlash is a result of the "unprofessional" approach. Unfortunately it leads to people going too far the other way and believing in everything! I have read some really crazy articles on the web and it is a shame that people get so carried away.
Matt.</HTML>
