Title: A different story with the same evidence
Product review: The physical evidence that Finkelstein/Silberman present is public, precedes the publishing of this book, and is available elsewhere as well. Finkelstein only digs at Megiddo, Silberman is not even an archeologist. They have an agenda they want to present and they do so in this book. However, a completely different analysis of the same evidence is presented in other books, for instance in Israel in Egypt by James K. Hoffmeier (1999). The evidence is there, it's just what story you make up to try and fit the evidence. Archeology is a very inexact field, and when you find a pottery shard or a wall, you can fill your mind with almost any story. Since Finkelstein/Silberman come with well known biases and predispositions, I don't give their stories too much heed, and most Israeli archeologists don't agree with them either.
Would you say this review depicts the product in a flattering or unflattering light?
