Archaeology in the News

Where Fellowship and Camaraderie lives: that place where the CPS membership values fun and good fellowship as the cement of the community
Post Reply
User avatar
tuttle
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 12028
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Archaeology in the News

Post by tuttle » Mon Feb 13, 2012 3:48 pm

"In the News" threads seem to be trending on CPS so instead of just dropping this story in a thread of it's own I'll start this Archaeology in the News thread for all interesting stories related to archaeology:

From the Guardian: Archaeologists strike gold in quest to find Queen of Sheba's wealth
"You're my kind of stupid" -Mal Reynolds

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

The Reformation Drinking Song

User avatar
Hovannes
one lone Wollensak
one lone Wollensak
Posts: 22024
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: In the fertile San Joaquin Valley

Post by Hovannes » Mon Feb 13, 2012 4:26 pm


User avatar
Rusty
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Posts: 25036
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Beelzebub's Rare Tobacco Emporium

Post by Rusty » Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:52 pm

I've been tempted to create new threads for things like "Left handed young Therapods with seasonal eating disorders connected to geography in the News". I mean it's so striking! So it really deserves an "in the news" of its own.

But then I wondered if maybe it should be part of a more general category?
There's a cool aggregate category and in fact the Guardian sort hints at this when they show in the banner something like News > Science > Archeology.

But Science is a bad word here so ... WTF? As you were.

Actually I think it might be a good idea to sticky the existing ...in the news threads in their categories. Then people could find them! Now why didn't I think of that?
Last edited by Rusty on Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You're out of the woods
You're out of the dark
You're out of the night
Step into the sun
Step into the light

User avatar
jo533281
like R2D2, just not as cool
like R2D2, just not as cool
Posts: 3115
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 6:00 pm
Location: Grand Rapids, MI

Post by jo533281 » Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:54 pm

Rusty wrote:But Science is a bad word here so ... WTF? As you were.
Says who? I like science. Always have and if trends continue, always will. Would major in it if I was any good at the details. I'm more into the science of language, myself. Love me some linguistics.
"This is not facebook, we are not here to boost your self esteem or hang on your every word." -Zed-

"It's all right, Andy! It's just bolognaise!"

Most Likely to Draw Pirates with a Post

User avatar
Rusty
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Posts: 25036
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Beelzebub's Rare Tobacco Emporium

Post by Rusty » Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:57 pm

jo533281 wrote:
Rusty wrote:But Science is a bad word here so ... WTF? As you were.
Says who? I like science. Always have and if trends continue, always will. Would major in it if I was any good at the details. I'm more into the science of language, myself. Love me some linguistics.
Are you the appointed argument guy tonight? Turn around and bend over so I ca deposit six bits. 8O
You're out of the woods
You're out of the dark
You're out of the night
Step into the sun
Step into the light

User avatar
jo533281
like R2D2, just not as cool
like R2D2, just not as cool
Posts: 3115
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 6:00 pm
Location: Grand Rapids, MI

Post by jo533281 » Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:59 pm

Rusty wrote:
jo533281 wrote:
Rusty wrote:But Science is a bad word here so ... WTF? As you were.
Says who? I like science. Always have and if trends continue, always will. Would major in it if I was any good at the details. I'm more into the science of language, myself. Love me some linguistics.
Are you the appointed argument guy tonight? Turn around and bend over so I ca deposit six bits. 8O
I'm poking... yes :D Is it working?
:lol:
"This is not facebook, we are not here to boost your self esteem or hang on your every word." -Zed-

"It's all right, Andy! It's just bolognaise!"

Most Likely to Draw Pirates with a Post

User avatar
Rusty
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Posts: 25036
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Beelzebub's Rare Tobacco Emporium

Post by Rusty » Mon Feb 13, 2012 8:01 pm

jo533281 wrote:
Rusty wrote:
jo533281 wrote:
Rusty wrote:But Science is a bad word here so ... WTF? As you were.
Says who? I like science. Always have and if trends continue, always will. Would major in it if I was any good at the details. I'm more into the science of language, myself. Love me some linguistics.
Are you the appointed argument guy tonight? Turn around and bend over so I ca deposit six bits. 8O
I'm poking... yes :D Is it working?
:lol:
You can tell that I'm in one of those moods?

I suppose I ought to scrape off some of the sarcasm before I develop a taste for it. :D

It's nice when you guys see through these things and push the right button.
You're out of the woods
You're out of the dark
You're out of the night
Step into the sun
Step into the light

User avatar
Hovannes
one lone Wollensak
one lone Wollensak
Posts: 22024
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: In the fertile San Joaquin Valley

William the Conqueror apparently looked like bad Clay-mation

Post by Hovannes » Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:45 am

William the Conqueror looked like bad Clay-mation.
Perhaps that is why he left Normandy?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gl ... e-17027300

User avatar
StatHaldol
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 1366
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 6:00 pm
Location: North Louisiana
Contact:

Post by StatHaldol » Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:59 am

Fascinating article on Kennewick Man:

http://www.burkemuseum.org/kman/
"Twas much, that man was made like God before, but that God should be made like man, much more". John Donne

User avatar
Joshoowah
Hermeneutic of suspicion
Hermeneutic of suspicion
Posts: 4500
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 6:00 pm
Location: Nairobi, Kenya; formerly Wilmore, KY; Formerly Athens, AL
Contact:

Post by Joshoowah » Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:53 am

Not sure if this has been posted or not anywhere else, but there are a couple of very important manuscripts currently being researched. One is of Paul's letter to the Romans and the other is the Gospel of Mark. Both are believed to be extremely early. The Romans text is believed to be from around 150 A.D., which would make it the earliest copy of a letter written by Paul we have; the Mark text is believed to be first century. The Mark text is what everyone is talking about, but not much information can be released because of publication policies. Daniel Wallace, a revered and highly skilled New Testament scholar, has released some information concerning the Mark text, but nothing conclusive.

In the coming year, the two will be researched further to confirm the dates. If Mark ends up being from the first century, it is a huge find. Mark has been one of the harder Gospels to reconstruct because Matthew took priority over Mark in the early centuries; thus, it was not copied as much as Matthew. Hence, why the end of Mark we have is ambiguous, while the real was lost.

Anyway, it interested me. If this has already been posted, carry on.
"For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose?" Philippians 1:21-22

ImageImage

User avatar
AFRS
Darth Floof-Floof
Darth Floof-Floof
Posts: 9839
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: University of Mars

Post by AFRS » Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:10 pm

Joshoowah wrote:Not sure if this has been posted or not anywhere else, but there are a couple of very important manuscripts currently being researched. One is of Paul's letter to the Romans and the other is the Gospel of Mark. Both are believed to be extremely early. The Romans text is believed to be from around 150 A.D., which would make it the earliest copy of a letter written by Paul we have; the Mark text is believed to be first century. The Mark text is what everyone is talking about, but not much information can be released because of publication policies. Daniel Wallace, a revered and highly skilled New Testament scholar, has released some information concerning the Mark text, but nothing conclusive.

In the coming year, the two will be researched further to confirm the dates. If Mark ends up being from the first century, it is a huge find. Mark has been one of the harder Gospels to reconstruct because Matthew took priority over Mark in the early centuries; thus, it was not copied as much as Matthew. Hence, why the end of Mark we have is ambiguous, while the real was lost.

Anyway, it interested me. If this has already been posted, carry on.
This is interesting. Do you have a link?

User avatar
tuttle
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 12028
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Post by tuttle » Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:59 pm

AFRS wrote:
Joshoowah wrote:Not sure if this has been posted or not anywhere else, but there are a couple of very important manuscripts currently being researched. One is of Paul's letter to the Romans and the other is the Gospel of Mark. Both are believed to be extremely early. The Romans text is believed to be from around 150 A.D., which would make it the earliest copy of a letter written by Paul we have; the Mark text is believed to be first century. The Mark text is what everyone is talking about, but not much information can be released because of publication policies. Daniel Wallace, a revered and highly skilled New Testament scholar, has released some information concerning the Mark text, but nothing conclusive.

In the coming year, the two will be researched further to confirm the dates. If Mark ends up being from the first century, it is a huge find. Mark has been one of the harder Gospels to reconstruct because Matthew took priority over Mark in the early centuries; thus, it was not copied as much as Matthew. Hence, why the end of Mark we have is ambiguous, while the real was lost.

Anyway, it interested me. If this has already been posted, carry on.
This is interesting. Do you have a link?
Hov posted about it here: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=27514&hilit=gospel+of+mark
Last edited by tuttle on Wed Jan 21, 2015 10:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
"You're my kind of stupid" -Mal Reynolds

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

The Reformation Drinking Song

User avatar
tuttle
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 12028
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Post by tuttle » Tue Feb 28, 2012 7:29 pm

I've heard this before, but it was newly posted on HuffPost. The excerpt is relatively light in how they come to their interpretation of why they believe they've discovered Jesus and his families remains, but the claim is made all the same. They've said it before, and have been refuted before, but apparently 'new' evidence allows them to get some more spotlight.

I found this quote funny:
The recent discoveries in the Patio tomb put the controversy about the Jesus family tomb in new light. We now have new archaeological evidence, literally written in stone, that can guide us in properly understanding what Jesus' earliest followers meant by their faith in Jesus' resurrection from the dead, with his earthly remains, and those of his family, peacefully interred just yards away. This might sound like a contradiction, but only because certain theological traditions regarding the meaning of resurrection of the dead have clouded our understanding of what Jesus and his first followers truly believed.
read it here
Last edited by tuttle on Wed Jan 21, 2015 9:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
"You're my kind of stupid" -Mal Reynolds

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

The Reformation Drinking Song

User avatar
Rusty
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Posts: 25036
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Beelzebub's Rare Tobacco Emporium

Post by Rusty » Wed Feb 29, 2012 1:23 pm

tuttle wrote:I've heard this before, but it was newly posted on HuffPost. The excerpt is relatively light in how they come to their interpretation of why they believe they've discovered Jesus and his families remains, but the claim is made all the same. They've said it before, and have been refuted before, but apparently 'new' evidence allows them to get some more spotlight....
The publisher (Simon & Shuster) is flogging the book and I was a little surprised to see one of their vid's listed as popular (at 306 hits, it's not) on google news.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJ9zEW4x ... r_embedded

So what is the problem with the claims they're making?
You're out of the woods
You're out of the dark
You're out of the night
Step into the sun
Step into the light

User avatar
tuttle
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 12028
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Post by tuttle » Wed Feb 29, 2012 4:51 pm

Rusty wrote:
tuttle wrote:I've heard this before, but it was newly posted on HuffPost. The excerpt is relatively light in how they come to their interpretation of why they believe they've discovered Jesus and his families remains, but the claim is made all the same. They've said it before, and have been refuted before, but apparently 'new' evidence allows them to get some more spotlight....
The publisher (Simon & Shuster) is flogging the book and I was a little surprised to see one of their vid's listed as popular (at 306 hits, it's not) on google news.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJ9zEW4x ... r_embedded

So what is the problem with the claims they're making?
From what I gather their claim is that they've discovered the tomb of Jesus' family, and likely one of these ossuaries contains the bones of Jesus himself. They claim this 'new' tomb (which is extremely facinating) lends credibility that the previous tomb they found is Jesus' family which likely includes Jesus himself. They had a big 'to do' about it on TV a year or so ago with James Cameron.

Anyway, the 'problem' with their claim is that it doesn't jive with the Christian belief that Jesus didn't remain in the tomb, but that he bodily rose from the dead. What they've found is very interesting, but how they are intepreting/presenting it is highly controversial. The finds themselves, looked at from an objective standpoint don't lend credibility to their conclusions. They have a conclusion in mind already and are stretching their findings to fit their assumption.
"You're my kind of stupid" -Mal Reynolds

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

The Reformation Drinking Song

User avatar
Rusty
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Posts: 25036
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Beelzebub's Rare Tobacco Emporium

Post by Rusty » Wed Feb 29, 2012 7:29 pm

tuttle wrote:
Rusty wrote:
tuttle wrote:I've heard this before, but it was newly posted on HuffPost. The excerpt is relatively light in how they come to their interpretation of why they believe they've discovered Jesus and his families remains, but the claim is made all the same. They've said it before, and have been refuted before, but apparently 'new' evidence allows them to get some more spotlight....
The publisher (Simon & Shuster) is flogging the book and I was a little surprised to see one of their vid's listed as popular (at 306 hits, it's not) on google news.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJ9zEW4x ... r_embedded

So what is the problem with the claims they're making?
From what I gather their claim is that they've discovered the tomb of Jesus' family, and likely one of these ossuaries contains the bones of Jesus himself. They claim this 'new' tomb (which is extremely facinating) lends credibility that the previous tomb they found is Jesus' family which likely includes Jesus himself. They had a big 'to do' about it on TV a year or so ago with James Cameron.

Anyway, the 'problem' with their claim is that it doesn't jive with the Christian belief that Jesus didn't remain in the tomb, but that he bodily rose from the dead. What they've found is very interesting, but how they are intepreting/presenting it is highly controversial. The finds themselves, looked at from an objective standpoint don't lend credibility to their conclusions. They have a conclusion in mind already and are stretching their findings to fit their assumption.
Ok. This time they're not actually saying they have Jesus' bones. I was listening for just such a statement and didn't hear that. This is not to say that aren't claiming exactly that again. They showed a shelf that looked empty that they claimed was his burial spot. So I'm not sure where they're going with it.

A year or so ago one of the individuals shown claimed that they had found the spikes from Jesus' crucifixion. The Israeli Antiquities Folks disputed that. So they're a little too eager to make fantastic claims without the an evidence trail that looks credible. Not believable, more like imaginative fiction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_rPNko2CFE
You're out of the woods
You're out of the dark
You're out of the night
Step into the sun
Step into the light

User avatar
tuttle
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 12028
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Post by tuttle » Wed Feb 29, 2012 8:56 pm

Rusty wrote: A year or so ago one of the individuals shown claimed that they had found the spikes from Jesus' crucifixion. The Israeli Antiquities Folks disputed that. So they're a little too eager to make fantastic claims without the an evidence trail that looks credible. Not believable, more like imaginative fiction.
Yep. and the disappointing part about it is that all of the fantastic claims overshadow the really cool discoveries being made.
"You're my kind of stupid" -Mal Reynolds

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

The Reformation Drinking Song

User avatar
tuttle
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 12028
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Post by tuttle » Tue May 29, 2012 4:47 pm

Shmuel Achituv, an expert in ancient scripts at Israel’s Ben-Gurion University who did not participate in the dig, said the discovery was the oldest reference to Bethlehem ever found outside of the Bible. Apart from the seal, the other mentions of Bethlehem, Achituv said, “are only in the Bible.”
Story Here
"You're my kind of stupid" -Mal Reynolds

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

The Reformation Drinking Song

User avatar
tuttle
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 12028
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Post by tuttle » Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:39 am

"You're my kind of stupid" -Mal Reynolds

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

The Reformation Drinking Song

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 32453
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Post by UncleBob » Mon Sep 17, 2012 3:29 pm

"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

Post Reply