Archaeological Uncovers a New Name

* * Beatles-Beatles writes to tell us Reuters is reporting that scientists have found a shard of pottery in an archaeological dig that appears to have the Philistine renderings of the name Goliath. While the obvious leaps of faith have been made it is still an interesting find as it is the first time the name Goliath has been found in that particular locale.

Comments

Archaeological...

[GenP]

*dig*, perhaps? On ./ no one can hear you utilize strange grammar!

Re:Archaeological...

[SysSupport]

Those pesky archaeologicals. Always digging up something.

Philistine renderings.

[rookworm]

For more Philistine renderings, see below.

Re:Philistine renderings.

[jlehtira]

No, no, it's genuine. Or at least it might be. I for one think it's extremely likely that Goliath's hometown was running a successful souvenir trade for tourists visiting those parts, producing thousands of "Goliath"-pots and other branded products. This is not to say the "David vs. Goliath" story is true, but at least the story exists - thus the opportunity for 4) PROFIT!!!!!! Imagine archaeologists digging up a peculiar mug with barely readable markings saying "Yoda"..

Re:Philistine renderings.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it makes perfect sense that:
1- Tourist trade was about the same 3000 years ago as it is now, due to the similarly large amounts of leisure time and disposable income available to those ancient people in that area.
2- There would be a big Philistine market for souveniers of a story of their defeat, whether true or not. NKind of like how well Yankees World Series stuff sold in NY after Boston won the thing.

The Obligatory

[unitron]

Oh, Daav-veey.

Believers

[$exyNerdie]

Science: Archaeological Uncovers a New Name

A shard of pottery unearthed in a decade-old dig in southern Israel carried an inscription in early Semitic style spelling "Alwat and "Wlt", likely Philistine renderings of the name Goliath, said Aren Maeir, who directed the excavation.

Believers will believe anything... Where is the "Religion:" section on /.??

Re:Believers

[Anonymous Coward]

No kidding. I guess if you've got a religious agenda it makes perfect sense. Also, it's not like anybody else throughout history could possibly have been given the name Goliath. For all we know it could have been a common name back then, so it's hardly definitive proof of his existance.

I guess thousands of years from now, somebody is going to find an old gift with 'for Bob' engraved on it and claim it's how we used to spell Jesus, so obviously he must have been real and returned in 2000 right on cue.

Re:Believers

[narrowhouse]

Or it could be taken as proof that , is the one true faith.Take your pick.

Re:Believers

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, it's not like anybody else throughout history could possibly have been given the name Goliath. For all we know it could have been a common name back then, so it's hardly definitive proof of his existance.

You're missing the point. What this shows, if it's genuine, is that the name existed at all. Prior to this, no evidence had ever been found outside the Bible that the name Goliath was used by the ancient Palestinians, ever.

So, yeah, of course this doesn't prove that the Bible story is true. What it does do, if it's genuine, is remove one piece of ammunition from the arsenal of the scholars who are arguing that the Bible story isn't true. Big, big difference.

Re: Believers

[Black Parrot]

> What it does do, if it's genuine, is remove one piece of ammunition from the arsenal of the scholars who are arguing that the Bible story isn't true.

Does anyone actually make that argument? I find it a strange argument, that such-and-such a story can't be true because one of the characters has a name not attested elsewhere.

Re: Believers

[tmasssey]

Happens all of the time. People say that key people mentioned in the Bible (Belshazzar or Pontius Pilate, for example) could *not* have existed because archaeological evidence did not exist for their presence. However, things change. Reference.

There are other items that still have very little archaeological backing: Darius the Mede as King of Babylon comes to mind. However, this is where real faith comes in. Faith is not beliving something is true in *spite* of evidence, or even beliving something with a *lack* of evidence. It's beliving something because all of the available evidence points to a solid track record of something being *true*. (See Hebrews 11:1 for a *Biblical* definition of faith that bears this out; or open your *own* Bible.) When you see people say, "That can't have happened because we have no evidence that it did." and then, later, see that archaeological evidence *does* support it, it makes it much harder to doubt items where the archaeological record is not against something, but just merely missing.

Re: Believers

[Nutria]

Besides, this ("That can't have happened because we have no evidence that it did.") is just logically wrong.

Any mathematician will tell you that.

Re: Believers

[tmasssey]

I agree. But isn't that the logic that people were using about Goliath? "Boy, isn't it odd that we can't find his name *anywhere* in any type of archaeological evidence? With the *mountains* of archaeological remans we have, we can't find that name even once? Sure makes it sound like a made-up story to me..."

Never mind that the people who might have made up the story would have had the ability to select a common name (Bob of the Philistines!) just as easily as a completely fictional one.

And what about real people today with extremely uncommon (or outright made-up) names? Are they not allowed to do something famous because 3,000 years from now no one will belive they existed because their name was very rare? There's a few heads of the UN that might object! :)

Logically flawed? Of course: Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence. But is this not the same logic that many skeptics use?

Re: Believers

[Nutria]

I was agreeing with you.

Re: Believers

[tmasssey]

So was I! :)

I understood that. I'm just, well, passionate... ;)

I thoght it was an excellent point, and I felt the need to expound. The issue of "Intelligent people don't believe in God/the Bible/etc." is a personal one for me. I've found that those that say something like that have not spent any measurable time in their own research: rather, they argue from assupmtions and heresay.

I'm done now. Honest! :)

Bring it on!

[mister_llah]

I, for one, welcome our new Phillistine cultural overlords!

Archeological...

[Llywelyn]

"Archaeological Uncovers a New Name"

Sorry, the reader's brain was unable to parse this title. Please try again with something written in the English language.

Re:Archeological...

[BandwidthHog]

From the so-interesting-needs-no-nouns dept.

Re:Archeological...

[vertinox]

Archaeological was his name. His parents Paleological and Astronomical and they thought it would be fitting when choosing his name as a baby.

However, as you can tell, Arechaeological had been looking for years for a replacement name and figured Golaith was good as any.

Re:Archeological...

[gstoddart]

Archaeological was his name. His parents Paleological and Astronomical and they thought it would be fitting when choosing his name as a baby.

His younger brother is the unfortunately named Pathological. Quite sad really.

Unbelievers

[samjam]

And if you've got an anti-religion agenda, THAT will make perfect sense.
Which all goes to show how unhelpful your comment or the fine article is in that context.

Unless we keep ourselves up to date on anthropoligical and sociological findings and implications of archeology and anthropology this find does not help us draw ANY conclusions on the soundness of ANY pro-religion or anti-religion standpoints. It is merely "interesting".

It would embarrassing to suggest that most readers know enough on the subject to avoid getting blown out of the water by an "expert" from either camp, most conclusion drawn in this forum will be obviously ignorant to such experts even if they agree with us, and there are enough experts in both camps who manage to avoid flaming eachother every time they meet. I guess they have all had to eat their words a couple of terms/

Sam

Linear A

[dargaud]

Why is it that nowadays archeology is considered newsworthy only if it has something to do with the bible ?
A few days ago there was a much more interesting discovery in Creta of several tablets written in Linear B (1200BC, the written language of the Acheans [the Greeks] of the Tojan war, and also the first written language ever translated thanks to a computer in the 60s), and also in the much rarer and much more misterious Linear A (c. 1700BC), still undeciphered.
I'd expect Slashdoters to be more interested by languages decyphered by computer or still mysterious than by some vague myth...

Re:Linear A

[Scrameustache]

Did you submit this as an article at least?

Because, you're right, I am more interested in mysterious languages than in proper names.

Re:Linear A

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that nowadays archeology is considered newsworthy only if it has something to do with the bible ?

Welcome to Slashduh. Here you can either read slashvertisements for iPods or Google, or participate in flamewars over religion, GNOME vs KDE, vi vs EMACS, MS vs Freedom, RIAA/MPAA vs Freedom, or Bush vs Freedom. Under "Science", we cover sometimes stupid, mostly erroneous and always dumbed-down conclusions about vaguely scientific coverage in the ignorant mainstream media. Join the slashbots and reload the ads as often as you can.

Enjoy your stay!

Re:Linear A

[blindbat]

Because around here it is customary to bash the Bible to bits as many times as possible. So, when there is something confirming a biblical story it is another perspective.

Re: Linear A

[Black Parrot]

> Because around here it is customary to bash the Bible to bits as many times as possible. So, when there is something confirming a biblical story it is another perspective.

In what sense does this confirm a biblical story?

Re: Linear A

[Alsee]

In what sense does this confirm a biblical story?

In the same sense that it confirmed my horoscope when I met a stranger last week.

-

Re: Linear A

[blindbat]

Because historically, historians rejected everything in the Bible about the Hittites until archeologists uncovered their cities. Same kind of thing, multiple examples.

So are the Nazis...

[Lars T.]

on Professor Jones's back already?

I'd be skeptical

[Jeff DeMaagd]

The last time there was a find that "confirmed" a Bible story was actually found to be a fraud. I am trying to recall the specifics, it was the container that said something to the effect of "James, son of Josef, brother of Yeshua". Someone had etched the names and tried to pass it off as real. This happened in the last few years.

In short, I would wait for independent confirmation.

Re:I'd be skeptical

[digitect]

Google is your friend:

• Is this ossuary proof of Jesus, or is it spurious?
• Was James' Ossuary Found In Israel? The Story Of A Really Neat Hoax
• The Stone Box
• Burial Box of St. James Found?
• Experts Say Burial Box for 'Brother of Jesus' is a Forgery

Re:I'd be skeptical

[Physician]

Sorry to inform you but there are still many experts in the field, including the editor of Biblical Archaeology Review, who believe the James ossuary to be real. What do you expect the Israel Antiquities Authority's position to be? I highly doubt they would ever want to support the existence of Jesus as it would undermine the Jewish religion.

Re: I'd be skeptical

[Black Parrot]

> Sorry to inform you but there are still many experts in the field

How many? And who are they?

> including the editor of Biblical Archaeology Review, who believe the James ossuary to be real. What do you expect the Israel Antiquities Authority's position to be? I highly doubt they would ever want to support the existence of Jesus as it would undermine the Jewish religion.

So the IAA's position is based on religious belief, but Shanks' position is completely untainted? What is your evidence for that claim?

Also, why would the ossuary, if real, undermine the Jewish religion? Does the Jewish religion deny James' existence?

Re:I'd be skeptical

[iamlucky13]

It was discovered in the last couple of years, but the forgery was supposed to have happened sometime in the first millenium. It made a bunch of hype because there have been some claims, generally regarded as unimportant by protestant Christians and flat-out rejected by Catholic theology, that Jesus had siblings. However, as with the discovery of the name Goliath, even if it's genuine there are other possibilities. It could've been another man named "Yeshua." It could've been a non-literal use of the term "brother" (Paul often used brother to address fellow Christians), etc. Similarly, this could be the Goliath that got owned by David, it could be some other dead guy named Goliath, or it could be part of a newstablet with confusing superlative adjectives like "Goliath skyscraper" or "Liliputian circuits."

Re: I'd be skeptical

[Physician]

It's not the fact that the ossuary states "James, son of Joseph" that has the archaeology world abuzz, it's the fact that it also states "brother of Jesus".

Re: I'd be skeptical

[Black Parrot]

> It's not the fact that the ossuary states "James, son of Joseph" that has the archaeology world abuzz, it's the fact that it also states "brother of Jesus".

And?

Does the Jewish religion deny the existence of Jesus?

What Summary Should Have Said

[Somegeek]

First Archaeological Evidence of the Name Goliath

A shard of pottery found in southern Israel was inscribed with what is believed to be the original form of the name Goliath. The shard dates from about 900 BC. and is from the supposed hometown of Goliath of the biblical story of David and Goliath. Before this discovery there had not been any evidence outside of the Bible that the name Goliath had ever been used in ancient Israel.

How common is that name

[PIPBoy3000]

What's interesting is that they're jumping to the conclusion that this somehow proves the Bible story. What if Goliath was like "Bob" or "John" and was very common?

Re:How common is that name

[WaterBreath]

If "Goliath" was a common name in Philistine culture, one would assume that archaeologists/anthropologists focused on this region and that time period would have recovered other artifacts with that name on it. This particular archaeologist is quoted as saying that this is the first real evidence that the name was actually used in Philistine culture at any point in history.

That doesn't remove the possiblity that the archaeologist is biased. However, lacking any information about the man, we can't really make a guess one way or another. I'd say we should lend the same credence to the core of this article (not the hype, mind you), as we would to any other "first-word" about a new archaeological find. In short, it's interesting that at some point in history someone named Goliath may have existed. And it is interesting that if this much is verified by peer review, that the man might possibly have served as at least partial inspiration for the Biblical account. But beyond that... What's the point of reporting it this way or at this time?

If you ask me, the real fault here lies with Reuters for the manner of the reporting. I'm sure it was worded as it was specifically because they knew that both Christians looking for evidence to back up their beliefs, and non-Christians watching out for religiously inspired pseudoscience, would inevitably want to read all about such claims.

I hate reading about archaeological finds of any sort in pop science or general news publications. As with any for-profit news organization, articles are almost universally worded to maximize readership, not the availability of factual information.

Re: How common is that name

[Black Parrot]

> If "Goliath" was a common name in Philistine culture, one would assume that archaeologists/anthropologists focused on this region and that time period would have recovered other artifacts with that name on it.

Is Philistine culture actually well enough attested for that claim to be valid?

How many Philistine names do we have on artifacts?

Re:How common is that name

[maharvey]

You're the only one jumping to conclusions. The whole point of the story is that the name was previously unknown, certainly uncommon, which cast doubt on the story. Nobody said anything about it being THE Goliath.

Awful, awful summary

[benploni]

Not only is this only about the existence of the name Goliath, not the character in the famous story, but even the name is iffy.

Anthropology Jokes

[Anonymous Coward]

I once saw a notice posted in an Anthro Dept at a major university:

Diggers needed for Archeological Site...

Somone had scrawled "We are Digroes Not Diggers" on it.

Below that, someone else had written "No, we are Anthro-Americans."

Anthropolgists date flakes.

Re:Anthropology Jokes

[Anonymous Coward]

Would have been funnier if someone had scrawled "We are digga's, not diggers"

I-ight, nigga gone

Slashdot article? Linguistics@Home?

[jd]

There are MANY undeciphered languages. I only know of a very tiny handful - Etruscan, Indus/Harappa script, Rongo Rongo, Linear A, the mysterious Phaistos Disk, Pictish, Vina / Old European, Proto-Elamite and Old Elamite. I firmlyt believe all of these are computationally solvable (with the possible exception of the infamous disk, they are definitely not One Time Pads) and some of the cracked languages HAVE been solved on computer.

The latter, methinks, is worthy of a good Slashdot story. The former - if anyone would be interested - might be doable using massively distributed computing, the same way that SETI@Home and Distributed.Net are. Not everything is going to be solved by philologists and linguists and even when it is, it is because they eventually saw patterns they recognized. Pattern recognition is something computers are good at and so computers should be extremely useful tools (at the least) for such decipherments.

Relevance?

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article:

"Up until now most of what we know about the Philistines is from the Bible's point of view. ... We get a very, very subjective view. They're the bad people, the barbarians, we don't get anything nice about them," he said.

"When we look at the Philistines from an archaeological point of view we get evidence of a very rich, dynamic, fascinating and advanced culture."

What will be said of the Palestinians in a few thousand years?

Re:Relevance?

[adavies42]

You know where the word "Palestine" comes, from, right?