Slashdot Mirror


Explorer Plans Hunt For Genghis Khan's Long-Lost Tomb

Velcroman1 writes "The tomb of brutal Mongolian emperor Genghis Khan — the one who created the world's most powerful empire by raiding and invading across Eurasia, not Kirk's nemesis — is a lost treasure archaeologists have sought for years. And one man thinks he knows where it is. Last fall Alan Nichols, the president of The Explorers Club, mapped out possible locations for the tomb of Khan (also known as Chinnggis Qa'an). His hypothesis: Khan's tomb is located in the Liupan Mountains in Northern China, where the emperor who was born in 1162 and is said to have perished from an arrow wound in August 1227. Next fall, Nichols plans the next phase of his research: pinpointing Khan's exact resting place. 'Ghengis Khan's tomb is my obsession,' Nichols, a noted authority on the emperor, said recently. 'I couldn't stop thinking about it. But I'm not happy just reading about it, or knowing about it. I need to have my feet on it.'"

243 comments

  1. This is not the tomb you seek! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    *gestures*

    1. Re:This is not the tomb you seek! by bob_super · · Score: 2

      Wrong Harrison Ford franchise
      Considering the size of his empire, I'm surprised there hasn't been an Indiana Jones (let's say a fourth movie, since the third was really good) about preventing the Nazis from finding it.

    2. Re:This is not the tomb you seek! by Sique · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Probably because everything Indiana Jones seeks for has religious motives (and I include the aliens in the fourth one into religion) and magical powers. Gengis Khan instead is mainly a historical and political person. If there are any religious connotations around him, then they are without any real relevance to us. Gengis Khan might play a role in shamanistic rituals for mongolian tribes, but the main intended audience of Indiana Jones movies are not mongolians.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    3. Re: This is not the tomb you seek! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you cheat dr jones

    4. Re: This is not the tomb you seek! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Shadow (1995) begs to differ.

    5. Re:This is not the tomb you seek! by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Dunno - given the sheer number of cultures that the Mongols absorbed, there's likely something in there somewhere (even Orthodox or Nestorian if you want to stay Christian about the artifact in question.)

      As a bonus, instead of Nazis**, he could hunt it down before the Japanese Army gets it (given that they started invading China and Mongolia as early as the mid-1930s), or if you want to make minds go 'splodey, get it before the Red Army does, and have it be the (way) earliest bit of Cold War action.

      ** incidentally, the Nazis did launch a real-world expedition into Tibet and roundabouts looking for the whole racial origin thing, so they'd work as bad guys too, depending on what specific region in Asia we're talking about (though Khan's tomb would likely no longer be of much relevance, methinks.)

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    6. Re: This is not the tomb you seek! by Sique · · Score: 1

      The Shadow does not in any way implore Gengis Khan as a plot vehicle or a religious symbol.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    7. Re: This is not the tomb you seek! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Lurk moar.

      I was speaking of the movie.

      Quote : Cranston is challenged by Shiwan Khan (John Lone), another student of the Tulku who possesses even sharper powers, but had successfully resisted redemption and hence had stayed evil. Khan is the last descendant of Genghis Khan and plans to fulfill his ancestor's goal of world domination. He offers Cranston an alliance, sensing that bloodlust and a thirst for power still exist in his heart,

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shadow_(1994_film)

    8. Re:This is not the tomb you seek! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know; if warehouse 13 had been allowed to continue they may have eventually found that "Genghis Khan's sword" was an artifact...

    9. Re:This is not the tomb you seek! by Sique · · Score: 0
      I don't think you really understood what I meant.

      Of course we can construct some religious importance into Gengis Khan even for Westerners, but in general, there is none right now, quite different from the Ark of the Covenant or the Chalice of the Last Supper. You don't need any lenghty explanation (to us iudaeo-christian westerners) why those two objects could have world threatening magical powers. And aliens with supernatural abilities are a wellknown plot vehicle anyway, so no need to construct something new in the fourth movie either. The three crystals in the Temple of Doom were not hunted for by Nazis, making this movie quite different to the three others. In this movie, the power of the artifact is confined to the environment of the village and the Temple, which plays down on the magical abilities and thus saves the movie from a lengthy explanation of the importance of the artifact.

      So either Indiana Jones and the Skull of the Khan is more like Temple of Doom (no Nazis, no World Domination from access to the Artifact), or it would be quite different from the current movie plots.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    10. Re: This is not the tomb you seek! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    11. Re:This is not the tomb you seek! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are no "bad guys," only bad actions.

    12. Re:This is not the tomb you seek! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      let me just say... omg STFU!~

      religious motives,.. take off the tinfoil you tard. -and i mean tard in the worst way possible.

    13. Re:This is not the tomb you seek! by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      As a bonus, instead of Nazis**, he could hunt it down before the Japanese Army gets it (given that they started invading China and Mongolia as early as the mid-1930s), or if you want to make minds go 'splodey, get it before the Red Army does, and have it be the (way) earliest bit of Cold War action.

      Ooh, and Doolitle's raid on Japan, while publicly described as a morale-booster for post Pearl Harbor America and a propaganda tool in Japan, was actually designed to distract the Japanese military from pursuit of the Khan artifacts!

      You could even say the reason the bomber crews ditched in China wasn't really about the inability to land bombers on a carrier at all... it was to tie up those Japanese ground troops who ended up hunting the Americans.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    14. Re:This is not the tomb you seek! by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      There are no "bad guys," only bad actors.

      FTFY.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    15. Re:This is not the tomb you seek! by xevioso · · Score: 1

      Why would you refer to him as a leotard? Is that an insult?

    16. Re:This is not the tomb you seek! by maestroX · · Score: 1

      Gengis Khan was a menacing rapist with children all over the place.
      This legend about invasions is actually more of an escape from the fury of scorned women.
      (and rest assure, the fugitive would feature the resemblance of sir 'i-crapped-in-my-pants')

    17. Re:This is not the tomb you seek! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the planes came from "Shangri-La", so that proves it!

    18. Re:This is not the tomb you seek! by eyenot · · Score: 1

      I doubt there was much religious significance or magical power behind Nirhachi's ashes. Jones only found possession of the ashes to negotiate with Lao Che for the diamond. So was there some religious or magical significance of that diamond? It looks more like just some diamond, but, you never know. It did disappear from the movie pretty fast. Ha-ha!

      At any rate, Temple of Doom is supposed to be a prequel. Maybe the experiences in that film made him believe more in the metaphysical? I don't know the canon too well so I'll just stop there. Nobody likes speculative backstory that doesn't fit canon. And thanks to Young Indiana Jones, there's plenty of canon.

      --
      "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
    19. Re:This is not the tomb you seek! by eyenot · · Score: 1

      So, I looked into it.

      As it turns out, it was largely what I suspected. The diamond, known as The Peacock's Eye, is written as once being in the possession of Alexander the Great. Jones had an interest in the diamond from a purely treasure-seeking motivation. It wasn't until he gave up his original search for the treasure that he began attending University to become an archaeologist.

      Then he finds an ad offering the diamond as payment for another archeological treasure: the ashes of the first emperor of Manchu China. This could be religiously significant, considering Chinese ancestor-worship.

      Perhaps it was all about the possibility of getting this treasure he'd been after for some time. Maybe it didn't really hold any other significance for him.

      Anyways. You make an interesting point, [grandparent post]. Every other treasure that Jones sought after was religious or magickal in significance.

      --
      "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
    20. Re:This is not the tomb you seek! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you refer to him as a leotard? Is that an insult?

      Dan Savage seems to think so.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savage_Love

  2. after all these years by deodiaus2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Will it be possible to identify his tomb after all these years? How are we sure that even if we find such an ornately decorated tomb, that Khan is the one buried there, instead of some relative or whatnot. I don't know, but many cultures have superstitions about their corpse in the afterlife, so that might be a motivation to "hide" the real corpse?

    1. Re:after all these years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would it matter?

    2. Re:after all these years by fredrated · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Phillip of Macedon's tomb was found and identified. Science can do amazing things.

    3. Re:after all these years by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 5, Funny

      If the remains are genetically related to half of Eurasia, it's the real Genghis.

    4. Re:after all these years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      http://archive.archaeology.org/online/features/macedon/

    5. Re:after all these years by fredrated · · Score: 2

      Thanks for the update; since determined it wasn't Phillip after all.

    6. Re:after all these years by tibit · · Score: 3, Informative

      We may not be able to identify his tomb, but sure as heck we can identify his ancestors! It so happens that this guy had about half a thousand children that have descendants that survive today. Rape and pillage he did, allrighty. There's more than ten million of those descendants alive today, by the way. Genetics for the win, I say.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    7. Re:after all these years by Rinikusu · · Score: 4, Informative

      Khan has a unique genetic marker that could be identified in a DNA test: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/11/science/a-prolific-genghis-khan-it-seems-helped-people-the-world.html

      That would at least narrow him down to his family, if found.

      I always thought, though, that Genghis chose a "true" Mongol's burial: dragged on a pallet up a mountain, left where his body slid off the pallet and then fair game for all the critters of the wild to pick clean...

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    8. Re:after all these years by avandesande · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ghengis was known for breaking many Mongol social customs which is one of the reasons he was so successful. The legend goes that in an effort to hide the tomb all of the workers were executed and then the soldiers familiar with the area were killed as well....

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    9. Re:after all these years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously, the tomb with a massive gold throne and a **load of dead people is the right one. If I recall correctly, they executed everyone involved in the construction and burial, then killed the executioners just in case.

    10. Re:after all these years by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yep, they also found King Richard under a car park. Really, if you want a tomb to last you have to go with a pyramid.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    11. Re:after all these years by HighOrbit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your original point still stands, since it was Philip's son also named Philip. Positivly identified and older than Ghengis Khan to boot by about 1,500 years.

    12. Re:after all these years by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There' a really good foreign film about his life. He defeats his childhood enemy during a thunderstorm because he is the first Mongol not afraid of lightning and his bravery inspired his soldiers and freaked out the enemy. Later his enemy asks why he (as a Mongol) is not afraid of lightning and he replies "You forced me to live outside as a child". They still have his "royal staff" in a museum somewhere, it's a long pole with rings mounted on it. One tail hair from each horse in his army is tied to the rings, he had enough hair to make the pole look like some sort of shop display for wigs.. It was a far more impressive symbol of power than a jewel encrusted gold stick.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    13. Re:after all these years by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Will it be possible to identify his tomb after all these years?

      It's the one with the headstone engraved with "Kahn, G."

      Duh.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    14. Re:after all these years by avandesande · · Score: 1

      I highly recommend "Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World" by Jack Weatherford if you are interested.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    15. Re:after all these years by peragrin · · Score: 2

      I don't know the first emperor of china managed to be buried with his army and that is still around.

      Hiding under a mountain means that most people will walk all over it and not see it which prevents "most" tomb raiders (just not the hot chick, skin tight clothes wearing variety)

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    16. Re:after all these years by kamapuaa · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Genghis Khan didn't break many social customs. He was a product of his culture, just more successful than others. He wasn't the first to create a Mongol confederation and attempt to take over the known world, his uncle had done the same thing.

      The hidden tomb idea is a classic Chinese move (literally). Probably other cultures as well. But not a Mongol custom, which didn't have a large social structure of ditch diggers. He theoretically may have done it, but it seems likely it was just conflated with all the Chinese emperors who did the same thing.

      Mongols wouldn't have done a sky burial, where the body is consumed by animals. That's a move of (modern) Tibetan Buddhism, and Genghis Khan was not a Tibetan Buddhist.

      It is known that his tribe buried people in unmarked graves, and that this is what Genghis Khan asked for. It's likely what happened to him.

      The idea that Genghis Khan came to power because he was the first Mongol not afraid of thunderstorms is infantile.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    17. Re:after all these years by metlin · · Score: 1

      What's the name of the film? I'm now curious.

    18. Re:after all these years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We may not be able to identify his tomb, but sure as heck we can identify his ancestors

      Strangely, that is about his descendants and not his ancestors.

    19. Re:after all these years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You completely misunderestimate the power of climate change.

    20. Re:after all these years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comment confuses and frightens me. It makes no real sense. I guess you're talking about how climate change motivated attacks on China by Mongols, which doesn't invalidate or really relate to anything I said.

      Sure that may have been a factor, but those attacks had already happened for a long time, with a great amount of success. The Great Wall of China was built to ward off attacks from Mongolia, 1500 years+ before. Mongols would go on to conquer China hundreds of years after the Khans.

    21. Re:after all these years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to Chinese histories, Qin Shi Huangdi's tomb was heavily raided by Xiang Yu, the destroyer of the Qin dynasty, only 4 years after Shi Huangdi's funeral. If that account is correct, the terracotta warriors were somehow left untouched. That is not strange, though: those warriors are big, and can't have been worth much to Xiang Yu and his gang. They would have made off with more compact, valuable loot like jewels, precious metals, fine cloth, etc., abandoning the terracotta men to guard an empty tomb.

      I know that the Chinese archaeologists believe that tomb raiding were limited, and the main section of the tomb appear to be untouched. I'd be overjoyed if they are right, but I wouldn't bet on it.

    22. Re:after all these years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a Russian movie called Mongol: The Rise of Genghis Khan. Very good movie. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0416044/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

    23. Re:after all these years by IOIOIO · · Score: 1

      There' a really good foreign film about his life.

      To the more knowledgeable: this movie is almost completely wrong on almost everything. I cannot understand how people with reading ability were able to produce such a movie and call the central person D. K. 99.9% of all "facts" provided are wrong. Asade from that, it's a nice fairytale where the people bear names from early mongol histroy.

      There is not a single movie who deals with D.K. in a bearable way. Good book: J. Curtain, The Mongols: A History, Foreword from T. Roosevelt (1905), and other books mentioned in the thread

    24. Re:after all these years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know the first emperor of china managed to be buried with his army and that is still around.

      I do.

    25. Re:after all these years by tibit · · Score: 1

      I meant descendants, you oversensitive clod ;)

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    26. Re:after all these years by avandesande · · Score: 1

      He dispensed with many of the tribal customs to build his army based on the decimal system and absorbing conquered tribes, controlling looting and a host of other things.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    27. Re:after all these years by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      None of the Egyptian kings were buried in the pyramids.

  3. I couldn't stop thinking about it. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

    "But I'm not happy just reading about it, or knowing about it. I need to have my feet on it.'"

    Sounds liike somebody needs to double up on their meds.

    Better Living Through Chemistry

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    1. Re:I couldn't stop thinking about it. by operagost · · Score: 1

      Wow... so the term "lab rat" is quite apt.

      Archaeologists are a bit more hands-on.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  4. What about Jesus's ? by deodiaus2 · · Score: 0

    Next story, some Jewish archaeologist will claim to have found Jesus's body!

    1. Re:What about Jesus's ? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 0

      1. Don't be dumb, it'd be bones if anything.
      2. Bogus religious related "finds"(that duplicate previous bogus religious related finds) happen basically every few months.

    2. Re:What about Jesus's ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Virtually all historians, whether Christian, atheist or of some other religion, hold that a man Jesus existed, even if his biography is just so much myth accreted around the historical figure.

    3. Re:What about Jesus's ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      >Genghis Khan existed. Jesus not.

      Jesus is everywhere, tending gardens across the United States. Cash only.

    4. Re:What about Jesus's ? by aristotle-dude · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Genghis Khan existed. Jesus not.

      That's the difference.

      Repeating a fallacy often does not make it true.

      Very few reputable scholar who have no axe to grind dispute that there was a historical Jesus figure.

      If I had a dime for every time I saw the same thing stated verbatim, I would be a very rich man.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    5. Re:What about Jesus's ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, my plumber next door Jesus Hernandez is a man named Jesus.

      Life of Brian, anyone?

    6. Re:What about Jesus's ? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      Genghis Khan existed. Jesus not.

      There is strong evidence that Jesus existed. He may not have been divine, but he was almost certainly a real person.

    7. Re:What about Jesus's ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wikipedia:

      Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that a historical Jesus existed.

      Where's your evidence that he didn't? You are either trolling or dumb.

    8. Re:What about Jesus's ? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 2, Informative

      >Virtually all historians, whether Christian, atheist or of some other religion, hold that a man Jesus existed, even if his biography is just so much myth accreted around the historical figure.

      All the honest ones are clear that there is no direct evidence and many of the myths clearly relate to different people at different times. There have been many people names Jesus. With high probability, there has never been magic Jesus, born of a virgin, 2000 years ago, who could perform miracles.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    9. Re:What about Jesus's ? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Wikipedia page talks plenty about how convinced scholars are (who have a vested interest in that answer) but doesn't actually cite any evidence. It doesn't pass the sniff test.
       

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    10. Re:What about Jesus's ? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      And to think, this imaginary person will have a greater effect on Mankind than you'll ever have. That is the true power of magic!

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    11. Re:What about Jesus's ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was my gardener.

    12. Re:What about Jesus's ? by RenderSeven · · Score: 1

      There are too many gaps in the historical record for him to be made up. If he was fiction there would be better records.

    13. Re: What about Jesus's ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Some insignificant farm boy whose mother lied about her adultery (and who got away with it) probably existed somewhere in the Judea/Palestine area.

      It's probably the longest running joke ever.

      Joseph : "Darling, why are you pregnant? You had headache since month!"

      Maria : "Well Joseph" *blushes, thinks quickly* "there was that light...and...and he said lie down...and he is divine....and. Well our baby will be a god"

      Joseph. "Awesome. Well done"

      Maria "...."

      Christianity. The only religion to be founded on either rape or adultery. And a big lie. And condemns both as sins.

    14. Re:What about Jesus's ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that pink unicorns existed.

      Where's your evidence that they didn't? You are either trolling or dumb.

      FTFY

    15. Re:What about Jesus's ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He wasn't a messiah, just a very naughty boy.

    16. Re:What about Jesus's ? by alexander_686 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The guy cited the wrong source. Here is a better one:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_Historicity_of_Jesus

      Basically what it boils down to is that there are multiple independent sources attesting to his existence.
      See Q Source and the Gospel of Mark. Or the Gospel of Thomas. Those are the 2 big ones I can think of. I will grant you that they were oral traditions before being written traditions. I will grant you that there are differences and contradictions between the various sources. But the differences are consistent with the way that oral history spreads.

    17. Re:What about Jesus's ? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The Wikipedia page talks plenty about how convinced scholars are (who have a vested interest in that answer) but doesn't actually cite any evidence

      You need to improve your reading comprehension skills. The passage cites a reference to Roman documents that mention the crucifixion of Jesus. What are you expecting? A giant Iridium plated monument that says "Jesus Was Here"? Jesus had a tremendous influence on future generations, but very, very little on his own generation. So there is little contemporaneous evidence, just like there is little direct evidence that 99.99% of any other specific first century individuals existed. But Christianity began to take off when there were still people alive that would have had a memory of him, and there were plenty of opponents of what, at the time, was an extremist cult. Yet none of them denied that he had lived.

      There is strong, but not conclusive, evidence that he was a real person. There is no evidence that his existence was fabricated. Many of his disciples were tortured and crucified, yet they refused to denounce him. Why would they do that, for something that (in your opinion) they had made up?

    18. Re:What about Jesus's ? by bitt3n · · Score: 3, Funny

      Genghis Khan existed. Jesus not.

      There is strong evidence that Jesus existed. He may not have been divine, but he was almost certainly a real person.

      Imagine if Jesus had hooked Genghis up with his breakthrough water-walking technology. Khan could have taken over the entire world. 100% of the earth's population would be related to him, rather than 10% of Asia or whatever it is. You couldn't ask a girl out without then discovering she's some distant relative. Earth would become Planet Redneck.

    19. Re:What about Jesus's ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was trying to find out who these "all modern scholars of antiquity" were and found out they were just 4 questionable citations on a wiki page....

    20. Re:What about Jesus's ? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 2

      Actually it is the response of people to other people that has had a great effect.

      At least I can claim to have done less damage. Yet.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    21. Re:What about Jesus's ? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure which logical fallacy that one falls into. Maybe we need a new one.
          The fallacy of the missing documentation.
      It could work for software too.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    22. Re: What about Jesus's ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO ONE is a messiah.

    23. Re:What about Jesus's ? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      That's the way it is.

      Most historians have more important things to deal with, like, for example: history.

      There is a vanishingly small proportion of historians who run around arguing about the evidence for the New Testament Jesus, and they write an awful lot about very weak secondary sources.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    24. Re:What about Jesus's ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very few reputable scholar who have no axe to grind dispute that there was a historical Jesus figure.

      Very few reputable scholars would bother on that topic at all; they have better things to do then butt heads with butt heads.

    25. Re:What about Jesus's ? by higuita · · Score: 2

      You know, it's always hard to prove things, just by accounting other people stories. To really prove something you have to show evidences!

      Now prove that Genghis Kahn existed!!! It's not easy, and remember that he is +1000 years more recent.
      Lets do the opposite... prove that Hercules/ Héracles didn't exist.

      when all you have are stories, it's very hard to prove anything. Yes, you can prove some events, but what come first, the event or the story/person?

      by the way, do you really exist? are you sure!! prove it!! -> cogito ergo sum :D

      --
      Higuita
    26. Re:What about Jesus's ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are too many gaps in the historical record for him to be made up.

      I'm not sure which logical fallacy that one falls into.

      Works for macro-evolution too.

    27. Re:What about Jesus's ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you do realize that earth is already planet redneck. Due to pedigree collapse we are all related in one way or another.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedigree_collapse

    28. Re:What about Jesus's ? by lgw · · Score: 1

      Jesus was a hugely important figure in history, though barely so in his lifetime, and many people who were alive when he was purported to be have written about him. There's as much evidence that he existed as, say, Socrates. It's as conclusive as historical evidence ever is, when all you ever have to go on is contemporary writing.

      When you have several people arguing about public speeches the guy made, and none of his detractors claiming he's fictional (you'd think people arguing against his positions would have pointed that out, somewhere along the way), that's about as good as it gets.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    29. Re:What about Jesus's ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While a common misconception, this is not true at all.

    30. Re:What about Jesus's ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Do you have a source on this? Any time this myth is repeated, it all goes back to Tacitus and has been debunked time and time again. You should actually do some research instead of just repeating things you've heard. The "most historians agree there was a Jesus" line hasn't been true for a long time, if ever.

    31. Re:What about Jesus's ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy cited the wrong source. Here is a better one:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_Historicity_of_Jesus

      Basically what it boils down to is that there are multiple independent sources attesting to his existence.
      See Q Source and the Gospel of Mark. Or the Gospel of Thomas. Those are the 2 big ones I can think of. I will grant you that they were oral traditions before being written traditions. I will grant you that there are differences and contradictions between the various sources. But the differences are consistent with the way that oral history spreads.

      "Jesus" who? "Mark" who? "Thomas" who? Let's see last names and living descendants of these questionable characters.

    32. Re:What about Jesus's ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you'll grant us that it's completely contradictory and written well after everyone involved was dead, yet you still choose to use it as a confirmed source? Are kids today retarded or something? Do they just not teach this stuff anymore?

    33. Re:What about Jesus's ? by cusco · · Score: 1

      There is no contemporaneous documentation of the existence of Jesus, the closest thing is Josephus, writing about his disciples seventy years later. On the other hand, there is abundant documentation of Genghis Khan from people who had met him personally and official documents from the time of his rule. Cities he built and trading posts he had established exist to this day.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    34. Re:What about Jesus's ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The passage cites a reference to Roman documents that mention the crucifixion of Jesus.

      It cites Roman documents written well after it supposedly happened and after the myth of Jesus became fairly popular. Hopefully you don't need to be reminded why this does not count. I wouldn't really put it past this crowd these days, however.

      There is no evidence that his existence was fabricated.

      This is a flat out lie. There is ample evidence that Jesus (and of course the Christian God) are modeled after various ancient mythologies. A little Egyptian influence here, some Greek there, basically all the same story. You take that away and you're left with nothing whatsoever. No historical record, nothing.

    35. Re:What about Jesus's ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Wikipedia page talks plenty about how convinced scholars are (who have a vested interest in that answer)

      Smells like a global warming denialist: all those experts have vested interest, all their evidence is fake. Next thing you tell me Mohamed, Hubbard and the last 3 popes did not exist either, there are a ton of religious figures in the past that all existed, the only question is what about them is true and what fiction and never if they themselves where fiction. Why would Jesus get special treatment?

    36. Re:What about Jesus's ? by alexander_686 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Let’s consider you point. What is your Epistemology in this situation?

      Do you reject evolution? It’s got massive holes. There are bits that don’t (yet) make sense. Yet I still believe it because of the strong evidence. The holes take some extrapolation to move from point to point, but the logic to do so is consistent.

      Or, let’s choose an example more on point. Should I disbelieve in Socrates? Like Jesus no primary source material exists. None of his writings exist. Should I take the position that he was just the figment of somebody’s imagination?

    37. Re:What about Jesus's ? by Livius · · Score: 1

      There had to have been at least one - if I recall 'Jesus' was Aramaic for 'Joe' or some such.

      Which makes sense if you are going to invent a religion where the whole point is that the hero is an average Joe...

    38. Re:What about Jesus's ? by snakeplissken · · Score: 1

      There are too many gaps in the historical record for him to be made up

      ah, the old "god of the gaps argument";
      oh, wait, hang on...

    39. Re:What about Jesus's ? by ruir · · Score: 1

      The point is behind the scriptures, are there actually any of the multiple living historians at the time, talking about Jesus? There were already written records at the time...

    40. Re:What about Jesus's ? by RenderSeven · · Score: 2

      Actually I was thinking more along the lines of Hitchhikers, and Oolon Colluphid Jr's trilogy of philosophical blockbusters: Where Jesus Went Wrong, Some More of Jesus's Greatest Mistakes, and Who Is This Jesus Person, Anyway? "I refuse to prove that I exist", says Jesus, "for proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing." "But", says Man, "a complete historical record would be a dead giveaway wouldnt it? So an INCOMPLETE record proves you exist, and therefore you dont, QED."

    41. Re:What about Jesus's ? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      It cites Roman documents written well after it supposedly happened and after the myth of Jesus became fairly popular.

      Jesus's crucifixion was stated as a known fact by a Roman senator that would have had access to source documents. Is that absolute mathematical proof that Jesus existed? Of course not. But it is certainly strong evidence.

      There is no evidence that his existence was fabricated.

      This is a flat out lie. There is ample evidence that Jesus (and of course the Christian God) are modeled after various ancient mythologies.

      Look, not one here is claiming that there is "strong evidence" that Jesus was divine. Just that he was an actual person. Mormonism was based on preexisting Christian beliefs. That doesn't mean that Joseph Smith wasn't a real person.

    42. Re: What about Jesus's ? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      How to remember the order of the planets:

      [M]ary's
      [V]irgin
      [E]xcuse
      [M]ade
      [J]oseph
      [S]uspect
      [U]pstairs
      [N]eighbour

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    43. Re:What about Jesus's ? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      There were multiple references to a person who could be Jesus, but it's also at least as likely that there were a number of similar figures spread over years that could have been converted to a single hybrid single person.

      That's right, Jesus was his own disciple.

    44. Re:What about Jesus's ? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I've seen the gaps explained by multiple figures at around the same time. What if 2000 years from now, David Koresh and Jim Jones are confused and considered one person. After all, there are multiple records of a mass-suicide under a Jesus-like religious leader. That there are some minor inconsistencies and such means it's too true to be a fiction, thus David Koresh *must be* Jim Jones.

    45. Re:What about Jesus's ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's worse that that, based on funery inscription the most popular 1st century Jewish names were VERY common, with several over 10%, incl Yeshua (Jesus)

      Similarly for girls names, with Mirrim (Mary) at app 14%

      In comparison the most common American boys name is Peter at app 2.5%...

    46. Re:What about Jesus's ? by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

      Yes, there are written records from that time but they are not many. Historians (or even journalist), as a class barely existed. Paper was expensive. And a couple of wars, rebellions, sieges etc. destroyed much of what existed. The existence and execution of a single preacher is not something that would normally be captured. Jesus was (probably) not that well know during his lifetime.

      It is one of the reasons why the Dead Sea Scrolls are so important. From an absolute viewpoint there is not a lot there. From a relative viewpoint, since so little exists from that era, it was a huge find.

    47. Re:What about Jesus's ? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1
      There is much more "proof" of the existence of Socrates than Jesus. For all we know, Jesus was a mosaic of multiple near-contemporaries.

      There is no evidence that his existence was fabricated.

      What would that look like? Many consider LDS/Mormons to be "fabricated", as well as Xenu/Scientology. Yet, there is little evidence of fabrication.

    48. Re:What about Jesus's ? by RenderSeven · · Score: 1

      Bit of a woosh, I was just going for a +1 funny :-) I really know almost nothing about the 'gap' other than some History Channel dribble about how that was when he lived with the aliens. Is there really some reputable work explaining it? If you have a cite Id be interested.

      From your sig & handle, you from Alaska? Very cool, have always wanted to spend some time there.

    49. Re:What about Jesus's ? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      Jesus doesn't get special treatment. I'm saying the available evidence for the biblical Jesus is very weak. It is. That was the subject in the title.

      The evidence for the last 3 popes is considerably stronger but if you want that answer, start a thread about the existence of evidence for popes.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    50. Re:What about Jesus's ? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      I'm saying the available evidence for the biblical Jesus is very weak.

      That is NOT what you said. You said Jesus didn't exist. That is not claiming the evidence for his existence is weak, but that evidence for his nonexistence is strong. That is not the same thing at all.

    51. Re:What about Jesus's ? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Unless you consider the Bible "reputable" there isn't much that refers to that Jesus guy. The religious complain about how the records were poor back then, but nobody is confused about whether Socrates lived.

      I'm not "from" Alaska, for most definitions of "from". I was born in Dallas, lived 8 years in Alaska before moving out of the US. I got tired of the politics, and it's a better life outside the US (unless you measure "quality of life" by the size of the gun under your pillow). Alaska was nice. Winters in Anchorage aren't that bad. Better than MN or most of NY.

    52. Re:What about Jesus's ? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      B.S. I did not say Jesus didn't exist. I said it is very probable that a miracle casting Jesus born of a virgin never existed. Find me a modern day person that can perform miracles and I'll revise my opinion of a person performing miracles 2000 years ago.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    53. Re:What about Jesus's ? by maestroX · · Score: 1

      Imagine if Jesus had hooked Genghis up with his breakthrough water-walking technology. Khan could have taken over the entire world.
      100% of the earth's population would be related to him,

      No.

      --
      "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

    54. Re:What about Jesus's ? by SternisheFan · · Score: 1
      “Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.

      The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist,'" says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

      "But," says Man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

      "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

      "Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.”

      Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

    55. Re:What about Jesus's ? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      B-b-b-but Osiris is a Black God!

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    56. Re: What about Jesus's ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And before anyone asks what you used to remember Pluto before it was dropped, the answer is obvious
      [P]enis

    57. Re:What about Jesus's ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Genghis: "Uh, thanks, Jesus. But you see, we have to get our horses across the water, too..."

      Jesus: "*sigh* There's no pleasing some people."

    58. Re:What about Jesus's ? by tragedy · · Score: 1

      The religious complain about how the records were poor back then, but nobody is confused about whether Socrates lived.

      Actually, some scholars do think that Socrates may have actually been an allegorical construct of his "students", although there is little doubt that Aristotle and Plato existed. Most scholars still hold that Socrates probably did actually exist, but that his own writings haven't survived.

    59. Re:What about Jesus's ? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      There were lots of writings about Socrates. Aristophanes wrote an entire play about him, that seemed to match other writings about him. The large amount of contemporary writings support it.

    60. Re:What about Jesus's ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      show me the body.

      no corpse, didn't really live.

      the end.

    61. Re: What about Jesus's ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not familiar with the details here, but will say this:

      Writings based on other writings will tend to be similar, and many sources describing the same thing aren't all that useful if they're greatly postdated.

    62. Re: What about Jesus's ? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      "The Clouds" was written in Socrates supposed lifetime, and describes him. And not the only surviving written work from within his lifetime that references him. Nothing postdated here.

    63. Re:What about Jesus's ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet I still believe it because of the strong evidence.

      You don't need to believe in scientific theories, regardless of proof. You should accept them, but faith simply isn't required.

    64. Re:What about Jesus's ? by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

      Which is kind off point. Believing that Jesus lived – which is what we are talking about - is a point of evidence, not of faith.

      In evolution theory, there are 2 schools of thought: Natural selection and Lamarckism. Should we accept Lamarckism regardless of evidence? The theory has some attractions, regardless of the evidence against it. But no, we do not. Natural selection wins because the evidence is stronger.

      One would be hard pressed to put together a cohesive theory that Jesus did not exist. There are too many eye-witnesses accounts. To the point that Jesus was the son of God, the miracles, etc. – that is for faith.

    65. Re:What about Jesus's ? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Myths are nothing to do with the historical Jesus, that's pretty much in the definition.

      You won't have to tear up your atheist card for accepting that there was a political activist/philosopher who came a cropper for annoying the Romans (and some of the locals too) by suggesting that people should be nice to each other.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    66. Re:What about Jesus's ? by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 1

      Joshua, actually.

      --
      Dyolf Knip
    67. Re:What about Jesus's ? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      You cannot be sure of that hypothesis since we have no idea what the result otherwise would be, except your faith. Your life is not over, and we don't know the consequences of your choices will be, and I'm 100% sure you'll never know. However, blaming Jesus for what his followers do that was explicitly or implicitly against his teachings is hardly his fault.

      I suspect that you don't care about false equivalences, but here is a challenge for you, name one thing Jesus said or did that cause any harm to anyone, magical or otherwise?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    68. Re:What about Jesus's ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, we're related if you go back far enough. Enough generations back and you're related to the chicken you had for dinner last night.

    69. Re:What about Jesus's ? by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

      As to your question, where there multiple living historians at the time. And the answer is yes – kind of. As I have stated before, few documents from professional objective records are few and far between. What we do have is multiple different traditions. The 4 official gospels have at least 2. But there are a dozen other gospels which implies more and different sources.

      Which goes back to my earlier comment that the gospels having differences and contradictions. These differences are within the normal bonds of different oral traditions. If they were very similar this would imply a single source with all of the basis that come with stories from a single source.

    70. Re:What about Jesus's ? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 0

      >You cannot be sure of that hypothesis
      That's why it's called a hypothesis

      >name one thing Jesus said or did that cause any harm to anyone
      "Have faith"

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    71. Re:What about Jesus's ? by tragedy · · Score: 1

      He almost certainly was real, and the majority of scholars think so. I was just pointing out that even for Socrates, there is some doubt as to his existance. A better example for the original poster might have been Augustus Caesar. He was actually alive during the time that Jesus was said to be alive, although he died about 16 years before the majority of the events attributed to him in the bible are said to have taken place. In any case, there's pretty much zero question that Augustus Caesar existed. Interestingly some question the existance of his step-great-grandson Caligula. Caligula himself surely existed, but many of the details of his life have been obscured by political propaganda.

  5. Will the Host Country Cooperate? by Yahooti · · Score: 2

    Perhaps China has ideas of it own on this subject. I'd think they would want to do this search themselves.

    1. Re:Will the Host Country Cooperate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure China would be more than happy to allow the person to locate the tomb... Being able to take back anything of value from the dig would be a different story whatsoever.

      Countries are very possessive of historical artifacts, and any deals tend to go out the window when they get found.

    2. Re:Will the Host Country Cooperate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this goes anywhere but Mongolia, the Mongolians will probably invade China. I say this as a Mongolian.

    3. Re:Will the Host Country Cooperate? by xevioso · · Score: 1

      Well, you guys did it once, you can probably do it again.

    4. Re:Will the Host Country Cooperate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this goes anywhere but Mongolia, the Mongolians will probably invade China. I say this as a Mongolian.

      You will notice that the Chinese don't bother maintaining the Great Wall any more. They aren't afraid of Mongols now. Mongols tried to exterminate the Chinese and slaughtered millions (about 5 people every 10 minutes 24x7x365 for 12 years) and now they outnumber Mongols so badly you could kill 1000 a day for 1000 years and not make a dent in them. Then theres the copper deposits the only market for which is China, the Chinese laborers building all those apartments to try to get people out of the ger districts so they stop poisoning their own children with the smoke from their coal fires.

      The Uuvur Mongol (Inner Mongolia) are ruled by China but they still use the original script of Chinggis Khan while you guys use Cyrillic! They even use that script on TV, its everywhere.

      So yeah try invading the uumchi huijia and they will squash you like a bug and then rule 'outer Mongolia' as well and guess what? The quality of life will actually improve.

  6. Explorers Club? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like a branch of the Super Adventure Club. Hope the head explorer William P. Phinehas has been finally expelled.

  7. Obligatory... by the_skywise · · Score: 1

    http://www.khaaan.com/

    (Dopey Stupid slashdot filter kept blocking me from just typing it out... "too many caps makes it look like you're yelling" O'RLY?!)

  8. " I need to have my feet on it."..... by ClassicASP · · Score: 1

    (Indiana Jones voice) That's usually when the ground falls out from underneath your feet.

    1. Re:" I need to have my feet on it."..... by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      And 'X' never marks the spot.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:" I need to have my feet on it."..... by the_skywise · · Score: 1

      But have ye found the tapestries?!

    3. Re:" I need to have my feet on it."..... by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying it was aliens... ...but it was totally aliens.

      Damnit Spielberg, This isn't the History Channel!

  9. Khan the great lover by schneidafunk · · Score: 1

    Random fact, Khan has 16 million descendants.

    --
    Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
    1. Re:Khan the great lover by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      He lived well.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    2. Re:Khan the great lover by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 2

      I don't think 'lover' is the best descriptor of the man's behavior in conquered lands. He's basically history's most "successful" rapist.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    3. Re:Khan the great lover by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's basically history's most "successful" rapist.

      I wonder if that means there are 16million people who are genetically predisposed to rape?

    4. Re:Khan the great lover by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Straight people have gay offspring and vice versa. Genes do not fatalistically determine what people consciously do, they only increase probabilities, and then only slightly.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    5. Re:Khan the great lover by higuita · · Score: 1

      Actually he didn't need that... as the chief of a huge empire, many girls/women/families wanted to be connect to him, specially with kids, in hope to increase their power or guarantee the safety of their bloodlines

      --
      Higuita
    6. Re:Khan the great lover by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      He didn't need to , but was still a rapist

    7. Re:Khan the great lover by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Random fact, Khan has 16 million descendants.

      Great rapist...

      (there are stories that Mongol warriors gang-raping a woman, when they ran out of orifices to rape would take their knives and make improvised orifices to rape)

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  10. What about the US empire? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US government is the largest, most powerful, most expensive, most far-reaching government in world history, with military bases in some 150 countries around the world. Excuse me if I'm having difficulty understanding how Smalltime Khan's empire is bigger than the US government's -- by ANY measure.

    1. Re:What about the US empire? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Largest: He took over Russia and China. Russia is bigger then the US.

      Most Expensive: doubtful, as he had most of the world's wealth at the time

      most far-reaching government: Yeah, with space travel the US has this one.

      with military bases in some 150 countries around the world He had bases in exactly one country. That was his. And if they rebelled, he murdered everyone. Everyone.

      He was also carbon neutral:

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1350272/Genghis-Khan-killed-people-forests-grew-carbon-levels-dropped.html

    2. Re:What about the US empire? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not even the right empire to compare Gengis to. The British Empire was far larger, with everything completely under its control. The sun *still* has not set on it, since maybe sometime in the 17th or 18th century

    3. Re:What about the US empire? by tibit · · Score: 3, Informative

      LOL, Genghis Khan has way more up his sleeve than you give him credit for. Show me a U.S. president that had about a thousand 1st-generation descendants. 800 years later - today - Genghis has about 15 million descendants. This is based on hard science genetic testing, not historic record, by the way. An average male person living 800 years ago has a bit above 500 descendants living today.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    4. Re:What about the US empire? by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

      Do you consider power to a absolute or relative measure? If absolute one might be able to make the argument that Luxemburg was more power.

      If we are talking about relative, we are talking about one small tribe that was able to conquer Russia, China, raid Poland at will, etc. Nobody ever even came close at being able to match Khan’s army.

    5. Re:What about the US empire? by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Empire and Commonwealth are not the same. Whatever nominal fealty the Australians and Canadians claim to honor, that rubber hasn't met the road since WW2. How many Australian and Canadian military units assisted in the Fawklands War? Zero.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    6. Re:What about the US empire? by nogginthenog · · Score: 1

      Anonymous Coward is not talking about the Commonwealth: http://what-if.xkcd.com/48/

    7. Re:What about the US empire? by SecurityTheatre · · Score: 4, Informative

      While the thrust of the military power of the British empire is truly not what it was, he is accurate in saying that "the sun never sets". :-)

      Nobody really refers to it as an "empire" anymore, but in addition to Britain and Northern Ireland, the U.K. still controls territories including "Gibraltar, Bermuda, numerous Caribbean islands, Ascension, St. Helena, Tristan da Cunha, the Falkland Islands, and South Georgia." Some have argued that the sun finally set over the empire after the handover of Hong Kong in 1997. But some argue this view ignores two tiny but crucial territories which bridge the gab: the Pitcairn Islands in the South Pacific and the British Indian Ocean Territory -- also known as the Chagos Islands, where Britain and the United States maintain a joint military facility at Diego Garcia. The question is "on midwinter's day in the southern hemisphere, does the sun set over Pitcairn before it rises over Diego Garcia?"

      Here's what Peter Hammond's calculations found:
      ---
      [The] results allow for the refraction of the sun's rays when it is close to the horizon. They indicate that, on 21st June, the sun rises over Diego Garcia at 01:22 hrs GMT, more than half an hour before it sets over Pitcairn at 01:59 hrs GMT.
      Thanks to Diego Garcia (uninhabited except temporarily by various U.K. and U.S. military personnel) and to Pitcairn (population now about 50), the British Empire appears safe from sunsets for the time being.
      ---

    8. Re:What about the US empire? by Rational · · Score: 1

      Yeah, with space travel the US has this one.

      Well, maybe they will when they can ferry their own astronauts up to the ISS again...

      --
      "Be nice, veer left, and never stop thinking" Iain Banks - Walking On Glass
    9. Re:What about the US empire? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Is this why all those asians look the same?

    10. Re:What about the US empire? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a world history before 1776.

      Why don't you take a look at the size of his "empire" and determine what percentage of the world was under his control.

    11. Re:What about the US empire? by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1
    12. Re:What about the US empire? by Livius · · Score: 1

      Most expensive is not something to brag about.

    13. Re:What about the US empire? by Livius · · Score: 1

      Empire and Commonwealth are not the same

      ...today.

      I'm sure Anonymous Coward was referring to the British Empire at its height, in the early Twentieth Century.

      Same as the US meant the US empire before it started its journey of self-destruction after September 11th

    14. Re:What about the US empire? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure about that? I'm big into genealogy and my fifth great grandfather (born in late 1700s) has had more than 100,000 descendents. This isn't speculation. I have hard records to back that up. He had a brother who had/has even more descendents.

      My grandparents had 7 children and nearly 50 grandchildren. I'm the second oldest grandchild and my wife and I just had another child 5 months ago, so most of my cousins are still in their childbearing years. My grandparents already have nearly 200 great-granchildren and the first of those great-grandchildren are on the cusp of having their own children. I wouldn't be shocked if my grandmother lived to see 500 descendents since she is still going strong.

      500 descendents after 800 years sounds paltry.

    15. Re: What about the US empire? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you from Alabama?

    16. Re: What about the US empire? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Oregon. Though my family lives all over: so cali, nyc, singapore, texas, colorado, washington, so florida, minnesota, etc.

    17. Re: What about the US empire? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And, I know what you are thinking, that I come from a long line of white trash nut jobs. But the opposite is pretty much true. All of my grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc are college educated. I have a number of relatives that are college professors (including a physics professor), medical school professors, accountants, scientists (chemical engineers, material engineers, physicists, aerospace, etc), mathematicians, computer engineers, medical doctors, nurses, dentists, lawyers, teachers, government employees, economists, etc ad naseum. We are both intelligent and fertile (which I know many would say is an impossible contradiction).

    18. Re:What about the US empire? by tibit · · Score: 1

      100,000 descendants alive today? It's not about how many have lived over the years, it's about them alive today.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    19. Re:What about the US empire? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it has been about 150 years since my 5th great grandfather died. Obviously I have no idea how many of his descendants are alive today, but since this type of thing follows a geometric pattern, the majority of them must be alive currently.

  11. I used to be an adventurer like you by themushroom · · Score: 2

    until I took an arrow to the chest. (MongoliaRim)

  12. Not the cricketer either, then? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    the one who created the world's most powerful empire by raiding and invading across Eurasia, not Kirk's nemesis

    Thanks for pointing that out.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  13. I thought it was already found by canadiannomad · · Score: 1

    I'm certain the discovery was chronicled in the book "Treasure Of Khan" where Dirk Pitt ... oh wait ;)

    --
    Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
  14. The Rocking Son of Dschinghis Khan by wcrowe · · Score: 1

    He could try asking the Rocking Son of Dschinghis Khan.

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
  15. tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not to be confused, the birthplace is in (outer) Mongolia, Khentii province, not in Liupan Mountains in Northern China.
    Also note that Northern China mentioned here is probably referring to inner Mongolia.

  16. The Explorers Club, I had no idea by BringsApples · · Score: 2
    From their page:

    Founded in New York City in 1904, The Explorers Club promotes the scientific exploration of land, sea, air, and space by supporting research and education in the physical, natural and biological sciences. The Club’s members have been responsible for an illustrious series of famous firsts: First to the North Pole, first to the South Pole, first to the summit of Mount Everest, first to the deepest point in the ocean, first to the surface of the moon—all accomplished by our members.

    --
    Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    1. Re:The Explorers Club, I had no idea by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 2

      Wait a minute. They beat Neil Armstrong to the Moon?? Why didn't they tell anyone about that? They could have made a fortune off the merchandising rights, not to mention increased memberships.

      I guess they're better explorers than businessmen.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    2. Re:The Explorers Club, I had no idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    3. Re:The Explorers Club, I had no idea by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      all accomplished by our members.

      Perhaps not quite as awesome as it sounds if those people were invited to become members after the fact.

      Also someone there needs to explore their webserver and fix the broken links.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    4. Re:The Explorers Club, I had no idea by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Also L. Ron Hubbard was a member, so... there's that.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    5. Re:The Explorers Club, I had no idea by BringsApples · · Score: 1

      ...if those people were invited to become members after the fact

      Yeah I was thinking the same thing. Probably a lot of thumb-twirling at their meetings, then this dude pops up with "Ooo ooo I know what we can do...!"

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
  17. Please, NO, NO, NO! by Wdi · · Score: 2

    That guy is a rich retired lawyer, not an archeologist or historian. See his profile at

    http://www.explorers.org/index.php/about/explorers_club_president

    There are zero indications in the linked article that they plan to include any professionals on their expedition, and in his portrait there is no record that he has ever teamed up with such on previous endeavors. Looting or just damaging a tomb of this importance by amateurs, should it be found, would be an enormous cultural loss. A painstaking archeological dig would probably take 20 years and proceed with extreme caution. These guys do not look like they have the patience - to me they certainly look like they would prefer instant gratification and fame by brandishing a few choice artefacts from the tomb if they can find it.

    1. Re:Please, NO, NO, NO! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So he's Geraldo Rivera looking for Capone's crypt?

    2. Re:Please, NO, NO, NO! by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      That guy is a rich retired lawyer, not an archeologist or historian.

      That doesn't mean he won't find what it is he's looking for. For example, amateur retired businessman Heinrich Schliemann successfully found the city of Troy buried in Turkey: On the one hand, he didn't do a very good job of digging it up once he found it, but on the other hand nobody else was making a serious effort to look where he was looking because they mostly thought the Trojan War was just a cool story with no basis in actual events.

      So best of luck to him, so long as he gets advice from actual archeologists once he finds a site worth digging.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    3. Re:Please, NO, NO, NO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Genghis Khan is worshipped as a hero by modern Mongolians. I doubt they will allow him to excavate Genghis's tomb even if he actually finds it.

  18. Fox News "noted authority" by T.E.D. · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just because someone at Fox News put "Noted Authority" on the Chiron under a TV guest doesn't mean they know what they are talking about.

    I actually did a fair bit of research myself into this a few months back, to answer a question on History.SE. There is indeed a romantic notion of there being some undiscovered tomb with untold wealth in it. Then there's the reality:

    • The Mongols didn't bury their dead. They practiced Open-air "burials".

      Depositing the corpse in the steppe was meant to sacrifice it to predatory animals. According to Mongolians this is the last virtous act a person can carry out. This idea is much older than Lamaism and exhibits a really strong shamanistic element of spiritual thought.

    • All the assorted legends about where a supposed tomb might be came out of China (not Mongolia, where it happened) about 300 years after the fact, and describe things much closer to Chinese burial practices than Mongolian. In other words, they show all signs of being entirely made up.
    1. Re:Fox News "noted authority" by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 4, Interesting

      While I'm inclined to agree and think you should be modded up, allow me to play devil's advocate on this. The Great Khan was exposed to a lot of other cultures in his conquests, and it's possible that he might have become enamoured with the more aggrandizing foreign cultural traditions related to death and burial. Alexander the Great certainly succumbed to a great deal of personal syncretism as a result of his exposure to foreign influences in his conquests. Not that this conjecture proves anything, but I think the possibility shouldn't be dismissed until everything has been fully explored.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    2. Re:Fox News "noted authority" by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      That, and his followers may have decided that since he was such an important personage, that having random crows nibble him to nothingness wasn't all that great of an idea. Some faction of his followers had to take the reigns of command and they may have felt that having an interred burial ground more advantageous.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:Fox News "noted authority" by T.E.D. · · Score: 0

      but I think the possibility shouldn't be dismissed until everything has been fully explored.

      A great idea! I'll tell you what: Just to make things interesting, I'll add a story I heard about Genghis Khan being buried on the moon by passing aliens who were impressed with his military prowress. Its first attestation is today, 800 years after the fact, from someone who wasn't Mongolian. But my story is hardly much less credible than a couple first noted half as many years after the fact from someone else who wasn't Mongolian. So while we are "not dismissing anything until everything has been fully explored", let's not forget to include a mission to the moon.

    4. Re:Fox News "noted authority" by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just because someone at Fox News put "Noted Authority" on the Chiron under a TV guest doesn't mean they know what they are talking about.

      That's just wrong, Fox doesn't lie. Just look at this paragraph:

      Nichols now believes the Luipan Mountains that rise above the grasslands are the final resting place of the famed emperor, a short flight north of Hong Kong, near the Yellow River, off the coast of the Pacific Ocean.

      That's completely accurate. The site is only about 1,000 miles north of Hong Kong, which is about the same as the short flight from Miami to New York. And it's only about 575 miles from the Pacific Ocean, which is definitely "off the coast" of it. It's not "on the coast", right? So it must be off the coast.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    5. Re:Fox News "noted authority" by oldhack · · Score: 1

      Yeah, funerals after all are for the living, not the dead.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    6. Re:Fox News "noted authority" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jengis picked which of his sons would succeed him (Ogedei) and the succession was more or less unopposed. The real succession crisis didn't happen until Ogedei kicked the bucket.

    7. Re:Fox News "noted authority" by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I see I wasted my time being civil. Apparently it did not occur to you that there may be as yet undiscovered primary sources (or even contemporary secondary sources) which will not be brought to light without a concerted effort to find them. My earlier reference to Alexander was not wholly sourced in his precedent for syncresis, but also in the loss of his tomb, which was actually a well known tourist destination in the ancient world. Even Alexander's tomb which was known to exist and fairly well recorded in various accounts was lost to history during the religious upheavals between the fall of paganism and the rise of Christianity and Islam in North Africa. Even today the fate of his remains and their attendant monument is widely disputed. However, much of the source material for these investigations was unknown before the last century, and commensurately there may be similar materials contemporary to the Great Khan which have yet to be found or at least yet to be understood.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    8. Re:Fox News "noted authority" by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      there may be as yet undiscovered primary sources (or even contemporary secondary sources)

      Actually, that would be awesome. Seriously. I would love to see that, even it if contradicted everything I said. Heck, particularly if it contradicted everything I said. When you study history, nothing is more wonderful than a new trove of information that completely changes our view of things.

      However, right now there are no such sources, and more importantly, this "expert" isn't looking to find them. He's just a guy who's an expert on the legends. His efforts are really less interesting than a guy looking to find the exact birthplace of Paul Bunyan.

    9. Re:Fox News "noted authority" by rourin_bushi · · Score: 1

      When you zoom out the map far enough, that's totally close to the Pacific coast. If you compare the location to, say, Luxembourg.

    10. Re:Fox News "noted authority" by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Phoenix is only 165 miles from Rocky Point, Mexico. That means that Phoenix is over 3 times closer to the Pacific than this site. Phoenix, of course, is noted for being off the coast of the Pacific.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    11. Re:Fox News "noted authority" by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 2

      It is worth noting that the Kingdom of Jin which was one of Genghis's main adversaries at the time of his death recorded much in Jurchen script, which itself is not yet wholly understood, due in part to the the fact that almost no works have been found that were written in it. If a cache of such works were to be uncovered it could radically alter our understanding of the period around Genghis's death. There is a huge amount of room in this area of study for discoveries, but a lot is being restrained/prevented by the CCP. The CCP wants to be able to control the narrative of China's past absolutely, and they use the more reasonable concern about preservation as a cover. You are right that this guy and his expedition are likely to fail, both in professional depth and in just being roadblocked by the CCP who has no incentive whatever to play along.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    12. Re:Fox News "noted authority" by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Jengis picked which of his sons would succeed him (Ogedei) and the succession was more or less unopposed. The real succession crisis didn't happen until Ogedei kicked the bucket.

      For a 'great empire' it didn't last very long. Up one moment, down the next. Compared to the Romans it was a gigantic flop. Like a guy with a 10 inch cock who can only keep it up for 5 minutes compared to a guy with a 6 inch cock that lasts all night. Guess which one the ladies will enjoy?

      Oh and most of the 'huge empire' was uninhabited, kind of like Russia proclaiming itself as the greatest nation on Earth because "we rule SIBERIA!".

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  19. Gold. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am not sure of medieval Mongolian burial customs, but at the time he was probably the richest person in the world. Did they bury valuables with the dead at that time? There may be valuable artifacts at the site. It was also said that they killed everyone who worked on the tombs to keep them from talking, and then all the soldiers that killed them.

    1. Re:Gold. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, folklore says that he was buried in his throne (a massive throne made of solid gold), and if they bothered to execute everyone involved there should be even more stuff in there.

  20. Considering how much havoc Gengis Khan by Flavianoep · · Score: 1

    has brought to the world, it would be a good idea that some try to find his tomb and make sure he's dead.

    --
    Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
    1. Re:Considering how much havoc Gengis Khan by higuita · · Score: 1

      No, no, to revive him... let him kill all those politics!!! Peace at last!!

      If you agree to be conquered by him, Genghis Khan were a very good ruler, usually much better than the one they removed... just don't try to resist him or disobey to what was agreed, as he most likely would totally destroy everyone (and everything) that you one day touched, if not all your country, just to be sure!!

      --
      Higuita
  21. Star Trek II re-subtitled... by almitydave · · Score: 1

    So now Kirk yells, "Qa'aa'aa'aa'aa'aa'aa'aa'aa'aa'aa'an!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

    --
    my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
    I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
    1. Re:Star Trek II re-subtitled... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Throw a few dramatic pauses in there and you have it!

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  22. I have to say it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    KHAAANNNN!!!!

  23. Joke all you want by Dareth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Joke all you want, but according to a Darwinian fitness perspective he was one of the most successful humans to have ever lived.

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
    1. Re:Joke all you want by VortexCortex · · Score: 4, Funny

      I used to be a Darwinian champion like you,
      Then I took an arrow in the knee.
      -- Chinnggis Qa'an

    2. Re:Joke all you want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good old Slashdot.. providing a home for jokes that are too tired even for reddit.

    3. Re:Joke all you want by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Good old Slashdot.. providing a home for jokes that are too tired even for reddit.

      Would you like some hot grits to go with your whine?

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  24. Qa'an by RoccamOccam · · Score: 1

    Honest question: why the apostrophe in the name?

    1. Re:Qa'an by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honest question: why the apostrophe in the name?

      Likely to indicate a difference in meaning or pronunciation that is significant/recognizable to readers of languages other than english that yet may be written in the roman character set.

    2. Re:Qa'an by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      For the same reason there's one in Hawai'i.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    3. Re:Qa'an by RoccamOccam · · Score: 1

      Which is?

    4. Re:Qa'an by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It indicates a pronunciation - in the case of Hawai'i the apostrophe replaces a letter which related Polynesian languages would pronounce in its place. In other polynesian languages (Samoan for example) the same symbol may indicate a different letter which has been dropped from the pronunciation. Similar symbols are sometimes used to indicate sounds not used in european languages (e.g. in southern African "click" languages).

    5. Re:Qa'an by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It indicates a full glottal stop. Think of the sound(or lack thereof) in uh-oh. It's Qa[noise stops]an

    6. Re:Qa'an by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's usually to note a glottal stop. Say "bottle" with a Cockney accent and you got the sound... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glottal_stop

    7. Re:Qa'an by schnell · · Score: 1

      For the same reason there's one in Hawai'i.

      Which is?

      Because there's a glottal stop there in the original pronounciation that is hard to reflect in English characters without it.

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    8. Re:Qa'an by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Same reason there's one in Xi'an. If you didn't know any Chinese, how would you pronounce Xian? The apostrophe separates syllables to aid non-speakers in guessing the pronunciation. (not that many would guess "xi" is pronounced closest to the English word "she" or that "an" is closer to "on" than "an" for most English accents (being accents of English speakers, not from England). We can thank the imperialist English for that. Trying to force a British accent on the English speaking Chinese.

    9. Re:Qa'an by grouchomarxist · · Score: 1

      The apostrophe is often used to represent a glottal stop like in the English "don't". Perhaps whatever language the "Qa'an" version comes from uses a glottal stop. Given the large number of languages and the variety of ways of representing those languages in Roman characters you end up with a great number of representations.

    10. Re:Qa'an by dave420 · · Score: 1

      There is no glottal stop in "don't" - it's pronounced "dont". The apostrophe indicates a contraction by the removal of an 'o'.

    11. Re:Qa'an by grouchomarxist · · Score: 1

      You're correct. The apostrophe isn't used in English for a glottal stop, but it is used when other languages are transliterated into English, like "T'Pol".

    12. Re:Qa'an by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a secret shared only amongst a small family of Hawai'ians who all share Qa'an as family name.

  25. One theory by Provocateur · · Score: 1

    One theory is that the abominable snowman is Genghis Khan. They have never been seen together ever. Genghis Khan is immortal but to ensure his survival, he chooses to hide from humans including paparazzi. How did the creature become abominable anyway One is not born like that; it takes hard work.

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    1. Re:One theory by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Fun fact: While touring the snowcapped mountains of Asia, Ghengis Khan sprang forth fully formed from Chuck Norris's midriff; He was indeed born the abdominal snowman.

  26. Does it exist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The tomb of brutal Mongolian emperor Genghis Khan — the one who created the world's most powerful empire by raiding and invading across Eurasia, not Kirk's nemesis — is a lost treasure archaeologists have sought for years.

    Is it not possible it just doesn't exist?
    Perhaps on his death bed he told someone to say he was buried somewhere fantastic, and then just give him a viking funeral, just to troll the people of the future.

    1. Re:Does it exist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mongolians of the time used open air burials. The question is did he use a traditional burial, or something more elaborate from one of the territories he conquered?

  27. Dr. Jones! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why was this tomb not saught after by one of the various fictional tomb raiders, it sounds perfect! Much better than bizarre South American aliens.

    1. Re:Dr. Jones! by east+coast · · Score: 1

      I never understood why The Ark of the Covenant, The Holy Grail and some Hindu relics are so believable to so many but aliens is just bat shit crazy... especially out of the supposed atheist crowd we have here.

      Pretty much the rest of it comes down to creative license in the tradition of pulp fiction which the series does a fantastic job of.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    2. Re:Dr. Jones! by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      I never understood why ... aliens is just bat shit crazy... especially out of the supposed atheist crowd we have here.
       

      I've long wondered the same thing. They insist that life sprang from chemicals in the mud, but then also say aliens don't exist, because it's impossible for it to have happened on another planet. It doesn't make sense.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    3. Re: Dr. Jones! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aliens do exist. Far far away. But they can't visit us. (Distance!) Huge difference.

    4. Re: Dr. Jones! by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Aliens do exist. Far far away. But they can't visit us. (Distance!) Huge difference.

      Why is that the assumption?

      You don't think that in a million years, our descendents couldn't figure out how to travel between the stars?

      But as for my original point, I hear it far more often than your statement.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    5. Re:Dr. Jones! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea of ancient aliens is just as batshit crazy to us atheists as religion is.

      But our main objection to that movie, was that it was just so fucking aweful.

    6. Re: Dr. Jones! by east+coast · · Score: 1

      Kind of reminds me of the kinds of voices that were shouting down Hertz, Tesla and Marconni about radio... oh well, their opinion doesn't matter in the real world, thankfully.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  28. Ghengis Khan, origin of the meme. by camperdave · · Score: 1
    From Wikipedia

    Marco Polo writes of Chingis-khan's death:

    But at the end of those six years he went against a certain castle that was called CAAJU, and there he was shot with an arrow in the knee, so that he died of his wound. A great pity it was, for he was a valiant man and a wise.
    —Marco Polo, The Travels of Marco Polo, Book 1, Chapter 50

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  29. This is not as simple by aepervius · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Most of the initial consensus originally came from the christian historian. Following up historian never really changed that position no matter their belief. All of the "evidence" are actually from textual criticism. IOW "they can't have invented all that story!" : if you scratch down the paint, there is next to no other evidence than that. Even Bart Ehrman (at least until recentely) admitted that it was only "most likely" that Jesus existed.

    The ultimate honesty, is to admit in this specigfic case, that we do not know, but most probably a human at the origin of all the myth existed. Anybody telling you there is a "consensus" of historian, really exagerate the case here. There are many historical figure older than jesus for which we have a LOT of physical and written evidence. For jesus ? Nothing practically beyond the bible. Even Josephus is recognized as dubious, most probably a fraud. And nobody else reported the existence of the guy. That said carrier and other "full" mythicist haven't shown anything reliable in the academic arena (and no a book do not count --- peer review do).

    Draw you own conclusion. Me after reading a lot of the litterature I am split 60/50. 60% chance he existed, 40% chance it was either a composite (more than 1 persons) or an elaborate myth.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:This is not as simple by artor3 · · Score: 1

      Josephus is NOT recognized as a fraud. You're spreading lies. One passage attributed to Josephus is believed to be a forgery, but the others are widely accepted as authentic.

      It seems to me that certain (not all) atheists are absolutely desperate for proof that their beliefs are the best beliefs. They will happily dismiss the consensus of experts and misrepresent evidence, so long as it supports their preconceived notions. In a lot of ways, they're akin to the global warming deniers and the anti-vaxxers and the creationists.

    2. Re:This is not as simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Atheists don't have a belief. That's the whole point.

  30. Correction by aepervius · · Score: 1

    It only shows that there was a localized in place and time source. It does not show that that source be ONLY a person. That is jumping to the conclusion. In fact taking into account the contradiction, you quickly realize there is absolutely nothing you can do about the person jesus, except it was an homo sapiens male, and his mother. The rest is in dispute. Again the best contemporain specialist, Bart ehrman himself admit that it was highly likely that jesus existed. There is no certainty, as opposed to contemporain people which have a lot of artifact. Jesus , contrary to what fundemmentalist state , has none solid except the bible.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  31. Hmm... by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 1

    Let me get this straight. His hypothesis is that Khan is buried somewhere in the geographic region in which he died? And his next "phase" is just to pinpoint the location?

    This is a great way to solve problems! I'd like to hypothesize that P=NP can be proven using clever mathematical methods. I plan to do this next fall. My next phase is to pinpoint which mathematical methods to use.

  32. Kublai Khan by Wintermute__ · · Score: 1

    'I couldn't stop thinking about it. But I'm not happy just reading about it, or knowing about it. I need to have my feet on it.'

    I'd much rather stand within the Pleasure Dome / Decreed by Kubla Khan / To taste anew the fruits of life / The last immortal man...

    1. Re:Kublai Khan by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      I'd much rather stand within the Pleasure Dome / Decreed by Kubla Khan / To taste anew the fruits of life / The last immortal man...

      Would Sir like some hashish to go with his next pipe of opium?

      The gentleman from Porlock is due soon. [/end Jeeves]

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  33. As if King Tut's curse wasn't enough by plopez · · Score: 1

    Wait until they wake up The Great Khan's Mommie Werewolf Vampire Army.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    1. Re:As if King Tut's curse wasn't enough by plopez · · Score: 1

      I meant Mummy but Mommie work great too!

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  34. Isn't this irrelevant to Linux and open-source? by keneng · · Score: 1

    Why are we even reading about this? Are they using interesting technology to find it? Is it open-source technology? If not, why mention any of this?

  35. Global Warming? by c9brown · · Score: 1

    Any particular reason this was tagged with 'global warming'?

  36. I am sorry for you by aepervius · · Score: 1

    1) Indeed the authenticity of josephus passage is highly disputed. basically the grammar and the spelling suddenly change, a good sign of copyist adding their own "stuff".

    2) So what if jesus existed ? That would be a human which died. the rest the miracle the resurrection are myth. In fact since we are speaking of historical consensus, all historian will recognize that the consensus is that it was a really normal human and he died. The rest is religious baggage. The best proof that I am not desperate as you pretend I am , is that I assign a higher probability of jesus existence as human (60%). . That alone directly contradict your diatribe.

    3) and finally, you are reversing the "reverse the burden of proof" fallacy of most religious people. We agnostic-atheist do not search for proof of non-existence, it would be rather hard for obvious reason. It is up to others to bring up evidence of their claim. And therein is the problem. Even if there is weak evidence for the existence of jesus, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of anything else.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  37. I need to have my feet on it by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Says the white explorer of European decent. That should sit well with the locals.

  38. this will be the next horde by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    all those descendants seeking child support plus interest