Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science News

Archaeological Uncovers a New Name 50

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the stories-come-from-somewhere dept.
* * Beatles-Beatles writes to tell us Reuters is reporting that scientists have found a shard of pottery in an archaeological dig that appears to have the Philistine renderings of the name Goliath. While the obvious leaps of faith have been made it is still an interesting find as it is the first time the name Goliath has been found in that particular locale.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Archaeological Uncovers a New Name More

Archaeological Uncovers a New Name

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

  • Philistine renderings. (Score:4, Funny)

    by rookworm ( 822550 ) <horace7945@@@yahoo...ca> on Monday November 14, 2005 @02:52AM (#14024378)
    For more Philistine renderings, see below.
    • No, no, it's genuine. Or at least it might be. I for one think it's extremely likely that Goliath's hometown was running a successful souvenir trade for tourists visiting those parts, producing thousands of "Goliath"-pots and other branded products. This is not to say the "David vs. Goliath" story is true, but at least the story exists - thus the opportunity for 4) PROFIT!!!!!! Imagine archaeologists digging up a peculiar mug with barely readable markings saying "Yoda"..
  • Oh, Daav-veey.

  • Believers (Score:1, Interesting)

    by $exyNerdie ( 683214 )

    Science: Archaeological Uncovers a New Name

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

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

    • Re:Believers (Score:2, Insightful)

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

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

      • Unbelievers (Score:2, Insightful)

        by samjam ( 256347 )
        And if you've got an anti-religion agenda, THAT will make perfect sense.
        Which all goes to show how unhelpful your comment or the fine article is in that context.

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

        It would embarrassing to suggest that most readers know enough on the subject to
      • Or it could be taken as proof that , is the one true faith.Take your pick.

      • Re:Believers (Score:2, Insightful)

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

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

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

          Does anyone actually make that argument? I find it a strange argument, that such-and-such a story can't be true because one of the characters has a name not attested elsewhere.
          • Happens all of the time. People say that key people mentioned in the Bible (Belshazzar or Pontius Pilate, for example) could *not* have existed because archaeological evidence did not exist for their presence. However, things change. Reference [watchtower.org].

            There are other items that still have very little archaeological backing: Darius the Mede as King of Babylon comes to mind. However, this is where real faith comes in. Faith is not beliving something is true in *spite* of evidence, or even beliving something w

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

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

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

                And what abo

                • I was agreeing with you.
                  • So was I! :)

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

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

                    I'm done now. Honest! :)

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

  • Archeological... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Llywelyn ( 531070 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @04:05AM (#14024490) Homepage
    "Archaeological Uncovers a New Name"

    Sorry, the reader's brain was unable to parse this title. Please try again with something written in the English language.
    • From the so-interesting-needs-no-nouns dept.

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

      However, as you can tell, Arechaeological had been looking for years for a replacement name and figured Golaith was good as any.
      • Archaeological was his name. His parents Paleological and Astronomical and they thought it would be fitting when choosing his name as a baby.

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

  • Linear A (Score:4, Informative)

    by dargaud ( 518470 ) <slashdot2@nOSpaM.gdargaud.net> on Monday November 14, 2005 @07:04AM (#14025011) Homepage
    Why is it that nowadays archeology is considered newsworthy only if it has something to do with the bible ?
    A few days ago there was a much more interesting discovery in Creta of several tablets written in Linear B (1200BC, the written language of the Acheans [the Greeks] of the Tojan war, and also the first written language ever translated thanks to a computer in the 60s), and also in the much rarer and much more misterious Linear A (c. 1700BC), still undeciphered.
    I'd expect Slashdoters to be more interested by languages decyphered by computer or still mysterious than by some vague myth...
    • Did you submit this as an article at least?


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

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

      The latter, methinks, is worthy of a good Slashdot story. The former - if any

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

        In what sense does this confirm a biblical story?
        • In what sense does this confirm a biblical story?

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

          -
          • Because historically, historians rejected everything in the Bible about the Hittites until archeologists uncovered their cities. Same kind of thing, multiple examples.
  • on Professor Jones's back already?
  • The last time there was a find that "confirmed" a Bible story was actually found to be a fraud. I am trying to recall the specifics, it was the container that said something to the effect of "James, son of Josef, brother of Yeshua". Someone had etched the names and tried to pass it off as real. This happened in the last few years.

    In short, I would wait for independent confirmation.

  • What Summary Should Have Said (Score:5, Informative)

    by Somegeek ( 624100 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @08:51AM (#14025402)
    First Archaeological Evidence of the Name Goliath

    A shard of pottery found in southern Israel was inscribed with what is believed to be the original form of the name Goliath. The shard dates from about 900 BC. and is from the supposed hometown of Goliath of the biblical story of David and Goliath. Before this discovery there had not been any evidence outside of the Bible that the name Goliath had ever been used in ancient Israel.
  • What's interesting is that they're jumping to the conclusion that this somehow proves the Bible story. What if Goliath was like "Bob" or "John" and was very common?
    • If "Goliath" was a common name in Philistine culture, one would assume that archaeologists/anthropologists focused on this region and that time period would have recovered other artifacts with that name on it. This particular archaeologist is quoted as saying that this is the first real evidence that the name was actually used in Philistine culture at any point in history.

      That doesn't remove the possiblity that the archaeologist is biased. However, lacking any information about the man, we can't really ma
      • > If "Goliath" was a common name in Philistine culture, one would assume that archaeologists/anthropologists focused on this region and that time period would have recovered other artifacts with that name on it.

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

        How many Philistine names do we have on artifacts?
    • You're the only one jumping to conclusions. The whole point of the story is that the name was previously unknown, certainly uncommon, which cast doubt on the story. Nobody said anything about it being THE Goliath.
  • Not only is this only about the existence of the name Goliath, not the character in the famous story, but even the name is iffy [blogspot.com].

  • Anthropology Jokes (Score:2, Funny)

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

    Diggers needed for Archeological Site...

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

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

    Anthropolgists date flakes.

Slashdot Top Deals

Single tasking: Just Say No.

Close