 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Archaeology Forum » Archaeologist's work recognised but sometimes others... |
|
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| crunch... |
 Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:30 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cambridgeshire/8336705.stm
"Ms Lewis studied Archaeology and Anthropology at Cambridge University
before working as an archaeological investigator for the Royal
Commission on the Historical Monuments of England."
---
Dear reader -
Please indulge me if I talk about my myself
on a small matter. For sci.arch I have given
diligent publicity to Dr. Thiering's interpretation
of the Qumran artefact. (This was my work.)
IMHO she rightfully calls it the Qumran sundial.
Originally, Doug Weller brought forward a BAR
article that the artefact was not a sundial. Indeed,
in the literature, some years ago, multiple theories
came out in this regard.
Howsoever, my complaint against the reception
sci.archers gave to Dr. Thiering's explanation goes
to their competency, not whether they showed
great interest in the subject (which they did not).
So, there was not full and adequate discussion here
and time has shown sci.archers all too often
engage in petty quarrels.
Further, the only way a serious discussion could
ensue is if some interested sci.archers review
the sci.arch Archives for my relevant information
or study in close detail Dr. Thiering's original
article in "Dead Sea Discoveries" in 2002.
BTW Google Scholar is not used enough by
sci.archers.
David Christainsen |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sir David... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:46 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 2:30 pm, Carl <pchristain... at (no spam) yahoo.com> obsessed:
[quote]Please indulge me if I talk about my myself
on a small matter. For sci.arch I have given
diligent publicity to Dr. Thiering's interpretation
of the Qumran artefact. (This was my work.)
[/quote]
Pasting hyperlinks is not scientific "work." It's just riding your
hobbyhorse. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom McDonald... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 1:30 pm, crunch <pchristain... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cambridgeshire/8336705.stm
"Ms Lewis studied Archaeology and Anthropology at Cambridge University
before working as an archaeological investigator for the Royal
Commission on the Historical Monuments of England."
---
Dear reader -
Please indulge me if I talk about my myself
on a small matter. For sci.arch I have given
diligent publicity to Dr. Thiering's interpretation
of the Qumran artefact. (This was my work.)
IMHO she rightfully calls it the Qumran sundial.
Originally, Doug Weller brought forward a BAR
article that the artefact was not a sundial. Indeed,
in the literature, some years ago, multiple theories
came out in this regard.
Howsoever, my complaint against the reception
sci.archers gave to Dr. Thiering's explanation goes
to their competency, not whether they showed
great interest in the subject (which they did not).
So, there was not full and adequate discussion here
and time has shown sci.archers all too often
engage in petty quarrels.
Further, the only way a serious discussion could
ensue is if some interested sci.archers review
the sci.arch Archives for my relevant information
or study in close detail Dr. Thiering's original
article in "Dead Sea Discoveries" in 2002.
[/quote]
You keep trying to re-write history. But you are going to deny it, so
go ahead and deny it.
We got to the end of the evidence that we were willing to dig up; and
your evidence quit at the point you were willing to dig it up. You
agreed to that at the time; but now you want to come up with an excuse
to re-visit the whole sorry mess.
Let's save some time. Let's agree that no one here has either the
competence or the interest to go where you want to go on this. You
want some definitive conclusion to the discussion? Go to where the
competence and the interest exist. And that ain't here.
[quote]BTW Google Scholar is not used enough by
sci.archers.
[/quote]
You are quite right. Too many of us are hung up about using sources
that we know about and trust. Shameful! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| crunch... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 7:29 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 2, 1:30 pm, crunch <pchristain... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cambridgeshire/8336705.stm
"Ms Lewis studied Archaeology and Anthropology at Cambridge University
before working as an archaeological investigator for the Royal
Commission on the Historical Monuments of England."
---
Dear reader -
Please indulge me if I talk about my myself
on a small matter. For sci.arch I have given
diligent publicity to Dr. Thiering's interpretation
of the Qumran artefact. (This was my work.)
IMHO she rightfully calls it the Qumran sundial.
Originally, Doug Weller brought forward a BAR
article that the artefact was not a sundial. Indeed,
in the literature, some years ago, multiple theories
came out in this regard.
Howsoever, my complaint against the reception
sci.archers gave to Dr. Thiering's explanation goes
to their competency, not whether they showed
great interest in the subject (which they did not).
So, there was not full and adequate discussion here
and time has shown sci.archers all too often
engage in petty quarrels.
Further, the only way a serious discussion could
ensue is if some interested sci.archers review
the sci.arch Archives for my relevant information
or study in close detail Dr. Thiering's original
article in "Dead Sea Discoveries" in 2002.
You keep trying to re-write history. But you are going to deny it, so
go ahead and deny it.
[/quote]
False.
[quote]We got to the end of the evidence that we were willing to dig up; and
your evidence quit at the point you were willing to dig it up. You
agreed to that at the time; but now you want to come up with an excuse
to re-visit the whole sorry mess.
[/quote]
False.
[quote]Let's save some time. Let's agree that no one here has either the
competence or the interest to go where you want to go on this. You
want some definitive conclusion to the discussion? Go to where the
competence and the interest exist. And that ain't here.
[/quote]
False and not consistent with the educational
process.
[quote]BTW Google Scholar is not used enough by
sci.archers.
You are quite right. Too many of us are hung up about using sources
that we know about and trust. Shameful!
[/quote]
One big failing of yours is not to recognize legitimate
archaeology when you see it and the Qumran sundial
is just that. In fact, I once dug up its provenance for sci.arch,
a very difficult research feat.
A meta-language special just for Tom McDonald -
Dr. Thiering is the only scholar in the world that
has devoloped a calendar science for the Qumran
monastics and the First Christians. This calendar
science is a provable objective finding. Yet, Dr.
Thiering has never received a fair hearing from other
scholars for her scholarly work. Further, some have
complained that her work and methodology are too
difficult intellectually for them to understand.
In light of the above, I decided, some years ago, to
give diligent publicity to her scholarly work on usenet.
My policy is not to bother sci.arch with her radical
and jarring pesher. That material goes to soc.history.ancient
and soc.religion.quaker.
So, fair game for sci.arch includes at least -
a) carbondating of the scrolls (not very much the content)
b) artefacts like the Qumran sundial
BTW the case that this specific artefact was originally
a sundial, later converted into an odometer, and used
by Essenes at Qumran etc. is VERY STRONG.
David Christainsen |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom McDonald... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 8:31 am, crunch <pchristain... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 2, 7:29 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 1:30 pm, crunch <pchristain... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cambridgeshire/8336705.stm
"Ms Lewis studied Archaeology and Anthropology at Cambridge University
before working as an archaeological investigator for the Royal
Commission on the Historical Monuments of England."
---
Dear reader -
Please indulge me if I talk about my myself
on a small matter. For sci.arch I have given
diligent publicity to Dr. Thiering's interpretation
of the Qumran artefact. (This was my work.)
IMHO she rightfully calls it the Qumran sundial.
Originally, Doug Weller brought forward a BAR
article that the artefact was not a sundial. Indeed,
in the literature, some years ago, multiple theories
came out in this regard.
Howsoever, my complaint against the reception
sci.archers gave to Dr. Thiering's explanation goes
to their competency, not whether they showed
great interest in the subject (which they did not).
So, there was not full and adequate discussion here
and time has shown sci.archers all too often
engage in petty quarrels.
Further, the only way a serious discussion could
ensue is if some interested sci.archers review
the sci.arch Archives for my relevant information
or study in close detail Dr. Thiering's original
article in "Dead Sea Discoveries" in 2002.
You keep trying to re-write history. But you are going to deny it, so
go ahead and deny it.
False.
We got to the end of the evidence that we were willing to dig up; and
your evidence quit at the point you were willing to dig it up. You
agreed to that at the time; but now you want to come up with an excuse
to re-visit the whole sorry mess.
False.
Let's save some time. Let's agree that no one here has either the
competence or the interest to go where you want to go on this. You
want some definitive conclusion to the discussion? Go to where the
competence and the interest exist. And that ain't here.
False and not consistent with the educational
process.
BTW Google Scholar is not used enough by
sci.archers.
You are quite right. Too many of us are hung up about using sources
that we know about and trust. Shameful!
One big failing of yours is not to recognize legitimate
archaeology when you see it and the Qumran sundial
is just that. In fact, I once dug up its provenance for sci.arch,
a very difficult research feat.
A meta-language special just for Tom McDonald -
Dr. Thiering is the only scholar in the world that
has devoloped a calendar science for the Qumran
monastics and the First Christians. This calendar
science is a provable objective finding. Yet, Dr.
Thiering has never received a fair hearing from other
scholars for her scholarly work. Further, some have
complained that her work and methodology are too
difficult intellectually for them to understand.
In light of the above, I decided, some years ago, to
give diligent publicity to her scholarly work on usenet.
My policy is not to bother sci.arch with her radical
and jarring pesher. That material goes to soc.history.ancient
and soc.religion.quaker.
So, fair game for sci.arch includes at least -
a) carbondating of the scrolls (not very much the content)
b) artefacts like the Qumran sundial
BTW the case that this specific artefact was originally
a sundial, later converted into an odometer, and used
by Essenes at Qumran etc. is VERY STRONG.
[/quote]
QED, right down the line. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Alaca... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:53 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
crunch <pchristainsen at (no spam) yahoo.com> 03/11/2009 15:31 wrote:
[quote]BTW the case that this specific artefact was originally
a sundial, later converted into an odometer, and used
by Essenes at Qumran etc. is VERY STRONG.
[/quote]
The fact that you keep ranting about it is VERY STRONG evidence
that it ended up as utter bollocks. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| crunch... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:08 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 9:53 am, Peter Alaca <p.al... at (no spam) invallid.invalid> wrote:
[quote]crunch <pchristain... at (no spam) yahoo.com> 03/11/2009 15:31 wrote:
BTW the case that this specific artefact was originally
a sundial, later converted into an odometer, and used
by Essenes at Qumran etc. is VERY STRONG.
The fact that you keep ranting about it is VERY STRONG evidence
that it ended up as utter bollocks.
[/quote]
I never rant; I give references. Why you get
so emotional over nothing is beyond what any
reasonable and competent person can understand. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| crunch... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 9:56 am, Tom McDonald <kilt... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]...
QED, right down the line.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
You never showed a diligent grasp of the issues.
If the discussion is carbondating of the scrolls, this
is relevant to further discussion of date of composition.
This is the goal of the diligent scholar to obtain a
dating scheme for the scrolls.
As the 1988 article by Davies "How not to do archaeology"
showed, agreement was not reached on the dates for when
various parts of Qumran were built. It is significant that
Magness and Thiering differ on the dates. It has never been
settled up to the present among scholars.
The way the different factions that inhabited or worshipped
at Qumran are distinguished is by their use of variants of
the solar or lunisolar calendar. This knowledge comes
from the contents of various scrolls. It is not archaeology
per se; it is Qumran Studies.
In general what is at stake in studying the scrolls along
with Qumran and its outposts is deeper knowledge of
the ways and culture of the Essenes. This sect was
highly unusual and not in the mainstream of the Jewish
Religion. They were harshly legalistic and their religious
dedication was very real However, they had strong
prejudices. They were not above altering Scripture,
not just copying it. They insisted that God put order
into the universe to an extreme degree. We modern
people cannot turn back the clock to become Essenes;
we are too in love with pleasure and entertainment in
our culture.
So, it is most distressing to me when scholars and archaeologists
have argued to put the Essene connection to Qumran in doubt
or to deny it.
Dr. Thiering has solid evidence that the Qumran monastics
had an Essene nucleus but branched out into an ascetic
coalition of certain factions. This history is now known in
detail and its connection to the First Christians is certain.
David Christainsen |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| crunch... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:51 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 3:16 pm, Peter Alaca <p.al... at (no spam) invallid.invalid> wrote:
[quote]crunch <pchristain... at (no spam) yahoo.com> 03/11/2009 21:08 wrote:
On Nov 3, 9:53 am, Peter Alaca <p.al... at (no spam) invallid.invalid> wrote:
crunch <pchristain... at (no spam) yahoo.com> 03/11/2009 15:31 wrote:
BTW the case that this specific artefact was originally
a sundial, later converted into an odometer, and used
by Essenes at Qumran etc. is VERY STRONG.
The fact that you keep ranting about it is VERY STRONG evidence
that it ended up as utter bollocks.
I never rant; I give references. Why you get
so emotional over nothing is beyond what any
reasonable and competent person can understand.
You call it 'nothing', I call it 'utter bullocks'.
Why is that emotional?
[/quote]
You are not a competent archaeologist re: Qumran;
you never actually took a sound look at the Qumran
sundial to see what it could teach you. First things
first; you failed to be empirical. Yet, you feel perfectly
free to offer emotional rubbish because you mistakenly
think my evidence is "religious". Short version - the
Qumran monastics were Pythagorean; they put mystical
significance to number.
In Qumran Studies all the evidence is put together
to reconstruct the life and culture of the monastics.
They were of different factions but originally had
an Essene nucleus. So, there is paleography and
contents of the Scrolls, along with historical references
to the Essenes like Jospheus. This is in addition to
the archaeology.
If you would treat the academic discipline of Qumran
Studies with respect, I would appreciate it. Don't
break comity for emotional reasons because of your
prejudices over religion. And, recognize good archaeology
when you see it.
David Christainsen |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sir David... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 3:31 pm, crunch <pchristain... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 3, 9:56 am, Tom McDonald <kilt... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
...
QED, right down the line
[/quote]
Carl's kookdance is utterly predictable.
[quote]You never showed a diligent grasp of the issues.
[/quote]
Carl never shows a reason to give a fuck about his issues. He just
rides his hobbyhorse
[quote]If the discussion is carbondating
[/quote]
There is no discussion, just Carl riding his hobbyhorse.
[quote]is relevant to further discussion
[/quote]
There is no discussion, just Crunchy riding his hobbyhorse.
[quote]This is the goal of the diligent scholar
[/quote]
Diligent scholars don't care, but Carl rides his hobbyhorse.
[quote]It is significant that
Magness and Thiering
[/quote]
It is not significant, just more of Crunchy Carl riding his
hobbyhorse.
[quote]It is not archaeology per se;
[/quote]
It is not archaeology at all, just Carl riding his hobbyhorse.
[quote]In general what is at stake in studying the scrolls
[/quote]
Nothing is at stake, just Carl riding his hobbyhorse.
[quote]So, it is most distressing to me
[/quote]
It must be distressing for Crunchy to get such hobbyhorse saddle
sores.
[quote]Dr. Thiering has solid evidence
[/quote]
Babs has an obsessive stalker named Carl, who rides her as a
hobbyhorse.
[quote]Crunchy Carl
[/quote]
There is no discussion, just Crunchy riding his hobbyhorse. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| crunch... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 4:08 pm, Peter Alaca <p.al... at (no spam) invallid.invalid> wrote:
[quote]crunch <pchristain... at (no spam) yahoo.com> 03/11/2009 21:51 wrote:
On Nov 3, 3:16 pm, Peter Alaca <p.al... at (no spam) invallid.invalid> wrote:
crunch <pchristain... at (no spam) yahoo.com> 03/11/2009 21:08 wrote:
On Nov 3, 9:53 am, Peter Alaca <p.al... at (no spam) invallid.invalid> wrote:
crunch <pchristain... at (no spam) yahoo.com> 03/11/2009 15:31 wrote:
BTW the case that this specific artefact was originally
a sundial, later converted into an odometer, and used
by Essenes at Qumran etc. is VERY STRONG.
The fact that you keep ranting about it is VERY STRONG evidence
that it ended up as utter bollocks.
I never rant; I give references. Why you get
so emotional over nothing is beyond what any
reasonable and competent person can understand.
You call it 'nothing', I call it 'utter bullocks'.
Why is that emotional?
You are not a competent archaeologist re: Qumran;
You are not an achaeologist at all.
You simply have no idea what you are talking about.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
And yet, you did not avail yourself of Dr. Thiering's
archaeology when I posted it. So, I have a very good
idea and you are firmly in the wrong. You are too emotional
when the subject of Qumran comes up. My request
is that you dig deep for some seasoning and maturity.
Don't lead with your prejudice.
Finally -
Qumran can be an explosive subject because of its
connection with Jesus Christ and the First Christians.
We have no direct archaeological evidence of Jesus
Christ but we now know his true history and the social
revolution he led. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Alaca... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
crunch <pchristainsen at (no spam) yahoo.com> 03/11/2009 21:08 wrote:
[quote]On Nov 3, 9:53 am, Peter Alaca <p.al... at (no spam) invallid.invalid> wrote:
crunch <pchristain... at (no spam) yahoo.com> 03/11/2009 15:31 wrote:
BTW the case that this specific artefact was originally
a sundial, later converted into an odometer, and used
by Essenes at Qumran etc. is VERY STRONG.
The fact that you keep ranting about it is VERY STRONG evidence
that it ended up as utter bollocks.
I never rant; I give references. Why you get
so emotional over nothing is beyond what any
reasonable and competent person can understand.
[/quote]
You call it 'nothing', I call it 'utter bullocks'.
Why is that emotional? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Alaca... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
crunch <pchristainsen at (no spam) yahoo.com> 03/11/2009 21:31 wrote:
[quote]On Nov 3, 9:56 am, Tom McDonald <kilt... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
...
QED, right down the line
You never showed a diligent grasp of the issues.
If the discussion is carbondating of the scrolls,
[/quote]
But it isn't.
> [...] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Alaca... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
crunch <pchristainsen at (no spam) yahoo.com> 03/11/2009 21:51 wrote:
[quote]On Nov 3, 3:16 pm, Peter Alaca <p.al... at (no spam) invallid.invalid> wrote:
crunch <pchristain... at (no spam) yahoo.com> 03/11/2009 21:08 wrote:
On Nov 3, 9:53 am, Peter Alaca <p.al... at (no spam) invallid.invalid> wrote:
crunch <pchristain... at (no spam) yahoo.com> 03/11/2009 15:31 wrote:
BTW the case that this specific artefact was originally
a sundial, later converted into an odometer, and used
by Essenes at Qumran etc. is VERY STRONG.
The fact that you keep ranting about it is VERY STRONG evidence
that it ended up as utter bollocks.
I never rant; I give references. Why you get
so emotional over nothing is beyond what any
reasonable and competent person can understand.
You call it 'nothing', I call it 'utter bullocks'.
Why is that emotional?
You are not a competent archaeologist re: Qumran;
[/quote]
You are not an achaeologist at all.
You simply have no idea what you are talking about. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| jerry warner... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
crunch wrote:
[quote]On Nov 3, 9:56 am, Tom McDonald <kilt... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
...
QED, right down the line.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You never showed a diligent grasp of the issues.
[/quote]
shamalukca shoobangdi osmodishu duroc.
[quote]
If the discussion is carbondating of the scrolls, this
is relevant to further discussion of date of composition.
This is the goal of the diligent scholar to obtain a
dating scheme for the scrolls.
As the 1988 article by Davies "How not to do archaeology"
showed, agreement was not reached on the dates for when
various parts of Qumran were built. It is significant that
Magness and Thiering differ on the dates. It has never been
settled up to the present among scholars.
The way the different factions that inhabited or worshipped
at Qumran are distinguished is by their use of variants of
the solar or lunisolar calendar. This knowledge comes
from the contents of various scrolls. It is not archaeology
per se; it is Qumran Studies.
In general what is at stake in studying the scrolls along
with Qumran and its outposts is deeper knowledge of
the ways and culture of the Essenes. This sect was
highly unusual and not in the mainstream of the Jewish
Religion. They were harshly legalistic and their religious
dedication was very real However, they had strong
prejudices. They were not above altering Scripture,
not just copying it. They insisted that God put order
into the universe to an extreme degree. We modern
people cannot turn back the clock to become Essenes;
we are too in love with pleasure and entertainment in
our culture.
So, it is most distressing to me when scholars and archaeologists
have argued to put the Essene connection to Qumran in doubt
or to deny it.
Dr. Thiering has solid evidence that the Qumran monastics
had an Essene nucleus but branched out into an ascetic
coalition of certain factions. This history is now known in
detail and its connection to the First Christians is certain.
David Christainsen[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Nov 26, 2009 12:33 pm
|
|