| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
| nor could the bones in the coffin be carbon dated as the skeleton, according to the report, had 'completely decomposed'. |
This is interesting from two aspects. It is nonsense to say something can't be carbon dated because of decomposition. If there is enough there to be recognisably skeletal there is certainly enough for a test. Decomposition would not affect the result. But possibly more important is that they should offer up a reason in the first place. It may be threadbare but at least they went to the bother. Normally -- as everyone here knows -- it is just not done, and not mentioned as not having been done.
It seems to me that somebody wanted to head off any requests that it be done because they knew the likely results.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| John Welford on medium.com wrote: | Macbeth, King of Scotland
The character portrayed by Shakespeare probably bore only a passing resemblance to the real thing! |
| Mick Harper wrote: | | As a historiographer, I was fascinated to hear that modern historians have better access to contemporary sources for eleventh century Scotland than Shakespeare did. Can you say what the sources are and why Wills didn't know about them? |
| John Welford wrote: | | I'm not surprised at all. Modern historians have access to documents that were long hidden away in university and monastic libraries (etc). Shakespeare did not pretend to be a historian, merely an absorber of folk stories that could be turned into great dramas and bring in the crowds. |
| Mick Harper wrote: | | But, as usual, you haven't been able to name these documents. Just... documents (with a wave in the air). You know... the ones hidden away in... er... university and monastic libraries. When are you going to wise up, John? |
| John Welford wrote: | For the simple reason, Mick, that you seem to have some absurd belief that it is impossible to write about anything historical unless you have direct access to original documentation! It is surely unreasonable to expect writers on Medium to get their facts from anything other than secondary (etc) sources - any more than one would have expected William Shakespeare to do so.
I have bought three of your books, and have noted their total lack of any corroborating evidence or reference to supporting documentation. So is the pot not calling the kettle black? |
| Mick Harper wrote: | | I only raised the issue because there aren't any! As for my own books, I think you are confusing citations for corroborating evidence. By definition, you cannot have citations if you are advancing novel ideas. |
| John Welford wrote: | | In other words, all you are doing is writing pure speculation for which you can find absolutely nobody who agrees with you - based on actual evidence! As for the facts about Macbeth and Scottish history in the 11th century, I would be amazed to discover that there is absolutely no written evidence - if I had access to appropriate sources, I am sure that these would be referred to. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| A Viking era ring inscribed with the words 'for Allah', found in the grave of a woman who was buried 1200 years ago in Birka, 25 km west of modern-day Stockholm. The ring constitutes a unique material evidence of direct contact between the Vikings and the Abbasid Caliphate. |
Holy shit! And discovered just in the midst of a powerful and vast political push for mass immigration to Sweden. How remarkable!
If there ever was a forgery, I call this one!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | It is nonsense to say something can't be carbon dated because of decomposition. |
The body is real.
The ring is not.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
Can you have a House of David without a David? Historians appear to agree there is no evidence for King David's existence, that is until 1993 when on-going excavations at Tel-Dan, an Early Bronze Age site in northern Israel, stumbled on fragments of a stele with an (Old) Aramaic inscription
Until very recently, there was no evidence outside the Bible for the existence of King David. There are no references to him in Egyptian, Syrian or Assyrian documents of the time, and the many archaeological digs in the City of David failed to turn up so much as a mention of his name. Then, on July 21, 1993, a team of archaeologists led by Prof. Avraham Biran, excavating Tel Dan in the northern Galilee, found a triangular piece of basalt rock, measuring 23 x 36 cm. inscribed in Aramaic. It was subsequently identified as part of a victory pillar erected by the king of Syria and later smashed by an Israelite ruler. The inscription, which dates to the ninth century BCE, that is to say, about a century after David was thought to have ruled Israel, includes the words Beit David ("House" or "Dynasty" of David"). It is the first near-contemporaneous reference to David ever found. It is not conclusive; but it does strongly indicate that a king called David established a dynasty in Israel during the relevant period.
|
https://israel-tourguide.info/2011/03/24/house-of-david-stele/
The first fragment of inscribed stone (there would eventually be three fragments) was found in a wall. Such careless treatment of inscribed stones of historical significance seems quite commonplace. Even so, the archaeologists seem relieved rather than surprised but no wonder considering they claim to have found the first, and only, written mention of Beit David.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
They are also held in the cleft stick of chronology if they find anything real. 1000 BC is slap bang in the middle of the ancient Dark Age when nobody can find anything of anyone. They might get thanks from the State of Israel (the modern one) but definitely no thanks from the rest of the academic community.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
