Scientists find 'Goliath' inscribed on pottery

[Ark~Magic]

From MSN: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9997587/

Scientists find ‘Goliath’ inscribed on pottery
Reference from 950 B.C. lends credence to Bible tale, archaeologists say

Updated: 9:30 p.m. ET Nov. 10, 2005

JERUSALEM - Archaeologists digging at the purported biblical home of Goliath have unearthed a shard of pottery bearing an inscription of the Philistine’s name, a find they claimed lends historical credence to the Bible’s tale of David’s battle with the giant.

While the discovery is not definitive evidence of Goliath’s existence, it does support the Bible’s depiction of life at the time the battle was supposed to have occurred, said Dr. Aren Maeir, a professor at Bar-Ilan University and director of the excavation.

“What this means is that at the time there were people there named Goliath,” he said. “It shows us that David and Goliath’s story reflects the cultural reality of the time.” In the story, David slew Goliath with a slingshot.

Some scholars assert the story of David slaying the giant Goliath is a myth written down hundreds of years later. Maeir said finding the scraps lends historical credence to the biblical story.

The shard dates back to around 950 B.C., within 70 years of when biblical chronology asserts David squared off against Goliath, making it the oldest Philistine inscription ever found, the archaeologists said.

Scientists made the discovery at Tel es-Safi, a dig site in southern Israel thought to be to be the location of the Philistine city of Gath.

[Fortigurn]

I'm holding fire on this until an academic consensus is reached.

[Jbuza]

By Allyn Fisher-Ilan
Sun Nov 13,10:19 AM ET



RAMAT GAN, Israel (Reuters) - An Israeli researcher said he has made a Goliath of a find -- the first archaeological evidence suggesting the biblical story of David slaying the Philistine giant actually took place.

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.

"This is a groundbreaking find," he said of the rust-colored ceramic. "Here we have very nice evidence the name Goliath appearing in the Bible in the context of the story of David and Goliath ... is not some later literary creation."

Maeir, head of the archaeology department at Bar-Ilan University near Tel Aviv, told Reuters that his excavators found the shard, possibly part of a bowl, about two meters (6.5 ft) underground at Tell es-Shafi.

The mound where the dig took place is widely believed to be the site of the ancient city of Gath, which the Bible calls Goliath's hometown.

The biblical story of the epic Philistine giant's defeat at the hands of a much smaller David, who went on to become king of Israel, has long been a popular metaphor for the triumph of good over evil against all odds.

The specimen, from about 900 BC, isn't old enough to have belonged to Goliath, himself -- believed to have lived around 1,000 BC, Maeir said.

But he added: "It is the first time in the land of Israel that we have (found) the name Goliath, or a name like Goliath."

"I haven't found Goliath's skeleton with the hole in the center of his forehead, but it's the first archaeological evidence form a Philistine site which lends strong credibility" to the story, the U.S.-born researcher said.

The Book of Samuel I 17:4-10 spoke of "a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath," a heavily armed giant who challenged an Israelite soldier to a duel.

David, at the time a shepherd, took up Goliath's challenge and "prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone" (Samuel I 17:50).

Maeir said the shard is also the oldest Philistine inscription ever found in Israel.

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

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

Maier said he spent several months verifying his find with other experts and planned to discuss it at a conference in the United States later this month.

http://fullcoverage.yahoo.com/s/nm/2005 ... NlYwNmYw--


Also a journal that published the find
http://www.legendarytimes.com/index.php ... ws&id=4499

Discussion
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread182155/pg1

[thereal]

Does anyone know if this find has been published in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal? I investigated the link to the source of the article, The Legendary Times, and found it is not a peer-reviewed journal...meaning you can basically write whatever you want and you don't have to face any challenge regarding the validity of the work. Furthermore, some of the "studies" from this website read more like the supermarket tabloids, with articles on alien embryos and UFOs visiting ancient civilizations. I have tried but been unsuccessful in searching for any similar coverage of this discovery from a source with any validity...anyone else have any luck?

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Don't know don't care....so the legendary times is like the national enquirer or something?

[Jbuza]

searching for any similar coverage of this discovery from a source with any validity

I can understand with the evolutionary history of hoaxes, even peer reviewed hoaxes, later to be disproven, that you may have

been jaded, and think that everyone is out for deceit. The dig was conducted under the head of the archeology department

at Bar-Ilan University near Tel Aviv. The articles say that archeologists dated the pottery to 950 BC.
Are you suggesting that

a couple of school children fired it in their moms oven, and slipped it through a chian link fence to a reporter for twenty bucks?

CBS reports it on their site maybe that proves it's forged

[thereal]

Don't know don't care....so the legendary times is like the national enquirer or something?

I don't know if the first part of your comment means you're not interested in the topic in general or you don't want to consider the validity of the source. However, when it comes to credibility and accountability, internet websites usually don't hold water, much like papers such as the National Inquirer. I'm not saying I don't believe this story just because it's about finding Goliath's name...it's just that I would like to see more detailed coverage from a more reliable source. As most people know, internet is an unregulated media outlet, meaning that you can write whatever you want. I'm just surprised that a story of this magnitude, if true, is not supported in any legitimate scientific journal. There are online journals that are credible and peer-reviewed, but just from looking at their website, Legendary Times does not appear to be one of them. I would like more detailed explanations of their process for dating items, other items that may have been found at this site, research methods, etc., but none of this information is provided. I know it may seem like a picky thing to consider for some, but when it comes to research (in ANY field), there is a world of difference between a peer-reviewed finding and one on an unregulated webpage. It is that important!

I can understand with the evolutionary history of hoaxes, even peer reviewed hoaxes, later to be disproven, that you may have been jaded, and think that everyone is out for deceit.

For me, the basic principle surrounding this article isn't deceit..it's about providing even basic details about your research, which has not been done as far as I can tell. Furthermore, viewing any finding with some skepticism is a basic cornerstone of science. If people could just say whatever they want and no one could question them, how would we know if we ever made a mistake or neglected to consider something? It honestly doesn't make a bit of difference to me whether or not the finding is true, IF it is an honest finding. Determining that one name on one pottery shard represents one specific person is a ridiculously huge stretch for me, but my main concern is the validity of the work.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Don't know don't care....so the legendary times is like the national enquirer or something?

I don't know if the first part of your comment means you're not interested in the topic in general or you don't want to consider the validity of the source. However, when it comes to credibility and accountability, internet websites usually don't hold water, much like papers such as the National Inquirer. I'm not saying I don't believe this story just because it's about finding Goliath's name...it's just that I would like to see more detailed coverage from a more reliable source. As most people know, internet is an unregulated media outlet, meaning that you can write whatever you want. I'm just surprised that a story of this magnitude, if true, is not supported in any legitimate scientific journal. There are online journals that are credible and peer-reviewed, but just from looking at their website, Legendary Times does not appear to be one of them. I would like more detailed explanations of their process for dating items, other items that may have been found at this site, research methods, etc., but none of this information is provided. I know it may seem like a picky thing to consider for some, but when it comes to research (in ANY field), there is a world of difference between a peer-reviewed finding and one on an unregulated webpage. It is that important!

I can understand with the evolutionary history of hoaxes, even peer reviewed hoaxes, later to be disproven, that you may have been jaded, and think that everyone is out for deceit.

For me, the basic principle surrounding this article isn't deceit..it's about providing even basic details about your research, which has not been done as far as I can tell. Furthermore, viewing any finding with some skepticism is a basic cornerstone of science. If people could just say whatever they want and no one could question them, how would we know if we ever made a mistake or neglected to consider something? It honestly doesn't make a bit of difference to me whether or not the finding is true, IF it is an honest finding. Determining that one name on one pottery shard represents one specific person is a ridiculously huge stretch for me, but my main concern is the validity of the work.

This appears to be a valid find
The discovery was released in the associated press.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051111/ap_ ... NlYwM3NTM-
Since the counterfeiting scandals of biblical findings a few years back, testing for validity is requisite before a find can be published in any scientific journals.

[Jbuza]

Although I'm not sure I should tell you this, I found a link at Discovery Channel that you may find quite helpful in dismissing the idea
if you feel fireightened by the thoughts of the Truth of The Bible.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20 ... h_arc.html

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Although I'm not sure I should tell you this, I found a link at Discovery Channel that you may find quite helpful in dismissing the idea
if you feel fireightened by the thoughts of the Truth of The Bible.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20 ... h_arc.html

I am not sure where you are going with this. The information contained in this article is the same as in the other articles. Sometimes I wonder about your reading comprehension.

[Jbuza]

I know I know I shouldn't be so hostile, but it was a good well written article that was more in depth than the others. When one spars with word, one must get a point now and then.



Touche
Sometimes I wonder about your reading comprehension. See you did it. tit for tat

[BGoodForGoodSake]

I know I know I shouldn't be so hostile, but it was a good well written article that was more in depth than the others. When one spars with word, one must get a point now and then.



Touche
Sometimes I wonder about your reading comprehension. See you did it. tit for tat

I am sorry, I do not understand this post.

[Jbuza]

I was being disparaging with my remarks about you wanting to escape truth, and you reponded disparagingly
by saying I cannot comprehend what I read.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

I was being disparaging with my remarks about you wanting to escape truth, and you reponded disparagingly
by saying I cannot comprehend what I read.

I wasn't being disparaging, I was honestly questioning your reading comprehension. You automatically assume that any post made by me is against your worldview, and because of this perhaps, you are lacking a clarity of mind.

[Jbuza]

Let's see I lost track should I be defending or attacking?

Lets see we had the whole disengenuous remark about not wanting to believe the truth, than reading comprehension, than mental aquity.

I don't know I lost track. Was a pretty good story on discovery channel site about the find though.