I Get Comments

Every now and then I get a comment that deserves more notice than it’s likely to get sitting on the back of some old forgotten post.

I thought I would bring this one, by Paul S. to the front page.  It’s in response to this post.

Don’t fool yourself. James Tabor is not a “good guy”; anyone who witnessed the hatred and disrespect he displayed toward Ben Witherington during the initial flurry of discussion over the Talpiot Tomb in ‘07 can certainly bear witness to this. What I am referring to is Tabor’s mockery of Witherington’s faith. Witherington has never attempted to appear more than what he is: a Christian Origins professor who also is a believing Christian. This is in stark contrast to Tabor, who at various times has attempted to appear as an archaeologist, an expert on ancient inscriptions, a man with an academic career stretching “over 40 years,” and an “expert on the Dead Sea Scrolls.” All this without publishing a single article on any of the above subjects since he received his Ph.D. from Chicago in the late 80’s. Don’t let him fool you, he is a man with an agenda and is ruthlessly determined to pursue it. Please keep up your good work with this site and keep holding others to a median standard of behavior.

I certainly can see where he is coming from, some of the recent musings on Tabor’s blog have been quite hostile and insulting to scholars who don’t follow his “statistics”, even though there are many unanswered question of methodological validity concerning their use.

Vatican Says ET OK

One of the big stories going around the blogs right now is the claim by the Vatican that there may be extraterrestrials out there somewhere.    This isn’t really too big of a surprise, believing in something that is possible (aliens) isn’t necessarily a huge jump for a group that believes in something much less possible (God).

However, as Greg Laden has pointed out (with a somewhat inaccurate portrayal of Protestant baptism), is that this brings up all sorts of thorny theological issues.  The astronomer at the Vatican has said that these aliens may have been born without original sin, since the Garden of Eden was on earth, obviously.

I think the real news here is not that the Vatican says aliens might exist, everyone knows they might exist, just that at present there is no evidence.   The real news is that by stating this, the Vatican has effectively declared original sin and the Garden of Eden fact, to spite the lack of evidence for either one. Additionally, the big argument for aliens isn’t simply the possibility of aliens, but the possibility of God’s creative powers.

Effectively, the Vatican’s argument for aliens is actually worse than many other people, who simply argue on chance.  The Vatican argues based solely on the existence of an undocumented being with infinite power for the existence of beings outside the knowledge of their all knowing book and patriarch.  Makes my head hurt.

More Ark in Axum Fun

Bloomberg News is reporting on a new study from the University of Hamburg, under Helmut Ziegert, claiming that they located the palace belonging to the Queen of Sheba in Axum Ethiopia.

The archaeological evidence clearly shows that Sheba was not in Axum, and that the Yahwistic faith did not arrive until centuries after the time when Solomon would have lived. I’ve addressed this problem before, here.

Ziegert falls victim to the same reliance on the Kebra Negast that many others have over the years. This text was written well after the supposed transit to Ethiopia of the Ark of the Covenant and the Israelite royal line. This is the same false reasoning used by biblical literalists to reconstruct archaeological evidence to agree with the bible.

However, Ziegert moves beyond a blind acceptance ofmythic history:

The palace built over the Queen of Sheba’s home was also aligned with the star Sirius, the statement said. The researchers conjecture that the second palace was built by Menelik, who, legend has it, was the son of Sheba and King Solomon.

The results of the Hamburg field trip suggest that together with Judaism and the Ark of the Covenant, a cult worshipping Sirius came to Ethiopia and practiced its religion until about 600 A.D., the university said.

Again, the mention of Melenik is reliance on a text which is actively in contradiction to archaeologically supported historic evidence.

I am generally skeptical of any grou, when they are mentioned in the context of both Indiana Jones and Graham Hancock.

Kfar HaHoresh, Mortuary Site?

For the last week or so I have been very quite as far as posts go. This is largely because of my end of semester work load, which is at present quite heavy. Today, I finished a paper for my Neolithic in the Near East class on the PPNB site of Kfar HaHoresh.

N. Goring-Morris, the principle excavator, has indicated that this may have been a regional ritual and mortuary site. Y. Garfinkel has raised various objections to this theory based on the material remains.

You’ll find my paper, which goes into the site report and explores the various interpretations of the site after the fold:

Honey A Medical Miracle?

I love honey, I also suffer from tons of allergies most of the time.   When a friend recently claimed that honey had been the cause of an allergy free year for her, it sounded like something I should at least look up, even if I did hear a bit of quacking somewhere in the back of my mind.

After a brief web search, I have found a ton of sites claiming that local honey (the stuff you buy at a farmers’ market etc) exposes one to local pollen and other allergens.

Dr. William G. Peterson of Oklahoma is quoted as saying :

“It must be raw honey because raw honey contains all the pollen, dust and molds that cause 90 per cent of all allergies,” he told a meeting of the Oklahoma Beekeepers Association. “What happens is that the patient builds up an immunity to pollen, dust or mold that is causing his trouble in the first place. The raw honey must “not be strained, not even through a cloth.”

This sounds quite amazing, but it’s likely false.  You see, most pollen allergies come from tree and grass pollens, not flower pollens.  This means, of course, that these aren’t the pollens bees are likely to collect and put into their honey.  It appears to be just another aspect of this “natural is better” craze that is strong right now, even though it is so often illogical and unproven (or disproven).

Don’t believe me?   A controlled study in the Annals of Allergies, Asthma, and Immonology, (Abstract here) concluded that

This study does not confirm the widely held belief that honey relieves the symptoms of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

This was based on a study of three groups, one with fake honey, one with local honey, and one with shipped honey.  The results across all three groups were

Neither honey group experienced relief from their symptoms in excess of that seen in the placebo group.

So, why does the good doctor quoted above find positive results in his practice?  Well a further explanation from the same source may offer some light.

Dr. William G. Peterson, an allergist from Ada in the 1950’s, said he now has 22,000 patients across the nation who are using raw honey along with more customary medications to relieve allergy symptoms.

Yes, they are still taking traditional therapies in addition to the alternative medicine.  Certainly there is absolutely no reason to believe any of the success is due to honey.

I would also like to note the following quote from the same source:

Dr. Peterson said he and the 20 doctors at his clinic at Ada normally prescribe a daily teaspoon of raw honey. The honey treatment continues even after the allergy is under control.

I also wonder if one teaspoon of honey has enough of a dose anyway.   How often does hey-fever act up after eating honey?  Thinking about actual allergy shots (which have had their efficacy shown in trials), there is a very real potential for adverse allergic reactions.   Not so with honey, and while proponents will likely claim this is because it is natural, the lack of an actual reaction of any sort to it, likely means that your body is not having a strong enough allergic interaction to create an immunity.

Likely, any claims of honey’s efficacy rely more on chance observations of periods of low allergies and subconsciously ignoring periods of high allergies leading to a false positive, similar to what’s seen in many alternative medicines.

Rajan, T. V et al Abstract of “Effect of ingestion of honey on symptoms of rhinoconjunctivitis” Annals of Allergies, Asthma, and Immunology 2002 88.2 Accessed 4-26-2008

Drink to Science Blogs

Malaria, Bedbugs, Sea Lice, and Sunsets has a great weekend post up spotlighting science blogs as a new drinking game.  It includes

Greg Laden writes fewer than four posts a day on Greg Laden’s Blog (Chug if at least two posts have something to do with science)

and

PZ Myers uses the word “feculent” to disemvowel a critic or other annoying individual on Pharyngula

Now we can all hope this catches on and the science bloggers unite to reshape an actual blogging weekend.  If they do their writing well, we could all end up more drunk than frat boys on a Thursday night.

Statistics Prove Link Between Candidacy and Insanity

Well, not really, but the news today concerning the presidential candidates and vaccine denialism goes a long way toward that conclusion.

McCain jumped on the band wagon a while back, and we really can’t be surprised considering he had already come out against evolution and loves popular issues like a hyena loves corpses.

However both Democratic candidates have outed themselves as apparently unable to read current scientific conclusions. (see here and here also, check out denialism blog on the issue)

Obama is quoted as saying

“We’ve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it’s connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it.” [the 'This person' refers to the individual who asked the question Obama was responding to.]

Maybe I missed the news, but I understood that science, ie that stuff people do in labs or using statistics, was pretty conclusive on the issue right now, and that vaccines were safe and that most of them no longer used thimerosal anyway.

Clinton has pretty much parroted the same missunderstanding

Yes. We don’t know what, if any, kind of link there is between vaccines and autism - but we should find out.

This was in a question regarding her willingness to fund studies of vaccinated and unvaccinated children.  I can tell you the answer now, the second group probably has a higher rate of a variety of viruses, strangely enough the exact same ones they weren’t vaccinated for.

Now, there is every possibility that the candidates are just acting like cranks to get the nut vote, but it’s certainly scary even if this is the case, because it gives support to unscientific and repudiated claims and could potentially lead to the next president wasting our money on this research.

To conclude though, I would like to concede that these autism cranks aren’t always wrong.  The author of the first article linked to above, is himself a nut, and, inadvertently, he provides us with a valid statement on the issue:

So there you have it, our next President will share the views of such radical fringe crazies as, well, me, Democrat Robert Kennedy, Jr., Republican Joe Scarborough, former NIH and Red Cross chief Bernadine Healy, and several researchers at Harvard, Johns Hopkins, the Universities of California and Washington and elsewhere.

A Skeptical Look at a Neolithic Ritual Site

For years, the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B site of Kfar HaHoresh has been noted as a ritual site without occupation by the primary excavator, Goring-Morris, and others.  The site, based on excavation reports published from 1991 to 1997 and subsequent analysis, the site is supposed to be a non-occupied area used by individuals from surrounding sites for burial and feasting.

However, this Yosef Garfinkel has published a paper (2006), titled The Burials of Kfar HaHoresh - A Regional or Local Phenomenon?, which seeks to challenge this interpretation.  Garfinkel offers three strong refutations to the claims of Kfar HaHoresh’s ritual nature.

First, the assemblage at the site includes the common material remains from average Neolithic sites, including the presence of 120,000 flint objects, which have indicated that the chipped stone of the site does not significantly differ from other Neolithic sites in the area.  This means that the site shows evidence of supporting human habitation similar to other sites in the region.

This is also supported by the faunal remains, which show distributions similar to other sites, including the hunted animals such as auerochsen which  represent a small percent of those found.  While the find of a pit containing a number of these animals does seem indicative of feasting, this by no means is outside the range of habitable sites found in the Near Eastern Neolithic.

Secondly, Garfinkel examines the major issue of the site, the lack of houses.   Goring-Morris finds the sets of walls with floors to be evidence of ritual buildings, not homes.  However, when looked at in comparison to other Neolithic sites, they match rectangular houses found throughout the PPNB.   The only possible problem is the frequency of missing walls which are usually the North and West of the buildings.  Garfinkel finds that this is easily explainable through erosion on the sloped site, as comparable to finds at the site of Yiftahel.

The point is also made that only about 5%-10% of the site has been excavated, and excavation was non-random, following finds of skulls and the like.  This leads to a problem of sample size as to the representative nature of this 5%-10% to the remainder of the site.  Certainly this occurs at many sites, but in this case adds clearly to the possibility that a full building might still be excavated.

Next, the burials at the site are nothing to write home about.   The treatment of dead humans at Kfar HaHoresh is absolutely in line with other sites in the region during the PPNB, and do not lead to a conclusion that the site is different, special, or specialized.

Finally, I would point out Garfinkel’s conclusion, which reads

On the one hand, Kfar HaHoresh produced architecture, material culture, and burials similar to those uncovered at other Pre-Pottery Neolithic B sites in the Levant.  On the other hand, typical cultic paraphernalia (beside the plastered skulls) was not found.  The site suffers from various depositional processes that removed large parts of its architecture.  The location on a slope probably accelerates the natural erosion, at work continually for over 9,000 years.  The underground burials better resist such processes and are thus better preserved.  This situation creates a preliminary impression that the site functioned as a specialized regional cultic center.

For those interested in Neolithic ritual sites, it is perhaps a better choice to look at something like Nehal Hemar, or individual buildings in sites, like the Jericho wall or the stones at Atlit Yam.  Though, Kfar HaHoresh may have been an isolated ritual site, Garfinkel makes a strong case to the contrary.

Garfinkel, Yosef  “The Burials of Kfar HaHoresh” in Journal of the Prehistoric Society 36 (2006): 109-116.

Goring-Morris, Nigel “A PPNB Settlement at Kfar Hahoresh in Lower Galilee: A Preliminary Report of the 1991 Season” in Journal of the Prehistoric Society 24 (1991) 77-101.

Goring-Morris et al ” The 1997 Season of excavation at the mortuary site of Kfar HaHoresh, Galilee, Israel” in Neo-Lithics (199 1-4

Archaeozoo Funerals and Feasts in Pre-Pottery Neolithic B .

Kilty and Elliot Redux

As noted by Dr. James Tabor, Kevin Kilty and Mark Elliot have produced a response paper to some commentary on their original paper.

Overall the paper, which is available online here, is unremarkable. The point I do wish to address though, is where the authors write:

Again, we do not see merit in this assertion. For the brief period of Jesus’
life, Jesus’ marital status arouses little interest in the Gospels. On whether
Jesus had been married previously or had a son, the Gospels are silent.
Moreover, the Gospels rarely reveal any information on the marital status of
Jesus’ apostles. There is a brief mention of Peter’s (Simon’s) mother-in-law
but nothing on his wife or possible children (Mk 1:30). Can we suppose that
all the original disciples excluding Peter were not married simply because
their marital status remains unmentioned in the Gospels? If it wasn’t for
Paul’s brief comment concerning the wives of the other apostles and the
brothers of the lord and Cephas (I Cor 9:5), we would have no creditable
information concerning the wives of the apostles. The Gospel writers scarcely
show any interest in the marital status of Jesus or his disciples.
In addition there is a curious omission that critics who defend the celibate
nature of Jesus must address. In Paul’s letter to the Corinthians he maintains
that the unmarried and the widows should “remain unmarried as I am (I Cor
7:8).” Why not use Jesus as the ideal illustration of one who is unmarried
or that celibacy is a special gift? Nowhere in Paul’s letter does he insist his
unmarried circumstances is an emulation of Jesus.

As I have noted before, this is simply cherry-picking. If the authors plan on taking the bible as a model, they should be responsible for following it completely. By ignoring this clear failure of data fit, the statistics must be questioned.

At the very least, any computations must take this as some level of miss, even if the obvious and necessary conclusion that the Talpiot Tomb did not believe to the biblical Jesus is ignored. In general, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but neither is it evidence of presence, in this case a son of Jesus or a wife.

I would also like to make a challenge concerning Dr. Tabor’s commentary on the issue:

It is unfortunate that the work of qualified scholars such as Feuerverger, Elliot, and Kilty has not yet been factored into the mainstream discussion of “The Tomb” by the scholars. This was widely evident at the Princeton Seminary conference on the Talpiot tomb that met in Jerusalem in January. It has also become abundantly clear in subsequent Web and media comments thereafter by various Talpiot tomb “gainsayers.” I think this misunderstanding stems, in most cases, from a lack of understanding of how statistics work with regard to the Talpiot tomb names.

As I have noted on two separate occasions, Dr. Tabor has made at least two posts concerning the statistics that show a failure on his part to understand the statistics, here and here. His claims concerning the meanings of a .48 chance shows a clear overemphasis on the results that is clearly undue if one understands the statistics and archaeological methodology appropriately.

Why do mainstream archaeologists ignore this? Largely because they understand the statistics, and the meanings of the calculations. The statistics clearly lack the ability to give an absolute answer. Additionally, the analysis to this point have ignored clear problems with the identification, that have simply been ignored.

April Expelled Day

Well, it’s April 18, and today Ben Stein and his cronies release Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

Where Al Gore took a potential catastrophe and brought it to the public’s attention on a new level, Stein effectively takes a non-issue and tries to blow it up for personal gain and a chance to talk about Nazis.

So, I am proposing that today become an atheist, rationalist, etc holiday, Expelled Day.  Go out tonight and do anything but see Expelled.

It would certainly be a good thing to see another movie, but anything will do.  Have diner with family, go to a park, play Wii.  Just don’t see Expelled.

I know that most people who will join me in this new holiday will likely not be going to see Stein’s school boy outfit, but it would certainly help it we all kept our minds off of it for an evening and had fun instead.

If you do have to think about expelled today, think about going to the Expelled Exposed