Kevin's Watch

LOL ..

indeed a fountain of useless information .. LOL .. and that wealth of knoweldge has certainly come in handy here lol

Well gents

Petra is located about 20 miles east of the Israeli border in southern Jordan. I found an old book of mine, Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, which contained a bit of information concerning the city.
It was a sort of capital and trade center during the 1st and 2nd centuries and would later hold the tombs of various nobles and merchants of the region and of the Roman Empire. Truly a wonderful place.

I find myself screaming at the TV whenever someone gets an easy question wrong on Jeopardy.

TLF, when I get a chance I'll post about Atlantis. [/i]

What, no holy grail? Yeah, I had the equivalent of three years of college level hebrew studies, including culture, and that was one of the things mentioned (for a field trip, we even went to a restaurant called Petra that served mid-east food... which I like, but only in small doses about once a year).

I guess one of my instructors had a dad that was an archaeologist in the area, and she said that he knew the arab guy who had the dead sea scrolls. Apparently, when her dad expressed interest in buying the scrolls, the guy offered to cut it like a bolt of cloth.

How many yards of Dead Sea Scroll do you want?
I've got some great ocean front property hear in WV if anyone is interested.
The Holy Grail, on the other hand is in England while the Ark of the Covenant is in Ethiopia. I just see this stuff on TV.

I would love to see a couple of yards kins!!

I can't tell if you are joking or serious, Kin. Is the Holy Grail really in England and the Ark in Ehiopia?

There is a book, The Sign and the Seal, written by Graham Hancock whichs details his theory that the Ark of the Covenant exists today in a little chapel on an island in Lake Axum,Ethiopia. I've read sections of it but and he makes a good case but I not yet entirely convinced.
I remember watching a show about the Holy Grail being in an abbey in England. I usually believe everything I see on TV.
Who truly knows?
I am actually torn by my interests. On one hand archaeology is a calculated "scientific" methodology, while fantasy appeals to my heart. Sometimes I find myself considering ridiculous possiblities when looking at an unknown artifact.
One day I will be right.

The current dig has produced a few unexpected finds. It seems beneath the kitchen area of the farm a prehistoric native american camp was present at one time. In this strata we uncovered quite a few projectile points (arrowheads, spearpoints) that appear to date around 4000 to 5000 years old.

On another note I just got a copy of Eyewitness to Discovery edited by Brian M. Fagan. The book gives 50 first-hand accounts of some of the greatest archaeology finds in history. The accounts include the Leakeys finding Lucy, Arthur Evans at Knossos, Schliemann's Troy, and many more. Its definately worth a look

Archaelogy? I just watch the "Time Team" on Discovery and go to the odd museum. And while I find the subject fascinating I do not think I would very much like to crawl around digging for all the dirty old stuff.

But I had a friend in school who used to find arrowheads and stuff in his fields, he had quite a nice collection I seem to remember.

Getting dirty isn't all that bad
Besides you never know what you're going to find. Usually projectile points can be found right on the surface of the ground depending on the erosion levels of the region. Here in WV we have very little soil gain or loss so lucky seekers can just bend over and pick them up.
By the way, Native Americans didn't start using the bow and arrow until about Columbus's arrival so 99% of any point you find is actually a spear or other projectile point.

I most seriously doubt the Holy Grail existed. It was a fictional invention--meaning it doesn’t appear in any ancient Christian texts. In fact, the first known mention of it is in a retelling of the King Arthur legend "Le Conte du Graal", written in the last quarter of the 12th century by French poet Chretien de Troyes. That’s another goofy thing! Most people assume Arthur was an English myth, but it’s really not; it’s a mishmash of cultures--and mostly French, at that!

Kinslaughterer wrote:By the way, Native Americans didn't start using the bow and arrow until about Columbus's arrival so 99% of any point you find is actually a spear or other projectile point.

I guess this is in reference to my post and I just wanted to inform you that as I do not live in America I have never believed the things he found to be indian (or whatever you call them). I always assumed they were stone age things, or possibly later. (Could be viking, local legend has it that the red island just off the coast from his farm gets its name from blood spilled there.)

Kin -

You said that you enjoy the "scientific" aspect of archaelogy and yet the fantasy stirs your blood also. Wouldn't it be a great idea to write a book about an archaelogist who finds an artifact from another world (or dimension)? Not from another planet, not SciFi, but fantasy - another place, like the Land.

Yes, caam that's why I have a tendency to believe or desire to believe in pseudoarchaeology. In fact I once pondered the possibility of writing such a story but procrastination got the better of me.

Ryzel, no that reference wasn't toward you, I had noticed you are from Norway. The Vikings were using mostly metal weapons so I doubt any stone implements or projectile points are associated with them. However any lithics (stone) tools you find are almost certainly prehistoric and potentially far older than virtually anything in North America.

Foul, There quite possibly was a Holy Grail but I doubt that it still exists today. It was mentioned in the Bible, but it is not clear if they regarded that as a relic. It is mentioned in several texts associated with the masonic order and the Knight Templar dating far back into time but I don't have any reference here to say at the moment but I do have a couple of books on the subject that I check.

TLF, I still owe you an explanation of Atlantis, be patient I make it a good one.

I'll be patient, this is all very interesting.

Most relics date from medieval times. They were used for a variety of reasons; tourism, fundrasing, morale builders for the troops.

Even in those times not all the claims were believed. There was a big dispute during the Second Crusade about a relic that was claimed to be the spear that pierced Christ's side during the Crucifixion. The most famous relic in those times though was a piece of, what was claimed to be, the True Cross. It had been mentioned in chronicles from the time of Constantine through the Crusades, for the most part is as a spoil of war. What was very well paraded around as the Holy Grail may very well exist in England

I don't think Christians considered it a relic until that Arthur story. And then folks started going, "Hey; we got the grail over here!" It's like in the Canterbury Tales: one of the characters carries a normal pillow or something and says it belonged to the Virgin Mary. Stuff like that was going on all the time.

Also: the Grail’s not necessarily the cup used by Jesus at the Last Supper. Though commonly depicted as a chalice or as the dish holding the Paschal Lamb, in some accounts it's a cauldron, a philosopher's stone, or an emerald struck from Lucifer's crown as he plunged into hell.

Sure, several actual cups possibly connected with the death of Christ have turned up over the millennia, but the Grail of the stories came into being a mere eight centuries ago. It isn't part of early Christian tradition, much less a real artifact.

I heard that this Holy Grail thing was a sort of christianisation of a celtic story about a black cauldron of some sort.

Virtually all religious elements are descended from earlier cultures. Religion stands as one of Murdock's Cultural Universals. As much as people discount it, every culture has some semblence of religion. Generally the fall of the superstructure (ie religion, art, etc.) means the culture is nearing a breakdown.

The Holy Grail doesn't really concern true archaeology because one could only date it and not prove anything from its context or origin.

Archaeology does not view the artifacts themselves as valuable. The information they present is the key to unlocking the past. However in many instances the information can be viewed differently by different archaeologists. I tended to at least consider the more fantastic elements of modern archaeology much to the chagrin of my older brethern.

Kinslaughterer wrote:The Holy Grail doesn't really concern true archaeology because one could only date it and not prove anything from its context or origin.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say.