There were some stirrings over this controversial find, but it seems to have faded. As an archaeologist and historian in training what might my take on all this be
( Read more... )
It was a very interesting watch. There wasn't so much sloppy science as there was sloppy conclusions based on what little findings were discovered.
The reason that there was no comparison between Mary and others is that the only 2 ossuaries that had any bone (DNA) material in them were those of Jesus and Mariamne. The others were pretty clean and had been on display at one point. They supposedly didn't have the technology available to them that could have possibly garnered DNA from the stains inside the bone boxes that were cleaned out.
They basically took the "story" and "evidence" as far as they could, made their conclusions and threw it out for the hounds of acadaemia to fight over and hopefully spurn further investigation.
My take is that it is entirely plausible. There is enough evidence to warrant deeper investigation by those with deep enough pockets to carry it through. The only thing is that this is such a divisive issue that whatever evidence does show up, it will likely be skewed to fit the agenda of those presenting it (read: paying for it).
Yeah. I feel like it will be like the Shroud of Turino - there will be experts on either side (and not so experts, too, I'd imagine) crying foul or hoax or interference or whatnot. And in the end very few, if any, people will be swayed away from their original position.
But, as a historian and archaeologist I do just want to bloody know what CAN be determined :)
The reason that there was no comparison between Mary and others is that the only 2 ossuaries that had any bone (DNA) material in them were those of Jesus and Mariamne. The others were pretty clean and had been on display at one point. They supposedly didn't have the technology available to them that could have possibly garnered DNA from the stains inside the bone boxes that were cleaned out.
They basically took the "story" and "evidence" as far as they could, made their conclusions and threw it out for the hounds of acadaemia to fight over and hopefully spurn further investigation.
My take is that it is entirely plausible. There is enough evidence to warrant deeper investigation by those with deep enough pockets to carry it through. The only thing is that this is such a divisive issue that whatever evidence does show up, it will likely be skewed to fit the agenda of those presenting it (read: paying for it).
We'll see.
Reply
But, as a historian and archaeologist I do just want to bloody know what CAN be determined :)
Reply
Leave a comment