Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Archaeologists: There are too many camels in the Bible, out of time and out of place [View all]zeemike
(18,998 posts)146. Yep it is all settled now...don't even think it is not.
Researchers Divided Over Whether Anasazi Were Cannibals
Researchers Divided Over Whether Anasazi Were Cannibals
It's a word so dirty, so divisive, that a recent scientific symposium about it was evasively titled "Multidisciplinary Approaches to Social Violence in the Prehispanic American Southwest." But it was really about the C-word: cannibalism.
Archaeologists argue bitterly over whether the ancient Anasazi, the ancestors of today's Pueblo Indians, routinely killed and ate each other. From one point of view, the evidence seems overwhelming: piles of butchered human bones, some of which were apparently roasted or boiled. In one instance, ancient human feces even seem to contain traces of digested human tissue.
But from another standpoint, Anasazi cannibalism doesn't make sense. Eating people obviously isn't part of modern Pueblo culture, and local tribes are deeply offended by the suggestion that their Anasazi ancestors may have been cannibals. Many researchers argue that the marks attributed to flesh-eating could instead be created during slightly less gruesome activities, such as the public execution of suspected witches.
The scientific battle has polarized into two camps: "the bleeding hearts vs. the rip-their-hearts-out" factions, as Colorado archaeologist Steven Lekson calls them.
Most of the rip-their-hearts-out group declined the chance to attend the recent symposium, held in New Orleans during the annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology. But those archaeologists who did show up began moving toward a broader understanding, in which the Anasazi are seen neither as bloodthirsty savages nor as an entirely peaceful culture.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/06/0601_wireanasazi.html
Researchers Divided Over Whether Anasazi Were Cannibals
It's a word so dirty, so divisive, that a recent scientific symposium about it was evasively titled "Multidisciplinary Approaches to Social Violence in the Prehispanic American Southwest." But it was really about the C-word: cannibalism.
Archaeologists argue bitterly over whether the ancient Anasazi, the ancestors of today's Pueblo Indians, routinely killed and ate each other. From one point of view, the evidence seems overwhelming: piles of butchered human bones, some of which were apparently roasted or boiled. In one instance, ancient human feces even seem to contain traces of digested human tissue.
But from another standpoint, Anasazi cannibalism doesn't make sense. Eating people obviously isn't part of modern Pueblo culture, and local tribes are deeply offended by the suggestion that their Anasazi ancestors may have been cannibals. Many researchers argue that the marks attributed to flesh-eating could instead be created during slightly less gruesome activities, such as the public execution of suspected witches.
The scientific battle has polarized into two camps: "the bleeding hearts vs. the rip-their-hearts-out" factions, as Colorado archaeologist Steven Lekson calls them.
Most of the rip-their-hearts-out group declined the chance to attend the recent symposium, held in New Orleans during the annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology. But those archaeologists who did show up began moving toward a broader understanding, in which the Anasazi are seen neither as bloodthirsty savages nor as an entirely peaceful culture.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/06/0601_wireanasazi.html
Yep it is me in that bleeding heart crowd...and I am not ashamed of it, so the chrystal skull won't change me to a rip their heart out way of thinking.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
147 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Archaeologists: There are too many camels in the Bible, out of time and out of place [View all]
TheMathieu
Feb 2014
OP
If they just watched the history channel they would know camels are alien ghosts
Agnosticsherbet
Feb 2014
#6
Did anyone ever think it WASN'T written or edited long after the events it narrates?
frazzled
Feb 2014
#4
Yes, virtually every Christian fundamentalist believes it's verified history. (nt)
jeff47
Feb 2014
#10
Just what are you trying to push on us? Anyone with any sense knows that picture can't be true.
A Simple Game
Feb 2014
#97
American Right Wing Christians are Authoritarians and GOD is the ULTIMATE boss....
Spitfire of ATJ
Feb 2014
#92
Oh, I can't wait for the day when my field disproves the rest of the bible.
Vashta Nerada
Feb 2014
#13
Maybe Abraham’s servant was smoking a Camel on a mission to find a wife for Isaac.
dipsydoodle
Feb 2014
#14
Genesis was oral tradition written down to chronicle events of millions of years before.
freshwest
Feb 2014
#17
The story of Lot, his wife and daughters is a ribald shaggy dog pun in Sumerian.
aquart
Feb 2014
#26
OT is not inspired word of God. It's what we've got from our past to lead us forward.
aquart
Feb 2014
#27
It's a lot of old folklore which is why an American Bible should include Paul Bunyan.
Spitfire of ATJ
Feb 2014
#93
"Camels probably had little or no role in the lives of such early Jewish patriarchs "
zeemike
Feb 2014
#31
This is actually quite old. Have read similar things from back in the 1800's
The Straight Story
Feb 2014
#34
Thing is, some people 'want' to believe something instead of wanting to find facts
The Straight Story
Feb 2014
#48
The Per-Ankh article about Moses is pretty speculative but touches on some key points.
bklyncowgirl
Feb 2014
#124
I dislike having this conversation and that is why I stay out of the religious forum.
zeemike
Feb 2014
#46
Nonsense. Post something that makes the bible "sound true". Please.
Bernardo de La Paz
Feb 2014
#128
And they should not expect people to "respect" their faith as in "validate" it
Arugula Latte
Feb 2014
#138
Cannibalism is pretty well accepted by archaeologists now in the southwest.
bluedigger
Feb 2014
#145
Science comfortable w uncertainty. Religionists demand certainty & priests stand ready to supply it.
Bernardo de La Paz
Feb 2014
#101
The bible is false. We can be as certain of that as we are about the germ theory of disease. nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Feb 2014
#114
Correct, not in the bible, per se. Bible story of creation is still wrong.
Bernardo de La Paz
Feb 2014
#119
Holy shit, it's just a book.. that's been re-"translated" and manipulated for centuries
NightWatcher
Feb 2014
#66
There is no evidence of a worldwide flood that happened in the bible times.
Vashta Nerada
Feb 2014
#140
"The bible is a book with some beautiful poetry, a bloodstained history, a wealth of obscenity, and
Tierra_y_Libertad
Feb 2014
#127
following the History Channel - I would have to surmise that the camels were probably brought to
Douglas Carpenter
Feb 2014
#130
Also, kilts were invented about 250 years after the events depicted in "Braveheart"
Recursion
Feb 2014
#144