Ancient chewing gum?

I noticed this article when I finished reading the story about Leona Helmsley. When you see a headline like this you just have to click on it: Student dig unearths ancient gum

A 5,000-year-old piece of chewing gum has been discovered by an archaeology student from the University of Derby.

Sarah Pickin, 23, found the lump of birch bark tar while on a dig in western Finland.

Neolithic people used the material as an antiseptic to treat gum infections, as well as a glue for repairing pots.

What more is there to say about that, really.

A few answers to my questions

In a post yesterday, I mentioned a story from the BBC about the Discovery Channel's upcoming documentary The Lost Tomb of Jesus. The article mentioned DNA testing, but gave no explanation of what DNA was tested and what it was compared to. A story in today's NYT gives a little more information. Crypt Held Bodies of Jesus and Family, Film Says

However, the documentary’s director and its driving force, Simcha Jacobovici, an Israeli-born Canadian, said there was enough mitochondrial DNA for a laboratory in Ontario to conclude that the bodies in the “Jesus” and “Mary Magdalene” ossuaries were not related on their mothers’ side. From this, Mr. Jacobovici deduced that they were a couple, because otherwise they would not have been buried together in a family tomb.

In an interview, Mr. Jacobovici was asked why the filmmakers did not conduct DNA testing on the other ossuaries to determine whether the one inscribed “Judah, son of Jesus” was genetically related to either the Jesus or Mary Magdalene boxes; or whether the Jesus remains were actually the offspring of Mary.

“We’re not scientists. At the end of the day we can’t wait till every ossuary is tested for DNA,” he said. “We took the story that far. At some point you have to say, ‘I’ve done my job as a journalist.’ ”

I find that very interesting. They want to make it sound like it is scientific, but then he plainly states "We're not scientists." It doesn't even sound to me like good journalism. If you are not going to wait for all the facts before you start making grand hypotheses, then you are just taking part in sensationalism, not real scientific documentary work.

I personally tend not to watch Discovery Channel documentaries anymore for that very reason. All of the ones that I've taken time to watch seem to follow that same formula. Hype something up like they really know something about it, and then when the show is over, you really have very few facts and a lot of speculation repeated over and over.

My guess is that all devout Christians that watch the show will realize that it is not scientific and won't allow it to affect their beliefs at all. However, many who regularly watch documentaries or shows on that same channel will continue to swear by the accuracy of their other stories. It seems to me, if you can't trust one of their documentaries, you should at least be skeptical of them all? Maybe that's just me.

Take it or leave it.

BBC News - 'Jesus tomb found' in Jerusalem

Jesus had a son named Judah and was buried alongside Mary Magdalene, according to a new documentary by Hollywood film director James Cameron.

It examines a tomb that, it is claimed, belonged to Jesus and his family, and was found near Jerusalem in 1980.

The Oscar-winning director of Titanic says statistical analysis and DNA show the tomb is that of Jesus.

I'd like to find out a little more information about this. I don't understand how DNA can even be an issue here. Where are they getting DNA that they "know" belonged to Jesus to test it against? Without something to test it against, DNA is useless. It's not going to affect my religious beliefs one way or the other, but it still would be interesting to know what they are basing it on.

Intellectual honesty?

NYT - Believing Scripture but Playing by Science’s Rules

There is nothing much unusual about the 197-page dissertation Marcus R. Ross submitted in December to complete his doctoral degree in geosciences here at the University of Rhode Island.

His subject was the abundance and spread of mosasaurs, marine reptiles that, as he wrote, vanished at the end of the Cretaceous era about 65 million years ago. The work is “impeccable,” said David E. Fastovsky, a paleontologist and professor of geosciences at the university who was Dr. Ross’s dissertation adviser. “He was working within a strictly scientific framework, a conventional scientific framework.”

But Dr. Ross is hardly a conventional paleontologist. He is a “young earth creationist” — he believes that the Bible is a literally true account of the creation of the universe, and that the earth is at most 10,000 years old.

For him, Dr. Ross said, the methods and theories of paleontology are one “paradigm” for studying the past, and Scripture is another. In the paleontological paradigm, he said, the dates in his dissertation are entirely appropriate. The fact that as a young earth creationist he has a different view just means, he said, “that I am separating the different paradigms.”

The article continues on to discuss the use of scientific degrees by creationists to somehow validate their positions as scientific, and the ability (or lack thereof) of universities to use the religious beliefs of degree candidates as criteria for awarding or withholding degrees.

It just seems to me that student here is being intellectually dishonest. He is unwilling to be honest with himself. Either he believes what his dissertation says or he doesn't. All of this "one paradigm or another" business doesn't cut it for me in this circumstance. Now I can say "if one follows a realist paradigm" even if I'm not a realist, but I'm not going to write a dissertation arguing in favor of that paradigm.

I suppose that the universities shouldn't be able to deny people degrees based on their religious beliefs on the one hand, but if the candidates have truly steeled themselves against believing what they are being taught, it seems that they don't really deserve the degree in the first place. Ultimately, it just seems like a really odd thing to do.

New Find Near Stonehenge

CNN - Stonehenge workers' village found

Archaeologists have uncovered what may have been a village for workers or festival-goers near the mysterious stone circle Stonehenge in England.

The village was located at Durrington Walls, about two miles from Stonehenge, and is also the location of a wooden version of the stone circle.

[. . .]

The researchers speculated that Durrington Walls was a place for the living and Stonehenge -- where several cremated remains have been found -- was a cemetery and memorial.

I didn't realize they had determined that Stonehenge was a cemetery. I guess I'm behind the times.

Durrington appears "very much a place of the living," Parker Pearson said. In contrast, no one ever lived at the stone circle at Stonehenge, which was the largest cemetery in Britain of its time. Stonehenge is thought to contain 250 cremations.

I guess you learn something new everyday.

Revisiting the Hobbits

BBC - Hobbit cave digs set to restart

Archaeologists who found the remains of human "Hobbits" have permission to restart excavations at the cave where the specimens were found.

Indonesian officials have blocked access to the cave since 2005, following a dispute over the bones.

But Professor Richard "Bert" Roberts, a member of the team that found the specimens, told BBC News the political hurdles had now been overcome.

I remember reading about this find back in 2004. It is a very controversial subject. My time as an anthropology student leads me to doubt that any definitive answer will ever be found. As much as they like to believe they are being objective, it is always actually a very subjective process.