glaurung: (Default)
Here at last is the third, very long, final part of my three part takedown of Incunabula's viral thread from early September.

To recap: there was a thread on Twitter by Incunabula that went viral last month. In James Burke-ian Connections style, Incunabula said that "Cheese ?? is one of the 5 things the Western book as we know it depends on. The other four are snails, Jesus, underwear and spectacles." The history in that thread ranges from over simplified and inaccurate, through simply wrong, to a disingenuous lie. Today I'm mostly covering the part about "snails" aka Phoenicians, alphabets, and how printing would never have taken off if Gutenberg had used a syllabary or a logosyllabic script instead of an alphabet. Which is built on a lie.

Part one: cheese and Christianity/mostly over simplified and inaccurate. Part two: underwear/simply wrong. The original viral thread that I am laboriously beating to death.

Read more... )
glaurung: (Default)
To recap: there was a thread on Twitter by Incunabula that went viral a few weeks ago. In James Burke-ian Connections style, Incunabula says that "Cheese 🧀 is one of the 5 things the Western book as we know it depends on. The other four are snails 🐌, Jesus ✝️, underwear 🩲 and spectacles 👓." When I re-watched James Burke's "Connections" a year or so ago, in the places where I actually knew some of the history he was covering, mostly I just found myself thinking, "that's way oversimplified and leaving out a lot in order to sound neat." But sometimes, I would think, "that's just not so." This post covers one of the "that's just plain false" parts of Incunabula's highly Eurocentric and inaccurate thread.

Read more... )
glaurung: (Default)
Yes, I know this thinky is not about snails/underwear either. I'll get to that, I promise.

You remember the story that was all over the news last week about how a comet/asteroid had blown up 3500 years ago over Tell el-Hamman on the shore of the Dead Sea, destroying the city, and this was covered as the source of the biblical legend of Sodom?

Well, buckle your seatbelts, it's going to get bumpy. The article in question, "A Tunguska sized airburst destroyed Tall el-Hammam a Middle Bronze Age city in the Jordan Valley near the Dead Sea" was published in Nature Scientific Reports (*not* Nature itself, as was often misreported). Nature Scientific Reports is Nature's far less prestigious open access counterpart. The article says it's based on fifteen years of annual excavations, which in the world of archaeology is quite a lot: someone must be very well funded.

The owner of the Slacktivist blog noticed this line in the opening section of the article: (the excavation project is) "under the aegis of the School of Archaeology, Veritas International University, Santa Ana, CA, and the College of Archaeology, Trinity Southwest University, Albuquerque, NM." Both of those schools are bible colleges. Trinity Southwest is proudly unaccredited. Veritas International is accredited by the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools (ie, an association of bible schools that wanted to be able to say they were accredited).

Trinity started out as an in-person seminary in Oklahoma in the 80's. After moving to New Mexico and becoming a distance learning school, they affiliated with an unnamed overseas "internationally-known Bible college and seminary," then declared themselves a university in the early 90's. Although primarily doing distance learning, they say they offer in person classes as well. However, they have no campus: what physical locations they have are scattered along Journal Center Boulevard in Albuquerque. Their website is pretty minimal. Their library doesn't get a dedicated section on the website and just barely a mention in the student catalog that it exists. They do have their own press, though. And, they offer tours of the Holy Land for $4000 to see the sights, or $5000 if you also want to visit their archaeological dig at Sodom. Stuff they dig up at "Sodom" (aka Tell el-Hamman) goes on display in their very own archaeological museum in Albuquerque.

Veritas was founded as a seminary in 2008, and only decided to call themselves a university in 2017. Veritas's campus, as best I can tell from perusing the catalog, is one building, and their library has all of 4,000 paper books (unsurprisingly, the website gives a lot more emphasis to their digital resources). Library users are asked to bring their own computers, so the library doesn't really have terminals. They offer several doctor of divinity degrees, but just one PhD program: in biblical archaeology.

The websites of both of these schools are at pains to put their best face on and pretend that they are real institutions worthy of the name university despite not actually being anything like that. Trinity's campus is scattered, but there is no map in the student catalog or anywhere on the website showing where things are. While I think they don't actually offer in person classes except in a very minimal way, they do claim to have several physical resources and in person classrooms, and since those are not all in one place, there needs to be a map. But posting it to their site would be too much an admission of just how small and inconsequential they are. In the same vein, their catalog doesn't seem to differentiate between distance learning courses and actual in person classes. I think it's safe to say that they don't have many full time faculty other, perhaps, than a gaggle of distant adjuncts tasked with interacting with the distant learners who have been paying $250-ish per credit hour to support fifteen years of excavations in "Sodom."

Neither school provides basic academic information like the number of instructors or the number of students anywhere I could find. Also, unsurprisingly, neither school's website has a single word to say about COVID that I saw.

But, wait: there is more. The Tell el-Hamman paper has a very long list of authors. Only the last, Phillip J. Silvia, works at Trinity Southwest; all but one of the rest are affiliated with real universities, or else with real research laboratories. What's up with that? Turns out there's a second fly-by-night organization here, the "Comet Research Group." They get called out in the paper's acknowledgements for funding the research (as opposed to the excavations) behind the paper, and Allen West, the second to last author of the paper, is one of the CRG's founders.

The CRG is all about finding evidence that ancient comet/asteroid impacts caused local or global catastrophes. Before the Tell el-Hamman paper, they made a splash a few years ago with a proposal that the Younger Dryas, a thousand year cold snap that happened right at the end of the last ice age, was caused not by a shutdown of the Gulf Stream in the North Atlantic, as is usually thought by ancient climate researchers, but by the impact on Earth of a swarm of cometary fragments, Shoemaker–Levy 9-style, that caused widespread destruction, a nuclear winter that extended the ice age by a thousand years, mass extinctions of megafauna, population collapse of early humans in the Americas, and so forth.

The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis has been taken seriously by climate and ice age researchers who investigated its claims and found them mostly without merit. The only thing that seems to have come out of it is that there's a spike in platinum residue in sediment layers that are deemed to mark the start of the YD, in some locations, and that platinum could point to an asteroid or comet impact happening somewhere near the start of the YD... but the layers being pointed to as marking the start of the YD are not all the same age, there is no agreement that these identified layers are all in fact indicators of the start of the YD, the signs being found in those layers that are supposedly evidence of an impact, other than platinum, are all very debatable, and so on.

What's odd is that the CRG has not responded to the criticism and critique of their hypothesis by the scientific community in the usual way (going back to the drawing board, trying to find new evidence, pruning away some of the more extreme claims in their hypothesis and saying surely we can agree on this part, etc), but rather by refusing to share their samples and data with people who they deem to be "on the other side" of the debate. Much more about that here, and on Mark Boslough's twitter (see below).

The long list of CRG "scientists and members" on their website includes co-authors of papers who have otherwise had nothing to do with the CRG, as well as people who were not asked if they minded being listed as CRG members, and when they found out they'd been so listed, were upset at being included. Very classy.

And finally, one of the co-founders of CRG, Allen West, is not actually an academic, does not actually have an advanced degree, and has in the past, under a different name, been convicted of selling fraudulent water studies to California municipalities despite not being a geologist. So, a con artist passing as an academic and geologist who befriended the other co-founders, became infected with their obsession with cometary impacts, and proceeded to reinvent himself as a cometary impact specialist.

An earlier version of the Tell el-Hamman paper appeared a few years ago. That paper, "The 3.7kaBP Middle Ghor Event: Catastrophic Termination of a Bronze Age Civilization" was a conference presentation at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Schools of Oriental Research. The ASOR (now called American Society of Overseas Research because someone realized their old name was racist, but they still publish a bulletin and hold an annual conference under their old name because, hey, still racists) dates back to 1900, when they were called the American School of Oriental Study and Research in Palestine. In short, they are the big leagues in the small (and sometimes dubious) field of biblical archaeology.

The ASOR presentation was by just 4 authors: Silvia and Steven Collins are both faculty at Trinity Southwest University. Ted Bunch is co-founder of the Comet Research Group, and finally Malcolm Lecompte, odd man out, is an emeritus faculty member at Elizabeth City State University in North Carolina. Lecompte has a website: he does not list the ASOR paper in his vita.

Looking at all that, it seems that the CRG, an organization devoted to proving that comets killed the mammoths and extirpated our distant ancestors 13,000 years ago, is Very Good Friends with a bunch of young earth creationist "archaeologists." But the CRG seems to have a rather Trump/Republican approach to science: declare your dubious findings as proven, then label anyone who disagrees as an enemy and refuse to cooperate with them. So, maybe not such strange bedfellows after all.

There's a lot more about the Tell el-Hamman paper's shoddy research and dubious claims to be found in Mark Boslough's twitter account (Boslough is an *actual* asteroid impact researcher). (Boslough is just one of many who are tearing their hair out over the paper, thanks to Robin Reid for bringing his twitter threads to my attention). Unfortunately Boslough has been posting his thoughts in several short threads, and not always remembering to link them together. Here's a starting point, but you may not always get continuation links (I ended up going to his main feed and scrolling down to find the next thread, but I started at a different point and he may have gone back and fixed things since then).

And this concludes our journey into the realm of fake science getting published in real journals and covered as legitimate.
glaurung: (Default)
Just a short gruntle about blind spots in archaeology today. I will do another post about the annoying viral twitter thread by Incunabula soon.

Archaeology is a very vexing science. On the one hand, it's amazing that we are able to figure out so many things about humans who lived tens of thousands of years ago. On the other hand, archaeologists are so timid in their approach, so unwilling to commit to any conclusion that they cannot prove by means of the stones and bones they dig up, and so wedded to certain theories that give them huge blind spots and force them to propound absurd conclusions, like the one underlying the dates on the arrows in the Americas for this map from Wikipedia.

We know that around 60,000+ years ago, ice age humans built boats and navigated across the water between Sunda (southeast Asia plus some of Indonesia) and Sahul (the rest of Indonesia and New Guinea/Australia). Ice age humans knew how to build boats. We know this for certain, because the people of Australia and New Guinea arrived there at a time when there was ocean between them and the rest of Eurasia, which they had to cross.

But change the context to the Americas, and suddenly the fact that humans were building boats and going around on the ocean 60,000 years ago vanishes utterly, and the conventional archaeological view is that the Siberian people who would go on to become the original Americans were land-dwelling people who walked across Beringia (the land between Siberia and Alaska) to North America 25,000 years ago, then cooled their heels in Alaska for 10,000 years until an ice-free route through the Rocky Mountains opened up, allowing them to walk, or rather, sprint, overland from Alberta to Tierra Del Fuego in less than 2,000 years.

This despite the fact that in historical times, with much more moderate weather, people who make a living in the arctic have often been boat-using people who get much of their food from the sea. If post-ice age people found the best way to survive in the far north was by going on the water, fishing and hunting whales and seals, why are we expected to believe that ice age people, facing a much harsher climate, would limit themselves to the food they could find on land?

Part of this absurdity - the idea that ancient Americans only arrived south of the ice sheets 16,000 years ago - is finally starting to crumble under the increasing weight of evidence for a much older human presence in the Americas - from the 23,000 year old footprints of children found in White Sands National Monument (published just this week, sadly paywalled), to 30,000 year old tools found in caves in Mexico (open access version), and on to many more studies going back decades. The archaeological community is very good at straining at gnats and swallowing camels, attacking any evidence that contradicts the accepted conventional theory as being misdated, misinterpreted, or not actually of artefacts made by humans at all. In other words, these findings of people in the Americas 20,000+ years ago are still, sadly, controversial.

And it doesn't have to be this way. We know that humans built boats, even if none of those boats have survived to be dug up. We know that the sea shore and shallows are one of the richest habitats on the planet for food-collecting peoples - a fact obscured by the way that those who collect food from the sea have been labelled as "fishers" while land based food collectors are called "hunter gatherers."

There is no way. No. Way. that inland dwelling food collectors of 60,000-ish years ago walked to the end of the land in Sunda, built boats to get to Sahul, and then walked away from the shore inland. They were fishers and boat people, they lived on the shore. They travelled up rivers, looking for more good fishing spots, settling on lakes and marshes away from the shore, and gradually over time, the descendants of those fresh water boat people adapted to a fully land-based lifestyle and filled the interior of the continent.

We know that the sea today is around 120 meters higher than it was during the ice age, which means that all of the homes used by the sea peoples of 60,000 years ago are now buried deep under the water, but that doesn't mean they did not exist. If ice age people were building boats in Sahel 60,000 years ago, why are we expected to believe that ice age people 25,000 years ago in Siberia did not know how to build boats and walked to Alaska, then were stuck there for ten thousand years waiting for a clear walking path through the ice to the rest of America?

Thankfully, some archaeologists are more sensible than the bulk of their colleagues and have begun advocating for the initial peopling of the Americas to have been done by boat people who, having fished and sealed their way along the coast from Siberia through Beringia to Alaska, skirted the ice sheets covering the shore of the Northwest Coast, hopping from one ice-free cove or island to another until they got south of the ice and had clear rowing (or sailing) to warmer parts further south.

I find it far more believable that a boat-based, marine mammal hunting and fishing people just kept going south in their boats, filling the coast throughout both continents, then gradually moved inland, than the mainstream theory that the entire continent was filled virtually all at once by land-dwellers who sprinted through a dozen different climates and biomes, their population exploding while they were constantly on the move, on foot, ever southward.
glaurung: (Default)
Eurocentric history tends to be very self-congratulatory. "(European guy) invented (arguably very important technology)," and "(historical change of import) happened because of (thing european or Greco-Roman people did)." It gets very tiresome, especially when the technology in question was actually invented hundreds or thousands of years earlier, far outside of the Euro-Greco-Roman sphere.

Today's example: a thread by Incunabula on Twitter. In James Burke-ian Connections style, he says that "Cheese 🧀 is one of the 5 things the Western book as we know it depends on. The other four are snails 🐌, Jesus ✝️, underwear 🩲 and spectacles 👓." Sigh. Burke's "Connections" blew my mind when I was eight. Because I was too young to notice how a shallow, facile and simplified, all white, mostly male narrative was being constructed from a far richer and larger history.

Today I'm tackling two of Incunabula's five things: cheese (parchment) and Christianity (the adoption of the codex). My primary source for most of what follows is an online version of "The Birth of the Codex" by Colin Roberts and T C Skeat, supplemented by Wikipedia and lots of blog posts/articles found via google. The online version of Birth of the Codex includes (in green and red text) incomplete edits and updates of the original book

1. "Cheese" (aka, parchment/vellum):
Read more... )
How much did Christianity's extremely early and wholehearted embrace of codexes have to do with the switch from scrolls to codexes? Not a lot. Christians were a tiny minority in a vast empire until well into the 3rd century. By the time Christianity became a major force in the empire (~300 AD), the switch to codexes was already underway. Clearly the rise of Christianity to the empire's official religion in the 4th century greatly accelerated the transition, but the evidence doesn't point to Christians being the starter of the trend.

Profile

glaurung: (Default)
glaurung_quena

June 2025

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
29 30     

Most Popular Tags

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags