Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 08-15-2010, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Quote:

The only thing this certainly doesn't suggest with all the impure commercial activities is that the site was a center for religious sectarians with a strict need for purity.

Correct. Also a fort or, perhaps better called an "observation post" because of its small size.

The military post was one of the first uses for the site. With the possible exception of some forms of sectarian hangout, all theories assume the "fort" cum watchtower.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

The Pliny reference is confusing, no doubt. Does he mean that they lived on the hills above the town?

A site was found above Ein Gedi which had a miqva and several small one person dwellings, excavated by Hirschfeld (Tel Aviv 27, pp.103-155.) It would seem Pliny wasn't confusing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

The town had a spring though and any fresh water source was valuable. Given a choice, why would any group move away from the water?

I did look at the hidden text but before worrying about that it seems they MUST deal with the question of contamination.

Umm, DNA contamination?

spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Occam's Razor, you know. If they are asserting this as a be-all and end-all argument, they are as nutty as Elior looks at the moment.

Minimalist · 08-15-2010, 08:45 AM

DNA contamination is a real problem.

http://www.legalmedicinejournal.com/...147-2/abstract

Quote:

Contamination precautions and quality control are great issues when human bones are investigated genetically. This is especially true for historical samples with only minute amounts of usually highly degraded DNA. But also in forensic routine analysis, sometimes DNA has to be isolated from bones in equally bad conditions, e.g. from burned victims.

In such cases, there are several eventualities to contaminate the sample with foreign DNA, for example caused by the recovery of the bones, by trace investigation on a crime scene, or – of course – during handling in the lab.

The recent efforts to extract Neanderthal DNA for the genome project took extraordinary precautions to assure that the sample was "pure" and there are still critics who insist that the samples were contaminated.

As for Pliny I seem to recall that the study of the overlooking site has been inconclusive for the Essenes...although, if they were there and left and the site was subsequently re-occupied I'm not exactly sure what "evidence" they'd expect to find? It's probably asking too much for wall graffiti saying "Howie the Essene Was Here."

spin · 08-15-2010, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

DNA contamination is a real problem.

http://www.legalmedicinejournal.com/...147-2/abstract

Quote:

Contamination precautions and quality control are great issues when human bones are investigated genetically. This is especially true for historical samples with only minute amounts of usually highly degraded DNA. But also in forensic routine analysis, sometimes DNA has to be isolated from bones in equally bad conditions, e.g. from burned victims.

In such cases, there are several eventualities to contaminate the sample with foreign DNA, for example caused by the recovery of the bones, by trace investigation on a crime scene, or – of course – during handling in the lab.

The recent efforts to extract Neanderthal DNA for the genome project took extraordinary precautions to assure that the sample was "pure" and there are still critics who insist that the samples were contaminated.

I'm all for noting the possibility of contamination in such analyses, but how does one imagine said contamination of the DSS hides happened? Could it have occurred at a source level or at a lab level? And why would one suspect it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

As for Pliny I seem to recall that the study of the overlooking site has been inconclusive for the Essenes...although, if they were there and left and the site was subsequently re-occupied I'm not exactly sure what "evidence" they'd expect to find? It's probably asking too much for wall graffiti saying "Howie the Essene Was Here."

But what does one want other than the physical description by Pliny placing Essenes above Ein Gedi and a non-standard settlement of separate dwellings with its own miqwa for purification? Maybe the miqwa was for washing produce.

spin

Minimalist · 08-17-2010, 10:17 AM

Here's a paper on the subject. If teeth and bone can be contaminated how much easier would it be for a goat hide?

http://www.eva.mpg.de/evolution/staf...ateraJAS05.pdf

As for Pliny, I'm not disagreeing. But I'm also not the one who called the site "inconclusive."

spin · 08-18-2010, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Here's a paper on the subject. If teeth and bone can be contaminated how much easier would it be for a goat hide?

http://www.eva.mpg.de/evolution/staf...ateraJAS05.pdf

Here was what I said:

I'm all for noting the possibility of contamination in such analyses, but how does one imagine said contamination of the DSS hides happened? Could it have occurred at a source level or at a lab level? And why would one suspect it?

I didn't really need such a palm off as the paper about teeth and bones. I asked relatively pertinent questions. These are documents that have remained in dry, sealed environments for 2000 years. How do you suppose they could have been contaminated by foreign DNA? Where do you see alternative DNA coming into this situation? Has there been any implication of a second DNA reading in any of the tested hides?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

As for Pliny, I'm not disagreeing. But I'm also not the one who called the site "inconclusive."

Who used the term? I do know that the response to Hirschfeld's report on the site was none other than Hanan Eshel, a consistent Essene-Hypothesis spokesman. Not the most impartial of sources.

spin

Minimalist · 08-21-2010, 10:35 PM

Quote:

These are documents that have remained in dry, sealed environments for 2000 years.

They were hardly "sealed." It was dry but all that does is enable the dust to settle better. If a tooth/bone can be contaminated how much easier is it for the environment/handling to contaminate a a goat skin? Seriously, do you think the first people to handle these documents gave a rat's ass about DNA contamination? DNA for identification was not introduced until the 1980's. The DSS were old news by then. Besides which I did not hear them address the issue of contamination at all. Call me suspicious but, that makes me suspicious.

Quote:

Who used the term?

I think it was the narrator. I don't believe it was attributed to anyone in particular. It was a tv special. They are not terribly careful about that stuff.

spin · 08-21-2010, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Quote:

These are documents that have remained in dry, sealed environments for 2000 years.

They were hardly "sealed." It was dry but all that does is enable the dust to settle better. If a tooth/bone can be contaminated how much easier is it for the environment/handling to contaminate a a goat skin? Seriously, do you think the first people to handle these documents gave a rat's ass about DNA contamination? DNA for identification was not introduced until the 1980's. The DSS were old news by then. Besides which I did not hear them address the issue of contamination at all. Call me suspicious but, that makes me suspicious.

Sorry, but do you understand what DNA contamination is? If you read your cited article, you'd know that it was talking about foreign DNA washing through materials that were used as samples. What foreign DNA do you have in mind to have contaminated the DNA in the hides used for the DSS? (Am I getting clearer yet?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Quote:

Who used the term?

I think it was the narrator. I don't believe it was attributed to anyone in particular. It was a tv special. They are not terribly careful about that stuff.

It might be safer to read the Hirschfeld article (already cited, but here again Tel Aviv 27, pp.103-155), followed by Eshel (& co-writer)'s critique and Hirschfeld's rejoinder. The show itself didn't know about the site above Ein Gedi and Cargill obviously didn't tell them, so the comments regarding Pliny didn't use the full deck.

spin

mountainman · 05-09-2011, 07:45 AM

Dead Sea Scrolls Made Locally, Tests Show

Quote:

Proton beams have shed new light on the origin of the longest of the Dead Sea scrolls, suggesting its parchment was manufactured locally.

According to a study carried out at the labs of the Italian National Institute of Nuclear Physics (INFN) in Catania, Sicily, the 28-foot-long Temple Scroll was made in Qumran, in what is now Israel, in the same area on the Dead Sea coast where the faded parchments were found hidden in caves half a century ago/

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-17-2010, 10:17 AM	#44
Minimalist Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,808	Here's a paper on the subject. If teeth and bone can be contaminated how much easier would it be for a goat hide? http://www.eva.mpg.de/evolution/staf...ateraJAS05.pdf As for Pliny, I'm not disagreeing. But I'm also not the one who called the site "inconclusive."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.