One Eli Shukron, archaeologist, just reported to CNN that the Pool of Siloam was "discovered" during work on a sewer line. REdiscovered, maybe, but not "discovered", since people as far back as the 13th century knew of its whereabouts and knew what it was.

The Pool of Siloam was formally "discovered" by one Edward Robinson and a companion missionary, Eli Smith, in 1838. The connecting tunnel was discuvered subsequently, surveyed by C. R. Conder and further excavated by Fredrick J. Bliss. In 1880, an inscription was discovered by a student of Conrad Schick, and then translated by A. H. Sayce. Before vandals shattered the inscription to pieces, Hermann Guthe made a plaster cast of it an published a photograph thereof in 1882.

Vandals shattered the piece circa 1880, though, and only some were recoverred to be displayed in Turkey's Museum of the Ancient Orient.

If Mr. Shukron isn't a liar, he's a very, very unlearned and incompetent archaeologist who wasn't the slightest bit aware of the work of his predecessors. The former case is far more likely than the latter case because right now I'm looking at a hardcopy photo of the thing taken by the Matson Photo Services circa the 1970's, a shot of the part in the Kidron Valley, and in the distance I can see the long steps that were pictured in the CNN report, along which the sewerline in question ran.

This pool and entirety of location was already known as late as the 1970's, so this so-called "archaeologist" really has no excuse for claiming what he did on CNN. None whatsoever. As far as I can see, the man is definitely a liar.

__________________
I shall continue to be an impossible person as long as those who are now possible remain possible.
HuffPo's Off The Bus campaign coverage project....Off The Bus Blog

Er, so?

I mean, improperly taking credit for discovering something is wrong, but seems trivial as a religious topic. The Pool existed; isn't that the important thing?

Besides, a brief Google search turns up references to multiple Pools -- the original, built in the 8th century B.C. (as yet undiscovered); the one Jesus would have seen, built in the 1st century B.C. (presumably this one); and a reconstruction built in the 5th century AD (discovered previously).

So perhaps your sources refer to the reconstructed Pool.

__________________
Man up.

Not according to the photo I was looking at, taken somewhere in the '60's or '70's. It's the same pool.

Try again.

__________________
I shall continue to be an impossible person as long as those who are now possible remain possible.
HuffPo's Off The Bus campaign coverage project....Off The Bus Blog

(shrug). Okay. If he's lying I imagine he will be publicly embarassed before too long. Archaeologists have long memories.

__________________
Man up.

Here's a link suggesting it IS a different pool:
http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/gn/gn057/science57.htm

Note that this refers to a pool from the Byzantine era. That sounds like the reconstruction. Are you *sure* we're not talking about two different pools?

__________________
Man up.

Okay, maybe you're both right:
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/m...ndex.php?id=95

So they found the steps in the 1960s, but thought the pool was somewhere else?

__________________
Man up.

The photo I have is NOT of any Byzantine pool--it is of the pool that CNN showed pics of. Try again.

__________________
I shall continue to be an impossible person as long as those who are now possible remain possible.
HuffPo's Off The Bus campaign coverage project....Off The Bus Blog

There's more than one part to that single pool, connected by a tunnel--which, like the pool featured in CNN, was discovered much earlier than 1960.
Try 1838.

__________________
I shall continue to be an impossible person as long as those who are now possible remain possible.
HuffPo's Off The Bus campaign coverage project....Off The Bus Blog

Clara, you are so charmingly argumentative.

I'm quoting sources that really ought to know, discussing the same incident you are. If you're right, fine. But I find it weird that you would be the only person to notice that this guy was claiming to discover something that was already discovered -- especially something as high profile as this. He was working with the Israeli Antiquity authority, for Pete's sake. You don't suppose *they'd* notice he was lying?

So my posts are attempting to reconcile the two.

If you want to rely instead on your photograph, okay.

__________________
Man up.

I'm relying not just on the photograph alone, but on archaeolotists that took it. Me, argumentative? What you're doing is arguing with a photo, not me.

__________________
I shall continue to be an impossible person as long as those who are now possible remain possible.
HuffPo's Off The Bus campaign coverage project....Off The Bus Blog