You'd be forgiven if you thought my blog had been lame of late. Reason? I got nuttin'. Well, I love the Buddhist quotes Beliefnet sends me, and at times they have to go up here simply so I can ponder them more and pass them on like the need to be passed on. But, yes, I have been sucky lackluster recently.
So here is where is where it picks up, sort of. There is this supposed church near Jubail Saudi Arabia. Story goes that some guy ran across it in the 1980s when his car got stuck in the sand next to it. Story is that he got put in jail for this: nothing worse than a Saudi exposing Saudi's non-muslim past. But I am not willing to believe this happed either. So the chruch supposedly dates from the period before Islam. How do we know this? Because story is that there were crosses around the structure, whch soon disappeared when the government got wind of what had happend.
Well, thing is, I have not seen the crosses. I have not seen any coins or pottery shards that date the place. I went the other day and took a look for myself. The structure overall is pretty unimpressive. There are these kind of Hellensitic/Roman looking decorations on either side of one of the tiny rooms. But does this mean this is a Nestorian structure? Dunno! Maybe it was built by portugues traders in the 16th or 16th century, or by non-Muslim Arabs, or even by Muslim Arabs a few hundred years ago.
It is too bad that the Saudi government is not interested in history and deny that was any history here before Islam. The fact that they do not seem to want to acknowledge this place exists tempts the mind in the direction that the place may have some non-Muslim connections. But the fact that it has not been demolished tempts in the either direction as well. So for now, we do not know who built this and if we can really call it a church. I am not taking the risk of getting shot by the Bedouins who live next door to find out either.
12 comments:
So, pre-muslim history does not exist. Reminds me of the book 1984, in which the past had been obliterated. Another Buddhist teaching comes to mind: "All things are impermanent," including our efforts to hide the impermanent, I suppose.
well, thing is, I don't know what it is. In all fairness, the Saudis are not interested in any history other than their make believe version of Islam and the history that goes with the birth of modern Saudi. They have destroyed lots of structures from the Ottoman period because it reminded them of Turkish colonialism, and that was Islamic. I don't know if this building is 200 years old or 2000 years old. All we can say is that the Saudis do not care to tell us.
Small corrections to your post. This church dates back to the 4th or 5th century, was built around 400 AD as per scriptures.
hello there and thanks for your post. can you tell me what scriptures you are referring to? and what is the historical evidence which allows us to date this site? I am not saying it does not exist, just that I have not seen it.
i also see nothing in my post that contradicts your assertion that it dates to the 4th century. i said the columns look vaguely Hellenistic.
Hello, They plastered the crosses, but if you look today, you can see the crosses begause the plaster feld of!
I visited the site recently, and there is nothing there to suggest that it is older than 100 years old. Every article says things like "It is thought to be..." or "Perhaps one of the ..." But it feasible that it also was built by a group of Christians living on the coast at the turn of the last century. It is an interesting site, but not everything has to be the oldest or rarest to be worth visiting.
you're right. But there is nothing, short of serious study and comparison with other possibly linked sites in the region, to suggest it is not a historical site either. The site needs to be excavated by competent professionals, which the Saudis don't seem to keen on happening. It would be nice to know if the stories about how it looked when first "rediscovered" a few decades ago are true are not. I don't think we much of anything either way about this site. To me that decorative work that still exists looks like more than a 19th century shack though. But I am not claiming anything.
I'm just back (about an hour or so) from having visited this site. It looks very old to me but there is no way to date it. The structure is very small and I couldn't find any evidence of the crosses that were supposed to have been there. From pictures I've seen, the imprints of the crosses were in the doorway and the stucco around the doors is gone now.
If it was indeed a church, the congregation must have consisted of two or three people. This could have been a residence. But it looks much older than 100 years. Even 100 years ago, a head would have been taken for building a structure with Christian symbols as decoration.
There is another fenced in archaeological site just adjacent to the 'church' site and it is littered with pottery shards but I saw no evidence of a structure within the fence. But sand has drifted to the extent that one can step over it, so who knows what is hidden in the dunes.
Was there just a while ago. The crosses are not visible and it looks like it was plastered over. The stucco columns are still there.
i've got an article done by an archaeolist with a picture of the cross back in the 90s when it was first found. got some other info if interested. send me an email if interested. peace.
Post a Comment