Archaeologists need to quit being so quick to…

[ken_sylvania]

I think it is common today for people to treat objects in a ritual, ceremonial or religious way.

Can you explain?

How many people do you know who's behavior says they believe money will make them happy.

Actually not very many. But even among those who might qualify for that description, I don't know of any who treat money in a ritual, ceremonial or religious way. So I'm still not sure where you're going with this.

[temporal1]

Archaeology jolly
viewtopic.php?t=6672

[Neto]

How did I miss this thread?!

Check out this article, one that appeared in the American Anthropologist, 1956. (It was assigned reading in my college Cultural Anthropology course, to help guard against the problem you have observed. (Apparently a lot of 'anthropologists' haven't read it.)

https://www.sfu.ca/~palys/Miner-1956-Bo ... cirema.pdf

[RZehr]

Amateur archaeologists in England have unearthed one of the largest Roman dodecahedrons ever found, but mystery surrounds what it was actually used for.

…

Parker’s group does have one working theory, however.
“Most likely they were some form of religious or ritual object,” he said. “The Romans were a very superstitious lot, and generally required signs to allow them to make decisions in their daily lives.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/great-enigma ... 35107.html

[barnhart]

…speculative attribute unknown artifacts to “religious rituals” or “ceremonial”.
Take a look around us. Most artifacts that mankind makes are not for these purposes. I suppose in the far distant future, kitchen spatulas and spark plugs will be in a museum and described as “ceremonial artifact”. The god of Champion, and the cult of NGK.

This behavior of linking religion with artifacts is stupid, and is poor science, and is demeaning to religion by constant association antiquity. Which I’m sure many archaeologists are perfectly okay with. But I find it bafflingly ridiculous.

I think post enlightenment people have a difficult time understanding pre-modern worldviews where science and alchemy were often the same pursuit, astrology and astronomy were largely the same, or herb healers and witch doctors were the same person. Some of that advancement is real, I truly appreciate modern medicine, but in some ways we are not much different than our predecessors. For example the area of study around the psychology of the brain is sketchy to the point we struggle with biological sex identity.

From my perspective it is not an insult to label a behavior religious, that is just another way of being human and decoding the physical world.

[Ken]

…speculative attribute unknown artifacts to “religious rituals” or “ceremonial”.
Take a look around us. Most artifacts that mankind makes are not for these purposes. I suppose in the far distant future, kitchen spatulas and spark plugs will be in a museum and described as “ceremonial artifact”. The god of Champion, and the cult of NGK.

This behavior of linking religion with artifacts is stupid, and is poor science, and is demeaning to religion by constant association antiquity. Which I’m sure many archaeologists are perfectly okay with. But I find it bafflingly ridiculous.

I think post enlightenment people have a difficult time understanding pre-modern worldviews where science and alchemy were often the same pursuit, astrology and astronomy were largely the same, or herb healers and witch doctors were the same person. Some of that advancement is real, I truly appreciate modern medicine, but in some ways we are not much different than our predecessors. For example the area of study around the psychology of the brain is sketchy to the point we struggle with biological sex identity.

From my perspective it is not an insult to label a behavior religious, that is just another way of being human and decoding the physical world.

I don't know. We have an enormous wealth of information about many pre-modern societies such as the Native American cultures that inhabited North America prior to the arrival of Europeans. And early Anthropologists spent enormous amounts of time documenting the fading native cultures in the west, especially here in the Pacific Northwest. Museums in Seattle and Vancouver are full of native artifacts for which there is extensive first-hand documentation of their purpose. Much of which was, in fact, ceremonial and religious. For example, you can visit the Burke Museum in Seattle and meet native artists who will tell you the spiritual meaning behind their art and that of the artifacts on display there from totem poles to tapestries: https://www.burkemuseum.org/exhibits/no ... native-art Or visit the enormous museum of anthropology in Vancouver BC and find more of the same.

We might have to guess as to the purpose of various artifacts uncovered in ancient archaeological sites. But anthropology is a pretty mature science going all the way back to Franz Boas and we do know a tremendous amount about many pre-modern societies and the role of religion and beliefs in their cultures. We don't have to guess.

[barnhart]

Ken, I wouldn't argue that the ancient world did not commonly have superstitious or religious practice, rather that we do as well, we just call it something else and look down on them. I don't accept the progression theory of knowledge where rationality correlates with time. I don't think people ever were childlike or simple minded which seems like a common belief.

I suspect the knowledge quotient of civilization is circular, not progressive.

[Bootstrap]

No. I must be clicking on archeological discovery articles on Yahoo, because it seems to feed me a regular supply of them.

Oh, that explains it.

In general, I don't think archaeologists are quick to jump to conclusions, though some are. They do come to conclusions I disagree with, but they also disagree with each other.

Are you familiar with this? Designed for people who are not academics, but generally in touch with real archaeology:

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/magazines/

I don't read archaeology journals. GPT suggests these. The links don't all work. I don't know how good a list this is.

Major Archaeology Journals for Ancient Near Eastern Studies:

1. Journal of Near Eastern Studies (JNES) - Published by the University of Chicago Press, covering disciplines such as archaeology, art history, history, languages, and literature of the Near East.

2. Near Eastern Archaeology (NEA) - A publication of the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR), features articles on the archaeology of the Near East from prehistoric to modern times.

3. Iraq - Focused primarily on the archaeology, history, and languages of Iraq, but often includes broader topics related to the Ancient Near East. Published by the British Institute for the Study of Iraq.

4. Anatolian Studies - Published by the British Institute at Ankara, it publishes research on the history and archaeology of Anatolia from the Paleolithic through to the Ottoman period.

5. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (BASOR) - Includes articles on a broad array of subjects related to the archaeology and history of the Near East.

6. Orientalia - Covers research in various fields related to Near Eastern studies, including archaeology, philology, and history. Published by the Pontifical Biblical Institute.

7. Syria - A French scholarly journal focused on the history and archaeology of the Levantine region.

8. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie (ZA) - Includes studies in language, literature, history, and archaeology of the Near East from the third millennium to the Hellenistic period.

9. Levant - The journal of the Council for British Research in the Levant, featuring articles on the archaeology, history, cultural anthropology, and natural history of the Levant.

[Bootstrap]

How did I miss this thread?!

Check out this article, one that appeared in the American Anthropologist, 1956. (It was assigned reading in my college Cultural Anthropology course, to help guard against the problem you have observed. (Apparently a lot of 'anthropologists' haven't read it.)

https://www.sfu.ca/~palys/Miner-1956-Bo ... cirema.pdf

I took a Cultural Anthropology course in college too. I think most anthropologists have too.

Perhaps we need to quit being so quick to be experts about archaeologists? Perhaps we aren't experts about them? Perhaps we know less about archaeology than they do?

[Josh]

The present day world claims a man can turn himself into a woman, that a baby isn’t a baby and it’s OK to kill it, and that our great great great grandparents were animals like monkeys*. I’m not so sure the modern world is any less superstitious than the ancients.

* Before Ken responds that evolution doesn’t claim an actual monkey, I’m using money as a colloquial term for “primate”.