uncool

Yes, but what specifically says "temple" as opposed to some other thing? Not looking for a general way to find out what a building is, but looking for the distinguishing characteristics of a temple, specifically.
=Uncool-

Sauron

You appear to be afflicted with the creationist bug of wanting certain proof. And as we remind the creationists, absolute proof is only a mathematical concept; you won't find it in the real world. And you won't find it in archaeology. But in that respect, archaeology suffers the same as studying ancient texts: just because someone wrote it down doesn't mean it was a fact, either. Same for linguistics, historical epidemiology, or any other discipline that attempts to study the past.

Of course. But even your example could be interpreted as a slave bowing before a king, who had instructed the painter (or carver) to depict his image as being of divine lineage. Many Egyptian kings were painted in such a manner as to incorporate aspects of a particular god or goddess, to make the viewer associate the king with that deity.

So.....certainty? I have none to sell you, sorry. But I don't feel bad, because no other merchant has any to sell, either.

spin

I don't really know what you want, but look at this picture:

This is the Baal temple at Palmyra, so it's indicative of the general area (except for the columns). You can see that this is a massive structure (but obviously smaller places will have smaller temples). You can see that a lot of resources were used to provide a public space around it. This space is actually enclosed by a large wall which allowed the space to be controlled. Inside the structure there are no provisions for living. There are astrological reliefs on the inner walls.

It can be easily distinguished from private dwellings of any type, from storage facilities, defensive works, trading forums, and entertainment centres.

The one thing I note that is not so common is the entrance to the side of the structure rather at the end.

However, the first thing one gets from the structure is the floor plan, massive structure, simple design. Size, simplicity and location (separation) are features of most temples in the ANE. Many sites have little more than the foundations of the buildings, so the floorplan is an important indicator.

Near many of these temples there are trenches (called favissae) which contained a restricted range of items, such as small cultic figurines (often all broken), ceramics used for cultic meals (again usually broken after a single use), bones of ritual meals. Trenches filled with one or more of these items.

Altars or bases for altars in the precinct of the building are another indicator. Complete altars make their usage fairly obvious and there proximity to the structure help underline their usage. So the base of such a structure found in the precinct of a large building that fits the typology of a temple, adds to a more complete picture of a temple enclosure.

Does this do the trick?


spin

robto

When I traveled in the US west I saw re-occuring images and mounted heads of the jackelope, a fantastical creature with the head of a jackrabbit and the horns of an antelope. Should I conclude that this was an object of worship and veneration?

I didn't see the picture, but for me, no, it doesn't do the trick.

Of course for Baal, we have texts that describe him as a deity, so if any of this stuff comes marked "Baal", we can reasonably conclude that this was a site of worship. But suppose we had all this without knowing it was Baal, without any inscriptions at all? How could you conclude it was a religious site, and not, say, a butcher shop?

Sure, you can point to the existence of other "temples" of similar structure and style, but, again, we know they are temples because of inscriptions or other written evidence.

Going back to the Deal figurine, the stylistic evidence and the pit certainly point to a cultic role for this object, as defined earlier. But what about it makes anyone think it is religious?

(Let me say again that I'm asking because I really want to know. I'm not trying to attack archeology as a discipline, I'm a complete ignoramus who wants to learn how it works.)

Hex

Okay ...

I'll try to help tackle this, but first off, which question do we want to tackle first:

(1) What, archaeologically, is an indicator of a 'temple'?/What is a 'temple' archaeologically?

-or-

(2) What would a Middle Eastern 'temple' consist of in the archaeological record?

-or-

(3) How is 'religion' recognized in the archaeological record?

-or-

(4) Why should the Deal figurine be viewed as 'religious'?


Let me know which direction we want to take this first and we can start down that road (or start a new thread on it).


Now, recognize that I'm trained in the American style of archaeology, and my personal specialty area is in the Contact Period of the North American Northeast, so I'm going to be doing a whole bunch of extra research of we're going to be looking specifically at Deal or the Middle East. Not that it's a bad thing, as there's always a ton to learn which adds to my knowledge base, but it just might be slower for my responses sometimes.


- Hex

Amaleq13

Why bother with such an obviously absurd straw man?

I'm simply trying to determine the basis for your apparent confidence. Surely that is only to be expected when one makes assertions without explanation or defense?

Nobody is suggesting such a simplistic notion. Nobody is suggesting that texts should be accepted uncritically. Please stop addressing straw men. In this context, our written record would be a description of the worship of a particular deity. If it appears to be some sort of polemic against the religion, one is justified in accepting its claims with caution. If, however, it appears to be a text intended to teach others about the faith by a member of that faith, there would seem to be no good reason to doubt its identification of the deity.

There cannot be any serious question that such a written record describing the worship of a particular deity is far superior evidence than any inference an expert might offer based on found objects.

The speculation you acknowledge to be inherent to any discipline attempting to study the past is quite clearly and significantly reduced by written records. Even texts considered unreliable because of suspected author bias or subsequent editing can offer more direct evidence than an undescribed statue.

There should be a difference in the way one states one's conclusions depending on what sort of evidence one has to support them.

True but the question of whether the figure was worshipped is definitively answered and that stands in direct contrast to the necessarily tentative conclusion one must offer when one is forced to interpret found objects.

To suggest that the latter provides anywhere near the same degree of confidence in one's conclusion is simply wrong.

Amaleq13

I like this one but only if you add "absent any written record" to the end.

Discussing this specific case should accomplish the same, yes?

That's the style where you use a whip, dodge ancient traps and get in gunfights over artifacts, right?

Hex

I'm fine going with prehistoric. Can we include cultures for which the written record is as of yet un-decoded? (eg. Harrapan, 'Linear A' culture, or pre-2000 Teotihuacan)

An excellent question. The Celts didn't have a written record, but the Romans, in the area at the same time, did. Does that count? (and if so, can we bring up Caeser's plagerism and fabrication in his records? :Cheeky

Well, I've got the hat and whip, so ... :Cheeky:

No, what I want to bring up is that in American scholarship, Archaeology is a specialization of Anthropology. In Europe, it has historically been a discipline all to itself. As such, rather than specializing in specific cultures/time-periods/developmental periods of past human life, American Archaeology is more likely to draw in social theory(ies) in general and, in turn, attempt to produce more general rules for interpretation across the board for sites. It's just a little difference in approach.

- Hex

Toto

I remember reading somewhere, but I can't locate it now, that some social scientists claim that religion does not exist. There is just culture.

Western anthropologists with a long history of established churches and theological contention see religion in other people's cultural artifacts, where the people themselves might just see their practices as part of their culture that happen to contain some supernatural beliefs or ritualistic elements.

Hex

True, but after Raymond Firth and Victor Turner's works to show that for most 'simple' (uncomplex) cultures, conceptions of the supernatural are intertwined with daily routine and not considered much more than personal interaction with the supernatural, the continuum between 'magic' and 'religion' has been severely blurred.

The big difference, it seems, comes down to scale/scope and the amount of shared ritual, rather than personal interaction with the supernatural forces.

In the Anthropological perspective, everything outside of the biological realm of instinct is culture - and in order to look at it in a meaningful way, instead of as a dizzying array of irrational rules, we look at it in terms of different 'aspects' of the culture. These include realms of politics, social control, supernatural, economics, enculturation, family structure, gender studies, and more.

So, yes. In a way, "there is just culture", but what most people term religion is a part of it, not to be dismissed, since it does involve important ties to politics, social control, economics, family structure ... Well, you get the idea ...