ericmurphy

I never have. I stated that "speculation" means, "assertions beyond what the evidence will support." I never stated that something must be completely devoid of evidentiary support in order to be termed "speculation."

Hex

I'm all for it. That's the beauty of these boards.

Well, one of the things about the Anthropological/Archaeological 'world' is that there are still some 'personality cults' if you will. Now that doesn't mean people are 'worshipped as deities' (I'll get to that in a second), but that there are some dominant personalities that can still make or break your academic career. In these, people who put forth a dissident view from the view of the 'personality' can find themselves under attack in journals, or turned down for jobs. Hence, hedging.

However, if you look at the way the report is written and the amount of time/text given to evidence supporting this 'inconclusive' interpretation, it should give you an inkling of the importance that the writers give to the interpretation. :huh:

You're right. That's basically how I would term it - if those broken bottles were broken in a specific way, at the specific place. Archaeologically, for ritual, we want to see that a place/space/item(s) is(are) used for a specific activity in the same way when it's used.

Looking at that troubling 'cultic' term, what we recognize today as the Beaker Culture used to be termed the beaker cult due to the similarities of artifacts at sites over a wide-spread area.

Now, note that for studies in Religious Anthropology, a cult is a widely deviant , intense, and often secretive version of a religion with tenuous ties to a mainstream religion, or, alternatively, a sect of a Judeo-Christian religion.

As Roger noted, jargon can be troublesome to those who don't know it and shorthand for those who do. Go figure. :huh:

See, but they note that he's not unique. He's unique for the area and time-period they're working on, but he apparently fits the style of Celtic depictions of religious figures, and is found in the right context for such. I quoted the whole discussion of style in the other post, but look at this (emphasis added):

What they're speculating on is -what- deity it could be. And note that they "speculate" on that.

Yeah. Again, dangerous jargon rears it's head. Personally, I try to stay away from jargon in my text (I recall many hours of reading articles whose paragraphs I had to decode in order to get to what the author was saying ).

And, when Roger talks of imposing limits on my profession, well, I take that as a bit of an attack. Should I be able to tell NASA to limit itself to satellites as going to other planets/stars is clearly the realm of astrology? :Cheeky:

Somehow I seem to bring something out of Roger. Perhaps it's my mode of speech (type)?

Fine by me.

- Hex

Hex

Then we're all on the same page and that's good.

And, no-one is saying that archaeology is a perfect time machine (which is of course, the only way that you could factually tell if MA actually said those magnificent words.). I'm not, anyhow. But perhaps the problem that you see has means of solution that you don't see. I'm not implying that you're blind or stupid or anything of the kind, rather that you may not be privvy to all of the theory and practice of modern archaeology.

That's all. And, perhaps I'm just not putting this the right way to get it through to you.

BTW: As for MarK Antony, there are -many- other reasons to be interested in him than the speech. His military career, the second triumvarate, the subsequent civil war and the whole Egypt/Cleopatra thing. Obviously the man was more than his words, and left a material record that archaeologists can find - if not the individual, thenhis effect on armies and empires of men.

I'm sure there are -many- people who would love that test. Governments could use it to check on tax-status of 'churches', new-agers could seriously flaunt neolithic female figures in a 'women's power' way, and, we lowly archaeologists could validate our interpretations.

But, that's pretty far-fetched, I'm afraid. If paranormal investigators can't even prove ghosts, then how does one pick up on 'intent-waves' that impregnate an item or supernatural powers channeled through the item? Archaeology is in the realm of science, and it's the science of humans and human behavior. Religion falls nicely in that realm and ritual (sacred or secular) is firmly seated in it.

And note, I fully respect your doubts. Just recognize that not everyone has such doubts.

- Hex

Hex

Amaleq13 & ericmurphy, I've been really intruiged about this discussion about 'speculation' and evidence. You guys are dividing over fine details and evidentiary situations and all I can say is ... wow. I've never cared about the term speculate so much, and hadn't really given it so much thought. You guys are doing an amazing job at getting to the nuances and I really appreciate it.

And, it just amazes me about the con-current discussion of 'knowing from archaeologuical evidence'. As I'm trying to explain and give evidence for non-literate understanding of uses of items and, what, intent of those who put them where they were, you guys are demonstrating how the definition of a single word can make a huge amount of difference to how a comment is taken to be understood.

And it makes this quote of Amaleq13's even more poignant.

Written records aren't 'direct evidence'. They are some individual's account or description of something. They, like artifacts, need to be put into context and taken as one piece of the puzzle. Sometimes they're useful, sometimes they're not, sometimes they're downright wrong.

Seriously, (to use a tired old analogy) just because a Stephen King story takes place in a town in Maine, with actual landmarks in it, at a specific year, need we believe that any of the horrific monsters/aliens/cars gone wild/people actually existed - especially if we send in investigators who find no evidence for it?


This whole forum deals with questions about whether a specific text or specific part of a text (Torah, Bible, or Koran) is true, whether they had multiple writers, which parts are to be literal and which figurative, etc. If we state, blanket-wise that text is 'proof', then whose text?


ASIDE: Perhaps I'm merely a woefully naive and sheltered archaeologist, but I certainly don't trust all that I read ... :huh:

Amaleq13

In the context of my example, it is just like an eyewitness testimony which is also direct evidence.

Reliability is a separate issue but there really can't be any serious doubt that a written record explicitly describing the use of a particular object and contemporary to the object is direct evidence for its use.

None of which changes the fact that an explicit statement about the use of an object by the folks who were using it constitutes direct evidence for that use.

It may turn out to be false or it may turn out to be somehow biased but that doesn't alter the fact that it is direct evidence for the conclusion.

Who is confusing "direct evidence" with "proof"? Not me.

Also, it is a mistake to generalize from my specific example to any of the texts you offer. All three are far more complicated and involved than my hypothetical example.

ericmurphy

Suddenly my extended conversation with Amaleq seems less of a derail than I'd thought it was at the time. It seems that many people assume that "direct" evidence is somehow of greater weight or is more persuasive than "circumstantial" evidence. Circumstantial evidence can often be more persuasive than direct evidence; that's why it's always bothered me when someone says, "Yeah, but that's only circumstantial evidence." So what if it's "circumstantial"? What's important is how persuasive it is.

Hex

Okay, so all you want to say is that -if- we have a contemporary of an event describing an item involved in the event, it counts for 'direct evidence' of the use of that item, right? Even if the person has no idea of what they're really talking about?

Now, my mind springs immediately to misreporting of the Titanic disaster, especially the one from the Christian Science Monitor which said that the ship was in tow and everyone was fine (the overwhelming pain I felt reading about that as a child, from the persepctive of someone waiting for a loved one on the ship burned it into my mind) - contemporaries were writing about an item in an event. We should get from such pieces that (a) ships float and (b1) the Titanic -was- unsinkable by icebergs or (b2) the Titanic was unsinkable enough that no lives were lost after the iceberg collision.

Now, (a) really doesn't tell us a whole lot, and we know that (b1) and (b2) are both false.

But, you might say, these aren't really eyewitness accounts, not first-hand direct evidence. They're heresay, right?


But, to bring up something more like direct evidence, look to Miner's "Body Ritual Among the Nacirema". It is, of course a warning to those who are doing/planning on doing anthropology, to make sure they ask lots of questions. Now, from that we can see thr example of the toothbrush, and that it's used in the mouth. That one's fine.

But how about the latipso tools. Are they used for torture? Ostensably, Miner was writing as a direct observer, and scalpels and bone saws definately can and have been used for that purpose. :huh:

(And yes, this is one of the places where modern archaeologists try and get -lots- of information to back up interpretations of supernatural use/value to objects. Few people ever forget the Nacirema lesson. )


(bolding mine)

Wait - so it's still direct evidence if it's false? I'm sorely confused. 'False' evidence should equal 'no' evidence and hence discount itself when all the evidence is being weighed for a final outcome, right?

If I'm doing my archaeological study and an 'artifact' that someone brings back to the lab is some clay sherd, in a neat pattern, that turns out during processing to be unfired mud-clay that came from the treads of someone's boot, I can assure you, it gets tossed before it ever gets cataloged. Likewise, if it turns out that a historical text is mainly a work of fiction (like the artist who 'depicted' in paintings/plates some of the natives of Florida whose name I don't recall ATM, but was so convincing that as the tribes were 'reclaiming' their heritage recently, they drew on his pictures for their costuming), then it should -not- be used in analysis. Mentioned, perhaps, in order to debunk it's validity if used in previous studies, but not factored into analysis.


Well, my mistake then. :blush: But, in looking at the statements, it -seemed- that was the way you were leaning.

- Hex

Amaleq13

Yes. Eyewitness testimony is offered as direct evidence even when it is later discovered to be false. I would suggest that "false" then becomes the most significant descriptor.

Correct.

That wasn't written well. Direct and indirect speak to the prima facie connection to the conclusion. If unreliability can be established, it makes no sense to speak of any connection to the conclusion.

Yes

spin

Whatever happened to a discussion about archaeology and early monotheism? Did anyone mention the epigraphic evidence from Kuntillet Ajrud or el-Qom, ie the references to "Yahweh and his Asherah" (she of the sacred tree)? Does anyone remember Joshua setting up a large stone under the oak in Josh 24:26, the stone being sacred to Yahweh and the oak representing Asherah (she of "under every green tree")?


spin

Hex

Then it's still okay for me to be suspect of text and more trusting of artifacts in situ ...

I'm all good!



Now ... I thought Afdave was going to jump in here and give us lots of archaeological evidence ... Or was I mistaken?