Lucretius

The biggest problem I can see in providing any certain archaeological proof of Monotheism pre-dating Polytheism is the simple fact that the earliest monotheistic faith we know of, is of course Judiasm which has an implicit ban on statues of their God(s).
That plus the possibility that even the name of God being written or carved on monuments leaves archaeologists very little "concrete evidence" to deal with .

ericmurphy

The problem with this position, I think, is that you've got two possibilities: "speculation," and "established fact." It dilutes the meaning of the term "speculation" to virtual meaninglessness.

To my mind, especially in the sciences, to "speculate" should mean "to conjecture beyond what the evidence supports." If there is (hypothetically speaking) substantial evidence to support the notion that a particular figurine is of religious significance, then it's no longer "speculation" to assert so.

I know you're talking apples and oranges, but when you use the term "speculate" to mean, "supported by circumstantial evidence but not proven to a certainty," where others use the term "speculation" to mean "wild guesswork," there's a clarity issue.

I firmly believe that the term "speculation" should be reserved for "guesswork unsupported by adequate evidence."

Just sayin.'

robto

I haven't been involved in the discussion so far, but I'm finding the Roger/Hex debate rather fascinating. I hope I might be allowed to make a few remarks on how it's going.

First of all, there seems to be a rather wide disconnect (as Amaleq has pointed out) between Hex's statement that "the archaeologists determined that the figurine was cultic" and the clear statement in the quoted part of the article that
Hex says that in private the authors would likely be more assertive. So, a non-archaeologist reading this report would say "inconclusive", but a professional reading the same report would say "proven". Fascinating.

Second: Hex seems to slip back and forth between "ritual", "cultic", and "religious" rather facilely. I would have expected (as a non-archaeologist) that these distinctions would be rather important. My uneducated guesses would be that

ritual = any repeated action. E.G., smashing beer bottles under the overpass, if repeated, would be a ritual.

cultic = symbolic behavior situated within a larger context. E.g., wearing a Star Trek insignia might reasonably be considered cultic.

religious = having to do with supernatural beings or forces.

Now, since the authors emphasize the uniqueness of the Deal figurine, it seems hard to consider it as proof of a ritual. The parallels of pits and figurines, as Hex has helpfully discussed, might make it qualify as "cultic". What about "religious"? the authors write
As a non-professional, I would take this to mean "don't take this seriously". But perhaps Hex would read it as "take this seriously"?

I also enjoyed learning that, in common speech, "votive" means having to do with a promise or devotion, but to archaeologists it means "destroyed on purpose". Hmm.

Finally, I note that Hex seems to feel his profesion is under attack, whereas I took Roger's questions to be in the spirit of "I don't know much about this area, please help me understand it better." Roger, for his part, seems to have been goaded out of his usual calm, reasonable mode.

I hope the discussion can continue, but with less of the sniping.

Amaleq13

What happened to "informed speculation" and the equivalent examples you provided? They seem to me to fill the middle ground between those extremes.

If "substantial evidence" is the same as "firm evidence", I think the dictionary agrees with you and so do I!

But, again, I would not characterize what I've read so far as "substantial evidence" supporting their conclusion unless, perhaps, one throws in a "circumstantial".

Don't sink down to the level of the ignorant!!! These are the same people who abuse the word "theory"!! We should not alter a proper use of the English language to accommodate superstitious foolishness.

I would call that "baseless speculation".

Roger Pearse

Me too. Sorry if I got a bit irritated. I have no interest in denigrating archaeology, of course; anything where we can get factual objective data about the past is good.

The problem that I see with archaeology is the limits of what it can tell us. We can't dig up Mark Antony in mid-speech and see if he really said, "Friends, Romans, countrymen...", for instance; yet why else are we interested in Antony?

Actually if there *were* something like a litmus test where we could (e.g.) stick a statue in a test-tube and it turns purple if it was used for religious purposes that would be really useful. I just have my doubts.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Amaleq13

One should not, however, ignore the very relevant factor of professional experience (Carrier has a better term for it but I can't recall it at the moment). It provides a base from which circumstantial evidence can be more accurately interpreted but often cannot be easily explained to the non-professional. I think this is common to many professions.

ericmurphy

I suppose. But again, "informed speculation" skirts the edge of being an oxymoron, based on the definition I provided earlier, just as "well-supported wild guess" would be.



There are basically two kinds of evidence: circumstantial evidence, and "direct evidence," which is essentially eyewitness tesimony. Since eyewitness testimony is generally not available anything other than the very recent past, it's probably not necessary to include the "circumstantial" when discussing archaeology.

I think I'm trying to rise above the ignorance that misconstrues the meaning of the term "theory." Theories, at least scientific theories, are generally not "speculative."

No, it's not "speculation," let alone "baseless speculation." It's an opinion, for one thing, which while possibly based on speculation cannot be speculative in itself. But that opinion is based on a recognized definition of the term. If I had no idea what the word meant, then perhaps you could say I was speculating. But I'm not.

But to restate my point: I believe the term "speculation" should be reserved for "conjectures beyond what the evidence supports." It's "speculation" that metabolism arose before replication did, or even vice versa, because there's a dearth of evidence either way. It is no longer "speculation" to conclude that birds are descended from theropod dinosaurs, because there is substantial, not to say conclusive, evidence (but no eyewitness testimony, I'm afraid) supporting that assertion.

Especially given the propensity of the likes of AFDave to quote-mine scientists, I think it's generally a bad idea to use the word "speculation" unless you mean, "conjecture beyond what the evidence supports."

Amaleq13

I couldn't disagree more. Written explanations are precisely the sort of "direct evidence" that is not available and precisely why one has to rely upon circumstantial evidence.

That is exactly what I was warning against. Don't let them degrade your proper use of language.

ericmurphy

Even when we're talking about preliterate societies? A significant fraction of archaeology involves evidence from preliterate societies.

And, there is no reason to suppose that written descriptions are necesarily more accurate than circumstantial evidence. Herodotus would be a good example of written descriptions that must certainly be taken with a grain of salt.

Actually, I don't disagree with their use of the term. "Speculation" certainly connotes, where it doesn't actually denote, conjecture unsupported by evidence. When a scientist says, in a popular work, that he's "speculating," she typically means she is conjecturing beyond what the evidence supports. If it's supported by evidence, I think most people would agree that it's not speculation.

Anyway, that's probably enough of a derail for this thread.

Amaleq13

I was specifically referring to preliterate societies. That is the whole point of the discussion. Preliterate societies do not provide the sort of explicit explanation that written records do. Therefore, archaeologists are forced to infer (how about that instead of "speculate"?) from more circumstantial evidence.

Therefore, a significant fraction of archaeology depends upon inference.

Agreed. But, absent good reason to doubt the written description, there can be no question that it is superior evidence to support a conclusion. If someone were to find a tablet explicitly describing the figure to be a guardian, that truly establishes the use of it.

Then most people would be wrong and need to consult a dictionary.

speculate: To engage in a course of reasoning often based on inconclusive evidence. (American Heritage)

Circumstantial or indirect evidence such as we are discussing certainly qualifies as "inconclusive evidence".

I think it is relevant to any discussion of archaeological evidence.