Constant Mews

No, but that it not the point being made. Archaeologists, like other scientists, sometimes stretch an extrapolation too far; but they are not arbitrarily assigning cultic significance to these objects - they are doing so on the basis of parallels in cultures where we do have enough information to make that assignment.

Constant Mews

Certainly. And I agree that often speculation runs far ahead of our ability to confirm a particular hypothesis. Consider the enormous amount of ink wasted on the "Great Goddess" conjecture and the irrational assignment of any unexplained neolithic decorative elements to her worship. This is a case of entirely unwarranted ascription to a "goddess" figure on the basis of a strong feminist-biased researcher. Much like the Great Witch Hunt period.

Lucretius

Way back in the mists of time (well OK in the late 1970's early 1980's ) I studied archaeology as a subsidiary subject for my degree (I do not however consider myself an expert by the way, more someone with a bit of knowledge of the subject and its' methodolgy ) anyway the students and lecturers then used to joke about the fact that previous,often eminent, archaeologists were all too quick at times to call artefacts "religious" or "ritual" ,when what they really should have said is "We don't really know but it was obviously important enough to be made and kept so had some significance for them ".
So archaeologists are well aware of this .

Hex

Just a note ... I'm composing a nice long detailed response. I have to head from this campus to another to teach, and then come back, so I won't be able to continue this until after 14:00 EST.

If there are no Admin objections, I'll finish it up and post here. If it should not bein this thread, I'll start a new one where directed.

Sorry for the wait ...

Roger Pearse

As I was at university at the same time, I would expect that I heard the same then.

driver8

I just put you on ignore. You make my head hurt with all this bullshit. I encourage others to do the same. As the forum rules prohibit personal attacks, I will refrain from going any further, with regrets. Although I do not believe in a god, I will consider tonight praying for the state of Missouri.

aa5874

If there was a worldwide flood, according to Genesis, then God must have destroyed the evidence.

Sheshbazzar

Wonder what future archaeologists would make of the significance of all those the "cultic", "ritual" "religious" artifacts that clutter up our present age?
How much genuine "religious" or "cultic" significance would be ascribed to a cheap costume jewelry "accessory" crucifix that was actually worn by an individual that was a self-described atheist, or non-believer?
Or to one of those millions of ubiquitous "praying Jesus" wall-clock's that are almost always recieved as "gifts"? My mom had one of those on her wall for like 40 years, but other than the practical usage as clock to tell the time, none of us ever "venerated" it, or even willingly described ourselves as being "Christian".

I tend to believe that such "art" objects have been around a loooong time, beginning with the first of mankind's primitive scratchings upon cave walls,
It's just the archaeologists own "religious" and "cultic" predispositions that have caused them to "identify" virtually every ancient scratching or relic as having held some profound "religious" or "cultic" significance.

Hex

Okay ... Here we go again ...

The article that I posted was in response to this post:

Where Roger asks the question I've emphasized above. I popped open JSTOR, put "cult figurine" into the search box and clicked the Archaeology journals to search within. The first one that actually was talking about a figurine that had cultic elements was the one I quoted, so I'm not really tied to this study area, time period, or the authors. One thing this short report had was a nice description of -why- the archaeologists determined that the figurine was cultic.

In archaeology, a 'cultic' item is part of a larger scheme or suite of items/motifs that define the presence of a shared patterning over an area/group/groups of peoples. Here is a little blurb on the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex, also known as the 'Southern Cult' of North America (another of those pesky cultures that didn't leave a written language). Places where the motifs are found show that there were shared concepts and rules (we'll get to rituals below, but they count in this too) between peoples which would help to show a shared identity and most likely, similar views on items/actions/occurances. In that way, this figurine is, most definately 'cultic'. A more detailed examination will follow.

If you want me to go and dig up some that get into the archaeology of religion, then we had to get into bringing in more and more information, and I thought that this thread was probably not the place for such a discussion (It would not only be off-topic for the thread, but I doubt that it would be well connected to BC&H).


Actually though, 'context' is one of the most important aspects of archaeology, if you really want to dig the importance of ritual and meaning from it. Anyone who has gone to a museum and looked at an arrowhead or a pot or a mummy in a museum can see that it's something old. That it's something that we, as modern people, don't make or in some cases even use anymore.

But what does the artifact -mean- for history? Here, context is king. Where was it found? What was arround it? Was the arrowhead found in the midst of a mass-butchering area, in a midden, or between the teeth of a juvinile burial's teeth? Now, I'm not debating that some information can come from an artifact itself - an extra-thin and well-made arrowhead (when compared to others of it's type) is likely to indicate special purpose, especially if it structurally is unable to do it's morphological function and instead serves an aesthetic or symbolic purpose. But still, -where- and -with what- you find it is where you actually get the information from.

Roger asked how Archaeology 'knew' things about something being 'cultic' or 'religious'. The simple answer? Context of the artifacts.

Right. They don't come out and blatently -state- that it's religious. That's -my- attribution, since they seem to have a decent case stated here.

I apologize. They're using science. As such, more data on the subject may give a better explaination of the evidence at hand for this, well, then they won't look 'wrong', and if the evidence bears them out then they get to be in on the forefront of the wonderful understanding about the culture.

If you have issues with that, they are with me, my interpretation and wording.

Wait? Where did they say a statue? Where did they say it stood above a pit? Are you *gasp* trying to give it a context?

Perhaps instead of focusing only on the figurine, I should have understood that you wouldn't look up the entire 4 page article, so here, let me give you the context:

Does -that- help to explain why this might be ... if not religious, then of ritual significance? At least, it should help with understanding the next bit ...

Or not? Underground chamber, wall niche, figurine ... All 2.5m below the surface, cut into chalk. Hmmm .... Well, by itself, it could be just plain unusual, but ...

Do we have to -know- what god/spirit/ancestor an icon is representing if it's in a special context? What if that special context is repeated? Anne Ross (mentioned above) was doing work in the late 1960's on Celtic Ritual in Pre-Roman and Roman Britain. (She even wrote a book on it, Pagan Celtic Britain. Studies in Iconography and Tradition (1967).) Even without having the article to which the article at-hand refers, I can expect that the information that they are recovering and configuration of the pit, chamber and artifacts conform to the standards by which she defined something else to be religious in nature.

Please note in here the term 'ritual'. A ritual (using Haviland's definition from Understanding Culture: The Human Challenge, 11^th ed., McGraw-Hill, 2005) is a:
Now, religious or not then, the importance of ritual is that it's done right, in the right place, at the right time - according to some set of rules. Now, is there some ritual aspect to this figurine? Well, since we can look at the place through archaeology, then, we find a special place (oval chamber hidden 2.5m below the ground) with a special place within that (the niche) where the figurine (likely, since it was found in the debris) sat. Looks pretty good, since pits like this aren't common, and, even better, we've got evidence for -the same pattern- (note the importance of context for this?) just a bit distant at Northfleet.

Hmm, a shared pattern in the places where we find the figurine. Let's look at that for a moment then. From the article:

(Note: Emphasis mine.)

Okay, so ... from that we can get at what aspects go into portraying a diety versus an individual.

See ritual discussion above, please for the pits.
See style/iconography discussion above, please.
Do you need me to go through it in even more detail?

Well, the question you want to ask is 'what is "votive" in archaeology', isn't it? A votive (according to Merriam-Webster) is:
But, in archaeology, we look at votive deposits as taking something utilitarian or representative (of wealth/status/symbol/etc.) and 'destroying' it or removing it from the public sphere. Intentional destruction of a functional/expensive/meaningful item is a public expression of intent and comitment to some thing. This is often done as public ritual and involves making the commitment or recognizing the finality of the commitment and debts owed.

In this way, caches of exceptional/rare items, especially in special places (burial mounds, areas of cultural significance to a group of people) are not stockpiles, but carry with them meaning and intent.

Below is an indication of a 'votive deposit', as the deposited items (statue placed in a pot) were put in a special place, but a place that was 'away' (down the well). In essence, the items were sacrificed or removed from potential commerce or communication through intentional placement (niche) rather than mere discard.

Know (from Merriam-Webster):
Now, how much of what you 'know' have you perceived directly? Do you -only- believe your own senses? Did the Apollo Moon Landings really happen if you weren't there to witness it from the lander module? It seems to me that what you -want- to imply is that you want to use (2a) above - to be aware of the truth or factuality of the archaeological interpretation given by the authors of the archaeological evidence.

I expect that when dealing with this subject, you won't get a 100% confidence rate from the archaeologists, where you might with a campsite's lithic scatter that can be refitted to put a couple of tools together with their debris to form a core, thus indicating with certainty that someone used that core to make the items that were used on-site for some (probably specific) purpose.

If you want that 100%, build yourself a time-machine and audio translator. Otherwise, you might have to settle for a 75% confidence.

Nope. Look back at votive deposits discussion above, please.

Right. Because it's a synthesis of information, where data from off-site is used and the site itself is put in a regional/cultural context (Damn! There's that word again ...)
Actually the authors use quite a bit of local/regional archaeological information to get to their answer. Other sites in KENT, Britain, France - you know, the areas that had Celtic populations? Thus they can make comparisons of the similarities based on dealing with elements of the same culture.

(Roger, I'm sorry, but do you actually read and synthesize information before trying to take it apart line by line? I had indicators of that information in the quote I originally posted. Please, take another look.)


I understand it just fine. And it's your right to be obstinant. It doesn't really bother me, personally. But as a professional archaeologist, I find it a bit on the annoying side.

Please, if you do not find this understandable, let me know.

Yep. And I'm sure that there are other areas of science that function even though they don't make sense to you as well. And that's fine. My advice (worth exactly what you paid for it) would be to stay out of the field of Archaeology. It works, and it has advanced since the 1970's.

I'm trying to be serious here, Roger.

You want 100% certainty about intent from archaeology? You don't get it from Anthropology where you're dealing with real, live people. (People *gasp* lie! Even during field interviews! I understand your incredulity.)


(Aside: But, I -can- say this about this sort of study. I am far more swayed by the archaeological evidence that this pit in Upper Deal is a religious shrine, than I am by the archaeological evidence that Jesus existed, even as a non-deified human. And how many people 'know' that he existed? Evidence and fact don't always factor into 'knowing'.)

Amaleq13

It seems to me, and I think Roger would agree, that there is a significant difference between "determined" and "speculated on the basis of certain circumstantial evidence". The former suggests a conclusion virtually required by direct evidence and the sort of thing one expects from laboratory scientists conducting experiments. I think it is this sort of language use that can appear misleading.

They are speculating about the use and importance of the figure and their speculations are certainly highly informed and most likely the most informed speculations available but they are still speculations.

They seem to recognize that they are offering informed speculation. To suggest it is more than that seems to me to be misleading. Throw a damn "probably" in there and you're gold.

Yes and the inclusion of "might", I think, makes all the difference in the world.

And that, IMO, is exactly why words that suggest something approximating such a level of confidence (eg "determined") should be avoided.