Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Roger Pearse · 09-25-2007, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hex

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

A blank statue from an unknown civilisation cannot identify itself as a cultic statue.

Actually, that's what that Chalk Statue in my post above is.

Interesting, no?

And how do you know that it is cultic?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 09-25-2007, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hex

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Pardon me for being insistent here, but one thing that should make us wary is when some archaeologists display a tendency to say that anything they don't understand must be 'religious'. It seems to be a sort of 'junk' category for "I don't know". This is not knowledge, but speculation, of a low grade.

I think that we ought to keep clearly in mind the kinds of things that archaeology can and cannot tell us, the kinds of things that literature can and cannot tell us, and so forth.

It's true, before there were real studies of religions in archaeology, archaeologists used to say that things that they saw repeated in the record were likely religious.

Before. Used to.

Now, you can't get away with that. You have to have -evidence- to back up your findings and interpretations of the archaeological record, or your peers jump all over you. If not in the peer-reviewed journals, then in reviews of your books.

Welcome to the 21^st century, Roger.

Unfortunately nothing in this seems to address my comments. Chronological snobbery must give place to evidence, in my cynical view.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 09-25-2007, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hex

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I was wondering whether archaeology can tell us that a culture is monotheistic or polytheistic. Aren't statues etc dumb? Can we tell if these are deities unless they tell us so, in writing, somehow? This means epigraphic or literary evidence, not just archaeology. Or am I missing something?

Context. Archaeologists do work on non-literate societies all the time, and they can start to get understanding based on what they find where, how much it is repeated, special treatment/materials, etc.

Probably there is something in this, based around the principle that everyone is human, and working by analogy from better-understood cultures. But there are obvious risks to this.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Hex · 09-25-2007, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hex

Actually, that's what that Chalk Statue in my post above is.

Interesting, no?

And how do you know that it is cultic?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

You didn't read what I quoted, did you? :Cheeky:

Hex · 09-25-2007, 01:03 PM

I apologize for the derail of archaeological ranting for Roger's benefit.

Either way, if we're going to look at this argument archaeologically, then we have to assume the archaeology -can- discern this. Afdave has posited this in the affirmative, so let's suffice it to say that if we were looking for Afdave's archaeological evidence for monotheism (especially a Yahweh-ist cult) as older than polytheism, this would be easy as pie to determine if the evidence existed.

If, as Afdave posits, we take the Bible (relatively) literally, then we know -all- about Yahweh and the practices that should be involved in ritual. We should be able to recognize the remains of sacrifices. We should be able to recognize the structures of temples and ritual items. We should be able to examine human remains and recognize where ritual has impacted on the bodies and the interment of such bodies. We should be able to recognize appropriate food remains and standardized means of building structures in accordance with religious rules.

And, best of all, we should find these -everywhere- at the same chonological age.

Like I said, easy as pie.

IF the evidence existed.

Which it doesn't.

Sorry, Afdave. :huh:

Just a refresher - check out the OP.

Roger Pearse · 09-25-2007, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hex

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I'm not sure that you got my point. How do we know that a statue is 'cultic'? How do we know that something is a 'remnant of religious practice'? I'm not sure that archaeology alone can tell us such a thing.

Roger, did you perhaps miss what I said before? Context?

I'm not sure that I can say it much plainer. Chanting 'context' is not an answer.

Quote:

Well, in case you doubted, here was the first example I found on JSTOR, so here you are, a chalk figurine found in Britain with the reasoning as to it's importance as a religious thing:

I'm interested that you quote this. It does not, after all, endorse your comments since it is devoid of data in that direction.

Quote:

"The evidence for the pit being itself ritual rests largely on the presence of the image

So, let's ask ourselves how do we know that the image is religious? Of itself a statue stood above a pit means nothing, as far as I know.

Anyone know different? If so, how do you KNOW?

Quote:

..., and so any argument on these lines cannot be taken too far, but it must be said that the structure, with its underground chamber is somewhat unusual.

No evidence either way, tho.

Quote:

The basal chamber in which the statuette was found may possibly have been a shrine.

Speculation, surely.

Quote:

There are parallels both to the pit and its chamber, and to the presence of figurines in ritual pits. Ross would interpret a pit at Northfleet, also in Kent, as religious, and this shaft also possesses an oval chamber at the bottom.

Still no evidence of anything but pits and statues. These, as we have seen, are mute unless we know what they mean.

Quote:

Figurines or religious sculptures frequently occur in ritual pits: at Montbuay near Orleans a wooden figure came from a pit; and a figurine of a deity came from one of the ritual pits in the Vendee region.

This is the same statement as above turned upside down. Ask how we know that they are ritual pits? How do we know that these are deities?

Quote:

In Britain, images are recorded in pits at, for instance, Great Chesterford (Essex); and wells such as Coventina's shrine at Carrawburgh and Lower Slaughter, Glos. contained a number of votive sculptures.

<weary> How do we know that they are 'votive sculptures'?

Quote:

Finally, the exceptionally important parallel of Kelvedon in Essex should be considered. Here, a well which was filled in during the second century A.D. contained a pot set in a niche inside which was a stylised chalk figurine. This is of particular interest in that there was a niche in the Deal pit which very possibly housed the Kent statuette.
The Deal figurine comes from a context which may or may not itself be religious.

I.e. no-one KNOWS.

Quote:

The relatively undamaged and unworn condition of the object suggests deliberate deposition rather than rubbish disposal.

Speculation, again.

Quote:

So a primary cult-context is quite likely even if we have no independent evidence for an
underground shrine or chapel. A possible explanation of the figurine's presence, if the chamber were to be interpreted as a store rather than a shrine, is that the figure was placed there to guard, protect and bless the contents. (pp 297-8)

No data in this either.

The point of this is not to attack this archaeological report; it isn't addressing the point at issue. In the absence of a literary text about these, the author is quite properly cautious, and obliged to reason rather in the dark. But that's the point; that his archaeology isn't telling him, so he has to work with what he has and hope for the best. He's probably right, working from comparison with classical and archaic mediterranean civilisation. But it's thin stuff.

Quote:

Note, they've hedged their bets a bit, since they haven't found more in that area, but from the CONTEXT, they can make inferences based on the ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD, not just from the single find in Kent, but also other locations in the area, and, of course, ANTHROPOLOGICAL STUDIES.

I'm sorry to say that you don't seem to have understood what you read, or its bearing on my question.

Quote:

Aside: It always amazes me, the way that people abuse and misunderstand Archaeology. :huh:

Indeed. It is curious to see the way that people suppose it capable of conveying information not found by archaeological means.

I'm sorry Hex, but unless you can engage seriously with the point I'm making we can't really discuss this further.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Constant Mews · 09-25-2007, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

When we find amulets and statues in Egyptian tombs we presume them to be evidence of cultic rites.

(My emphasis added)

I expect some people do. But I would suggest that in fact we know that these Egyptian items are amulets and statues of deities because they have this writing on them to tell us so, and writing on the walls, etc. A blank statue from an unknown civilisation cannot identify itself as a cultic statue.

If anyone doubts this I have this lump of ancient rock, otherwise unidentified, found in a tomb. We can take votes on whether it is a cultic object or not.

Pardon me for being insistent here, but one thing that should make us wary is when some archaeologists display a tendency to say that anything they don't understand must be 'religious'. It seems to be a sort of 'junk' category for "I don't know". This is not knowledge, but speculation, of a low grade.

I think that we ought to keep clearly in mind the kinds of things that archaeology can and cannot tell us, the kinds of things that literature can and cannot tell us, and so forth.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Archaeologists make inferences from parallel cases that are documented. As with any scientific endeavor, it is a best-current-explanation that we recognize can be overturned with further data.

To simply refuse to speculate on the possibilities based on analogous cases is not a path to knowledge; it is to sit rotting in ignorance.

Roger Pearse · 09-25-2007, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Constant Mews

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

(My emphasis added)

I expect some people do. But I would suggest that in fact we know that these Egyptian items are amulets and statues of deities because they have this writing on them to tell us so, and writing on the walls, etc. A blank statue from an unknown civilisation cannot identify itself as a cultic statue.

If anyone doubts this I have this lump of ancient rock, otherwise unidentified, found in a tomb. We can take votes on whether it is a cultic object or not.

Pardon me for being insistent here, but one thing that should make us wary is when some archaeologists display a tendency to say that anything they don't understand must be 'religious'. It seems to be a sort of 'junk' category for "I don't know". This is not knowledge, but speculation, of a low grade.

I think that we ought to keep clearly in mind the kinds of things that archaeology can and cannot tell us, the kinds of things that literature can and cannot tell us, and so forth.

Archaeologists make inferences from parallel cases that are documented.

Yes, that is indeed what is supposed to happen. That way we can work from what is known to what is probable, given objective indicators that indicate a relation between the two.

But, thinking critically and returning to the original issue, I was wondering how we dig up evidence of something in the minds of long dead people; monotheism or polytheism. Obviously if we can dig up temples with multiple deities labelled as such we can rationally infer polytheism! But if we can't, can we infer monotheism from the absence of evidence? I don't see it.

Most of the responses to my query suggest to me that people haven't sat down and imagined just how you dig up evidence of a state of mind.

Quote:

To simply refuse to speculate on the possibilities based on analogous cases is not a path to knowledge; it is to sit rotting in ignorance.

Um, surely to speculate on possibilities is not a path to knowledge -- imagination and fact are different things...

All the best,

Roger Pearse

chieftain · 09-25-2007, 03:07 PM

If you actually read the Bible carefully, it's fairly plain that it wasn't written by a monotheistic culture. Rather, the early Israelites clearly believed that other gods existed - just that they only worshipped the one.

Take for example the first of the Ten Commandments:
"You shall have no other gods but me".
Look carefully at the wording. It doesn't say "There are no other gods but me" - it takes them for granted, and just says that you shouldn't worship any of them.

There's quite a lot along these lines. For example, the story of Moses turning his staff into a snake in front of the Egyptian court. The Egyptian magicians were able to repeat the trick. Of course, the story goes on that since the Israelite god is so much more powerful, Moses's snake gobbled up the others - but it again clearly implies that the Egyptians' gods existed too.

For a fascinating treatment of this and the development of monotheism amongs the Jews and later the Christians and Muslims, see Karen Armstrong's brilliant book A History of God (or via: amazon.co.uk).

Amaleq13 · 09-25-2007, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hex

I apologize for the derail of archaeological ranting for Roger's benefit.

Frankly, I consider it enormously more interesting than the actual thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Constant Mews

Archaeologists make inferences from parallel cases that are documented. As with any scientific endeavor, it is a best-current-explanation that we recognize can be overturned with further data.

Is that the case with regard to the paper Hex quoted?

And, if by "documented" you mean some ancient writing explaining an item, doesn't that actually prove Roger's point? You need the people in question to explain an object somehow before you can say what it meant to them or what purpose it served. Otherwise you are just speculating.

Quote:

To simply refuse to speculate on the possibilities based on analogous cases is not a path to knowledge; it is to sit rotting in ignorance.

I don't think Roger is suggesting that speculation be avoided so much as it be recognized and acknowledged as such when it is the basis for a claim.

09-25-2007, 01:03 PM	#45
Hex Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: www.rationalpagans.com Posts: 445	Re-rail! I apologize for the derail of archaeological ranting for Roger's benefit. Either way, if we're going to look at this argument archaeologically, then we have to assume the archaeology -can- discern this. Afdave has posited this in the affirmative, so let's suffice it to say that if we were looking for Afdave's archaeological evidence for monotheism (especially a Yahweh-ist cult) as older than polytheism, this would be easy as pie to determine if the evidence existed. If, as Afdave posits, we take the Bible (relatively) literally, then we know -all- about Yahweh and the practices that should be involved in ritual. We should be able to recognize the remains of sacrifices. We should be able to recognize the structures of temples and ritual items. We should be able to examine human remains and recognize where ritual has impacted on the bodies and the interment of such bodies. We should be able to recognize appropriate food remains and standardized means of building structures in accordance with religious rules. And, best of all, we should find these -everywhere- at the same chonological age. Like I said, easy as pie. IF the evidence existed. Which it doesn't. Sorry, Afdave. :huh: Just a refresher - check out the OP.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-25-2007, 03:07 PM	#49
chieftain Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: London, UK Posts: 234	If you actually read the Bible carefully, it's fairly plain that it wasn't written by a monotheistic culture. Rather, the early Israelites clearly believed that other gods existed - just that they only worshipped the one. Take for example the first of the Ten Commandments: "You shall have no other gods but me". Look carefully at the wording. It doesn't say "There are no other gods but me" - it takes them for granted, and just says that you shouldn't worship any of them. There's quite a lot along these lines. For example, the story of Moses turning his staff into a snake in front of the Egyptian court. The Egyptian magicians were able to repeat the trick. Of course, the story goes on that since the Israelite god is so much more powerful, Moses's snake gobbled up the others - but it again clearly implies that the Egyptians' gods existed too. For a fascinating treatment of this and the development of monotheism amongs the Jews and later the Christians and Muslims, see Karen Armstrong's brilliant book A History of God (or via: amazon.co.uk).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.