12 ms·

The tendency to ascribe ancient artifacts to "ritual purposes" or religion always astounds me. This is a calendar. It's proven to be a calendar. We know how it

The tendency to ascribe ancient artifacts to "ritual purposes" or religion always astounds me. This is a calendar. It's proven to be a calendar. We know how it works as a calendar. It's a tool for predicting celestial events. It doesn't need to be hand-wavingly described as "worn by a priest or diety of a sun-god religion". What evidence is there for that? Which sun-god? Why is there never any proof or evidence required for saying an artifact has a religious purpose? It's like saying "this object, that we know to be a screwdriver, must be an item of ritual significance to the god of Sunday Afternoon Home Maintenance, and used by their priests in their rituals"

kzrdude 6y ago
I agree, but we can move two ways - we could also make sure we describe more contemporary occurences with the ritual language, and maybe that might clarify what we mean in just the same way, bridging the cultural gap between then and now? I'm not sure about the the screwdriver, but certainly such things as the Sunday Morning Family Waffle Iron, can be described as items for ritualistic purposes, right?
- marcus_holmes 6y ago
  I think it's the conflating of "religious" and "ritual" that gets out of hand. So if your family has a tradition of Sunday Morning Waffles, then sure it's "ritual" in a very minor sense. But it's not religious. You don't make waffles every Sunday morning to appease the Waffle Gods, or because of some superstition that the next winter will be terrible if you don't. But these are the sorts of things that get associated with "ritual". Archeologists being lazy about their interpretations leads to a view of ancient civilisations that they were all "permeated with magic and superstition". And I don't think the evidence actually supports that.
kapep 6y ago
Being made of gold indicates that it was at least not an every day tool. Of course it could still be just a fancy golden calendar. Anyway the German Wikipedia page about Goldhüte [1] says the ritual significance was attributed because there are tomb paintings depicting similar hats being worn in some religious/cultic context. [1:] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldhut https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldhut
- wojtekkru 6y ago
  How about comparing it to a Rolex watch?
  - number6 6y ago
    If you describe our society in the tone archeologists describe old societies it would be something along the line like: "The rolex watch was an instrument to calculate the time of the day and time of the year. It was worn to ritual conventions, dances and mating rituals. Thus it's rather primitive workings compared to the electronic and quantum technologies this civilization had access to it's value derives from the precious metals used and in the craftmanship needed to create this artifact which is in its working on par with the high technologies of this era. It was also worn by James Bond."
    - mrzool 6y ago
      This is absolutely spot-on. Brilliant!
    - marcus_holmes 6y ago
      love it :) but the "ritual" part - I think the definition of that word is too broad if you can say that a Rolex is used for "ritual purposes"
- pythonwizz 6y ago
  "Being made of gold indicates that it was at least not an every day tool." Because of fragility or because costs of the material? Gold is one of the earliest metals used. I don't know out of my head what alloys (1000 BCE!) they could have used to create sub-milimeter wall thickness (0.6mm!). If they had been able to do this out of iron, it would be dust by now. Remember from Chemistry class? Gold does not react easily.
number6 6y ago
I once heared in a documentary that "ritual purposes" is a catch-all phrase and means: "We have no idea why they made or used it".
mrzool 6y ago
There are people who study and investigate this kind of things who probably have good reasons to believe this object served some kind of ritualistic purpose. > What evidence is there for that? […] Why is there never any proof or evidence required for saying an artifact has a religious purpose? From a related Wikipedia page: It is assumed that the Golden Hats served as religious insignia for the deities or priests of a sun cult then widespread in Central Europe. Their use as head-gear is strongly supported by the fact that the three of four examples have a cap-like widening at the bottom of the cone, and that their openings are oval (not round), with diameters and shapes roughly equivalent to those of a human skull. The figural depiction of an object resembling a conical hat on a stone slab of the King's Grave at Kivik, Southern Sweden, strongly supports their association with religion and cult, as does the fact that the known examples appear to have been deposited (buried) carefully. I'm sure you can find more precise details if you dig deep enough. > Which sun-god? You can read more about this cult here[1] and here[2]. > This is a calendar. It's proven to be a calendar. We know how it works as a calendar. It's a tool for predicting celestial events. Do not project the hyper-rationalistic character of our current society to societies and civilizations of the pre-industrial era. People in the ancient times were not as rational and utilitarian as we are. Everything was permeated by religion, superstition and magic. [1]: https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=84391 https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=... [2]: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/wnja9z/scientists-reconstruct-the-life-of-a-bronze-age-sun-worshipping-priestess-2 https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/wnja9z/scientists-reconst...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- marcus_holmes 6y ago
  > Do not project the hyper-rationalistic character of our current society to societies and civilizations of the pre-industrial era. People in the ancient times were not as rational and utilitarian as we are. I think it's much, much more the other way around. Modern archaeologists have inherited their Victorian predecessors attitudes, who tended to look on primitive societies as backward and superstitious; "nasty, brutal and short". > Everything was permeated by religion, superstition and magic. I don't think there's much evidence to support this. Lots of speculation and interpretation, but not much actual evidence. A girl wearing a "sun disk" is interpreted as being a "priestess of a sun religion". On what basis? Can't it just be decoration? Again, saying "ritual" or "religious" is easy because it requires no proof. If you said that the disk was a tool, you'd be required to specify what the tool was and what it was used for. But you're not required to say what ritual, or how the item was used in the ritual. It's a different standard of proof. It would be better if archeologists admitted that they don't know what the thing is for, until there's more evidence or better understanding of the culture.
cookieswumchorr 6y ago
maybe assigning students to faculties in a bronze-age educational facility
throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
> Why is there never any proof or evidence required for saying an artifact has a religious purpose? It's there if you bothered to look. 2 minutes following links gets me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_hats https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_hats "Their use as head-gear is strongly supported by the fact that the three of four examples have a cap-like widening at the bottom of the cone, and that their openings are oval (not round), with diameters and shapes roughly equivalent to those of a human skull" Further: "The figural depiction of an object resembling a conical hat on a stone slab of the King's Grave at Kivik, Southern Sweden, strongly supports their association with religion and cult" which links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_King's_Grave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_King's_Grave I can't see the hats but whatever, I assume people aren't actually stupid.
- marcus_holmes 6y ago
  so it's a hat-calendar. Why is that religious?
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    Read the wiki link I posted. It tells you why they believe it likely religious.
    - marcus_holmes 6y ago
      > It is assumed[by whom?] that the golden hats served as religious insignia for the deities or priests of a sun cult then widespread in Central Europe. Their use as head-gear is strongly supported by the fact that the three of four examples have a cap-like widening at the bottom of the cone, and that their openings are oval (not round), with diameters and shapes roughly equivalent to those of a human skull. The figural depiction of an object resembling a conical hat on a stone slab of the King's Grave at Kivik, Southern Sweden, strongly supports their association with religion and cult, as does the fact that the known examples appear to have been deposited (buried) carefully.[citation needed] There's an "assumption" that it's relgious, which is "strongly supported" by a resemblance to a carving on another site. That other site is a burial mound, no evidence for any religious purpose. So how is this "strongly supporting" a relgious interpretation? There's evidence it's a hat. There's evidence it's a calendar. There's no evidence it's religious. But sure, I didn't read the wiki page.
Someone 6y ago
Archeologists must publish, too, so there’s pressure to say more than “we don’t know”, but in my very humble opinion, “a tool” isn’t the best description. It may be a tool, but why would they make it in gold, and so delicate? Why would they bury such a tool in a seemingly ceremonial way, on a stand, with axes leaning it to it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Hat_of_Schifferstadt#Provenance_and_find_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Hat_of_Schifferstadt#Pr...)? Also, how would they keep track of time on this, if its primary purpose was use as a tool?
- marcus_holmes 6y ago
  I don't know. But I notice that we're not required to answer any of those questions if "it's ritual"
  - Someone 6y ago
    In pure form, gold is a fairly useless metal, except for being hard to obtain, being shiny and staying shiny. That’s why I think it historically, had 3 only uses: as money, to show wealth, and to show power. Also “ritual” is not a well-defined concept (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual says it may include coronations, can be part of warfare, etc), so declaring something as “ritual” most of the time isn’t a bold claim. In this case, I would think it mostly says “it doesn’t look like a form of money, and we don’t see people at the time use this to make a living”.
    - marcus_holmes 6y ago
      Gold isn't useless. It's very easy to work, especially by beating. It doesn't tarnish or rust, and takes a great polished surface with not much effort. It is heavy, but you can beat it to a really thin surface easily (it doesn't get brittle with beating like so many other metals), so you can make it thinner to offset the weight. If you were going to make a hat-calendar, for whatever reason, then thinly-beaten gold is not the worst material to choose (evidence: it survived!). Of course, we have plastic or aluminium as alternatives, and gold has a high value as currency for us, so it would be a terrible choice of material now.
wyck 6y ago
Well there is a vaste amount of evidence and history regarding religious use of hats. It's not a stretch to assume this hat was used by a priest or someone in a leadership role, ancient Egypt has volumes of different immense hat types worn by priests and Pharaohs, Christianity does as well, the pope's various Mitre hat's for example, worn for thousands of years. High priests and priestess's of many types of religions, ancient and modern, use hats to signify rank, especially those made with gold, rare materials, and decorated with significance.
tdeck 6y ago
You also see this a lot in translations of undeciphered scripts. Often there's a period of speculative translations that really make no sense, but are justified with "it's just religion, of course it's esoteric". Example in hieroglyphics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obeliscus_Pamphilius?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obeliscus_Pamphilius?wprov=sfl... Example in an undeciphered script: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decipherment_of_rongorongo#Fischer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decipherment_of_rongorongo#F...
sorokod 6y ago
Up to some point in not so distant (around Newton's time in Europe) past you can read "ritual purposes" as "scientific purposes"

kzrdude 6y ago

I agree, but we can move two ways - we could also make sure we describe more contemporary occurences with the ritual language, and maybe that might clarify what we mean in just the same way, bridging the cultural gap between then and now? I'm not sure about the the screwdriver, but certainly such things as the Sunday Morning Family Waffle Iron, can be described as items for ritualistic purposes, right?

marcus_holmes 6y ago
I think it's the conflating of "religious" and "ritual" that gets out of hand. So if your family has a tradition of Sunday Morning Waffles, then sure it's "ritual" in a very minor sense. But it's not religious. You don't make waffles every Sunday morning to appease the Waffle Gods, or because of some superstition that the next winter will be terrible if you don't. But these are the sorts of things that get associated with "ritual". Archeologists being lazy about their interpretations leads to a view of ancient civilisations that they were all "permeated with magic and superstition". And I don't think the evidence actually supports that.

kapep 6y ago

Being made of gold indicates that it was at least not an every day tool. Of course it could still be just a fancy golden calendar. Anyway the German Wikipedia page about Goldhüte [1] says the ritual significance was attributed because there are tomb paintings depicting similar hats being worn in some religious/cultic context. [1:] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldhut https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldhut

wojtekkru 6y ago
How about comparing it to a Rolex watch?
- number6 6y ago
  If you describe our society in the tone archeologists describe old societies it would be something along the line like: "The rolex watch was an instrument to calculate the time of the day and time of the year. It was worn to ritual conventions, dances and mating rituals. Thus it's rather primitive workings compared to the electronic and quantum technologies this civilization had access to it's value derives from the precious metals used and in the craftmanship needed to create this artifact which is in its working on par with the high technologies of this era. It was also worn by James Bond."
  - mrzool 6y ago
    This is absolutely spot-on. Brilliant!
  - marcus_holmes 6y ago
    love it :) but the "ritual" part - I think the definition of that word is too broad if you can say that a Rolex is used for "ritual purposes"
pythonwizz 6y ago
"Being made of gold indicates that it was at least not an every day tool." Because of fragility or because costs of the material? Gold is one of the earliest metals used. I don't know out of my head what alloys (1000 BCE!) they could have used to create sub-milimeter wall thickness (0.6mm!). If they had been able to do this out of iron, it would be dust by now. Remember from Chemistry class? Gold does not react easily.

number6 6y ago

I once heared in a documentary that "ritual purposes" is a catch-all phrase and means: "We have no idea why they made or used it".

mrzool 6y ago

There are people who study and investigate this kind of things who probably have good reasons to believe this object served some kind of ritualistic purpose. > What evidence is there for that? […] Why is there never any proof or evidence required for saying an artifact has a religious purpose? From a related Wikipedia page: It is assumed that the Golden Hats served as religious insignia for the deities or priests of a sun cult then widespread in Central Europe. Their use as head-gear is strongly supported by the fact that the three of four examples have a cap-like widening at the bottom of the cone, and that their openings are oval (not round), with diameters and shapes roughly equivalent to those of a human skull. The figural depiction of an object resembling a conical hat on a stone slab of the King's Grave at Kivik, Southern Sweden, strongly supports their association with religion and cult, as does the fact that the known examples appear to have been deposited (buried) carefully. I'm sure you can find more precise details if you dig deep enough. > Which sun-god? You can read more about this cult here[1] and here[2]. > This is a calendar. It's proven to be a calendar. We know how it works as a calendar. It's a tool for predicting celestial events. Do not project the hyper-rationalistic character of our current society to societies and civilizations of the pre-industrial era. People in the ancient times were not as rational and utilitarian as we are. Everything was permeated by religion, superstition and magic. [1]: https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=84391 https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=... [2]: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/wnja9z/scientists-reconstruct-the-life-of-a-bronze-age-sun-worshipping-priestess-2 https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/wnja9z/scientists-reconst...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
marcus_holmes 6y ago
> Do not project the hyper-rationalistic character of our current society to societies and civilizations of the pre-industrial era. People in the ancient times were not as rational and utilitarian as we are. I think it's much, much more the other way around. Modern archaeologists have inherited their Victorian predecessors attitudes, who tended to look on primitive societies as backward and superstitious; "nasty, brutal and short". > Everything was permeated by religion, superstition and magic. I don't think there's much evidence to support this. Lots of speculation and interpretation, but not much actual evidence. A girl wearing a "sun disk" is interpreted as being a "priestess of a sun religion". On what basis? Can't it just be decoration? Again, saying "ritual" or "religious" is easy because it requires no proof. If you said that the disk was a tool, you'd be required to specify what the tool was and what it was used for. But you're not required to say what ritual, or how the item was used in the ritual. It's a different standard of proof. It would be better if archeologists admitted that they don't know what the thing is for, until there's more evidence or better understanding of the culture.

cookieswumchorr 6y ago

maybe assigning students to faculties in a bronze-age educational facility

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago

> Why is there never any proof or evidence required for saying an artifact has a religious purpose? It's there if you bothered to look. 2 minutes following links gets me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_hats https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_hats "Their use as head-gear is strongly supported by the fact that the three of four examples have a cap-like widening at the bottom of the cone, and that their openings are oval (not round), with diameters and shapes roughly equivalent to those of a human skull" Further: "The figural depiction of an object resembling a conical hat on a stone slab of the King's Grave at Kivik, Southern Sweden, strongly supports their association with religion and cult" which links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_King's_Grave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_King's_Grave I can't see the hats but whatever, I assume people aren't actually stupid.

marcus_holmes 6y ago
so it's a hat-calendar. Why is that religious?
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  Read the wiki link I posted. It tells you why they believe it likely religious.
  - marcus_holmes 6y ago
    > It is assumed[by whom?] that the golden hats served as religious insignia for the deities or priests of a sun cult then widespread in Central Europe. Their use as head-gear is strongly supported by the fact that the three of four examples have a cap-like widening at the bottom of the cone, and that their openings are oval (not round), with diameters and shapes roughly equivalent to those of a human skull. The figural depiction of an object resembling a conical hat on a stone slab of the King's Grave at Kivik, Southern Sweden, strongly supports their association with religion and cult, as does the fact that the known examples appear to have been deposited (buried) carefully.[citation needed] There's an "assumption" that it's relgious, which is "strongly supported" by a resemblance to a carving on another site. That other site is a burial mound, no evidence for any religious purpose. So how is this "strongly supporting" a relgious interpretation? There's evidence it's a hat. There's evidence it's a calendar. There's no evidence it's religious. But sure, I didn't read the wiki page.

Someone 6y ago

Archeologists must publish, too, so there’s pressure to say more than “we don’t know”, but in my very humble opinion, “a tool” isn’t the best description. It may be a tool, but why would they make it in gold, and so delicate? Why would they bury such a tool in a seemingly ceremonial way, on a stand, with axes leaning it to it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Hat_of_Schifferstadt#Provenance_and_find_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Hat_of_Schifferstadt#Pr...)? Also, how would they keep track of time on this, if its primary purpose was use as a tool?

marcus_holmes 6y ago
I don't know. But I notice that we're not required to answer any of those questions if "it's ritual"
- Someone 6y ago
  In pure form, gold is a fairly useless metal, except for being hard to obtain, being shiny and staying shiny. That’s why I think it historically, had 3 only uses: as money, to show wealth, and to show power. Also “ritual” is not a well-defined concept (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual says it may include coronations, can be part of warfare, etc), so declaring something as “ritual” most of the time isn’t a bold claim. In this case, I would think it mostly says “it doesn’t look like a form of money, and we don’t see people at the time use this to make a living”.
  - marcus_holmes 6y ago
    Gold isn't useless. It's very easy to work, especially by beating. It doesn't tarnish or rust, and takes a great polished surface with not much effort. It is heavy, but you can beat it to a really thin surface easily (it doesn't get brittle with beating like so many other metals), so you can make it thinner to offset the weight. If you were going to make a hat-calendar, for whatever reason, then thinly-beaten gold is not the worst material to choose (evidence: it survived!). Of course, we have plastic or aluminium as alternatives, and gold has a high value as currency for us, so it would be a terrible choice of material now.

wyck 6y ago

Well there is a vaste amount of evidence and history regarding religious use of hats. It's not a stretch to assume this hat was used by a priest or someone in a leadership role, ancient Egypt has volumes of different immense hat types worn by priests and Pharaohs, Christianity does as well, the pope's various Mitre hat's for example, worn for thousands of years. High priests and priestess's of many types of religions, ancient and modern, use hats to signify rank, especially those made with gold, rare materials, and decorated with significance.

tdeck 6y ago

You also see this a lot in translations of undeciphered scripts. Often there's a period of speculative translations that really make no sense, but are justified with "it's just religion, of course it's esoteric". Example in hieroglyphics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obeliscus_Pamphilius?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obeliscus_Pamphilius?wprov=sfl... Example in an undeciphered script: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decipherment_of_rongorongo#Fischer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decipherment_of_rongorongo#F...

sorokod 6y ago

Up to some point in not so distant (around Newton's time in Europe) past you can read "ritual purposes" as "scientific purposes"