4 ms·

> 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 lin

> 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.
- solarhoma 6y ago
  Why is it so absolutely awful that an ancient artifact has religious purposes?
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    It's a valid question, the frustrating thing is it had an answer and the guy didn't bother to look for it.
    - marcus_holmes 6y ago
      the guy did bother, but all he found was assumption and ignorance. Like in this reply.

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.
solarhoma 6y ago
Why is it so absolutely awful that an ancient artifact has religious purposes?
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  It's a valid question, the frustrating thing is it had an answer and the guy didn't bother to look for it.
  - marcus_holmes 6y ago
    the guy did bother, but all he found was assumption and ignorance. Like in this reply.