4 ms·

So you trust archeologists without a second thought when they say that this object was used as a calendar, but you suddenly don't trust them anymore when they t

by mrzool 6y ago

So you trust archeologists without a second thought when they say that this object was used as a calendar, but you suddenly don't trust them anymore when they tell you it also had a religious function? > 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". Looks like you have an underlying prejudice against history and archeology practitioners, you already thought about these issues and you already have strong opinions on them. That explains your first comment. You might very well have your reasons in thinking this, but when you say > I don't think there's much evidence to support this. Lots of speculation and interpretation, but not much actual evidence. I'm sorry, but I really don't know what to tell you. Saying that there's "evidence" would be an understatement. Just pick up whatever history book. I suggest you read about pre-Colombian societies in central America, or shamanism in Africa, or even about religion wars in Europe in the 15th and 16th century. Just to get you started…

marcus_holmes 6y ago
it's not a matter of trust. They have shown evidence that it was a calendar, because they figured out how it worked as a calendar. They provide no eveidence that it served a religious function. My "prejudice" stems from re-enactment, and dealing with archeologists who were experts at digging things up, but completely useless at interpretation. They didn't know the first thing about any of the crafts of the time, had never used a forge or even seen a blacksmith at work, yet routinely intepreted artifacts from a dig where a forge was present. Instead of admitting ignorance, or asking for expert advice, they'd label stuff as "ritual". So yes, I'm a bit prejudiced. And reading a report about an artfact where it's cheerfully labelled as "ritual" with no proof or evidence provided, does get me ranting in the comments.

by mrzool 6y ago

marcus_holmes 6y ago

it's not a matter of trust. They have shown evidence that it was a calendar, because they figured out how it worked as a calendar. They provide no eveidence that it served a religious function. My "prejudice" stems from re-enactment, and dealing with archeologists who were experts at digging things up, but completely useless at interpretation. They didn't know the first thing about any of the crafts of the time, had never used a forge or even seen a blacksmith at work, yet routinely intepreted artifacts from a dig where a forge was present. Instead of admitting ignorance, or asking for expert advice, they'd label stuff as "ritual". So yes, I'm a bit prejudiced. And reading a report about an artfact where it's cheerfully labelled as "ritual" with no proof or evidence provided, does get me ranting in the comments.