3 ms·
> Since no other animal's body parts were found, it led the team to deduce that these were sacrificial. "Sacrificial". I hate it when I read this sort if rubb
by verisimi 4y ago
> Since no other animal's body parts were found, it led the team to deduce that these were sacrificial.
"Sacrificial".
I hate it when I read this sort if rubbish, sorry. It plays too the idea that I'm ancient times, when presumably things were harder, our ancestors indulged themselves in hocus pocus, being primitive, superstitious claptrap.
Wouldn't it just be more honest to say "we don't know what the structures are" than play to these woeful stereotypes?
- Amezarak 4y agoWe have endless accounts of animal sacrifice across nearly every ancient culture from which we have either their own writing or the writing of other cultures who visited them. I doubt it began with the invention of writing.
- hutzlibu 4y agoHow many times has this trope to be repeated? Yes, some "ritual" sites might in fact have been dumbsters. But otherwise it feels very much like atheist mindset projection. To my knowledge all the "primitive" cultures and tribes we know of, are (or were) deeply entrenched in magical and ritualistic thinking in everyday life. The earliest written proofs are about religious topics. It therefore makes sense, to assume a religious background of sites, that look different and serve no obvious purpose.