4 ms·

> The necklace, believed to belong to a devout medieval woman, almost certainly an aristocrat, shines new light on the spread of early Christianity through medi

> The necklace, believed to belong to a devout medieval woman, almost certainly an aristocrat, shines new light on the spread of early Christianity through medieval Europe and offers a glimpse into the role played by elite women in forging England’s Christian identity, experts say. This doesn’t sound dazzling, even to experts. Article titles like this always get my hopes up for “we have to change all the textbooks”, but it almost never happens.

thaumasiotes 4y ago
> “This woman probably belonged to the first generation of English Christians in this part of England,” Francis Young, a historian of religion who was not involved in the excavation, told The Post. “This is people wanting to show off their newly acquired identity as Christians.” Artifact interpretation is always so tendentious. Lots of people wear necklaces with a cross pendant today. They are mostly not trying to show off their newly acquired identity as Christians.
- rhn_mk1 4y ago
  Most people wearing necklaces are not first generation Christians. After you eliminate those, why are the remaining necklace-wearing ones doing it?
  - tommica 4y ago
    Because its a pretty necklace?
    - rhn_mk1 4y ago
      For generic necklaces yes, but when we're talking about necklaces with a religious symbol on them, I'm not so sure.
      - Cthulhu_ 4y ago
        I'm pretty sure though; many people wear or use religious symbolism without being religious themselves or aware of it being a religious symbol. (not just physical items like jewelry, think behaviours or sayings as well).
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  We should at least consider the possibility that a domain expert may have knowledge not included in that single sentence given to a reporter.
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    This is exactly the idea that I'm pointing out is false. You should not consider that possibility; that is not the way interpretation of archaeological artifacts is done, particularly when talking to reporters.
- eckmLJE 4y ago
  I think you may be misreading this. This isn't about some person becoming a new Christian. It's about a member of high society wearing a cross during a turbulent period of competing peoples within Britain shifting from paganism to Christianity, at a time when religious symbolism was central to (synonymous with?) political symbolism.
UncleMeat 4y ago
Experts in all fields are dazzled by stuff that laypeople don’t find exciting. “We have to change all our textbooks” is a ridiculous bar.
- unsupp0rted 4y ago
  It’s not a ridiculous bar for “once in a lifetime” “dazzling” discoveries. It’s hard to be impressed by “here’s a necklace that changes nothing”.
  - JadeNB 4y ago
    > It’s not a ridiculous bar for “once in a lifetime” “dazzling” discoveries. As a mathematician, there are plenty of my discoveries in my field that are once in a lifetime and dazzling (to specialists) that would be meaningless to the average mathematics undergraduate student, much less changing textbooks.
    - unsupp0rted 4y ago
      Is there an example in mathematics of a once in a lifetime dazzling discovery that doesn’t change anything?
      - JadeNB 4y ago
        (Sorry for the long delay in responding—I was “posting too fast”.) > Is there an example in mathematics of a once in a lifetime dazzling discovery that doesn’t change anything? That doesn't change anything? No, probably not. But that doesn't change undergraduate textbooks? I'd imagine it's harder to find a once-in-a-lifetime, dazzling mathematical discovery that does change them. (RSA encryption, maybe, although that was famously at least twice in a lifetime, RSA being re-discoverers of classified work.) I think of Fermat's last theorem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_Last_Theorem#Wiles's_general_proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_Last_Theorem#Wiles'... ) and the bounded-gaps results on primes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_gap#Upper_bounds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_gap#Upper_bounds ), both of which will surely be mentioned in new editions of good textbooks, but neither of which is likely to change the actual mathematical content of those textbooks. And these are just the ‘popular’ ones! For a long list of others, one can look at Fields-Medal work. In my own area, there is the recent proof of the fundamental lemma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_lemma_(Langlands_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_lemma_(Langlands_p... ), which is unlikely to be suitable even to be stated in any but the most advanced textbooks.

thaumasiotes 4y ago

> “This woman probably belonged to the first generation of English Christians in this part of England,” Francis Young, a historian of religion who was not involved in the excavation, told The Post. “This is people wanting to show off their newly acquired identity as Christians.” Artifact interpretation is always so tendentious. Lots of people wear necklaces with a cross pendant today. They are mostly not trying to show off their newly acquired identity as Christians.

rhn_mk1 4y ago
Most people wearing necklaces are not first generation Christians. After you eliminate those, why are the remaining necklace-wearing ones doing it?
- tommica 4y ago
  Because its a pretty necklace?
  - rhn_mk1 4y ago
    For generic necklaces yes, but when we're talking about necklaces with a religious symbol on them, I'm not so sure.
    - Cthulhu_ 4y ago
      I'm pretty sure though; many people wear or use religious symbolism without being religious themselves or aware of it being a religious symbol. (not just physical items like jewelry, think behaviours or sayings as well).
ceejayoz 4y ago
We should at least consider the possibility that a domain expert may have knowledge not included in that single sentence given to a reporter.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  This is exactly the idea that I'm pointing out is false. You should not consider that possibility; that is not the way interpretation of archaeological artifacts is done, particularly when talking to reporters.
eckmLJE 4y ago
I think you may be misreading this. This isn't about some person becoming a new Christian. It's about a member of high society wearing a cross during a turbulent period of competing peoples within Britain shifting from paganism to Christianity, at a time when religious symbolism was central to (synonymous with?) political symbolism.

UncleMeat 4y ago

Experts in all fields are dazzled by stuff that laypeople don’t find exciting. “We have to change all our textbooks” is a ridiculous bar.

unsupp0rted 4y ago
It’s not a ridiculous bar for “once in a lifetime” “dazzling” discoveries. It’s hard to be impressed by “here’s a necklace that changes nothing”.
- JadeNB 4y ago
  > It’s not a ridiculous bar for “once in a lifetime” “dazzling” discoveries. As a mathematician, there are plenty of my discoveries in my field that are once in a lifetime and dazzling (to specialists) that would be meaningless to the average mathematics undergraduate student, much less changing textbooks.
  - unsupp0rted 4y ago
    Is there an example in mathematics of a once in a lifetime dazzling discovery that doesn’t change anything?
    - JadeNB 4y ago
      (Sorry for the long delay in responding—I was “posting too fast”.) > Is there an example in mathematics of a once in a lifetime dazzling discovery that doesn’t change anything? That doesn't change anything? No, probably not. But that doesn't change undergraduate textbooks? I'd imagine it's harder to find a once-in-a-lifetime, dazzling mathematical discovery that does change them. (RSA encryption, maybe, although that was famously at least twice in a lifetime, RSA being re-discoverers of classified work.) I think of Fermat's last theorem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_Last_Theorem#Wiles's_general_proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_Last_Theorem#Wiles'... ) and the bounded-gaps results on primes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_gap#Upper_bounds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_gap#Upper_bounds ), both of which will surely be mentioned in new editions of good textbooks, but neither of which is likely to change the actual mathematical content of those textbooks. And these are just the ‘popular’ ones! For a long list of others, one can look at Fields-Medal work. In my own area, there is the recent proof of the fundamental lemma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_lemma_(Langlands_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_lemma_(Langlands_p... ), which is unlikely to be suitable even to be stated in any but the most advanced textbooks.