3 ms·

> “crucial to know the exact location where they were found” for “reasons that could range from ritualistic to supernatural” I wonder what they implied there.

Loughla 2y ago
I had the same question. Anyone from Ireland here that might have any idea at all what that's about?
- darby_nine 2y ago
  Idk about this specific thing, but this is much simpler than it sounds if it operates like other anthropology. Ritualistic means intentional, and supernatural means symbolically meaningful. In other words, this is less of a specific claim and more of an "idk but they were clearly up to something".
  - s_dev 2y ago
    I interpret supernatural to mean religious in this context. I don't think this find will take on an X-Files direction.
    - darby_nine 2y ago
      > I interpret supernatural to mean religious in this context. TBH I have no clue what the word "religious" means outside of abrahamic faiths. Might as well be a meaningless word. Anyway, the supernatural certainly encompasses many aspects of religion without implying anything about aliens.
  - Loughla 2y ago
    The problem is how it's written, I think. I now understand what you're saying, but the way it's phrased in the article makes it seem like they need to know where it came from for ritualistic and supernatural reasons. Like there are rituals the anthropologists have to perform, not that they might have ritualistic use in the past. It's a weirdly written sentence. Or maybe I've just been awake for too long.
    - krisoft 2y ago
      You are not wrong. The Guardian made an absolute hash of it. I recommend that you read the original document which says this: “However, to fully understand and appreciate these artifacts, it's crucial to know the exact location where they were found. The context of such discoveries helps archaeologists piece together ancient settlement patterns and cultural practices. For instance, hoards or collections of objects were often deliberately placed in specific locations for reasons that could range from ritualistic to supernatural.” Here is the link: https://www.museum.ie/en-IE/News/Appeal-for-information-about-Bronze-Age-Axeheads-F https://www.museum.ie/en-IE/News/Appeal-for-information-abou...
throwup238 2y ago
Just that the discovery was missing something called context in archaeology. Where they were found geographically, the stratigraphy such as the dirt it was found in and the layers around it, where it was found in relation to the nearest settlement, what kinds of animal bones were found in the same general area, and so on. Archaeologists are meticulous about recording these little details because every any one of them could become important to the investigation. An artifact on its own is (relatively) scientifically useless. Without at least geographic location and a rough idea of the area it was discovered, most analytical methods will have a hard time getting accurate results and any conclusions are suspect.
- scotty79 2y ago
  What would be a supernatural reason then? Is there some context in archeology that is labeled as supernatural that's different from ritualistic context? And what other things lie in the range between those two?
  - astrange 2y ago
    Ritualistic is what archaeologists call everything when they can't tell what it's there for, but it was clearly there for a reason. It sounds like it means religious, but it's more general than that.
    - AlotOfReading 2y ago
      The word ritual is orthogonal to how much is known about the usage. "Ritual" is just a way to describe objects that have some higher purpose, beyond any mundane and utilitarian purposes their basic form might serve. The textbook example is a thurible, the censer on a chain used in churches. They're not used because anyone specifically wants a lot of smoke in the air (a fog machine would do just fine) or because swinging them is fun, but rather because there's a higher ritual purpose being served by those particular objects being used in those particular ways. It's like calling an object rugged or utilitarian. It's not a statement on what you know about the object's specific purpose, but rather an adjective describing something else entirely.

Loughla 2y ago

I had the same question. Anyone from Ireland here that might have any idea at all what that's about?

darby_nine 2y ago
Idk about this specific thing, but this is much simpler than it sounds if it operates like other anthropology. Ritualistic means intentional, and supernatural means symbolically meaningful. In other words, this is less of a specific claim and more of an "idk but they were clearly up to something".
- s_dev 2y ago
  I interpret supernatural to mean religious in this context. I don't think this find will take on an X-Files direction.
  - darby_nine 2y ago
    > I interpret supernatural to mean religious in this context. TBH I have no clue what the word "religious" means outside of abrahamic faiths. Might as well be a meaningless word. Anyway, the supernatural certainly encompasses many aspects of religion without implying anything about aliens.
- Loughla 2y ago
  The problem is how it's written, I think. I now understand what you're saying, but the way it's phrased in the article makes it seem like they need to know where it came from for ritualistic and supernatural reasons. Like there are rituals the anthropologists have to perform, not that they might have ritualistic use in the past. It's a weirdly written sentence. Or maybe I've just been awake for too long.
  - krisoft 2y ago
    You are not wrong. The Guardian made an absolute hash of it. I recommend that you read the original document which says this: “However, to fully understand and appreciate these artifacts, it's crucial to know the exact location where they were found. The context of such discoveries helps archaeologists piece together ancient settlement patterns and cultural practices. For instance, hoards or collections of objects were often deliberately placed in specific locations for reasons that could range from ritualistic to supernatural.” Here is the link: https://www.museum.ie/en-IE/News/Appeal-for-information-about-Bronze-Age-Axeheads-F https://www.museum.ie/en-IE/News/Appeal-for-information-abou...

throwup238 2y ago

Just that the discovery was missing something called context in archaeology. Where they were found geographically, the stratigraphy such as the dirt it was found in and the layers around it, where it was found in relation to the nearest settlement, what kinds of animal bones were found in the same general area, and so on. Archaeologists are meticulous about recording these little details because every any one of them could become important to the investigation. An artifact on its own is (relatively) scientifically useless. Without at least geographic location and a rough idea of the area it was discovered, most analytical methods will have a hard time getting accurate results and any conclusions are suspect.

scotty79 2y ago
What would be a supernatural reason then? Is there some context in archeology that is labeled as supernatural that's different from ritualistic context? And what other things lie in the range between those two?
- astrange 2y ago
  Ritualistic is what archaeologists call everything when they can't tell what it's there for, but it was clearly there for a reason. It sounds like it means religious, but it's more general than that.
  - AlotOfReading 2y ago
    The word ritual is orthogonal to how much is known about the usage. "Ritual" is just a way to describe objects that have some higher purpose, beyond any mundane and utilitarian purposes their basic form might serve. The textbook example is a thurible, the censer on a chain used in churches. They're not used because anyone specifically wants a lot of smoke in the air (a fog machine would do just fine) or because swinging them is fun, but rather because there's a higher ritual purpose being served by those particular objects being used in those particular ways. It's like calling an object rugged or utilitarian. It's not a statement on what you know about the object's specific purpose, but rather an adjective describing something else entirely.