Archaeologica.org

outof curiosity, does anyone have other examples of this trend besides mine with the minoans?

also another question to answer is; is this habit of declaring everything and every houselhold religious just a way to make modern society feel more superior to than their ancient counterparts?

i will disagree with you here as people being people , there are those wanting tolearn but can't go to those schools or failioes wanted to learn from the one son or whatever. i think it would be wrong to limit education to a few lucky ones, maybe formal education was but informal has always been done.

its ok for you to disagree
and there may indeed have been people who were both interested enough to learn and connected enough to have scribes to learn from
but it wasn't the norm
and every text that has come down to us is alwasy signed
and the scribes all have official titles such as "third scribe to the head priest of entemenki"
i'll keep my eyes open for any texts signed "by bob the farmer" but i wouldn't like to bet on it

Looks like it's time for the "sometimes it's just a chicken" story again. It doesn't shed any light on this thread, but illustrates it perfectly. ........................................found it! Here you go.

This story was told to me by a park ranger at the Caddoan Mounds State Historic Park near Alto, Texas. I do not swear that it's true, but it is a good story and makes a good point.
It seems that back in the late eighties archaeologists were puzzled by a feature that they found in the floors of almost every late/postcontact Caddo house that they excavated. This being a shallow depression to the left or right of the entrance inside each of the houses. There were many theories for this; some kind of ritual where they kicked dirt from beside the door when they exited the structure, some kind of storage pit (although shallow), or some unknown other religeous or ceremonial practice. To answer this and many other questions about how the Caddo lived, a group of graduate students from a Texas university built a replica Caddo house and lived in it for several months just as the Caddo did. They tried to be as authentic as possible down to growing the same crops in the same way and having the same animals that the Caddo had, namely dogs and chickens. After a few months they noticed that the chickens would come inside where there was always dry dirt to take their "dust baths". They always did this near the door in order to make a quick getaway when they were driven out. After a while there came to be a small depression on either side of the door filled with light dust. This was what the archaeologists had ascribed so many theories to before. It just goes to show that no matter how hard you overthink things and try to read profound meaning into everything, sometimes it's just a chicken.

archaeologist wrote:outof curiosity, does anyone have other examples of this trend besides mine with the minoans?

also another question to answer is; is this habit of declaring everything and every houselhold religious just a way to make modern society feel more superior to than their ancient counterparts?

I couldn't find the minoan example in this thread. If it's something that's already been discussed previously could you pm me with the info please.

I don't believe modern society needs another reason to feel superior to others, since they already equate lack of knowledge with lack of intelligence.
But I think I understand what you are trying to say.

I was also impressed by your previous post(about the presence of a bible not denoting a christian household). I have a number of strange and interesting books about a lot of belief systems in my home because I have an inquiring mind but do not follow the practices. So I shudder to imagine what an archaeologist would think of my beliefs. There is an article in the current(August 2006,pp78-89) National Geographic magazine called 'Guardian of a Ghost World' which shows an example of how misinformation can happen. The pertinent part of the article is not online. But the gist is that Waldo Wilcox the former owner of Range Creek in Utah saw an ancient skeleton sticking out of the ground and placed a metate over the skull to protect it. When the archaeologists found that site they thought it was part of the Fremont indians burial practice to place a 'corn grinder' over the head. Which just shows how easy it is to misinterpret what you find.

A lot of hunting and fishing must have seemed just luck to early man, and so they hoped for good luck. That developed into praying for good luck. Having no idea of cause and effect, it was probably easy to come up with all sorts of things they thought would bring luck in the hunt.

Later men figured out that only so many people could be controlled by brute force. It was much more efficient to use the idea of a Devine king to control. It saved a lot on the military budget, and you didn't have to give some many a cut of the action.

OK, I've read this topic from the beginning and I think I'm caught up. My own feeling is that because man has a larger brain, he alone on this planet is able to contemplate his own mortality.

So the concept of a hoped for afterlife naturally leads to the creation of divinities, among other things.

Beagle wrote:OK, I've read this topic from the beginning and I think I'm caught up. My own feeling is that because man has a larger brain, he alone on this planet is able to contemplate his own mortality.

So the concept of a hoped for afterlife naturally leads to the creation of divinities, among other things.

I have always thought that my humongous brain was a curse.

I couldn't find the minoan example in this thread

sorry that is because i spoke general of it in my original post. Here is a quote that is similar to what i was refering, taken from 'Unearthing Atlantis' by Charkes Pellegrino, pg. 196:

"The fresco gave an impression of infinite charm and love of nature. It was, perhaps, a religious allegory with origins reaching across the Mediterranean to Egypt.

Nature worship? Marinatos wondered.

The idyllic scene was reminiscent of that and Nanno Marinatos used to see in Egypt. In the tombs, often there were frescoes of lotus and papyrus. The egyptian religious landscape was a vast expanse of marsh. The afterlife was viewed as a field of rushes. If the Minoans were nature worshippers- in fact, that would be ironic, considering what nature eventually did to them.

Doumas was not satisfied with the emerging theories about Minoan religion. Many archaeologists were too quick to attach religious significance to the remnants of ancient cultures. A room fullof lillies became a religious landscape, and the room itself a place of worship. A fresco of ships on the sea became a ceremony. Some religious influence occassionally crept into even modern paintings; but wasn't it possible that the wealthy Minoans were just decorating their houses?"


so why is there this need or trend to label simple things as religious or a temple? what is this fascination with ancient life that demands such conclusions?

i for one agree with Doumas here (he took over excavations of Thera when Marinatos died), we are too quick to read into simple pleasures when there is nothing to corroborrate such thinking or interpretation.

is it a need to find something spectacular or unique and make a name for oneself in the archaeological world that drives this? or is it impatience? needing to find somethng quickly and refusing to wait for some clarification? or is it just that we have a false view of ancient life and refuse to accept that the people of the past are no different than we are?

(hopefully you all will not just give the obvious answers, as i have already thought of them and am looking for exploration in the issues raised here not surface dismissal)

I have always thought that archaeologists were too quick to assign religious or ritual motives to most structures they have found. I can see a good reason for doing it in some cases. Look around you now. The most impressive and long-lasting structures we build are either for religion or government or to honor someone from our history. So it is natural to assume that ancient cultures did the same. Since we know little about their politics or historical figures in many cases archaeologists jump to the conclusion that it has to be religious. Wrongly, in many cases. But sometimes it seems to fit and it's the easiest thing to do. Government and religion were closely linked in ancient cultures also. Religion was used as a method for controlling the populace so perhaps the impressive structures helped towards that end. People were in awe of the "gods" which in the beginning were the rulers who claimed to be gods. So naturally they would build the gods great structures in which to live or to do business, whatever business gods need to do, other than collecting taxes and tribute from the unenlightened populace, aka the ignorant masses. Then as now I suppose, knowledge is power. I'm rambling now so I'll STFU.

I have always thought that my humongous brain was a curse

ditto
i have always thought that your humongous brain was a curse too

One way modern anthropologists have tried to understand the thinking of prehistoric humans is to look at modern cultures living in the same conditions as prehistoric ones...stone age cultures, hunter- gatherers, etc.
THis is the origin of a lot of the speculation about the motives and religions of prehistoric humans.
Studying the culture of the Australian Aborigines, for example, to figure out what happened during the paleolithic. Understanding the cave art of Europe by studying the "dreamtime" of aborigines.
Do you fellow posters think this is a valid approach?

I think you're right on Stan. If the truth be known, I actually enjoy Anthropology more than Archaeology.

Cultures are more interesting than bones - to me.

stan wrote:One way modern anthropologists have tried to understand the thinking of prehistoric humans is to look at modern cultures living in the same conditions as prehistoric ones...stone age cultures, hunter- gatherers, etc.
THis is the origin of a lot of the speculation about the motives and religions of prehistoric humans.
Studying the culture of the Australian Aborigines, for example, to figure out what happened during the paleolithic. Understanding the cave art of Europe by studying the "dreamtime" of aborigines.
Do you fellow posters think this is a valid approach?

stan -

personally, yes, but yr. looking at a soft touch.

australian "dreamtime"

african "dreaming the fire"

when i was much younger, i visited pool rock in the mountains behind santa barbara. california cave paintings in a crevice beneath the pool at the top of the rock.

so i had shock of recognition, take your choice, australian, or african, or american, all three. it changed me.

or look at shinto, which is not a religion, but a manner of relating to the earth.

or a dozen other examples. the dogen, reading foxtracks in the sand as a way of understanding. the chinese, with their burned scapulae. the siberian shamans, using amanita. perhaps the paleolithic europeans, using cavepaintings as the doorways to perception.

even though we have lost those abilities, and the day to day hyper-sensitivity to the natural world - ever notice how anybody in this time who has that hypersensitivity is accorded immediate respect? - the veneer of "civilization" is very, very thin.

the literally physical shock of out of control industrialization, to my mind, has severely damaged both the physical world and our abilities to perceive.

i'm not going back, you can't go back. the damage has been done.

however, doesn't mean we can't conserve and pass on the fragments we've got, with hope that we can be more whole at some time in the future.

so, to make a long story even longer, don't look only at the past, look at yourself, because you carry all the ingredients under a paper thin skin of what's happened in the last threehundred years.

and from the purely scientific side, we have been neurologically hardwired, and physically softwired, over the last several million years, to become who we are.

and that doesn't disappear overnight, because of the price of gas.


john

even though we have lost those abilities, and the day to day hyper-sensitivity to the natural world - ever notice how anybody in this time who has that hypersensitivity is accorded immediate respect? - the veneer of "civilization" is very, very thin

minimalist---i think we know where daybrown went to...

One way modern anthropologists have tried to understand the thinking of prehistoric humans is to look at modern cultures living in the same conditions as prehistoric ones

do we need to replicate the same conditions or can we not just compare human habits? margaret meade spent a lifetime living in other cultures and she did wonders learning abut those contemporary ones but how much different were they from modern life in terms of human activity? technology was different, thatis a given, but i think there were more similarities than differences.

granted the necessities do not need to be mentioned but they still had hiearchies; they had a chief and modern man has presidents, prime ministers etc.. they had rules of society, so does modern man. so it would be safe to conclude that ancient man was not some monkey swinging on a vine but an organized civilization sans the metals and technology of modern man, who acted pretty much like modernman which brings me back to my opriginal post that ancient religion was not as dominate as we would like to think.

maybe in the smaller more superstitious socities it was but in the larger civilizations i think it was like our modernworld, some were religious while others were not.

archaeologist wrote:

even though we have lost those abilities, and the day to day hyper-sensitivity to the natural world - ever notice how anybody in this time who has that hypersensitivity is accorded immediate respect? - the veneer of "civilization" is very, very thin

minimalist---i think we know where daybrown went to...

One way modern anthropologists have tried to understand the thinking of prehistoric humans is to look at modern cultures living in the same conditions as prehistoric ones

do we need to replicate the same conditions or can we not just compare human habits? margaret meade spent a lifetime living in other cultures and she did wonders learning abut those contemporary ones but how much different were they from modern life in terms of human activity? technology was different, thatis a given, but i think there were more similarities than differences.

granted the necessities do not need to be mentioned but they still had hiearchies; they had a chief and modern man has presidents, prime ministers etc.. they had rules of society, so does modern man. so it would be safe to conclude that ancient man was not some monkey swinging on a vine but an organized civilization sans the metals and technology of modern man, who acted pretty much like modernman which brings me back to my opriginal post that ancient religion was not as dominate as we would like to think.

maybe in the smaller more superstitious socities it was but in the larger civilizations i think it was like our modernworld, some were religious while others were not.

arch -

number one.

you forgot women. as equals. and thats a whole 'nother argument.

number two.

ancient people did not think like modren people. they were hip to the fact that they were PART of the resource, not the sole, inalienable, USERS of the the resource. totally different paradigm from what we've got now.

and number three.

these similarities result from the past surfacing in the present, not the present reinventing the past.


john


ps

and please explain to me who daybrown was, or is.


pps


and there is nothing - zip nada- as far as i'm concerned that is "safe to conclude".


j