Archaeologica.org

Okay, this is starting to piss me off... actually no - bore me shitless would be the more appropriate phrase. Given that my interests are somewhat specialised and being (I guess) one hell of a guy I tend to keep my mouth shut where I don't have much to say, the number of topics I find myself able to contribute towards here has never been so wide as it has for say Min and Beagle (for example) both of whom demonstrate a much broader knowledge than my own.

Dropping into Out Of Africa today, I see yet another discussion of shamanism has arisen. Well, not even a discussion so far as I am able to tell, for I am unable to see how it bears any direct relevance to the thread in question. The most recent post (sorry Ishtar, but this is beginning to bother me) doesn't seem to say anything more cohesive than "science - very poor, shamanism RAH RAH RAH!"

Whilst I would not dispute that the thought processes of ancient peoples are very much of relevance to this forum, the name of the forum is archaeologica not erm... "shamanica". Whilst shamanic perspectives may make for fascinating comparisons (the whole bird's head thing) I am unable to see how they might constitute a legitimate investigative method, and I am therefore concerned that there is an overemphasis on the shamanic around here, or so, I hasten to add, it seems to me.

Maybe I'm wrong, but not so long ago we had a situation where every topic seemed to descend into lengthy posts about ancient dildos and men knowing what's good for'em slurp gurgle drool etc, and I'm afraid to say that I'm getting deja-vu here in terms of an agenda that may not always be appropriate to the subject. It would be somewhat absurd, would it not, if I posted in every thread with some spurious ancient Mexican comparison (actually, I probably used to be a bit guilty of that).

Well, I don't know about the Ukraine circa 1200 but in Mexico they blah blah blah blah...

I've no wish to rain on anyone's parade (specifically Ish - I do enjoy more of your comments than not, in general) but there's some good people here and I used to enjoy this place and recently everytime I sign up I seem to end up in yet another shamanic thread, scrolling

down

one of

those

posts of

john's

that

resembles

1960s poetry

and I don't find all of it terribly interesting (general thrust of shamanic digression, not specifically john's posts) and am wondering why I bother coming here at all. If this ends up being my last post (feels like it right now, though I suspect that's improbable) I've been hanging around here http://richarddawkins.net/forum/ a lot of late so that's where I'll most likely be. Please feel free to join me.
If anyone wants to disagree, please do so. If anyone thinks I have a point, I really would appreciate some support.

In a thread entitled Out of Africa Busted, which is about a failure of science in the pursuit of the common ancestor that is focussed on a paper by an archaeologist who disputes that ancient man practised shamanism, the comments posted by myself and John are entirely relevant.

In the Civilisation thread, Interested Onlooker asked a question about how and why megaliths were considered to be religious buildings, and so I responded to him.

In the Gobekli Tepe thread, the archaeologist himself who is excavating the site said that he thought its purpose was shamanic.

And the posts in the Rock Art thread were in response to Beagle’s requests to keep Bednariks’s comments on shamanic art out of the Out of Africa thread …

All these four instances arose in a genuine way – unlike with Daybrown who would invent ways to talk about sex, or Marduk who would invent ways to bring the Sumerians in, or Arch ….well, what can you say about Arch.

If these subjects come up in a natural way, as they have done – none were started by me – I cannot be expected not to comment. So I would be willing to put this up for a poll.

In order to clear this up, I suggest that forum members vote anonymously on the following proposition: Are Ishtar’s posts on shamanism in the ancient world welcome here (yes) or would they be better suited to another forum (no).

I will happily abide by the results.

Can't say fairer than that

We frequently drift into subjects which are not "archaeology" per se. Paleontology, astronomy, genetics, geography, epigraphy, engineering, religion, history, etc., etc. all get a go sooner or later.

I'd suggest that if something does not particularly interest you, W/A that you don't waste your time reading it. I'll confess that I frequently skim over the shamanism discussions. I can get quite worked up over Bednarik's boating ideas but why someone painted a horse on a wall is not terribly exciting for me.

Just because someone writes something doesn't mean you have to read it. In fact, I see nothing wrong with trying to pull a given thread back on topic if you see the need.

You are correct Min, but I tend toward W/A on this one. For awhile I was only posting on the off-topic side of the house because I could not endure yet another discussion of shamanism and mind expansion which was drifting into every active discussion on the main forum. Maybe some threads are relevent but it is always the same posters discussing the topic, with an occasional dribble of opinion from another.

This is not intended in anyway to diminish the knowledge or expertise of those who know the subject well. My opinions about the subject are quite negative, but that is probably due to my ignorance.

I agree wholeheartedly WarArrow which is one reason why I have stopped pursing the matter.

War Arrow wrote:Okay, this is starting to piss me off... actually no - bore me shitless would be the more appropriate phrase. Given that my interests are somewhat specialised and being (I guess) one hell of a guy I tend to keep my mouth shut where I don't have much to say, the number of topics I find myself able to contribute towards here has never been so wide as it has for say Min and Beagle (for example) both of whom demonstrate a much broader knowledge than my own.

Dropping into Out Of Africa today, I see yet another discussion of shamanism has arisen. Well, not even a discussion so far as I am able to tell, for I am unable to see how it bears any direct relevance to the thread in question. The most recent post (sorry Ishtar, but this is beginning to bother me) doesn't seem to say anything more cohesive than "science - very poor, shamanism RAH RAH RAH!"

Whilst I would not dispute that the thought processes of ancient peoples are very much of relevance to this forum, the name of the forum is archaeologica not erm... "shamanica". Whilst shamanic perspectives may make for fascinating comparisons (the whole bird's head thing) I am unable to see how they might constitute a legitimate investigative method, and I am therefore concerned that there is an overemphasis on the shamanic around here, or so, I hasten to add, it seems to me.

Maybe I'm wrong, but not so long ago we had a situation where every topic seemed to descend into lengthy posts about ancient dildos and men knowing what's good for'em slurp gurgle drool etc, and I'm afraid to say that I'm getting deja-vu here in terms of an agenda that may not always be appropriate to the subject. It would be somewhat absurd, would it not, if I posted in every thread with some spurious ancient Mexican comparison (actually, I probably used to be a bit guilty of that).

Well, I don't know about the Ukraine circa 1200 but in Mexico they blah blah blah blah...

I've no wish to rain on anyone's parade (specifically Ish - I do enjoy more of your comments than not, in general) but there's some good people here and I used to enjoy this place and recently everytime I sign up I seem to end up in yet another shamanic thread, scrolling

down

one of

those

posts of

john's

that

resembles

1960s poetry

and I don't find all of it terribly interesting (general thrust of shamanic digression, not specifically john's posts) and am wondering why I bother coming here at all. If this ends up being my last post (feels like it right now, though I suspect that's improbable) I've been hanging around here http://richarddawkins.net/forum/ a lot of late so that's where I'll most likely be. Please feel free to join me.
If anyone wants to disagree, please do so. If anyone thinks I have a point, I really would appreciate some support.

War Arrow -

I am very well versed in both scholastic and scientific linguistic notation. Frankly, both bore me spitless. I do like free verse, which, by the way is not from the 60's, but, en anglaise, actually first appeared in the Jacobean era in both poetry and the theatre, and has developed continuously since.

Interestingly enough, from all the anthropologists I have read who have attempted to translate the chants and songs of existing archaic peoples, the resulting translations appear to be in free verse. Either they (the anthropologists) are all conspirators belonging to the society of poets of the free verse persuasion or there is a far older fundamental linguistic geometry. Please feel free to give me any examples of rhyming Mayan iambic pentameter you may know of, or, for that matter any other ancient language.

I regard what we are calling the "Shamanic" as an underlying expression of cognition which preceded by many thousands of years the conventional wisdom that the state of cognition suddenly and simultaneously appeared with morphologically "modern" man.

Of course, physical, archaeological evidence of cognition is similar to what we who are in the boatbuilding trade commonly refer to as "unobtainium." All we have is interpretations of 70k year old beads, cave paintings, carved ivory, hematite, etc.. We interpret these physical objects as expressions of cognition. You are free to interpret these physical objects as expressions of brute force and ignorance if you wish.

By the way, I do not include religion, science or politics as precursors of cognition. They are, rather, variously crippled and twisted latter byproducts of cognition.

Finally, if you don't have an appreciation for my style of writing or my thinking, you don't have to read me.

This is, after all, a free forum.



hoka hey


john


ps: I once had a friend, now dead and gone, who was a phenomenal abstract painter. His mom gave him infinite shit about painting "real" paintings. So he made a hyper-real painting, in the Wyeth sense, of his parent's house. It was titled "See, Mom, I can paint."

There comes a time when you just walk away.

Hmmm, ...I admit, I may have shared a bit too much in the past......but,

WA, you might be surprised that you sound a bit more Clubbish than you might imagine.

I do not wish to speak for others, but I feel very strongly that to look at an artifact and not consider the possibility that the mind/construct that created it MIGHT be different from our current contemporary construct strikes me as scientifically naive.


Viewing sights like Gobekli Tepe without the consideration of a shamanic context is myopic if not blind:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe

The excavator, Klaus Schmidt, has engaged in some speculation regarding the belief systems of the groups that created Göbekli Tepe, based on comparisons with other shrines and settlements. He assumes shamanic practices and suggests that the T-shaped pillars may represent mythical creatures, perhaps ancestors, whereas he sees a fully articulated belief in gods only developing later in Mesopotamia, associated with extensive temples and palaces.

.....sorry, its as scientific and well documented as any thing else. To ignore a context that makes many seemingly irreconcilable artifacts and facts coherent for the first time, should not be ignored.

This dialog should not be about drugs in contemporary culture or about you or me and what people might think about our personal habits/beliefs/experiences. It HAS to be about the fact that we as a species have been using ritual with or without what WE NOW CALL ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES to create an altered state to help US collectively explain the LARGER context of what it means to BE...for effen' ever!! The possibility of this insight must be embraced when considering the context of a site or find.

I'm thinking that if we replaced the term "Shamanism" with "possible pre-early(?) world view" we could all get back on topic and off our horses.

So, for some of you smart folks to go suddenly provincial, when the topic of altered states comes up as a context that connects lots of dots that we all have been trying to connect, strikes me as.....well lets just say.... less than.

...if you can't hold two seemingly contradictory thoughts in your head at the same time, what are we doin'?

kbs2244 wrote:There comes a time when you just walk away.

Having promised myself I'd take this advice, here I am still, unable to shut up.
I find this very difficult as I have no significant problem with any poster here despite how it may seem, and nor do I presume to deny that the shamanic may be of relevance to certain topics, rather I am objecting to a very general trend here.
Woordrabbit wrote:

WA, you might be surprised that you sound a bit more Clubbish than you might imagine.

Fair enough. I really have no opinion of this whole club thing. Also:

I do not wish to speak for others, but I feel very strongly that to look at an artifact and not consider the possibility that the mind/construct that created it MIGHT be different from our current contemporary construct strikes me as scientifically naive.

and John wrote:

By the way, I do not include religion, science or politics as precursors of cognition. They are, rather, variously crippled and twisted latter byproducts of cognition.

And the thing is I completely agree with these points, and I don't see how I've given an impression that I disagree. However, I would say it is perhaps equally presumptious to assume any sort of specific thinking of the 'ancient' mind based upon 21st century perspectives, irrespective of where that perspective is coming from and whoever deems it more valid than whatever. If it is claimed that a 21st century person with an interest in shamanism necessarily has a potentially unique insight into the thinking of someone born 6,000 years ago, an insight which somehow grants them the right to dismiss anything offered by those damn squares with their unfunky straight jeans (etc) - then would I not be something of an idiot if I took such claims of insight purely on trust?

Great... and now it's going to look like I'm having a pop at Woodrabbit. Well, I'm not. I'm not having a pop at anyone on a personal level (and John - apologies for my flipancy - in commenting upon your style of posting I was attempting to keep it light, to take the piss out of myself and my own curmudgeonly tendencies) I just want to be able to enjoy a broader arena of discussion on this board. One might suggest (perhaps fairly) that it is therefore upon myself (or others) to kick off discussions of the kind I might enjoy. True enough, but there are now a few of us who are being circumstantially driven away from this board because it no longer feels so welcoming, particularly if basic science is constantly required to justify itself. There's a happy medium between avoiding ossification of thought into dogma and on the other hand, having to prove that yes, the earth is a sphere every time one sits down to post.

I was once guitarist in a band called Academy 23 (see wikipedia) which, as Andy our unofficial leader often stated, was very much a democracy: any of us could contribute songs for future performance or recording by the whole. The problem was that for every song written by me, Dave, Nathan, or Pete, Andy would have come up with twenty and already have us rehearsing our bits before we knew what was going on. We should have piped up of course, but we didn't and so the whole thing got like too much hard work and not enough fun, so I packed it in. It feels like a similar situation applies here.
Oh crap - I don't fucking know. I don't want to stop anyone saying anything. All I know is I no longer enjoy this board so much as I used to and I felt I had to say something. If I've caused offence (which I probably have) I apologise.

WA, no offense taken. I am just an advocate of the "Big Tent" approach to looking at things.

Wishing all the best.

War Arrow wrote:Okay, this is starting to piss me off... actually no - bore me shitless would be the more appropriate phrase. Given that my interests are somewhat specialised and being (I guess) one hell of a guy I tend to keep my mouth shut where I don't have much to say, the number of topics I find myself able to contribute towards here has never been so wide as it has for say Min and Beagle (for example) both of whom demonstrate a much broader knowledge than my own.

Dropping into Out Of Africa today, I see yet another discussion of shamanism has arisen. Well, not even a discussion so far as I am able to tell, for I am unable to see how it bears any direct relevance to the thread in question. The most recent post (sorry Ishtar, but this is beginning to bother me) doesn't seem to say anything more cohesive than "science - very poor, shamanism RAH RAH RAH!"

Whilst I would not dispute that the thought processes of ancient peoples are very much of relevance to this forum, the name of the forum is archaeologica not erm... "shamanica". Whilst shamanic perspectives may make for fascinating comparisons (the whole bird's head thing) I am unable to see how they might constitute a legitimate investigative method, and I am therefore concerned that there is an overemphasis on the shamanic around here, or so, I hasten to add, it seems to me.

Maybe I'm wrong, but not so long ago we had a situation where every topic seemed to descend into lengthy posts about ancient dildos and men knowing what's good for'em slurp gurgle drool etc, and I'm afraid to say that I'm getting deja-vu here in terms of an agenda that may not always be appropriate to the subject. It would be somewhat absurd, would it not, if I posted in every thread with some spurious ancient Mexican comparison (actually, I probably used to be a bit guilty of that).

Well, I don't know about the Ukraine circa 1200 but in Mexico they blah blah blah blah...

I've no wish to rain on anyone's parade (specifically Ish - I do enjoy more of your comments than not, in general) but there's some good people here and I used to enjoy this place and recently everytime I sign up I seem to end up in yet another shamanic thread, scrolling

down

one of

those

posts of

john's

that

resembles

1960s poetry

and I don't find all of it terribly interesting (general thrust of shamanic digression, not specifically john's posts) and am wondering why I bother coming here at all. If this ends up being my last post (feels like it right now, though I suspect that's improbable) I've been hanging around here http://richarddawkins.net/forum/ a lot of late so that's where I'll most likely be. Please feel free to join me.
If anyone wants to disagree, please do so. If anyone thinks I have a point, I really would appreciate some support.

War Arrow,
I wholeheartedly agree with you post, except the part about leaving. You can't do that Bro', you're family here. I look forward to talking to you.

War Arrow wrote:

kbs2244 wrote:There comes a time when you just walk away.

Having promised myself I'd take this advice, here I am still, unable to shut up.
I find this very difficult as I have no significant problem with any poster here despite how it may seem, and nor do I presume to deny that the shamanic may be of relevance to certain topics, rather I am objecting to a very general trend here.
Woordrabbit wrote:

WA, you might be surprised that you sound a bit more Clubbish than you might imagine.

Fair enough. I really have no opinion of this whole club thing. Also:

I do not wish to speak for others, but I feel very strongly that to look at an artifact and not consider the possibility that the mind/construct that created it MIGHT be different from our current contemporary construct strikes me as scientifically naive.

and John wrote:

By the way, I do not include religion, science or politics as precursors of cognition. They are, rather, variously crippled and twisted latter byproducts of cognition.

And the thing is I completely agree with these points, and I don't see how I've given an impression that I disagree. However, I would say it is perhaps equally presumptious to assume any sort of specific thinking of the 'ancient' mind based upon 21st century perspectives, irrespective of where that perspective is coming from and whoever deems it more valid than whatever. If it is claimed that a 21st century person with an interest in shamanism necessarily has a potentially unique insight into the thinking of someone born 6,000 years ago, an insight which somehow grants them the right to dismiss anything offered by those damn squares with their unfunky straight jeans (etc) - then would I not be something of an idiot if I took such claims of insight purely on trust?

Great... and now it's going to look like I'm having a pop at Woodrabbit. Well, I'm not. I'm not having a pop at anyone on a personal level (and John - apologies for my flipancy - in commenting upon your style of posting I was attempting to keep it light, to take the piss out of myself and my own curmudgeonly tendencies) I just want to be able to enjoy a broader arena of discussion on this board. One might suggest (perhaps fairly) that it is therefore upon myself (or others) to kick off discussions of the kind I might enjoy. True enough, but there are now a few of us who are being circumstantially driven away from this board because it no longer feels so welcoming, particularly if basic science is constantly required to justify itself. There's a happy medium between avoiding ossification of thought into dogma and on the other hand, having to prove that yes, the earth is a sphere every time one sits down to post.

I was once guitarist in a band called Academy 23 (see wikipedia) which, as Andy our unofficial leader often stated, was very much a democracy: any of us could contribute songs for future performance or recording by the whole. The problem was that for every song written by me, Dave, Nathan, or Pete, Andy would have come up with twenty and already have us rehearsing our bits before we knew what was going on. We should have piped up of course, but we didn't and so the whole thing got like too much hard work and not enough fun, so I packed it in. It feels like a similar situation applies here.
Oh crap - I don't fucking know. I don't want to stop anyone saying anything. All I know is I no longer enjoy this board so much as I used to and I felt I had to say something. If I've caused offence (which I probably have) I apologise.

War Arrow -

No rocks beings thrown here by me at you or anyone else.

That being said,

I enjoy challenging both my own opinions

And those of others,

And doing my best to respond to the challenges of others.

And, you may have noticed,

I tells it like I sees it.

So, with respect to this recent thread,

"No harm, no foul."

And let's just move ahead.


The critical point here is that, flat out,

There is absolutely no DIRECT physical proof

Of the cognitive path, any cognitive path.

We are reduced to indirect assessment

Of an intuitively obvious truth.

Sumbitch.

What say?

Boats, hematitie.



hoka hey

john

You have an absolute right, I believe John, to your opinion, but this I will say. I'm rarely sure of what it is as I normally skip through your posts as I find the method of display very irritating.
You may be making very valid, and interesting points, but for me they tend to be lost in the problem of reading them. It's up to you.

Well, guys, I gave you the opportunity to vote me off the board and you haven't taken it.

So if I'm going to remain as a poster on here, I will be talking about the consciousness of Palaeo man whether it interests you all or not. So you'd better start giving your scrolling finger a workout.

And this paragraph is addressed to the few club members that tried to set up an ivory tower on this free and open discussion board.

You might want to look at why this subject doesn't interest you. Why do you not want to discuss what was going on in the head of ancient man to drive him to create such amazing great works of art and architecture? Why does this particular aspect of Neolithic man bore you - when you're fascinated in everything else about him right down to his inside leg measurement?

Just ask yourself. You might get some interesting answers.

War Arrow wrote:
Oh crap - I don't fucking know. I don't want to stop anyone saying anything. All I know is I no longer enjoy this board so much as I used to and I felt I had to say something. If I've caused offence (which I probably have) I apologise.

So what was that? Tzilacatzin's last stand?

Look, don't be daft. There is no-one on here with your dry English humour that makes me chuckle quite so much, even when you were criticising me.

So please don't leave...and I for one, will try to make my posts more interesting.