Comment by mrzool | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mrzool | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

There are people who study and investigate this kind of things who probably have good reasons to believe this object served some kind of ritualistic purpose.

> What evidence is there for that? […] Why is there never any proof or evidence required for saying an artifact has a religious purpose?

From a related Wikipedia page:

It is assumed that the Golden Hats served as religious insignia for the deities or priests of a sun cult then widespread in Central Europe. Their use as head-gear is strongly supported by the fact that the three of four examples have a cap-like widening at the bottom of the cone, and that their openings are oval (not round), with diameters and shapes roughly equivalent to those of a human skull. The figural depiction of an object resembling a conical hat on a stone slab of the King's Grave at Kivik, Southern Sweden, strongly supports their association with religion and cult, as does the fact that the known examples appear to have been deposited (buried) carefully.

I'm sure you can find more precise details if you dig deep enough.

> Which sun-god?

You can read more about this cult here[1] and here[2].

> This is a calendar. It's proven to be a calendar. We know how it works as a calendar. It's a tool for predicting celestial events.

Do not project the hyper-rationalistic character of our current society to societies and civilizations of the pre-industrial era. People in the ancient times were not as rational and utilitarian as we are. Everything was permeated by religion, superstition and magic.

[1]: https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=...

[2]: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/wnja9z/scientists-reconst...

> Do not project the hyper-rationalistic character of our current society to societies and civilizations of the pre-industrial era. People in the ancient times were not as rational and utilitarian as we are.

I think it's much, much more the other way around. Modern archaeologists have inherited their Victorian predecessors attitudes, who tended to look on primitive societies as backward and superstitious; "nasty, brutal and short".

> Everything was permeated by religion, superstition and magic.

I don't think there's much evidence to support this. Lots of speculation and interpretation, but not much actual evidence. A girl wearing a "sun disk" is interpreted as being a "priestess of a sun religion". On what basis? Can't it just be decoration?

Again, saying "ritual" or "religious" is easy because it requires no proof. If you said that the disk was a tool, you'd be required to specify what the tool was and what it was used for. But you're not required to say what ritual, or how the item was used in the ritual. It's a different standard of proof.

It would be better if archeologists admitted that they don't know what the thing is for, until there's more evidence or better understanding of the culture.

Thinking of rituals and rationalism as polar opposites is the projection that shouldn't be applied. Ancient rituals should be seen as an early encoding of knowledge, not as an antithesis to rationalism. Some of that knowledge, or perhaps much of it, must have been utterly wrong if it only evolved through random mutations, deliberate nonconformism and natural selection. But it's easy to see how a group with the ritual of "eat your dead" would soon be displaced by a group with the ritual of "cook your dead before eating" who would still be outperformed in the long run by a group with "hide your dead somewhere where they can't give you nasty infections".

If you have never heard of a distinction between the natural and the supernatural then every learned act is a ritual and every ritual is a productive act.

Sure there's a tendency to dismiss every artifact that doesn't have an obvious purpose as ritualistic in the most hand-wavy way imaginable, but it's not wrong, it's just a bit too easy perhaps.

This is the thing. I don't understand where that interpretation of ancient culture comes from (except Victorian attitudes, of course).

These are biologically modern humans we're talking about. They're as smart as us, as curious as us. They have a working knowledge of crafts that would put modern artisans to shame. They make beautiful, intricate, functional items. For instance, they understand the movement of the stars well enough to make a functional calendar.

Why do we assume that they're irrational and ritualistic? What evidence do we have for that?

What evidence do we have that they can't make a distinction between the natural and the supernatural?

And yes, I think interpreting everything we don't understand the purpose of as "ritualistic" is not only wrong, it's actually harming our understanding of these people.

So you trust archeologists without a second thought when they say that this object was used as a calendar, but you suddenly don't trust them anymore when they tell you it also had a religious function?

> I think it's much, much more the other way around. Modern archaeologists have inherited their Victorian predecessors attitudes, who tended to look on primitive societies as backward and superstitious; "nasty, brutal and short".

Looks like you have an underlying prejudice against history and archeology practitioners, you already thought about these issues and you already have strong opinions on them. That explains your first comment. You might very well have your reasons in thinking this, but when you say

> I don't think there's much evidence to support this. Lots of speculation and interpretation, but not much actual evidence.

I'm sorry, but I really don't know what to tell you. Saying that there's "evidence" would be an understatement. Just pick up whatever history book. I suggest you read about pre-Colombian societies in central America, or shamanism in Africa, or even about religion wars in Europe in the 15th and 16th century. Just to get you started…

it's not a matter of trust. They have shown evidence that it was a calendar, because they figured out how it worked as a calendar. They provide no eveidence that it served a religious function.

My "prejudice" stems from re-enactment, and dealing with archeologists who were experts at digging things up, but completely useless at interpretation. They didn't know the first thing about any of the crafts of the time, had never used a forge or even seen a blacksmith at work, yet routinely intepreted artifacts from a dig where a forge was present. Instead of admitting ignorance, or asking for expert advice, they'd label stuff as "ritual".

So yes, I'm a bit prejudiced. And reading a report about an artfact where it's cheerfully labelled as "ritual" with no proof or evidence provided, does get me ranting in the comments.

> I don't think there's much evidence to support this. Lots of speculation and interpretation, but not much actual evidence.

I dunno, imagine trying to explain current year to a victorian sociologist/anthropologist, or a space alien in the large Magellanic cloud looking at a video feed of current year 170,000 years from now when it reaches them. People wave around these preposterous magic wands, knock over statues, banhammer people for saying taboo things. Functionally speaking a lot of weird human behavior can be categorized into "religious" whether or not there as an actual religion involved.

The Gold Hat: I saw it two summers ago in Berlin, and wasn't convinced at the time it has any Calendrical purpose. Could have been coincidence. Could have been some standard of clothing from that era (aka everyone walks around with calendars for the same reason everyone now walks around with small radio linked computers in their pockets; monkeys are weird; maybe this was some honcho's top hat). Personally I find the previously accepted idea these things were post decorations to be about as likely as magic hats. The past is a foreign country.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com