Tomb of a surgeon, Ostia (Via Severiana necropolis); note the instruments to the right
The problem with archaeology is that it rarely happens that the ancients wrote an explanation of what they left behind. If only King Priam had written a note “this place was sacked by Achaeans”, we would not have been forced to listen to boring debates about the presence of LH IIIc1 sherds in a Troy VIh context. It’s typical for the ancients that they didn’t bother to consider our questions.
So how do we interpret those finds? Basically, the main tool for archaeologists is to look for parallels in comparable societies. To explain why megalithic monuments were built, some archaeologists have been looking at similar monuments on Java, where dolmens have been built quite recently; the explanation offered in the recent past, was projected back on the Stone Age. A second tool is the study of texts: those knives we find in a tomb in, say, northern England, must belong to a surgeon, because we have a picture of those instruments on a small mausoleum in Ostia, where an inscription says that the dead owner was a physician. The written word explains a silent object.
The problem is that not every problem can be solved with these two tools. But here, another principle comes in handy: if you do not know what it is, it has something to do with religion. So, an unusual building in Qumran becomes a monastery (in fact, it turned out to be a pottery factory). A set of terracotta figurines resembling women becomes a temple of the Great Goddess (in fact, a Mycenaean toy shop).
This principle is known as the First Law of Archaeology – and yes, that is sarcasm.
Subscribe to feed
That’s bull’s eye…
“if you do not know what it is, it has something to do with religion”
I’ve always wondered why do the so-called experts always associate anything unexplainable to religion.
If it were a human skull at an unexpected place – then it has got to be a religious ceremony.
And if there are images on some structure – then it must have been some sort of religious ceremony/shamanic activity. Can these never be a drawing of an inspired & free mind? Well till we are sure – may be we need to go with the experts.
And I am glad I am stumbled upon your blog… thanks Jona & Bill…
I’ll keep coming back for more – there’s just tooooo much & tooo many stuffs out here.
I like it! My own favourite is the so-called Nekromanteion, or Gateway to Hades, in Epirus (Greece), which turned out to be a fortified farmstead.
Mycenaean toy shop? Hmmm. Fearfully unlikely. [I'll be back in A'dam on Sunday. Perhaps we can finally have our local lunch].
The bias is quite colorful alright, and hard to miss even for a casual reader such as myself.
Any theory for why it may be there? Perhaps every discipline has its own default escape for unidentifiable miscellania. I could name a few in my field… Why would archeology favor religion for this of all things?
The only thing I can think of is that the discipline has its origins in the late nineteenth, early twentieth century, when classicists and anthropologist were obsessed with prehistorical religions. Archaeology was believed to offer additional information. This may have led to the idea that religion was an important field, where archaeology could make meaningful contributions.
Hm… Are you implying that the call for material evidence of religious practices is still a first-rate source of demand for archeology?
Or, perhaps, no other enthusiasm came up quite as strongly as the academic curiosity for religion were in the nineteenth century… But this sounds too pessimistic on a Monday.
Would only dare speculate this far.
My point is that, when a discipline is born, certain questions are important, certain truths are accepted, certain methods are acceptable; the discipline is structured around these principles, so they continue to have some influence.
Got it!
If that’s the First Sarcastic Law of Archeology, then, I’d propose a generalization to include political science and economics – the Boredom Principle of Science, stating that time can only prove something to be right or wrong as long as it doesn’t become boring…
[I think it was Stigler who put this into his Nobel lecture; not formalized since, but going strong.]