This is kind of hard to put into words. What I’m asking is, how would an archaeologist be able to tell if what they’ve just found is evidence of a massive cultural phenomenon or just a weird and singular thing?
Like, if someone dug up an ancient carving that they hadn’t seen before, would they assume that it had some sort of religious or cultural purpose immediately? Or would they just think “the guy that made this must’ve been really into carving”? Do they just always assume the latter until they see the carving pop up in different areas, or do they go towards the former more often without explicit backup evidence?
In: Other
My experience as an architect with archaeologists is that they tend to make wild uneducated or logically flawed assumptions. Like:
“Technical innovations! an invasion of a superior people has happened”. No, we use Japanese cameras but Japan never invaded Europe.
“We found an idol in this building. It’s a temple! Every house has a temple attached! With some grain offerings!”. No; it’s a grain storage with a divine figure assigned to protect it, the most important asset in the life of that family.
Latest Answers