Posted on 01/17/2008 4:06:53 PM PST by blam
GGG Ping.
No, don’t recall.
A building with no ground-floor entry turns into a decent fortress. It's easier to build one great-hall than to build internal walls (or maybe the internal walls were made of something that rotted away since then)
btt
Gimbutas? I’m not sure she was involved in the dig, but she did author a book about this, championing the goddess angle. Catal Huyuk appears to have had a wide variety of different cults, or perhaps had basically secular art objects that have been interpreted (as so many prehistoric survivals have been) as cult objects. :’)
|
|
|||
Gods |
Thanks Blam. |
||
|
· Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · · History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
The ancient Greeks had goddesses. Hard to call them a matriarchy just because of that, though.
Sometimes I wonder how much of archaeological interpretation is just fantasy and wish it were?
A Weaver’s View of the Catal Huyuk Controversy
Marla Mallett: Textiles | August/September 1990 | Marla Mallett
Posted on 08/25/2006 3:32:24 AM EDT by SunkenCiv
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1689685/posts
http://cpprot.te.verweg.com/2005-August/001602.html
Like trying to reconstruction of a life based on the possession of a femur bone.
Yeah. Like when objects claimed to be images of goddesses coexist with phallic symbols. Must be evidence of equal rights and universal suffrage or whatever is popular in the social indoc.
I just wish that science would do science and knock off the fantasy, sometimes.
In many cases, the evidence is so skimpy that they have to make up background stories to make it worthwhile for them to continue to work. It is sobering to think how nature works to smother evidence of human life. Still there is some trace, whereas animals generally leave only their bones.
Human nature I guess. I don’t doubt I’d do much the same in similar circumstances.
Archeology is fascinating. I just always end up wondering how much of it is real, how much made up.
How much of human knowledge is made up, soothing stories to mask a profound ignorance.
That's a very good question.
There it is. Yep.
Yeah, it’s political in origin, and anachronistic. Not to mention kinda dopey. :’) The nice part is, the number of such titles is definitely in decline; that kind of screed (okay, now I’ve used that term twice in a half hour, geez) is now channelled into Bush-hatred, America-hatred, pro-Moslem, pro-fake-diversity, pro-fake-revolution, etc. And of course the sociologists and anthropologists who had been pushing that all died because Bush and Rove and Cheney increased funding for giving women breast cancer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.