Interpreting Archaeological Finds

David Macauley's Motel of the Mysteries was a hoot when it came out, sending up the overinterpretations that archaeologists placed on the objects they found in 4022 when excavating an American motel from our era. I look around my house and sometimes wonder what interpretation people could put on my objects.  He have Romanian Easter Eggs, similar to the Psyanky of Ukraine*, which we picked up in the late 90s. They have traditionally had deep religious meaning, as each egg was decorated by hand with a specific recipient in mind, and the symbols represented prayers that were being said as the egg was produced. Very little of this is left, as tourists love the stuff and it is a cottage industry out in the villages to produce eggs year-round to make some cash money. That might not be apparent to a researcher.

Even less apparent might be why there are a bowl full of them in a house in NH. Is this a Romanian family?  Are these trade goods? Status items? Do they have any religious significance?

They have a little religious significance to us.  We use them more often as Christmas ornaments, and as they are older, I will briefly reflect every year when I see them that any of them might have been made with original purpose, for an individual. If so, they were shorted a few prayers so I throw up a few vague ones on their behalf.  It couldn't hurt. But such are the problems anthropologists have, trying to figure out What was this for and what does it mean? Was this weapon ever used, or did the culture just perpetuate the wearing of axes to honor the ancestors and look tough themselves?  

Update: The Hutsuls of Ukraine and Romania "believe that the fate of the world depends upon the pysanka. As long as the egg writing custom continues, the world will exist. If, for any reason, this custom is abandoned, evil––in the shape of a horrible serpent who is forever chained to a cliff–– will overrun the world." I have never met any Hutsuls, but they are still there. Elie Wiesel mentions them in Night.

What a Word Really Means

 I keep mentally arguing with that woman Douglas2/Unknown referred to in his comment under Transcending One's Era, he had known who believed that any use of the word "man" to mean "human," not only in our era, but in previous generations, signified a person who was intentionally excluding women from his formulation as unimportant. He noted what an effective insulator this was against listening to what anyone writing before last Tuesday had to say. 

When properly applied, teaching that dogma is as effective as burning the library of Alexandria -- the best knowledge of those who preceded us is effectively lost, even if the books and words are still right there in front of us.

Hers is an extreme example of what many others fall into that is not only bad linguistics, but in the end, bad thinking. I had a woman tell me once that she wanted to get Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary for her homeschooled children so that they would be able to look up what a word "really" means. For all of us, what a word "really" means is how we use it, and this will be close to two concepts: what our current group of communications understands as the meaning, intersecting with what we were taught in school and early adulthood is proper usage. That latter includes its own difficulties. I started school over 60 years ago, was taught by older teachers, in New England, with heavy influence of older well-read women who were conscious of their immigrant background and the importance of proper speech to rise in American intellectual society. That idea of "proper" English thus carries a lot of baggage that is 150 years old, not to mention regional bias.

A favorite example I have used before: If you were to go to some distant tribe to learn their language and make a dictionary of it, taking a full year and trying to be thorough, you would eventually be directed to a remote group, possibly older, who spoke what some would call a "pure" form of the language and others would call an "old-fashioned" version. Some of the mainstream people might even have grown up among them and regard them fondly. So you would innocently go to speak to these people, armed with your near-complete notes, ready for publication.  But a couple of old guys and old wives would tell you that your dictionary is wrong, and they would tell you why "Anca doesn't really mean cart, but the wheels on the cart, because it comes from the word anga, meaning 'axle.' That new slang term of calling a cart anca comes from the Teoni people downstream who say it that way.  That's not a proper was to say 'cart' in our language." You would nod politely, reflect on this interesting aspect of language change, and ignore their input entirely. What the word means is what the four thousand people in the villages understand it to mean, not what some relics who are kicking off soon think.

So too with us. Language changes underneath us at all times. I am personally in favor of retaining older usages as long as possible, to keep them current so that current children can understand what previous generations meant with as little difficulty as possible. I am reading The Fellowship of the Ring to my 13 y/o granddaughter and occasionally have to explain a word, though I minimise this in order to maintain the narrative flow. 

A word in a document "really" means what it meant to the community that received it, or even what the author thought it meant to that community. That is usually an unnecessary refinement of the definition, but occasionally matters. What the word has morphed into since that time is interesting, and may shed some light on the meaning, but is largely irrelevant.  This works in reverse as well.  What a word now means is what the community of hearers understands it to mean.  What it used to mean, or what we think it "should" mean, might be misleading. Most frequently, a meaning will be added to a word, sometimes humorously, sometimes with angry political meaning, sometime invisibly, which older speakers will declare "doesn't mean that." Racism has acquired new meanings. It is wise to recognise that when attempting to understand others.  However, that does not mean the older meaning has been destroyed.  That collection of sounds used to have one meaning, now it has two, and you are well within your rights to use the term as you see fit. Just know your audience.  You may have to say "I am using fantastic in the older sense because it captures my shadings of meaning more exactly."  And it is fair to say that "the newer usages of marginalised and racist aren't that helpful." The newer version doesn't get to be what the word "really" means either.

A quick summary of how words change.

Update: My understanding is that Antonin Scalia was and Clarence Thomas is very sticky about this. What the meaning of a word or phrase at the time it was written into the Constitution (or an Amendment) is key. The meanings the words took on later, even meanings that lawyers subsequently settled on in the 19th C, are distractions.  I have read arguments that some strict constructionists actually aren't, following language myths and preferred understandings of today, but I don't think that holds against those two justices.

Indian Farmer Protests

I know nothing, of course.  I heard a podcast on Razib Khan's Brown Pundits about the topic and was able to pick up a few things that intersected with my own knowledge.  The site and the podcast are a refreshing difference from the appeal-to-the-popular American press.  The writers and podcasters are Western, usually American, of Asian descent. They have an ability to interpret for people like me some of the events going on in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, the Arab world etc.

Razib and Mukunda Raghavan interviewed the economist Abhinav Prakash of Delhi University about one of the new causes of the International Left, the farmer protests in India. Prakesh is conservative by Indian standards, though he and Razib laughingly note that the Indian right-wing is more socialist than the American left-wing. Prakash says he is a neoliberal, but I can't tell if he means a Milton Friedman/Reagan/Thatcher sort or one of the newer meanings, nor what it means in the context of a (weirdly) socialist country like India. Prakash was involved in a controversy last year in which leftist students from his alma mater Jawaharial Nehru University accused him of being a nazi. He is puzzled by the response of the Western press and Western liberals to the issue, because the farmers who are protesting are not the poor farmers, but the richer ones, who have been receiving price supports for particular crops and thus grow those exclusively, which is bad for the national economy and bad for the environment. The prime minister, Narendra Modi, has been instituting economic reforms urged on India by liberal institutions such as the IMP and the WTO, he has opened up economic choices for the poorest castes, including the Dalits, he is trying to bring the Green Revolution to southern India (it has been strongest in the north in the Punjab region, now wealthier - I had not known that) - what's not to like? he wonders. India went very socialist in the 60s under Indira Gandhi and Nehru and is just now introducing market reforms long known in Europe.

Razib explained it to him that they think Modi is a nazi, and they are therefore on the side of anyone who opposes him. "Ah yes, I understand now.  This is making it clear for me." Prakash's accent makes it harder to listen to, and another source noted that he has a stutter - which I did not pick up - and the names are unfamiliar, so you will likely have to double back if you are listening. Khan and Ragahavan returned frequently to questions of class and caste with the disclaimer that they didn't think so, but knew that their listeners might be trying to understand the issues in those terms. Prakash stated generally not, but the prosperous farmers in the north are heavily Jat, so it ties in indirectly. He saw regional politics as more the issue, as the Punjab farmers are much closer to Delhi and have always had outsize influence and are now more capable to blockading Delhi than the southern farmers, who likely have the better claim.

If any of you know more, or know why this is all wrong, please feel free.

00's

 I heard a Brit use the term 'Noughties' for the early 2000's.  I hope it catches on.

Easter Vernacular

We greet each other with "He is risen!" and the reply is "He is risen indeed!" It is the same in Romanian and Greek as well, and I suspect throughout the world. I don't know what the word familiarity in other languages, but in English "indeed" has become uncommon, a bit old-fashioned even when I was a boy. We don't say "The Red Sox won!" They have won indeed!  It sounds odd to our ears now, as it is close to the only time we use it. When we use it at all now, we are likely to use it at the beginning of a sentence.  Indeed we will. I know the translation from other languages usually results in Surely He has risen, which is as uncommon as "indeed."

In search of a phrasing that sounds less forced, more natural I thought Indeed He has risen! to be a little better, He has actually risen!* not quite right.  I think He has literally risen! would flow from the common vernacular, with some difficulty.  The phrase is literally true, but works for those who use the word as a mere intensifier as well. Is the presence of both meanings an advantage, or a rule-out? Maybe definitely, or absolutely. Clearly He has risen is a bit better than "Surely." 

Maybe everyone else is fine with this and I'm the only one whose ear doesn't like it.

*Or in Mansplaining or Aspergery speech: Well actually, He HAS risen.

Accusations

I have not listened to the podcast on Woody Allen over at Quillette, but this is the second time the subject has come up in less than 24 hours, as it was part of the Daum/Phetasy interview at The Unspeakable that I just mentioned a few posts ago. The title tells me they came to the same conclusion.  I was pretty much there already, but this seals it. As recently as 2019 I still thought he was probably guilty, on the basis of what the judge had said at the custody determination, the fact that Hollywood covers for predatory males, and his marriage to a younger sorta-daughter. But here is where my avoidance of video and reliance on text has worked against me.  A co-worker mentioned the controversy over a year ago, a woman who clearly didn't believe Mia. "Have you ever watched her being interviewed? Yeah, she's a borderline.*  It just screams at you." So I watched a few, and it did scream at me. 

So I slowly re-evaluated, not ever taking much time on it, but trying on the new framing whenever Allen was mentioned. I don't recall I heard Farrow mentioned in the interim. I decided he was acting the way a falsely accused person who loved his children would act, and more importantly, reconsidered how weak the quality of accusations were, especially in the context of a person with a personality disorder having custody threatened. That can activate all manner of pathology even in stable people, and precipitates suicide and homicide in the unstable. I decided he's probably innocent.

*Even professionals will still use that shorthand of identifying people by their diagnosis: a manic, a schizophrenic, rather than the more correct, and kinder formulation "a person in a manic episode." We shouldn't but we do. I understand it happens in other specialties as well, but I think it's worse when we do it in psych, because it cuts to the core of identity more.

Christos a înviat! Adevărat a înviat!

 

Links

I used to leave the box "Open this link in a new window" unchecked most of the time over the last few years.  I have taken to checking it now.  Is there a noticeable difference in the clarity of presentation, and do you have a preference?

WEIRD People Again

City Journal reviews Henrich's book The WEIRDest People in the World, which was also reviewed at Quillette last year, and I mentioned at length myself in September, and in passing in the post Cousin Marriage just a few weeks ago.

Those are all interesting in themselves as background, but one section jumped out at me.

Roman gods were not concerned about immoral behaviors like lying, cheating, and stealing. What upset them was the violation of oaths taken in their name. For instance, merchants had to swear sacred oaths to affirm the quality of their goods. Roman gods were said to be more concerned with their honor than the acts themselves.

It very much put me in mind of the Second Commandment (the numbering of the commandments differs among traditions), not to take the Lord's name in vain, which I have mentioned before in terms of "not signing God's name to your ideas," but does also have applicability to the swearing of oaths, especially in light of Jesus's specific teaching on swearing by the altar, the gift on the altar, the Temple, etc. Just interesting, because it likely indicates how strongly other ideas were current in the society at the time.

The topic ties in with much else I have taken interest in over the years, of moral development, European history, genetics, and drivers of current opinion. It seems to be coming up often for others as well.

There is also this from the review, and the parenthetical remark was especially arresting.

Across countries, belief in an afterlife that depends on one’s behavior in life is associated with greater economic productivity and less crime. The book presents data from 1965 to 1995 showing that, for every 20 percent increase in those who believe in hell and heaven, a country’s economy will grow an extra 10 percent in the ensuing decade and its murder rate will go down. (Intriguingly, murder rates rise alongside increases in the number of people who believe only in heaven.)

Vi e i lag

Sent from my son in Norway 

The annual Havna Festival takes place halfway up Norway with various artists. They made this video for last year, but the festival was canceled.  They are clearly expecting to be back on in August this year.

The melody is "We Are The World," but (fortunately) not the lyrics. This is my looked-up translation.

 

We are again the team in a different spring,

And this gift with a collection of Helgeland artists we want to give to you 

Take care of each other

First Amendment Cases

David French has a good article about recent challenges to First Amendment rights, which these days are usually about trying to shut down the rights of conservatives to express opinions.  His take is that these ridiculous challenges end up strengthening 1st A precedents, but are still concerning because they are relentless.  The Walls Are Strong, But the Cannon Fire Is Real.

WRT the students at religious colleges who object to policies unsupportive of LGBT rights, French points out that no one made them choose those colleges, and there are plenty of schools which would agree with their POV they could have gone to.  I am reminded of Garrison Keillor's summary of  Father Emil's yearly sermon on birth control, "If you didn't want to go to Chicago, why did you get on the train?" It is a line I have used many times over the last thirty years, as it applies to so many things.

I miss 1980s Garrison Keillor, by the way. A quiet brilliance, but hatred overcame him.

Solving Oppression

Some start from the approach that prejudice and oppression can only be solved by a billion individual acts, others from the idea that a limited number of imposed approaches which apply universally is the only way that works. Given those foundational differences in approach, it is easy to see why we have a hard time agreeing on what should be done.

Drawing the Sword

Today's reading was Matthew 26, which includes at verse 52 "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword." That is often taken as a pacifistic statement in the 20th and now 21st C, but that is a misreading, imposing back on the text what we want it to say.

A disciple is carrying a sword, this late into Jesus's ministry, and he thinks using it to defend someone else - not himself - is quite all right. Perhaps he is wrong.  Even at this late date the disciples did not get a good deal of what Jesus was teaching. However... If pacifism was supposed to be a central part of the master's teaching, you would think he would have mentioned it before this: "We don't do that here." There are other references to his followers carrying swords, and in Luke 22 he tells them they might need to buy one. He doesn't seem to be advocating any particular use, such as attacking evil people or overthrowing the government. We cannot even be certain that they are meant for self-defense against humans at all.  It might be for safety against animal attack - though that would not likely be the weapon of choice. He doesn't say; we shouldn't assume.

He had just beaten the moneylenders out of the Temple a few hours earlier.

Look at the words which follow immediately: he could call up twelve legions of angels if this were a physical battle. He is stating, then, that this is not a physical battle, and swords will be useless.  In the physical realm one lives or dies by swords, but this is not physical.  I think it is fair to extend that Jesus is telling them they should be focused on the spiritual events, both in that moment and going forward.  He has certainly often said similar things in describing the Kingdom of God in the last three years, of living according to the more important eternal events than the temporary ones of our day.

He does not tell the Centurion to give up his job, nor urge his followers to give up arms. He does speak about giving up rights to your safety and body and goods for the sake of the gospel, and I think that will naturally lead to people resorting less to self-defense, or not at all.

Not all 1st C Christians were pacifists, and those who were tended to argue that no earthly kingdom was worth doing violence for, an argument similar to the one Jehovah's Witnesses do today.

Almost Current Events

When I went away from up-to-the-minute news I tried out a batch of new podcasts.  I learned some of the historical details of what is wrong with the 1619 Project, rather than just the shouting. I don't know who the Bridget Phetasy is being interviewed on the serious subject of cancel culture at The Unspeakable, but she endeared herself to me quickly by stating that making fun of the left is low-hanging fruit, in contrast to the late-night TV people who just can't seem to find anything funny about Biden, as they couldn't about Obama. She also doesn't think those comedians are funny anymore, and called the audience response "clapter."  I imagine it is a common enough word and I just don't run in the right circles, but I thought it was spot on. I am way out of my depth on the Brown Pundit podcast, but am intrigued to find so much going on in terms of Westerners of Indian, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi birth or extraction talking about race in America and Europe.

Only one step away from current events and I am actually learning stuff again. This isn't even counting the stuff that is many steps away, as in 19th C literature and the conflicts between the Caribs and Taino at the time of Columbus's arrival.  By the way, I once heard it said that the world would be a better place if absolutely anyone other than Columbus had discovered the New World, and I am increasingly convinced of that.

I had forgotten this world existed.

Maundy Thursday

Maundy Thursday

So good to me

Maundy Thursday

It is all we hope it will be

On Maundy Thursday

We come in so thirsty

For what you provide

On Maundy Thursday now

We proclaim the God who will die

 

Titania McGrath

I did not know until today she/he had a standup routine. The speed and the accent lost me at about the five minute mark, but I still loved it.

Algorithms for Recipes

If you want to get a real-life granular picture of what can go wrong with algorithms, try searching for recipes.  The search engines routinely ignore what you look for, insisting "Oh, this must be what you really want, because so many other people do."  If you search for Spare ribs, worcestershire, mustard, garlic, onion, it will ignore the garlic and onion. There is even a chance it will ignore one of the first three - spare ribs, worcestershire, or mustard. If you double back and put the garlic first, it will ignore the mustard and onion. If you put the + sign in front of all of them it will go completely random, giving you chicken recipes and pork in general rather than spare ribs per se. And don't even ask about the sudden intrusion of paprika, mushrooms, and red wine, all of which are perfectly good ingredients for slow-cooker spare ribs, but I didn't ask for them.

When it does this to me and I see a recipe that I actually do find intriguing, I force myself to ignore it.  I won't give the bastards the satisfaction. You got it wrong, dammit! I am giving you a failing grade for this assignment.

Addendum to the Tim Keller Essay

I thought I was finished after recent Part I, Part II, Last Part, on Tim Keller's discussion of the Christian obligation to speak for the voiceless and defend the oppressed, concluding with my pointed questions of "Yet who are the actual voiceless, and who has a voice? Who are the real people with power, and who are disadvantaged?"  I don't say oppressed because I think that's a hard proof for anyone in America, other than on the individual level of someone with an abusive family member they cannot get away from. Maybe living in a violent neighborhood is oppression, but it gets difficult to assign who the oppressors are in that case.

Looking for something else, I came across Scott Siskind's I Can Tolerate Anything But the Outgroup, which I linked to recently.  However, as that was among many other links, it might be better to showcase it here. People show lack of tolerance along political and cultural lines more than racial ones. Part VI discusses the research giving evidence for that. Measurements range from 30% to double the amount of discomfort or even active avoidance on the basis of politics/culture rather than race.

You might find Tim Keller Goes For a Walk fun.

Learning Mode

My books are backing up, as are my podcasts, and I am feeling the need to learn things. I don't know it that means more posting here or less, but it won't be current events, which is always a dead end in terms of learning anything. However bad things get in the country and the world, Christians in other times and places have had it much worse and have managed to soldier on. 

As usual, CS Lewis has the proper response. Learning in War Time. If you want my advice about anything, that would be it. Read more CS Lewis