« A Small Rant About the Book that Wasn't There
Main
The Latest Four Stone Hearth Is Up »
August 13, 2008
Reflections on a Few Caveats
Alan at Bible and Ancient Near East posted the Introduction and the first section of his work on šiptu ul yuttun, "the incantation is not mine." This is an abnormally interesting post and I await the publication of his complete paper with anticipation. I do want to comment on Alan's "Methodological Caveats," not that I think he is wrong about any of them.
His first "caveat" is,
[W]e only have access to texts and artifacts in the study of Mesopotamian religion; we have no informants and no performances. . . Proving the correspondence of these interpretations to actual ritual performances (thousands of them over millennia) and /or the (un)conscious reflections of countless ancient ritual participants—in all their presumable variety—is impossible. . .
I have two of the smallest nits you've ever seen picked. First, some readers will know my own caveat about proving anything or even using the words "proof" or "proving." For those who don't, it goes like this, "Only logicians and mathematicians have proofs. The rest of us have evidence and probabilities. Even what lawyers call "proofs" involve varying degrees of probable certainty: 'beyond a reasonable doubt' or in civil cases 'by a preponderance of the evidence.'" I really don't much like the use of the words "proof" or "proving" unless one tells me what constitutes proof in the context under discussion. Claiming that some proof is "impossible" doesn't change my attitude on this point. But given that caveat about Alan's caveat, I can only agree with him. It is often impossible to establish such correspondences with any useful degree of certainty. Second, on one point I might even be a little stronger than Alan is. There is never useful evidence for the "unconscious" reflections of anyone and certainly not of any person now dead. There can only be evidence for their conscious and (inclusive) stated reflections and for their actions and that only as far as we have a record of either. Evidence, taken in aggregate, may point to some aspects of the unspoken "priors" of a community or tradition. Speculation on what any individual ancient or modern "really thinks" or unconsciously acts on is a waste of time. I'm not accusing Alan of doing this. I'm quite sure he doesn't. Speculation on why a group of people think something or act in a some way can be fruitful if broadly evidence based. Even if one did not know anything of our laws and driving conventions, noticing that nearly everyone stops at a red light would surely be an indication that something was going on in our culture. It would not indicate what any of us might think about it in general or on specific occasions and it surely would not point to any particular unconscious reflections, if one can even use such a phrase. But one often hears speculation about the "unconscious" motovations of individuals, ancient and modern, and this is always a waste of time.
Second, it is essential to maintain a distinction between what is a plausible understanding or description of ritual activity within the Mesopotamian indigenous worldview(s) and what is a plausible interpretation or re-description from a modern, theoretically-driven outsider’s perspective, whose questions and concerns are legitimately different from the insiders’. . .
Again, there is nothing to disagree with here. I do worry about my own possible inference regarding to the words "from a modern, theoretically-driven outsider’s perspective." I agree that we moderns have "a theoretically-driven outsider’s perspective." Heck, we may have several that interact with each other in important ways. But the ancients also had their "priors." One of the tasks of scholarship is to attempt to discern those "priors" as far as they are expressed in the evidence and as far as they do not involve speculation about unconscious thought. See above.
Third, our evidence in Assyriology spans millennia. Despite all that structural and synchronic analyses have taught us, especially about the fallacy of origins as explanation, a diachronic component in our analysis is not only desirable but in some cases essential for interpreting data that otherwise seems incongruent.
Yep! Assyriology abounds in evidence that can fuel both synchronic and diachronic analyses and scholars should not ignore the "diachronic component." It's not always easy to sort it out but sure is there. It would be nice if we had evidence that allowed scholars to address the unquestionable diachronic component of the Hebrew Bible on firmer ground. While archaeology and epigraphy help, they don't often address the issues people most care about. It worries me that much of contemporary Biblical scholarship has dissolved into an attempted synchronic analyses of material that certainly developed over time. On the one hand, I think, for want of sufficient evidence, a kind of faux-synchronic analyses has become the order of the day. On the other hand, I'm not sure what to do about it.
By the way, I enjoy works like Zevit's, Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches because it attempts to work within a specific, if somewhat broad, timeframe. Using evidence and methodologies from archaeology, epigraphy, linguistics, Hebrew Bible studies, history and religious studies, Zevit tries to reconstruct the Iron Age religion(s) Israel. Jay recently wrote a little review at MU-PÀD-DA. But even within the period from roughly 1200 to 586 BCE, Zevit's results have a synchronic quality that likely never existed at any specific time. Not that Zevit doesn't try here and there. But topographic analysis seems to come easier than diachronic analyses. He refers to "the multiplicity" of religions in ancient Israel. And I have no doubt that at any given time there were a multiplicity of religions in Iron Age Israel but it sure would be nice to know if and how that multiplicity changed during the period. But definitive evidence just isn't available. Never satisfied, never satisfied.
So, do I think Alan should have included my caveats with his caveats? Goodness no. If he had done that, I would not have had a post for today. If you haven't seen it already, go read Alan's post. His appetizer will reward you but like any good appetizer, it will leave you hungry for more.
Posted by Duane Smith at August 13, 2008 7:40 PM | Read more on Akkadian |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2601
Comments
While I would love to take credit, what I posted was not a review but the publisher's description.
Posted by: Jay at August 13, 2008 10:47 PM
I am looking for a font that will allow me to type in Akkadian transliteration text with all the symbols. Do you know of a site from which I can download such? Please e-mail me at jandtgee@bol.co.tz
Thanks for your help,
Jimmy
Posted by: Jimmy at August 14, 2008 6:10 AM
Hey Duane, Just got back from two days of camping at Calaveras Big Tree State Park with the fam.
Thanks for the interaction. The caveats were written with some very specific kinds of criticism in mind. The caveats aren't all encompassing and may have needed further refinement. But that's not going to happen now. They are really just notes that let the reader know where I am coming from before going into the real substance of the paper.
"Proof" bothers me, too. I can't prove anything I work on really. I'm looking for plausible interpretations. But others don't seem to get that.
The "unconscious" caveat comes up when an outsider plugs data into their theory. They might say something like, "the ancients wouldn't recognize this or articulate it in this way, but this is what is really happening from my perspective." I think this kind of thing is legitimate for an interpretation. But there is no good way to check it with someone's actual thoughts or unconscious intentions, etc. That's all I'm saying.
The article does look briefly at some ideas from the Mesopotamians' perspective(s). My point in the caveats is to make sure readers understand that the Mesopotamian perspective is not determinative of how I must understand something. I take what I see and then decide how to interpret it. Divination works why? Because the gods are real or because there is a social agreement--one that goes without saying even--that certain activities are deemed genuine communication with divine beings? I go with the latter. Mesopotamians may have mostly gone with the former. (But I can't prove it!)
As for diachrony and synchrony: We have too much data to ignore the diachronic perspective. We are fortunate to be able to trace certain things over the course of a millennium (or two!).
Posted by: Alan Lenzi at August 15, 2008 4:06 PM
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.
Send me an email if it is important.