Why Dont You Blog?

If you were ever entranced by reading HP Lovecraft or Victorian horror stories as a kid you will know that the word “necropolis” has a fascinating but chilling power. ** This news item is for you.

A BBC reports archaeological discoveries in the Saqqara necropolis south of Cairo. It is estimated that only about a third of the finds in the site have been discovered.

These are three to four thousand year sold and include a carved wooden sarcophagus (another fantastic word) and the tombs of a royal scribe and a butler.
There are sketchy pictures on the BBC site but the paintings and carving still look amazing.

It seems a little ironic. Ancient Egyptian culture was so focussed on preparing for the afterlife that bodies and artefacts can revealed as fresh to us, who live almost an eternity, in human terms, after them.* So the technology was pretty effective, it’s just the god stuff that didn’t quite pan out.

Although, ancient Egyptian gods are generally pretty engaging, with their jackal heads, and so on. And they kept plenty of artists and builders in work. It’s a pity at least some of them aren’t still around.

* In fact, from the creationist perspective they might have almost predated the creation of the universe, unless I’ve mixed up whatever 4,000 years is. (Maybe it was 4,000 BC. I am buggered if I am going to pay enough attention to the rantings to find out) That makes it an actual eternity. It makes you wonder why the Abrahamic world-religion God started out with a people who didn’t even recognise him, let alone pay constant obeisance to him. You think he’d have demanded a few first-born son sacrifices or handed out rules cut into stone or something, not just damned them as unchosen.

**And yes, I know all that Victorian exotica and horror stuff was a mixture of imperialism and childlike fascination with the Orient. Edward Said was completely right to criticise it. And the Victorian distortion applies to all history, the Victorian story-telling that turned snippets of historical information into myths, (Anglo-Saxons, Celts, Vikings, and all). The knowledge doesn’t stop it having power over the imagination, though.

Popularity: 23% [?]

Popularity: 23% [?]

Continuing the discussion about the book by Chris Smith and his co(ghost?) writer. Like the previous poster, I have not read it either, but since when has that stopped a reviewer? (I’ve read a review in the Guardian.)

Their premise appears to hang on a “big idea,” always a cause for suspicion, especially when one is trying to generalise about culture. There is a huge conceptual error in assuming that belief in a single god is in anyway associated with a commitment to solving problems logically (leaving aside the excellent point made in the previous blog that Christianity hardly has a monopoly on monotheism).

Didn’t the ancient Greeks invent all our categories of logic? How many gods did they have? Isn’t the Socratic method the basis of scientific and philosophical enquiry? Didn’t the Romans devise technical solutions to practical problems that are still used today? How many gods did they have? These examples do not even extend beyond “western” culture. If one also considers the scientific achievements of the ancient Chinese or Egyptians or any number of civilisations throughout history, it is clear that religious belief has little to do with development of practical science and technology.

Max Weber argued for a connection between religion and social development, in his 19th century work on the Protestant work ethic. He was arguing, however, that some elements of the Protestant world view led people to to reject external religious authority and value their own practical achievements in the real world. Very briefly, the Protestant religion supported the scientific and social development of industrialisation, whereas a Catholic world view was more closely associated with social stagnation because of its values of respect for authority and reward in the afterlife.

From this perspective, Weber was building an analysis of industrial society that could accomodate the role of ideas, as well as production and social organisation. There have been many more recent analyses of the interaction of social change and the realm of ideas and beliefs (e.g. Gramsci)

These issues are very complex and much of the writing is difficult to follow. However, none of it draws a simple line connecting belief and technology. Technology is a social creation. Its nature is inextricable from the social relations in which it is developed. Beliefs are also part of social relations. Hence there are interactions between belief systems and scientific and technological advances. However, a recognition that they are connected in various subtle ways does not support a simplistic assertion that belief A leads to technology B.

Popularity: 21% [?]

Popularity: 21% [?]