Hacker News Reader

Comment by tombh | Hacker News Reader

Cult? What unfortunate word choice. We're talking about a period possibly 8000 years ago! The common understanding of "cult" is shaped by the Euro-centric, post-Christian New Religious Movements (the preferred academic nomenclature) of the 1960s. Not only did European culture not exist in the Neolithic, nor did Christian nor even the so-called Axial Age whence the roots of many of the world's major religions.

View on HN

The common understanding of cult (which I would argue is probably "religion I don't like", but that doesn't matter) is not in use here. This is a technical usage in archaeology to refer to religious interaction with place and object... which is basically all prehistoric archaeology can see.

I wasn't aware of that. It was so drummed into me at university (Religious Studies) to avoid the word that I'm intrigued as to why another academic field would uses it seriously. Do you have any reading recommendations that might give an insight into its technical usage?

>It was so drummed into me at university (Religious Studies) to avoid the word that I'm intrigued as to why another academic field would uses it seriously.

Because there would be very little feedback from Religious Studies into other fields on what words are acceptable. There are disagreements on terminology within academia in the same sub-field (I saw this in even programming language research).

The Latin word cultus had no negative connotation and described this activity. Anything classicist and classicist-adjacent continues to use the word "cult" because that's how it was used in Latin and in English. The negative connotation did not arise until much later, probably in the mid-20th century.

The "technical" usage is simply the normal usage of the word for anyone who mostly reads books published prior to the 1960s.

I went looking into it, but haven't found a good capsule reference. It's a pretty strong cultural practice (and an old one; references to Classical practices like "the cult of Dionysis" are well-worn) and isn't always specified.

This article "“Cult” in the Study of Religion and Archaeology" in ASMA (https://www.academia.edu/5061036/Cult_in_the_Study_of_Religi...) has a pretty good discussion.

Here's an article from a text book on "Archaeology of Cult and Religion": (https://www.academia.edu/13590600/2005._Archaeology_of_Cult_...)

You can see a working usage in "A Problem Oof Definition: “Cultic” and “Comestic” Contexts in Philistia" (https://www.academia.edu/1868319/A_Problem_of_Definition_Cul...)

I haven't read the books, but there's a couple books covered in this review from AJA on the topic: https://www.ajaonline.org/book-review/619

Modern archaeology makes some odd-seeming linguistic choices to try to avoid implying more than they actually know; part of that is avoiding "religion" in favor of "ritual" and "cultic practices", because "religion" implies a whole lot of stuff that artifacts just can't see.

> This is a technical usage

No: the audience is BBC article readers so the meaning is defined by that audience. The BBC is not a technical journal of archaeology, and if they want to use a technical term then they need to explain it and avoid using it in the heading. “cu*t” is wildly incorrect for the audience here.

I understand if you think we're too fragile to hear the word "cult", but the way you chose to obscure it is... not an improvement.

This is the technical use of the word "cult": "a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object". As is "the cult of Diana" and not "the Branch Davidian or The Children of God cults."

In what field is it technical? I have a degree in Religious Studies and we were taught it was strictly jargon.

> I have a degree in Religious Studies and we were taught it was strictly jargon.

sounds like you were in a cult

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_(religious_practice)

just like 'cultic practice' is used in the article which is not related to the 'New Religious Movement' meaning.

> This article discusses the _original_ meaning of the word "cult", not the term in the sociology of religion, new religious movements called "cults", cults of personality, or popular cult followings.

Emphasis mine. As far as I was educated this is neither the commonly understood nor academically encouraged usage.

It's still used like that in historical or anthropological writing. Cult of the emperor, cult of this or that. You're just used to a different meaning that is also avoided in your particular field where the two meanings are more negatively collidey.

> In what field is it technical? I have a degree in Religious Studies and we were taught it was strictly jargon.

Those two terms are synonymous. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/jargon#Noun

It's a religion that was worshipped by a peoples who covered the area of modern day Poland. Cults are lead by a single, charismatic leader (sometimes a couple)... like Jesus, or Jim and Tammy Faye Baker or Jim Jones. There have been many Christian cults, but Christianity is not, itself a cult (any longer). Cults do not have large social influence, like this one obviously did. Calling this a cult is like calling the religion of the Maya or the pre-Christian Romans a cult.

As far as "a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object"... You just described Christianity. The worship of Jesus... while that might not be what the point was supposed to have been, you might want to send a memo out. There are a lot of folks who are idolatrous to that cross.

Yes, Christianity is a cult but not really in the tabloid, cable news meaning that you are used to. “Cult” is not inherently negative or out of the mainstream. It simply means a system of religious worship. It has become more negative in recent decades in popular culture by being associated with some “unusual” religious groups.

I don't mean it as a slur, really but Christianity started as a cult, though it can no longer be construed as one for the most part - aside for certain sects (though I'm unsure about Catholocism and their fealty to the Pope above almost anything... it seems almost antithetical to pure New Testiment teaching, but I'm non religious and wasn't raised Catholic, so much of it is a mystery to me). This religious group they're describing in the article, however seems very out of bounds for the term "cult" and they seem to use the term in merely a pejorative sense.

As far as the legal definitions of cults go (under US law), well there it gets "squishy" and kind of comes down to a popularity contest, almost. "Are you of a certain age", "Are you of a certain size", "Have you a certain amount of influence", type of thing.

http://jur.byu.edu/?p=4386

> As far as "a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object"... You just described Christianity.

Yes. Christianity is, in the scholarly sense of the word intended by the article, a cult or set of cults.

Here's a priest explaining the--his words--"cult of Mary:" https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-is-the-cult-of-mary .

And here's an example of the usage from another article about late-antique Judaism: "...the Sadducees stressed the importance of the priests in the Temple cult, while the Pharisees insisted on the participation of all Jews." https://www.livius.org/articles/people/sadducees/

Cults don't need a single leader. Hellenic cults were lead by the ritual with practitioners themselves leading the rites, not unlike masonic tradition or fraternity rituals today.

Agreed. Was about to comment on the same. Seems like they wanted to imply that the religious practices were less evolved and complex than modern-day religions. But the word choice could be better.

I'm not good in English or Latin language, but as far as I know 'cult' is from Latin 'cultus' which among other things may have something to do with worshiping. Maybe in English it has negative connotations but for example in my native language it does not matter if you say 'cult of sun' or 'cult of Jesus'.

Yes, cult means a system of worship and is an appropriate term to use here. It is commonly used like this in historical and archeological discussions. In recent decades, the most common use in popular culture has been as a label for some very unusual or even violent religious groups. Based on some posts here, even some religious studies programs are avoiding using the work for fear of this popular view of the word.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com