Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

snapmyhands t1_itlm3sh wrote

This is more of a question for historians than scientists, but to answer: A lot of the time they ARE identified as dolls and toys, there are some lovely Roman examples of dolls with articulated joints. If you google 'Bronze Age baby feeding bottle' you will see some very cute animal-shaped vessels for feeding babies. Even early civilisations produced artefacts that demonstrated tenderness towards their children.

The context in which they are unearthed provides a lot of information - buried with a child's body? Probably a toy. Situated in a religious building? Probably a votive item.

Then there is the nature of the figure itself, a woman appearing out of seashells is most likely a representation of Venus and therefore intended to invoke her blessing, and historians are able to identify motifs that indicate who the item is supposed to represent.

You are probably right that a lot of people (not necessarily historians) are overly keen to identify something as a ritual item (this extends beyond statues and applies also to mundane things like kitchenware) but frequently any ID on an item does come with a massive 'but I could be wrong about this' caveat.

25

IOnlyHaveIceForYou t1_itmhwmu wrote

I saw a great cartoon where "archaeologists of the future" were looking at an Ikea standard lamp in a long-abandoned room. They said it clearly had a ritualistic or religious purpose, as one was found in nearly every house.

13

[deleted] OP t1_itluca9 wrote

Fair enough. I’m perhaps coming from the angle of watching documentaries where that caveat doesn’t make for good viewing.

5

xratedcheese t1_itp212v wrote

> You are probably right that a lot of people (not necessarily historians) are overly keen to identify something as a ritual item

If it looks like a dildo, it's a dildo. There's no need to concoct an elaborate non-dildo theory to explain the existence of a dildo. (Though they may indeed have used their dildos in rituals.)

2

snapmyhands t1_itp6wtv wrote

I don't know enough about Priapic cults to confirm or deny your last statement!

But yeah, not every artefact is loaded with meaning. Maybe someone just wanted to make a funny little trinket with a lump of clay or got bored and started whittling away at a piece of wood.

Also related: I follow a few mudlarkers/scavengers on Instagram and they often talk of enthusiastic amateurs finding 'neolithic arrowheads' which are in fact just chipped pieces of obsidian.

1

buladusiciel t1_itp6wi6 wrote

Bronze Age baby bottles are my new favourite thing, thank you ❤

1