If you don't get an answer here, you can also try /r/askhistorians

[removed]

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.

[removed]

Archaeology student here, it depends on the figurine/location/date. With later periods we can deduct ritualistic purposes as they are found en masse as offerings at temples for example. Figurines also served as toys, sometimes found in settlements but more so in children graves they are prominent. Now with prehistoric times I assume you mean the well known Venus figurines? Honestly we don’t know their purpose, there isn’t enough evidence and they haven’t been studied enough yet to make a conclusion. There are hypothesis out there, but no real answer yet. The “may be ritualistic” is often quickly thrown around when they don’t know what else it could be yet, sometimes too quickly.

[removed]

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

Yeah that makes sense. I was remembering the lion carved out of a mammoth tusk found in Germany, and a story that went with it of being passed around the fire while elders told stories.

I wondered if it was just as likely some guy who could carve had his eye on a girl who liked carvings, or something else altogether.

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.

[removed]

> 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.)

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

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.