4 ms·

“Ritual use” is a term of art in archaeology. It refers to any object whose survival/economic use is not readily apparent. Basically, anything that isn’t a basi

“Ritual use” is a term of art in archaeology. It refers to any object whose survival/economic use is not readily apparent. Basically, anything that isn’t a basic tool (and many things that are tools if they’re decorated) are considered ritual objects. It doesn’t imply any religious purpose. Lots of what people do in life is composed of rituals. Morning coffee ritual, for example.

carlosjobim 4y ago
It is beyond ridiculous at this point, and serves to make people not take archeology seriously anymore. Where's the shame in admitting they don't know what an object was for? And a coffee maker is not for ritual use, it is for making coffee.
- lanternfish 4y ago
  I think you could make a very, very compelling case that the process of making coffee is, for many people (especially those really into it), an important ritual which has a lot of significance beyond the specific output. Look at the discourse around the James Hoffman AeroPress saga and tell me that shit isn't insanely ritualized. Nothing religious or spiritual (usually), but you get a lot of time/structure/cycle/morning/sleep/work semiology out of the coffee ritual. In fact, this is so true that coffee as a beverage has adopted significant phenomenological value external to its utility due to cultural osmosis - we have very strong associations between coffee and a variety of abstract qualities: work, awakeness, sleep deprivation, productivity, etc. And, these qualities are quite different between cultures even if the actual raw output/process of production are pretty much the same for many.
  - carlosjobim 4y ago
    By your reasoning, would it be possible for a person to make herself a cup of coffee and drink it without you considering it to be ritually?
    - lanternfish 4y ago
      Yeah - there are a lot of tasks that we frequently do that don't have this kind of associated trappings (on a cultural level): opening a car door handle, tying shoes, etc. Making coffee is much more susceptible to this kind of ritualmaking because of the implicit repetition, sequence and waiting qualities of the process. That said, there are people who engage with the process without any ritual - the patient in the dentist's waiting room who pops in a K-cup, the McDonalds worker who fills the McCafe order off a ticket, the spouse who runs out of tea and puts on a cup of their partner's coffee.
- chongli 4y ago
  Where's the shame in admitting they don't know what an object was for? They very often do know what the object is used for. It just doesn't have any economic/survival significance. For example, children's toys are labelled ritual objects. This sort bulk classification via jargon exists elsewhere in science. For example, astronomers refer to all elements heavier than hydrogen and helium as metals. Should we ridicule astronomers for not knowing basic chemistry? Or should we accept that different fields have terms of art/jargon which are very useful for communicating among colleagues and are not intended to compete with the general usage of those words?
  - carlosjobim 4y ago
    They can use whatever jargon they please among each other, but this talk about "ritual purposes" and "ritual objects" are constantly used in popular science when presenting archeological finds. Children's toys are not ritual objects.
    - chongli 4y ago
      So your complaint is with popular science media not translating these terms of art into everyday language. Fair enough. But how does that warrant the claim that the use of these terms "serves to make people not take archeology seriously anymore"?
- kodah 4y ago
  OP said "morning coffee ritual", not the coffee maker. Put yourself in the seat of someone coming to look at your house 1,000+ years after you died. Most things are gone but some things are intact. Our history and language was either wiped out or indiscernible. What would they find? Well, in my house, here's a few things: - they'd find that the softwood in my kitchen is much more worn than the rest of my house. We either spent a lot of time there or didn't care about it. - they'd then find that there's bags of fragrant stuff by this steel machine with a pressurization cup that also has a steam wand. - they'd find a water reservoir on the back of the machine. - if I left in a hurry, they'd find cups scattered throughout the house, particularly in what looks like working areas. - they'd find clean cups near the machine; some are plain but some are decorated! Even from all this, they'd have to look at coffee beans to find out they're caffeinated, they'd need to determine the presence of sugar, spices, and the various types of milk humans use. The "morning coffee ritual" would still look pretty amalgamous, and lots of context as to what we did around it would be lost, but they'd get an idea around what it all was about.
  - carlosjobim 4y ago
    If the person discovering these things is a real scientist, he will say he doesn't know what it was for. If he is not, he will say it was for ritual purposes and that the stupid 21st century people believed a spirit lived inside the machine.
    - kubanczyk 4y ago
      > believed a spirit lived inside Your own definition of "ritual". I think that socratic contempt for religion used to be an absolute fringe. Only recently we can distinguish betwen scientific and unscientific. For eons, people, educated people, could only distinguish between traditional and weird. That was their "knowledge" and they used what they had, because one needs to navigate their life somehow.
      - carlosjobim 4y ago
        You're expressing a kind of modern arrogance regarding past people that has no evidence. What makes you think that you know what and how ancient people thought? Maybe ancient people where much smarter and rational than the people of today? Considering they didn't eat toxins or spend hours each day being brain washed by a screen...

carlosjobim 4y ago

It is beyond ridiculous at this point, and serves to make people not take archeology seriously anymore. Where's the shame in admitting they don't know what an object was for? And a coffee maker is not for ritual use, it is for making coffee.

lanternfish 4y ago
I think you could make a very, very compelling case that the process of making coffee is, for many people (especially those really into it), an important ritual which has a lot of significance beyond the specific output. Look at the discourse around the James Hoffman AeroPress saga and tell me that shit isn't insanely ritualized. Nothing religious or spiritual (usually), but you get a lot of time/structure/cycle/morning/sleep/work semiology out of the coffee ritual. In fact, this is so true that coffee as a beverage has adopted significant phenomenological value external to its utility due to cultural osmosis - we have very strong associations between coffee and a variety of abstract qualities: work, awakeness, sleep deprivation, productivity, etc. And, these qualities are quite different between cultures even if the actual raw output/process of production are pretty much the same for many.
- carlosjobim 4y ago
  By your reasoning, would it be possible for a person to make herself a cup of coffee and drink it without you considering it to be ritually?
  - lanternfish 4y ago
    Yeah - there are a lot of tasks that we frequently do that don't have this kind of associated trappings (on a cultural level): opening a car door handle, tying shoes, etc. Making coffee is much more susceptible to this kind of ritualmaking because of the implicit repetition, sequence and waiting qualities of the process. That said, there are people who engage with the process without any ritual - the patient in the dentist's waiting room who pops in a K-cup, the McDonalds worker who fills the McCafe order off a ticket, the spouse who runs out of tea and puts on a cup of their partner's coffee.
chongli 4y ago
Where's the shame in admitting they don't know what an object was for? They very often do know what the object is used for. It just doesn't have any economic/survival significance. For example, children's toys are labelled ritual objects. This sort bulk classification via jargon exists elsewhere in science. For example, astronomers refer to all elements heavier than hydrogen and helium as metals. Should we ridicule astronomers for not knowing basic chemistry? Or should we accept that different fields have terms of art/jargon which are very useful for communicating among colleagues and are not intended to compete with the general usage of those words?
- carlosjobim 4y ago
  They can use whatever jargon they please among each other, but this talk about "ritual purposes" and "ritual objects" are constantly used in popular science when presenting archeological finds. Children's toys are not ritual objects.
  - chongli 4y ago
    So your complaint is with popular science media not translating these terms of art into everyday language. Fair enough. But how does that warrant the claim that the use of these terms "serves to make people not take archeology seriously anymore"?
kodah 4y ago
OP said "morning coffee ritual", not the coffee maker. Put yourself in the seat of someone coming to look at your house 1,000+ years after you died. Most things are gone but some things are intact. Our history and language was either wiped out or indiscernible. What would they find? Well, in my house, here's a few things: - they'd find that the softwood in my kitchen is much more worn than the rest of my house. We either spent a lot of time there or didn't care about it. - they'd then find that there's bags of fragrant stuff by this steel machine with a pressurization cup that also has a steam wand. - they'd find a water reservoir on the back of the machine. - if I left in a hurry, they'd find cups scattered throughout the house, particularly in what looks like working areas. - they'd find clean cups near the machine; some are plain but some are decorated! Even from all this, they'd have to look at coffee beans to find out they're caffeinated, they'd need to determine the presence of sugar, spices, and the various types of milk humans use. The "morning coffee ritual" would still look pretty amalgamous, and lots of context as to what we did around it would be lost, but they'd get an idea around what it all was about.
- carlosjobim 4y ago
  If the person discovering these things is a real scientist, he will say he doesn't know what it was for. If he is not, he will say it was for ritual purposes and that the stupid 21st century people believed a spirit lived inside the machine.
  - kubanczyk 4y ago
    > believed a spirit lived inside Your own definition of "ritual". I think that socratic contempt for religion used to be an absolute fringe. Only recently we can distinguish betwen scientific and unscientific. For eons, people, educated people, could only distinguish between traditional and weird. That was their "knowledge" and they used what they had, because one needs to navigate their life somehow.
    - carlosjobim 4y ago
      You're expressing a kind of modern arrogance regarding past people that has no evidence. What makes you think that you know what and how ancient people thought? Maybe ancient people where much smarter and rational than the people of today? Considering they didn't eat toxins or spend hours each day being brain washed by a screen...