Skip to main content


Something really wild to me is the extent to which archaeology seems to believe that artifacts were used for some kind of religious / worshipful purpose.

Like, in the modern world, relatively very very few objects are used for worship. If a future civilization finds a figurine, it's probably a Barbie doll or a Funko Pop or something.

Future civilizations might find our most treasured artifacts and presume that we worship glass rectangles or something.

Seems kinda weird if this is the default assumption for unexplained historical artifacts, as it naively appears (to a non-archaeologist). Like, why do we think that these figurines are fertility goddesses rather than toys or instructional tools or even pornography?

in reply to Ben Weinstein-Raun

E.g. I was just reading about the history of alcoholic beverages, and saw that it's presumed that the earliest known examples of beer jugs were used for some kind of religious purpose. Why?? A tiny proportion of modern alcohol is used for religious purposes.
in reply to Ben Weinstein-Raun

And afaik this kind of ratio is similar going back basically as far as recorded history. E.g. the ancient Romans drank lots of wine, and indeed used some for religious purposes, but iiuc most wine was consumed as just a normal part of everyday life.
in reply to Ben Weinstein-Raun

I have very little relevant context here, but wondering: how much of this is just applying a heuristic that past societies were more religious than present societies? If the only book you have is a Bible, then does reading bedtime stories count as religious worship?
in reply to Ben Weinstein-Raun

My best guess is that they know a lot about how similar contemporary societies (e.g. hunter-gatherers) behave, and that religion is very infused into many activities we consider secular. Those societies are doing worshipful-X instead of just-X.

I'd guess the fandom-forming instinct also exists in many other societies, but there it's channeled into religion. So Funko-pops might be descirbed as semi-religious objects?

in reply to niplav

but i don't know much about this, and it's a good question
in reply to Ben Weinstein-Raun

Yeah, I was also thinking it might just be higher religiosity in the past. OTOH, maybe "doing X because you're mistaken about how the world works" rounds off to "doing X because of religious belief" to an observer with a more modern understanding of the world. And it feels sort of wrong associate anything done because of what we consider superstition with religious worship.
This entry was edited (2 months ago)
in reply to Ben Weinstein-Raun

Here's an off the cuff thought: It is way, way cheaper to manufacture durable figurines now than at any previous time. So if you find an ancient figurine it probably wasn't for some relatively frivolous purpose. But now we can produce infinite children's toys and funko pops at minimal cost (I actually don't really know what funko pops are used for).
in reply to Guive

maybe; I guess I don't model the raw materials involved (soft stone, bone, carving implements, clay) as being especially scarce in the relevant time periods though.
in reply to Ben Weinstein-Raun

I contend that we do worship glass rectangles.

Nobody thought Christianity was a 'religion' when it was dominant. They thought of it as 'the way things really are' and no one described it in terms of religion.

Our current 'secularism' is also a 'religion' in this same way. We don't see it as religious activity to go to a supermarket or post on Facebook. But ... it is?

in reply to renshin

> Nobody thought Christianity was a 'religion' when it was dominant. They thought of it as 'the way things really are' and no one described it in terms of religion.

FWIW I don't think this is true. If you want to talk about the New Testament authors, the last bit of James 1 seems to talk about Christianity as a religion, James and Paul talk a lot about "the faith", Hebrews 11 talks about faith as belief in things unseen and seems to indicate it's a good thing. The proceedings of the Council of Trent talk about "the Christian Religion" (e.g. history.hanover.edu/texts/tren…).

[I mean TBC they also thought it was "the way things really are"]

This entry was edited (2 months ago)
in reply to Daniel Filan

Hmm lemme clarify.

RE: 'Religion' as 'worldview you can select into or out of' -- at the time of Christianity's dominance (which wasn't until much after New Testament being written anyway), no one thought of Christianity as a worldview. They thought of Christianity as the way things really are.

"Religion" was more like those pagan traditions that you could opt into or out of but were clearly wrongheaded, outdated, nonsensical, and everyone knows are made up. That's what I mean.

Now we use 'religion' in the same way, without recognizing that our dominant worldview is also a religion in fact.

in reply to renshin

FWIW this wasn't clear from the way I wrote things up but the Council of Trent was held in the 16th century as a reaction to Protestantism. People at the time really did use words like "faith" and "religion" to describe Christianity, altho I'm not sure they would have said you could opt out of it or that it was made up.

At any rate, zooming out, I feel like we can drop the word "religion" and there's still an important thing here. My understanding is that most religious practitioners think that there's something importantly different about the rituals I'd be tempted to call "religious" (e.g. going to mass / church service, sacred artwork, etc) and stuff I'd be tempted to call "secular" (e.g. drinking a can of soda, going on my phone), even when they think mass / sacred art is super important and real. So there's still a live question of "was this pot related to by people back then more like the way believers relate to sacred artwork, or more like the way believers relate to cans of soda".

in reply to Ben Weinstein-Raun