Hacker News Reader

Comment by thedriver | Hacker News Reader

Humans weren't fundamentally any different back then. Bathroom wall graffiti has been discovered from ancient Roman ruins.

View on HN

That was my first thought, but I found the article way more interesting than the title suggests.

Lest anyone else be put off - the doodles are just one example of something not (or barely) visible without the new imaging techniques described. It's about finding new artefacts in an existing collection, not 'oh wow so weird an ancient human doodled something'.

I will always remember one reported on my high school Latin textbook: "Apollinaris medicus Titi imperatoris hic cacavit bene": "Apollinar, physician of the emperor Titus, here pooped well"

If you visit Hadrian's Wall in the north of England you can see Roman graffiti there.

I find it curious that archaeologists or historians (?) seem to take a lot of things like this so seriously and assume everything has some sort of symbolic meaning, rather than just some teenager scribbling on a page or painting his hand on the wall of a cave just 'because'.

Almost literally everything is called 'ritual' or done for 'religious reasons'.

If you have a gnome garden ornament on your shelf, no-one would seriously think you worship it, just that it looks nice. But this entire profession will call it a 'mysterious religious figure' etc.

Same with tattoos, ask any girl why they have a tramp stamp they'll say it looks 'cute' or something, these guys will call it 'symbolic'.

It's embarrassing.

Various phallic shaped objects that are recovered are also recorded as "being used in a fertility ritual"

It's not entirely wrong. In a certain sense it is "practicing" "fertility".

I recommend Motel of the Mysteries by David Macaulay, which explores this concept by having a future archaeologist investigate a motel from the 20th century and arrive at extremely bizarre conclusions.

An owner of a tattoo may not care or know it's symbolic, but someone observing it may project that aspect onto it. I think it depends on the context of the analysis..

>I find it curious that archaeologists or historians (?) seem to take a lot of things like this so seriously and assume everything has some sort of symbolic meaning, rather than just some teenager scribbling on a page or painting his hand on the wall of a cave just 'because'.

Yes, it's definitely funny how they completely fail or refuse to consider this possibility. Humans weren't any different in 10 000 BC. Evolution doesn't work that fast.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com