This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Armadillo: This isn't as common for real life archaeologists as some people seem to be crediting. No archaeologist worth anything would make an assumption about the use or significance of an item without finding primary source documents identifying them as such. At most, an archaeologist would say "we don't know what this does, we assume it may have been a ritualistic purpose." Also, anyone who's researched Ancient Rome knows that ancient people aren't all ultra-ritualistic and superstitious: Roman Mosaics portray dieties and toilet humor in the same way.
random832: dammit dammit dammit. there's a quote that would be PERFECT for this, but I can't find an attribution or exact wording - something like "were their eight kings named henry or eighteen? it doesn't matter, some day history will record there was only one" - any help?
Space Ace: Like one of the Examples editors, I once studied archaeology (I, however, switched majors). One thing I was told that if you find something and don't understand it, you can simply chalk it up to "ritualism".
Kilyle: Would this fit? or would it belong on a different page I'm just not calling to mind? My dad brings up a book or short story in which this guy travels to the past for a time, but nobody believes he's from the future. Then after he's left, one guy says he believed the guy was from the future. He pulls out a couple sheets of printed toilet paper. It's the softest, purest, most beautiful paper they've ever seen. And the guy from the future said he used it to wipe his a**.
Vulpy: For that matter, how many people could successfully identify a cotton gin now?
Also, what's up with the discussion in the examples, there? It's entertaining, and all (and that alone justifies its inclusion), but I had to fight down the temptation to add the edit "Ten! Do I hear ten?" Does anyone think maybe it should be removed, or pasted to the Discussion page?
Ophicius: Yes. We try to avoid Conversation In The Main Page and Thread Mode.
- The fifth editor feels that whoever wrote that philosophy might have ripped off the aforementioned Motel of the Mysteries.
- Editor number seven(or whatever thinks it can safely be said that this is, in fact, Truth in Television, as this passage by editor six, moved up from lower on the page, shows:
- For instance, not long ago it was held as a universal truth that the Egyptian pyramids had been built with slavelabour. Now we know the builders were paid, professional workers.
- Eight editor here: We don't "know" this any more than we "know" it was slave labor.
- And this ninth editor would just like to say that the last comment kind of proves the whole point of the trope.
nayhem: What's the inverse trope?, the one where the past mispredicts the present, or where the present makes wild claims about the future?
Randallw: That example link seemingly lampooning brushing your teet every morning; An example of how differing backgrounds reach differing conclusions. This troper doesn't understand the purpose of it. It might be clear to others what it is, a joke?, serious?, real? it seems to be a joke and yet is presented in such a manner that one can't be certain. Is the joke now that we behave like they did, and society didn't back then?. This troper needs it to be made clear when a joke is a joke otherwise it might be taken seriously. In fact if jokes these days are subtle enough will they be treated as fact in the future?.
