Because we don’t know if anything from archeology is “for ritual use (for real).” Sometimes people just do odd stuff because it’s cool. Mount Rushmore should make you wonder about giant ancient statues.
In 10,000 years people might be looking a remnants of Christ the Redeemer statue and think it’s clearly for ritual use. But we know it isn’t for ‘ritual use (for real)’ so someone making such an obvious leap would be wrong, thus making other such seemingly obvious leaps could just as easily be wrong.
Ancestral leaders, mythical heroes, apocryphal stories. When we describe the cult of a dead Pharaoh of living roman emperor, we're quite comfortable using terms like "cult," "rite," and such. When describing contemporary culture, we call it a political monument, a cultural heritage symbol or a national monument. To future archeology, it's all the same. Washington can be described in the same terms Nefertiti and the reverse. Visitors to the statue are pilgrims. Events taking place there are "performed rites."
It's not wrong describe constitutional judges as a priests endowed with mysterious abilities to commune with spirits of the past to gain knowledge of constitutional mystery. These rites are not that different from the oracle of Delphi.
Why/how isn't Christ the Redeemer a "ritual object." It's a statue of a god worshipped extensively by the people who live in Rio. It has artistic, religious & cultural meaning. Every day, millions of people cross themselves, say prayers, take mass or perform other christian rites. Why is Christ the Redeemer different to the Sphinx or Jupiter?
You can replace "ritual object" with "cultural object."
If we want to use cultural object then sure but saying ritual object implies something.
Suggesting the Kaaba in Mecca is the same category of thing as a giant ball of yarn roadside attraction misses a great deal of context.
Similarly the Supreme Court isn’t really different than any other aspect of government. They have their rituals, but the court had no problem adapting to COVID restrictions and having everyone work remotely.
> we don’t know if anything from archeology is “for ritual use (for real).”
I apologize for being unable resist thinking of a counterexample any
time someone makes a generalization. Would household utensils found in
a sealed burial chamber be a clear case of ritual use for real, or did
dead people in ancient times put them to some practical use we haven't
identified?
I do think people getting buried in clothing qualifies as ritualistic when the body was presented for an open casket funeral.
However, people still regularly get buried with their wedding rings or similar such items. Do you consider that behavior ritualistic, or just sentimental?
I can’t help but point out that “if you squint a little” is grounds for a great deal of debate. It’s exactly the kind of thinking that makes some sort of “ritual object (for real)” hard to distinguish even when actually living in the culture in question.
I understand your point, but that’s not a specific ritual.
Sacramental wine is created for a specific ritual, houses of warship are made for many rituals but it’s easy to pick one of them as an example. But you can’t point to a specific example here because that’s not what it was built for.
To be clear people have weddings for example at all kinds of interesting buildings, but only some of them where built for that reason. This might seem trivial but it is a meaningful distinction otherwise essentially anything interesting becomes a ritual object.
I do see your point too; it could very much be argued that it’s not for ritual use per se, but it’s debatable, and not a good example of something that’s certainly not for ritual use, which is how the commenter was using it
In 10,000 years people might be looking a remnants of Christ the Redeemer statue and think it’s clearly for ritual use. But we know it isn’t for ‘ritual use (for real)’ so someone making such an obvious leap would be wrong, thus making other such seemingly obvious leaps could just as easily be wrong.