The scarab amulet is a fascinating artifact from ancient Egypt. Shaped like the scarab beetle (Scarabaeus sacer), it held deep symbolic meaning for the Egyptians. They observed these beetles rolling pellets of dung, which contained their eggs, across sandy slopes under the hot sun. This act symbolized creation and the cycle of life. To the ancient Egyptians, the scarab became a powerful emblem of rebirth and eternity.
These amulets were crafted from materials like gold, stone, or a blue-green glazed composition called faience. Many were engraved with hieroglyphics on the underside. People used them in various ways: strung as beads, wrapped with mummies, or mounted in rings. Some larger “heart scarabs” were placed over the heart of a mummy, often inscribed with passages from the “Book of the Dead.”
Now, let’s consider whether the scarab amulet has a normative function based on our account. This account says that for an artifact to have such a function, two conditions must be met. First, the artifact must have features suited to producing a certain effect. Second, there must be good reasons why artifacts with those features should exist to produce that effect.
Looking at the first condition, we see that the scarab amulet’s features are symbolic. Its beetle shape and inscriptions represent ideas like creation, rebirth, and protection in the afterlife. But do these features actually produce these effects? Physically, they don’t. The amulet doesn’t cause spiritual protection or influence the soul’s journey through its physical properties. It symbolizes these concepts but doesn’t bring them about in a causal way.
So, the first condition isn’t satisfied. The amulet’s features aren’t inherently suited to producing the supposed effects in a tangible sense.
This means that the scarab amulet doesn’t have the intended effect as a normative function. Its features don’t causally produce the intended effects. It serves as an example of an artifact with a “phantom function”, a supposed purpose that doesn’t align with its material features.
Does this mean that the scarab doesn’t have a normative function at all? This is probably too quick. There are still other effects that could be its normative function. For instance, scarab amulets likely served to provide reassurance or comfort to those who believed in their symbolic power. The act of wearing or placing a scarab amulet could reinforce religious or cultural practices.
These effects are still significant. The amulet’s features, its beetle shape, inscriptions, and materials, are well-suited to enabling these symbolic and emotional effects. In this way, it satisfies the first condition: the artifact’s features are suited to producing these effects. Moreover, these effects are reasons for artifacts with these features to exist, as reassurance and emotional comfort are valuable.
Therefore, while the scarab amulet doesn’t have its intended effects as a normative function, it might still have a normative function which consists of its psychological and cultural effects.