• @I_Has_A_Hat
    link
    40
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    “The poor quality of the craftsmanship suggests the potter was simply a novice, or perhaps a young child.”

    • idunnololz
      link
      102 months ago

      Humans in 100 years when they find my git repo:

      • @stupidcasey
        link
        11 month ago

        Ahw hell na, we burying that thing in Cheyenne Mountain under the elephants foot and other radioactive waste.

    • @StaticFalconar
      link
      32 months ago

      It obviously shows how limited they were at the time

  • @marcos
    link
    252 months ago

    Remember, due to undersampling biases we can expect any feature we notice on preserved remains to be actually much worse at the general population.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      162 months ago

      I have even heard the argument that only abnormal people were buried in the neolithic. Following this logic we can assume that remains that appear normal are abnormal in ways that are not preserved (like the skin or behavior)

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        82 months ago

        I heard a argument about swords comparing to clothes.

        Useful clothes you use daily and later recycle it. Wedding dress you preserve. Swords was probably the same thing, the useful one is used in battles and the metal recycle, the special ones was preserved.

  • @helpImTrappedOnline
    link
    222 months ago

    That pot got stashed safley away in some corner, while the rest where actually used and eventually broken over time.

  • @niktemadur
    link
    6
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    There he goes again… giving all proud, actually skilled Ubaid potters a bad name.
    Of course it had to be his jar that survived intact.

  • @samus12345
    link
    English
    62 months ago

    Luckily for him, you wouldn’t expect it to look that great after 4000 years.