3 ms·

I'm confused as to what you're saying here, but it sounds interesting. Can you clarify? Survivorship bias of what over what?

by cal85 4y ago

arminiusreturns 4y ago
It's well known in protohistory that most of the religious sites were wooded, both with idols and altars of wood, but also in the forest itself in special places such as groves. The romans destroyed most of it, and later the christians (but I repeat myself). So I think gp is just reiterating this. Here in America our high country and high country desert really make us lucky for having close to surface access of ancient things, makes archaeology and paleontology much easier.
legulere 4y ago
I'm saying that maybe writing runes on stones was uncommon compared to write them on wood and that maybe runes were more common in central Europe than what we see, because those runes endured less than the ones on stones in Scandinavia.
- eesmith 4y ago
  If it helps any, the earliest dated rune is from a bone comb, and have also been found on wood and wax. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryggen_inscriptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryggen_inscriptions says that find helped show that runes were used for things besides "inscriptions of names and solemn phrases." This would suggest that were runes widely used in central Europe, on wood, then it would still be possible to find traces of that use. FWIW, knowing basically nothing on the topic, I did a Google Scholar search with 'rune "central Europe"', which returned things like: "Runes from Lány (Czech Republic) - The oldest inscription among Slavs. A new standard for multidisciplinary analysis of runic bones" - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440321000030 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030544032... I also found that Old Hungarian script was a runic script - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Hungarian_script https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Hungarian_script , usually carved on wood or sticks.

I'm confused as to what you're saying here, but it sounds interesting. Can you clarify? Survivorship bias of what over what?

by cal85 4y ago

I'm confused as to what you're saying here, but it sounds interesting. Can you clarify? Survivorship bias of what over what?

arminiusreturns 4y ago

It's well known in protohistory that most of the religious sites were wooded, both with idols and altars of wood, but also in the forest itself in special places such as groves. The romans destroyed most of it, and later the christians (but I repeat myself). So I think gp is just reiterating this. Here in America our high country and high country desert really make us lucky for having close to surface access of ancient things, makes archaeology and paleontology much easier.

legulere 4y ago

I'm saying that maybe writing runes on stones was uncommon compared to write them on wood and that maybe runes were more common in central Europe than what we see, because those runes endured less than the ones on stones in Scandinavia.

eesmith 4y ago
If it helps any, the earliest dated rune is from a bone comb, and have also been found on wood and wax. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryggen_inscriptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryggen_inscriptions says that find helped show that runes were used for things besides "inscriptions of names and solemn phrases." This would suggest that were runes widely used in central Europe, on wood, then it would still be possible to find traces of that use. FWIW, knowing basically nothing on the topic, I did a Google Scholar search with 'rune "central Europe"', which returned things like: "Runes from Lány (Czech Republic) - The oldest inscription among Slavs. A new standard for multidisciplinary analysis of runic bones" - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440321000030 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030544032... I also found that Old Hungarian script was a runic script - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Hungarian_script https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Hungarian_script , usually carved on wood or sticks.