2 ms·
There's also the problem that what's scary depends a lot on culture. Really hard to believe that somehow cultural traditions making a marking scary would someh
by cogman10 3y ago
There's also the problem that what's scary depends a lot on culture. Really hard to believe that somehow cultural traditions making a marking scary would somehow survive but the actual knowledge to know this site has nuclear waste wouldn't.
- Terr_ 3y agoI think it's safe to say that pictures of human skulls would still convey danger, unless our post-collapse descendants got really mutated.
- cogman10 3y agoWould it? What if future human society collects and/or reveres the skulls of ancestors?
- Terr_ 3y agoIANAAnthropologist, but I'd still wager that: 1. It's still most-associated with death, dying, and danger versus almost any other symbol one could pick. 2. Reverence or trust comes from it being their own ancestors rather than unidentified skulls of strangers involving unfamiliar ceremonies or no ceremonies at all. Taboo criminals leave skeletons too.
- cogman10 3y agoPlenty of cultures throughout history have bone collections. Consider, for example, the Sedlec Ossuary [1]. Where human remains are used for ornate decorations. And, even today, is a common tourist attraction. Those skulls aren't there to warn people away. Even if there's a death association, it's not one of "stay away", rather, it's one of "come see". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedlec_Ossuary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedlec_Ossuary