4 ms·
A skeleton made from the bones of at least eight people thousands of years apart
- FredPret 2y ago> “They knew what they were doing” Maybe it was ancient anatomists doing research
- keepamovin 2y agoA lost ancient technology that allowed you to replace your missing or damaged limbs with spare parts built from revivified millennial old remains? Haha
- readthenotes1 2y agoIsn't this explained by Gormogon?
- anonzzzies 2y agoIndeed, a Bones reference is hard to not make here.
- imoverclocked 2y agoI love how we create stories of bones we find whose original tale is long gone. I have no idea where this thread of human exploration will take us but I look forward to hearing the story’s evolution.
- orblivion 2y agoImagine you're just fucking around with something because you're bored and then leave it there and forget about it and 2000 years later archaeologists find it and wonder "how odd, I wonder what the deep significance of this might be"
- SlightlyLeftPad 2y agoI felt this was potentially true with Picasso’s work. It was considered groundbreaking and is currently revered. When actually the faces he painted were really mimicking the phenomenon of staring into someone else’s eyes too closely, like when your forehead’s touch. The eyes tend to merge into one or appear displaced. It’s a Simple thing that nobody seemed to have done before.
- bcraven 2y agoMy understanding was that it was generally agreed to be related to concurrent mathematical breakthroughs in higher-dimensional space: _"Picasso was particularly struck by Poincaré's advice on how to view the fourth dimension, which artists considered another spatial dimension. If you could transport yourself into it, you would see every perspective of a scene at once. But how to project these perspectives on to canvas? Poincaré's suggestion in Science and Hypothesis was to do so one at a time, showing each in succession. Picasso disagreed. He wanted to depict them all at once."_ https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2012/jul/17/henri-poincare-einstein-picasso https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2012/jul/17/henri-p...
- konschubert 2y ago[flagged]
- evoke4908 2y agoThat's an extremely fascinating angle I've never seen before. Thanks!
- bitwize 2y agoPicasso was deliberately playing with perspective. One theory goes that he was doing a pisstake of classical artists faking perspective by painting half the face from the front and half the face from the side. Another says that he was attempting to capture more of an object than an accurate rendering from a single perspective could convey, sort of a painter's equivalent of those animated GIFs that show an object from different camera angles, yielding a 3D effect.
- rendall 2y agoMy story about it is that in Roman times, someone deeply revered or loved a person whose head or skull they possessed, perhaps of a family member, a mentor, or a romantic partner. The individual sought to restore dignity and completeness to the deceased. They turned to a collector of old bones, perhaps an anatomist, who helped them reconstruct a body and bury it, along with the head. This was a personal, unique act of grief or honor, since a whole, intact body was not necessary in Roman funeral rites.
- relistan 2y agoHonestly this makes more sense to me in human terms than the possibilities suggested in the article.
- janwillemb 2y agoThe source article[1] suggests that (in my own words) it may have to do with several kins that were brought together and tried to seal their bond by assembling a fictive individual from several deceased relatives. Or that an original important burial site was disturbed and they tried to restore the body. [1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/assembling-ancestors-the-manipulation-of-neolithic-and-galloroman-skeletal-remains-at-pommeroeul-belgium/A25B2FBB53A9DE7665F30AD14F06A22A# https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/as...
- _Microft 2y agoMaybe we should add some bones, bury the skeleton again and wipe all records of what we did.
- beng-nl 2y agoMaybe that’s what happened already.
- metalman 2y agothe very nature of our current record keeping, guarantees that a very great deal of anything bieng done now will vanish papyrus will survive long after the inevitable neglect and bit rot destroy our digital archives The massive physical remains of our times ,accompanied by those most enduring of our written records, labels and logos, wont tax future investigators imaginations in figuring out what happened to us. I personaly, have access to many bones, and have toyed with creating chimera skeletons, history is too deep, and people are too wierd to draw any conclusions, much of the time.
- canadianfella 2y ago[dead]
- lolinder 2y agoPeople always say this like it's somehow unique to bit rot, but only ancient Egypt really managed to preserve a substantial portion of their original records, and that's just because they won the geographic lottery in that regard. Pretty much every other field of history relies on copies that were made of the most popular works. > papyrus will survive long after the inevitable neglect This isn't inherently true of papyrus. Taken into a climate wetter than Egypt (in other words, pretty much any other climate where people actually live) it begins to disintegrate very quickly and needs constant maintenance. A large portion of our records will be lost, such is the nature of things, but I'm going to bet that we leave a greater percentage of our works than any other civilization. We'll probably beat ancient Egypt, but we'll certainly beat everyone else. People are keenly aware of how ephemeral records are (digital or paper) and make concerted efforts to archive them in permanent storage.
- DimuP 2y agoIt's kinda interesting tho
- Simon_ORourke 2y agoI saw something recently that the Vikings practiced similar bone replacement for their guys who lost limbs in battle. One poor guy was emasculated with an axe and had to be buried with a replacement boar's tusk 'down there'.
- Scarblac 2y agoMaybe it was used for educational purposes, someone collected bones from different places until they had a whole skeleton? And then when they died, nobody wanted to keep it and it was buried as it was human remains after all.
- vivekd 2y agopossibly but finding a 2000 year old human remain is a big deal today and was probably a big deal back then. If the skeleton was assembled for some purpose you'd expect the bones to be at the most several centuries apart. I guess there are burial mounds used for long periods - like the mount of olives in Israel. But even then it would take quite a bit of effort to find the 2000 year old remain over a more recent one
- pavel_lishin 2y agoWould they know that it's a set of 2,000 year old remains? Or would they just go, "huh, another dead body."
- alexpc201 2y ago“Whether the assembly of the bones occurred in the late Neolithic or in the Roman period, the presence of the ‘individual’ was clearly intentional,” write the researchers.” I would like the researchers to explain to me what hypotheses they consider to suggest that in the Neolithic they had bones from the Roman period.
- LegionMammal978 2y agoFrom the abstract: "The burial is explained as a composite Neolithic burial that was reworked 2500 years later with the addition of a new cranium and grave goods." The hypothesis here would be that the assembly was originally created in the Neolithic period, but that it was later modified with new bones in the Roman period.
- alexpc201 2y agoSo the assembly of the bones wasn’t during the late Neolithic? Go figure!
- dash2 2y agoMy first hypothesis would be that the original discovery was a fraud, like Piltdown man.
- slmjkdbtl 2y agoalien
- fregonics 2y agoI cant stop imagining the grin of an old roman historian troll doing this and imagining how confused it would make people in the future.
- yapyap 2y agoso.. mix and match?
- laptopdev 2y agoI would describe it as savage more than unusual.