It's something like 'chitlins?'
this post was submitted on 17 May 2024
139 points (90.6% liked)
InsanePeopleFacebook
2661 readers
3 users here now
Screenshots of people being insane on Facebook. Please censor names/pics of end users in screenshots. Please follow the rules of lemmy.world
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'll go with an actual archaeologist on this one.
Why? Babalonian texts literally talk about giants and describe them this way. It's not a hot take to say that these people had legends and stories of giants lol.
It's in their texts. Multiple times. And they literally had a word for then.
I think the problem here is you are arguing giants are in their legends and OP is arguing giants aren't real. You don't disagree with each other but are defending your position because we are on the internet and that's just how it goes
No - the picture talks about the existence of gigants in mythos, and OP posts it as evidence that the one posting the picture on Facebook is insane.
Imo it’s OP that’s lost
yeah, regardless of the actual intent of ancient Babilonians, thinking that an ancient drawing represents a mythological encounter between giants and humans is definitely a valid idea. it might be incorrect, i don't know enough about babilonian mythology, but it is not an insane take
Yeah its wild how people think that glyph depictions of legends on a wall (and people looking at that and going "Ah yeah, this is depicting a scene from their legends we have text versions of too"), somehow think we're arguing giants were real.
To that I just will say that it's likely "giants" legends were just born through the simple fact way back in the day, people were a lot less homogenous and that people's height had a lot more variation, due to how secular living was (instead of taking a plane to the other side of the world in a single sitting, you would take multiple days just to go 1 village over)
As a result you had a lot less genetic "sameishness", so you likely had some areas where people were a lot shorter, and then other areas where people were taller. In particular colder climates had shorter people, and hotter taller.
Due to people's nomadic natures, it's pretty likely most legends of both "wee folk" and "giants" were just tall as fuck people from country A meeting up with short as fuck people from country B.
We literally, right now, have humans who you can put em side by side and person A is over twice the height of person B.
So yeah, it's not hard to imagine if you had a whole family of tall ass people meet up with a family of short ass people, you'll get through word of mouth (and a bit of story telling), you'll get legends of "giant" folk.
In particular the folk of europe, especially vikings who travelled quite far and wide, had some pretty fuckin huge populations in terms of height.
And inversely we also had a fair number of fairly short and stout folk from other countries in the middle east.
If one were to meet the other, I mean, it's not hard to see where the legends would get spun from, lol
I wonder if there are any examples of glyphs that depicted clear, unquestionable children/babies? Like, maybe a picture depicting childbirth, or another clear indicator that the human being depicted is meant to be a child. We could then compare the depiction of these "tiny humans" from this post to those, and see what the artist may have been trying to draw.
I'm not one to blindly believe in something just because their profile says doctor in front of it. For all we know, he is just taking the piss on a funny post. (Not that we're doing anything more serious, of course.) I just don't think that we should disregard the idea that these ancient people with known myths about giants may have been drawing a picture of giants just because they could have also been drawing something else.
https://www.archaeological.org/lecturer/david-s-anderson/
I should clarify.
I don't doubt the legitimacy of their degree, rather I don't think that every Facebook post or tweet by every professional should be taken with the upmost seriousness. Like the following sentence from my comment says, sometimes people are just making jokes about something relevant in their field.
The post from the doctor in reference to this post, for example, is written in a joking tone, doesn't seem to be adamantly declaring a position as fact, isn't citing any sources or providing relevant info etc. Again, not saying they're not professional, or that they should have provided sources or anything like that. But it's a glyph with a tiny person that doesn't look baby-like next to a tall person the size of a tree, from a society with myths about giants. Without more context it's hard to say which one is more likely. Someone saying "babies exist" does not provide any more information than we already had, regardless of the education of the person who said it.
Like if I hear a song from a dead artist and say, "I think this song about getting in fights in school is a metaphor for war, they have other songs about war so it's a possibility", and a music major tells me "I'd like to remind you once again about the existence of school bullies", that doesn't really change my perspective.
Sorry if this sounds stupid or doesn't make sense lol. I'm bad at putting some of these thoughts to words.
Yeah, for all we know if could be a depiction of a song that was popular in the local area in which one singer talks about how his rival is so damn short that he needs to beg women to pass him dates from the trees.
Anyone saying they know why this is like it is or what it originally meant to people is making a huge leap, unless they have a tablet written by the artist or someone involved then their guess is always going to be a guess and very likely wrong.