• I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

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

  • marcos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    5 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.

    • lugal@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      5 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)

      • ZeroHora@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        5 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.

  • niktemadur@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    5 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.