It’s something like ‘chitlins?’

  • dustyData@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    6 months ago

    And we all know how exceptionally good and important it was for ancient people to have art with accurate and always on proportion perspective.

    • testfactor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      6 months ago

      Oh, absolutely. It’s directly proportional to their scientific understanding of the origin of mankind, lol. :P

      I’m no expert in Babylonian mythology, but if this were in fact a depiction of giants/gods as part of their creation mythos, that makes more sense to me than the OPs insistence that the little one is intended to be a child.

      It doesn’t mean that there really were giants any more than the existence of a mythical Zeus means people could once throw lightning bolts for fun.

      Just saying that the picture probably isn’t intending the small ones to be children.

        • testfactor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          Eh, the “child” looks to have much more adult-like proportions to me. The head is to small.

          But, as you say, analyzing ancient Sumerian drawings and interpreting them through a modern lense is guesswork at best. Especially since I assume neither of us have the context surrounding this image.

          Your gut feeling is that it looks like a mom and child. My gut feeling is that that looks like a small adult. Without further evidence, we’re just in a feelings war.

          Which, to be clear, doesn’t mean giants were real in either case. But ancient people pretty holistically believed they did, so seeing them depicted in art wouldn’t be unusual.