Mysteries with Milo! Part 2: 'Ritual'?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 окт 2024
- I'm finally back to posting videos. First I'll catch up on a few vids backlogged before my trip to Nimrud, then into the new field season material.
This time (actually from way back in February), I'm looking at two more mystery objects with one of my favorite RUclipsrs, Milo Rossi! We finally got a chance to work together in person, and this is part of the series of videos we filmed together. You'll see other versions of some of the same stuff on his channel, and some exclusive stuff from our visit there too.
For our session in the study room, I called up several unusual artifacts from Penn museum storage but didn't tell Milo what they were. We'll see what he thinks they are and if he can start a conspiracy theories by guessing with little initial evidence. Then we'll discuss what these objects probably really were and what they might have meant to the ancient people who made and used them. Aliens? No, but you can decide for yourself.
Special thanks to Milo Rossi! Be sure to follow him on RUclips, @miniminuteman773 and look for him on various social media.
Finally, be sure to visit the Penn Museum whenever you can. It's a great day out, learning about cultures around the world.
www.penn.museu...
I love this collaboration! Milo's joy at noticing the fingerprint was a great moment
Whilst touching it too! The dream!
seeing these little objects and how they have against the odds outlived their purpose and meaning is just so fascinating
the fingerprint on that figurine blows me away
I’m torn between going to school for a history degree or an archaeology degree. There’s so much about the field of archaeology that’s keeping me away (the lack of jobs in academia compared to CRM, the pay, the focus on funding as opposed to digging), but man when I see stuff like this, it makes it more difficult. Artifact are just awesome.
The job market is definitely not good for archaeology and not that great for history either, but both are worthwhile. And doing either as a degree you can also take courses in the other, maybe even get a minor in that field.
Museums are reimagining themselves and they need new ideas and new people, so maybe jobs will increase there? Not sure the pay will ever be great, though.
You can earn the value you bring into the market. Artificial inteligence and virtual reality are great tools that I think bring a lot of opportunitys to the field or even create new ones. I predict it will be verry interesting...
These videos are so much fun. The lack of competition between Brad and Milo is such a refreshing experience.
I love this so much. Thank you for sharing
"Two by two, hands of blue."
Excellent comment.
My thing is art history and not archaeology, but between you and Milo, I might change my focus :) Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge and work with us!
Happy to see y'all checking things out together!
That raised lumpy look at 4:46 makes me think more of toads than lizards. Common in the marshes of Iraq but they would also be found under stones and in irrigation channels. The markings at 3:35 look remarkably like the dark green on beige markings on toads of the genus Bufotes, which used to be a part of Bufo. Toads have attracted attention from myth-makers all over the world, they are noticeably peculiar in looks and habit, are toxic and have the prettiest eyes.
As well as containing 5-MeO-DMT which is associated with shamanism (in the widest sense).
@@RubelliteFae As far as I know the only psychoactive compound found in Eurasian toads is bufotenine unless you count the deadly cardiac glycosides. It is just one species of American toad that contains the methylated compound. My information on that sort of thing is 20 years out-of-date, though.
@@pattheplanter Apparently (and this was news to me) the Colorado River toad _(Incilius alvarius_ of family Bufonidae) produces 5-MeO-DMT *and* bufotenine, which is 5-HO-DMT. I have no idea which species would have been in this area.
Greatl video! Would love to see some more cool artifacts. Are there any tools from these time periods in the collection that you could show off?
There are some tools of stone and of bronze. Many of them are lacking their handles since those were most often made of wood. I'll try to cover more tools in future videos, and I've talked about a few that we found in excavation in some of my other videos.
Thanks for watching and commenting!
Please, keep these videos coming! And thank you for the ones you have made 🙏
awesome vid! My only complaint is that Milo's audio was a little too loud. Otherwise, amazing content!
Yes. I had to rewind several times to hear What Dr. H was saying behind him.
I love fingerprints in old/ancient ceramics!
Fantastic series! I really hope you two collab again or even on a regular basis! But even if you never do, you have got a new sub a regular viewer here
This video kicks ass!
Very cool discussion. Thanks for posting.
Thank you Dr. Hafford for sharing this and goshdarnit Milo am I jealous of the opportunity you had to look at and touch these artifacts.
Your collaboration is very fun to watch!
Amazing how something so small can survive so long
Thank you for sharing these videos with us. Loved the fingerprint moment.
this is really cool, I’m a bit envious of your job
It seems the toad _Bufotes sitibundus_ (or _Bufo viridis_ ssp. _sitibundus_ ) is found in Iraq and does have that pattern of sharply-defined dark green/brown patches on a beige background. It also has many lumpy glands.
you are both so inspiring !
I love these two together :D
Thank you, I do wish your videos were a bit longer.
Interesting that the second piece is made from two very distinct clay elements. I don't really think there's a lot of meaning in that observation, but it is neat.
The bird behind the Goddess on the second item doesn't look quite right for a goose. To me it looks more like a peahen, or possibly a bustard (a family of very large, long-necked birds). Peafowl don't currently live in Mesopotamia, but I believe bustards do.
We tend to interpret it as a goose (in some depictions of Bau, the goose is pretty clear), but I get your point. The neck of this one, for example, looks to have some decorations on it. Whether that was just artistic or trying to represent some pattern on the bird itself, I don't know.
When in doubt, ritualistic. xD
"Must have seen it to make it." Well, I guess tens of thousands of years ago there were actual furries around, aka Löwenmensch!
The "bird" could be a feminine torso..
Edit: Later another was shown that seems to confirm this, proud of myself, hah.
Interesting to see these figurines with elongated skulls. I know there had been proof of skull modifications from the ppnb, but it's there any older evidence? My spupid theory is that the t-pillars from Göbekli Tepe represent people / ancestors / deities with such skull modifications.
Though elengation has been practiced elsewhere, it's not the first conclusion I'd jump to. Look at "hats" especially with how they've historically related to religion (the bigger the hat, the more important the person/divinity). Also, hair traditions (styles, products, techniques) have been very important cultural indicators (both for archaeologists and more importantly for the members of those cultures).
My (unedited*) thoughts as the items are presented:
1:44 On that first artefact, my first thought is the connection between wing iconography and divinity. I can draw no conclusions from the head not looking anatomically correct other than I've seen similar faces elsewhere in the world (e.g., dogu figurines). I wouldn't presume an elongated head, but perhaps headwear, hair-style, or other ornamentation befitting of some unknown high-station position. If the proximity (& fracture patterns) of the pieces indicated they had originally been connected, I would presume it represented a divine humanoid figure. This could be many things, but concrete examples include a high priest, cultural hero, & a divine character who interacts with humanity (or, at least that particular set of people).
3:41 Upon closer examination, the "wings" also look to have been broken, so it's not even clear whether or not they were simply arms.
4:47: Museum Nr. 31-16-733 has raised areas on the arms & wide-set shoulders. The latter indicates the the previous piece did have arms, not wings. The former could indicate scarification or other skin-altering techniques than tattooing. Still, it could be jewelry, some kind of pauldron without attachment pieces indicated. Regardless, I am inclined to believe they distinguish the culture of production from their neighbours. (Not necessarily that they are on the figures for that purpose, but that the people who made these do have something in that area.)
4:51: Also curious is the arm positioning. I would like to see the rest of the statue to determine how high her hands are. Are her hands on her hips? Above her womb? Is this the "raptor arms" pose common among people on the autism spectrum? The placement of the hands doesn't seem insignificant. As for the bitumen, the act of using a different material lends credence to the idea of it being hair, a hat, or other ornamentation.
6:06: This is not the first time I've seen a figure carrying a "bag" from this area of the world (though I can't recall specifics off the top of my head). That's the first thing I'd want to look into. We also see the "horned headdress" that Dr. Hafford mentioned with a minimum of two scallops. The other thing which catches my eye is the number of well-formed circular ring indentations. I'm curious what object others think might have been pressed into the clay and why some of them are on the "bird" figure while others seem to be on the background. Lastly there's the two crescents at the top. The way they are raised at the bottom, but worn on the top makes me wonder if they were worn from time, use, or purposefully during constuction. Were these complete circles as well? Were they arches that connected other things? An uncommon (for this region) part of the horned headdress (cf. Indus Valley Civilisation figures).
6:14: The curvature of the piece makes me wonder if this were a standalone piece of a sherd from something larger.
6:42: From this angle you can see that the crescent on the right has multiple points on each side. Also, the circular indentations which are on the background (and not the "bird") are directly beneath the center of the two crescents. So, the symbol could be a "crescent with dot below," or the crescent & dot could be two different symbols coming together in this context. I now see that the figure is holding something and that two arches are coming from that (rather than the single arch indicated by "bag" above). But I wouldn't say she's pouring. Rather it looks more like the arches are springing out.
7:05: The more recent of the two doesn't have shoulder splotches.
(*Note: I am "editing" the post to add more info as it comes, but not correcting previous entries.)
Thanks for looking so closely and really thinking about what the iconography can mean!
The first figurine did have arms rather than wings, but its shoulders were made flat and broad, as you note, and thus look a bit like wings. The markings on the front and back could be indicative of scarring or maybe a woven shoulder cover of some sort, we just don't know. Typically on this type of figurine, the arms are crossed below the breast, and sometimes they are shown holding a child. Very few of this type of figurine depict males.
The later figurine is holding a jar that spews water from it. This is a common depiction that represents, we believe, the life-giving rivers and the abundance of the river valley. As you say, she is not pouring water, but it leaps from the jar. Some later figures carry a 'bag' but even that is not likely a bag, but a bucket of sorts. The crescent symbols do have two points at the ends and I have often wondered about this. We tend to think they represent a crescent moon, but why two points? An observed optical illusion with the waning moon maybe? The dot below might be Venus. This could then represent the moon god Nanna and (sometimes said to be related to him) Inanna, goddess of love and war.
@@artifactuallyspeaking Of course, it was fun for me! Thanks so much for your response~
"Typically on this type of figurine, the arms are crossed below the breast, and sometimes they are shown holding a child. Very few of this type of figurine depict males."
That makes sense. Once I started looking at the placement of the arms my curiosity was toward them being about fertility (or human fertility at the least) as they seemed to point to, protect, or otherwise emphasize the womb.
"This is a common depiction that represents, we believe, the life-giving rivers and the abundance of the river valley. As you say, she is not pouring water, but it leaps from the jar."
I see. I didn't know about that particular symbol in that particular region. But of course rivers have been in many places important both for the survival of the people living on them as well as intertwined with mythologies about them. Later, in what I suppose is more folklore than myth, we get "fairies" (which I'm using in the most generic possible way) of not just water, but their source springs. This of course would have been particularly important to peoples' whose environment had aridified over time. This broadens the potential of the figure representing fertility more generally; the source of the source. Or, at least, the keeper of the source of the source. I've also thought those other "bags" could be buckets (based on the angles), but wasn't aware that was a common interpretation.
" The dot below might be Venus."
That actually makes a lot of sense. By being the first "star" of the evening and the "herald of dawn" it has long been an important celestial sign for many cultures. This does make me wonder if the crescents represent the rising & setting sun-particularly with the sun's role in fertility (or often, more properly called, virility). It might seem odd that these would be represented by upward pointing crescents, but it would be even more odd if they were the moon, as that's a 90º rotation. However, if the figure is some kind of divinity, it may be seen as existing "below the horizon of Earth" and thus would see the bottom half of the sun when we see the top half at sunrise & sunset.
Again, thanks for taking the time to not only read my message, but respond to it. I'm sure you're a busy guy.
Actually, thinking about it, my final thought about the figure being below Earth fits very nicely with her bearing the spring jar. This could represent the Apsu/Abzu watery abyss said to be the source of virility. Cross-culturally there are many stories that emphasize who possesses the waters (or their source) and what that means for the possessor (often immortality) as well as "humanity" (or at least, that particular culture). These usually are either in the forms of a) someone having it and then someone else stealing it to share, or b) with a beneficent deity having it, it being greedily stolen for the benefit of no one but the thief, and then it finally being restored to its proper place.
Very interesting to see how widespread and long-lasting these concepts have been.
Why does the long necked goose have circles pressed into it?
I don't really know. It could be that they represent patterns on the bird and it isn't really a goose(?), but I think it may just be fanciful decoration. There are other circular decorations on the background that might be stars, or might just be design elements.
I would give anything to hold something hand made almost 7000 years ago. 😮
ALIENS!
Yeah, but people couldn't have possibly imagined fantastical creatures because they're basically cavemen who only smashed rocks and said "oook ock" or whatever right?! (This is sarcasm, ancient people were as smart as us, they just had less information and different context)
Feathers. They don't look like tattoos to me. Not unbelievable either. We have centaurs still, thousands of years after they were relevant.
⊂(^(工)^)⊃
Algorithm comment 🏕️🤓
Humans are all Furrys, always have been. xD
After what milo has said and done and you still ask him back? Ugh
Ooooh what happened?
@@snowiiiiie scummy comments in videos, really not something worth time or effort on, so I just left the channel, now he's here, I've left this one too
It's not worth the effort clarifying, but you still leave a comment calling Brad out?
@@fruitygarlic3601 yeah because I didn't expect it here, you want answers, do your own homework
"do your own homework"
What a lazy thing to say. Moreover, you're more likely to have people ignore you or think you're overreacting and not bother simply by having said this.
In other words, your last comment undoes anything you think the first one might have accomplished.
Part 3 plz 😊
I'm really enjoying this collaboration 🤓🏕️
honk honk