A team of Finnish researchers concluded that a person with a non-binary gender identity
was buried in a burial dating from the medieval period. They made this conclusion after DNA
analysis. Have you ever wondered what dinosaurs actually looked like? It's a difficult question,
since we only have their bones at our disposal. However, one specimen found in China provided
enough information to create an extremely faithful replica of a dinosaur. About this
and not only see in this video, but before that press the thumb up under the video. Hi
Friend. You are on the KirTop channel.
The warrior in the burial turned out to be a non-binary person
An unusual war grave was discovered by archaeologists in the town of Suontaka in southern Finland
back in 1968. Scientists were surprised that the deceased, next to whom lay a weapon typical
of military graves of that time, had women's jewelry.
Only now, thanks to the development of genetic technologies, it was possible to shed a little
light on who the warrior was buried in Suontaka. Based on the analysis of DNA extracted from
a fragment of the warrior's bone, it was determined that he had an additional X chromosome. This
may indicate that the deceased had Klinefelter's syndrome, a rare male genetic disorder characterized
by low testosterone levels, lack of hairline, gynecomastia (male breast enlargement) and
learning difficulties. "This burial is distinguished by an unusual
and pronounced combination of male and female symbolism, which may indicate that the deceased
was not associated with any of the traditional genders, but with something else."
Exactly how the Swontak warrior was perceived by society remains unknown, but a more thorough
study of the burial could add a little clarity to this mystery. The warrior was buried in
women's clothing next to brooches and bird feathers, which is typical for a female burial
rite. However, a toothless sword was also placed in the burial. After some time, a bronze
sword with a carved handle was also placed in the grave.
Primitive people invented the production conveyor From 1979 to 1991, archaeologists worked in
the Castel di Guido region of Italy, near Rome. They found the remains of elephants
in a deep ravine. Apparently, the animals came to the reservoir located here and sometimes
died. Ancient people were able to benefit from this.
Ivory tools were found near the ravine. In addition to ready-made chisels and ax-handles,
rough-cut bones were found, which, with proper skill, quickly turned into useful utensils.
These were kind of "blanks". This means that scientists managed to find the first primitive
conveyor belt of the Stone Age. The Castel di Guido region was inhabited by
straight-tailed forest elephants, which were hunted by local residents. They were 4 meters
tall and ate leaves from tall trees. But despite the abundance of food, these animals depended
on fresh water. Therefore, they had to settle near water bodies, along the banks of which
people often lived - their main enemies. People, too, could not exist without water, and the
proximity of animals and tribes gave rise to their coexistence according to the "prey-hunter"
type. And if some tribes had to organize whole military
campaigns in order to get the skin and bones of an elephant, then for the people living
by the reservoir in Castel di Guido, this need disappeared. Animals periodically died
at the watering hole, and ancient people used their remains. The blanks were created by
simply breaking bones. When the need arose to obtain a tool, the "blanks" were processed
and polished. The researchers note that Neanderthals were
resourceful and cognitively intelligent, as they created various, rather complex objects
from stones and bones. Therefore, those who consider the word "Neanderthal" offensive
and rude underestimate their ancestors. They had a well-developed speech, they swam well,
cultivated tools and created the first conveyor.
Ancient cuteness This dinosaur is called Psittacosaurus mongoliensis.
It was widespread in East Asia during the Early and Middle Cretaceous. He was small,
about the size of a turkey, and ate nuts, seeds and plants.
The specimen on which this copy is based was found in China in 2014 with preserved skin,
feathers and soft tissue. This allowed artist Bob Nichols and a group of paleontologists
to study the dinosaur and understand exactly how it looked and lived. The result of their
work was published in the journal Current Biology.
Scientists scanned the sample with laser equipment to understand what the skin pigmentation was
in the dinosaur, and found that Psittacosaurus had a protective coloration that is still
common in animals today. The dinosaur had a dark back and a lighter
belly. Scientists have identified the skin pigmentation of a dinosaur for the first time,
which means that a 3D copy of Psittacosaurus is the most accurate portrait of a dinosaur.
At least for now.
What is an artifact and how to identify it An artifact is a cultural phenomenon, that
is, it has an artificial, not natural, origin. And it is unique.
An artifact can be an object created by a person and carrying some semantic information
that is of cultural and aesthetic value. In this case, it actually coincides with a work
of art. But there are nuances. The artifact is valuable not only for its spiritual content,
but also for its physical embodiment. It is always a subject. And, I repeat, it should
be important for culture. That is, for example, "La Gioconda" by Leonardo
da Vinci - on the one hand, a work of art, but, on the other hand, it is an artifact.
In the first sense, the picture has artistic imagery and aesthetic value, in the second
it has value as a material object. But, of course, since both hypostases are merged in
the work, hiding the La Gioconda behind bullet-proof glass in a special safe with a constant temperature,
the Louvre protects this masterpiece of Leonardo both as a work of art and as an artifact.
Why do people crowd in front of this glass, behind which Mona Lisa smiles mysteriously?
Have they come to admire the work of art? They came to gaze at the artifact. Communication
with the work is impossible in a crowd, in the noise and clicking of cameras. It requires
silence and concentration. The artifact is intended to evoke surprise, interest, curiosity.
But a piece of music cannot be called an artifact. Let's say, the so-called "Moonlight Sonata"
by Beethoven is a work of art, and it lives at the moment of its execution. However, the
musical notation of this sonata, made by the composer himself, will be an artifact, because
in this case it is important that this object embodiment of the work is a unique original,
the first recording. The work itself is not tied to this thing, in the sense that it exists
when it sounds, while the notes can be rewritten by anyone or printed in mass circulation.
So the musical notation printed in a typography for musicians is not an artifact, unlike the
notes written by the composer's hand. Beethoven's manuscript is valuable because
it belonged to him, it captures the features of Beethoven's recording of music. This is
its cultural significance, which turns this sheet of paper with notes into an artifact.
I think you understand what an artifact is. This is a valuable cultural object that carries
a certain meaning, one way or another broadens the horizons of people, enriches our knowledge
of culture, and often also has symbolic meaning. Each artifact has its own personality.
Why the ancient chronicles were not preserved Why are there no ancient chronicles? Why are
all the chronicles that are in the modern official historical science, are not the same
ancient primary sources, but lists from more ancient manuscripts, but these ancient manuscripts
themselves have been lost? Why are some of the leaves in some manuscripts replaced at
a later time? These are the most frequently asked questions by supporters of falsification
of history. I am not going to prove that there was no
falsification of ancient sources. But I want to give the described phenomenon a simple
and logical explanation. Knowledge has been valued at all times. This
explains the huge archives-libraries in many world capitals. But many libraries were completely
destroyed in flames, like the one of Alexandria. Some libraries, such as the notorious library
of Ivan the Terrible, were simply lost. But why even in the surviving libraries, instead
of the ancient primary sources themselves, their later copies are often presented?
Here I will give a simple analogy. It is in 200-300 years that our clothes that
have survived until that time will become of a certain value for historians of the future,
as an example of our everyday life. And for us, our clothes are a completely utilitarian
attribute. When clothes become unusable, they are either repaired or disposed of, replaced
with new ones. At the same time, old clothes cease to have any value for us.
Similarly, having made repairs, preserving the functional content of the interior, we
do not care at all about the preservation of the elements of the old interior. They
lose their value for us the very moment they are replaced by new ones, even if they are
generally the same, but new ones. Likewise with historical literature. It is
difficult to imagine that the same "Tale of Bygone Years" (1110s) was not used for centuries,
but was lying and gathering dust somewhere on the shelf of some monastery. At the very
least, it has been repeatedly re-read and rewritten. Her lists are presented in the
Laurentian Chronicle (XIV century), the Ipatiev Chronicle (XV century), the Radziwill Chronicle
(XV century). But these lists have come down to us, including in the form of even later
lists. How were books copied in those days? Manually,
frankly, not too clean hands, in dirty, cramped cells, by candlelight. Inevitably, scuffs
and greases, wax and ink stains, tears of pages appeared on the original.
What to do with worn out or damaged original sheets? That's right, somewhere to restore
an unreadable fragment, write a new one right on top of the old text, and maybe even replace
the old sheets with new ones. And the original was disposed of.
It should also be noted that the more ancient the original was, the more primitive it was
created, and the faster it fell into disrepair. The value was not the book itself, as a physical
carrier of knowledge, but exclusively the knowledge contained in it. Therefore, while
rewriting books, people tried to preserve knowledge itself, and not at all its carrier.
Often scholars find that some of the great paintings of great artists are painted on
top of other, older paintings, but no less famous masters today. This now the previous
picture, being suddenly discovered today in its "pure form", would have a value with many
zeros in dollars. And then for the artist the previous picture was only a ready-made
material on which he created what, in his opinion, was of value.
Can we blame the ancient chroniclers for copying books but not caring about the original? They,
from their point of view, were good, preserved knowledge for future generations, and not
cracked from time to time rubbed sheets of paper, birch bark or parchment.
Subscribe to the channel and click on the bell. Every kind comment, I will definitely
answer! Thanks for your views, bye everyone!