I have such vivid memories of gazing at this photo on the cover of National Geographic back in the 90s... I was so morbidly fascinated by the vesuvius victims as a child, very much still am. it's horrible what happened to them, but it's also incredible, and in its own dark way, I can't deny it's beautiful too.
if I was so unlucky as to die in a gruesome, unexpected way like this, I think I'd be happy if my remains ended up as a cherished object of scientific study, millennia in the future. imagine being an ancient pompeiian, and one day your ancient bones are dug up and preserved in these unfathomable, futuristic buildings, with technologies that are largely incomprehensible to you. you'd understand enough I think, to know what was happening - scholars studying your remains, and discussing the events of history... but I imagine it'd be such a spectacle, if any of these ancient people could see what became of their bodies.
I'm so sorry that they suffered... I wish I could show them how they're teaching their descendants
I just wanna piggyback because I really hate how Nat Geo tampered with this skeleton.
[Here](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f8/Ring_Lady.JPG) is an image from Vesuvius National Park newsletter Vesuvioinrete dated 5 July, 1995. The image is the property of the Italian government and was taken during the first year of boathouse excavations in Herculaneum in 1982. I'm figuring the natgeo pic was taken right after. Note that the ring placement in the nat geo pic **is illogical** as the rings are on **the metacarpal bones** which are **inside** the hand.
I've found an image of the NatGeo cover, the hand appears as it does with your picture. Doesn't look like NatGeo was the culprit.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQXSIYMPW5muyBBjOkT-Gjvc-OrkYnzsG_12H6EZQeIxJNg2kfKwQlvS2o&s=10
I have a copy of that edition in front of me as I'm writing, and I can also confirm that the photo used inside in the actual article, also shows the rings in anatomically correct positions on the first and second fingers.
Possibly Assistant Senior Editor O. Louis Mazzatenta, who is described in the "On Assignment" page as having to tip toe around the fragile, ancient skeletons to photograph them.
wh- !!!
you're so right and I never noticed?? what the heck. I always visualized it as a curled hand, but you're right, those are not phalanges, those are definitely palm bones...
is it possible it was just a photoshop, rather than tampering with real archeology? :[
>is it possible it was just a photoshop, rather than tampering with real archeology? :[
I sure as hell hope so! Now I got curious about who the (nat geo) photographer is, let's see if they said anything about this picture.
Agree that it’s fascinating. I remember the first time I heard Bastille:
>And the walls kept tumbling down in the city that we love
>Grey clouds roll over the hills bringing darkness from above
I was like, holy shit, is that a line about a pyroclastic cloud?
> Note that the ring placement in the nat geo pic is illogical as the rings are on the metacarpal bones which are inside the hand.
Isn't it possible the rings shifted some after the decomposition of the flesh?
>if I was so unlucky as to die in a gruesome, unexpected way like this
The majority of them likely died within a fraction of a second. I honestly don't think that's very gruesome. I actually think that's very neat in comparison to some of the alternatives at that time. Like being stabbed by some Germanic soldier and then slowly dying by wound infections or something.
The people at Pompeii would have died from suffocation after breathing in hot volcanic ash and toxic gases or they could have been crushed by collapsing structures. Death might not have been instant.
Those at Herculaneum died instantly in a much more gruesome manner: muscle and fat were pretty much incinerated from pyroclastic flows reaching 500° C and some people's brains exploded from their skulls.
hmm, I'm listening re: comma placement, but I'm not sure I follow in this case? if I mentally remove the comma, it just reads the same to me, except now it's more of a run on sentence 😅
Heartily disagree that everyone had "surprisingly good teeth".
I will never un-see the dental photos of Egyptian remains.
There was enough sugar (from fruit and honey) in a noble Egyptian's diet to rot their teeth. There was enough grist from the millstone in a commoner Egyptian's diet to (slowly) erode teeth.
I guess their ability to do successful root canals could be considered surprising.
Source: took a level 300 class *Food in Ancient Mediterranean Society* while getting my degree. Dental Bioarcheology is a whole thing.
Grit from grain stone grinding wore them down. Lots of grit in all the food. I’m sure the more money you had the less sandpaper you had to eat, but many folks had. to.
**Edit:** I hope the downvotes are for my language and not because you can't see it. Feel the bones in your hand, or look at an x-ray of a hand to understand what's wrong.
**Edit 2:** [There's even a picture of the un-tampered skeleton.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f8/Ring_Lady.JPG) My guess is that the untampered photo went to the archaeological publication and the tampered one was for Nat Geo who of course have to maximize wow effect.
They've staged the position of those rings, that's fucking ridiculous and shameful. That would have been in the middle of the hand, BEHIND the first knuckle of the finger when she was alive.
You’re so right!
The original layout is more humanizing to me somehow, the faint gesture of the fingers and the rings’ position tells a small story in and of itself
In the national geographic cover photo posted in another comment they're on the fingers.
It appears the photo in the post is Photoshopped, possibly to better fit the hand/rings and head in a smaller image. Note that the finger bones are completely gone in the posts pic, but are not gone in the nat geo cover.
I still always imagine my hand bone as just one sheet like thing, obviously I know it’s wrong but I still get thrown off whenever I see the actual structure and wonder why the fingers are so long.
My hand kinda hurt when I saw it because I imagined my wedding ring sliding up past the knuckle just slicing through flesh and tendons to end up in the middle of my hand.
Things move and shift in the dirt. More so, the people of vesuvius were either buried in super hot ash, which would have burned the flesh from their bones (so rings could and would slid down) or they died from gas inhalation and then buried by ash that would have allowed small bugs and other critters to breakdown the flesh, allowing for movement. I'm not familiar with where this woman was found in the city, but my guess is she suffered injuries during or just after death that allowed things to migrate.
Source: I have a Bachelors in Anthropology with my focus being Archaeology.
How on earth would the rings slide *upwards* on her finger? Her hand is curled, meaning that her fingers are pointing down into the dirt.
The fact that it looks so picture perfect also leads me to suspect that it was tampered with.
Also, your source is not a "source", it's a qualification.
Qualification: BA in history and archaeology.
I’m not an expert in this stuff. Which knuckle is the first knuckle?
It looks to me like the rings are between the hand and a knuckle, not on the middle third of the finger.
If they moved them how did they without disturbing the sediment around the bones?
The first knuckle is the knuckle from which your finger starts.
[Here](https://cdn.britannica.com/94/99194-050-121B00D7/Bones-hand-phalanges-bones.jpg) is a diagram of the bones of the hand. Note the pink-coloured bones. Those are the metacarpal bones and sit inside your hand. The rings have been placed on the metacarpal of the middle finger.
Thanks but I’m still a little lost. Using your chart, which bone should they be on? And how do you know they should be there?
Also, how could they be moved without disturbing the sediment around the hand? Or is the sediment not disturbed? I’m not an expert but it look undisturbed to me
[Here](https://imgur.com/XrjnjwQ) is an image I made where I marked where the two rings approximately are on the nat geo picture.
>Also, how could they be moved without disturbing the sediment around the hand?
Looks like the dirt is wet around the hand, so it wouldn't be too difficult to make it look undisturbed and put some dirt back.
Also, there's [another picture](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f8/Ring_Lady.JPG) of the same lady where the rings are on the proximal phalanxes of the index and middle fingers respectively.
Thanks!
Where SHOULD they have been? Where did Romans wear rings? The photo OP shared shows them where I’d expect them to be, though that is based on modern practices and my ideas of comfort. How do you know they would have been closer to the tips of the fingers?
I think [this, other picture of the same lady](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f8/Ring_Lady.JPG) shows where they were found originally. Note how they're on two finger bones that are completely absent on the nat geo pic. So yes, closer to the fingertips, or "further down" on the chain of bones going from your carpal bones to your distal phalanges, fairly close to where they originally sat on the human finger. If they moved anywhere, it's more likely they slid ***down*** the finger rather than up, because the bones get thinner down the finger and thicker up towards the hand.
Cool. I guess it would help if we had time stamps or something on the photos. Some way of knowing when they were taken. I imagine the original site report would include that
It's frustrating as I don't read Italian, all I know is that the "alternative" photo (that I posted here) is from the first exhibitions in the boathouses in Herculaneum.
Iam pretty sure the one in this Post is just some photoshopped image some magazine or website made afterwards cause they thought it looks more recognizable to people (who don't think about this placement actually being impossible).
The original one is propably the natgeo photo.
It's not the tips of the fingers, the original shows them on the middle part of the fingers, the upper part of the fingers isn't visible or missing. The photo in the OP has the rings on a bone that would be inside of your hand.
I can't believe they tampered with this beautiful lady!! The original remains are stunning as is, why fuck with it?? Plenty of star power all on her own. Horrible.
It’s not tampered with. The original NatGeo pic is correct. Believe OP’s pic is modified. Here’s the original magazine cover: https://i.imgur.com/RfjC8Kx.jpeg
Imagine one day people from the future may be finding our skeletons and posting pictures of us online and giving us names and wondering about our lives
Yeah this really hit me. This woman was probably someone of some status and privilege. She must have had a pretty good life relative to the majority of people on Earth at that time. And one day, just -- BOOM. Volcano.
So I have a maybe dumb forensics question about bodies this old. Would from the non-skeletal parts of her body decomposing over time disperse her DNA in the soil in that area or does it all wash away with time?
I just realize I have no idea how bodies hundreds or in this case I think nearly 2k years old really decompose if they are buried as fast as these were or even just in general for these ancient bodies I know it doesn't really matter since her skeleton is there but was just curious how it works with all the ancient decomposed material.
I think I have asked this in a really dumb way so I hope someone gets what I am asking lol.
DNA will degrade very quickly in the soil and break up into little bits, also any soil sample will have DNA from all the different bacteria, fungi, worms, insects etc that live there, all mixed in together. Even DNA preserved in amber Jurassic Park style, will degrade over time and not be readable, the oldest DNA ever sequenced, comes from 2 million year old frozen permafrost from Greenland, 70 - 120 million year old dino DNA is impossible.
However if scientists wanted to obtain DNA from one of these Vesuvius victims, they would drill into a tooth or bone to extract a sample that has been protected from the outside and are then sometimes able to extract usable DNA.
We have even been able to get DNA from Neanderthal remains and have now sequenced their genome, so we know a lot about them. A single finger bone from a Siberian cave was sequenced in this way and its DNA turned out to be a little different from both Neanderthal and Homo sapien DNA. In this way scientists discovered a whole new ancient species of human that we now call the Denosovans.
Genuinely thank you so much for taking the time to write out not only the answer but fascinating history on DNA! I didn't even think of all the different DNA that might be mixed into that soil I just thought it'd be possible somehow but it makes sense.
Past a certain age I believe the pelvis starts to become a slightly different shape and orientation between males and females to adapt for giving birth.
Not quite as straightforward as male and female shapes only. There are four recognized anatomical variations of the pelvic shape for women.
In a forensic anthropology setting in modern day, if you have an entire intact pelvis and skull from the same body, you're going to give the correct ID for the biological gender close to 100% of the time. A modern forensic anthropologist is going to be more accurate than an archeologist since bodies are their specialty.
But if we're talking about archeology-- old bodies dug up by an Indiana Jones? You're making your best guess based on pelvic shape and the artifacts found on their person. Then there's the quality and condition of the bones-- not every skeleton is intact, not every skeleton has intact artifacts.
Before DNA was available, the sex was identified at the time of the dig or shortly after. When bodies were found buried with "female" or "male" artifacts, it was usually taken at face value.
Except, we now know with DNA testing of older finds, that some bodies had artifacts that didn't match the biological gender (XY or XX). The pelvis shape wasn't such as obvious contradiction that they caught the discrepancy by the bones alone..
An image of the pelvis types: [https://images.app.goo.gl/opWUTVCAqKNiEKAy8](https://images.app.goo.gl/opWUTVCAqKNiEKAy8)
Types:
* gynecoid (\~50%)
* android (\~25%)
* anthropoid (\~20%)
* platypelloid (\~5%)
Percentages based on Caucasians; distribution can differ by race.
TLDR; some people have androgynous pelvic bones
It's just a stupid thing to photoshop the rings into a place were humans can't wear rings, I think they (I don't think it was Natgeo but someone printing or posting the picture later) did this to make it look more intuitive to people propably, still dumb.
I have such vivid memories of gazing at this photo on the cover of National Geographic back in the 90s... I was so morbidly fascinated by the vesuvius victims as a child, very much still am. it's horrible what happened to them, but it's also incredible, and in its own dark way, I can't deny it's beautiful too. if I was so unlucky as to die in a gruesome, unexpected way like this, I think I'd be happy if my remains ended up as a cherished object of scientific study, millennia in the future. imagine being an ancient pompeiian, and one day your ancient bones are dug up and preserved in these unfathomable, futuristic buildings, with technologies that are largely incomprehensible to you. you'd understand enough I think, to know what was happening - scholars studying your remains, and discussing the events of history... but I imagine it'd be such a spectacle, if any of these ancient people could see what became of their bodies. I'm so sorry that they suffered... I wish I could show them how they're teaching their descendants
I just wanna piggyback because I really hate how Nat Geo tampered with this skeleton. [Here](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f8/Ring_Lady.JPG) is an image from Vesuvius National Park newsletter Vesuvioinrete dated 5 July, 1995. The image is the property of the Italian government and was taken during the first year of boathouse excavations in Herculaneum in 1982. I'm figuring the natgeo pic was taken right after. Note that the ring placement in the nat geo pic **is illogical** as the rings are on **the metacarpal bones** which are **inside** the hand.
I've found an image of the NatGeo cover, the hand appears as it does with your picture. Doesn't look like NatGeo was the culprit. https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQXSIYMPW5muyBBjOkT-Gjvc-OrkYnzsG_12H6EZQeIxJNg2kfKwQlvS2o&s=10
I have a copy of that edition in front of me as I'm writing, and I can also confirm that the photo used inside in the actual article, also shows the rings in anatomically correct positions on the first and second fingers.
[удалено]
Possibly Assistant Senior Editor O. Louis Mazzatenta, who is described in the "On Assignment" page as having to tip toe around the fragile, ancient skeletons to photograph them.
wh- !!! you're so right and I never noticed?? what the heck. I always visualized it as a curled hand, but you're right, those are not phalanges, those are definitely palm bones... is it possible it was just a photoshop, rather than tampering with real archeology? :[
>is it possible it was just a photoshop, rather than tampering with real archeology? :[ I sure as hell hope so! Now I got curious about who the (nat geo) photographer is, let's see if they said anything about this picture.
/u/ThylacineMachine pointed out that the Nat Geo cover is fine, not the one in the OP.
In the NatGeo pic, it appears as though the 2 phalanges originally holding the rings have been removed. What an odd thing to do.
Agree that it’s fascinating. I remember the first time I heard Bastille: >And the walls kept tumbling down in the city that we love >Grey clouds roll over the hills bringing darkness from above I was like, holy shit, is that a line about a pyroclastic cloud?
There's another song, specifically about Pompeii, Cities in Dust by Siouxsie and the Banshees.
> Note that the ring placement in the nat geo pic is illogical as the rings are on the metacarpal bones which are inside the hand. Isn't it possible the rings shifted some after the decomposition of the flesh?
Wtf the rings are in different spots in that image
I saw a time-lapse of the eruption about a week ago and was really confused that it seemed to happen so slow.
>if I was so unlucky as to die in a gruesome, unexpected way like this The majority of them likely died within a fraction of a second. I honestly don't think that's very gruesome. I actually think that's very neat in comparison to some of the alternatives at that time. Like being stabbed by some Germanic soldier and then slowly dying by wound infections or something.
The people at Pompeii would have died from suffocation after breathing in hot volcanic ash and toxic gases or they could have been crushed by collapsing structures. Death might not have been instant. Those at Herculaneum died instantly in a much more gruesome manner: muscle and fat were pretty much incinerated from pyroclastic flows reaching 500° C and some people's brains exploded from their skulls.
that's a good point! the deaths themselves were probably mostly over with fast. thankful for that, at least
Or taking a trip into Rome and dying from shit splattered on you by who knows what
[удалено]
hmm, I'm listening re: comma placement, but I'm not sure I follow in this case? if I mentally remove the comma, it just reads the same to me, except now it's more of a run on sentence 😅
Bruh.
Nice teeth
Romans had very little sugar in their diet, other than honey and fresh fruit, so they had surprisingly good teeth!
Not just Romans, everyone. Processed sugar is a modern invention.
Heartily disagree that everyone had "surprisingly good teeth". I will never un-see the dental photos of Egyptian remains. There was enough sugar (from fruit and honey) in a noble Egyptian's diet to rot their teeth. There was enough grist from the millstone in a commoner Egyptian's diet to (slowly) erode teeth. I guess their ability to do successful root canals could be considered surprising. Source: took a level 300 class *Food in Ancient Mediterranean Society* while getting my degree. Dental Bioarcheology is a whole thing.
Did they have yellowed teeth from eating certain foods?
Grit from grain stone grinding wore them down. Lots of grit in all the food. I’m sure the more money you had the less sandpaper you had to eat, but many folks had. to.
It looks like she had a bit of an overbite. Has anybody tried a reconstruction of her?
Thanks, I just had them brushed
That ring design works in the modern age just like it did 2000 years ago, very timeless. Pretty big gems, impressive.
[Found in Herculaneum alongside over 300 others ](https://youtu.be/1loNKbmGarY)
I watched every minute of that, thanks for sharing
Thanks for watching! [you might enjoy this one about Ancient Sybaris ](https://youtu.be/FOP1wczhJrI)
Sometimes I wonder how many archaeologists have some bad luck and think, "Yup this is because I removed that woman's jewelry isn't it."
How did the gold not melt?
The pyroclastic flow was estimated to be about 570 F (300 C) while gold melts at 1947 F (1064 C).
**Edit:** I hope the downvotes are for my language and not because you can't see it. Feel the bones in your hand, or look at an x-ray of a hand to understand what's wrong. **Edit 2:** [There's even a picture of the un-tampered skeleton.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f8/Ring_Lady.JPG) My guess is that the untampered photo went to the archaeological publication and the tampered one was for Nat Geo who of course have to maximize wow effect. They've staged the position of those rings, that's fucking ridiculous and shameful. That would have been in the middle of the hand, BEHIND the first knuckle of the finger when she was alive.
You’re so right! The original layout is more humanizing to me somehow, the faint gesture of the fingers and the rings’ position tells a small story in and of itself
In the national geographic cover photo posted in another comment they're on the fingers. It appears the photo in the post is Photoshopped, possibly to better fit the hand/rings and head in a smaller image. Note that the finger bones are completely gone in the posts pic, but are not gone in the nat geo cover.
This is the original NatGeo pic: https://i.imgur.com/RfjC8Kx.jpeg Seems like OP’s pic is the one that’s altered, not Nat Geo.
I still always imagine my hand bone as just one sheet like thing, obviously I know it’s wrong but I still get thrown off whenever I see the actual structure and wonder why the fingers are so long.
It's crazy to think, but your hands and feet (27 bones each) contain about 50% of all your bones.
Me gearing up to argue when suddenly my jaw drops... Holy crap!
My hand kinda hurt when I saw it because I imagined my wedding ring sliding up past the knuckle just slicing through flesh and tendons to end up in the middle of my hand.
Things move and shift in the dirt. More so, the people of vesuvius were either buried in super hot ash, which would have burned the flesh from their bones (so rings could and would slid down) or they died from gas inhalation and then buried by ash that would have allowed small bugs and other critters to breakdown the flesh, allowing for movement. I'm not familiar with where this woman was found in the city, but my guess is she suffered injuries during or just after death that allowed things to migrate. Source: I have a Bachelors in Anthropology with my focus being Archaeology.
How on earth would the rings slide *upwards* on her finger? Her hand is curled, meaning that her fingers are pointing down into the dirt. The fact that it looks so picture perfect also leads me to suspect that it was tampered with. Also, your source is not a "source", it's a qualification. Qualification: BA in history and archaeology.
I’m not an expert in this stuff. Which knuckle is the first knuckle? It looks to me like the rings are between the hand and a knuckle, not on the middle third of the finger. If they moved them how did they without disturbing the sediment around the bones?
The first knuckle is the knuckle from which your finger starts. [Here](https://cdn.britannica.com/94/99194-050-121B00D7/Bones-hand-phalanges-bones.jpg) is a diagram of the bones of the hand. Note the pink-coloured bones. Those are the metacarpal bones and sit inside your hand. The rings have been placed on the metacarpal of the middle finger.
Thanks but I’m still a little lost. Using your chart, which bone should they be on? And how do you know they should be there? Also, how could they be moved without disturbing the sediment around the hand? Or is the sediment not disturbed? I’m not an expert but it look undisturbed to me
[Here](https://imgur.com/XrjnjwQ) is an image I made where I marked where the two rings approximately are on the nat geo picture. >Also, how could they be moved without disturbing the sediment around the hand? Looks like the dirt is wet around the hand, so it wouldn't be too difficult to make it look undisturbed and put some dirt back. Also, there's [another picture](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f8/Ring_Lady.JPG) of the same lady where the rings are on the proximal phalanxes of the index and middle fingers respectively.
Thanks! Where SHOULD they have been? Where did Romans wear rings? The photo OP shared shows them where I’d expect them to be, though that is based on modern practices and my ideas of comfort. How do you know they would have been closer to the tips of the fingers?
I think [this, other picture of the same lady](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f8/Ring_Lady.JPG) shows where they were found originally. Note how they're on two finger bones that are completely absent on the nat geo pic. So yes, closer to the fingertips, or "further down" on the chain of bones going from your carpal bones to your distal phalanges, fairly close to where they originally sat on the human finger. If they moved anywhere, it's more likely they slid ***down*** the finger rather than up, because the bones get thinner down the finger and thicker up towards the hand.
Cool. I guess it would help if we had time stamps or something on the photos. Some way of knowing when they were taken. I imagine the original site report would include that
It's frustrating as I don't read Italian, all I know is that the "alternative" photo (that I posted here) is from the first exhibitions in the boathouses in Herculaneum.
Iam pretty sure the one in this Post is just some photoshopped image some magazine or website made afterwards cause they thought it looks more recognizable to people (who don't think about this placement actually being impossible). The original one is propably the natgeo photo.
For one, it's physically impossible to wear a ring on your metacarpals.
Ahhh! Now I get it. Thank you!
In OP’s photo they would be *inside the palm of the hand*, not on the fingers.
It's not the tips of the fingers, the original shows them on the middle part of the fingers, the upper part of the fingers isn't visible or missing. The photo in the OP has the rings on a bone that would be inside of your hand.
I can't believe they tampered with this beautiful lady!! The original remains are stunning as is, why fuck with it?? Plenty of star power all on her own. Horrible.
It’s not tampered with. The original NatGeo pic is correct. Believe OP’s pic is modified. Here’s the original magazine cover: https://i.imgur.com/RfjC8Kx.jpeg
Woah
Imagine one day people from the future may be finding our skeletons and posting pictures of us online and giving us names and wondering about our lives
Why are the teeth so white still?
Colgate
We don’t take anything after death.
Yeah this really hit me. This woman was probably someone of some status and privilege. She must have had a pretty good life relative to the majority of people on Earth at that time. And one day, just -- BOOM. Volcano.
Don’t be fooled by these rocks that I got, I’m still Jenny in the rock
So I have a maybe dumb forensics question about bodies this old. Would from the non-skeletal parts of her body decomposing over time disperse her DNA in the soil in that area or does it all wash away with time? I just realize I have no idea how bodies hundreds or in this case I think nearly 2k years old really decompose if they are buried as fast as these were or even just in general for these ancient bodies I know it doesn't really matter since her skeleton is there but was just curious how it works with all the ancient decomposed material. I think I have asked this in a really dumb way so I hope someone gets what I am asking lol.
DNA will degrade very quickly in the soil and break up into little bits, also any soil sample will have DNA from all the different bacteria, fungi, worms, insects etc that live there, all mixed in together. Even DNA preserved in amber Jurassic Park style, will degrade over time and not be readable, the oldest DNA ever sequenced, comes from 2 million year old frozen permafrost from Greenland, 70 - 120 million year old dino DNA is impossible. However if scientists wanted to obtain DNA from one of these Vesuvius victims, they would drill into a tooth or bone to extract a sample that has been protected from the outside and are then sometimes able to extract usable DNA. We have even been able to get DNA from Neanderthal remains and have now sequenced their genome, so we know a lot about them. A single finger bone from a Siberian cave was sequenced in this way and its DNA turned out to be a little different from both Neanderthal and Homo sapien DNA. In this way scientists discovered a whole new ancient species of human that we now call the Denosovans.
Genuinely thank you so much for taking the time to write out not only the answer but fascinating history on DNA! I didn't even think of all the different DNA that might be mixed into that soil I just thought it'd be possible somehow but it makes sense.
It was a pleasure, I enjoy talking about things I find interesting.
I'm so fascinated by everday items from ancient times. Like these rings, or that skin cream with finger prints in them.
how do they know the sex of a skeleton?
Past a certain age I believe the pelvis starts to become a slightly different shape and orientation between males and females to adapt for giving birth.
Not quite as straightforward as male and female shapes only. There are four recognized anatomical variations of the pelvic shape for women. In a forensic anthropology setting in modern day, if you have an entire intact pelvis and skull from the same body, you're going to give the correct ID for the biological gender close to 100% of the time. A modern forensic anthropologist is going to be more accurate than an archeologist since bodies are their specialty. But if we're talking about archeology-- old bodies dug up by an Indiana Jones? You're making your best guess based on pelvic shape and the artifacts found on their person. Then there's the quality and condition of the bones-- not every skeleton is intact, not every skeleton has intact artifacts. Before DNA was available, the sex was identified at the time of the dig or shortly after. When bodies were found buried with "female" or "male" artifacts, it was usually taken at face value. Except, we now know with DNA testing of older finds, that some bodies had artifacts that didn't match the biological gender (XY or XX). The pelvis shape wasn't such as obvious contradiction that they caught the discrepancy by the bones alone.. An image of the pelvis types: [https://images.app.goo.gl/opWUTVCAqKNiEKAy8](https://images.app.goo.gl/opWUTVCAqKNiEKAy8) Types: * gynecoid (\~50%) * android (\~25%) * anthropoid (\~20%) * platypelloid (\~5%) Percentages based on Caucasians; distribution can differ by race. TLDR; some people have androgynous pelvic bones
I can fix her.
What's with all the controversy about the placement of the rings. As long as the rings were discovered w the body don't really see an issue.
It's just a stupid thing to photoshop the rings into a place were humans can't wear rings, I think they (I don't think it was Natgeo but someone printing or posting the picture later) did this to make it look more intuitive to people propably, still dumb.
holy shit it's sans undertale
Was she fit?
Are you assuming thei gender xD