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.
As was said, perspective was not a thing. Also, date palms don't start tall. And dates are smaller than that. I'm pretty sure those are supposed to be dates.
Uh... Sumarian texts talk about giants a few times, and they are depicted often in their glyphs and whatnot.
The Anunnaki are pretty much always depicted as much larger than humans and godlike. Their texts describe them in detail.
It's literally been translated down all the way to the king James Bible (these ancient texts are the baseline for Abrahamic religions, IE dead sea scrolls):
Genesis 6:1[4]
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
This is pretty well known that abrahamic religions truly believed giants used to roam the earth. It's not weird for old glyphs on walls of the very stories of those same religions to depict giants considering their religion talks about em a few times lol.
Literally just Google up on the Anunnaki, there's lots of info on it.
PS, you way wanna take a second look at that picture, and take note of the fact the giants are being depicted literally as tall as trees are, which were included for scale likely on purpose
Why? Babalonian texts literally talk about giants and describe them this way. It's not a hot take to say that these people had legends and stories of giants lol.
It's in their texts. Multiple times. And they literally had a word for then.
I wonder if there are any examples of glyphs that depicted clear, unquestionable children/babies? Like, maybe a picture depicting childbirth, or another clear indicator that the human being depicted is meant to be a child. We could then compare the depiction of these "tiny humans" from this post to those, and see what the artist may have been trying to draw.
I'm not one to blindly believe in something just because their profile says doctor in front of it. For all we know, he is just taking the piss on a funny post. (Not that we're doing anything more serious, of course.) I just don't think that we should disregard the idea that these ancient people with known myths about giants may have been drawing a picture of giants just because they could have also been drawing something else.
Sumerians don't have a single creation myth. The gods Enki, Enlil and Ninmah are all said to have created mankind in different stories. None of their creation myths involve giants.
I'm not an expert so take anything I say with a grain of salt... Yes, they were gods. They were often called Anunnaki, and Anunnaki are often called giants by conspiracy theorists, ancient alien believers, and christians who equate them to Nephilim, who they believe were giants that actually existed. From what I can tell, the only people who didn't call the Anunnaki giants were Sumerians
They also don't have consistent or universal understanding of their myths, they have endless stories that contradict each other and themselves. God's that fight among humans and bathe in rivers also control fhe heavens and can carry half the planet.
It's incredibly hard to know what any one image represents, there's no reason they wouldn't have drawn gods as bigger versions of people and no reason they wouldn't have.inclluded children in images so without doing a study of where it was discovered, surrounding artifacts and etc everything is a guess. It could be the punchline to a joke or a reference to an actual short person or all sorts of other forgotten reasons
OP, this screenshot is missing additional context to actually say if this is a insane Facebook post or not
At best with the image alone you could say it could be an insane Facebook post due to ambiguity or the post could be describing details from sumerian mythos
Whether or not this is a depiction of ancient gods as giants, or just adults and an oddly proportioned child...
You cannot just take everything ever written or depicted literally.
The Sumerian list of their supposed ancient kings goes back nearly a million years. They claim to have kings that reigned for thousands and tens of thousands of years, similar to how many of Adam's descendants lived hundreds of years.
Like, when you read up on Egyptian beliefs about the dead, do you think that is evidence that Anubis is actually real, or Ra or Osiris or Isis? Do you think that Medusa and the Minotaur are actually real from Greek Mythology, or that even the Roman myth of how Rome was founded is literally true?
Apparently this is how many people do actually think.
King Arthur? Herakles?
Totally Real.
Hamlet? Critias?
100% historically accurate, down to every word.
Even fucking Herodotus, the 'Father of History' has been determined to have in many cases just repeated tall tales and exaggerations he heard.
It's like believing Paul Bunyan was actually real, actually had a big blue ox.
I mean they go thru the effort of putting trees in this, and they look like a palm type. I would guess these people that are the same size as them to be larger then myself, but I dont know the tree they reference so I would have to look into it more. But also it doesent look like a scene where they are 'making' us either so I am not sure this is really talking about that, if anything its like like look we labored together as they could reach the fruits, so we didnt have to climb.
They're called people with dwarfism, in this case it looks like proportionate dwarfism. "Little people" is a generally accepted term in the community, but it's best not to assume with things like that, so just call them a person. It's actually a very woke carving.