Sigh. I am tired of this conversation.

No one said the cone was picked at the root. Obviously the stem was cut not plucked out: the stem is included in the art. That’s the actual branch. The needles extend from the stem. You can’t see this because the mosaic pixelation cannot show a distinction between the exact point where the needles attach to the stem.

You keep doing this: assuming things exist that don’t, that this medium can depict things that it can’t, that universal principles of art shown everywhere else in this piece were abandoned precisely when you need them to have been, and other silly nonsense.

This is not a serious argument anymore. It’s just dumb apologetics and it’s tedious.

I’m aware of the low resolution concept and the use of artistic techniques. I’ve analyzed the specific ones employed by the author in this composition, including the outlining of all depicted objects.

In addition, I’ve examined the botanical characteristics of the pine species whose cone is allegedly represented in the mosaic. The needles of the stone pine (Pinus pinea), measuring 10–15 cm in length, grow in pairs on its long shoots. The cones, which also reach 10–15 cm, develop separately — either on shortened shoots or in the axils of the needles. It is almost impossible to pick a cone of the Italian pine together with the needles. Even if a cone is broken off together with a portion of a long shoot, the nearby needles on that shoot will not be oriented in the direction opposite to the cone.

Based on this analysis, I realized that the likelihood of the green stems being part of the cone is too low to be accepted as fact. Moreover, for a contemporary audience unfamiliar with pineapples, the image could plausibly have been perceived in such terms.

That is my reality now.

I have also attempted to superimpose a Roman plate onto the painting:

https://photos.app.goo.gl/rEHAsGru14FMuNsF7

Though one may argue that it bears little resemblance and has different edging (despite the degradation and stylistic nature of the fresco).

Now there are a questions: Can anyone explain why, for a target viewer unfamiliar with pineapples, the image needs a black outline to separate some stems from a pine cone, but not to separate it from a pomegranate, for example? Сan anyone present a plucked pine cone, which needles protrude directly from it’s body or its peduncle in the manner (especially the angle and the length of the needles) shown in the mosaic with acceptable differences (taking into account low resolution, artistry, etc.)? And what reason to place a piece of shoot with those very strange short needles (low-res indeed, I know it)in a fruit bowl?

There is nothing unnatural here. As I’ve explained, pinecones aplenty can look like this (contrary to your city-boy-sounding insistence otherwise), especially when pixelated as this mosaic is. Pinecone needles can grow all the way up the stem, and when picked and prepped for display can end up exactly like this. You are simply ignoring reality.

And what is depicted here is done exactly within the limits of the low-res mosaic medium. All the standard artistic practices are used (symmetry, offset, bordering). You are simply ignoring standard artistic practice (confirmed across this mosaic).

Just gainsaying reality is not a counter-argument. It’s just abandoning argument altogether.

Meanwhile, bringing in irrelevant examples isn’t a counter-argument either. You obviously have not checked what ancient clay plates look like (spoiler: they don’t have un-flared fat rims), but regardless, a dispute over an unrelated object in an unrelated painting—not even a mosaic—has no relevance to the pinecone case.

I think a scientist should always have some doubt about things, it keeps his/her mind alive.

Take another nearby example: the pizza of the second picture. “It’s definitely pizza!” Like that top pineapple expert in 1950 in previous case, the pizza expert (forgot his name) confirmed the fact.

Question: why did no one even suggest that this was an ordinary Roman clay plate? (Spoiler: because it doesn’t sell)

I restored the photo a little without touching most of the contents of the plate:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/HbfMN33nP4EmTvQd6

Note the distance from the object to its reflection as well.

And I’d rather read about Judas from Bart Ehrman, it was really a bit unexpected news for me.

I’ve seen many with needles sticking up from the stem all the way to the attachment. Remember this is a mosaic. There are only five lines emerging from the center of the cone and diverging, with no further resolution. It’s a single pixel width per line for this artist. One is the stem, the other four are needles. They are the same width because of the resolution: all the tiles are the same width. So, yes, it will look weird (needles as thick as stems, and all emerging from the same point), in exactly the same way a pinecone like this will look weird in an eight- or sixteen-bit computer game. But we know abstractly what the artist is attempting to accomplish within these limitations, because the artist uses standard conventions: symmetry entails the two objects go together (the five lines are symmetrically diverging from each other and symmetrically emerging from the same point at the symmetrical center-point of the pinecone’s head). If the artist wanted this to be imagined as something else (whatever that would be), they’d offset it (it would not have this symmetrical relationship to the cone), and they would demarcate it with contour or shadow tiles, like they do every other object (it would thus be obviously distinct).

I’d really like to see an unopened pine cone like the one you imagine: with such edges and needles-stems-whatever sticking out of it. Seriously, not trolling, It’s interesting how differently people see the world.
P.S. Sure, there is no pineapple.

Shadows are part of the artist’s way of outlining an object.

All the rest of the art uses shadows or contours to show separation of objects (as they have to with a “low res” image like a mosaic). They do not do so in this case. The stems emerge from the cone without any demarcation. They are symmetrical with each other and emerge from the center of the cone. That is 100% proof of the artist’s intention. Denying this is just getting ridiculous at this point and making you look either crazy or a troll.

By contrast, all the other greenery on the bowl is clearly depicted for what it is (grape leaves and pear stems with leaves).

Likewise:

Cones can indeed have stems with needles (needles often emerge from the base of the stem).

That is not “the sharp end.” The shape of this cone is symmetrical. It is as wide at the top as the bottom. The artist did not have the resolution with these mosaic stones to be any more precise.

There is no pineapple.

Oh dear.

First, your marker is literally covering up tiles. So it is destroying rather than illuminating evidence.

Second, you are outlining as tiles what is in fact damage to the mosaic (i.e. missing and broken tiles), which obviously cannot speak to the author’s intention.

The artist outlined each item with black tiles, and only broke that rule when the contour of an object is clearly already marked. Since no black tiles or other contour markers separate the cone from the needles/stem, the needles/stem clearly are intended to emerge from the cone. If you observe it you see five stems, all originating from a common source (the cone) and flaring outward. Two are light green, two (were) dark green, and one is entirely lost (all its tiles are missing so its color cannot be discerned).

This completely contradicts your penmarks.