Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

xzekezx37 t1_j8yrjq6 wrote

Reply to comment by Negative_Gravitas in Discovery of 4,500-year-old palace in Iraq may hold key to ancient civilisation | Archaeology by JesseBricks

I mean all throughout the history of science, new discoveries were often mocked and ridiculed by contemporaries.

104

Bentresh t1_j8ytuqf wrote

Yes, but it's still a rather strange statement, at least in my opinion as an ancient historian who digs in the Middle East. It's hardly uncommon for Mesopotamian archaeologists to uncover new temples and palaces, and many are known from texts but have not yet been found. The entire point of conferences like ASOR and ICAANE is the dissemination of new archaeological and historical discoveries.

Perhaps he meant that people believed that the damage to the site from slipshod excavations in the late 1800s and early 1900s and the more recent looting precluded the discovery of more monumental architecture.

57

ManOfDiscovery t1_j938igi wrote

After spending time around some archaeologists, actual archeology is only like the 3rd most important thing for them. Right behind arguing and drinking.

6

Mississimia t1_j8ysn99 wrote

While this is true, I find it especially interesting when it comes to archaeology. Drawing conclusions from material remains that are thousands of years old seems to be a shaky business, it doesn't make sense to be so stubborn about new discoveries.

19

Time-Ad-3625 t1_j8zcxc5 wrote

Often probably not. It did happen but often isn't really correct. Especially given the totality of scientific discoveries that have occurred and still occur.

1