Except, the structure isn't 3500 years old. The find is no doubt interesting but the Greeks did not start their colonization until almost 1000 years later, as the actual article text explains. The settlement might be 3500 years old, but the Greeks (who build the structure) came much later.
The editorialized title here makes an already sensationalist heading just - incorrect.
The settlement as a whole is described as 3,500 years old.
The Greek bit is described as: "The project uncovered a massive Greek rampart, a type of defensive wall, from at least 2,000 years ago."
The title is: "Remains of a 3,500-year-old Settlement and Massive Ancient Greek Structure found in Croatia"
There are far too many capital letters, a missing "a" and some odd hyphens are sprinkled with gay abandon but that's fine. The intent is clear from the title and it is not inconsistent with the article.
You might infer that the only date cited in the title applies to both the settlement and the Greek structure but that is not a valid English grammatically enforced conclusion. Instead, why not look at the rest of the title? Note it is clearly written as a second language (or the writer might simply have a scatter gun approach to caps and dashes) and then go with the flow.
Please reserve judgement until you have read the article and digested it properly and please bear in mind that having to popularise your work in a foreign language is probably a right old pain that these archaeologists have simply just had to get to grips with as a fact of life in a world where the language of the Francs is English!
Yeah it's very confusing. The original article[1] (Croat here) actually only mentions strata going into different periods, not exact years of age. It shows the area has been settled through the prehistory, helenistic and roman periods, and into the medieval period.
Doesn’t surprise me - Croatia is full of surprises like this. For example (though not quite as impressive), there’s a 9th century church in Zadar called The Church of St. Donatus that was built on ancient Roman ruins. I attended a concert there and it was astonishingly beautiful to see and to hear.
"ancient Roman ruins" You might find that the Roman presence was built upon an even earlier site. That happens very often - the Romans were very good at colonizing, whilst fitting in. They would often embrace the local religions and simply add them to their pantheon.
2000-3500=1500BCE which would be the era of Mycenaean Greece in Greece. AFAIK, it would be an earth shattering find if you found a Greek artifact in Croatia, eg something with Linear-A lettering.
With probably zero machinery? Even if you wouldn't be interested to watch or chat, as possible uncontrollable neighbourhood events go, I think an archaeological dig is pretty tame and manageable.
The first metro line in Thessaloniki, Greece, planned to open next month, started construction 20 years ago. It took so long because (among other things) they kept bumping onto archeological sites. They have uncovered 130000 archeological finds so far.
Except, the structure isn't 3500 years old. The find is no doubt interesting but the Greeks did not start their colonization until almost 1000 years later, as the actual article text explains. The settlement might be 3500 years old, but the Greeks (who build the structure) came much later.
The editorialized title here makes an already sensationalist heading just - incorrect.
The settlement as a whole is described as 3,500 years old.
The Greek bit is described as: "The project uncovered a massive Greek rampart, a type of defensive wall, from at least 2,000 years ago."
The title is: "Remains of a 3,500-year-old Settlement and Massive Ancient Greek Structure found in Croatia"
There are far too many capital letters, a missing "a" and some odd hyphens are sprinkled with gay abandon but that's fine. The intent is clear from the title and it is not inconsistent with the article.
You might infer that the only date cited in the title applies to both the settlement and the Greek structure but that is not a valid English grammatically enforced conclusion. Instead, why not look at the rest of the title? Note it is clearly written as a second language (or the writer might simply have a scatter gun approach to caps and dashes) and then go with the flow.
Please reserve judgement until you have read the article and digested it properly and please bear in mind that having to popularise your work in a foreign language is probably a right old pain that these archaeologists have simply just had to get to grips with as a fact of life in a world where the language of the Francs is English!
Ok, we've taken 3500 years out of the title above.
Yeah it's very confusing. The original article[1] (Croat here) actually only mentions strata going into different periods, not exact years of age. It shows the area has been settled through the prehistory, helenistic and roman periods, and into the medieval period.
1. https://min-kulture.gov.hr/vijesti-8/u-stobrecu-otkriveni-na...
Doesn’t surprise me - Croatia is full of surprises like this. For example (though not quite as impressive), there’s a 9th century church in Zadar called The Church of St. Donatus that was built on ancient Roman ruins. I attended a concert there and it was astonishingly beautiful to see and to hear.
"ancient Roman ruins" You might find that the Roman presence was built upon an even earlier site. That happens very often - the Romans were very good at colonizing, whilst fitting in. They would often embrace the local religions and simply add them to their pantheon.
I've just read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_St._Donatus and there are no notes about pre-Roman ie iron age archaeology.
The church looks stunning and the acoustics will probably be amazing.
Yeah, tons of Roman stuff in Croatia. Here is the Told In Stone channel:
The Roman amphitheater of Pula, Croatia, likewise, frequently hosts concerts.
https://youtu.be/j-IjKXTvEOM?t=66
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalmatia_(Roman_province)
2000-3500=1500BCE which would be the era of Mycenaean Greece in Greece. AFAIK, it would be an earth shattering find if you found a Greek artifact in Croatia, eg something with Linear-A lettering.
Greek? I think they mean Mycenaean.
If they were digging like that next to my house, I would not be happy.
I'd probably volunteer to haul dirt away and then start digging in my own yard.
With probably zero machinery? Even if you wouldn't be interested to watch or chat, as possible uncontrollable neighbourhood events go, I think an archaeological dig is pretty tame and manageable.
I'd rather them be digging up ancient artifacts quietly, than the planned loud construction that was going to be going on instead
The first metro line in Thessaloniki, Greece, planned to open next month, started construction 20 years ago. It took so long because (among other things) they kept bumping onto archeological sites. They have uncovered 130000 archeological finds so far.