4 ms·
That article only mentions 2000 year old sculptures, not 8000, so maybe that one just hasn't been as weather worn yet.
by afterburner 5y ago
That article only mentions 2000 year old sculptures, not 8000, so maybe that one just hasn't been as weather worn yet.
- behnamoh 5y agoOr maybe previous dating was not correct.
- mcguire 5y agoAccording to the Smithsonian article, that was the original dating for the camels. The continuing work pushed the date back to 7000-8000.
- simonh 5y agoIt sounds like you only skim read the first paragraph. The article says they were thought to be 2000 years old but have recently been found to be 6000 years older than that. The second paragraph makes the new dating range explicit.
- afterburner 5y agoIt sounds like you didn't read the comment I was actually replying to. It links to this article, different from OP, that does not mention what you claim it mentions: https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/MAGAZINE-2-000-year-old-life-size-camel-art-found-in-heart-of-saudi-arabian-des-1.5812024 https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/MAGAZINE-2-000-year-old-...
- Talanes 5y agoThey didn't miss the article you were referring to, they were just assuming you had read the topic article as well. The article your read refers to 2,000 year old sculptures because it was written years before the research that added 6,000 years, not because they're different camels.
- afterburner 5y agoI read both, and they have different pictures. The original article, with the older time estimate, had a much more worn camel pic than the other one with the 2000 year estimate. Hence my wondering if that maybe means something. Unfortunately it's vague whether or not the different pictures are from different time periods, different sites, or what exactly.