3 ms·
It 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 ment
by afterburner 5y ago
It 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.