4 ms·

Take a look at Doggerland. It's been known for over 100 years with no lack of interest, but as you say, underwater archaeology is expensive and technically diff

by aksss 2y ago

Take a look at Doggerland. It's been known for over 100 years with no lack of interest, but as you say, underwater archaeology is expensive and technically difficult.

qwytw 2y ago
And it's not like there is much to find, most of the things people in Doggerland made were out of wood, there are no ancient stone ruins or lost treasures.
- generativenoise 2y ago
  There may be no grand objects to be found, but that does not mean there isn't much to find. The thing that we will find is more knowledge about those societies.
  - wqaatwt 2y ago
    I think it’s more about the cost and complexity of finding anything than trying to somehow imply that the societies living there were inferior. We already know relatively little about Neolithic Europe despite there being major cities there that rivaled or eclipsed those in Mesopotamia in population. Yet we hardly know anything about them in comparison because they used perishable materials for almost everything (and it’s not only because of writing). Finding anything useful underwater makes that many times harder.
    - nukem222 2y ago
      > We already know relatively little about Neolithic Europe despite there being major cities there that rivaled or eclipsed those in Mesopotamia in population. What are you referring to? I could certainly imagine such a thing but I can't say I've ever heard of someone finding evidence of a city that matches this description.
      - wqaatwt 2y ago
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Europe_(archaeology) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Europe_(archaeology) e.g. Maidanetske site could have had 20-40k inhabitants. Uruk possibly only reached that population centuries later. But of course accurate estimates of this and other similar sites are very tricky.
  - jajko 2y ago
    You want to find ancient marvels? Start digging literally anywhere in or around Rome. Or half of amazon jungle. Or around London. And so on. You can get much more 'value' in form of artifacts and knowledge from there for given money. Submerged places... imagine how complex and slow archaeologic excavations look on the ground. Now move it 50m underwater in endless mud. Good luck looking for literal needle in the muddy haystack of 40,000km2. To find what... some fossilized wood or few arrow heads? That culture was very similar to ones on neighboring lands, no atlantis there. One day, robots can scan and dig through there but there are so many better ways to spending money, any money, that it makes perfect sense nobody is doing it.
    - fermisea 2y ago
      It's a question of timelines. While I agree with Amazon, we know pretty well the periods in which Rome and London have been inhabited, but the question is more about understanding pre ice-age human settlements, of which we know nothing about because these are more likely submerged now.
- BurningFrog 2y ago
  How can we know that without excavating?
  - OJFord 2y ago
    Period, trade - archaeology is but one discipline. How could we track and plan our excavation without writing a to-do/kanban app?
  - Someone 2y ago
    Treasures are small and rare enough so you can never rule them out completely, but if there were significant amounts of rocks there, we would know because Doggerland has been fairly thoroughly “ploughed” by fishing trawlers and mapped for research (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland#Discovery_and_investigation_by_archaeologists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland#Discovery_and_inves...) The geology of the North Sea also indicates “sand” more than “rocks”.
- StanislavPetrov 2y ago
  >here are no ancient stone ruins or lost treasures. Like Stonehenge? How can we possibly know what's there without looking thoroughly?
  - qwytw 2y ago
    Because it's highly unlikely given the evidence we have? Is there any reason to believe that material culture in Doggerland could have been fundamentally different to that of other hunter gatherer societies in Europe at the time? There is a 4000-5000 year gap between Doggerland sinking and Stonehenge i.e. similar to that of Stonehenge being built and our days so it's hardly relevant.
    - StanislavPetrov 2y ago
      >Is there any reason to believe that material culture in Doggerland could have been fundamentally different to that of other hunter gatherer societies in Europe at the time? >There is a 4000-5000 year gap between Doggerland sinking and Stonehenge i.e. similar to that of Stonehenge being built and our days so it's hardly relevant Göbeklitepe was built 5000 years before Stonehenge so I think it is very relevant. It is absurd to suggest that we know for certain what is there without even looking.
      - qwytw 2y ago
        > It is absurd It's not if we base it on evidence that we have. It's silly to assume otherwise until any evidence at all is discovered. Why would Doggerland be fundamentally different to the surrounding areas which are at a higher altitude? > Göbeklitepe If there were major stone structures at the bottom of the sea we would have very likely found them already. Also.. I'm not even trying to imply that there weren't any complex societies in Doggerland (of course it's extremely likely that there weren't) but they would have likely primarily used wood to construct structures due to obvious reasons and any remains would have been very unlikely to survive. IMHO associating "monumental" architecture or remains with complex societies and "civilization" is flawed. Just consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maidanetske https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maidanetske
BurningFrog 2y ago
That's why we need a few billionaires to chip in!

by aksss 2y ago

Take a look at Doggerland. It's been known for over 100 years with no lack of interest, but as you say, underwater archaeology is expensive and technically difficult.

qwytw 2y ago

And it's not like there is much to find, most of the things people in Doggerland made were out of wood, there are no ancient stone ruins or lost treasures.

generativenoise 2y ago
There may be no grand objects to be found, but that does not mean there isn't much to find. The thing that we will find is more knowledge about those societies.
- wqaatwt 2y ago
  I think it’s more about the cost and complexity of finding anything than trying to somehow imply that the societies living there were inferior. We already know relatively little about Neolithic Europe despite there being major cities there that rivaled or eclipsed those in Mesopotamia in population. Yet we hardly know anything about them in comparison because they used perishable materials for almost everything (and it’s not only because of writing). Finding anything useful underwater makes that many times harder.
  - nukem222 2y ago
    > We already know relatively little about Neolithic Europe despite there being major cities there that rivaled or eclipsed those in Mesopotamia in population. What are you referring to? I could certainly imagine such a thing but I can't say I've ever heard of someone finding evidence of a city that matches this description.
    - wqaatwt 2y ago
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Europe_(archaeology) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Europe_(archaeology) e.g. Maidanetske site could have had 20-40k inhabitants. Uruk possibly only reached that population centuries later. But of course accurate estimates of this and other similar sites are very tricky.
- jajko 2y ago
  You want to find ancient marvels? Start digging literally anywhere in or around Rome. Or half of amazon jungle. Or around London. And so on. You can get much more 'value' in form of artifacts and knowledge from there for given money. Submerged places... imagine how complex and slow archaeologic excavations look on the ground. Now move it 50m underwater in endless mud. Good luck looking for literal needle in the muddy haystack of 40,000km2. To find what... some fossilized wood or few arrow heads? That culture was very similar to ones on neighboring lands, no atlantis there. One day, robots can scan and dig through there but there are so many better ways to spending money, any money, that it makes perfect sense nobody is doing it.
  - fermisea 2y ago
    It's a question of timelines. While I agree with Amazon, we know pretty well the periods in which Rome and London have been inhabited, but the question is more about understanding pre ice-age human settlements, of which we know nothing about because these are more likely submerged now.
BurningFrog 2y ago
How can we know that without excavating?
- OJFord 2y ago
  Period, trade - archaeology is but one discipline. How could we track and plan our excavation without writing a to-do/kanban app?
- Someone 2y ago
  Treasures are small and rare enough so you can never rule them out completely, but if there were significant amounts of rocks there, we would know because Doggerland has been fairly thoroughly “ploughed” by fishing trawlers and mapped for research (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland#Discovery_and_investigation_by_archaeologists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland#Discovery_and_inves...) The geology of the North Sea also indicates “sand” more than “rocks”.
StanislavPetrov 2y ago
>here are no ancient stone ruins or lost treasures. Like Stonehenge? How can we possibly know what's there without looking thoroughly?
- qwytw 2y ago
  Because it's highly unlikely given the evidence we have? Is there any reason to believe that material culture in Doggerland could have been fundamentally different to that of other hunter gatherer societies in Europe at the time? There is a 4000-5000 year gap between Doggerland sinking and Stonehenge i.e. similar to that of Stonehenge being built and our days so it's hardly relevant.
  - StanislavPetrov 2y ago
    >Is there any reason to believe that material culture in Doggerland could have been fundamentally different to that of other hunter gatherer societies in Europe at the time? >There is a 4000-5000 year gap between Doggerland sinking and Stonehenge i.e. similar to that of Stonehenge being built and our days so it's hardly relevant Göbeklitepe was built 5000 years before Stonehenge so I think it is very relevant. It is absurd to suggest that we know for certain what is there without even looking.
    - qwytw 2y ago
      > It is absurd It's not if we base it on evidence that we have. It's silly to assume otherwise until any evidence at all is discovered. Why would Doggerland be fundamentally different to the surrounding areas which are at a higher altitude? > Göbeklitepe If there were major stone structures at the bottom of the sea we would have very likely found them already. Also.. I'm not even trying to imply that there weren't any complex societies in Doggerland (of course it's extremely likely that there weren't) but they would have likely primarily used wood to construct structures due to obvious reasons and any remains would have been very unlikely to survive. IMHO associating "monumental" architecture or remains with complex societies and "civilization" is flawed. Just consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maidanetske https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maidanetske

BurningFrog 2y ago

That's why we need a few billionaires to chip in!