Archaeology discoveries that rewrote history

Fringe believers often relate the cliche, 'archaeologists (insert other branch of science) hide things they don't want us to know' because (insert evil monolithic force that controls the world) doesn't want us to know.

So I've made up a list of the most important discoveries that rewrote history in regards to a very wide interpretation of 'Archaeology'.

I borrow heavily from Patrick Hunt's book, the Ten discoveries that rewrote history, ISBN-13: 978-0452288775

Not in order of importance:

1. Rosetta stone - the key to the AE language

2. Troy the finding of the Greek & Minoan bronze age

3. Ninevah's Assyrian library - the key to the Mesopotamian languages and the discovery of the Sumerians

4. The Hobbits (and Denisovans) - two species of our 'cousins' who lived until recently

5. Machu Picchu the key to the Incan architecture

6. Pompeii: awaken Europe to the classical pass and a window on Roman life

7. Dead Sea Scrolls - key to biblical research

8. DNA testing - the key to our migrations and movements

9. Olduvai gorge - the key to finding ourselves

10. Dating methods

11. Discovery in the 19th century that the world wasn't 6,000 years old, the triumph of geology

12. Darwin and Wallace's theory

13. Finding our Neanderthal brothers

What would add?

I"ll add:
Vikings settlements found in America.

Australopithecus sediba
What interesting its modern hand. 2 Million years and yet have modern thumb.

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
I"ll add:
Vikings settlements found in America.

Good one we found that sagas could be believed

Oh there is a follow on to your signature, allegedly from Churchill's batman from his Omdurman days

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

An idiot is one who doesn't know the subject and will believe anything that his mind fancies

Australopithecus sediba

Yes and the earlier discoveries that showed our evolution wasn't a straight line but instead a 'bush' of dead ends and lots and lots of cousins

Does Kenniwick man count
(secondline)

reply to post by Hanslune


well i think what more logically explains people saying things like that is; the idea that everything we do and "know" is based on a paradigm we don't understand. this paradigm was created by a group that for some reason we just can't seem to figure out who the hell they are, and because of that we cannot "unravel" the thinking behind the system itself. I AM NOT saying this is fact im just describing my opinions on the psychology behind peoples reasoning for what you call "fringe thinking."

You ask for "facts" and "proof", while anything viewed by them that you say has been proven to be fact, they automatically revert to the afforementioned psychology, and thus say that anything we define, may be considered to fall under this mysterious paradigm, that cannot be proven.

but this brings me back to a question people have been pondering for thousands of years; "How can you prove that anything you have proven is indeed the truth of our reality?" or a shorter version; "How can you define what knowlege is?" This is debatable to say the least, but yet an answer has not been found........yet(hopefully)

Science has presented a standard for not only what "proof" is and MUST be, but also, the process in which you MUST follow in order to deterine weather or not it is proof. So if you agree that scientific deffinition is the only way to accuratly "define" reality, than you are inevitably choosing to beleive that all sources and data are 100% accurate and honest........and viewing that specific prospect scientifically, it doesn't make sense to logically rationalize it in that way.

Science has become a faith based "following" with a dogma that is so heavy it causes it's main followers to forget the original intent of scientific discovery, thus making many scientific inquiries, somewhat innacurate.

Im not saying at all that you are one of these people, or that your view on science and its processees are that of which i described. I just get heated when people refute others claims of something because they have no evidence. Again, not saying you did this, but your OP just reminded me of this battle going on between people who beleive in science as absoloute truth, and people who think that scientific observation is completely subjective to the observer.

I know it's off topic, but i had to get it out.

Originally posted by GoodDog
Does Kenniwick man count

Hmmmm maybe incorporate that one into a more general heading, the peopling of the Americas - was complex

Originally posted by facewhatly
reply to post by Hanslune

 

well i think what more logically explains people saying things like that is; the idea that everything we do and "know" is based on a paradigm we don't understand. this paradigm was created by a group that for some reason we just can't seem to figure out who the hell they are, and because of that we cannot "unravel" the thinking behind the system itself. I AM NOT saying this is fact im just describing my opinions on the psychology behind peoples reasoning for what you call "fringe thinking."

You ask for "facts" and "proof", while anything viewed by them that you say has been proven to be fact, they automatically revert to the afforementioned psychology, and thus say that anything we define, may be considered to fall under this mysterious paradigm, that cannot be proven.

but this brings me back to a question people have been pondering for thousands of years; "How can you prove that anything you have proven is indeed the truth of our reality?" or a shorter version; "How can you define what knowlege is?" This is debatable to say the least, but yet an answer has not been found........yet(hopefully)

Science has presented a standard for not only what "proof" is and MUST be, but also, the process in which you MUST follow in order to deterine weather or not it is proof. So if you agree that scientific deffinition is the only way to accuratly "define" reality, than you are inevitably choosing to beleive that all sources and data are 100% accurate and honest........and viewing that specific prospect scientifically, it doesn't make sense to logically rationalize it in that way.

Science has become a faith based "following" with a dogma that is so heavy it causes it's main followers to forget the original intent of scientific discovery, thus making many scientific inquiries, somewhat innacurate.

Im not saying at all that you are one of these people, or that your view on science and its processees are that of which i described. I just get heated when people refute others claims of something because they have no evidence. Again, not saying you did this, but your OP just reminded me of this battle going on between people who beleive in science as absoloute truth, and people who think that scientific observation is completely subjective to the observer.

I know it's off topic, but i had to get it out.

we're not talking about the cliche nor that whole line. Cmon if you're going to tride off-topic don't go SO far off.

15. Discovering that computers can interact with neurons (cyborgs)

16. Discovery of cement (romans)

17. Advancements in the field of quantum mechanics to spawn the idea that atoms behave both as waves and particles -- leading the belief we (humans) are composed of atoms and vibrational waves. (really mind-blowing discovery)

The sneaky return of catastrophism (modified), spurred on by increased understanding and awareness of potential meteor/asteroid impacts, sea level changes created by rapid climate change, and tsunamis caused by crustal shifts.

I'm going to say the mid-1800's interpretation and transliteration of cuneiform texts that led to the discovery of a long-forgotten civilization - the Sumerians.

The decipherment of Sumerian differed from that of Accadian 3 and Egyptian in one significant detail, a detail which proved to be one of the factors in hampering the progress of Sumerology to no inconsiderable extent. For in the case of Egypt, Assyria, and Babylonia, the investigating scholars of western Europe had at their disposal much relevant material from Biblical, classical, and postclassical sources. Not only were such names as Egypt, Ashur, and Babylon well known, but at least to a certain extent and with much limitation and qualification, even the culture of the peoples was not altogether unfamiliar. In the case of the Sumerians, however, the situation was quite different; there was no clearly recognizable trace of Sumer or its people and language in the entire Biblical, classical, and post-classical literature. The very name Sumer was erased from the mind and memory of man for over two thousand years. The discovery of the Sumerians and their language came quite unexpectedly and was quite unlooked for; and this more or less irrelevant detail was at least partially responsible for the troubled progress of Sumerology from the earliest days to the present moment.

Sumerian Mythology
Internet Ancient History Sourcebook: Mesopotamia

I don't think most people realize that, up until the mid-1800's, scholars simply had no idea there was a Sumer, and that texts like Enuma Elish would predate the bible with very similar stories.

To name the specific time/event of this discovery, it might be attributed to French scholar Julius Oppert in 1869, he was the first to officially recognize the name "Sumer", and distinguished it from the name "Accad". Until then scholars believed the region had only been populated with Persians and Assyrians (even thinking Akkadians to be Assyrians). It's hard to give all the credit to one man though, a large number of early scholars played key roles in uncovering the existence of our first civilization.

reply to post by facewhatly


Good statement: the solution is simple and has been used for centuries to overcome the problem, the methodology of science works for that which is observable. What is measurable and can be described.

All that is great but one always remembers that it's people who are doing these things and they are very prone to failure. That is why systems have been devised to oversee everyone else's work; as in physics if someone else cannot replicate your discovery - it is held in dispute. The same for all other sciences but with the soft ones it gets harder and you have to go with consensus....

The methodology of science is great but the people doing it are flawed.

Originally posted by Blue Shift
The sneaky return of catastrophism (modified), spurred on by increased understanding and awareness of potential meteor/asteroid impacts, sea level changes created by rapid climate change, and tsunamis caused by crustal shifts.

Yes, punctuated castatrophism??? The thought you have above does have a name I believe - I'm sure one of the smart people here will come up with it.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
I'm going to say the mid-1800's interpretation and transliteration of cuneiform texts that led to the discovery of a long-forgotten civilization - the Sumerians.

The decipherment of Sumerian differed from that of Accadian 3 and Egyptian in one significant detail, a detail which proved to be one of the factors in hampering the progress of Sumerology to no inconsiderable extent. For in the case of Egypt, Assyria, and Babylonia, the investigating scholars of western Europe had at their disposal much relevant material from Biblical, classical, and postclassical sources. Not only were such names as Egypt, Ashur, and Babylon well known, but at least to a certain extent and with much limitation and qualification, even the culture of the peoples was not altogether unfamiliar. In the case of the Sumerians, however, the situation was quite different; there was no clearly recognizable trace of Sumer or its people and language in the entire Biblical, classical, and post-classical literature. The very name Sumer was erased from the mind and memory of man for over two thousand years. The discovery of the Sumerians and their language came quite unexpectedly and was quite unlooked for; and this more or less irrelevant detail was at least partially responsible for the troubled progress of Sumerology from the earliest days to the present moment.

Sumerian Mythology
Internet Ancient History Sourcebook: Mesopotamia

I don't think most people realize that, up until the mid-1800's, scholars simply had no idea there was a Sumer, and that texts like Enuma Elish would predate the bible with very similar stories.

Very good I had put that discovery under the general heading of:

3. Ninevah's Assyrian library - the key to the Mesopotamian languages and the discovery of the Sumerians

I'm reading several histories of the 19th century to get a feel for how the discoveries of that time changed people perceptions - it was quite shocking for many to find the bible wasn't the fount of all knowledge

Wasn't the term 'shinar' in the bible later found to refer to the Sumerians? Of course no one knew that until the 19th century

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by GoodDog
Does Kenniwick man count

Hmmmm maybe incorporate that one into a more general heading, the peopling of the Americas - was complex

You beat me to that one...though I'd specifically cite Dillehay at Monte Verde, as that is the site that changed the paradigm.
Oh, and S&F, by the way. A good thread for a bunch of reasons.

reply to post by mr10k


I know it was off topic, but i couldn't help myself cause sometimes when you get that spark for an idea you have to get it out than and there or else you might loose it and that's how i felt. i sincerely apologize for moving SO off topic, and i knew i was doing it to but like i said i felt i had to get it out cause it was something i've been pondering recently and this post ignited the spark.

again my apologies, allow me to respond to the post itself.......give me a minute

reply to post by Hanslune


You sure did have it on there, I guess I breezed through your list too quickly!

I edited my post to add when the name "Sumer" was officially acknowledged, although it was a gradual acceptance that took decades of research to complete, so it might be unfair to give credit to only one scholar.

"Shinar" is mentioned in Wooley's book on the Sumerians, it reads: 'and the people journeyed from the east and came into the plain of Shinar and dwelt there', given in Genesis, which is accepted as a reference to the Sumerians.

reply to post by Hanslune


agreed.

IMHO the system itself has become flawed due to the people muckin ish up, regaurdless of the validity of the original system. I also beleive that the scientific process needs an entire reform because, if you want true objectivity, than one logically should not create a system to define what that is based on subjective experience. yet, it would be quite improbable for the first people to realize that, as it is deep within the understanding of the subject.


everything aside, especially what i beleive, this is quite a provacative post.

Another major discovery might be the tomb of Qin Shi Huang, China's first emperor, and the terracotta army. That was relatively recent (1974).

BTW some of these suggestions seem more anthropology related than archeology...

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
reply to post by Hanslune

 

You sure did have it on there, I guess I breezed through your list too quickly!

I edited my post to add when the name "Sumer" was officially acknowledged, although it was a gradual acceptance that took decades of research to complete, so it might be unfair to give credit to only one scholar.

"Shinar" is mentioned in Wooley's book on the Sumerians, it reads: 'and the people journeyed from the east and came into the plain of Shinar and dwelt there', given in Genesis, which is accepted as a reference to the Sumerians.

Yes it many cases its a group effort with some guys getting forgotten like poor Calvert at Troy

Oh we shouldn't forget the Dilmun and Ubaidians too

This one isn't a specific discovery per se, but has led to many;
Satellite imagery - GIS, infrared, ground penetrating radar, etc.

Has led to many new sites in Egypt being discovered, as well as paleo-channels of the Nile, ancient lake beds in the Sahara, mapping of the ocean floors, sub-glacial mountain ranges in the Arctic, and at least 200 sunken cities discovered across the Mediterranean, not to mention the number of Mesoamerican sites found in the Amazon or the Guatemalan jungle that lay hidden beneath the forest cover.

Just some links to show how profound satellite imagery has been in the field of archeology;

Google Archeology: Satellite Imagery is Helping Us Discover the Past
Lost Pyramids: Peering Beneath Egypt's Surface With Satellite Images
17 Lost Pyramids Discovered Using Infrared Satellite Imaging
A blog dedicated to Satellite imaging discoveries: satellitediscoveries.typepad.com
Archaeologist Uses Satellite Imagery To Explore Ancient Mexico
Space Archeologists Discover a Thousand Egyptian Tombs Hidden in Tanis
Satellites spot lost Guatemala Mayan temples

There's literally thousands of such headlines.