The submerged Neolithic city most possibly belonged to the pre-historic remains of ancient Hvar civilization located in Croatia.

The submerged Neolithic city most possibly belonged to the pre-historic remains of ancient Hvar civilization located in Croatia.

    • karashta@lemm.eeOP
      12·
      3 months ago

      I only posted this in news. Not sure why you commented twice and both were basically saying the same thing.

      Directly from the article

      “To their astonishment, it was a 4 to 5-meter-deep structure offering clues to a settlement almost identical to the one in Soline. They also dug out several Neolithic artifacts such as flint blades, stone axes, and fragments of wood on this site.”

      I’m not personally saying that one building is a city but it’s a start.

      They never mention the university at Bradford, but speak of the university of Zadar, so I’m not really sure why you linked that article that is related but not the same.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        44·
        3 months ago

        A settlement isn’t even close to a city. A settlement isn’t even a village.

        Also, you need to read your own article. This is the very first paragraph:

        In ancient times, the Adriatic Sea was a major trade route for the Croatian population, which is likely why scientists have discovered various antiquities submerged in this sea. From Roman artifacts to a 2,200-year-old shipwreck and networks of sunken streams, the sea has revealed some fascinating discoveries, reported the University of Bradford. But this time, divers have stumbled upon something that left scientists flabbergasted.

        That links to the Bradford article I linked to.

        • karashta@lemm.eeOP
          15·
          3 months ago

          And again, the information came from the University of Zadar, not of Bradford.

          https://www.facebook.com/unizd/posts/pfbid02sn75brvNKh4JPfReAgDDrvJ6B93tY6uoKwAd71FLKLBrSLZn3KatnbniwPapMUunl

          Here’s a link to their facebook post where they told everyone about it.

          You can absolutely criticize the sensationalism of them using the word city in the good.is article and I agree. But to say that it is a “total fabrication” when there’s roads, tools and signs of human habitation is a bit of a stretch.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            22·
            3 months ago

            Roads, tools and habitation are signs of humans. They are not cities. There are roads, tools and houses on farms. Farms are not cities. The city part was just a lie.

            • ITGuyLevi@programming.dev
              6·
              3 months ago

              Just glancing at the two articles that were posted, they seem a bit different from each other, OPs definitely has a clickbaity title, but it does mention multiple settlements. Is that a city? Not by today’s standards, nor the standards of any other well recorded period of history… times change though. The town I live in has a population of roughly 250k or so but is not much of a city at all, village would be more appropriate for what is available in my mind. We have food and junk shops, but no real services… Its a bit of a shithole town though.

              Thank you both for having enough discourse in the comments to make me engaged enough to learn about some ancient shit! Thanks!