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
    17·
    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
      81·
      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.

      • tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
        4·
        3 months ago

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

        Strictly-speaking, there’s no generally-accepted international definition of “city”, something which surprised me a bit.

        This has come up for me in the past in several interesting ways:

        • China tends to define “cities” using a dramatically-more-expansive definition than what the US or European countries would. China does have cities with very large population, but this definition tends to result in things that in the US would be treated more as entire regions being treated as cities.

          kagis for someone talking about this

          https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/when-we-mention-city-china-what-talking-xianwei-zhang

          Size of cities

          In China, the word “city” corresponds to administrative divisions with sizes of large variance. A counter-intuitive fact is that the largest “city” in China according to land area is none of the four direct-controlled municipalities (DCM). China’s largest DCM is Chongqing, with an area of about 82.4 thousand square kilometers. This area is no match for the largest “city” in China: Hulunbuir. The name of Hulunbuir comes from two lakes in its territory, with the meaning of otter and male otter respectively. Hulunbuir has an area of approximately 264 thousand square kilometers. For comparison, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, where Hulunbuir locates, is about 1.183 million square kilometers, and the land area of the People’s Republic of China is about 9.603 million square kilometers. If we put Hulunbuir into the ranking of Chinese provincial administrative divisions by area, it can rank No. 9, and if compared with areas of countries, Hulunbuir can rank 70-80, smaller than New Zealand (270 thousand square kilometers), but larger than UK (242 thousand square kilometers). Thus it is no wonder that Hulunbuir is the city with largest land area globally.

        • If you want to write code to render a map, which I was doing with OpenStreetMap data the other day in R, you can’t just easily say “X is a city and Y is a town”.

        • The US doesn’t even have any kind of accepted definition across states (or, in at least for the few states that I’ve looked at, an official definition within a given state).

      • karashta@lemm.eeOP
        2·
        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
          32·
          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
            3·
            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!