Societas Via Romana - Discussion Archives

Salvete
Tuesday, 29 April, 2003, 07:57 GMT 08:57 UK
Gilgamesh tomb believed found

Archaeologists in Iraq believe they may have found the lost tomb of King Gilgamesh - the subject of the oldest "book" in history.
The Epic Of Gilgamesh - written by a Middle Eastern scholar 2,500 years before the birth of Christ - commemorated the life of the ruler of the city of Uruk, from which Iraq gets its name.

Now, a German-led expedition has discovered what is thought to be the entire city of Uruk - including, where the Euphrates once flowed, the last resting place of its famous King.

"I don't want to say definitely it was the grave of King Gilgamesh, but it looks very similar to that described in the epic," Jorg Fassbinder, of the Bavarian department of Historical Monuments in Munich, told the BBC World Service's Science in Action programme.

the rest of the article can be found here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2982891.stm
valete

Quintus

Interesting of course, though I'd like to read more specific information about this. Schliemann after all believed he found "Agamemnon's tomb" too, while the graves he found were almost 500 years older than Agamemnon.

Valete,

Atticus

Salve Attice

I think that this is something common for if they find something that is connected to the past, that they start to think that they found the tomb of Gilgamesh, Agamemnon or whatever, but int he end that the facts contradict what they originally were saying. They start to get ahead of themselves. Only time will tell if the tomb they found really belonged to Gilgamesh. And if so, they must do everything they can to protect the site from robbers and fundiementalists who want to destroy it. Same goes for the theory of Atlantis. We don't know if Atlantis was real,we can only speculate about. The fact that Atlantis has been romanticized by people for so many years, makes it difficult to get a clear view of what Atlantis really was.
vale

Salvete sodales -

Yes, when it's a news item on archaeology, it has little chance in the media unless both the archaeologists and the publishers both want to sensationalize it. It's a function of the researcher's desire to publicize his or her findings, to acquire a name in archaeology, and on the other hand of the media to make it work for them in terms of dollars, in terms of website hits, newspaper sales, TV ratings, etc.

Valete.