Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Jewels From an Ethiopian Grave Reveal 2,000-Year-Old Link To Rome

Posted by samzenpus on from the back-in-the-day dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Archaeologists have discovered jewels from an Ethiopian grave that revealed a 2,000-year-old link to Rome. Louise Schofield, a former British Museum curator, and her team of 11 excavated the ancient city of Aksum for six weeks where the artifacts were found. The treasures offer evidence that the Romans were trading in Aksum hundreds of years earlier than previously thought. Schofield said: “Every day we had shed-loads of treasure coming out of all the graves. I was blown away: I’d been confident we’d find something, but not on this scale."

49 of 82 comments (clear)

  1. I see what they dug there by paiute · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Every day we had shed-loads of treasure coming out of all the graves...." Holy shed, that's a lot of treasure.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    1. Re:I see what they dug there by asylumx · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Every day we had shed-loads of treasure coming out of all the graves...." Holy shed, that's a lot of treasure.

      I wonder how many Libraries of Congress worth of treasure they ended up with.

    2. Re:I see what they dug there by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      Metric or Imperial Shed-loads?

      Article is useless without this information!

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    3. Re: I see what they dug there by asylumx · · Score: 1

      A Library of Congress has many volumes.

    4. Re:I see what they dug there by paiute · · Score: 1

      What - you mean a European shed or an African shed?

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    5. Re:I see what they dug there by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      A shed-load of grave robbing is a shed-load of grave robbing, damned for an ounce or a shed-load. Amazing what passes for science now.

      I happen to know where there's a grave with a Ferrari in it, can I get the car in the name of Science?

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  2. Worth anything? by skovnymfe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    All these treasures, are they worth anything? Will the Ethiopian people see a penny from all these treasures? Will they even see the treasures? Does anyone even care about Ethiopians?

    1. Re:Worth anything? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      The answers you seek can be found in TFA.

    2. Re:Worth anything? by skovnymfe · · Score: 1

      Why make it so difficult? All you had to say was "No. Ethiopia won't see a dime. Germany gets it all."

    3. Re:Worth anything? by PPH · · Score: 2

      If anyone should receive money ..... but the Italian whom ancestry crafted the jewels.

      The Chinese called. They want their iPhones back.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:Worth anything? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      The Ethiopians saw their pretty penny when they sold the treasures in the first place.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    5. Re:Worth anything? by Any+Web+Loco · · Score: 1

      All you had to do was RTFA and you wouldn't have had to ask.

    6. Re:Worth anything? by skovnymfe · · Score: 1

      Ah, but where's the fun if everyone just RTFA? Then you can't tell people to RTFA. What would the internet be without that?

  3. Rome? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Because Egypt can't trade Roman jewels with Ethiopia?

    1. Re:Rome? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 5, Informative

      Umm, at the time, Egypt was part of the Roman Empire. So, based on the way Rome was running its empire, trade with Egypt WAS trade with Rome.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  4. Six Weeks by Psychotria · · Score: 1

    I guess that's all the funding they could get. Fuck you, modern world.

    1. Re:Six Weeks by Psychotria · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I guess my last post was a but abrupt but it does summarise my view of the modern world pretty well. We've, in my opinion, moved into an era where knowledge and research that has no practical application equates to something that's not worth all that much. Capitalism seems to be the dominant (economic) system that drives modern research and I hate it. If there is no concrete monetary profit from a venture then good luck pursuing an avenue of research that does not yield a "return on investment".

      As an example, at the job before my last job my role was to study plants, the environment and ecology, and write plans that would direct on-ground works to achieve restoration of degraded ecosystems. At first it seemed like a dream role. After a while I discovered that the accountants classified me as a "non-earner"; i.e. my work did not directly earn income for the company (for the most part -- I did consultancy work that did, but that was pretty minor compared to my overall workload). Therefore every time pay grades and, hey I would have appreciated this even more, thanks and acknowledgement I was always at the bottom rung of the ladder despite my work guiding the on-ground teams who implemented the works, corrective interventions, etc. that I developed. They were classified by the accounting department as "money earners" whilst I remained a "non earner" and therefore of less value to the company. In the end I acknowledged that they were stupid and resigned.

      Guess what. The next company, which I only left a month or so ago, had a similar system! I was told that as a researcher I did not directly earn money for the company and therefore I could not expect to get paid as much. I was also told that because I didn't directly control a team of people (only indirectly through my plans and development of project goals) that I was worth less. They didn't use those words but that's what it boiled down to. So I left that train wreck of a company as well. But, to my dismay, every single job I've applied or interviewed for since then has the same attitude! "How can you directly earn us money". They (the managers or whoever) cannot see indirect value.

      I guess what I am trying to say is that science or research without direct fiscal benefits is not, in my experience, that the modern world wants to pay for (well, maybe in academia but they don't pay that well either and you'd be constantly seeking grants that nobody wants to provide or sponsor).

      Archaeology must be even worse... in their case there is probably not even a hope of gaining a return on investment (fiscally). It's a shame that knowledge for knowledge's sake apparently means so little to so many these days. But, that's the society we've chosen I guess.

    2. Re:Six Weeks by LoyalOpposition · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We've, in my opinion, moved into an era where knowledge and research that has no practical application equates to something that's not worth all that much. Capitalism seems to be the dominant (economic) system that drives modern research and I hate it. If there is no concrete monetary profit from a venture then good luck pursuing an avenue of research that does not yield a "return on investment".

      I understand your concern, but I think you're looking at things wrongly. I'm having a little trouble putting it into words, but maybe it'll help if you look at things this way. Imagine a world in which everyone was doing research that had no immediate benefits, or any expected return for the next two or three score years. You'd starve to death. People eat immediate food, and go to immediate doctors, and live in immediate houses, and wear immediate clothes. The inescapable conclusion is that only a fraction of people can be employed in that kind of research. The way that we, as an economic system, reach an equilibrium on the amount of that kind of research is by not over-stimulating it by excessive investment in it.

      Or if you can't sympathize with that explanation, then let me ask this question. If avenues of research with no return are so important, then why are you demanding a high salary and large raises?

      ~Loyal

      --
      I aim to misbehave.
    3. Re:Six Weeks by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Next time you're in Los Angeles, mosey on down to the La Brea tar pits: a worthless pond of old sticky muck. Hey, what's that just north of the pond? A shiny museum with a video and displays of dire wolf bones. No, the research there can't be of any monetary value.

      Only 1000 feet away there's the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, occasionally featuring artifacts dug from Egyptian sites. People pay to get in to see that stuff.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    4. Re:Six Weeks by lissnup · · Score: 1

      ..and, hey I would have appreciated this even more, thanks and acknowledgement..

      Just leaving this here since it appears to have been overloked

  5. And next by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Next they will announce the startling revelation that there was trade between the United States and Mexico over 100 years ago.
    Seriously, have these people never looked at a map? The Roman Empire shared a border with the Empire mentioned in the article. Of course they were trading. That's what people do.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    1. Re:And next by GroeFaZ · · Score: 2

      So you suggest that the actual researchers are incompetent beyond belief, but you can't be even be bothered to look at the /. summary?

      " that the Romans were trading in Aksum hundreds of years earlier than previously thought"

      --
      The grass is always greener on the other side of the light cone.
    2. Re:And next by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Personally, as a long-time reader of Archaeology magazine and enthusiastic amateur in the field, what I keep being surprised by is the field's routine assumptions that people before us were somehow stupid. Not just ignorant in the sense of technologically, but scholars seem to always be 'amazed' when ancient peoples are discovered to have done things that were rather clever.

      Considering that you'd HAVE to be much more 'on the ball' all the time to even survive in ancient eras (where a relatively trivial cut could easily kill you or a failure to prepare for winter meant you DIED instead of just another trip to the supermarket) I wonder faintly if, from ancient peoples' point of view, we're not already living out a sort of Idiocracy ourselves.

      --
      -Styopa
    3. Re:And next by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      And yet, the Roman Empire already bordered on Aksum those hundreds of years earlier...how stupid did someone have to be to think they were not trading?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    4. Re:And next by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Personally, as a long-time reader of Archaeology magazine and enthusiastic amateur in the field, what I keep being surprised by is the field's routine assumptions that people before us were somehow stupid.

      It derives from the "progressive" view that is taught so thoroughly in most schools (especially colleges and universities) that "new" means "better" and that history is irrevocably moving from worse to better.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    5. Re:And next by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      The same people who didn't know Men and Women are different.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    6. Re:And next by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      It's quite dumb if they though there was no trade. I mean the Nile river goes there in Ethiopia. It's hardly surprising there was a trade route from Egypt to that part of Africa.

    7. Re:And next by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but is "earlier than previously thought" anything other than "gee, we never thought of it but now it seems obvious"?

      Because, honestly, if you look on a map they're pretty darned close and the whole surprise that the Romans might have had a broad reaching influence (and trade) seems a little silly.

      They had animals from all over the world, and who knows what else.

      If you showed me a map of the Roman empire and the location of Ethiopia when I was in middle school and said "do you think these people traded" I'd probably have said yes.

      Especially since we know there was other trade in the area and even further afield.

      The notion that trade between the Romans and Ethiopia comes as a shock ... well, that comes as a shock. Because it seems like something for which the answer should have been "but of course they did".

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    8. Re:And next by Muros · · Score: 1

      I think any surprise voiced by archaeologists might be an unconscious echo of some of the rather racist "pirate" comments further up in this thread. People only trade with someone who has something of value to them, and despite knowing that that Ethiopia was once one of the great nations of the world, people will doubtless still think in terms of the poverty stricken, warlord ruled, lawless, desolate warzone it is today.

    9. Re:And next by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Personally, as a long-time reader of Archaeology magazine and enthusiastic amateur in the field, what I keep being surprised by is the field's routine assumptions that people before us were somehow stupid.

      It derives from the "progressive" view that is taught so thoroughly in most schools (especially colleges and universities) that "new" means "better" and that history is irrevocably moving from worse to better.

      Unless you believe that there was some Atlantean super civilization or earthly paradise now lost, on the evidence we have new does mean better and there has been progress.

      I would rather be an unemployed single parent mother in the Twenty First Century in the US or Europe than an emperor two thousand years ago.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    10. Re:And next by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Interesting, so "new" means "better" to you, and you believe that Adolf Hitler was better than Caligula.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    11. Re:And next by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Not having evidence that they were trading is not the same as thinking that they weren't trading.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    12. Re:And next by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      The summary says that the evidence shows that they were trading "hundreds of years earlier than previously thought." That phrasing indicates that they were thinking that they weren't trading. If it was just a matter of not having evidence the phrasing should have been "evidence that the Romans were trading in Aksum hundreds of years earlier than previously." By sticking the word "thought" on the end they are saying that no one thought they were trading that early.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    13. Re:And next by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Yeah, I was deconstructing that part of the article, and the objections to it, and wondering if it was worth the effort. Then something came up and I had to go and attend to the real world.

      Sloppy writing by the journalist, and unjustifiably sensationalist claims. So unheard-of.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  6. Re:That isn't possible! by belthize · · Score: 2

    Can't tell if you're high or think this is a Civ1 play through.

  7. Once again, a dearth of photos. . . by __aasehi2499 · · Score: 1

    After six weeks of carting out "shed-loads", you'd think they would be able to snap a few more pictures than a grainy shot of a perfume vial.

    1. Re:Once again, a dearth of photos. . . by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Archaeologists can only afford tiny little sheds.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  8. Wait, what? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    Is this surprising to us?

    I though we knew that the Romans had contact throughout Africa, the Middle East, South East Asia, and all sorts of places.

    I thought it was pretty much a given that Ethiopia would be one of them ... the whole Cleopatra thing says they were definitely in the region.

    The archaeology is really cool, but I didn't think finding Roman influence there would surprise anybody.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Wait, what? by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Not so much "if" they were trading, but "when" it all started. These findings push back the known start of trade by a couple of centuries.

    2. Re:Wait, what? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but some of this stuff always strikes me as a little bit of modern hubris and arrogance.

      People act like the Greeks and Romans suddenly appeared, and had engineering, society, agriculture, and all sorts of things -- and that before them people lived in mud huts and foraged.

      It always seems like the more we understand of what was happening in antiquity the more we realize our assumptions about them barely rising up out of the mud is just plain bullshit.

      The Egyptians, the Asyrians, the Babylonians and who knows who else that have been lost to history ... these cultures had stone work, complex societies, libraries ... and suddenly we pretend that none of this stuff existed before the Romans or the Greeks?

      It seems increasingly evident that a lot of the shit we have "discovered" in the last 100 years or so is stuff which had been widely known before the dark ages made us pretend nothing had come before.

      Lack of written history or not, humans have been around for a very long time.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Wait, what? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      However there certainly was a noticeable explosion in knowledge

      Notable expansion, yes. But an increasing "discovery" that the things they did know, they'd have had to know for quite some time. You don't start off by making massive stone buildings and aqueducts when you're learning engineering.

      Denying this seems irrational.

      I'm not denying it, but I am saying that it doesn't account for the stuff they already knew.

      Or otherwise driven by some bizarre agenda ...

      You want a bizarre agenda? Because apparently you're incapable of viewing the world without there being an "agenda"?

      How about, history, as reported through the lens of the West, and after it had been cleaned up by the Catholic church ... is largely a distorted view of reality which misses a lot of stuff, and which has otherwise been sanitized to bolster a historical viewpoint, and which is only slowly starting to realize that the stuff they knew in in antiquity was far more advanced than we've given them credit for.

      That suddenly saying "wow, the Romans had trade routes with Ethiopia" is kind of missing that these societies had been intermingling and interacting for long before this.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:Wait, what? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      stuff they knew in in antiquity was far more advanced than we've given them credit for.

      The real issue for me is that this is not just the RCC that does this, evolution theory also does this. The idea that we are SO MUCH SMARTER than people a couple thousand years ago is one that I find hilariously short sighted. We aren't much smarter, we cannot be. What we are is more knowledgeable about things, but that is not the same thing as intelligence.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    5. Re:Wait, what? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      I agree with you ... I think the difference in potential human intelligence between now and the Romans is probably very little.

      The sum total of our knowledge is much greater, but I think claiming we've evolved to be that much smarter since then is probably a fairly limited view.

      I just think there's thousands of years of human evolution and knowledge which is unavailable to us, and that much of the science and technologies which the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans (etc) had was a VERY long time in the making.

      By the time we see the spectacular examples, the basic stuff was pretty well established. We just think that because we don't have recorded history it didn't exist.

      Agriculture, societies, pottery, building techniques ... beer ... all of these things have been with us a very long time, and by people who were very similar to what we are now.

      I very much doubt we've evolved that much in two thousand years.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  9. yawn by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

    Look up "Kingdom of Axum" on Wikipedia. Prominent by 1st Century CE. Middle-man for ivory trade and trade between Rome and India.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  10. ethopian link to old israel interesting by peter303 · · Score: 1

    The Bible doesnt mention such. And somepeole in Ethiopiia remember it. And there are genetic markers fo Choen genes in some Ethiopians. One city calims to have the Ark of the Convenant.

    1. Re:ethopian link to old israel interesting by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      It is mentioned in the bible, Queen of Sheba, consort to Solomon the King of Israel.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:ethopian link to old israel interesting by Muros · · Score: 1

      Also widely known of in recent history. A lot of Ethiopean Jews were evacuated to Israel after the state's post WWII formation. Unfortunately, they still experienced many similar difficulties with life in a different culture to black people in America, with widespread racism and discrimination despite being a faithful part of the most persecuted religion, and being brought to its centre to save them from persecution elsewhere.

  11. Assumption is a bitch by Joviex · · Score: 1

    And they know for 100% they were trading directly with Romans and not a third party who traded with Romans and Ethiopians how exactly?

    The video tapes they found at the site?

    1. Re:Assumption is a bitch by Livius · · Score: 1

      This is the part that's puzzling me. Proof of a direct trade link would be interesting, but easily a thousand years earlier everyone in the Mediterranean would traded with each other and with the Nile Valley/Red Sea area. The Carthaginians especially.

      Though the quantity they found does suggest bigger volume of trade, whether direct or indirect, than previously estimated.