[hidden]
— aix1's reply was filtered, but the responses below were kept
aix1
·
about 2 hours ago
q=0.62
I am a bit disappointed by New Scientist's standard of reporting here.
"Has been shockingly overlooked by all but a handful of scholars since its discovery 125 years ago" -- really? I picked up the one popular book on the subject that I own. It was first published almost 25 years ago and has an entire chapter on proto-Elamite, plus about a dozen mentions throughout the book.
Why does everything seemingly have to have some sort of fake narrative these days? <old-man-yells-at-cloud/>
"Has been shockingly overlooked by all but a handful of scholars since its discovery 125 years ago" -- really? I picked up the one popular book on the subject that I own. It was first published almost 25 years ago and has an entire chapter on proto-Elamite, plus about a dozen mentions throughout the book.
Why does everything seemingly have to have some sort of fake narrative these days? <old-man-yells-at-cloud/>
P.S. Highly recommend the book: https://www.thamesandhudson.com/products/lost-languages