But why are so many "outstanding discoveries" in archaeology flourishing in this period?

To an avid reader of newspapers, if disinclined to personal exploration, this could, should, appear to be an extraordinarily prosperous age for Italian and global archaeological research: in the last five years discoveries have been communicated to the world such as that of a city that would constitute "the most important archaeological discovery in Egypt since the tomb of Tutankhamen,“ or of the inscription that ”changes the date“ of the eruption of Pompeii; and again, the discovery of the ”Colosseum of Anatolia" has been communicated, of Aristotle’s tomb, of the world’s oldest wine, of the world’s oldest brewery, of the world’s oldest painting... And to focus on Italy new discoveries described as “exceptional” dot the pages of local and other newspapers, be they villas with mosaics, amphitheaters, heads of Augustus, Punic necropolis, traces of prehistoric settlements, and much more. A quick glance at the major search engines is enough to note that, just limiting ourselves to the Italian language, “exceptional” or “extraordinary” archaeological discoveries are reported about once a month, or more, from the Alps to Sicily.

All this may leave the reader baffled: is it possible that this is happening at a time when the discipline of archaeology has been complaining of cuts and structural deficiencies for years, both in its ministerial part and in its university research part? Are these heroic archaeologists really able, despite limited funds, to identify so many extraordinary discoveries? The answer to this question is complex, and not related only, or for the most part, to the need of news outlets to get a lot of clicks with lofty titles. There are several reasons and motivations for announcing “extraordinary” discoveries with such frequency: through the analysis of some recent cases we will try to illustrate them in brief.

The amphitheater of Mastaura, the “Colosseum of Anatolia”

The thermopolis of Pompeii discovered in 2019

Political archaeology: the ancient Egypt of Zahi Hawass

The land from which undoubtedly most of the outstanding discoveries that have been globally echoed over the past five years have come isEgypt. Here it has been announced, in no particular order, only between the end of 2019 and today, the discovery of Cleopatra’s tomb, a hundred intact sarcophagi, the world’s oldest brewery, but above all the "lost golden city" of Aten, near Luxor, announced in April 2021 and presented as “the most important find since the discovery of Tutankhamun’s tomb.” Presenting these uncovered discoveries, in a climax interrupted only by the due denial regarding Cleopatra’s supposed tomb, was always him, Zahi Hawass, the director of antiquities for the Al-Sisi government, who had already held the same post for the government of Mubarak, deposed by the 2011 uprisings.

As always in such cases, press releases precede any scientific publication containing excavation data. And from the releases we know thata"large city in good condition" has been found (inhabited and then abandoned in the 14th century B.C.) full of tools that tell the story of daily life: it is not yet clear in what way it would represent the most important find since Tutankhamun’s tomb (which, to the uninitiated, had completely intact grave goods, which is in fact almost unique in archaeology given the repeated looting of pharaonic tombs over the centuries). The Luxor area, which stands, as has been known since the eighteenth century, on the site of ancient Thebes, the capital of Egypt in the Middle Kingdom, is a treasure trove of continuous archaeological finds. Excavation of the identified site began in September 2020, and despite the obvious comparison with Pompeii advocated by the excavators, the evidence disseminated to date does not seem to allow for conclusions regarding the impact the excavation will have on knowledge of Ancient Egypt.

In the Egyptian case, the proliferation of exceptional and extraordinary discoveries, rather than the actual extraordinary nature of the discoveries, stems from a common advantage: on the one hand, for the powerful Hawass, who uses communication to increase his own popularity inside and outside the country, and on the other of the Al-Sisi regime, which in this cadenced announcement of new discoveries legitimizes its own power, as is typical of Egyptian national governments that want to distance themselves from the country’s Islamic tradition, and Islamist politics (Al-Sisi is in power after overthrowing the Muslim Brotherhood government). This is a nationalist and political use of archaeology, to accomplish that always finds some support from archaeological leaders, as in this case. It is a modus operandi that finds clear epigones, albeit in a lesser way, in European countries as well: the most obvious case is the relationship between Massimo Osanna and the excavations of Pompeii, already analyzed by this newspaper.

The city of Aten

The need to publish at all costs: the world’s oldest wine

In July 2017, news of an astonishing discovery bounced in national and international newspapers: traces of the world’s oldest wine, dating back as far as 6,000 years, were found in some prehistoric Sicilian containers. A discovery capable of rewriting the history of archaeology and human nutrition, since before that announcement solid traces of wine-making existed only from the Bronze Age onward, thus from about 3 thousand years later. Making the announcement in a press release were researchers at the University of South Florida. Within hours the news explodes all over the media.

A few months later comes a short, sharp note on Facebook from the local Superintendency: we were not consulted, they say, the chemical compounds used to identify the wine are not sufficient and the proposed dating of those ceramic fragments appears to be baseless. Very few people read that note, and so the false news that wine dating back 6,000 years has been found in Sicily continues to circulate to this day.

This kind of announcement is part of a trend, in which U.S. universities are announcing that they have made extraordinary discoveries, in their laboratories, on finds from as far away as Italy and Georgia. Discoveries that often involve wine. It is such a problematic trend that in 2020 a group of researchers from York, Tübingen and Munich published a lengthy scientific examination to explain when and how it is possible to say that, perhaps, a given archaeological find contained wine. The aggravating factor, in the Sicilian case, is that they made the announcement without even the consent of local archaeologists, who, aware of the absolute (archaeological) improbability of finding wine in such ancient finds, would have at least put the U.S. researchers on notice. But that did not happen.

This is a second strand of “forced” exceptionalism, peculiar to scientific research, which, abetted by declining funding and the rhetoric of excellence, is increasingly driven to publish at any cost, and quickly, sometimes leaving aside the accuracy of data and interpretation. So as to get a faster career and more funding-not a properly archaeological problem, but also archaeological.

Images of the discovery of the so-called oldest wine in the world

The exceptionality of the poor: hunting for the latest funding

Then there are very different cases, in which archaeologists attach adjectives such as “exceptional” or “extraordinary” to discoveries that are only relatively so, or not at all. Cases, however, in which the “little exceptionality” is known only to insiders.

Here the casuistry is wide, ranging from the discovery of amphitheaters or tombs whose existence was known, but not their exact location; of mosaics or elevations that are very beautiful, but of which there are so many known similar specimens; or even of archaeological sites and contexts of extraordinary importance and interest, capable of providing so much new information, but not of changing history as the press release would have it. Sometimes it comes to the obvious forcing, presenting as exceptional contexts or findings that are in fact normal in certain contexts (think of frescoes found in Pompeii, or inscribed tombstones or rich graves found in cemeteries where this was customary). The best known recent case is the cenotaph of Romulus, a context already known but presented as an exceptional discovery in February 2020.

Usually two kinds of entities are the ones to disseminate these kinds of releases: universities or superintendencies. And the reason is similar, if not the same: the absolute need for new funds. Sometimes it is done by a university research mission that wants to convince the rector (or other principals) to renew or increase funding; sometimes it is done by the Superintendency to convince the local authority to allow, through funding, the excavation of those contexts otherwise destined to be promptly reburied.

In any case, it is precisely the moment of crisis in the discipline that pushes toward this attitude: when faced with an extremely interesting find, one does not simply tell it as such, but pushes on the accelerator of exceptionality, of extraordinariness, describing it as incredible, unique. This is because the noose of lack of funding forces one to fight for what little funding is made available (or hopefully can be made available). One is not always able to maintain a collaborative and balanced approach in this context: sometimes a well-crafted press release is, or is thought to be, the only way to stand out. And little harm, one thinks, if it will offer readers partially false or exaggerated information.

The so-called “sarcophagus of Romulus” in a photo ... from 1900

Conclusion

In summary, this proliferation of outstanding discoveries, far from being a sign of vitality, is a sign of great fatigue. The archaeologist launches a high-sounding, exaggerated or even misleading communiqué; the newspaper editorial offices, also in big trouble and chasing clicks, relaunch it, sometimes adding details, sometimes simply copying and pasting; this is followed (often) by a social debate in which insiders either reduce or even deny the relevance of the discovery: but this debate almost never reaches the general public, or in any case never with the force of the first announcement.

Crisis of funding, crisis of publishing, perhaps also crisis of our society, obsessed with the idea of uniqueness and excellence, whereby those who fund, those who pay, do not want a multiplicity of situations, sites, contexts, “normal,” even trivial at times, that together tell an extraordinary story, whether it is the story of a region, a city, human history from its origins to contemporary times. No, now there is always a preference for “the most important discovery” not “a very important extra piece to understand our past.” And this is the child of a rhetoric proper to a society that wants to be individualistic, and that wants to self-represent itself thus through the past. But if everything becomes exceptional, nothing will be exceptional anymore: not even the (very few, but still existing) discoveries that can really rewrite human history, forced into the vortex of misleading announcements.

Warning: the translation into English of the original Italian article was created using automatic tools. We undertake to review all articles, but we do not guarantee the total absence of inaccuracies in the translation due to the program. You can find the original by clicking on the ITA button. If you find any mistake,please contact us.