Turkish archaeologists have discovered a stone statue believed to be 1,800 years old in the city of Amaslah, nicknamed the "water nymph" by netizens, and this unexpected discovery has triggered deep thinking about contemporary archaeological work. Compared with the excavation of cultural relics, contemporary archaeology should pay more attention to the historical significance and cultural connotation behind cultural relics.
When this artifact was discovered, the archaeologists did not give sufficient research and research. Simply naming it "Water Nymph" is undoubtedly superficial, ignoring the inherent artistic value and cultural connotation of the statue itself. As a cultural relic from 1800 years ago, it should be a microcosm of a specific period, a specific region and even a specific culture at that time, and contains rich historical information.
With just a vague picture and a simple description, it's hard to get to the bottom of where this statue came from and the story behind it. In contemporary archaeological work, there is really too much rush for quick success and lack of systematic research, which leads to the lack of strict standards for determining "authenticity". Foreign archaeological discoveries are often widely recognized as "solitary discoveries".
Unlike them, Chinese archaeology is more cautious and rigorous, requiring a variety of supporting materials to confirm the authenticity of cultural relics. Behind this difference is two different archaeological philosophies and research methods. The Turkish discovery is undoubtedly a typical example, and archaeologists are likely to be too arbitrary to assert that it is 1,800 years old based on a mutilated statue alone.
Even if it is an intact cultural relic, its age needs to be rigorously tested and corroborated by many parties, rather than based on subjective speculation. What's more, in this case, the archaeologists did not even determine the origin and purpose of the statue, so they rushed to conclusions, which is obviously problematic. Some netizens questioned the suspicion of counterfeiting of this cultural relic.
They point out that this kind of counterfeiting technique is difficult to fool veterans even in the contemporary antiquities market, let alone artifacts from 1800 years ago. This undoubtedly highlights the shortcomings of contemporary archaeological work in identifying the authenticity of cultural relics, and it is urgent to strengthen the professional level. Contemporary archaeological work should abandon short-term goals and a quick-track mentality, and pay more attention to the historical and cultural connotations behind cultural relics.
Only through systematic and in-depth research can the archaeological work truly exert its due value and provide more valuable information and enlightenment for the development of human civilization. It is not difficult to see that there is a lack of in-depth research, lax identification standards, and insufficient recognition of the value of cultural relics in contemporary archaeological work in foreign countries.
The existence of these problems not only affects the development of archaeology itself, but also affects people's understanding of the history of human civilization. Only by striking a balance between scientific rigor and cultural value recognition can we promote the continuous progress of archaeology and provide more valuable results for the study of human civilization.