[usrusr]

While there can certainly be case where items of local knowledge haven't been cataloged by (recent) science, I think that you are giving far too much credit to that side. It's not as if there was much oral tradition going on with ancient stories passed on from generation to generation, that just doesn't happen all that much in a place that had print media or better for half a millennium.

What we do have is knowledge encloded in place names ("Burgstall"), but locals won't be any wiser about the history of the thing unless they happen to be the type of person who collects and consumes books written by local history science buffs of earlier generations.

A chance discovery like this usually happens when some known (usually to science far more than to locals!) but not recently disturbed site has to make room for an infrastructure project and the archeologists are sent in to make use of the last chance to see.

[Swizec]

You are right. The details are usually more known to science than to locals and infrastructure/building projects spur many archaelogical digs in Europe. To the point that most projects have to budget an archaeology time delay because you’re always going to hit something.

My comment was about completely undiscovered ruins/sites. Those are rare. Someone somewhere (could be a notebook) usually knows about it.

As for “no oral traditions in a country with long-standing books” – the Brothers Grimm famously started writing down oral traditions in the 1800’s. That’s only 200 years ago :) For a long long time in most of europe nobody bothered to write down what the peasants have to say.

[usrusr]

Yeah, completely undiscovered does not happen, with the exception perhaps of battle sites which seem to keep catching archeologists by surprise. What does happen is discoveries of the kind "so we dug up this old thing, because it's in the way of some project, and we discovered that it contains identifiable traces of something much older that we did not expect."

The concept we both seem to be tiptoeing around is the idea that the best conservation approach is leaving it in the ground, for future archeologists to explore or not explore. I believe that this is a central principle of the modern approach to archeology, and one we laymen struggle to really take in. Yes, there are many sites known to science, but not analyzed to destruction by science.

[Archelaos]

"Burgstall" is not a place name, but technical terminology for a location of a former castle of which almost nothing is left. See: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgstall

In the case at issue here, the rock was called "Burgstein" and the forest around it "Burgholz". This names were already mentioned in a book from the 15th century and a book from the late 16th mentions a castle at the "Burgstein".[1] All this was long known,[2] but not all experts were convinced, that there had indeed been a castle on the rock. The new excavation now makes it seem even more likely.

[1] https://www.unsere-burgen.de/de/Burgen-im-LK-Reutlingen/Burg...

[2] For example, one Gottlieb Fri[e]drich Rösler wrote in his "Beiträge zur Naturgeschichte des Herzogthums Wirtemberg" (2. Heft, publ. 1790): "Auf dem Burgstein einem grossen Felsen gegen Abend, auf dem die Aussicht nocht schöner ist, sind auch die Spuren der alten Burg unkenntlich geworden ..." ("On the Burgstein, a large rock towards the Evening [the West], where the view is still more beautiful, even the traces of the old castle have become unrecognisable ..."). See p. 81 of: https://books.google.de/books?id=BY05AAAAcAAJ&printsec=front...