this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2023
349 points (98.3% liked)

science

14774 readers
62 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

<--- rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.

2024-11-11

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The researchers don’t know which ancient human species made the structure and the tools, but it’s unlikely to have been Homo sapiens. The earliest fossils of Homo sapiens found so far date from around 300,000 years ago and were found in Israel, Dull told CNN. He believes the people who made the structure were cognitively sophisticated and it would be very exciting to figure out who constructed this.

all 41 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 53 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There's an interview with one of the researchers who found this on quirks and quarks last weekend. Quirks and quarks is a long running science show on CBC in Canada. Rather interesting, the scientist said at first they thought maybe the flood waters had washed the wood into that formation or something but there are apparently clear tool marks and signs it was deliberately formed.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

are we looking at the house of the mother and father of us all

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Don't open the bedroom door...

[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres 44 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Truly astonishing that hominids had the instinct to build couch cushion forts long before couches, cushions, or forts were even invented.

[–] elbarto777 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Instinct?

And if they built couch cushion forts, then they invented the couch, the cushions and the forts.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Truly nature is healing. Ecosystems are now abundant with couches and cushions where none existed before. It’s a return to environmental normalcy.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Here's the nature article. I've been meaning to read it but have been by had the time.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06557-9

[–] bert_brause 3 points 1 year ago

Thanks mate!

[–] captainlezbian 25 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I’d be much more concerned if a half million year old structure was built by homo sapiens

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Curious, why do you say that?

[–] Fondots 32 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Like others and the article said, it predates when we believe homo sapiens first evolved by a few hundred thousand years.

So if it was built by H. Sapiens either A. We really missed the mark on when we first evolved and we need to go back and really examine our findings, or B. Time travel shenanigans.

Hint: it's pretty much definitely not B.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Or C this thing was dated incorrectly (which still would be my guess tbh).

[–] thallamabond 12 points 1 year ago

Dating wood can get really specific, sometimes narrowing down the year structures were built.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology

Unfortunately this structure is too old for this method

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

While radiocarbon dating is limited to about 50k years, there are other methods that work quite well. Potassium–argon dating can be used to date clay layers, but in more accurate for lava flows...

Other than that, you look for soil layers and look for global (or known local) events, then figure a date for those.

There can still be error, but less than you'd think. Tens of thousands of years at this scale, not hundreds.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

There is always an error. The important thing (apart from eliminating bias) is to know the magnitude. Radio chronological analysis is well understood and laboratories can reliably report the magnitude of the error (or more specifically the uncertainty) accompanying any determination of age. But news articles rarely publish it.

In this case the age is quoted as "at least 476,000 years" so we can infer a precision estimate of plus or minus 1,000 years.

[–] Fondots 3 points 1 year ago

Certainly an option, and that crossed my mind as well. But in the context of this part of thread, it kind of seemed like we were taking it for granted that the structure was as old as they claim for the sake of argument.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The photo I was talking about. Someone tried to claim it was fake, but dating proved it wasn’t.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago

They already have fossil footprints on photographic record of h. Sapient and dinosaurs roaming together. I’ll see if I can find a pic to post. There are a lot of fossil records predating what the Bible says happened.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Homo sapians didn't exist a half million years ago.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

As far as we know. Shouldn't be concerning :)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yes, it should be, because that would double the age of the species.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Can you explain why that would be concerning though? I would celebrate that richness of history.

[–] Pregnenolone 2 points 1 year ago

Mostly because we’ve been studying H. Sapiens for a long time so being so wrong would suggest a big gap in a dating methodology and the way we’ve tracked human migration of their history.

[–] elbarto777 2 points 1 year ago

Why should it be concerning as opposed to, say, fascinating?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah but what about time traveling homo sapiens?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Those still don't exist now

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago

I've seen enough films to know someone broke their time machine

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

above a 235-meter waterfall on the border between Zambia and the Rukwa Region of Tanzania, at the edge of Lake Tanganyika

this must have been an awesome sight at the time.. they were real masters of their environment from a strategic position like that.. tremendous access to resources, and perhaps easily defensible against other hostile hominids.. at least the best view around, which is worth a lot in the Stone Age both economically and spiritually..

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

I imagine it may not have been 235m tall 500,000 years ago

[–] DeathsEmbrace 5 points 1 year ago

If fossilization is the only way for you to recognize history its never going to be complete you will always be missing fragments that changes everything. I guarantee you their are billions if not trillions of species missing because we can only determine by fossilization.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Oh that was Bob...

/j

In all seriousness, this is such a cool find...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Could be Neanderthals, no?

[–] Lycerius 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No. It was found in a region Neanderthals never inhabited.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Ah, just looked at the time range.

[–] soupspoon 3 points 1 year ago

I read this in the voice of Zoidberg

[–] m3t00 1 points 1 year ago

looks like a prop rod for a big box trap. jk https://www.google.com/search?q=500+000+years+ago