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.

  • Squibbles@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    1 year ago

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

    • El Barto@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Instinct?

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

      • Quokka@quokk.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        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.

  • tallwookie@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    to a certain extent, a wooden structure is just a bunch of wooden spears stacked in a specific way. anyone who can figure out hand-axes and spears can build a fence or a house. homo erectus or whichever genus it was werent idiots.

      • El Barto@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s not how evolution works, though. Our ancestors could have very well been way smarter than us, but didn’t have enough time to accumulate enough knowledge for significant technology advancement. Then in came us, reproduced like rabbits, survived better the current conditions, and bam. No more ancestors.

        I’m not saying this is what happened. I’m saying that just assuming that “our ancestors were less than us” is also quite the reach.

        Maybe 10,000 years from now, “people” will say that our ancestors (that is, us), were smarter than them, except for the whole fucking up the climate. Or maybe not. Evolution is chaotic.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          There’s some theories out there that Neanderthals were smarter than Homo Sapiens, but they didn’t form larger social structures. That’s part of our evolutionary advantage.

      • Fondots@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

          • chaogomu@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • maporita@unilem.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              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@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            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.

        • Efwis@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

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

        • Efwis@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          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.

  • theodewere@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    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…

  • DeathsEmbrace@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    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.