science

14762 readers

220 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

m3t00@lemmy.world

Joleee@lemmy.world

laverabe@lemmy.world

DeadPand@midwest.social

349

Archaeologists discover half a million-year-old wooden structure -- and it's not built by Homo sapiens (www.zmescience.com)

submitted 1 year ago by TheOneWithTheHair@lemmy.world to c/science@lemmy.world

40 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] blargerer@kbin.social 18 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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

[–] thallamabond@lemmy.world 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

[–] chaogomu@kbin.social 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.

[–] maporita@unilem.org 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@lemmy.world 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.