Archaeologists discover oldest wooden structure(news.liverpool.ac.uk)
news.liverpool.ac.uk
Archaeologists discover oldest wooden structure
https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2023/09/20/archaeologists-discover-worlds-oldest-wooden-structure/
111 comments
What struck me is that the two pieces of wood were found notched together at a 90-degree angle. This has got to be the first-known 90-degree angle in history.
Virtually nothing in nature has a 90-degree angle. This is an invention of the highest order.
EDIT: thanks for all the good responses; I should have written a bit more carefully--I meant to say that this might be the first-known time a 90-degree angle was deliberately constructed.
Virtually nothing in nature has a 90-degree angle. This is an invention of the highest order.
EDIT: thanks for all the good responses; I should have written a bit more carefully--I meant to say that this might be the first-known time a 90-degree angle was deliberately constructed.
There are millions of mineral and rock formations around the world with 90 degree angles. A tree/flower stem/etc and the ground form a 90 degree angle. A branch coming straight out of a tree trunk (common in pines, or some other evergreen) makes a right angle. A vine or spanish moss dangling from a branch makes a right angle. Two logs or branches that fall on each other in the forest serendipitously form a right angle. An arm, leg, etc sticking out of an animal with arms forms a right angle when extended. Water running down from two different points on a hill toward a central point could easily join as a right angle.
I'm pretty sure right angles existed before this log.
I'm pretty sure right angles existed before this log.
They're normal.
When our first ancestor stood upright, a right angle was formed with the ground.
A hand axe, a knapped stone lashed at right angles to a branch.
Some say fire or dogs are humanity's first and greatest inventions - but we only domesticated those.
I say weaving: an extraordinary crossing of threads at right angles that magically support each other, clothing that is the biblical coming-or-age of human-kind, fabric that drapes organically (and is still used today, even as threads become artificial), rope, leaves for shelter, even decorating hair.
And it directly lead to the single greatest invention of our time, that binds all things together: gaffer tape.
When our first ancestor stood upright, a right angle was formed with the ground.
A hand axe, a knapped stone lashed at right angles to a branch.
Some say fire or dogs are humanity's first and greatest inventions - but we only domesticated those.
I say weaving: an extraordinary crossing of threads at right angles that magically support each other, clothing that is the biblical coming-or-age of human-kind, fabric that drapes organically (and is still used today, even as threads become artificial), rope, leaves for shelter, even decorating hair.
And it directly lead to the single greatest invention of our time, that binds all things together: gaffer tape.
[deleted]
plants frequently come out of the ground and go straight up. things fall straight down, which is why bipedal humans stand straight up. our bilateral symmetry (arms out!) is at right angles to our bifocal vision, and we have people to our right and to our left. birds' beaks and dogs' muzzles are a vector notation from their bodies. various types of axeheads affixed to axehandles... I'm not saying the discovery is not amazing, nor that you're wrong, this could be the first. Just saying that right angles are going to come pretty quickly after the discovery of angles.
Naturally occuring cubic crystal systems might beat it by a few million years wouldn't they?
Just arrange two branches in a bonfire. Most humans will tend to create a 90 degree angle.
As any other animals, we are brain wired to recognize symmetry. Is our main way to find a desirable mate with good genetics or to detect a predator ambushed so is essential in our survival.
As any other animals, we are brain wired to recognize symmetry. Is our main way to find a desirable mate with good genetics or to detect a predator ambushed so is essential in our survival.
Surely stone tools have demonstrated perpendicular attributes. It’s not too far of a stretch to imagine a Palaeolithic hunter aligning an axe head against a handle in a way that made it even on either side.
I haven't seen any stone tools with perpendicular sides. In fact, I don't know of any other 90-degree stonework until the T-stones at Gobekle Tepe. If you could point me to some examples I'd be very much interested in knowing about them.
Not sure how you can surmise that. The earliest human-made tools are from 2.6 million years ago. You think nothing starting from then to this wood house had a deliberately constructed right angle?
Bismuth!
How do they know the wood was used 476,000 years ago, as opposed to a human 6000 years ago finding and using some 470,000 year old wood? This gives a hint:
> They used new luminescence dating techniques, which reveal the last time minerals in the sand surrounding the finds were exposed to sunlight, to determine their age.
... but it seems like there might be other explanations for that sand being there?
> They used new luminescence dating techniques, which reveal the last time minerals in the sand surrounding the finds were exposed to sunlight, to determine their age.
... but it seems like there might be other explanations for that sand being there?
This is the usual way of dating buried archaeological finds - you work out when the thing was buried by studying the surrounding material. In this case the specific dating technique is new, but the principle is well established. If you find something buried in material that was laid down 470,000 years ago, then the thing was buried at that time. Assuming teleportation doesn't exist, how else could the artefacts get there? The only other option I can think of is deliberate burial and I imagine archaeologists would already have considered that idea.
As to finding and using extremely old wood - wood does not survive that long except in cases of very specific environmental conditions like this one; surely another reason to expect that the wood has lain undisturbed for its entire history, rather than having been dug up and turned into some structure a few thousand years ago (then buried again).
As to finding and using extremely old wood - wood does not survive that long except in cases of very specific environmental conditions like this one; surely another reason to expect that the wood has lain undisturbed for its entire history, rather than having been dug up and turned into some structure a few thousand years ago (then buried again).
TL;DR: superposition.
Too Short; Didn't Understand - the link from your other comment is useful: https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/dating
> How do they know the wood was used 476,000 years ago, as opposed to a human 6000 years ago finding and using some 470,000 year old wood?
Seems absurdly unlikely—is there a reason to suspect this is the case? Even if you were to find half-a-million-year-old wood why would you use it to build a structure?
Seems absurdly unlikely—is there a reason to suspect this is the case? Even if you were to find half-a-million-year-old wood why would you use it to build a structure?
I mean, we use rocks that are millions of years old in our own structures, why wouldn't it be likely that an early human saw some wood and thought that it'd be a strong building material without knowing or considering the age of that wood, or something to that effect?
Just that wood is organic material and suffers faster degradation vs. rocks when exposed to weather, which is implied in "if you can just find it". Mind you, they were digging up material in the old times already to find the best stuff for making their tools, but they were for sure not looking for old wood in that manner.
Plus, well preserved old wood is much harder than its fresh counterparts (better tooling / more time for processing required) and a rare find on top of that, so unlikely to be used for standard utility structures.
Plus, well preserved old wood is much harder than its fresh counterparts (better tooling / more time for processing required) and a rare find on top of that, so unlikely to be used for standard utility structures.
I had the same question but the article said that the wood would have rotted by then. Makes sense since even lumber will dry rot in years if not taken care of. So I can buy the idea that it’s very old because it was preserved in an accidentally special way.
I’m just wondering if it being submerged in water would have affected any readings or measurements they made since who knows what hundreds of thousands of years or even thousands of years might do to the things they are measuring.
I’m just wondering if it being submerged in water would have affected any readings or measurements they made since who knows what hundreds of thousands of years or even thousands of years might do to the things they are measuring.
Where do you find 470,000 year old wood that isn't petrified?
I would really like to know the answer, if anyone wants to share.
It's a rhetorical question - you don't usually find wood that old except in very specific situations like this where conditions happen to have been right for preservation.
Depending on the soil (they seem to have rather colorful soil there), you will see disturbances of any kind because refilling a hole will show different colors. The newer the dig is, the clearer the line between undisturbed and disturbed parts, i.e. it "washes out" over time. That is how for example you can figure out locations of house posts despite the wood not being there at all, or finding out that an old grave has been partially robbed in olden times.
Which also means it was not really about making sure you have old wood in old soil, but to determine the age of the wood itself by dating how long ago the sand surrounding it was exposed to sunlight (as they had to make a dig or disturb the soil at that point of time).
Which also means it was not really about making sure you have old wood in old soil, but to determine the age of the wood itself by dating how long ago the sand surrounding it was exposed to sunlight (as they had to make a dig or disturb the soil at that point of time).
I was wondering instead what their dating method would do with old sand that had been dug up and quickly buried during the construction. Does a very short exposure to sun reset the mineral signature they are looking at? If not, then the structure could be much newer then the last time the sand spent an extended time in the sun. In fact, if the sand digging and moving happened in the evening to avoid the heat of the sun then the sand may have been dug up and used while never being exposed to the sun.
They do not have extraordinary evidence, but they believe that the claim is not extra-ordinary.
It's strange, for a jump from historical to an evolutionary timescale. I find this really hard to believe though naturally archeologists must be knowing what they're doing.
Well we know that homo species have been using stone for millions of years because stone doesn't degrade easily. It's not that wild of a jump in logic to think they've been using wood for just as long.
Recently it was found monkeys/apes producing chippings that looked very much like what we thought hominids were producing, so that caused some upset. Edit: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/stone-flakes-made-...
(And the wood found here was worked, not just a handy pokey-stick)
(And the wood found here was worked, not just a handy pokey-stick)
> How do they know the wood was used 476,000 years ago, as opposed to a human 6000 years ago finding and using some 470,000 year old wood?
Surely we have not fallen this far away from nature as a species? Wood rots.
IMO you're just being facetious about the find.
Surely we have not fallen this far away from nature as a species? Wood rots.
IMO you're just being facetious about the find.
How amazing would it be to discover that an ancient civilization existed with a technology level on par with the iron age or so? I guess if we were finding dinosaurs though the odds we wouldn't have found anything from that time are maybe slim.
We find many dinosaur fossils because there were so many dinosaurs over so long of a time. The actual events that lead to a dead dinosaur fossilizing and then having it be in a place we find it all these years later is astoundingly rare, and speaks to the scale of numbers we are working here when we find these fossils. There were probably orders of magnitude less humans over orders of magnitude smaller amounts of time in question here than say, dinosaur finds. Then you have the issue of early humans generally settling in places that are poor for long term preservation, like along shifting coastlines. The fact we find so many hominid remains in places like caves isn't really because that's where people spent a lot of time, but that these people were all over the environment and of all the places for their remains to end up, in the cave is a good place for it to not only survive the elements but to be found by spelunkers in modern times. Most people probably died and left evidence of their life in places exposed to the elements or to time.
Exactly. The historical remains that we have are all very biased compared with how people lived.
Even from a few hundred years ago, there's not much record of how the average person lived. Most things that survived are stone castles, and other remnants of noble life.
Even from a few hundred years ago, there's not much record of how the average person lived. Most things that survived are stone castles, and other remnants of noble life.
Iron artefacts are likely to last much better than wood ones, so if that was so we'd likely have much evidence collected.
Actually, iron rusts away so quickly that it's hard to recover them from the ground after only a millennium or two. Bronze tends to fare much better in that regard.
Wood can last quite a while if it's buried in an environment that inhibits microbial degradation, such as a highly acidic bog, where iron doesn't stand a chance.
Wood can last quite a while if it's buried in an environment that inhibits microbial degradation, such as a highly acidic bog, where iron doesn't stand a chance.
Yeah, I guess it would have to have either been long enough ago that it's been erased by geology (which seems somewhat infeasibly long ago wrt the evolutionary timeline) or recent enough that we would likely have found a trace of it by now. I guess the only chance is for some missing link far in the evolutionary past that was erased by e.g., one of the past mass extinctions.
The Bronze Age. I think the best entry for that is via the "Late Bronze Age collapse" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Bronze_Age_collapse), which gives you an indication of how networked things were back then already. That includes trade of amber: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amber_Road
We have found many ancient civilizations with a technology on par with the Iron Age. They’re called Iron Age civilizations.
Sorry, I mean, long before the iron age.
If a civilization was discovered with Iron Age technology before what is the currently accepted beginning of the Iron Age, wouldn't that just mean the Iron Age started earlier than previously thought?
I would argue that it needs to be more or less continuous, if we lost the technology it's a different age imo. Or at least, you can't go back globally multiple ages :) if multiple civilizations discover iron working from an otherwise similar stage of technology but aren't entirely continuous then I think it's reasonable to combine them, but if they all go back to the stone age and start from scratch I'd argue it doesn't make sense to combine them.
> I would argue that it needs to be more or less continuous, if we lost the technology it's a different age imo.
You're looking at history through modern eyes. Back in the past there was no collective `we`, we were much more separated as a species than we are now.
The idea that there is a global 'us' is a very, very new idea.
You're looking at history through modern eyes. Back in the past there was no collective `we`, we were much more separated as a species than we are now.
The idea that there is a global 'us' is a very, very new idea.
Also whole Iron Age as term is rather weird and location specific. In Europes there are places where it is considered to ended in 1200-1300.. Yes, during Middle Ages...
No need to apologize, HN people get off on being snarky
It would also mean that technology - and human condition - remained stagnant for half million years. If true it has [no good] implications for [the answer to] the so called Fermi Paradox.
Edited for clarity
Edited for clarity
It could have been a long time before dinosaurs, and/or limited geographically in areas where the geological activity over tens of millions of years would make finding traces of them even more rare than average.
That river has been running there for 0.5 million years? That's incredibly stable!
Parts of The Grand Canyon took 40 times longer to be carved out by a river.
Don't understand why they had seen a refuge there. Looks much more like a bonfire to me.
This wood looks cut in a tip and partially burnt in the other, and the fire makes this notches easily when two logs overlap. Also explains the preservation of the wood, as it was sterilized by fire (maybe minutes before a rain fell or a flood hit). Also the size of the logs (1,5m is too short for a home, but perfect to be carried and stored. Plus the near presence of the classical fire hardened sticks. Is pretty obvious.
So first evidence of "structural use" of wood is a too premature claim. nope. I don't think so.
This wood looks cut in a tip and partially burnt in the other, and the fire makes this notches easily when two logs overlap. Also explains the preservation of the wood, as it was sterilized by fire (maybe minutes before a rain fell or a flood hit). Also the size of the logs (1,5m is too short for a home, but perfect to be carried and stored. Plus the near presence of the classical fire hardened sticks. Is pretty obvious.
So first evidence of "structural use" of wood is a too premature claim. nope. I don't think so.
There are chopping marks and striations that show the notches were worked with tools. It’s only two logs so I can’t jump to structure but it’s wood that was worked to lock together for some purpose. Maybe structure is meant in the more general sense?
I would need to see it. Marks in wood would be totally expected in a bonfire used to create and test tools with fire hardened tips
If we are both talking about the same structure, I don't see striations, but the photo mentions two cracks. If those are really cracks (and not engravings carved superficially) this would reinforce my theory.
If we are both talking about the same structure, I don't see striations, but the photo mentions two cracks. If those are really cracks (and not engravings carved superficially) this would reinforce my theory.
The logs are "joined transversely by an intentionally cut notch".
And I don't think researcher would just confuse bonfire and modified wood :) That's their expertise.
Read the (peer reviewed) research paper. You'll see how serious the research is: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06557-9
And I don't think researcher would just confuse bonfire and modified wood :) That's their expertise.
Read the (peer reviewed) research paper. You'll see how serious the research is: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06557-9
> You do know that this paper is published in Nature, right? Unless you're an archeologist with a credible track record I doubt that you have the expertise to effectively argue that this is find is not credible.
> I don't think researcher would just confuse bonfire and modified wood :) That's their expertise.
Appeal to the authority. I'm not scared, baby. I'd go anywhere. If is printed in nature then is true, right? gods speak...
noope
We need to understand that articles published in nature can be retracted. Here is a small list of five pages:
https://www.nature.com/nature/articles?type=retraction
There is a detail in that photo that opens a door to the possibility that the datation could be incorrect all the way long. I wrote yesterday about it at home, but will reserve my opinion until ruminating a little more about it.
> I don't think researcher would just confuse bonfire and modified wood :) That's their expertise.
Appeal to the authority. I'm not scared, baby. I'd go anywhere. If is printed in nature then is true, right? gods speak...
noope
We need to understand that articles published in nature can be retracted. Here is a small list of five pages:
https://www.nature.com/nature/articles?type=retraction
There is a detail in that photo that opens a door to the possibility that the datation could be incorrect all the way long. I wrote yesterday about it at home, but will reserve my opinion until ruminating a little more about it.
Seen. Is a nice computer 3D image, and looks very clean and professional, but the interpretation is still wrong.
My opinion didn't changed a dime. Slope too wide. We don't work like that, so they neither would. Those are not man made.
My opinion didn't changed a dime. Slope too wide. We don't work like that, so they neither would. Those are not man made.
You do know that this paper is published in Nature, right? Unless you're an archeologist with a credible track record I doubt that you have the expertise to effectively argue that this is find is not credible.
Just because you find something hard to believe, does not mean it isn't true.
Just because you find something hard to believe, does not mean it isn't true.
We’ve had 8,000 relatively continuous relatively good years for humankind’s continuity and civilization advancement. Within that, in some regions there were societies far more advanced than others, before falling and causing complete disruptions on that happening again for another thousand years
Within 496,000 years, there are 61 other 8,000 year time periods
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, on this topic
Within 496,000 years, there are 61 other 8,000 year time periods
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, on this topic
Considering beavers make wooden structures for their own benefit and survival, it's not really surprising that ancestors of Homo Sapiens did as well.
I find it completely unsurprising. Many animal species construct shelters/nests using available materials such as sticks, leaves, mud, etc. Humans are smart, so they do it more creatively, but no doubt our less-intelligent ancestors constructed shelters of some sort.
> Considering beavers make wooden structures for their own benefit and survival
It's more like they have a compulsion to stack wood where they hear running water. The implication here is intention and a cognizance of purpose, which is not unheard of in the animal kingdom but is fairly rare.
It's more like they have a compulsion to stack wood where they hear running water. The implication here is intention and a cognizance of purpose, which is not unheard of in the animal kingdom but is fairly rare.
We don’t know that it’s purely compulsion, do we? Perhaps they know that still pools of water are best for survival so they’re motivated to prevent water from running away. The level of compulsion could be more sophisticated than we imagine. This seems to be true with many mammals. Not long ago in North America, it wasn’t uncommon to think of dogs as meat-headed automatons. Today it’s common to recognize that they have emotions and personalities much like we do, and there’s little evidence to suggest otherwise. I’m not convinced beavers are like giant fruit flies trying to plug holes.
Beavers lack the social mechanisms to transmit knowledge across time and space.
So either they are all independently inventing exactly the same solution to the problem... or it's some sort of instinctual compulsion.
So either they are all independently inventing exactly the same solution to the problem... or it's some sort of instinctual compulsion.
We have similar compulsions too. Humans have an instinct to seek shelter, for example. You might say "well thats because we are taught this etc etc" but at the same time, all great apes shelter, our hominid ancestors sheltered, we shelter today, there is clearly an instinct to shelter even if we have these conscious thoughts around it. I bet if you had a perfectly feral human and had them in a clearing in a rain storm, they would try and find some shelter from it in the forest without being taught any wilderness survival basics.
Of course this is true.
But if you put a feral human in the middle of a clearing in a rainstorm, they wouldn't build modern civilisation.
Beavers only do what is innate and what they can independently invent in one lifetime, because they aren't substantially sharing knowledge.
But if you put a feral human in the middle of a clearing in a rainstorm, they wouldn't build modern civilisation.
Beavers only do what is innate and what they can independently invent in one lifetime, because they aren't substantially sharing knowledge.
This is the reasoning model for modern empiricists:
1. Make a baseless a-priori claim that mistakes what we have evidence of to be the bounded set of what is: 'We have not discovered any social mechanisms in beavers to transmit knowledge across time and space' is transfigurated into 'No social mechanisms exist in beavers to transmit knowledge'
Similarly, having not yet discovered a single reason for my wife to be upset with me, I must recognize that she doesn't have any.
2. Invent a false dichotomy, with one option being totally absurd, the other being your pet theory.
3. Settle on your preconceived notion.
Is it ever possible to transmit knowledge, or anything for that matter not across time and space?
1. Make a baseless a-priori claim that mistakes what we have evidence of to be the bounded set of what is: 'We have not discovered any social mechanisms in beavers to transmit knowledge across time and space' is transfigurated into 'No social mechanisms exist in beavers to transmit knowledge'
Similarly, having not yet discovered a single reason for my wife to be upset with me, I must recognize that she doesn't have any.
2. Invent a false dichotomy, with one option being totally absurd, the other being your pet theory.
3. Settle on your preconceived notion.
Is it ever possible to transmit knowledge, or anything for that matter not across time and space?
Maybe this one of many half a million year old wooden beaver structures, given that they build in water.
[deleted]
> dated by luminescence to at least 476 ± 23 kyr ago
...for those wonder about the precision of the date like I was.
...for those wonder about the precision of the date like I was.
I assume that they're also using superposition because radiocarbon dating is useless here. Other dating methods:
https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/dating
https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/dating
> Forget the label ‘Stone Age,’ look at what these people were doing: they made something new, and large, from wood.
??? The "Stone Age" refers to using stone tools, which these people did.
??? The "Stone Age" refers to using stone tools, which these people did.
That the "Stone Age" should better be called the "Wood Age" is an adage that has been used so often over the years that it has lost its appeal for me. Here, for example, is a summary of a paper from 1985 that argues this case: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/016093...
Agriculture seems a prerequisite for most other technologies because you can't invent much if you're constantly following 4 legged food. The transition to ag (small-scale gardening) began before 21k BCE (23k years ago) predating Natufian culture.
> if you're constantly following 4 legged food.
This is such a weirdly persistent bizzaro notion of hunter-gather lifestyles.
I grew up in the Kimberley region surrounded by and outnumbered by traditional hunter gathers ( some sea | some river | and we'd move south and interact with some of desert folk ) who had their food for the day in hand in under six hours, easily.
It makes more sense to think of Hunter-gathers as quasi nomadic across an estate that reaches to the horizon and beyond filled with animals they watch and both eat and protect, along with edible plants they harvest and encourage (by churning up soil and throwing seeds and husks back into).
The days are filled with story telling and walking a circuit looking for fresh tracks, hacking a few thick plants, digging out roots, sifting low tide mud for molluscs, pinging a few lizards in the head with rocks from a basketball court distance away, etc.
Hunter-Gatherers do practice agriculture, it just doesn't look like western european agriculture, more like ripping out 'bad' plants and spreading the seeds of good plants.
There's plenty of free time.
This is such a weirdly persistent bizzaro notion of hunter-gather lifestyles.
I grew up in the Kimberley region surrounded by and outnumbered by traditional hunter gathers ( some sea | some river | and we'd move south and interact with some of desert folk ) who had their food for the day in hand in under six hours, easily.
It makes more sense to think of Hunter-gathers as quasi nomadic across an estate that reaches to the horizon and beyond filled with animals they watch and both eat and protect, along with edible plants they harvest and encourage (by churning up soil and throwing seeds and husks back into).
The days are filled with story telling and walking a circuit looking for fresh tracks, hacking a few thick plants, digging out roots, sifting low tide mud for molluscs, pinging a few lizards in the head with rocks from a basketball court distance away, etc.
Hunter-Gatherers do practice agriculture, it just doesn't look like western european agriculture, more like ripping out 'bad' plants and spreading the seeds of good plants.
There's plenty of free time.
I think this is a bit of a fallacy. There was plenty invented in pre farming times, just these inventions were tailored to the task at hand which was hunting and foraging rather than other goals. For instance, the spear thrower. With that invention the act of spear hunting became orders of magnitude easier for less able bodied people. Spear throwers can be used to send a projectile 100m, and as fast as an MLB pitcher. You can imagine how this might have significantly improved the kill rates of the hunt, and could be thought of as significant of an invention as perhaps the plow was.
Woah, every new discovery really makes Graham Hancock seem a bit less crazy.
476,000 years is a HUGE jump. They called him crazy for thinking that the Egyptians had structures 12,000 years ago.
476,000 years is a HUGE jump. They called him crazy for thinking that the Egyptians had structures 12,000 years ago.
The crazy stuff he says is not the stuff about civilization going back further than conventional models. There are numerous archeologists who argue that and their positions are usually considered outside the mainstream but not insane.
Hancock says a lot of other things that are actually crazy, and like many people he’s gotten much worse lately.
Hancock says a lot of other things that are actually crazy, and like many people he’s gotten much worse lately.
What are the actual crazy things?
That Atlantis was real and probably had steam engines and lasers and psychic powers when everyone else was still hunting dinosaurs but then a global catastrophe wiped out the world (again) and here we are, half their size and half their glory.
I don’t think it’s that crazy.
What’s crazy is thinking eggs are bad for you and that the fabric of reality itself is nothing but a social construct
I don’t think it’s that crazy.
What’s crazy is thinking eggs are bad for you and that the fabric of reality itself is nothing but a social construct
I think for steam engines and laser tech, there would have to be some sort of evidence to be found. The only slightly "plausible" theory might be, if a advanced civilisation would have had psychic powers (quantumnwaves something) and no need for conventional tech, then there is a reason nothing can be found today. And then of course there was a global mage war, with all the psychic powers burned out of the minds of human.
(I do recommend the Illuminatus! Trilogy from Wilson and Shea, for interesting alternative history fantasy and all kinds of crazy stuff)
(I do recommend the Illuminatus! Trilogy from Wilson and Shea, for interesting alternative history fantasy and all kinds of crazy stuff)
I made that up about the psychic powers because I thought it was funny but that’s why people doubt Hancock. An advanced civilization, whether here or in space, leaves debris.
If we can find the Titanic we should be able to find the Atlanteans. Maybe.
If we can find the Titanic we should be able to find the Atlanteans. Maybe.
Well, I am not an expert in obscure experts, but I know that on 2 occasions people told me in all seriousity the idea of a psychic advanced Atlantis and mentioned a name who discovered it, but no Idea if that was Hancock.
And that lost civilisations existed, I have no doubt.
But likely not with laser tech.
And that lost civilisations existed, I have no doubt.
But likely not with laser tech.
>An advanced civilization, whether here or in space, leaves debris.
Not really. Just look at abandoned places today, and you can see how quickly nature takes them over and erases them. Sometimes traces can be found, like ancient cities that are sometimes found in the jungle of central America, but that's after ~500 years or less. On much longer timescales, nature and geology bury or destroy most evidence. If you're really lucky, something might be dug up, but that's rare. The only reason so many prehistoric fossils (dinosaurs etc) have been found is because there are SO many of them: they existed for hundreds of millions of years, all over the planet, so we've captured a tiny slice of what lies beneath the surface.
Perhaps there's some evidence of a past advanced civilization buried somewhere, but we haven't found it yet.
The Titanic is barely over 100 years old, so of course it's (partially) still there.
Not really. Just look at abandoned places today, and you can see how quickly nature takes them over and erases them. Sometimes traces can be found, like ancient cities that are sometimes found in the jungle of central America, but that's after ~500 years or less. On much longer timescales, nature and geology bury or destroy most evidence. If you're really lucky, something might be dug up, but that's rare. The only reason so many prehistoric fossils (dinosaurs etc) have been found is because there are SO many of them: they existed for hundreds of millions of years, all over the planet, so we've captured a tiny slice of what lies beneath the surface.
Perhaps there's some evidence of a past advanced civilization buried somewhere, but we haven't found it yet.
The Titanic is barely over 100 years old, so of course it's (partially) still there.
One cannot have lasers without a lot of other advanced technology and precursors. There's zero evidence of that.
I agree, which is the reason I don’t buy Hancocks theories or for that matter, the idea that aliens and UFOs exist.
I admit I went too far with the lasers but my thinking is that the fact that we are alone in the universe gives a lot of credence to the theory that we live in a simulation, and wouldn’t “Age of Atlantis” be a fun mod?
I admit I went too far with the lasers but my thinking is that the fact that we are alone in the universe gives a lot of credence to the theory that we live in a simulation, and wouldn’t “Age of Atlantis” be a fun mod?
The simulation is indistinguishable from religion.
I had a laser pointer when I was like 8 years old. They probably just got theirs from the dollar store like I did.
Unless reptilian space overlords somehow gave it to us in their contrived crazy planet-scale experiments, of course.
[deleted]
Is there much evidence that eggs are good for you?
We’re still hunting dinosaurs. Wild Turkey season opens pretty soon where I am.
We’re still hunting dinosaurs. Wild Turkey season opens pretty soon where I am.
It's pretty well established that humans need food to live.
That’s not germane; eggs aren’t the only good humans can eat.
Well he also thinks that Egyptians used Sonic energy of their chants to build the pyramids.
Hancock is a charlatan of the worst kind, in that I firmly believe he fully knows the vast majority of what he says is utter bullshit, but he keeps on saying it because it's garnering him a ton of money and attention. "They" (rightly, mind you) call him crazy for claiming the pyramids are 12000 years old, despite huge volumes of verifiable evidence strongly refuting such claims (Literally 100s of carbon dates from organic materials in mortar remnants between blocks, stratigraphy, lexical references like the Merer texts, etc.), and despite the lack of single shred of credible evidence for any of his claims other than his typical "This rock here looks like that rock on the other side of the world so the pyramids are 12000 years old and Atlantis is real" nonsense.
It should be evident that, with effort, the date of all firsts (and lasts) will continue to approach (but probably never reach) the date of The Oldest (or Newest) Artifact We Can Plausibly Find.
It doesn't take genius, intellectual courage, or prescience to expect this to continue.
There's certainly room for theorizing about what we may find and where, but archaeologists should in some fundamental way be more limited by proof than their imaginations.
Aside: I'd love to see the citation for "They called him crazy for thinking that the Egyptians had structures 12,000 years ago", as I'm a bit flummoxed by who's stupid enough to get any further out over their skis than "we don't have any evidence for that."
It doesn't take genius, intellectual courage, or prescience to expect this to continue.
There's certainly room for theorizing about what we may find and where, but archaeologists should in some fundamental way be more limited by proof than their imaginations.
Aside: I'd love to see the citation for "They called him crazy for thinking that the Egyptians had structures 12,000 years ago", as I'm a bit flummoxed by who's stupid enough to get any further out over their skis than "we don't have any evidence for that."
One thing Hancock is undeniably right about; "Stuff keeps getting older"
Two logs connected for some purpose near a River == must be a house? Not a raft, which would be much easier and obvious and helpful?
I think a raft would still be considered a structure or at least more than just used for fire or spears. It's a purpose-build device that was constructed to achieve a problem. I don't think what it is matters more than it was built in the first place to solve a problem. Those logs look too big for a raft though
In the video they specifically talk about a platform for building on, and there is mention of this find contracting conclusions about the nomadic nature of “folks” at the time. Both indicate they went straight to the abode idea.
The youngest of children will start assembling logs near shore when swimming at a lake. The crossing of the logs would help stabilize them so crossing would be safer and dry, which is critical in transporting some goods. The raft is more consistent with existing evidence, but less compelling to the modern world which expects homes to have floors.
The youngest of children will start assembling logs near shore when swimming at a lake. The crossing of the logs would help stabilize them so crossing would be safer and dry, which is critical in transporting some goods. The raft is more consistent with existing evidence, but less compelling to the modern world which expects homes to have floors.
I guess my point was less about what the structure is and more that it'd a significant discovery regardless of what it is.
https://books.google.com/books?id=LXmY3Q8qBngC&pg=PT74&lpg=P...