Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Archaeologists discover oldest wooden structure

news.liverpool.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 112 posts

Re: Archaeologists discover oldest wooden structure

#91

Post by WalterBright »

ulizzle wrote: post #76
WalterBright wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The simulation is indistinguishable from religion.

Re: Archaeologists discover oldest wooden structure

#92

Post by nafey »

DabbyDabberson wrote: post #40

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.

Well he also thinks that Egyptians used Sonic energy of their chants to build the pyramids.

Re: Archaeologists discover oldest wooden structure

#93

Post by aaron695 »

ulizzle wrote: post #53
bagels wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

[dead]

Re: Archaeologists discover oldest wooden structure

#94

Post by Ekaros »

foota wrote: post #51
alehlopeh wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 does…

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...

Re: Archaeologists discover oldest wooden structure

#95

Post by Maxion »

jl6 wrote: post #4

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?

> 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.

Re: Archaeologists discover oldest wooden structure

#96

Post by Maxion »

pvaldes wrote: post #9

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…

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.

Re: Archaeologists discover oldest wooden structure

#97

Post by Maxion »

asdff wrote: post #77
foota wrote: post #8

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 tim…

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.

Re: Archaeologists discover oldest wooden structure

#99

Post by Maxion »

foota wrote: post #51
alehlopeh wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 does…

> 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.

Post reply on HN