4 ms·

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 wor

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?

pvaldes 3y ago
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.
- paulrouget 3y ago
  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 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06557-9
  - pvaldes 3y ago
    > 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 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.
pvaldes 3y ago
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.

pvaldes 3y ago

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.

paulrouget 3y ago
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 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06557-9
- pvaldes 3y ago
  > 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 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.

pvaldes 3y ago

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.