all 2 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

Curious. Carbon dating can confirm the mammoth tusk to -40k but why is it assumed it was carved then? Someone could have found the tusk later and carved it.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    It's likely because of the layers (Upper-Paleolithic) the carvings were recovered from. The article links to futher findings which have also been dated to be around 40000 to 35000 years old.

  • source
  • parent
  • 2 comments in c/archaeology@mander.xyz view that post
    [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    The site is part of a UNESCO World Heritage cluster in the Swabian Jura known for yielding some of the earliest figurative art in human history.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago*

    40’000 ya, that’s right when homo sapiens began settling europe, and neanderthals were becoming extinct. I wonder if the authors have a hunch whether this is the work of sapiens or neanderthals.

  • source