So that “pre-human” remark in the article was balderdash? Why am I not surprised?
“So that “pre-human” remark in the article was balderdash? Why am I not surprised?”
NYT. Need we say more?
Also might be a good idea to see if this ‘find’ is reported on sites dedicated to that sort of stuff.
also in the opening paragraph the peoples are reffered to as “possibily even prehuman” - you will note that the next references drop the “possibily even” and go directly to “prehuman”, as if somehow that has been established as fact in a few paragraphs. More shoddy NYT writing - but the intent is for you to come away with the wrong info.