Picture above is a view of the articulated partial skeleton, and below that is an
external view of the left side of the child's skull and jaw bone.
Posted on 05/06/2021 6:09:03 AM PDT by deport
A toddler laid to rest with their head on a pillow in a cave in eastern Kenya is thought to be the oldest human burial ever found in Africa. The remains of the child, who was between 2 ½ and 3 years old, date back 78,000 years and were found buried at the mouth of the Panga ya Saidi cave.
Early Homo sapiens have been found in Europe and the Middle East dating back 120,000 years, the child's skeleton represents the earliest evidence of intentional burial in Africa.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
CNN is still looking for the cop who killed him.
Then there's this: "Archaeologists have been very busy in the Near East and Europe for 150 years, with continuous excavations. If the same amount of work happened in Africa, we might find more and older burials," said Michael Petraglia, coauthor of the study and a professor at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History.
The inevitable dig.
When I hear phrases like “120,000” and “78,000” years ago, my mind thinks about the vast difference in time between that far back and the little more than 4,000 years or so of what we call “recorded” human history.
It makes one try to imagine what “recorded human history” would be like, back 120,000 or even 78,000 years ago.
I guess history would “explode” if someone found a never before seen human form of writing on some artifact that was found to be 50,000 years old.
I’ll get right on that. Any idea what it would go for on Ebay?
why don’t you find out.
Is that bad writing or funky gender neutral wokeness?
It’s an economy of expression. Folks are tired of “his or her”. Let it go, SCP.
Here’s an economy of expression. “Stupid.”
And nothing else. No significant signs of ancient culture or technological advancement in the past 100,000 years.
They probably could have gotten away with “its”. But referring to children in a manner akin to the way we refer to objects or things also sounds vaguely wrong. So there’s that.
How about “The body of a toddler laid to rest with the head on a pillow in a cave in eastern Kenya is thought to be the oldest human burial ever found in Africa.”
There are details that separate good writing from bad. I guarantee that Katie Hunt is as woke as can be, or bows to the CNN style guide, or both.
More Fake Science..
I just found the oldest chicken bone ever found on earth in my backyard...
I date around 100,000 years old....
See how this works??
PING
Picture above is a view of the articulated partial skeleton, and below that is an
external view of the left side of the child's skull and jaw bone.
Thanks for the pings and comments. I guess Petraglia has never heard of all the proceed-from-bias archaeology that has been going on for over a century, in search of the must-be-there human ancestors.
More repetitive trolling by a troll.
That’s not a dig it’s a statement of fact. It’s good that parts of Europe and Asia have an enthusiastic population of people who encourage anthropolgy. But, if you want to look for early modern humans, Africa is the place to go. With the situation in many parts of Africa, any investigation will have to wait.
This burial is of a modern human (Homo sapiens) dated at 78K BP. It pushes the boundary of what we know about early modern human behavior.
Specifically male singular: He, him, his.
Specifically female singular: She, her, hers.
Might be male, might be female, not sure or no need to specify, singular: ???????
Sex not relevant or neuter/neutral singilar: It, it, its.
This is a particular weakness of the English language.
Most other languages don’t suffer from this weakness because they have a designated set of singular pronouns for situation #3.
Some, deliberately wishing to avoid disclosing the sex of a particular person under discussion have used “made up” pronouns.
I saw this circa 2000 in an online discussion: Em, em, ems. Weird at first, but got used to it. The individuals carrying on the conversation were determined not to have readers suss out the identity of the presin whose comings and goings they were discussing. Using sex-nonspecific singular pronouns was nothing but a means to that end. They weren’t virtue signaling or any thing like that.
Of course it’s virtue signaling. We can’t default to the assumption of male identity, can we? As I demonstrated, the English language easily accommodates gender neutrality without all the nonsense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
