Archaeologists have discovered the oldest evidence yet of a wooden structure crafted by the hands of a human ancestor. Two tree trunks, notched like Lincoln Logs, were preserved at the bottom of the Kalambo River in Zambia. If the logs’ estimated 476,000-year-old age is correct, it means that woodworking might predate the emergence of our own species, Homo sapiens, and highlights the intelligence of our hominin ancestors.

Archaeologists unearthed the logs at Kalambo Falls, on Lake Tanganyika in northern Zambia, a site that has been investigated by scientists since the 1950s. Previous excavations around a small lake just upstream from the falls yielded stone tools, preserved pollen and wooden artifacts that have helped researchers understand more about human evolution and culture over the span of hundreds of thousands of years.

But a new analysis of five modified pieces of wood from Kalambo is pushing back the earliest occupation of the site and giving researchers new insight into the minds of our Middle Pleistocene (781,000 to 126,000 years ago) ancestors.

In a new study published Wednesday (Sept. 20) in the journal Nature, researchers led by Larry Barham, a professor in the Department of archaeology, classics, and Egyptology at the University of Liverpool in the U.K, detail the wooden objects they unearthed. These include two that were found with stone tools below the river and three that were covered in clay deposits above the river level. These wooden artifacts survived over hundreds of thousands of years due to the permanently elevated water table.

Through luminescence dating of sand samples from the site, which involves measuring how long ago the sand grains were exposed to light, Barham and his colleagues found three clusters: a cut log and a tapered piece of wood dating to 324,000 years ago; a digging stick dating to 390,000 years ago; and a wooden wedge and two overlapping logs dating to 476,000 years ago.

  • rhythmisaprancer@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    What will they do when they unearth a large monolith 😬

    But seriously, it is hard to really grasp that something like cabin building was happening half a million years ago. I guess that river might have been following a different path then?

    • Luke@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      9 months ago

      I’m not sure that it’s inconceivable to scientists that interesting buildings existed half a million years ago, but there is a lack of evidence of that, so findings like this one are important.

    • bitsplease@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      9 months ago

      I guess that river might have been following a different path then?

      Practically guarenteed, few rivers follow the same course for even a hundred years, let alone hundreds of thousanda

    • ExLisper@linux.community
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Homo sapience existed for like 3000.000 so this puts this structure only 200.000 years earlier. I don’t find it very surprising that some very very close relative to Homo Sapience was able to build wooden structures. At 200.000 years we’re pretty much talking about early humans.

      For me the amazing part is that Homo Sapience were just walking around hunting and gathering for almost 300.000 years before they started settling down and then, suddenly, boom! Couple thousands years later we’re like walking on the moon and shit. Mind boggling. The best theory is that climate change caused this. Without it we could still be just walking around, maybe for another 100.000 years, just waiting for our moment.

  • neuropean@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    9 months ago

    Not sure how reliable dating the surrounding sand would be to determine the age of the wood, why not use carbon dating?

      • Akasazh@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        Dendrochronology is out, too, as we don’t have reference material.

        This makes dating pretty difficult. But if true it’s pretty awesome.