Your source on the web for daily archaeology news!
https://archaeologica.org/forum/
About 20,000 years ago, humans trekked along the margins of a shallow lake in Australia, leaving behind records of their passage in the soft, wet sand.
marduk wrote:shouldn't that be 20,000 years
Archaeological site Years BP Dating method
Malakunanja II 50,000 Thermoluminescence
Upper Swan 39,500±2300-1800 14C on charcoal
Mandu Mandu Creek 34200±1050 14C on charcoal
Sandy Creek 31,900 +700/600 14C on charcoal
Lake Mungo 31,100±2250-1750 14C on shell
ORS7 30850±480 14C on charcoal
Nunamira Cave 30420±690 14C on charcoal
Bone Cave 29000±520 14C on charcoal
Human skeletal material Years BP Dating method
Lake Mungo I 24700±1270 14C on bone collagen
Coobool Creek 65 14300±1000 U/Th on bone
Kow Swamp 5 and 9 13000±280, 9590±130 14C on shell, 14C bone apatite
Keilor 12000±100 14C on bone collagen
Nacurrie I 11440±160 AMS on bone collagen
Roonka 89 6910±450 14C on bone collagen
Literature Cited
the only thing missing is how did they come to this conclusion andhow werethey able to date these footprints??The researchers believe the prints were made over a series of weeks or months about 20,000 years ago when the site was exposed. Males and females, ranging from children to adults, are represented, and many of them seem to be doing different things.
that is kind of a big leap given thereisno supporting evidence to warrant such thinking.Quite a few people seem to be running and heading the same way," Cupper told LiveScience. "Some of the little children were walking slower. This may suggest that there were several events represented."
If you do a little searching for the geology of the Willandra Lakes system you will have your answer. However, given your irrational refusal to accept the results of geology, it would probably be a waste of your time.archaeologist wrote:the only thing missing is how did they come to this conclusion andhow werethey able to date these footprints??The researchers believe the prints were made over a series of weeks or months about 20,000 years ago when the site was exposed. Males and females, ranging from children to adults, are represented, and many of them seem to be doing different things.
Go run in wet sand some time and examine the marks you leave carefully. Then walk in the same wet sands and examine those tracks too.archaeologist wrote:Quite a few people seem to be running and heading the same way," Cupper told LiveScience. "Some of the little children were walking slower. This may suggest that there were several events represented."
that is kind of a big leap given thereisno supporting evidence to warrant such thinking.
that still doesn't prove such conjecture. you leave out too many possibilities. it is a leap to a conclusion or theory which is misleading in all manner of speaking.Go run in wet sand some time and examine the marks you leave carefully. Then walk in the same wet sands and examine those tracks too
no, i am looking atthe article andthey made claims without providing any proof as to how they came to such conclusions. all it is is here are footprints and here is our conclusion. no process of thinking to prove why they came to such outlandish results.Side-stepping the little geology problem you've got there?
whereas religious researchers leave out the evidencesecular researchers leave out the obvious when they are trying to prove their belief.
It's an article clearly taken from a science site. I suppose that they figure their audience is capable of doing a little research on their own and doesn't need to be spoon-fed elementary science.archaeologist wrote:no, i am looking atthe article andthey made claims without providing any proof as to how they came to such conclusions. all it is is here are footprints and here is our conclusion. no process of thinking to prove why they came to such outlandish results.Side-stepping the little geology problem you've got there?
Not everybody needs the obvious explained to them. Some, apparently, do.archaeologist wrote:secular researchers leave out the obvious when they are trying to prove their belief.