[paulrouget]

The logs are "joined transversely by an intentionally cut notch".

And I don't think researcher would just confuse bonfire and modified wood :) That's their expertise.

Read the (peer reviewed) research paper. You'll see how serious the research is: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06557-9

[pvaldes]

> You do know that this paper is published in Nature, right? Unless you're an archeologist with a credible track record I doubt that you have the expertise to effectively argue that this is find is not credible.

> I don't think researcher would just confuse bonfire and modified wood :) That's their expertise.

Appeal to the authority. I'm not scared, baby. I'd go anywhere. If is printed in nature then is true, right? gods speak...

noope

We need to understand that articles published in nature can be retracted. Here is a small list of five pages:

https://www.nature.com/nature/articles?type=retraction

There is a detail in that photo that opens a door to the possibility that the datation could be incorrect all the way long. I wrote yesterday about it at home, but will reserve my opinion until ruminating a little more about it.