[scott_s]

Yes, this is news. It presents specific, new evidence of the practice. The general idea that ancient humans had negative impact on the land was recognized as not being novel in the lead: "The idea that primitive hunter-gatherers lived in harmony with the landscape has long been challenged by researchers, who say Stone Age humans in fact wiped out many animal species in places as varied as the mountains of New Zealand and the plains of North America."

I see this tendency with scientific articles a lot. An article presents a new finding within an existing framework, and someone feels compelled to point out that the existing framework is old hat. This ignores that the news in the article is the new finding, not the existing framework.

[DanielBMarkham]

It represents specific new evidence. Got me there.

My point, somewhat rhetorically put, was that the framework itself is what is new for most readers here, not the specific piece of information. And that's sad.

[derefr]

Actually, this might just be an important point in the discussion of what exactly "does or doesn't belong" on HN. It seems like all the highly-voted, well-liked, and highly-commented articles tend to discuss some sort of revelation of pattern, not revelation of fact. In other words, hackers like to read about new, effective abstractions (for seeing the world in general, not just for code.)