DailyDirt: The Newest Of The Old

from the urls-we-dug-up dept

Mon, May 16th 2016 5:00pm — Leigh Beadon

Perhaps the most striking thing about archaeological finds is just how fragile and unlikely they are. When you realize the circumstances that had to align to give us each tiny glimpse into our prehistoric past, you can't help but think about all the artifacts we'll never get to see, lost as they are to decay or destruction or inaccessibility. Each find is precious and can teach us something new (except when it turns out to be fake).

The "band of holes" is a bizarre feature in Peru, made up of thousands of small man-made depressions in the earth, spanning a mile across sloped ground. Proposed explanations have included defensive structures and (of course) ancient aliens, but the latest and most promising idea is that they were a tallying system to measure tribute to the Inca empire. [url]
You've probably heard about the teenager who used star maps and Google Earth to discover what might be a lost Mayan city, but probably isn't. The latest development is a new explanation for the features seen in satellite imagery: they might be a marijuana grow op. [url]
A stone age axe recently uncovered in Australia is the oldest known axe that has an attached handle, predating the next most recent example by 10,000 years. It also predates the agricultural revolution by some 30,000 years, leaving archaeologists puzzling over its exact purpose. [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: ancient tools, archaeology, band of holes, inca empire, lost mayan city, peru, stone age

6 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2016 @ 5:58pm

star maps?
Why would anyone build a city according to a star map? And, you know, not like easy access to waterway transportation or trade routes? ppffftt!!!

A temple or something, maybe.. but not a city.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
annonymouse, 17 May 2016 @ 4:26am

cheers or however they say it at Octoberfest
Yup. There has never in history ever been a city built as whole cloth without growing from something much smaller.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mason Wheeler (profile), 17 May 2016 @ 7:08am
  
  Re: cheers or however they say it at Octoberfest
  Really?
  
  It's been over 10 years since I read this, and I'd have difficulty finding it again, but I recall reading once that it used to be thought that cities grew out of towns, which grew out of villages, but archaeologists are starting to learn the exact opposite: ancient cities were almost always intended to be cities from the beginning. IIRC the article was written back in the 50s or 60s, so I'm not sure how much the conventional wisdom has changed since then, but there's more than one viewpoint on the matter, at the very least.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
JoeCool (profile), 17 May 2016 @ 9:35am

Huh?
It also predates the agricultural revolution by some 30,000 years, leaving archaeologists puzzling over its exact purpose.

I lived on a farm as a kid, and an axe is NOT one of the things we used associated with said farm. However, an axe is very useful beyond farming - you know, to chop wood, to chop up your enemies... that sort of thing. Other than poking prey/enemies with a sharp stick, an axe was probably one of the first tools used for HUNTING or fighting. Agriculture came MUCH MUCH later in history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Leigh Beadon (profile), 17 May 2016 @ 11:45am
  
  Re: Huh?
  It is not entirely intuitively clear to me either, but it is true that almost all prehistoric axes uncovered by archaeologists appear to have been agricultural tools (found on farms alongside ploughs, etc.), and there are few if any examples - specifically of axe-heads for mounting on handles - that predate agriculture. And so this one raised some eyebrows. Archaeologists generally try not to just guess what a tool was used for (or at least not assert that guess as the definite truth).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Leigh Beadon (profile), 17 May 2016 @ 11:48am
  
  Re: Huh?
  As you note, the real original weapon/tool is a sharp stick - or a stick with a spearhead mounted on it. It's actually quite hard for me to envision many situations where a neolithic hunter would find an axe more useful for either hunting or combat. Hunting is all about range. Axes in war are all about close combat and are especially useful against armoured opponents (and such axes tend to have very small heads, for puncturing power).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]