Pandora wrote:
> Because temporary or permanent dwellings are one of the universal
> characteristics of Homo sapiens
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis?
Homo sapiens heidelbergensis?
This is far from uncharted territory. It's interdisciplinary. Plenty of
archaeology work has already been done, unearthing the evidence
of settlements, including some pretty crude housing, yet nobody
has found any evidence for this early housing you speak of.
They weren't as social? Is that it? Settlements were far smaller or
even unique to a single structure? No "Village" style settlements?
The stone rings seen in some of the videos of MODERN people, the
ones we're pretending are a model for Homo sapiens, would certainly
have preserved. Where are they?
Simply put: You're either looking in the wrong place or you're just
wrong.
This is science. It's how science works. Evidence. Testing ideas.
One "Prediction" of your ideas that does lend itself to testing is that
some of these sites, the locations of these early "Domeshield" or
gass huts or whatever you want to call them: People living. Cooking.
Eating. Dying. Making tools. Using tools.
They should exist. You could find them, if they exist.
We don't find them. Like the millions of years of Chimp tools, and
tens of millions of years of monkey tools, they were all gobbled
up by the invisible pink unicorns....
Same thing happened to Naledi DNA. And their tools. And all their
other burial sites... the same invisible pink unicorns got at them,
ate them all; gobbled them all up.
Such a shame, those invisible pink unicorns, eating all the evidence.
Or maybe there's no such thing as invisible pink unicorns and the
evidence never existed because you're just plain wrong.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/701970720341770240