[HN Gopher] A mystery that took 13k years to crack
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       A mystery that took 13k years to crack
        
       Author : diodorus
       Score  : 85 points
       Date   : 2022-06-25 03:04 UTC (19 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.theatlantic.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.theatlantic.com)
        
       | CodeBeater wrote:
       | https://archive.is/hzj3b
        
       | unsupp0rted wrote:
       | Like how the age of the planet is a mystery that took 4.6 billion
       | years to crack?
        
         | alserio wrote:
         | well, technically...
        
       | Simon_O_Rourke wrote:
       | That's a pretty well written piece! And it's amazing that
       | isotopic analysis of bones can pick out where they traveled.
        
       | ncmncm wrote:
       | The article obscures that it was not human hunting that did in
       | the mammoths, as it insinuates, but rather the comet strike c.
       | 10,818 BCE that initiated the Younger Dryas cold spell, most
       | probably by suddenly dumping hundreds of cubic miles of meltwater
       | into the oceans and filling the upper atmosphere with soot.
       | 
       | This event took out some 30 genera in North America alone,
       | including mammoths, mastodons, giant sloth and beaver, dire
       | wolves, a bear bigger than the grizzly, horses, camels, and saber
       | toothed cats, and also all hint of the then only 200-year-old
       | Clovis culture known for its beautiful spearpoints, and still
       | often blamed, as in TFA, for suddenly wiping out all these
       | genera.
       | 
       | Fought tooth and nail by extraordinarily disingenuous opponents
       | (one, a retired historian, still er... curates the Wikipedia
       | page), it was finally established to the satisfaction of all
       | scrupulous observers in 2018 with evidence from a layer of
       | spiking platinum concentration, shocked quartz, and soot
       | coincident on four continents, with proof of a continent-wide
       | conflagration with no sulfur spike of volcanism, in stratigraphic
       | cores from dozens of sites and as far away as South Africa.
       | 
       | It happened after glacier cover from the last ice age had begun
       | receding 7000 years before, and sea level had already risen 40
       | meters (with 80 meters left to go, ending ~8000 years ago). The
       | Younger Dryas cold spell lasted some 12-1300 years, ending
       | coincident with construction at Gobekli Tepe in Turkey. (Other
       | similar work found nearby predates that.)
       | 
       | We still have no crater to associate with the strike, which might
       | have been an airburst like the Tunguska strike, or have left
       | craters mainly in the miles-thick ice sheet covering Canada. (An
       | apparent crater in Greenland under 1200ft of ice, if it is one,
       | seems to be too old, although this is inconclusive.)
       | 
       | The real mystery is why modern humans waited from 300,000 years
       | ago until the Younger Dryas to begin activities that would lead
       | to civilization. We find evidence of uniform cultural practices
       | across many thousands of miles and tens of millennia (painting
       | preserved in caves from Sulawesi 45kya ago to Spain 22kya),
       | ocean-going navigation >50kya (occupation of Sulawesi and
       | Australia, never connected by land) and footprints in North
       | America 22kya, mechanical drilling 40kya in a Denisovan bracelet,
       | and ceramics in China 18kya.
       | 
       | The actual work, isotopic analysis of strata in a tusk, does not
       | suffer from the flaws of the article exploiting it.
        
       | natch wrote:
       | This writing is great!
        
       | magic_hamster wrote:
       | That was absolutely spectacular. The writing is truly inspiring.
        
       | drewcoo wrote:
       | It only took me 60s to determine this article was BS.
       | 
       | Or was it 4.6B years?
       | 
       | Ridonculous.
        
       | jphsnsir wrote:
        
         | ogogmad wrote:
         | Should comments like the above be flagged?
        
           | Timwi wrote:
           | ... No?
           | 
           | Are you offended by the abbreviation tldr?
        
             | ogogmad wrote:
             | It means "Too long; didn't read". The guidelines say:
             | 
             |  _Please don 't post shallow dismissals, especially of
             | other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us
             | something._
        
         | 867-5309 wrote:
         | "shunned elephant gets tusk bandsawed for clickbait"
        
       | xmprt wrote:
       | This is the worst type of clickbait. The types of people who
       | would be attracted by the title will hate the article because it
       | doesn't have a straightforward title. And the types of people who
       | would enjoy the story probably won't be too intrigued by the
       | title.
       | 
       | A title like this should emphasize on the 13,200 years part and
       | why it took so long to solve this mystery. Instead it talks about
       | the life of a mastodon, which while very interesting, isn't
       | really much of a mystery. In fact, the word mystery appears only
       | in the title and nowhere else.
        
         | InCityDreams wrote:
         | Quite a few click/ false headlines appearing of late. That's
         | why I always immediately go to the comments, and rarely bother
         | with the articles.
        
         | lmc wrote:
         | Yeah it's a quality article, but it's more "The Story That Took
         | 13,200 Years to Tell"
        
         | joegahona wrote:
         | I came here to say something similar about the title, but you
         | said it far more powerfully than I could have. Also it's a
         | terrible title for SEO.
        
         | smoyer wrote:
         | Remember that the author writes the content but usually has
         | very little control over the title that will ultimately adorn
         | their prose. I agree that the article was click-baiting but
         | perhaps I'm the rare person who enjoys a good mystery and isn't
         | repelled by content that actually teaches me something.
        
         | shusaku wrote:
         | The problem is that hacker news doesn't let the submitter write
         | the very helpful subtitle.
         | 
         | > Hidden in the tusk of a 34-year-old mastodon was a record of
         | time and space that helped explain his violent death.
         | 
         | We should be complaining about the aggregators, not the actual
         | sites.
        
           | gus_massa wrote:
           | The subtitle is usually fine here (but sometimes the mods
           | rever them if they don't like the change). A random sentence
           | in the middle of the article is not fine here (but sometimes
           | the mods use it anyway when the title and subtitle are bad).
           | 
           | The subtitle has more than 80 characters, but it can be
           | reduced to
           | 
           | > _Tusk of a mastodon has a record of time and space that
           | helped explain his death_
        
         | 13of40 wrote:
         | One of the worst examples I've seen recently was that article
         | with the title "Physicists Have Discovered A Never-Before-Seen
         | Particle - Sitting On A Tabletop". I can just imagine some
         | annoyed grad student trying to explain how they detected this
         | new particle using a small, highly polarized optical detector
         | while the intern from Planet News is giggling and asking to
         | hear less science junk and more about the tabletop.
        
         | ncmncm wrote:
         | The problem _was_ the title: There was no mystery. A mammoth
         | lived, and then died, as did every mammoth ever born. There had
         | once been a mystery about their extinction, but the article
         | gets that one wrong.
        
         | iLoveOncall wrote:
         | > A title like this should emphasize on the 13,200 years part
         | and why it took so long to solve this mystery.
         | 
         | Correct me if I'm wrong because I stopped reading quickly after
         | realizing it was clickbait, but the skeleton was discovered in
         | 1998, so at best the mystery took 24 years to resolve, so I
         | don't see what there is to emphasize.
         | 
         | Anyway, I'm off to figure out the billions of years old mystery
         | of what I'm gonna have for breakfast.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-06-25 23:02 UTC)