Re:1k-year-old dingo bones show that it was injured, cared f...
by dwroberts on Monday May 25, 2026 @09:32AM
(#48266651)
What you’re quoting does not contradict their actual conclusion, which is the first paragraph I quoted
Re:1k-year-old dingo bones show that it was injured, cared f...
by treis on Monday May 25, 2026 @10:23AM
(#48267207)
Okay but I didn't say they didn't conclude that. I said:
>no evidence of burial and the evidence (mussel shells) that humans were involved with the site at all is thin
>One of the Garli’s caudal vertebrae, recovered directly below the eroding burial, was sampled for AMS radiocarbon dating and returned an age range of 963–916 cal BP (ANU-75935). A freshwater mollusc shell sampled from the central burial block (UNSW-3415) returned an age of 1,178–957 cal BP. Three additional mussel fragments (cf. Velesunio sp.) were dated from Layer 1 of Zone 1 (UNSW-3414), the Garli burial core’s interface with Layer 1 (UNSW-3416), and from sediment within the burial core adjacent to the Garli skeleton itself (SANU-75235). These produced ages several hundred years younger than the Garli