Kind of humbling to realize that while Mesopotamia and Egypt were building empires, folks in Peru were constructing circular temples, making seashell jewelry, and setting up complex trade networks completely independently
Is there something new unveiled that was missed in translation? The quoted researchers Shady and Machacuay doen't seem to have any new publications about Peñico listed in Google Scholar.
Eight years of research at the site unearthed 18 structures, including ceremonial temples and residential complexes.
Likely a tourism advertising PR push of a place with an existing vistors center. The only thing they mention is some drone footage which probably supplied the aerial footage.
>The 3,500-year-old city, named Peñico, is believed to have served as a key trading hub connecting early Pacific coast communities with those living in the Andes mountains and Amazon basin.
...
>Researchers say the discovery sheds light on what became of the Americas' oldest civilisation, the Caral.
Oldest civilization is a bit of a stretch. Earliest surviving structures is a stretch, but it's one we know about, so I guess they have to base it off that. More and more evidence is showing that humans were in the Americas farther back in time. While they weren't the builders of of fine stonework and megalithic structures like the Olmec (that we know of), there were certainly civilizations and cities before humans suddenly started building the massive pyramids and cities we have uncovered so far. There's a lot of secrets still hidden in the South American jungles.
This site (~1475 BCE) is older than the Olmecs (1200-400BCE) and is associated with another city, Caral, which is even older than them (3000-1800BCE) and both are much farther south than Mexico is compared to the Bering Land Bridge.
Caral at 5000 years old is quite old! For additional context the Pyramids of Giza are ~4600 years old and Stonehenge is ~5100 years old. Given that it's in Peru this does not counter your narrative. But Archaeology is a Science and they cannot definitively say there is an older city without discovering it. It also might be unlikely to find what would be qualified as a "City" that is older. We've certainly found much older human settlements in the Americas, but megalithic building and cities is harder to say. Perhaps we'll find packed earth ones somewhere, but Peru really did have the jump on what would term "complex societies" in the Americas
Remember these are archaeologists using the word "civilization" as a term of art within their field. There's no universally agreed upon definition but in general people use the scale model [1] (you can see the scales that different authors have developed at the link).
It's not like we don't know about a bunch of different peoples that existed even earlier (i.e. Toca da Tira Peia is ~22 kYa), but the evidence we have of them is basically a few burial mounds and maybe some domestic structures, and that does not rise to the threshold of a civilization for the intents and purposes of archaeology.
In context of possible early Peruvian civilizations, definitely don't read the below; it's obviously an undersubstantiated pseudoscientific rabbit-hole not worth your curiosity and that your productive workday can not afford.
Honest advice: free yourself from that and live a happier life. And I don't mean it in an "ignorance is bliss" kind of way, on the contrary really. Otherwise, to be consistent, you'd need to
- demand your salary be paid in salt
- have all arenas be covered in sand
- calculate only with pebbles
- only allow xylophones made of wood
And so on. It's a tiring journey to embark on -- oops, one can only embark on ships...
I'm mildly annoyed that the word "alternate" has come to mean the same thing as "alternative". I'm annoyed because "alternate" is actually a useful word that I'd like to use sometimes to express myself concisely and unambiguously.
But "decimate"? How often do you feel the need to refer to reducing the size of something by one tenth? This is bizarrely specific and I highly doubt it ever has any real applications unless you invent one.
gregsadetsky|7 months ago
via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pe%C3%B1ico
gwbas1c|7 months ago
Perhaps something got lost in translation?
slimebot80|7 months ago
ErigmolCt|7 months ago
undebuggable|7 months ago
louis_saglio|7 months ago
thoiy3988793|7 months ago
[deleted]
adolph|7 months ago
dmix|7 months ago
tree_enjoyer|7 months ago
...
>Researchers say the discovery sheds light on what became of the Americas' oldest civilisation, the Caral.
Oldest civilization is a bit of a stretch. Earliest surviving structures is a stretch, but it's one we know about, so I guess they have to base it off that. More and more evidence is showing that humans were in the Americas farther back in time. While they weren't the builders of of fine stonework and megalithic structures like the Olmec (that we know of), there were certainly civilizations and cities before humans suddenly started building the massive pyramids and cities we have uncovered so far. There's a lot of secrets still hidden in the South American jungles.
TSiege|7 months ago
Caral at 5000 years old is quite old! For additional context the Pyramids of Giza are ~4600 years old and Stonehenge is ~5100 years old. Given that it's in Peru this does not counter your narrative. But Archaeology is a Science and they cannot definitively say there is an older city without discovering it. It also might be unlikely to find what would be qualified as a "City" that is older. We've certainly found much older human settlements in the Americas, but megalithic building and cities is harder to say. Perhaps we'll find packed earth ones somewhere, but Peru really did have the jump on what would term "complex societies" in the Americas
throwup238|7 months ago
It's not like we don't know about a bunch of different peoples that existed even earlier (i.e. Toca da Tira Peia is ~22 kYa), but the evidence we have of them is basically a few burial mounds and maybe some domestic structures, and that does not rise to the threshold of a civilization for the intents and purposes of archaeology.
[1] https://www.sociostudies.org/journal/articles/140526/
ErigmolCt|7 months ago
Oarch|7 months ago
ricksunny|7 months ago
https://tridactyls.org/
(maintained by one Gonzalo Chavez https://x.com/gchavez101 )
Aspos|7 months ago
lampiaio|7 months ago
- demand your salary be paid in salt
- have all arenas be covered in sand
- calculate only with pebbles
- only allow xylophones made of wood
And so on. It's a tiring journey to embark on -- oops, one can only embark on ships...
BobAliceInATree|7 months ago
OED dates the first known use of "to reduce drastically or severely; to destroy, ruin, devastate" to 1660.
seizethecheese|7 months ago
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decimate
globular-toast|7 months ago
But "decimate"? How often do you feel the need to refer to reducing the size of something by one tenth? This is bizarrely specific and I highly doubt it ever has any real applications unless you invent one.
samplatt|7 months ago
I instantly howled with anguish. Surely decimating them should mean removing NINE tenths. The Master was a small-minded coward.
DrBazza|7 months ago
Seriously though, languages change.
Tallain|7 months ago
Qazar|7 months ago
[deleted]
foobarian|7 months ago