If we are both talking about the same structure, I don't see striations, but the photo mentions two cracks. If those are really cracks (and not engravings carved superficially) this would reinforce my theory.
And I don't think researcher would just confuse bonfire and modified wood :) That's their expertise.
Read the (peer reviewed) research paper. You'll see how serious the research is: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06557-9
> I don't think researcher would just confuse bonfire and modified wood :) That's their expertise.
Appeal to the authority. I'm not scared, baby. I'd go anywhere. If is printed in nature then is true, right? gods speak...
noope
We need to understand that articles published in nature can be retracted. Here is a small list of five pages:
https://www.nature.com/nature/articles?type=retraction
There is a detail in that photo that opens a door to the possibility that the datation could be incorrect all the way long. I wrote yesterday about it at home, but will reserve my opinion until ruminating a little more about it.
My opinion didn't changed a dime. Slope too wide. We don't work like that, so they neither would. Those are not man made.