27 comments

[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 140 ms ] thread
Of course, the world's oldest sandals were found near Fort Rock, Oregon:

https://www.oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/fort_rock_sandal...

Came to share this as well.

The sandals found ant Fort Rock are 9-13,000 years old. The article refers to a 6,200 year old find.

Didn't know Oregon is in Europe. /s
Can you explain this joke? pugworthy didn't suggest that Oregon is in Europe.

He's right by the way. Presumably he's downvoted because people only read the headline and assumed the sandals are the same age as the baskets? TFA clearly states that the sandals "could" be as old as 6,200 years. Second sentence.

I mostly was wanting to share the age of the Oregon Fort Rock sandals because of this quote from the article...

“My first reaction was, ‘Oh my God, that is not possible,’”

If you were aware of the Fort Rock sandals and their age, then this is not only possible, but quite probable given similar finds from thousands of years before already existed - on another continent.

Because obviously he didn't read even headline where it says "Europe's Oldest" not world, so who care about sandals from Oregon
How has Nike mined this commercial and marketing gold yet!?
Were these sandals worn with or without socks?
They may have been primitive but they still had the good taste to go without.
Well, sheep were domesticated around the same time period in human history (9000+ BC), so it's conceivable that the wearers created some crudely woven foot-covering to accent their new utility-fashion trend, but... I know this is HN, so to answer your real question, no... Jacquard Weaving Loom Socks (the predecessor to your modern beloved Programming Socks) were only invented in the early 1800s, which is presumably why our ancestors struggled for millennia to create a simple hello world in FORTRAN or Shortcode.
I have a feeling the bags photo is a modern digital reconstruction not the finds.
According to the paper, the pictures are the real deal.

The paper is here: https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/sciadv.adi3055

The full list of finds is on this supplementary PDF: https://www.science.org/action/downloadSupplement?doi=10.112...

They're identified as baskets 579, 580 and 581.

Amazing! They did also find fragments, but those complete baskets are stunning.

> The three dated objects (579, 580, and 581) corresponding to the earlier occupation phase of the cave (phase 1) are 3D twined baskets made with raw esparto. They are well preserved compared with the other fiber-based materials, being almost complete and decorated with geometric motifs made with dyed fibers (Fig. 2A); some incorporate human hairs or pigments (Fig. 2B). Other baskets recovered at the cave (582, 583, 585, 586, 586a, 586b, 592, and 593) share similar morphologies, techniques, and raw material, suggesting that they are also related to phase 1.

Especially considering that they were discovered 150 years ago and probably not well taken care of during most of the interim.
Clearly not mvp baskets, wonder how far back the practice started for these particular people. So cool.
Wow, those three baskets in the main photo are in stunning condition! They also look to be incredibly well made. Really amazed they survived this well, even if they were in a cave with low humidity.
They really are incredibly well preserved for an object made of organic materials and older than the pyramids!
Fwiw, even in such a simple thing as a basket, a civilization can show its level: the pattern can demonstrate the use of tools that can't be produced by a simpler civilization, or it can creatively encode some truths that the people knew. So if you're making baskets, chances are that your work, in 10,000 years, will be the only thing that matters, unlike the most other things we consider important today.
Pretty cool that the esparto grass is still being used to make espadrille shoes. Not many things have an unbroken tradition of 10k years.
But mining activities led some of the plant-based artifacts to be burned and scattered outside of the cave; some baskets and other objects were distributed among nearby villagers.

That's durability, no joke.

What exactly is the intended takeaway from your comment and the provided link w.r.t. the article?
That the "9,500-years" are probably for clout. Lets wait on the Potassium-argon dating, if any done.
Nonsense. Potassium-argon dating is for dating rocks and minerals, not some organic reeds which would not trap the argon.
I don't see how that follows from your link, which doesn't make a big deal of the inaccuracy of carbon dating. In fact, it says:

>Radiocarbon dating works on organic materials up to about 60,000 years of age.

Which would certainly cover a woven basket. What exactly from the link should a reader take away, which is relevant to the article and the point you're trying to make?