Oldest Stone Tools Predate Previous Record Holder By 700,000 Years

derekmead writes: The oldest stone tools ever found have been discovered by scientists in Kenya who say they are 3.3m years old, making them by far the oldest such artifacts discovered. Predating the rise of humans' first ancestors in the Homo genus, the artifacts were found near Lake Turkana, Kenya. More than 100 primitive hammers, anvils and other stone tools have been found at the site. An in-depth analysis of the site, its contents, and its significance as a new benchmark in evolutionary history will be published in the May 21 issue of Nature.

Comments

Re:Is Slashdot getting too old?

[Buchenskjoll]

Please have some respect, Slashdot predates similar websites by 700,000 years

It was aliens

[confused one]

It was aliens, they were here first. Messed with our ancestors. Left a calling sign or two...

Re:It was aliens

[Anonymous Coward]

No, not aliens. It was just one of Vulcan's early locations. If you prefer, Hephaestus instead of Vulcan. But hammers and anvils? Yep, Vulcan.

Re:It was aliens

[Penguinisto]

It was aliens, they were here first.

No, no, don't get too excited: It was just a copy of Visual Basic 0.99 that some hominid left lying around.

Re:It was aliens

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it was Arthur Dent, Ford Prefect and the survivors of the B-Ark crash.

Re:It was aliens

[Anonymous Coward]

Dan Bern's song "No Missing Link" says it best:

Song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmMsxqWYK-g

Lyrics: http://danbern.redacorn.net/lyrics/nomissinglink.html

aliens

[confused one]

Perhaps the gods were aliens. That's why they seemed god-like in their powers. Yep, it was aliens.

Re:aliens

[Anonymous Coward]

They made a documentary about this recently.

Re:aliens

[Anonymous Coward]

This would be a more accurate reference Who mourns for Adonais?

How does one tell the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

How does one tell the difference between a chunk of rock and a 3.3 million year old tool? Because they both look fucking indistinguishable to me: they're both just chunks of rock.

Re:How does one tell the difference?

[LQ]

How does one tell the difference between a chunk of rock and a 3.3 million year old tool? Because they both look fucking indistinguishable to me: they're both just chunks of rock.

Clearly those anthropologists are totally misguided and would be most grateful for your help on this matter.

Re:How does one tell the difference?

[Dog-Cow]

Look at the picture in TFA. It's a rock.

Re:How does one tell the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

It wouldn't be the first time that academics are misguided, or just plain full of shit. Hell, just look at all of the computer science academics who were really into UML. Any intelligent person could easily see that it was a crock of shit. Or look at all of sociology. There are entire fields of study that are loads of horse kaka.

Re:How does one tell the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly those anthropologists are totally misguided and would be most grateful for your help on this matter.

Well, the Anthropologists may know what they are doing but the guy taking photos of the tools certainly isn't helping matters. Why can't he take a picture of something that actually resemble a tool? Better yet, why the reporter can't explain briefly why this chunk of rock pictured can be considered a tool?

Re:How does one tell the difference?

[terbo]

Doubt they would - they have the market dialed in - plus anyone capable of independent thinking would be intimidating.

Re:How does one tell the difference?

[mi]

Yes, I am curious too. That and the high concentration of such "tools" in one spot. Perhaps, an early colony existed around the lake?

Were they tools? According to the legend under one of the images in TFA: "Both the core and the flake display a series of dispersed percussion marks" and another says "Hammerstone showing isolated impact points". If that's true — and the free image is too small to say for sure — the rocks were used to hit something hard, Ok. And such use of rocks, or sticks, or anything not part of body is quite amazing for any creature, although Homo Anything aren't unique in this.

But I don't think, such use makes them officially "hammers" and "anvils", to be honest. For it does not appear, the "tools" themselves were deliberately worked on: the creatures grabbed whatever lied around and used it...

Re:How does one tell the difference?

[UnknowingFool]

Yes because all science is based on photography at a distance. I'm sure no scientists picked it up and looked at it under a magnifying glass or anything to see marks in the rock that indicate it was made by a humanoid. Or that there are no residue of how it was used. They just saw it from a distance and declared: Tool!

Re:How does one tell the difference?

[wonkey_monkey]

Look, just pretend it's a seed, okay?

Re:How does one tell the difference?

[MyLongNickName]

I decided to log in for this one.

OP asked a question. You obviously do not know the answer because you just made a stupid, insulting reply. Perhaps if you don't know the answer, don't reply. I don't know the answer either, but would be interested in knowing the answer as well and would have asked the question had the AC not already asked. But instead of an answer you just shit all over it and are apparently offended that it got asked. Get over yourself and realize that some people aren't afraid to ask questions when they are ignorant... you might want to try it.

Re:How does one tell the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

They just saw it from a distance and declared: Tool!

That's what happened when I saw Dog-Cow's comment.

Re:How does one tell the difference?

[CrimsonAvenger]

But I don't think, such use makes them officially "hammers" and "anvils"

Hammer == rock you hit other rocks with.

Anvil == rock you hit with a hammer....

In other words, they found some rocks that were banged together. which is nice, but it's not the same as "tools". They MAY be tools. Or not. It would be nice to hear about some evidence they were DESIGNED for some particular purpose. Other than banging on some other rock.

Re:How does one tell the difference?

[MightyMartian]

They very fact that they were banged together by an intelligent agency makes them a tool. In general you can tell by close examination whether a potential tool is simply the product of natural erosion or in fact was used as a tool.

Re:How does one tell the difference?

[LQ]

I decided to log in for this one.

OP asked a question. You obviously do not know the answer because you just made a stupid, insulting reply. Perhaps if you don't know the answer, don't reply. I don't know the answer either, but would be interested in knowing the answer as well and would have asked the question had the AC not already asked. But instead of an answer you just shit all over it and are apparently offended that it got asked. Get over yourself and realize that some people aren't afraid to ask questions when they are ignorant... you might want to try it.

Goodness knows why I feel the need to defend myself here but when a question is asked with the word "fucking" in it, I assume it was not asked in a genuine spirit of enquiry and I answered in sarcastically. Mood is sometimes hard to discern on the net so maybe we are both guilty of misreading it. One of the comments above makes a very good attempt at a more serious answer.

Re:How does one tell the difference?

[Feral Nerd]

How does one tell the difference between a chunk of rock and a 3.3 million year old tool? Because they both look fucking indistinguishable to me: they're both just chunks of rock.

Well firstly, if you know about geology and how erosion works you can tell the difference between a coincidentally shaped rock and a purposefully shaped rock. This difference is even more pronounced if you are also a good flintknapper sort of like a cop can spot an expertly forged bank note. Secondly there is forensics, tool manufacture leaves distinctive marks and so does tool use. Even if somebody randomly smashed a rock and used a sharp flake to butcher an animal you would see the distinctive wear patterns on the flake. You might even find trace evidence on the tool if you are lucky. This is why it is a huge mistake to wash a recently discovered stone tool because even after tens of thosands of years you can sometimes tell what a tool was last used to cut, scrape, drill or hack apart. Thirdly, there is context. You often find tools at a site where animals were butchered, where tools were made or if you are very lucky in a place where people lived for a while. Perhaps a fire was lit, which can give a date. Bones with distinctive tool marks you only get through systematic butchery and bones that have been smashed to get at marrow are a dead give-away. These bones are also useful for dating associated tools as are layers of volcanic ash, lava or sediments and attributes of the stone tools themselves can also give date information.

Re:How does one tell the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

Experimental archaeology studies and tries various tool making techniques. The result is a collection of signature marks on the rocks. It should be relatively painless to 3D scan the rocks and let a classifier to be formed over the data.

Re:How does one tell the difference?

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

Well, the Anthropologists may know what they are doing but the guy taking photos of the tools certainly isn't helping matters. Why can't he take a picture of something that actually resemble a tool? Better yet, why the reporter can't explain briefly why this chunk of rock pictured can be considered a tool?

That's why you should read the original papers rather than secondary articles by reporters who may or may not know their subject. The article in the May 21 issue of Nature will probably be more informative.

Re: How does one tell the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

Was the first tool a man seeing a rock and inventing a hammer, or, a knife?

Or, was the first tool a woman, or anyone interested, seeing a banana and inventing a dildo, and working themself over with a banana? That's invention too.

Seeing the rock, they had to invent reasons to use hammers, knives.

Seeing a banana, they just had to notice it looks like a dick.

People like sex. No troll.

Re:How does one tell the difference?

[GTRacer]

Well, Zarniwoop did say that was the secret, that is, "the secret is to bang the rocks together, guys!"

Re:How does one tell the difference?

[boristdog]

It's actually pretty easy to look at rocks and tell what has been worked on by someone and what hasn't. It takes a little practice, but I've gotten pretty good at it and I'm not even an anthropologist. I just like to figure out what is an artifact and what isn't when I wander around my ranch.

Re: How does one tell the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

Zing!

Re:How does one tell the difference?

[dave420]

Did you get a bowl of soup with that opinion?

Re:How does one tell the difference?

[hairyfeet]

But when you are talking about a rock that has been lying around 3,300,000 years how EXACTLY are you gonna tell "these marks are made by a human" versus marks made because at some point in the distant past it say was caught in a rock slide or drug along a creek bed? Or for that matter since its 3,300,000 years old how are you gonna tell if the marks were made that long ago or was made by a primitive 60,000-100,000 years ago?

Re:How does one tell the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

They just saw it from a distance and declared: Tool!

That's what happened when I saw Dog-Cow's comment.

That's the preferred greeting between Dog-cow and his friends.

Re:How does one tell the difference?

[geeper]

Because they found 100 of them together. Plain rocks don't congregate like that. They prefer a more solitary existence.

Re:How does one tell the difference?

[Rinikusu]

Youtube flint knapping.

Re:How does one tell the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

when a question is asked with the word "fucking" in it, I assume it was not asked in a genuine spirit of enquiry and I answered in sarcastically.

I used to think that, too.

My wife asked, "When you're fucking me, who do you think of?"
I didn't think she was serious, so I said, "The dog".

The divorce will be finalized next Tuesday.

Re:How does one tell the difference?

[tehcyder]

Because they found 100 of them together. Plain rocks don't congregate like that. They prefer a more solitary existence.

You shouldn't anthropomorphise rocks. They get really upset.

Re: How does one tell the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

Admittedly, valid point. Skepticism is always warranted.

Re:How does one tell the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone used a swear word on the internet! Their entire question/point is now a non-starter, and I will not consider it further.

How is this new-fangled internet working of for you Capt'n?

For the record, I would also like to know how they know it is a tool and not a rock, but some fucking idiot is derailing that discussion because is deeply offended by something not directed at him because it has a bad word in it.

Re:How does one tell the difference?

[kencurry]

shrugs - "must be an ant thing."

Re:How does one tell the difference?

[JimSadler]

I do wonder if some ape or monkey type of creature might have occupied the same spot for centuries and made these primitive tools. Chimps keep surprising us with their use of tools.

Re:How does one tell the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool. So can you easily determine, just by observing the universe, whether or not it was intelligently designed?

Re:How does one tell the difference?

[rhsanborn]

Per the article, they're knapped. The only picture on the article that seems to show that is the picture at the top, but knapping is pretty specific. It's how ancient cultures shaped stone into useful tools (like arrow heads and the like).

Re:How does one tell the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually I think the article as a whole may be just one big troll.

i mean look at the second picture, that is obviously mimicking the troll face meme.

and even the google searches bring up troll like Headings , for example: "Oldest-known stone tools pre-date Homo", "Which Came First, The Humans or the Tools?",
and finally "Christian Churches of God - Sabbath Message"

so yes its a troll article im thorougly convinced. It may be even a stealth marketing ploy to get us start buying "collector" Great Ancestral Tools,
    Yes, you can now own the tools that your Great for-fathers bared when taking down ferocious whooly rhino or maybe your tool was the one that sent that lil bitch lucy to extiction. who knows what history your Great Ancestral Tool partook in . but for 29.99 you can let your imagination run wild.

Re:How does one tell the difference?

[the phantom]

It can be difficult to tell the difference between rocks that have been modified by people and rocks that have been shaped by natural processes. That being said, there are things to look for.

First is material. From the photographs in the linked article, it appears that the purported tool is made from some kind of fine-grained silicious material (high in silicon, rather than magnesium and iron, as evidenced by the color), whereas the surrounding rock appears to be basalt (mafic, therefor darker in color). If you work in an area, you get to know the geology of the region, and where rocks come from. Seeing rocks far from their sources often indicates human curation. That being said, it seems unlikely to me that anyone would bother to curate a general tool like the ones photographed, so that probably isn't going to be a huge factor in this case.

Second, after seeing hundreds or thousands of stone tools, you get good at identifying them. It is kind of like chicken sexing---it may be difficult to quantify *exactly* why something is a tool, but people get really good at it, none the less. Again, this isn't the whole story, but it gives you an idea about why one might pick up a rock in the field. People who have a lot of experience and training are more likely to recognize potential tools.

Third, there are morphological indications of human modification. Rocks that fall and break naturally tend to have random patterns of flaking, whereas intentionally modified rocks will show flaking that is concentrated in a particular place. This isn't foolproof (indeed, there were purported pre-Clovis tools found in California a few decades ago that, upon closer examination, turned out to be naturally formed), but, again, it is an indication.

Fourth, it is often possible to tell a tool from other contextual clues: is it near a hearth? a pile of animal bones? other easily identified tools? Again, given the age, this is unlikely to be useful in this context, but you asked a more general question, so this is part of a more general answer.

Finally, there are lab tests that can help. One can check for residue (i.e. blood or plant reside that might indicate use in preparing food), or microflaking that might indicate use, for example. These are things that you can't see in the field, and almost certainly can't see in a photograph that was taken in the field.

Re:How does one tell the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

Duh, God wrote a book explaining all of that.

Re:How does one tell the difference?

[butchersong]

I imagine they are looking at regular patterns like striation marks from repetitive use.

Re:How does one tell the difference?

[riverat1]

Most all "carbon dating" is absolute fiction. You cannot carbon date something that was never alive. They just pull most of these numbers out of their butts. It is completely unknowable.

That's why they use other forms of radiometric dating to date things that are too old for carbon dating.

Re:How does one tell the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

easy
the tool is branded ACME
in cuneiform

Re: How does one tell the difference?

[MoaDweeb]

AFAIK they look at the rock to determine whether the apparent knapping of the rock (striking it with other rocks to make sharp flakes come off) is by natural processes or not.
The effects of geologic processes etc. differ from the effects of an ape-man with some hand-eye co-ordination.

Re:How does one tell the difference?

[cusco]

Tool-making marks are quite distinctive. It's not a process that happens by accident, which is why you don't see naturally-created flint knives laying in riverbeds. If you look with a magnifying glass at a rock that has a sharp edge because it fell against another rock, and a rock that has a sharp edge because a human did it the difference is fairly obvious. Knowing which is which takes practice, of course.

It's unlikely that a "primitive" 60,000 years ago would put an edge on a rock and then bury it in a level deep enough to be mistaken for 3,300,000 years ago, and even less likely that the disturbance of the burial would not be noticed. Even less likely that your phantasmagorical "primitive" would know how to fake the patina of an extra three million years of aging on the worked surface.

You really have no idea how paleontologists and anthropologists work, do you?

Re:How does one tell the difference?

[cusco]

some ape or monkey type of creature

That's exactly what they're saying, that a very early hominid was making tools. Probably Australopithecus, considering the time period.

Re:How does one tell the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

> That's why you should read the original papers rather than secondary articles by reporters who may or may not know their subject. The article in the May 21 issue of Nature will probably be more informative.

Yeah, but it's pretty damn sad when so-called science reporters give us a picture of a damn rock and talk about how wonderful it is without bothering to explain anything like why it's a tool or what it was used for and how we know that.

Right now, it looks like something banged two or more rocks together deliberately. And we somehow think this is a tool. How? Find out by going to your local university that pays boatloads of money for access to real science....

Re:How does one tell the difference?

[cusco]

So nuclear physics doesn't work on your planet?

Re:How does one tell the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

How do they date stone tools? Geology can tell the stone's age - but how about someone relatively recently made tools out of some really old stones?

Re:How does one tell the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

The correct answer to that question is "Honey, I'm not thinking of fucking someone else. I'm thinking of someone else fucking you!"

Re:How does one tell the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's unlikely that a "primitive" 60,000 years ago would put an edge on a rock and then bury it in a level deep enough to be mistaken for 3,300,000 years ago,..."

Unlikely? Counterfeiting has been around for a _long_ time.

Re:How does one tell the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, god what a tool allways has too take a practical joke to far - cobbles a universe togher in 6000 years and then repats the tired old joke of Dinosaur fossils and 3 millon year old stone tools.

Re:How does one tell the difference?

[raque]

There is a lot of controversy on this. As a rule you can't tell from one artifact, it's the number of them and their arrangement that matters most. Key to understanding is the Hollywood version is backwards. Usually in Hollywood you take the a stone and remove stuff till you are left with a tool, like whittling a point on a stick. In reality the bits you take off are the tools. What you have in your hand is a core.

This gives you key pieces to look for, cores being high on the list. Cores are distinctive. The process of making many flakes of a similar size off the core creates a regular and distinct size and shape. They are more rounded at one end, the handle, and then it tapers roughly. There are clear angles and planes to cores. You can tell of the knapper was right handed or left handed. Then you have lots of very regular sized flakes and the core they are off. If you are anal enough - a defining characteristic of archaeologists - you can reassemble the original stone from the cores and flakes. You also have work places for this. It takes some work to make stone tools, so you made a batch at a time. So you have small stone tool work stations. Since they were temporary they were just abandoned as is. An archaeologist can sometimes just sit down and pick up where the original worker had left off.

If you Google "Flint Core" in images you can see pics of many.

Is Motherboard the new Onion?

[Anonymous Coward]

It reads like an Onion story.

-CM

Evidence adds up

[Anonymous Coward]

Look more closely. Are the the stone tools out of place in the volcanic sedimentary strata they are found in (xenolith)? Stone tools are often made of chert or some other material completely unrelated to the volcanic material that entombs them. Do they share similar fracture patterns to other xenoliths? Are they the right size to be held in a humanoid hand. The evidence adds up. Fascinating.

Hueyatlaco

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this make the dating of the tools are Hueyatlaco any more plausible?

Hueyatlaco is an archeological site in the Valsequillo Basin near the city of Puebla, Mexico. After excavations in the 1960s, the site became notorious due to geochronologists' analyses that indicated human habitation at Hueyatlaco was dated to ca. 250,000 years before the present.[1][2]

These controversial findings are orders of magnitude older than the scientific consensus for habitation of the New World (which generally traces widespread human migration to the New World to 13,000 to 16,000 ybp). The findings at Hueyatlaco have mostly been repudiated by the larger scientific community, and have seen only occasional discussion in the literature.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hueyatlaco
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koYWznEIV50

Re:Hueyatlaco

[cusco]

The 13,000-16,000 number is a bit out of date. Humans are pretty reliably known to have been resident in South America by around 20,000 years BP, and possibly as early as 30,000.

Re:Hueyatlaco

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard an Arapahoe tribal elder earlier today say that they'd been around 32 to 37 thousand years. He's only 86 himself, so that's just hearsay.

Re:Is Slashdot getting too old?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please have some respect, Slashdot predates similar websites by 700,000 years

Nah, Slashdot ain't that old really.... just some of attitudes you get to see around here.

Speaking of dating old tools...

[srussia]

I wonder who's with Larry Ellison these days.

Re:Speaking of dating old tools...

[Overzeetop]

You forgot to add the *rimshot*

Re:Speaking of dating old tools...

[war4peace]

His island.

Scientists discover any stone is Darwin's proof

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chimpanzee-nut-bashing-technology-thousands-years-old/

How do you date when a tool was made?

[Wycliffe]

Look more closely. Are the the stone tools out of place in the volcanic sedimentary strata they are found in (xenolith)? Stone tools are often made of chert or some other material completely unrelated to the volcanic material that entombs them. Do they share similar fracture patterns to other xenoliths? Are they the right size to be held in a humanoid hand. The evidence adds up. Fascinating.

Ok, so even if they are stone tools, I thought it was impossible to calculate the age of stone artifacts.
Sure, you know how old the rock is but not when the rock was made into a tool.

Re:How do you date when a tool was made?

[Anonymous Coward]

We know the age of volcanic ash very well by several methods (K/Ar, Rb/Sr, etc). Successive eruptions forms a very nice time line. The stone tool will be younger than the strata below and older than the strata above. Assuming everything is undisturbed before the diggers came along, QED.

Re:How do you date when a tool was made?

[Anonymous Coward]

age of sediment layer, or other artifacts found at the same level/site. In that regard it is inferred, because yeah, you can't really date a rock. You *might* be able to make a guess at the age of chips in the surface by the amount of weathering, if something constant was acting on it, but you can't isotope it.

Re:How do you date when a tool was made?

[tehcyder]

Look more closely. Are the the stone tools out of place in the volcanic sedimentary strata they are found in (xenolith)? Stone tools are often made of chert or some other material completely unrelated to the volcanic material that entombs them. Do they share similar fracture patterns to other xenoliths? Are they the right size to be held in a humanoid hand. The evidence adds up. Fascinating.

Ok, so even if they are stone tools, I thought it was impossible to calculate the age of stone artifacts. Sure, you know how old the rock is but not when the rock was made into a tool.

Yes, clearly these so-called scientists just made up a number based on no evidence whatsoever and published it in a well known journal without anyone (other than you) checking on their methodology.

Re:How do you date when a tool was made?

[cusco]

The number of people who have no clue how paleontologists and archeologists work but feel completely competent to criticize it never fails to amaze me. If it's this bad on Slashdot then I can only guess how ridiculous it must be on sites like CNN and Faux News.

Re:How do you date when a tool was made?

[Anonymous Coward]

"...but you can't isotope it."

Actually, you _can_. Well, not the rock directly other than to origin, but to the chemical compounds freshly formed on the tooled surfaces, based on the 16/17/18 Oxygen and 14/15 Nitrogen ratios known for specific periods.
This is not simple, and the funding for an ECR Source/ High Harmonic Cyclotron dedicated to this purpose a few years back was withdrawn.

It's not just any rock ...

[CaptainDork]

... it's a sex rock.

It's a fucking rock.

Re:It's not just any rock ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I was wondering about that as well

birds do it, neanderthals do it

[jsepeta]

let's do it! let's use a stone tool!

A tool needs a functional purpose

[sjbe]

They very fact that they were banged together by an intelligent agency makes them a tool.

No it doesn't. When I was a child (ostensibly an "intelligent agency") I was known to bang rocks together but it certainly didn't make them tools - not in any meaningful sense of the word. For something to be a tool it has to have a functional purpose.

In general you can tell by close examination whether a potential tool is simply the product of natural erosion or in fact was used as a tool.

Quite correct. However I've had the same doubts being discussed here regarding whether certain rocks really were used as tools or not. I'm not an expert so I don't pretend to know the answer but I've seen "tools" in museums which made me wonder if the people who collected them really knew what they were doing. Call it skepticism even though I don't really know what I'm talking about on the subject. I tend to be skeptical about things by default until I understand them.

Re:A tool needs a functional purpose

[MightyMartian]

There is an actual definition of the word tool. We are under no obligation whatsoever to use your private definition.

And you're not an expert, so your criticisms are largely meaningless.

Re:A tool needs a functional purpose

[Sarius64]

Maybe you had a different life experience than others. When I was a child, one of the first things my grandfather taught me was making arrow heads and primitive axes to survive. I'm sure these beings had similar goals. YMMV.

Re:A tool needs a functional purpose

[tehcyder]

I'm not an expert so I don't pretend to know the answer but...

...I'm going to give one anyway because this is the fucking internet.

Re:A tool needs a functional purpose

[ChrisMaple]

The first definition of tool from a google search

a device or implement, especially one held in the hand, used to carry out a particular function

This is actually a very good definition, superior any of the 6 definitions in the paper dictionary by my desk. It also agrees with the critical distinction provided by "sjbe", who you needlessly flamed.

Re: A tool needs a functional purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yes I forgot that you're not allowed to discuss critically, think aloud, or speculate on anything unless you have an advanced degree in that field.

Re:A tool needs a functional purpose

[MightyMartian]

Argumentum ad dictionarum is at the very least an informal fallacy. Attempting to argue about what really is a specialized definition of the word "tool" with a general definition you find on Google is tantamount to a fallacious appeal to authority.

Re:A tool needs a functional purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite possibly when you were a child, you banged rocks together because you enjoyed the sound.

Is a percussion instrument a tool? Arguably yes. Granted, we usually consider tools to have some degree of manufacture involved rather than just found lying around.

I've seen reasonably discussion (sorry, can't recall where, but google probably does) that a lot of what archeologists typically call "hand-axes" may more likely have been throwing weapons for hunting larger game (the sharp edge, if that's what hits the beast's side, causes it to reflexively flinch sideways such that it could stumble). Those came much later than the things pictured here, which may well have been just for bashing logs open to get the grubs.

I already had this discussion on Yahoo

[I'm New Around Here]

Yahoo had this story yesterday, and we hashed out all the problems people had with the details.

If you want good scientific reasoning and intellectual thought, go read the Yahoo News article and comment section.

Re:I already had this discussion on Yahoo

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like a lot of science. One day it is a new quasar near a black hole and two years later it was determined it just light bending from a start 4000 light years closer. They have NO IDEA and there is no way to even remotely prove it. A lot of these things can go many different directions depending on what the people doing the research want to believe happened or is happening.

Re:I already had this discussion on Yahoo

[Anonymous Coward]

What? Read an article? Are you new around here?

Chimps use stone tools, but dont make them

[peter303]

The Disney movie Chimpanze shows chimps using tools. There is an article chimp tools in the NY Times this week.

Re:Is Slashdot getting too old?

[PPH]

Not me. I have problems getting Slashdot to not repeatedly load its main page while I'm scrolling through the articles.

Evidently, some of Slashdot's development team aren't the sharpest rocks in the cave.

Geology stuff and al

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks you for an enlightening post.

I knew someone would grab a million year old soapbox and answer this.

Now get off my strata!

Re:Geology stuff and al

[Feral Nerd]

Thanks you for an enlightening post.

I knew someone would grab a million year old soapbox and answer this.

Now get off my strata!

Well he asked a perfectly reasonable question. Scientists have in the past been known to make a mountain out of a mole-hill, a whole species out of a jaw bone or a fragment of facial bone. They sometimes read way to much into a singe find which has led people to call all archeological/paleontological discoveries into question. What most people don't realize is that in modern archeological/paleontological digs chemistry, physics, forensics, statistics, medicine, and many other disciplines of science (the most recent and spectacular addition being genetics) come together to create a much more robust body of evidence. It's absolutely amazing to me that we have found, what is it now? ... three or four archaic species of humans that are known only rummaging around in our our own DNA and not from any physical remains they left behind that have so far been identified.

De javu

[freak0fnature]

http://science.slashdot.org/st...

Re:Is Slashdot getting too old?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Predating the rise of humans' first ancestors in the Homo genus"

That is, if we don't include Homo Erectus - the most successful one (in terms of longevity of the genus).
So there's about 3 million years conveniently skipped in order to make that claim.

Oh, looking at the article's headline: "predates Homo Sapiens by 3 million years".
It was the ed, again.

Re:Is Slashdot getting too old?

[nightsky30]

You win the internet today... ** ** - /. may not load for you until tomorrow.

Yea, but were they used?

[tgibson]

Archaeologists Discover First Hominid To Own Tools But Never Use Them

What if not created by primates??

[Anonymous Coward]

What if the animals that created the tools were not primates?
Aliens are not the unique alternative explanation