Slashdot Mirror
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.
Please have some respect, Slashdot predates similar websites by 700,000 years
-- Make America hate again!
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.
Look at the picture in TFA. It's a rock.
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...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
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!
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
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.
They just saw it from a distance and declared: Tool!
That's what happened when I saw Dog-Cow's comment.
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.
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.
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.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.