Oldest Stone Tools Predate Previous Record Holder By 700,000 Years 103
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.
Re:Is Slashdot getting too old? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
It was aliens (Score:3)
aliens (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
This would be a more accurate reference Who mourns for Adonais? [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
How does one tell the difference? (Score:2)
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? (Score:5, Funny)
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? (Score:5, Funny)
Look at the picture in TFA. It's a rock.
Re:How does one tell the difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How does one tell the difference? (Score:5, Funny)
They just saw it from a distance and declared: Tool!
That's what happened when I saw Dog-Cow's comment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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? (Score:4, Interesting)
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? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Look, just pretend it's a seed, okay?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just any rock ... (Score:2)
... it's a sex rock.
It's a fucking rock.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
Duh, God wrote a book explaining all of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:1)
Doubt they would - they have the market dialed in - plus anyone capable of independent thinking would be intimidating.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
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 quest
Re:How does one tell the difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Funny)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [wikipedia.org].
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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.
A tool needs a functional purpose (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Youtube flint knapping.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Evidence adds up (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
How do you date when a tool was made? (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 does one tell the difference? (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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 mos
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 [wikipedia.org] to date things that are too old for carbon dating.
Re: (Score:3)
So nuclear physics doesn't work on your planet?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Speaking of dating old tools... (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot to add the *rimshot*
Re: (Score:2)
His island.
birds do it, neanderthals do it (Score:2)
let's do it! let's use a stone tool!
I already had this discussion on Yahoo (Score:2, Funny)
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.
Chimps use stone tools, but dont make them (Score:2)
De javu (Score:1)
Yea, but were they used? (Score:2)
Archaeologists Discover First Hominid To Own Tools But Never Use Them [theonion.com]