1.2 million years

[unclemac]

Now I know this isn't NA but it is a great example of what was being crafted a million plus years ago. This should help illustrate what is and is not a manufactured NA stone tool.... If these were being made this good back then, the tumbled rocks we see here from time to time should pop out as NOT artifacts even to the greenhorns.

1.2 million-year-old ‘stone-tool workshop’ uncovered in Ethiopia is oldest ever found

Almost 600 obsidian handaxes were unearthed at the site, the study said.

www.yahoo.com

 

[tamrock]

I have had thoughts that some certain cultures specialized in superior stone tool manufacturing, rather than be full-out hunter gathers and held claims on the material resources with security in an industry of trade for anything from pretty eye catching rocks to food and slaves.

 

[unclemac]

Certainly that is true as societies progressed with agriculture providing a stable food source. I would think that control any resource you would need a population large enough to defend it.

 

[Blackfoot58]

Certainly that is true as societies progressed with agriculture providing a stable food source. I would think that control any resource you would need a population large enough to defend it.

Makes sense. Do a job where your strengths lie. Some were good harvesters, some good lookouts, some were better at weaponry making. I have heard many NA stories about arrow shaft making. Many tribes had specialists who created the arrow shafts for all. Often bartered for knives, hides, food, etc.

 

[unclemac]

I seem to remember a few years back one member saying he found hundreds of shafts, some with fletching, prepared and waiting in a cache.

 

[BennyV]

I seem to remember a few years back one member saying he found hundreds of shafts, some with fletching, prepared and waiting in a cache.

I’d love to see a picture of that

 

[unclemac]

it wasn't current so there were no pix but I seem to remember it being in AZ.

 

[ARC]

1.2 million years ago... they never cease to crack me up with those "guesses". heh

 

[unclemac]

I am assuming this method, but of course there are others.

Stratigraphy: Assuming that soil layers in a deposit accumulate on top of one another, and that the bottom layers will be older than the top layers, stratigraphy allows archaeologists to construct a relative chronological sequence from the oldest (bottom) to youngest (top) layers. Artifacts found in these layers are at least as old as the deposit in which they were found.

 

[CreekSide]

Interesting post unclemac

 

[yakker]

Maybe, just MAYBE this will help. Here's to crossing fingers! LOL

 

[unclemac]

...here's a thought.... next time it happens, post this link as a response!

 

[dcisfun]

Now I know this isn't NA but it is a great example of what was being crafted a million plus years ago. This should help illustrate what is and is not a manufactured NA stone tool.... If these were being made this good back then, the tumbled rocks we see here from time to time should pop out as NOT artifacts even to the greenhorns.

1.2 million-year-old ‘stone-tool workshop’ uncovered in Ethiopia is oldest ever found

Almost 600 obsidian handaxes were unearthed at the site, the study said.

www.yahoo.com

Well if they had a head start of 1.2 MYA definitely should be better and, should have had Bluetooth and WiFi by now… oh well… 🤣

 

[Charl]

One of the very interesting things about these hand axes is that they were not made by our species. Some still unknown hominid(but likely one we would be familiar with) developed knapping skills way earlier than ever imagined before.

 

[Charl]

1.2 million years ago... they never cease to crack me up with those "guesses". heh

They don’t really rely on guesses. There are all manner of sophisticated dating methods these days. You’ll need to access the peer review paper to read which dating method was used, but, since it was peer reviewed, you can eliminate guessing as their method.

A surge in obsidian exploitation more than 1.2 million years ago at Simbiro III (Melka Kunture, Upper Awash, Ethiopia) - Nature Ecology & Evolution

The authors report a specialized obsidian handaxe workshop at the site of Simbiro III in Ethiopia, suggesting that hominins more than 1.2 million years ago took advantage of opportunities provided by changing environmental conditions.

www.nature.com

There are many methods for dating. I imagine they used one of the absolute dating methods available….Note the age range available per each method, and why C-14 would not be used….

 

[unclemac]

...you base this on what?....

 

[ARC]

No matter what "THEY" say... i find it foolish to think it is anymore than a guess when dating timelines... no matter what "science" is used... it will always be skewed by the simple fact that it is based upon theories in a perfect absolute world... and the "X" factor is always present in any calculation.
IMO... This planet is not even 1.5 million years old as we know it... let alone human anything... heh

SO........IMO... they are off by 1.45 million years.

Furthermore...... and just to save the babble in arguments sake.
There is nothing anyone can say... not anyone... that will ever make me believe that ANY human activity extends beyond 100,000 years on this planet.

Just call it a hunch based... Using this logic...
"Einstein - Theory must never contradict empirical fact".

***ARC sighs.... Ahhh if they only would just eliminate their imagination factor***

 

[MAMucker]

I am assuming this method, but of course there are others.

Stratigraphy: Assuming that soil layers in a deposit accumulate on top of one another, and that the bottom layers will be older than the top layers, stratigraphy allows archaeologists to construct a relative chronological sequence from the oldest (bottom) to youngest (top) layers. Artifacts found in these layers are at least as old as the deposit in which they were found.

Yes. Geological speculative assumptions give way to declarations. Thus giving archaeologists license to make scientifically backed declarations. All generated by unconscious bias.

 

[Tesorodeoro]

They don’t really rely on guesses. There are all manner of sophisticated dating methods these days. You’ll need to access the peer review paper to read which dating method was used, but, since it was peer reviewed, you can eliminate guessing as their method.

A surge in obsidian exploitation more than 1.2 million years ago at Simbiro III (Melka Kunture, Upper Awash, Ethiopia) - Nature Ecology & Evolution

The authors report a specialized obsidian handaxe workshop at the site of Simbiro III in Ethiopia, suggesting that hominins more than 1.2 million years ago took advantage of opportunities provided by changing environmental conditions.

www.nature.com

There are many methods for dating. I imagine they used one of the absolute dating methods available….Note the age range available per each method, and why C-14 would not be used….

View attachment 2067907

Someone once said “Time is an Illusion”. When talking about such enormous lengths of time, is it assumed that time is a constant and has been for 20 billion years? Just an odd thought I had about extrapolating such extreme ages. Carry on.

 

[Blackfoot58]

Someone once said “Time is an Illusion”. When talking about such enormous lengths of time, is it assumed that time is a constant and has been for 20 billion years? Just an odd thought I had about extrapolating such extreme ages. Carry on.

I read up on carbon dating. There is a lot of disagreement amongst top scientists. Many believe carbon dating can only go back (accurately) about 50000 years. Still we hear of carbon dating “proving” mountain ranges are 4.5 million years old. I guess we need to pick a side and hang on. I love science, but I really doubt some stuff they extrapolate. They have had access to chicken eggs for CENTURIES, and still argue if they are deadly, OR a super food!😊 yet they expect me to believe they can tell how much copper is in the core of Pluto, using a radio telescope. Plus, when new info is found, to contradict previous beliefs, scientists never say “we found out we were wrong”, instead “new evidence indicates…”. I’ll get off the soapbox now