Oldest stone tools ever unearthed in Kenya; predate Homo genus

[Dougz]

[QUOTE]Approximately 3.3 million years ago someone began chipping away at a rock by the side of a river. Eventually, this chipping formed the rock into a tool used, perhaps, to prepare meat or crack nuts. And this technological feat occurred before humans even showed up on the evolutionary scene.

That’s the conclusion of an analysis published today in Nature of the oldest stone tools yet discovered. Unearthed in a dried-up riverbed in Kenya, the shards of scarred rock, including what appear to be early hammers and cutting instruments, predate the previous record holder by around 700,000 years. Though it’s unclear who made the tools, the find is the latest and most convincing in a string of evidence that toolmaking began before any members of the Homo genus walked the Earth.

“This discovery challenges the idea that the main characters that make us human—making stone tools, eating more meat, maybe using language—all evolved at once in a punctuated way, near the origins of the genus Homo,” says Jason Lewis, a paleoanthropologist at Rutgers University and co-author of the study.

Up until now, the earliest clear evidence of stone tools came from a 2.6-million-year-old site in Ethiopia. An early human ancestor called Homo habilis likely made them. Similar “Oldowan style” tools, known for choppers with one refined edge, have been discovered at several other sites in East and Southern Africa.[/QUOTE]

[t]http://thumbs.media.smithsonianmag.com//filer/1c/3b/1c3bc28d-b65a-429d-a3ad-97d018646972/tool-in-situ-being-unearthed-at-excavation_3_edit.jpg__800x600_q85_crop.jpg[/t]

[url]http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/oldest-known-stone-tools-unearthed-kenya-180955341/?no-ist[/url]

[fpro]

It looks like a rock.

[omegasupreme1]

[QUOTE=false prophet;47781964]It looks like a rock.[/QUOTE]

That's because it is a rock dufus

[LATTEH]

[QUOTE=omegasupreme1;47781968]That's because it is a rock dufus[/QUOTE]

Lies!

[BLOODGA$M]

[QUOTE=false prophet;47781964]It looks like a rock.[/QUOTE]

I think the key here is that it's been deliberately sharpened on one side

[Zenreon]

I'm sorry, but a chimps throwing rocks at eachother by a riverbed would have the same effect. I'm going to need more than "It is chipped it must be a tool" and "Look, those rocks look like they could be used as hammers!"

[Hitler]

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;47782023]I'm sorry, but a chimps throwing rocks at eachother by a riverbed would have the same effect. I'm going to need more than "It is chipped it must be a tool" and "Look, those rocks look like they could be used as hammers!"[/QUOTE]

dude...

[TheHydra]

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;47782023]I'm sorry, but a chimps throwing rocks at eachother by a riverbed would have the same effect. I'm going to need more than "It is chipped it must be a tool" and "Look, those rocks look like they could be used as hammers!"[/QUOTE]

update on the story guys, the researchers said zenreon117 was unconvinced so they're calling the whole thing off

[Purple Magpie]

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;47782023]I'm sorry, but a chimps throwing rocks at eachother by a riverbed would have the same effect. I'm going to need more than "It is chipped it must be a tool" and "Look, those rocks look like they could be used as hammers!"[/QUOTE]

Did you read the entire article, or just the snippet? Because it seems pretty legit to me.

[Zonesylvania]

[QUOTE=windwakr;47782115]How do they date this stuff?[/QUOTE]
from the article;
[quote]As it turned out, the 149 artifacts eventually excavated from the site were even older. Analyses of magnetic minerals and volcanic ash tufts imbedded in the local rocks put the age of the stones at 3.3 million years.[/quote]
They probably used some method of radiometric dating.

[Purple Magpie]

[QUOTE=windwakr;47782115]How do they date this stuff?[/QUOTE]

This was actually mentioned in the article specifically:

[quote]As it turned out, the 149 artifacts eventually excavated from the site were even older. Analyses of magnetic minerals and volcanic ash tufts imbedded in the local rocks put the age of the stones at 3.3 million years.[/quote]

If you scroll past the picture group there's more to the article, unlike most news sites.

[Bumrang]

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;47782023]I'm sorry, but a chimps throwing rocks at eachother by a riverbed would have the same effect. I'm going to need more than "It is chipped it must be a tool" and "Look, those rocks look like they could be used as hammers!"[/QUOTE]

because you know better than researchers who have been in this field for decades lmao

[Zenreon]

[QUOTE=Bumrang;47782210]because you know better than researchers who have been in this field for decades lmao[/QUOTE]

No I am just being skeptical. I don't see why there is any reason to assume tool orientated thought when the only evidence is rocks that clearly have been chipped due to striking. I went to a rock quarry once and managed to make tons of jagged rocks just by throwing them around and having them hit other rocks. Im not saying it isn't possible, I'm just saying that it isn't a lot to go on.

[quote="article"]Whoever made these tools was somehow motivated to hit two rocks together. Why exactly remains a mystery.
[/quote]

[Ganerumo]

[QUOTE=windwakr;47782115]How do they date this stuff?[/QUOTE]

They ask the same old dude every time.

[innerfire34]

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;47782424]No I am just being skeptical. I don't see why there is any reason to assume tool orientated thought when the only evidence is rocks that clearly have been chipped due to striking. I went to a rock quarry once and managed to make tons of jagged rocks just by throwing them around and having them hit other rocks. Im not saying it isn't possible, I'm just saying that it isn't a lot to go on.[/QUOTE]

you are a fucking genius we should award you with multiple phd's for this research you did at a rock quarry one time

[editline]22nd May 2015[/editline]

it is impossible that stress fractures caused by banging two rocks together manually (and not just throwing them at eachother which creates different patterns) mean anything because i am 15 and have seen some rocks before

[Jocke]

[QUOTE=false prophet;47781964]It looks like a rock.[/QUOTE]

[video=youtube;MANVHcbm-9g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MANVHcbm-9g[/video]

[Jamsponge]

So wait... that means that at some point, our ancestors 3.3 million years ago used tools, before the homo genus?

Does this raise the possibility of any other non-extinct animals being descended from whichever species did this?

[Legion Varus]

See I'm thinking those tools were not even by the ancestors of humans. It was probably crab people, but who can really say for sure.

[redcatjack]

[QUOTE=Rich209;47782858]See I'm thinking those tools were not even by the ancestors of humans. It was probably crab people, but who can really say for sure.[/QUOTE]

Nah it was most Likey the Lizard people, who live under the Earth's Crust

[zach1193]

You guys are both wrong, it was the dinosaurs.

[Jmir 54]

I remember studying about sharpened rocks in anthropology and apparently there's like 4 generations of sharpened rocks that have weird names and it took me a while a wrap my mind that sharpened rocks count as tools

[BryBreadmin]

[QUOTE=Jmir 54;47783896]I remember studying about sharpened rocks in anthropology and apparently there's like 4 generations of sharpened rocks that have weird names and it took me a while a wrap my mind that sharpened rocks count as tools[/QUOTE]

It's pretty much the intention that counts. The fact that a living being would look at a rock, have the idea that it could serve a purpose other than just bashing shit (e.g. sharpening it to cut things), then formulate and execute a plan to convert a rock into a tool suggests a certain level of intelligence.

[Sableye]

i'm not saying it was aliens, but it was aliens

[cucumber]

What is so homo about it?

[BryBreadmin]

[QUOTE=cucumber;47784212]Whats is so homo about it?[/QUOTE]

[T]http://files.sharenator.com/41510.jpg[/t]

[zukriuchen]

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;47782424]No I am just being skeptical. I don't see why there is any reason to assume tool orientated thought when the only evidence is rocks that clearly have been chipped due to striking. I went to a rock quarry once and managed to make tons of jagged rocks just by throwing them around and having them hit other rocks. Im not saying it isn't possible, I'm just saying that it isn't a lot to go on.[/QUOTE]

you just made this so much harder

who do i trust, several well educated researchers or a man who throws rocks

[Rangergxi]

You laugh at how primitive this is but back in the pioneer days they would ride rocks for miles.

[Dr. Darkly]

Personally, I think Zen has a point.
Sure, they could genuinely be 3.3 million year old tools.
But if throwing some rocks in a quarry can cause results similar to that, imagine the results of 3.3 million years of wear and tear on a rock.

[BryBreadmin]

[QUOTE=DarklytheGreat;47785204]Personally, I think Zen has a point.
Sure, they could genuinely be 3.3 million year old tools.
But if throwing some rocks in a quarry can cause results similar to that, imagine the results of 3.3 million years of wear and tear on a rock.[/QUOTE]

How about you go throw some rocks in a quarry and call some archaeologists. Tell us how that goes.

[Kigen]

We aren't the only tool using species on the planet. So I'm not surprised.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tool_use_by_animals[/url]