Re-Think What "Tools" Can Look Like

[uniface]

https://www.sott.net/article/414279...the-earliest-Homo-tools-ever-found-in-Ethopia

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[IMAUDIGGER]

It looks like earlier paleo & archaic peoples did carry down stone from Central Florida but the later groups generally just did without. Once you get much below Ft Meyers the odds of finding a stone tool are about as good as winning the lotto.

For the most part the Calusa & Tequesta groups in South Florida didn't utilize stone tools on a daily basis simply because you won't find any naturally occurring stones outside of a few pebbles that wash up on the beach or fresh coral that washes up. You do see some imported copper and stone, but it's usually found in high status burials. They did utilize sharks teeth quite a bit, shell adzes, shell hammers, etc. and made some amazing stone tools. The same is true for the not too distantly related Taino and Arawak groups down in the Caribbean (with the exception of a couple of small areas where chert is available in the Dominican Republic and Haiti.)

So it's not from lack of ability (I.E. being a primitive primate). It's from availability of resources and using the best tool for the job.

Having never been east of the Rockies, I have no comprehension of an area with no rocks or mountains.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[Davers]

The rocks Require too much interpretation and will always be debatable, the advancements in recovering dna and interpretation of that evidence will eventually provide the proof that will convince. I’m sure the real answers haven’t even been imagined yet.

I agree with this for the most part , I am finding in life 'everything (or most things , like Night & Day ) are debatable.

 

[Charl]

More photos are always good, so here are more photos of the tools...

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...fting-stone-tools-26-million-years-180972346/

 

[Fred250]

I agree with this for the most part , I am finding in life 'everything (or most things , like Night & Day ) are debatable.

The older I get I realize how little I know for certain.

 

[uniface]

Here's a couple more.

Look like tools ?

They were though. At least according to the archaeologist, who is presumably familiar with prehistoric relics there.

https://www.sott.net/article/415042-Archaeologists-uncover-unique-megalithic-monument-in-Ireland

 

[Fred250]

The article says they are looking for related structures in Europe, they should look in New England. People don’t think there are artifacts related to the stone structures here, but they aren’t looking for tools like that.

 

[JamesRS]

My simple test is to hold a stone and ask "could I use this as a tool to..." and vary the task such as "could I hammer, cut, grind, punch, etc. with this? Your hand and a hand 130,000 years ago are pretty much the same, except yours are as soft as can be.

 

[Charl]

It's likely that there are a lot of stone tools out there that would escape most collector's recognition. Most of us find the easily recognizable flaked stone tools, like points, drills, knives, and scrapers.


If you read archaeological publications describing digs, you may see they find "hundreds", or even "thousands" of recoveries. The main reason for such large numbers is flakes are counted. Flakes, after all, result from human activity, and often flakes themselves will demonstrate usage as tools. And flakes yield info such as lithic sourcing, etc.


It's probably fair to say most of us leave flakes behind when surface hunting. I do save what amounts to exotic lithics for my region, like jasper, and more often then not those flakes show retouch or usage as tools. And I just love jasper anyway. I'm sure most of us do retain flakes that we find interesting.


Louis Brennan was an experienced archaeologist, who for over 15 years served as editor of the bulletin of the Eastern States Archaeological Federation. Most of his work was focused in New York State. His 1975 book, "Artifacts of Prehistoric America" is excellent for several reasons. For myself, I value the artifacts he illustrated that I believe many of us would miss. Such as the ones seen here. The lesson? One does not have to wonder if we are missing things during our surface hunts. Or digs. We likely are.

Odds are good that many of the stone tools seen here, and illustrated by Brennan, would be called "just rocks" when posted to an artifact forum.



Augers and noses are types of spurs:

P

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

My simple test is to hold a stone and ask "could I use this as a tool to..." and vary the task such as "could I hammer, cut, grind, punch, etc. with this? Your hand and a hand 130,000 years ago are pretty much the same, except yours are as soft as can be.

The quickest way to misidentify a rock is to see how your hand fits, that is the wonder of the human hand, not the rock.

 

[Ditlihi]

The quickest way to misidentify a rock is to see how your hand fits, that is the wonder of the human hand, not the rock.

Then how do you suppose these ancients first determined which stones they would use as tools?

 

[Ditlihi]

My simple test is to hold a stone and ask "could I use this as a tool to..." and vary the task such as "could I hammer, cut, grind, punch, etc. with this? Your hand and a hand 130,000 years ago are pretty much the same, except yours are as soft as can be.

A good place to start. If it doesn't feel comfortable to the hand, and you can't see any use for it as a tool, it very likely is just a rock.

 

[unclemac]

folks didn't pick rocks for how they fit in their hand...that is just plain silly.

 

[Ditlihi]

Which stone would you choose if you needed to make a hole punch, Uncle?

 

[unclemac]

if i wanted a hole punch i would fashion one from good lithic material, not a random stone.

 

[Ditlihi]

if i wanted a hole punch i would fashion one from good lithic material, not a random stone.

All three are chert. What lithic material would you choose?

 

[unclemac]

i can't decide if you are trying to play me or if you truly don't get it...so have fun.

 

[Ditlihi]

i can't decide if you are trying to play me or if you truly don't get it...so have fun.

Thank you, have a great evening.

 

[quito]

folks didn't pick rocks for how they fit in their hand...that is just plain silly.

No disrespect intended, but you may want to re-think this unclemac . To many mano’s I have found fit the hand nicely. Many from different materials. I don’t think they would grab a rock that didn’t fit comfortably for such a simple tool.
I really don’t think I have any that appear to show much if any modification other than use wear.

 

[unclemac]

i am sure most pestles and such started out as a similar shape to the finished product, but is don't think that is what we are talking about here.

 

[Quartzite Keith]

I actively avoid discussions like this because they always seem to end up going this way, but I must come to unclemac's aid. I believe he is correct on the larger point: To begin with "fits well in the hand" is not a terribly helpful criteria. The human hand is highly adaptive and all kinds of things never intended to be tools can "fit well in the hand" be made to work. The top of this page says this section is for discussing "North American Indian Artifacts". By the time people got here, they were already "fully modern" Homo sapiens, which means the same body, and more importantly, the same brain as we have. In other words, if you had a time machine and went back to Clovis, or "pre-Clovis" in the North America and brought those people into modern time, they would learn to do everything we can do, and one of them would be using this computer, typing this message! So his point is, they were advanced enough in their stone work that if they wanted a certain tool a certain way, they made it to fit there needs.

Why are we even talking about this? The article is about possible stone tools in Africa 2.6 million years ago (before Homo sapiens even emerged as a species)! Chimps hunt bush babies using a wooden thrusting spear they make from a sapling. Do we need to "rethink" Native American hunting techniques?