1.2-Million-Year-Old Stone Tool Unearthed in Turkey

a reply to: intrptr

I see. So your objection to the findings is strictly ideological becease you are a creationist who believes the earth is less than 10,000 years old and that your personal god created all life in its present form. I'm sorry, but I can only laugh at such willful ignorance. Don't expect me to take anything more you have to say on the topic even remotely seriously.

Im calling BS on this.

A sharp rock?? Thats it? Please.

I think the term "Expert" is thrown around the camp fire way too seriously. If they were brain surgeons or rocket scientist with actual evidence of mastery in their field I might consider this for a moment. But Archeologist are a joke of a science.

"hmm yes I can see from this bone fragments that this beast must have liked to nest in cliff faces and used its dung during its mating rituals"

Digging through dirt making wild allegations and speculations trying to rewrite history..Pfft whatever.

a reply to: TiM3LoRd

Here's the full paper:

www.geologist.nl...

A little more in depth that you seem to think.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: TiM3LoRd

Here's the full paper:

www.geologist.nl...

A little more in depth that you seem to think.

Speculation dipped in glitter is glittery speculation.

Do you know how long 1.2 million years is?

A god dam Monday lasts an eternity imagine 52 x 1.2 million of those bad boys and all his homeboys Tuesday Wednesday and the rest of the family.

There is no way in hell these guys can look at this rock and say with absolute certainty that

A. It was hand crafted by a hominid

and

B. It was done so 1.2 million years ago

approximations of approximations AT BEST. That's not science that's just guessing.

Make a time, machine go back in time, watch this happen, record it, and then i'll consider archeology a serious science. more than likely i'll steal the time machine while the nerds are examining rocks and get myself a baby dinosaur or go hang out with those cool Atlanteans everybody is talking about. I hope thats not what causes the catastrophe that destroys their civilization. That would be bad.....

a reply to: TiM3LoRd

Care to point out and critique the specific flaws of the paper's methodology?

a reply to: TiM3LoRd

So...it's not archeology that's used to date the layers this artefact was found, it was geology.

And it's not exactly 1.2 million years, its 1.24 to ~1.17 million years ago.

Read the paper.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: TiM3LoRd

Care to point out and critique the specific flaws of the paper's methodology?

yes segmental deposits.

I'm well aware of the dating method.

a reply to: TiM3LoRd

Can you quote specific portions of the paper and critique them methodologically rather than making vague statements? Here's the link again in case you missed it the first time: www.geologist.nl...

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: TiM3LoRd

Can you quote specific portions of the paper and critique them methodologically rather than making vague statements? Here's the link again in case you missed it the first time: www.geologist.nl...

This pathway from Asia into Europe has frequently been proposed as a route for Early Pleistocene hominin dispersal ( Dennell, 2003, 2008 ) but the timing of this dispersal remains poorly understood

where fragments of a cranium, tentatively attributed to Homo erectus , have been found in travertine deposits (Kappelman et al., 2008). Although Kappelman et al. (2008) reported an age of 490 e 510 ka based upon thermoluminescence results, a revised age estimate of between 1.3 and 1.1 Ma

Did you know that "Ma" stands for megaannus. Who comes up with these names right?

Furthermore, isochron ages should agree with the plateau ages within analytical error, and 40 Ar/ 36 Ar in- tercepts derived from regression analysis should not be signi fi - cantly different from the atmospheric level of 298.56 ( Lee et al., 2006 ). Although samples Ci, Cii, D and G failed to meet these criteria in full, all age estimates presented here are considered to be of suf fi cient quality (for detailed analysis and discussion see supplemental data S1/S2 ).

Essentially they used the riverbed to associate the "known" migratory paths of hominids at a certain time and found this "chipped" "artifact" in an ancient riverbed. Guilty by association..wow talk about super sleuthing.

Despite the stratigraphical uncertainty caused by the cosmogenic isotope geochronology sampling being performed many years after the bones were recovered, a problem acknowledged by Lebatard et al. (2014) , our results suggest that hominins were indeed pre- sent in western Anatolia during this time interval. Elsewhere in Turkey, only two localities have so far yielded ar- tefacts with independent age control and both are comparatively insecure.

As there are no unequivocal palaeovegetation records covering this time period in Turkey, the nearest record for com- parison is that from Tenaghi Philippon in north-eastern Greece ( Tzedakis et al., 2006 , Figs.1 , Fig. 5 d).

and finally this little gem

Acknowledgements This work was supported by the British Institute at Ankara and contributes directly to their Climate Change strategic research initiative. DJJvH acknowledges funding through ERC Starting Grant 306810 (SINK) and an NWO VIDI grant.

In order for Grant money to keep rolling in people need to make discoveries, the more ground breaking (pun intended) the better chance of ongoing funding to prove it. ooooooooohhhhh....I'm not going into the link to climate change research initiative. Someone else can deal with that monkey.

I also do Birthdays and Bar mitzvahs..

originally posted by: TiM3LoRd

Did you know that "Ma" stands for megaannus. Who comes up with these names right?

Erm... what's your point here again?

Essentially they used the riverbed to associate the "known" migratory paths of hominids at a certain time and found this "chipped" "artifact" in an ancient riverbed. Guilty by association..wow talk about super sleuthing.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here. What's your point again?

In order for Grant money to keep rolling in people need to make discoveries, the more ground breaking (pun intended) the better chance of ongoing funding to prove it. ooooooooohhhhh..

Nice, an ad hominem. "They're lying for grant money because I don't like the conclusions of their study".

I also do Birthdays and Bar mitzvahs..

I'm sure the clown outfit goes down a treat with the kids.

So just as I thought, you have nothing of worth to say. Your "critique" was bizarre and incompetent (and that's me being generous). Leave science to those who know what the heck they're talking about in future.

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: TiM3LoRd

Did you know that "Ma" stands for megaannus. Who comes up with these names right?

Erm... what's your point here again?

Essentially they used the riverbed to associate the "known" migratory paths of hominids at a certain time and found this "chipped" "artifact" in an ancient riverbed. Guilty by association..wow talk about super sleuthing.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here. What's your point again?

In order for Grant money to keep rolling in people need to make discoveries, the more ground breaking (pun intended) the better chance of ongoing funding to prove it. ooooooooohhhhh..

Nice, an ad hominem. "They're lying for grant money because I don't like the conclusions of their study".

I also do Birthdays and Bar mitzvahs..

I'm sure the clown outfit goes down a treat with the kids.

So just as I thought, you have nothing of worth to say. Your "critique" was bizarre and incompetent (and that's me being generous). Leave science to those who know what the heck they're talking about in future.

Seeing as your such an expert on the paper can YOU quote for me exactly where they state that this was indeed categorically created by an intelligent hominid 1.2 million years ago? Not supposition but irrefutable evidence.

all the paper mentions is that the "artifact" was found in an area dating that far back. My contention is that there is no way to prove that this is even an artifact vs a chipped rock that was simply washed down stream.

Im on the edge of my seat in anticipation.

a reply to: GetHyped

I see. So your objection to the findings is strictly ideological be cease you are a creationist who believes the earth is less than 10,000 years old and that your personal god created all life in its present form.

You see nothing beyond narrow confines of "belief". By the way so you know I just said I laugh at both churches of creation and evolution.

Go back a page and find it. Then you can presume all you want about me.

Like Time Lord is trying to convey on deaf ears, this isn't science, its belief.

a reply to: TiM3LoRd

Im on the edge of my seat in anticipation.

The next insulting reply will be along shortly, I am sure.

Thanks for keeping it real.

originally posted by: TiM3LoRd
My contention is that there is no way to prove that this is even an artifact vs a chipped rock that was simply washed down stream.

Ok, cool. On what basis though do you make that contention, with regard to the differences or otherwise between the the two - with reference to how two such different items are formed, shaped and would have arrived at their resting place, and how those different journeys would change their eventual form?

a reply to: intrptr

I hope you will note my polite reply and reasonable question, i've really (genuinely) tried to stop being an occasional arsehole in the past couple of years

originally posted by: skalla

originally posted by: TiM3LoRd
My contention is that there is no way to prove that this is even an artifact vs a chipped rock that was simply washed down stream.

Ok, cool. On what basis though do you make that contention, with regard to the differences or otherwise between the the two - with reference to how two such different items are formed, shaped and would have arrived at their resting place, and how those different journeys would change their eventual form?

a reply to: intrptr

I hope you will note my polite reply and reasonable question, i've really (genuinely) tried to stop being an occasional arsehole in the past couple of years

I dont care if your rude or not it doesnt bother me because my skin is thicker than that.

On what basis do I make that contention you ask? on the basis that it looks like a chipped rock.

Where do we draw the line between manufactured chipped rocks Vs naturally occurring chipped rocks.

I have seen stone tools and that does NOT look like a crafted stone tool. Look im not here to rock your beliefs I really dont care what anybody believes you want to believe in fairytales go nuts. Everybody has to believe in something.

Do you know how slow sedimentary deposits occur? thousands of years. do you know how much can happen in that time frame? Floods and earthquakes volcanoes all sorts of upheavals. Trying to piece back the events back a million years is pure speculation I dont care what "science" they try to bamboozle you with its associated sciences. Geological evidence is not empirical its anecdotal. And the "artifact" doesnt have a made by hominid stamp on it. There is nothing in the illustration that would indicate it was anything other than a stone chip. It might have been used as a tool but to suggest it was crafted is ludicrous. There is no way to tell that.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: TiM3LoRd

Im on the edge of my seat in anticipation.

The next insulting reply will be along shortly, I am sure.

Thanks for keeping it real.

No worries mate. Some people need to sit on one side of an argument or another they cant just look at the issue and say this sounds like bulls#ht

originally posted by: TiM3LoRd


I dont care if your rude or not it doesnt bother me because my skin is thicker than that.

On what basis do I make that contention you ask? on the basis that it looks like a chipped rock.

Where do we draw the line between manufactured chipped rocks Vs naturally occurring chipped rocks.

I have seen stone tools and that does NOT look like a crafted stone tool. Look im not here to rock your beliefs I really dont care what anybody believes you want to believe in fairytales go nuts. Everybody has to believe in something.

Do you know how slow sedimentary deposits occur? thousands of years. do you know how much can happen in that time frame? Floods and earthquakes volcanoes all sorts of upheavals. Trying to piece back the events back a million years is pure speculation I dont care what "science" they try to bamboozle you with its associated sciences. Geological evidence is not empirical its anecdotal. And the "artifact" doesnt have a made by hominid stamp on it. There is nothing in the illustration that would indicate it was anything other than a stone chip. It might have been used as a tool but to suggest it was crafted is ludicrous. There is no way to tell that.

Well i'm just trying to alter the tone of the conversation as a whole, in the hope that it will be more productive. It is not aimed at you personally but the thread as a whole.

I'm not really approaching this from a science point of view, and i know how sedimentary deposits occur and how long it takes, but science is not the angle i'm talking, or the dating of the piece, so could we set that aside for a post or two and focus on the flake.

It's a pretty poor picture (the photo of the flake) so it's hard to focus on that to gain much info, so how about the way flakes are produced when used for tools, and how we would determine intentional human production versus accidental environmental production.

I made a post on page 1 where i took a craft work based angle to examining "a flake" using my own experience in making stone tools and producing flakes - mostly from flint and glass, but also a bit of experience chipping Quartzite.

Would you read that, consider what i've posted and then re-approach the question i made that you just replied to?
Pistoche and Stormbringer made (imo) good posts on the same page that also cover this.

and FWIW, i get your indifference (annoyance even) to scientific arguments which can be approached with a very dogmatic zeal, there is often a development of very opposition positions on ATS and i agree that it becomes a religion for many so i respect and understand that.

But i would appreciate if you do as i ask and get back to me, i'll return when i can at some point tomorrow to hopefully continue the discussion.

ETA: having looked at the paper posted, there is a sketch of the flake that provides more visual detail, so ofc refer to that in your response as there are relevant features there that would be included in my response.

a reply to: skalla

My reply wasn't directed at you, kind sir.

a reply to: TiM3LoRd

The paper describes the artefact.

Page 4, the last paragraph.

I can't seem to copy and paste it but they describe why they believe it cannot be caused naturally.

I know i won't change any minds, but there are definative ways to tell if an item is a geofact or artifact. Even though there ways to tell the difference, it is still one of the most contentious discussions in archeology.
There have been calls for a formal discussion on standardized methodologies with which to make better determinations.
With out better pictures and the obligatory sketches, it is nearly impossible to see the handiwork of man.
Like Skalla has said random geological processes cannot duplicate purposeful stoneworking choices. One thing is it takes a great deal of environmental energy to break rocks. For river cobbles to be broken up enough to form flakes requires more energy than is available in a river. It is possible at the base of a waterfall, as long as the splash zone is solid rock, and not a pool.
Also the action of water rounds off sharp edges it does not create them. I dare anyone to go to a river bed and find me a sharp flake of stone, cause your not going to find one. I live near some of the most energetic rivers in the world, that have produced cobble beds tens of miles long, and you will not find a flake anywhere.
Given the fact that the original river in question was a low energy river, as it had meanders, there is no way natural forces formed the flake.
They intimated the other hallmark of intentional working of stone, is the stone naturally occurring within the immediate area. I would bet that, given the fact there are lava flows bracketing the find , quartzite is not found in the immediate area.