It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Stone tools date early humans in North Africa to 2.4 million years ago

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2018 @ 06:18 AM
link   
a reply to: toms54



They dug a 60 foot hole so that proves what?


Read TFA.

I'm not seeing any evidence, in any of your posts, that your skepticism has any foundation. Have you read the article? Have you read any links? Did you watch a YT video about archaeologists?

So far, you've dismissed the fields of science and archaeology and conceded that people made arrow heads. You haven't brought a smatter of reasoning and are basing your objection on sweet FA and gut instinct.




posted on Dec, 1 2018 @ 06:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: LookingAtMars





People need to understand that each little face on the rock on the left was intentionally removed using another rock. Because i can easily make out dozens of removed areas I know this rock was handled by some tool-making species. No natural cause can create those same effects.



posted on Dec, 1 2018 @ 07:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky

I don't know what you mean by TFA or sweet FA. I don't reject the fields of science and archaeology, in fact I am very much into the subject. I just don't immediately accept everything I read. Maybe those bones were cut by that rock. Maybe by some other rock. I don't know what YT video about archaeologists you are referring to.

I am seeing all these reports pushing back the beginnings of one history after another. One I remember is proving California was populated 60,000 years ago on the flimsiest evidence. These rocks can't be dated. The strata is jumbled by many centuries of floods, earthquakes, who knows what. I'm not claiming this is impossible. The evidence is flimsy.

I know you are not saying every sharp rock is man made. You are saying the rocks in that picture are man made. Why do I need the proof? You are making the claim.



posted on Dec, 1 2018 @ 07:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Asktheanimals

originally posted by: LookingAtMars





People need to understand that each little face on the rock on the left was intentionally removed using another rock. Because i can easily make out dozens of removed areas I know this rock was handled by some tool-making species. No natural cause can create those same effects.


There are all kinds of rocks with chips out of them. They could be man made but, "No natural cause can create those same effects."? Come on.



posted on Dec, 1 2018 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: LookingAtMars

They do look like rocks.

I've always suspected there was a lot of early civilization in the Sahara desert. If they could clear that sand what would they find?


I think the same. I even made a comic about it about 25years ago. There's more than likely to be an ancient civ under there.....same as in what's under the Arctic.



posted on Dec, 1 2018 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
The Indians told me it is alright to dig them up but they should stay on the land where they were offered. It is bad luck to sell them. I'm not going to start wasting a couple of grand and on top of that the government will probably say that I cannot dig here or disturb the land anymore because it is a ceremonial site.
Respect is key. Well done!



posted on Dec, 1 2018 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky

It's not a core ...but a broken bi-face, which is a common malady even in modern knappers, he is holding it by the base, the staight horizonal line at the top is the break, which happens from not properly securing the piece on impact. Usually it breaks at the 3/4 to 2/3 of the length.
the 2 large oval indents at the top on the sides is typical of percussion lithic reduction, or "flakes" removed from hitting the piece.



posted on Dec, 1 2018 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: toms54

Hey man, it's up to you what you believe and who you trust.



Some arrowheads, spearheads are clearly man made.


OK that's a start. They were made using percussion against a core which would produce the flakes and they'd 'knapp' away until it suited their purpose.

An arrowhead or spearhead would be hafted to a shaped piece of wood. Would you agree? If yes, you might also agree that the shafts would require the work of a sharp edge tool. They'd want a straight, smooth shaft without bark or old branch joints on it and they might have processed cordage from animal skin to fix the points.

Tool-wise this would be something like a scraper.

Arrowheads showed signs of design evolution so, if you look, earlier examples from Africa are less sophisticated than those found in the Americas a few hundred thousand years later. If you can agree to that you might also consider something that came earlier than wooden shafts and stone points - the sharp-edged rock. So before they were able to fashion sharp scrapers and arrowheads, they had to learn how to put an edge on a suitable stone.

You might find this idea interesting...the edge-tool rocks they used would have been inspired by the 'geofacts' you and ManintheMask think are in the OP. Individuals will have noticed how a natural rock edge made a task easier and it followed that replicating it would also inspire improvements. If you think about it, the people making sharp arrows would have already used edge technology for other needs.


If it was designed as a scrapping tool, there would be evidence of working the horizonal edge, which there is not?
This is why i belive it is a broken bi face, from not securing the peice on impact.



posted on Dec, 1 2018 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Flint knapping is the first engineering feat of man, specific physic laws must be followed:

impact must be made on a less than 90 degree angle

point of impact must be below th half way point of the mass( as reduction pieces are removed from the bottom)

the tool used for working either purcussion or pressure flaking must have "give" to it...copper is the king of modern knappers and the egyptians knew this 3500 year ago, native americans used hammerstone and antler...steel or hard stones shatter the stone.
all civilizations who had a source of silicated stone knapped tools at one time...native american where just the last to do so. There had been recent discoveries in kentucky of copper being worked by natives for stone tools, but I havent heard any "rumors" among the knapping/ archeology community since the late 90, early 2000's



posted on Dec, 1 2018 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Knapperdude

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: toms54

Hey man, it's up to you what you believe and who you trust.



Some arrowheads, spearheads are clearly man made.


OK that's a start. They were made using percussion against a core which would produce the flakes and they'd 'knapp' away until it suited their purpose.

An arrowhead or spearhead would be hafted to a shaped piece of wood. Would you agree? If yes, you might also agree that the shafts would require the work of a sharp edge tool. They'd want a straight, smooth shaft without bark or old branch joints on it and they might have processed cordage from animal skin to fix the points.

Tool-wise this would be something like a scraper.

Arrowheads showed signs of design evolution so, if you look, earlier examples from Africa are less sophisticated than those found in the Americas a few hundred thousand years later. If you can agree to that you might also consider something that came earlier than wooden shafts and stone points - the sharp-edged rock. So before they were able to fashion sharp scrapers and arrowheads, they had to learn how to put an edge on a suitable stone.

You might find this idea interesting...the edge-tool rocks they used would have been inspired by the 'geofacts' you and ManintheMask think are in the OP. Individuals will have noticed how a natural rock edge made a task easier and it followed that replicating it would also inspire improvements. If you think about it, the people making sharp arrows would have already used edge technology for other needs.


If it was designed as a scrapping tool, there would be evidence of working the horizonal edge, which there is not?
This is why i belive it is a broken bi face, from not securing the peice on impact.


Which object are you referring to? I didn't describe any of the OP objects as scrapers.

I was using scrapers as an example to the other member that stone tool use didn't appear as arrow points.



posted on Dec, 1 2018 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
But 6000 years!
The bible says so....haha

The sound of settled science being proven wrong never gets old...
Humanish beings have been here for a long time..

Exactly where in the Bible does it say 6000 years or anything like that ? ....hahaha



posted on Dec, 1 2018 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky

Sorry, the first group of two pictures ,left side holding a tan stone with a straight horizonal edge on top.



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 03:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Knapperdude
a reply to: Kandinsky

Sorry, the first group of two pictures ,left side holding a tan stone with a straight horizonal edge on top.


Ahhh I see.


The objects were described as cores in the team's report, but they do include a bi-facial core which isn't the one in the OP article.

I brought up scrapers to demonstrate that stone tools have evolved and that it took a range of tools to create shafts, arrow heads and bows including scrapers.



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Bluntone22
But 6000 years!
The bible says so....haha

The sound of settled science being proven wrong never gets old...
Humanish beings have been here for a long time..

Exactly where in the Bible does it say 6000 years or anything like that ? ....hahaha
Bishop Ussher counted the 'begats' way back in the 1600s...and that became Gospel, as they say.



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22

The sound of settled science being proven wrong never gets old...
Humanish beings have been here for a long time..


"Settled science" seems to be a misnomer.

Sure, this shows early humans in the Mediterranean area earlier than thought, but I doubt archaeologists would have said it was "settled" that it was absolutely impossible for them to have been there 2.4 MYA. It was just that there was not previous evidence of them being there at that time.




edit on 2018/12/2 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Bluntone22
But 6000 years!
The bible says so....haha

The sound of settled science being proven wrong never gets old...
Humanish beings have been here for a long time..

Exactly where in the Bible does it say 6000 years or anything like that ? ....hahaha
Bishop Ussher counted the 'begats' way back in the 1600s...and that became Gospel, as they say.

You mean he counted from Adam and his son Cain ?

In Genesis 4.14 you can read this

“Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”

This making it rather clear that there is more people out there. And later on Cain goes to the land of Nod, east of Eden and finds a wife. So obviously there are people there.



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
But 6000 years!
The bible says so....haha

The sound of settled science being proven wrong never gets old...
Humanish beings have been here for a long time..


I don't know why people would claim the Earth is only 6,000 years old. The Bible never mentions a timeline of when Earth was created. I think there was another race of humans here before the Neanderthal. A race that walked among the dinosaurs and were wiped out along with the dinosaurs.



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Bluntone22
But 6000 years!
The bible says so....haha

The sound of settled science being proven wrong never gets old...
Humanish beings have been here for a long time..


I don't know why people would claim the Earth is only 6,000 years old. The Bible never mentions a timeline of when Earth was created. I think there was another race of humans here before the Neanderthal. A race that walked among the dinosaurs and were wiped out along with the dinosaurs.
Look into it, then. If is of interest to you, rally your supporting evidence. Many libraries have a subscription to JSTOR, which is a mega-source of academic publishing. Academia.edu is another. Skip the University of YouTube. Have fun!



posted on Dec, 6 2018 @ 12:35 PM
link   

I've always suspected there was a lot of early civilization in the Sahara desert. If they could clear that sand what would they find?


A lot of fossilized ocean creatures, no doubt.



posted on Dec, 6 2018 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Gazrok

No doubt. There were seas fairly far inland during the Jurassic and Triassic but once Pangea started
To split apart during the Cretaceous, there were also some cool Dinos roaming around. While they’ve been pretty limited in fossilized Dino remains, they did publish a paper on an impressive find from the S. Western part of Egypt. The only specimen that is mostly intact from the Cretaceous that’s been found in Africa so far.
www.google.com...



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join