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

Archaeologists have determined that a recently discovered quartzite flake found in western Turkey is between 1.17 to 1.24 million years old. It shows the hallmarks of being hammered by a hard tool.The evidence suggests primitive hominids dispersed into Asia and Europe earlier than previously determined by mainstream science.

Our research suggests that the flake is the earliest securely-dated artifact from Turkey ever recorded and was dropped on the floodplain by an early hominin well over a million years ago.

We observed markings on the flake that clearly suggest it had been struck with force by a hard hammer or other stone tool, making it highly unlikely that it was shaped by natural processes.

However, the lead study researcher is attributing the stone tool to Homo erectus, rather than to the species modern day humans belong to; Homo sapiens. Fossils of Homo erectus were found 100 km south of where the stone flake was discovered.

The oldest hominin fossils in western Anatolia, attributed to Homo erectus, were recovered in 2007 in the deposits of travertine at Kocabaş in the Denizli basin – about 100 km south of where the flake was discovered – but their dating were uncertain.

These discoveries, in conjunction with Gobekli Tepe and the ancient underground city of Derinkuyu, all located within Turkey bring forth some interesting ideas of ancient civilizations and lost cultures.

More information can be found by reading the article in full: 1.2-Million-Year-Old Stone Tool Unearthed in Turkey

a reply to: Pistoche

No one knows the truth.

Thats the only thing we can say for sure.

a reply to: Pistoche

That's a lot of speculation for this.


But seeing as I am definitely a laymen on this subject, I find this very interesting indeed.

I agree with Onequestion, none of us knows the truth.

a reply to: stosh64

I am not much of an expert on the topic at hand either, however these are some comments from a geologist:

A rock that has been shaped due to striking will be different from one formed naturally. Usually it will have finer edges and evidence of pressure scars from the impact site. Sometimes the edges are partially serrated. They also look out of place.

Rock material could have been transported to the floodplain but you would see a large amount of similar material there. When I find artefacts like this its almost always (99.9%) of a rock type that is not found nearby, and therefore sticks out.

Not only that, but the shape and size of a rock fragment determines how far it has traveled from its source. Further from the source and the fragments will be smaller and more similarly shaped (sand, for example). Closer to the source and the rocks will vary in both size and shape (eg. a broken boulder in many pieces).

You can see in the article that this rock fragment is quite angular and rather large, which is different from the usual small sediments or rounded rocks you would find in a floodplain/river meander.

a reply to: Pistoche

1.2 million years of hammering stones together... and waiting something better to come by.

Lets say they kept on hammering those stones for 200,000 years, that is awfully lot of time for avoiding thinking any better way of cutting skin out of a deer. Even so, there would be 1000,000 yeaaars left for fixing something better. Boats, sails, arrows, huts and stuff, & getting organised for global dominance. Does not require much to get on level of middle ages - requires darn nothing.

How did they survive the boredom?

originally posted by: deckdel
a reply to: Pistoche

1.2 million years of hammering stones together... and waiting something better to come by.

Lets say they kept on hammering those stones for 200,000 years, that is awfully lot of time for avoiding thinking any better way of cutting skin out of a deer. Even so, there would be 1000,000 yeaaars left for fixing something better. Boats, sails, arrows, huts and stuff, & getting organised for global dominance. Does not require much to get on level of middle ages - requires darn nothing.

How did they survive the boredom?

Thats quite possibly the link up to the most important question in the history of man....

How and why did we get infused with curiosity and ambition when pretty much all other species on Earth still after millions of years have none of those.

a reply to: Pistoche

…was dropped on the floodplain by an early hominid well over a million years ago.

Dating a bit of "chipped" rock doesn't tell when the "chipping" occurred or how it occurred.

a reply to: Pistoche

Jolly interesting!

Quartzite does not behave in quite the same way as more "typical" blade stones such as flint or chert in that it does not react to a blow with a conchoidal fracture (ie: a cone shaped shockwave coming from the point of impact) when being shaped. As far as I know, the Archie world hasn't known that much about working quartzite into blades until recently, when highly skilled modern knappers moved to much less forgiving, predictable stone - and quartzite working provided the challenge many needed.. so now we have not only finds of debitage where ancient man worked the stuff (allowing us to examine intentionally made flakes), but also the ability to watch Quartzite blades being made with an ancient toolkit(ie hammmerstones, antler hammers, wooden batons) and to examine the process.

Now I know a heck of a lot more about flint but even with Quartzite certain principles will remain in many cases, such as the use of platforms - isolated "nubs" along the edge that you were working, that a maker will strike to produce the flake; the use of ridges in the stone produced by the removal of the previous/adjacent flake that allow for the more effective continuation of the shockwave produced by striking with a hammerstone for example - the presence of this in a non intentional flake would be possible but extremely unlikely and is really a hallmark of intention, especially when central; and also the feather edging (very thin serrations) at the sharp edges of a flake; there is also the possibility that one surface of the flake is that of the original rounded river cobble (which I expect that this would be, due to it being quartzite) which would e worn smooth from laying in a river for countless years, and the other side would have a much rougher, grainier texture having been separated by a shockwave traveling through it.

If these features can be observed, it's likely an intentional flake.

Hope this provides a bit more insight, look up images of modern repro Quartzite blades to see the rough surfaces left over - I don't have the ability/time to post these the next day or two unfortunately, but you will see that they are very different from a river cobble, and it's a bloody difficult task to take a thin flake from an intact cobble with any single blow - you need to remove material first to set up the angles of attack to allow for removals of thin flakes in the vast majority of cases. Just whacking a rounded stone (ie: like an accidental/environmental impact) will be massively unlikely to make a thin flake.

Obvs, there is not much detail given in the article so i'm assuming that it's a river cobble - though I believe that it's a fairly safe assumption.

And Merry Chrimbo folks

a reply to: Pistoche

Ya they found a flake alright!

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Pistoche

…was dropped on the floodplain by an early hominid well over a million years ago.

Dating a bit of "chipped" rock doesn't tell when the "chipping" occurred or how it occurred.

they can probably see tool marks or knapping patterns in the edges. random chips look different from deliberate knapping. one would expect though that the first human to make a sharp edge deliberately would have been banging rocks to get accidental cleavage lines that were long enough and sharp enough to cut. i don't know how long it would take for it to occur to a rock breaker that fine adjustments to the cleavage plain were possible with hardened pointy sticks or antlers. but i do know at least with modern man and neanderthals we greatly underestimate thier sophistication because we naturally think our intellect superior to say bronze age people. though actually they knew how to do lots of things we did not credit them with. Heck until recently we could not even beat roman concrete even with our advanced science.

a reply to: intrptr

Woah dude, write up a paper rebutting g their findings, it's clear you've thought deep and hard about this!

a reply to: deckdel

Well made stone tools would probably really surprise you in how effective they are. You could skin a deer with a single flint flake no bigger than the palm of your hand and then most likely butcher the thing wit that same flake too. That flake would take all of a second to make.

For working flesh and wood, stone can be a real shock when you first give it a try.

originally posted by: skalla
a reply to: deckdel

Well made stone tools would probably really surprise you in how effective they are. You could skin a deer with a single flint flake no bigger than the palm of your hand and then most likely butcher the thing wit that same flake too. That flake would take all of a second to make.

For working flesh and wood, stone can be a real shock when you first give it a try.

obsidian scapels are still in use for surgery even in modern times and even when we have modern steel and alloys.

en.wikipedia.org...

Though not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use on humans, obsidian is used by some surgeons for scalpel blades, as well-crafted obsidian blades have a cutting edge many times sharper than high-quality steel surgical scalpels, the cutting edge of the blade being only about 3 nanometers thick.[36] Even the sharpest metal knife has a jagged, irregular blade when viewed under a strong enough microscope; when examined even under an electron microscope an obsidian blade is still smooth and even.[37] One study found that obsidian incisions produced fewer inflammatory cells and less granulation tissue at 7 days, in a group of rats.[38] Don Crabtree produced obsidian blades for surgery and other purposes,[36] and has written articles on the subject. Obsidian scalpels may currently be purchased for surgical use on research animals.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: intrptr

Woah dude, write up a paper rebutting g their findings, it's clear you've thought deep and hard about this!

Occam's razor and all.

And a little Sherlock Holmes.

Until you eliminate the obvious flaws you can't chip any further…

a reply to: Pistoche

When they put such science fiction dates on this stuff it just takes away from the real story.

a reply to: Pistoche

I agree the flint is probably the work of homo erectus, sapiens were much more sophisticated back then

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Pistoche

…was dropped on the floodplain by an early hominid well over a million years ago.

Dating a bit of "chipped" rock doesn't tell when the "chipping" occurred or how it occurred.

There are ways to tell how tools are formed, including the method and tools used to form the tool.

originally posted by: passit
a reply to: Pistoche

I agree the flint is probably the work of homo erectus, sapiens were much more sophisticated back then

Uh..Homo sapiens didn't even exist then.

originally posted by: deckdel
a reply to: Pistoche

1.2 million years of hammering stones together... and waiting something better to come by.

Lets say they kept on hammering those stones for 200,000 years, that is awfully lot of time for avoiding thinking any better way of cutting skin out of a deer. Even so, there would be 1000,000 yeaaars left for fixing something better. Boats, sails, arrows, huts and stuff, & getting organised for global dominance. Does not require much to get on level of middle ages - requires darn nothing.

How did they survive the boredom?

The only thing better than a flint arrowhead or cutting blade would be an iron arrowtip. That would require knowledge of iron ores, basic geology, ironsmithing and kilns. These guys had just progressed from throwing stones from slings made from animal skins to using spears.

Just to perfect the skill required to carve a flint arrowhead requires visual coordination and geometric judgement in order to place each blow that sharpens the blade without shattering the arrowhead. That would have required a lot of evolution in terms of society in order to secure food resources and shelter in order for someone to have time to do the carving.

originally posted by: skalla
a reply to: deckdel

Well made stone tools would probably really surprise you in how effective they are. You could skin a deer with a single flint flake no bigger than the palm of your hand and then most likely butcher the thing wit that same flake too. That flake would take all of a second to make.

For working flesh and wood, stone can be a real shock when you first give it a try.

That's very true. I've used so-called primitive stone tools to cut and they're amazingly effective. Until you actually hold one in your hand it doesn't appear that they're crafted to fit precisely in the human hand. Once you hold one, you realize how skilled the people were who created them.