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.
AROUND 1.7 million years ago, our ancestors' tools went from basic rocks banged together to chipped hand axes. The strength and dexterity needed to make and use the latter quickly shaped our hands into what they are today –judging by a fossil that belongs to the oldest known anatomically modern hand.
The 1.7-million-year-old Acheulean hand axes were some of the first stone tools. Over the next million years, these chunky teardrop-shaped rocks became widely used before being replaced by finer, more precise flint tips. But how our ancestors' hands evolved into a shape that could make such tools is a bit of a mystery.
Before the hand axes appeared, our ancestors had primitive wrists: good for hanging from branches, but too weak to grasp and handle small objects with much force. And no hand bones had been found to fill the gap between 1.7 million years ago and 800,000 years ago – by which time humans had developed the hands we have today. Now, a new fossil is helping bridge that gap.
In 2010, a team led by Fredrick Kyalo Manthi of the National Museums of Kenya discovered an intriguing bone in the north of the country. Carol Ward of the University of Missouri and colleagues identified it as a third metacarpal, the long bone in the palm between the middle finger and the wrist.
Like modern human metacarpals, it has a small lump at its base – the styloid. This projection helps stabilise the wrist when the hand is gripping small objects between the thumb and fingers. Isotope dating revealed the bone to be about 1.4 million years old. It is likely to have belonged to Homo erectus.
Hand bones of early Homo erectus are almost unknown, says Richard Potts of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC. "Having such a well-preserved specimen begins to answer questions about hand evolution," he says.
"This is an exciting find," agrees Mary Marzke of Arizona State University in Tempe. It shows that our ancestors' hands were already evolving into their modern form 1.4 million years ago. The forceful, repetitive and sustained processes of tool use, such as digging with rocks, would have made stronger hands desirable, says Marzke.
This would have been particularly useful for knocking off flakes to form and sharpen hand axes, says Potts. Once the important wrist features were in place, it became easier for later hominids to make smaller, finer tools.
Because the fossil is younger than the first tools, Ward's team believe it is the first evidence of anatomy evolving to suit a new technology. As stone tools became more widespread, those who had the wrist structure to use them would have had an evolutionary advantage over their weaker-wristed kin. "The way we look today has been shaped by our behaviour over millions of years," says Ward. She presented the research at this week's meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists in Knoxville, Tennessee.
I have seen a very strong assertion that this was not a 'hand axe', fueled by the twin observations that you never see any use wear on them and that there are much better ways to chop down a tree. He suggests, instead, that they were cores from which flakes were removed. To prove the point, he recommends one "put it in their hands and have them go pound a tree with it." We call that "experimental archaeology".
Originally posted by punkinworks10
The 1.7-million-year-old Acheulean hand axes were some of the first stone tools. Over the next million years, these chunky teardrop-shaped rocks became widely used before being replaced by finer, more precise flint tips.
No need to chase down the First Nations (unless you want to), I'm providing a link to a regional organisation that will show you what you need to know! Link
Originally posted by rickymouse
I wish I could find some Indians to teach me to make these things.
Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
I have seen a very strong assertion that this was not a 'hand axe', fueled by the twin observations that you never see any use wear on them and that there are much better ways to chop down a tree. He suggests, instead, that they were cores from which flakes were removed. To prove the point, he recommends one "put it in their hands and have them go pound a tree with it." We call that "experimental archaeology".
Originally posted by punkinworks10
The 1.7-million-year-old Acheulean hand axes were some of the first stone tools. Over the next million years, these chunky teardrop-shaped rocks became widely used before being replaced by finer, more precise flint tips.
But the original thread does explore an interesting concept.
No need to chase down the First Nations (unless you want to), I'm providing a link to a regional organisation that will show you what you need to know! Link
Originally posted by rickymouse
I wish I could find some Indians to teach me to make these things.edit on 15-4-2013 by JohnnyCanuck because: ...just because, eh?
Perhaps...but the work is in reducing the core. Remember, these suckers are of a size. Also, if you are going to schlep around raw materials made of rock...you are going to remove extraneous material first. Why carry the debitage around, too?
Originally posted by lordpiney
Id be more inclined to think these were used as weapons, or butchering tools. Seems like alot of work to put into something to only be used as a source of flake tools. dont you think?
I'm citing a pal on this, but he is not generally wrong.
Originally posted by skalla
i know you know your beans, but i'm still kinda boggled by the "no wear" thing.
Originally posted by Nightaudit
reply to post by punkinworks10
Forgive me if I misinterpreted your post. But isn´t all that known for decades now?
It surely is interesting to see a new find and some pictures, but I do not really understand the significance of this find.
Originally posted by secret titan
OP:
Not sure if the tools shaped the hands, or evolution of the hands helped shape finer tools though. It could very well be either way.
reply to post by resoe26
As opposed to a magical sky fairy? Indeed. There is more evidence for evolution than creation.
edit on 15/4/13 by secret titan because: Rearrange...