They weren't there that early. Reread the article, it is full of weasel language and disclaimers. The 8-9,000 years was pulled out of thin air because the vanity of Ian Leitch wouldn't let him say "I don't know.", which would have been the appropriate and correct answer. Stone does not perform well under radioisotope dating. The axe head is described as "unique" making it ludicrous to date it according to other guesstimates of similar material. The guy is showing typical deceptiveness of the evolution crowd. I can build a stone axe that looks like something used a long time ago, will it be described as being 8-9,000 years old? The rock may be old, but there is absolutely no way they can date the age of the craftsmanship. Suppose I was stranded somewhere and built some crude hand tools according to the survival books. Because it wasn't fashioned out of modern high strength metal alloys would it be considered primitive and thus if found one hundred years later be dated as a Stone Age artifact?
There are three ways that the age of stone artifacts are estimated.
1. The design and craftsmanship used in the artifact, along with the type of stone used and its source. This will often place it within a certain era when such techniques and sources were commonly used. Just because the size of the axe was "unique" doesn't mean that it does not show signs of workmanship and design that correspond to other tools.
2. The positon of the stone tool in sediments, the depth of burial, can give an indication of when the tool was dropped, lost, or abandoned. It is not clear in this case if this teqnique was used to determine the age.
3. Radio carbon dating of associated fire or plant materials can give an indecation of when the artifact was left at the site. This does not appear to have been done in this case.
It is misleading to say that Ian Leitch is being deceptive by using "weasel language and disclaimers". By saying "probably" and by using disclaimers, he is exactly admitting the difficulties in dating the stone axe. There is no reason to believe that the axe was of recent origin, and he is giving his opinion and the reasons for it. I don't see any deception there. In fact, he is doing exactly the opposite of deception. He is being as precise as possible.
No.
Stone artifacts, whether ancient tools, Greek Statues, or the supposed Ossuary of James are dated by the weathering of the surface. We know how fast each type of stone weathers in the open air and burried in different soils. Microscopic examination of the surface can tell how long ago that surface was exposed.
SO9