Posted on 12/17/2004 11:37:14 AM PST by blam
ARCHAEOLOGISTS EXCITED BY 500,000-YEAR-OLD AXE FIND IN QUARRY
By David Prudames 16/12/2004
This image shows the axe head from different angles. Photo: Graham Norrie, University of Birmingham Institute of Archaeology and Antiquity.
A Stone Age hand axe dating back 500,000 years has been discovered at a quarry in Warwickshire.
The tool was found at the Smiths Concrete Bubbenhall Quarry at Waverley Wood Farm, near Coventry, which has already produced evidence of some of the earliest known human occupants of the UK.
It was uncovered in gravel by quarry manager John Green who took it to be identified by archaeologists at the University of Birmingham.
"We are very excited about this discovery," enthused Professor David Keen of the university's Archaeology Field Unit.
"Lower Palaeolithic artefacts are comparatively rare in the West Midlands compared to the south and east of England so this is a real find for us."
Despite being half and million years old the tool is very well-preserved and will eventually go on show at Warwickshire Museum.
Amongst other things, the hand axe would have been used for butchering animals, but what is perhaps most intriguing about it is that it is made of a type of volcanic rock called andesite.
Photo: Graham Norrie, University of Birmingham Institute of Archaeology and Antiquity.,
Andesite bedrock only occurs in the Lake District or North Wales and this is only the ninth andesite hand axe to be found in the midlands in over a century. Archaeologists are now trying to figure out how the tool might have got there.
Although it is possible the rock was transported to the midlands by glacial ice from the north west there is as yet no evidence for it, which suggests humans might have brought it into the area.
The lack of material for good quality hand axes in the midlands would probably have been known to our ancestors, therefore these tools could have been brought in ready made.
It may also be significant that all previous andesite hand axe finds have been made in deposits of the Bytham River, a now lost river system that crossed England from the Cotswolds via the West Midlands and Leicester to the North Sea.
This valley was destroyed in a later glaciation and seems to have provided a route into the midlands for Palaeolithic hunters.
Half a million years ago the area was at the edge of the human world, linked to Europe along the Bytham valley and across a land-bridge existing before the cutting of the Straits of Dover.
In addition to the hand axe the Smiths Concrete Bubbenhall Quarry has produced 18 other Palaeolithic tools, currently under investigation by the team at Birmingham Archaeology.
Other finds in the area include bones and teeth from a straight-tusked elephant, which are also set to be displayed at Warwickshire Museum.
Beats me...
What are you? One of the those Biblical creationists or something? You're actually implying that intentionality = personal crafting? I'm sorry but this just doesn't pass the muster of peer review.
I suggest you missed a few key science courses in your local high school and college campus. You're not giving proper obeisance to "Time" and "Natural Forces" doing their...uh, I mean, its handiwork...uh...that's not a good word, either...uh...instead of handiwork how about this description:
Time and Natural Forces have forged ahead to scrape out yet another example of Natural Beauty as uncovered by archeologists: The appearance of a scultured axe that once again shows us the wonder of what Mother Earth's Womb contains if only we don't limit her gestation.
Depending on the porosity, etc, of the material this aging can be merely on the surface or extend down through the stone towards its center. Sometimes this occurs on only one side if the piece hasn't been disturbed and one side remained more protected than the other. Soils can also polish the surfaces. Older tools sometimes have recent chipping or reworking on them which is obvious because it lacks the characteristic patina found on h rst of the piece.
Even very ancient rock has moisture in it that remains in it so long as the cortex is undisturbed. The flintknapper may begin working on material that looks very dark, only to see it change later as it dries out, to something quite light in color. This factor doesn't help much since most fakes would dry out quickly anyway.
Some newer relics - particularly those used for small arrowheads- were sometimes heat-treated, a process which can dramatically alter the characteristics. Typically it makes material like chert much more colorful. It also makes the inside glassier and easier to work, and when worked, it's sharper. The disadvantage is that it makes material more brittle, too brittle for axes.
It's true that sometimes it's not easy to tell a real from a fake- there have been cases where knowledgable people were fooled by very talented fakers using assorted recipes and methods. Most fakers aren't that good though- they leave the smell of Old Mill furniture polish on the item, or creosote, use gemstone tumblers and polishes, etc- but they are not making their work to be donated to some museum but rather to fool the collector so they can get some cash. But often traces of their fakery end up under flaws in the material and can be detected. One of my friends spots traces of coffee, manure, etc all the time in otherwise good modern replicas taken to him for identification.
Most Anthropolgist think Homo sapiens originated around 100,000 years ago in Africa. They guestimate its appearance in Europe about 40,000 years ago.
At 500,000 years ago your probably looking at an Homo antecessor or Homo heidelbergensis, predecessors of Homo neanderthalensis or H. sapiens neanderthalensis, depending on the authority.
But how do we know that coffee & manure were not simply part of the evolutionary progressive process of these alleged replicas? Maybe coffee simply evolved. Maybe coffee was even one of the original stimulants that prompted life???
And given enough coffee, well, manure is bound to follow as an evolutionary cause & effect!!!
you can tell recently worked rock from old work
You know, you're not being sensitive enough to us Totalitarian Evolutionists (those of us who believe everything evolved). Would you mind, in order to not continue offending me, if you were to start using phrases like "recently scraped" vs. "recently worked"? Worked implies a worker, and that implies design, and design implies a creator, and a creator implies accountability. (Frankly, and don't tell Santa, my lifestyle is well beyond the latter!).
The dispute about the timeline has much more to do with where to draw the lines between species as opposed to who was where when. Homo heidelbergensis is sometimes classified as homo sapiens heidelbergensis or more often as Homo Sapiens (archaic) as opposed to Homo Sapiens Sapiens (Modern). If heidelbergensis is a seperate species, then 120k years ago is the start of homo sapiens. If heidelbergensis is a part of homo sapiens, 500k. Either way, me thinks this axe dating is off by a zero.
They might uncover that 500,000 year old cheese sandwich you left in there. Which would completely rewrite the history books on when dairy farming started.
In central Virginia, "axes" which look just like that are thrown into a general catagory called "arrowheads". You can easily find them just lying around in any farm field after it rains. There's not a lot of people around here who don't have at least a few of them collecting dust on a knick-knack shelf and shoeboxes or even garages full of them are quite common.
>>>>They might uncover that 500,000 year old cheese sandwich you left in there.
Nah. My sister already ate it. Which is why my moose bit her.
Unnngh!
Ah, this illustrates my point exactly! The sheer massive number of these implies that they are a natural phenomenon.
Elsewise, that would almost imply an ancient city of mass proportion once residing there, which is not otherwise evidenced.
Axes and arrowheads alike are examples of pseudodesign caused by natural forces of rocks and running water that results in natural scraping before giving birth, almost crop-like, to these products of nature untouched by human hands until discovered by nature lovers and scientists.
How can Homo heidelbergensis be considered archaic Homo sapiens when it predated Neanderthal man?
What about Homo antecessor?
Homo erectus made stone tools also, didn't it? Perhaps this is a Homo erectus' product.
50,000 years ago would be clearly H. sapiens.
I really have no clue what you are ranting about.
Sure you do, it's a feeble attempt to wreck a science thread.
Ignoring the poster, as most have done, is best.
Blam,
Thank you for another interesting thread.
One archaeologist to another archaeologist:
Do you have a 500,000-year-old axe in your pocket or are you just glad to see me.
Although predated, there is also evidence of coexistance/overlap. That goes to the dispute about where to draw the line between species. In the narrow form, we (modern humans) and only we are homo sapiens.
In the broad form, there is homo sapiens (no identifier, or archaic) or homo sapiens Heidelbergensis then homo sapiens neaderthalensis and then homo sapiens sapiens (modern humans).
So it comes down to whether we consider Heidelbergensis and Neanderthal parts of homo sapiens or outside of homo sapiens. To the best of my knowledge the debate still "rages" although I don't think it is quite relevant.
Personally, given the species definition by interbreeding, I think it is up in the air, and we will likely never know if a modern person could have viable offspring with a Neanderthal or Heidelbergensis.
What about Homo antecessor?
I don't personally know much about that one...my understanding is that that one is very speculative, and relies primarily on a single juvenile that could easily be miscategorized. Given that identification is primarily by skull bone structure, it is entirely possible that a juvenile structure would not be immediately identifiable as being part of whatever it was. Regardless, given the relative lack of evidence, I don't think that one is particularly important.
Homo erectus made stone tools also, didn't it? Perhaps this is a Homo erectus' product.
Yes, and possibly. When I first made reference to an earilier hominid that is what I had in mind. In fact, Habilis, predecessor to erectus also used primitive tools. Not sure exactly how primitive. If this axe was of a softer material, I would think it would be within Habilis' capabilities, but given that it is from such a hard stone, I wouldn't hazard a guess.
Erectus definitely made it to Europe. I am not sure about Habilis.
Oh, and 50,000 years ago could definitlely have been Neanderthal, although that may or may not be considered inside H. Sapiens.
Hey! These people are "scientists"! Everything they say is the absolute truth and should not be doubted! They can see backwards billions of years and also forwards millions of years. Hm...sounds kind of like God, does it not?
Looks like a rock to me.
Very interesting... Thanks for your post piasa, I appreciate it! (o:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.