Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Stone Tool 1.83M Years Old Discovered In Malaysia

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the chipping-away-at-it dept.

Science 200

goran72 writes with news out of Malaysia that archaeologists have announced the discovery of stone tools more than 1.8 million years old — the earliest evidence of human ancestors in South-east Asia. Researchers believe the tools were made by members of the early human ancestor species Homo erectus. The tools actually date as slightly older than the earliest H. erectus fossils, which came from Georgia and China. No bones of that antiquity have so far been found in Malaysia. "The stone hand-axes were discovered last year in the historical site of Lenggong in northern Perak state, embedded in a type of rock formed by meteorites which was sent to a Japanese lab to be dated."

cancel ×

200 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Archaeology (4, Funny)

BigBadBus (653823) | more than 4 years ago | (#26687559)

More examples here [amazon.com]

Re:Archaeology (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26687615)

and here [amazon.com]

Okay, perhaps not.
/me ducks

Re:Archaeology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26688241)

and here [amazon.com] (Apparently they found DOS 1.0 written on the tool).

Re:Archaeology (4, Informative)

Zedrick (764028) | more than 4 years ago | (#26687787)

That's science fiction, not archaeology.

Re:Archaeology (1)

EvilIdler (21087) | more than 5 years ago | (#26690495)

That's side-effects of meds talking, not science fiction.

Why am I getting ads for biblical Hebrew on this one?

Re:Archaeology (2, Funny)

Reikk (534266) | more than 5 years ago | (#26688401)

Obvious answer: God buried it there to test our faith. Reject Darwin - Praise Jesus!

Moronausoruses (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26689309)

And I didn't think they still existed. Sheesh, those scientists sure fooled me!

Occams razor (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26687583)

"The stone hand-axes were discovered last year ...embedded in a type of rock formed by meteorites"
Since the earth is only 6000 years old, the simplest explanation (Occams razor) must be these stone axes must have been created by some stone-age aliens in their big granite spaceships.

Re:Occams razor (4, Informative)

Thiez (1281866) | more than 4 years ago | (#26687675)

Accepting the axioma of the earth being 6000 years old, Occam's razor would cut you for introducing new entities where they are not needed. More logical would be that someone used a granite rock from outer space to create stone axes and then arrange for some scientist to 'find' them.

Re:Occams razor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26687745)

Oh, you and your logic! This is clearly a conspiracy to discredit science hatched by the illuminati, the catholic church and prominent bankers. Do you really think it's a coincidence that this was discovered in a global downturn? Let's look at the facts:

  1. Global downturn
  2. 1.83 Million year old axe head discovered

The connection is obvious, someone get Alex Jones on the case!

Re:Occams razor (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26690329)

Catholic Church doesn't say that the earth is only 6000years.
Only in America the "Christian" Churchs say that.

Re:Occams razor (5, Funny)

legirons (809082) | more than 4 years ago | (#26687933)

More logical would be that someone used a granite rock from outer space to create stone axes and then arrange for some scientist to 'find' them.

Or that the axe was used to build the earth

Re:Occams razor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26688389)

"Or that the axe was used to build the earth"

In that case, now we have The Tool, we can build a new planet! ... one awesome Barn Raising! ... I'll bring the sandwiches.

Dinosaur apologizes! (4, Funny)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#26687597)

"So that's where I left my hand axe. Clumsy me!" said Dorthy Dinosaur before proceeding to eat more children from the front row at the Wiggles concert.

Bill apologises! (-1, Offtopic)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 4 years ago | (#26687769)

"So that's where I left the Vista code. If I only I'd found it sooner. We wouldn't have needed to go back to using balsa for windows 7."

Re:Dinosaur apologizes! (3, Funny)

weighn (578357) | more than 4 years ago | (#26687967)

It's Dorothy the Dinosaur and she eats flowers, not children. Just explaining for the benefit of my son who was traumatised to read your post :)

Re:Dinosaur apologizes! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26688121)

If your son is shocked by something as boring as a children-eating dinosaur, how does he respond to goatse and the various nigger/shit/jew trolls?

Re:Dinosaur apologizes! (1)

weighn (578357) | more than 5 years ago | (#26688323)

If your son is shocked by something as boring as a children-eating dinosaur, how does he respond to goatse and the various nigger/shit/jew trolls?

we're behind a giant Goatse-proof fence, aka Great Firewall of Australia

Can't see Goatse from out backyard, but plenty of child-eating spiders, sharks, stingrays, snakes and dinosaurs. Yep, no wuckers about that, mate

Not human (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26687609)

This is just further proof on the existence of crab people. Beware! It is just a matter of time until they reemerge to conquer us all.

Re:Not human (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 5 years ago | (#26690217)

You mean Blue Space Lobsters [wikipedia.org] .

heh... (5, Funny)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#26687623)

... homo erectus tool :-D

Re:heh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26688113)

... homo erectus tool :-D

Sure, you didn't think there was anything new about gays having hard-ons, did you?

Re:heh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26688419)

Otherwise known as a butt plug ...

when does a stone become an axe (3, Interesting)

wjh31 (1372867) | more than 4 years ago | (#26687643)

at what point does a stone that happens to have been eroded/chipped naturally into the rough shape of an axe-head become a stone that has been intentionally crafted by (pre)human hands. How likely is it that these things are a case of seeing things because we want to, c.f the face in the rocks on mars

Re:when does a stone become an axe (5, Funny)

Shaitan Apistos (1104613) | more than 4 years ago | (#26687661)

Seeing creation where there is only nature? Nah, doesn't sound like something we'd do.

Re:when does a stone become an axe (2, Funny)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 4 years ago | (#26687723)

It wouldn't be "only nature" if the rock looks like the Virgin Mary. Hopefully it does, so we can see pictures of it on Ebay.

Re:when does a stone become an axe (1)

StefanJ (88986) | more than 4 years ago | (#26687681)

The Harbor Freight logo on the base was a dead give-away.

Re:when does a stone become an axe (1)

publiclurker (952615) | more than 4 years ago | (#26688203)

I call B.S. No way would a Harbor freight ax last 1.8 million years. 1.8 days maybe?

Re:when does a stone become an axe (5, Informative)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 4 years ago | (#26687709)

You were probably not a Boy Scout as a kid. There is actually a lot of work to make a sharp object out of a stone that is sharp and concisely sharp enough to be useful. Weather erosion like to make smooth surfaces not sharp ones. Rock chips at best will be good for poking but not cutting. So man made stone tools are actually quite different then a naturally occurring tool

Re:when does a stone become an axe (1)

wzzzzrd (886091) | more than 5 years ago | (#26689461)

uhm, you're just telling that it is amazingly improbable. but there's been more than a million years and a gazillion rocks, i bet there is at least one stone out there sharp enough to be useful and not made by man.

Re:when does a stone become an axe (2, Informative)

Assassin bug (835070) | more than 5 years ago | (#26690031)

Look it up (and maybe read the article too). There is usually a considerable amount of evidence that goes along with these axes that makes them much more likely to be tools than the result of geologic processes. This particular item was collected from a a site that has a history of producing items from an ancient culture [wikipedia.org] . Yes, there are stones out there sharp enough to be useful (e.g., naturally broken pieces of obsidian). The point isn't that they are useful, but that they have been used. Some tools are made and some are found.

Re:when does a stone become an axe (5, Informative)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 4 years ago | (#26687721)

The article doesn't say, but if it's a flint then the stone is incredibly brittle and takes a considerable amount of skill to work without shattering the stone. Working flint (or any stone) to a point or an edge leaves a distinctive pattern of markings on the stone which would be all but impossible to have occurred naturally as you basically need to flake off the unwanted bits of flint until you get the desired edge or point. Natural weathering of stone tends to fall into a limited number of types, predominantly rounding through contact erosion, and shearing which is usually caused by freezing water breaking a stone in two. Neither of the natural patterns are likely to lead to the organised pattern of chips that a worked stone would exhibit.

Re:when does a stone become an axe (-1, Redundant)

dafrazzman (1246706) | more than 4 years ago | (#26688147)

How unlikely is it? With millions of rocks out there, I wouldn't be surprised if tool-like rocks appeared every once in a while (especially if that's exactly what you're looking for).

Re:when does a stone become an axe (5, Insightful)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 5 years ago | (#26688257)

But it's very hard to explain a whole bunch of tool-like rocks together in one heap as anything other than people making them. And that's what they found here.

Re:when does a stone become an axe (1)

ciderVisor (1318765) | more than 5 years ago | (#26688363)

Imagine if they'd found a Beowulf Cluster of them !

Re:when does a stone become an axe (1)

Cantareus (1362535) | more than 5 years ago | (#26688279)

How likely is it for groups of tool-like rocks to show up together?

Re:when does a stone become an axe (2, Informative)

Renegade Iconoclast (1415775) | more than 5 years ago | (#26688673)

Let m be the probability of 1 tool like rock. The probability of n tool like rocks found together is therefore m^n, I think.

Of course, this is slashdot, so I'm definitely wrong.

Remember "Snow Crash"? (0)

mangu (126918) | more than 4 years ago | (#26688177)

In Neal Stephenson's novel "Snow Crash" there's a character named Raven that made knives out of chipped glass. That gives more or less an idea of the difficulty in making a cutting edge in stone.

Re:Remember "Snow Crash"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26688733)

That was really boring.

Re:when does a stone become an axe (4, Interesting)

DiegoBravo (324012) | more than 5 years ago | (#26688317)

> Neither of the natural patterns are likely to lead to the organised pattern of chips that a worked stone would exhibit.

It depends. Up to this day there is a big number of inconclusive cases where archaeologists "discovered" sets of "older stone tools" but there is no clear consensus but acid disputes.

Of course when you have the nice bifacial spearpoints depicted in most books your argument is valid, but in a lot of "unifacial industries" typically oriented to cutting wood and plants, there are no such clear traces of chipping you allude. In several areas, a lot of originally "non interesting" stones are being reevaluated (always with several levels of controversy); the case is that probably most of the "stone age" tools and cultures are of this "ugly" kind.

Re:when does a stone become an axe (3, Informative)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 5 years ago | (#26689253)

Work with the native American cultures in Utah has shown that flint was not "chipped" into shape by striking. Arrow heads and spear points were shaped by heating the rock and dripping water on it. Thermal shock did the hard work. Yes, it took a considerable amount of work and skill to shape, but does not require impact that might shatter the rock. Pretty sophisticated technology for the day, but really all you needed was rock (flint, jasper or similar), fire, water and a steady hand. Try it yourself.

That's news to me. (3, Interesting)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26689311)

Also rather surprising, since I've seen examples of flint tools made by modern researchers by striking edges. Got a link?

-jcr

Re:when does a stone become an axe (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#26687791)

How likely is it that these things are a case of seeing things because we want to

Or because their grant money was running out. Malaysia is a very results-oriented society. I'm surprised they didn't dynamite the stuff out of the ground. Heck, for all I know, they did.

Re:when does a stone become an axe (1)

Scaba (183684) | more than 4 years ago | (#26687889)

OMG, they probably never even considered that! It's not as if they are trained archaeologists or anything...oh, wait.

Re:when does a stone become an axe (1, Flamebait)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 4 years ago | (#26688019)

OMG, they probably never even considered that! It's not as if they are trained archaeologists or anything...oh, wait.

Archaeologists do make this sort of mistake, and can often be found guilty of wishful thinking. If there were a picture attached to TFA we could judge for ourselves. Being too lazy to look up related journal articles, I'm going to guess that most likely the conclusions are correct, but not beyond a certainty of about 90%.

Re:when does a stone become an axe (2, Funny)

drpt (1257416) | more than 4 years ago | (#26688017)

i got the axe for becoming stoned

Re:when does a stone become an axe (1)

dafrazzman (1246706) | more than 4 years ago | (#26688127)

I was wondering the same thing, but the article was pretty disappointing. There was no further information than what was already on the /. main page. Not even a picture. :(

Existential persuasions (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26688265)

I guess you have to find out the existential persuasions of the archaeologists before you can answer that question. If they lean at all toward the notion of "intelligent design", they might see evidence of some sort of design - humanoid in this case - everywhere they dig, whereas a strict naturalist might just see materials formed by unusual but nevertheless natural processes.

Skepticism and literalism are useful but much-maligned survival traits.

Re:Existential persuasions (3, Insightful)

Guido von Guido (548827) | more than 5 years ago | (#26688803)

Well, they do have previously discovered examples of Lower Paleolithic tools to compare this find with. I think the original finds were pretty thoroughly (and skeptically) reviewed.

I don't think the comparison to Intelligent Design is very useful. In Intelligent Design, we know nothing about the Designer, the Designer's methods or the Designer's goals. There is no real experimental work being done.

In contrast, we have a pretty good idea of who made (or who would have made) these tools, what their goals were and what their methods were. Based on this, we can do quite a bit of experimentation to figure out what we don't know (or even whether or not they're tools at all).

Re:Existential persuasions (2, Insightful)

macraig (621737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26689591)

I meant it merely as a rhetorical example, of people who are so motivated to find or justify a particular thing that it will pervert how they interpret what they find or observe. That type of personality is not absent in scientific disciplines, though it certainly should be. It all hinges on whether and how much a person becomes emotionally invested in some idea or thing. Remember the story of the Piltdown Man hoax? Even after the hoax was revealed, there were some "scientists" who for a time stubbornly clung to its veracity. I have a hard time granting such a person the title of scientist at all.

Re:when does a stone become an axe (1)

Caesar Tjalbo (1010523) | more than 5 years ago | (#26688475)

Well, given enough time and monkeys one will almost surely...

Re:when does a stone become an axe (3, Insightful)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 5 years ago | (#26688579)

"at what point does a stone that happens to have been eroded/chipped naturally into the rough shape of an axe-head become a stone that has been intentionally crafted by (pre)human hands."

That question seriously underestimates the abilities of both those who made stone tools and those who found them.

When it becomes carved (4, Informative)

jd (1658) | more than 5 years ago | (#26688637)

The only site with a decent image [thestate.com] .

A little more info [thearynews.com]

Some more bits of info [zeenews.com]

As can be seen from the first link, the object is not fractured along natural lines and is definitely axe-shaped. It is not some irregular thing that could have been formed by a boulder smashing down a river.

The material is not flint. I am not certain what it is, but it's not a flint.

Re:when does a stone become an axe (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26688767)

it can be determined by regular shaping and chipping of the rock that doesn't naturally happen with that type of mineral. the other give away is finding more than one in the same area. even if by some random chance the rock ended up looking like an axe naturally, it won't happen 2 or 3 times more in the same immediate area.

Re:when does a stone become an axe (1)

dudpixel (1429789) | more than 5 years ago | (#26689597)

it can be determined by regular shaping and chipping of the rock that doesn't naturally happen with that type of mineral. the other give away is finding more than one in the same area. even if by some random chance the rock ended up looking like an axe naturally, it won't happen 2 or 3 times more in the same immediate area.

most people here believe the earth evolved by chance which requires much worse odds than what you've described here....but I digress...(gonna get modded down for that surely haha)

I'm still not sure how its not just simply tools made from 1.8M year old rock? How do they know at what point there was human involvement? The stone is still the same stone no matter how it was carved - so aren't they just giving us the age of the stone, and not the tools?

I still find it hard to believe that humans could exist for that long and yet not develop much at all for nearly 2 million years and suddenly we've invented cars, computers, etc, all in the last 100 years. If we are supposed to be getting smarter that rapidly, there certainly isn't evidence of that today...

Re:when does a stone become an axe (3, Interesting)

canadian_right (410687) | more than 5 years ago | (#26689595)

Some stone tools were naturally formed and used "as is" by ancient peoples. A trained archeologist can tell the difference due to a number of distinguishing marks that tools purposely made will have.

These methods are pretty standard things to learn:
Archaeological Laboratory Methods By Mark Q. Sutton, Brooke S. Arkush [google.ca]

Pretty standard stuff, and a question that was asked and answered a long time ago.

Re:when does a stone become an axe (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 5 years ago | (#26690177)

More links at southeastasianarchaeology.com [southeasta...eology.com] .

Photos at The Star [thestar.com.my] .

It's pretty crude, but there wasn't just one "axe" there. They're man-made.

Stupid Scientists (0, Redundant)

sstpm (1463079) | more than 4 years ago | (#26687657)

Everyone knows the Earth is ~6000 years old!

But the Earth is only 5000 years old! (0, Redundant)

SpuriousLogic (1183411) | more than 4 years ago | (#26687689)

I have a book that proves it, and if your book has a different age in it, it means you have the wrong book. Way more believable than all that "scientific" evidence!

"embedded in a type of rock formed by meteorites" (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 4 years ago | (#26687697)

Que the organ music, fade in picture of a black obelisk...

Re:"embedded in a type of rock formed by meteorite (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 5 years ago | (#26689041)

Organ music?

What 2001: A Space Odyssey were you watching?

This is bullshit. (-1, Redundant)

nawcom (941663) | more than 4 years ago | (#26687739)

Our beloved christian GOD placed them there, in order to trick the sinful knowledge-seekers into thinking lies. knowledge is bad. That bitch Eve was hungry for knowledge according to Genesis. Thank the heavens women are completely the opposite these days in the christian community. Anyway, nice try scientists! </sarcasm>

Re:This is bullshit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26687855)

Our beloved christian GOD placed them there, in order to trick the sinful knowledge-seekers into thinking lies. knowledge is bad. That bitch Eve was hungry for knowledge according to Genesis. Thank the heavens women are completely the opposite these days in the christian community. Anyway, nice try scientists!
</sarcasm>

Nice echo chamber.

Re:This is bullshit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26688079)

You must be new here, this is Slashdot, the proverbial Echo Chamber of the internets discussion threads.

Homo erectus ? Sounds like gay bar ! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26687771)

Homo erectus? Get it?

Shit.. at first i read... (1)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 4 years ago | (#26687773)

"Stone Stool"... and had to do a double-take...

Re:Shit.. at first i read... (4, Informative)

Guido von Guido (548827) | more than 4 years ago | (#26687827)

Stone stools AKA coprolites [wikipedia.org] are actually pretty common, human or not.

Wow. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26687793)

Seriously, homo erectus.

Might as well name the species "Gay" or something. Who knows, maybe that's why they're extinct.

In light of the preceding story... (0, Offtopic)

DamonHD (794830) | more than 4 years ago | (#26687807)

I'm sorry, but I *do* have to ask... Does it run NetBSD 5.0 or Linux?

Rgds

Damon

Relics from the Second Age of the First Age (4, Funny)

duckInferno (1275100) | more than 4 years ago | (#26687945)

This stone tool is clearly a relic left behind from the Jurassic Elves, whose reign over Earth was ended almost two million years ago by the collision of the Shield of Immortality with the Sword of Penetrating Awesomeness. The world was torn asunder and all evidence of these majestic elfy creatures was lost to the massive geological events spanning between then and now, which simultaneously wiped out the Dark Dwarves of the Deep (having set up their vast cavernous cities under dormant volcanoes and all).

Unless the talking snake people are right and was infact placed by a monotheistic/polytheistic combo deity to fool everyone into thinking he doesn't exist, so that he can punish said people with eternal suffering.

It could also have belonged to the Migit, the first being to be crafted by his Noodliness' divine appendage. RAmen.

Huh? (4, Interesting)

Webs 101 (798265) | more than 4 years ago | (#26688059)

I have no problem with the imterpretation that these are stone tools from 1.8 MYA (and you can tell by my pretentious use of the "MYA" abbreviation that I was once on the road to related Ph.D.).

But I don't understand this:

The stone hand-axes were discovered last year...embedded in a type of rock formed by meteorites....

How or why were these tools embedded in rock formed by meteorites? This rock was either formed before or after the tools. If formed before, they could only have been embedded manually, by H. erectus miners, I guess.

If the rock formed later, then these tools survived intact a meteorite strike, which seems unlikely. (Or was the rock formed by meteorite splash sediments?)

There is one other possibility, but it's so unlikely that I reject it: that the tools and rocks were thrown up in to the air and the whole mess coalesced and solidified.

I wish the article had more info, or I could find the original paper, although here [yahoo.com] is an AP article with a photo of the rocks.

Re:Huh? (1)

owlstead (636356) | more than 5 years ago | (#26688437)

I am guessing that it would be embedded in a very rocky layer (thus you would have the larger rock or rocks, with the tools + loads of dirt between them).

Also note: I've got nothing to do at all with MYA, and I will deny any relations I don't have with her (there goes +1 insightful, oh well).

Re:Huh? (1)

jd (1658) | more than 5 years ago | (#26688765)

Didn't MYA appear in the last season of Space: 1999?

Re:Huh? (4, Funny)

citizenr (871508) | more than 5 years ago | (#26688497)

actually there is fourth possibility - they were embedded inside meteorite before hitting earth :P

Re:Huh? (1)

Xelios (822510) | more than 5 years ago | (#26688761)

You mean.... the Scientologists are right?

Re:Huh? (1)

kuzb (724081) | more than 5 years ago | (#26689443)

I'm sure the creationists are saying this very thing - all the while, foaming at the mouth.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26688611)

Doesn't look like much of an ax head to me.

Re:Huh? (2, Interesting)

jd (1658) | more than 5 years ago | (#26688763)

The axe doesn't look capable of making a dent in magnetite. Much more likely is that this is a translation error. I could easily see the stone axes found being used to chip away at softer rock around a meteorite, or being hammered under the meteorite in an attempt to produce a gap large enough to lever the meteorite out.

However, this begs a question. What would they want with a meteorite? Meteoric iron was popular for swords, but iron swords weren't available for another 1,829,400 years. Art deco? Somehow, I don't imagine H. Erectus having too many yuppies in the population. Besides, meteorites are heavy and this was still some time before stable static populations emerged.

Re:Huh? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#26688837)

It would be interesting if these people turned out to have a use for iron. Another thing to note is that Perak is known for tin mining. Tin is easier to work than iron so they may have had a use for it.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26689623)

Well, if they saw it hit, they may have believed the stone had some magic properties and wanted to move it to construct a shrine for the magic sky rock.

Re:Huh? (3, Interesting)

jd (1658) | more than 5 years ago | (#26689785)

Possibly, but we're talking almost a million years older than the oldest known organized religion for which any evidence exists. We're talking so early that many anthropologists reject outright that such people had the mental capacity for complex ritual.

(I suspect the anthropologists are wrong on that, but the lack of any evidence of ritual worship older than about 800,000 years ago takes precedence over my personal feelings on the matter.)

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26689707)

How or why were these tools embedded in rock formed by meteorites?

Clearly what we are witnessing is the discovery of a primitive meteorite defense system.

Margin or error - 610k (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26688085)

"Experts say the result has a margin of error of 610,000 years and the find has to be approved by other experts as well, AP reported."

I think this piece of info is worth mentioning.

But does it...? (1, Offtopic)

ethicalBob (1023525) | more than 4 years ago | (#26688097)

But does it run on Ubuntu?

Re:But does it...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26689483)

Did you really think that'd be funny in any way?

Re:But does it...? (0)

ethicalBob (1023525) | more than 5 years ago | (#26690279)

actually, on /. yes...

Geek (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26688345)

When I first spotted the heading to this article I thought it was referring to some application called "Stone Tool version 1.83". I think I'm spending too much time in front of computers...

Uh-oh... (1)

billybob_jcv (967047) | more than 5 years ago | (#26688659)

Patent lawyers for Microsoft, Intel and Apple are studying the axe to determine if prior art was infringed in the creation of the Malaysian tool...

great (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#26688735)

we have christian creationists intepreting archeology in pseudoscientific ways, now we have meteorite preserved "proof" that mankind came from outer space. in other words, we've just handed pseudoscience to scientology originists. it's all according to xenu's plan...

Tool users (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26688795)

I think we'll find, after further investigation, that these tools were actually used by New Caledonian crows, not erect humanoids.

How did they date it? (1)

vikstar (615372) | more than 5 years ago | (#26689109)

I thought you could date only organic matter based on carbon 14.

Re:How did they date it? (1)

jeepien (848819) | more than 5 years ago | (#26689589)

We're not "based" on carbon-14. We're based on carbon--almost all of it carbon-12.

Re:How did they date it? (1)

vikstar (615372) | more than 5 years ago | (#26690245)

Let me refrase it for the punctuation police...
I though you could date only organic matter, based on carbon 14.
If you're not the punctuation police, then it means you don't know how carbon dating [wikipedia.org] works.

1.8M years and still hasn't got it right. (1)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 5 years ago | (#26689267)

It is a bit discouraging that there is evidence that old, of tool making beings on this planet. I would have thought intelligent life was much younger, and much less evolved, based on my personal observations.

Heck, even on this very web site, the are still arguing over vi vs emacs.

Give me a break!

All of this has happened before -- (1)

kulakovich (580584) | more than 5 years ago | (#26689399)

-- and all of it will happen again.

MADE IN CHINA (1)

kmahan (80459) | more than 5 years ago | (#26689633)

Found stamped on the bottom.

sent to a Japanese lab to be dated? (1)

mehu (92260) | more than 5 years ago | (#26689697)

There's their first mistake. The Japanese are always good at coming up with the "oldest" evidence. No doubt they'll "find" something even older somewhere in Japan in a few weeks. ;>

yea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26689721)

So is this real or not?

srsly.

Wow! (1)

Benfea (1365845) | more than 5 years ago | (#26690419)

This stone tool is 1.824 million years older than the universe. :D

Sorry, had to get a dig in on the Flat Earth crowd.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>