PDA

View Full Version : 500,000-year-old ax found in quarry


grinner
12-18-2004, 11:56 AM
ARCHAEOLOGISTS EXCITED BY 500,000-YEAR-OLD AXE FIND IN QUARRY
17/12/2004



(UK) A Stone Age hand axe dating back 500,000 years has been discovered at a quarry in Warwickshire.

(Photo: The image shows the axe head from different angles. Photo: Graham Norrie, University of Birmingham Institute of Archaeology and Antiquity.)

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.
link (http://www.aggregateresearch.com/article.asp?id=5451)

I think this has to be one of the earliest known examples of hand tools

AgentSun
12-18-2004, 12:08 PM
intriguing...i agree, this has to be one of the earliest hand tools. it'll be interesting to see more about this artifact.

Antrobus
12-18-2004, 01:11 PM
hmmmm.....I thought Lizzie Borden invented the ax! ;)

Col.Batguano
12-18-2004, 02:11 PM
so how far back is it estimated now that human beings left a Africa ?
500,000 years is is pretty far back for human beings to be in Europe let alone England.
from what I now (which ain't much) the DNA testing (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/neanderthals/mtdna.html#) puts Humans Coming out of Africa around 200,000 years ago. if this story out of the UK is accurate it's placing the first humans on earth close to a million years ago.

arthurfrdent
12-18-2004, 08:35 PM
uh, tis cool but methinks they are off by a power of ten... 50,000 I could buy that especially if the writer is a 'not put in commas' kinda person 50000 versus 500000...

Col.Batguano
12-19-2004, 01:49 AM
arthurfrdent - thanks alot, I was getting my rocks off thinking there was a 500,000 year old axe in England,
that is scifi stuff,
and you bring in the cold hard truth of reason.
damn I was having fun,
I was in Nerd Heaven.
I'm really bummed out now,
I'm going in a corner to sulk and role my twenty sided dice all by my self,
D&D will comfort me.

Damn !

I rolled a 2.
my magic elf is Dead.

Life sux.

Nessus
12-19-2004, 05:57 AM
The Paleolithic Age began in Europe, Asia and Africa about 2 million years ago, so theres nothing odd about a half million year old stone artifact, so Col.Batguano, feel free to enjoy your nerd heaven.

Third EYe
12-19-2004, 08:10 AM
more garbage. I'm always intrigued with the high level of inconsistency and contradictory information that people are willing to accept as fact in reference to our planets history. Anything that remotely looks like reason is dismissed as unscientific and ridiculed.

Col.Batguano
12-19-2004, 02:11 PM
ok Third EYe, fair point, I agree.
but lets stay away from a potential political argument.


what is the original theory of when Humans left Africa,
#1 how long ago was the first estimation,
#2 what is the current theory,
#3 what evidence is there,
#4 are there any other links on this story - because I cant find them,
#5 is my magic elf Dead ? :D

Third EYe
12-19-2004, 04:58 PM
You first have to show that Humans left, rather originated in Africa. There is much controversy regarding this theory and there is some evidence, not that I believe it, just some "evidence" that Australia is the origin of man.

arthurfrdent
12-19-2004, 11:06 PM
que? uh, so AFD who didn't do his homework... obviously strikes out :rolleyes: turns out that the power of ten error was certainly on my lack of knowledge of the numbers. half a mil. isn't even a problem in terms of years. Heh so if you're lucky you learn something new every day :D

Clarsax
12-20-2004, 11:07 AM
Interesting. But another factor you might want to consider is how they discovered the age of the axe. Carbon dating is the most common method, but it's actually not that accurate. Changes in weather and climate can effect the way carbon degenerates over time, giving false readings and making objects appear older than they are. If this axe was exposed to wide fluxations in temperature, like a climate change, or else was left in a place for a few centuries that speeds up carbon degeneration, then it could be a lot less old than the dating suggests.

BaseLine
12-20-2004, 11:25 AM
IIRC carbon dating would give the age of the rock, not the age of when it was made into an axe. Maybe they also found some organic material on the axe?

arthurfrdent
12-20-2004, 12:05 PM
link to where I found a lot of interesting info:

http://www.abotech.com/Articles/Kowalski02.htm

IIRC carbon14 would only work if carbon isotompe was already IN the rock used...

and the 'hand axe' is pretty literal, in that they were not attached to handles.

NYPinTA
12-20-2004, 12:07 PM
It's Gimli's.