Re: Stone tools

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: smaceach@polar.bowdoin.edu: "Re: WHITAKER'S LAWS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE"
• Previous message: EJ Ford: "Re: REVEALED (at long last!) Ed Conrad's academic background and qualifications"
• Maybe in reply to: byou@worldnet.att.net: "Stone tools"

byou@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> In reguards to the stone tools which were recently found
>and supposidly date back millions of years,how do you date
>these items? Can I not make a tool today out of a rock that is
>millions of years old? How do you differentiate the rock from
>the tool? I would really like to know just how they can come to
>such a conclusion!

The article in question is in Nature this week. IIRC, the rocks were
dated by their position in the stratigraphic column between two layers of
volcanic tuff (consolidated ash) which were dated by single crystal argon
dating.... I don't know how that works, except that the clock starts
running as crystals form in the cooling ash.
There's an accompanying News and Views article that goes with the letter,
it's worth a look.

Bill

-------------------------------------------------------
Bill Burnett bbur@dml.ac.uk
Scottish Association for Marine Science
P.O.Box 3, Oban, Argyll, Scotland

• Next message: smaceach@polar.bowdoin.edu: "Re: WHITAKER'S LAWS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE"
• Previous message: EJ Ford: "Re: REVEALED (at long last!) Ed Conrad's academic background and qualifications"
• Maybe in reply to: byou@worldnet.att.net: "Stone tools"