|
|
Re: Earliest tools
cc3265@CNSVAX.ALBANY.EDU
29 Sep 1995 06:01:59 GMT
In article <44f0q4$4t1@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>, VINCENT@REG.TRIUMF.CA (pete) writes:
>Just to try to start a discussion on something other than moistened
>pliocene bints, I wonder if anyone could tell me the current
>thought on the earliest relatively firm evidence of stone
>tools, however minimally crafted. Back when I was taking
>paleo anth, hominids were only known back 2My, and stone tools
>were present all the way back. With hominids now back to about
>4.5My, I was wondering where the trail of accompanying flints
>stops. I recall reading that the Leakeys proposed that h. habilis
>was the first flint crafter. Is this accepted?
Hi! Artifacts are not my specialty, but I'll support any alternative thread
to the "moistened pliocene bints!" (Ha! -- I like that) From what I have
heard and read, Leakey was originally crediting A. boisei with the tools,
since they were found along with them , until habilis was discovered -- then
the poor Australopithecines were regulated to the role of "lunch." I don't
think there's any firm evidence that they *weren't* using tools however. As
for the earlier hominids, I haven't heard of any tools being found with them,
but I don't think that necessarily means they weren't using any -- after all,
chimps use tools. Some tools used were undoubtedly perishable materials.
Would like to hear from someone who knows more about it.
Caroline Cooper
|