@@nsdtgabe4082 You can also identify a tool depending on the type of rock and seeing if there was any more kinds of that same rock in the area. Only that one isolated rock and a bunch of the same rocks were two hundred miles in the other direction? Probably not carried by the wind or kicked by something. Thank you for being smart unlike most idiots here.
So many of y’all trying so hard to be edgy. Ik it doesn’t seem legit but I took her class and it really is an incredible discovery. She’s a wonderful archeologist & professor.
@@maytagmark2171 You're an idiot then. We understand stone knapping. It's been practiced by basically every civilization to ever exist, we know what the microscopic features on the struck surfaces of these tools looks like and can definitively prove that these tools had to have been hominid made and simply COULD NOT occure naturally.
I was hoping to see more of what was found. It might be useful to point out details like pitting or how the stone is pecked and ground smooth at points that fit the hand securely and comfortably.
On my property I discovered an area surrounded by large stones about a 20 foot oval in circumference. Found a large rock with assortment of tools and arrowheads piled on top of the rock. The stone looks extremely old and primitive even to the early woodland age. Wish I could reach out to National Geographic to have an archeological study done on this site. It’s absolutely amazing.
I live in South Texas near the Rio Grande. Also, my backyard used to be a pond in another era. So, I have found Paleo Native American artifacts here, there, and everywhere. They look like ordinary rocks or rock fragments because that's what they actually are, but they were modified, using knapping techniques, and turned either into tools, weapons, effigies, or jewelry, game pieces, and children's toys.
You know it! The Gault site is just above Austin and Sergio will set up a time to take you on a tour. Did you know hominoids wore head dresses? So many people want to learn history, and it’s already written out for us. It just takes a few weeks of learning the art.
Right, and that was a few hundred years ago. Shows how primitive people groups can be at any time in history, but not sure if ancient is the appropriate term.
@@dalitnahipehlehinduhu6569 How am I biased? There are no biases in facts lmao. He has got a zero wrong, its 385,000 years not 3,85,000 years. Dont try to over glorify our civilization
The thumbnail shows all the faces, it’s a multi faceted complicated style of art that has not just one image, but several on one stone. Before books, before paper, the first photo albums were made this way. ❤
I am an avid rock hound with Geology knowledge and I can assure you from thousands of stone tools in my collection, that those are definitely stone tools. Actually, the young researchers don’t even realize what they are holding. Yes, fracturing the rock to achieve a sharp edge for cutting or scraping is essential, but there is more. These hominids they speak of were much more intelligent than we give credit for. You see, not only are they fracturing for a sharp edge, they are making “effigies” or figurines as well to “personalize “ their tool as their own! What is more astonishing is, that practically 98% of the facial expressions of the effigies are always different, but the head is always the same, POINTED OR SLOPED!!! Why? I have been researching and reading until I literally fall asleep at my computer! I have no explanation yet. My personal opinion is, that perhaps the hominids had help. Yes, they could have learned from apes to use stones to break open nuts or fruit, but who taught them expression or the reasoning to shape a stone into a facial figure with a sloped or coned head? Hominids had either large heads with strong brows or very small round heads. So where did they get the idea to fabricate sloped and pointed heads, “unless they SAW someone with sloped and pointed heads!!” Why would they revere them so much as to completely dedicate all their tools in that manner? If you would like to comment or see pictures of my collection you may do so at mtserna777@live.com. And no, I’m not crazy! lol
I'm with you. This sounds strange, but do you have any that are one half of an alien face, split right down the middle. I have quite a few from different areas, and have found pieces that exactly match right and left side, but are different materials or colors. The side where they are split is completely flat, so they fit together perfectly. The seem as if they are molded out of clay, but clink like glass when tapped together. They also appear as if when they are put together, they should go "into" something, as they have grooves on the outside that would seem to guide it in.
I've been collecting surface finds at the base of eroded hills, newly excavated areas, and even gopher mounds, around the the Bay Area for the past year. I find fossils, stone tools (they are smooth and fit comfortably and securely in your hand) with carvings and etchings and symbols. Agates retain their impressions better than the harder stones in general. Many are visible with side light rather than directly. There in plain sight but no one is looking.
Small scratches and fracture patterns can dhow the difference between tools deliberately broken vs. weathered and broken by nature, matching flakes to stone cores aswell as one of them appears to have been rotated and then struck which isnt natural
Well… You would really have to ask down that question. Since they didn’t give away why they thought it was a tool other than to just say that there had been stone removal‘s that were purposely done. I have studied stone tools and I have made them. There are certain features that you notice that can only be made by a human being. It’s easy to find broken rocks that look like a person might’ve made them and a lot of people make that mistake. It’s not so easy when you remove multiple pieces of stone or flakes from a larger rock especially when they are overlapping or parallel. That shows design and purpose. Nature cannot do that. There are special things and features that you can see that shows the fracturing was either bipolar fracturing or unidirectional. It’s not really something you could explain, you would have to be shown. Trust me there’s ways to tell if a rock is a rock or if it was turned into a tool. It’s a good question though.
***** I'm no archaeologist, but my guess is that there would be some kind of preservation signs in where the tools made contact with other things. Where as if you were to carve into a really old stone now, the edges would look fresh and a lot cleaner.
rtswift no, people can tell when something was tampered with when dirt from different layers dating up to thousands of years apart somehow ends up in mixed holes with debris and pollen from different periods of plant life and weather/drought periods, somehow mix in a spot where a tool was found they were obviously dug up, but this one was securely dated
attirampakkam in tamilnadu 400000 years old civilizations. When u all going to open ur eyes. There was continent submerged in Indian ocean. Where Tamil people lived. We all lived. Open ur eyes world. How long we should be shouting? Do anyone know?
i guess they date a fragment from the original surface and analyze the material, and then they do the same where the cracked part is. the non cracked part has reacted with the environment (oxidation for example) for longer and in different time periods. in those periods the composition f the atmosphere was different. more or less oxygen/CO2 ratio for example. they make a confrontation with the other rocks nearby
No to your question, most tools would be moved fron their original location and thus would not be deposited amonst the parent strata. Meaning they can date the tools based on the strata they are found in (typically).
I don't doubt they were used as tools, I'm just skeptical that it was used by hominids. How do they know another animal used these rocks as tools. Plenty of animals today use rocks as tools also.
***** Other primates have been observed using stones as tools and sea otters lie on their back on the surface of the water and use stones to crack abalone shells.
***** I would think that anytime an animal uses an object to serve a desired purpose, that object would be considered a tool and thus a form of technology.
Associated finds such as hominid bones in the same strata nearby, along with flakes chipped off from the core tool and presence of diiferent type of rock brought from somewhere else which is not usually found in the same environment.
It is hard to understand if you don’t know anything about early humans, how we used to not be the only hominoids - our history goes back not just a few thousand but millions of years. According to the Peabody museum, we know less than 10%.
Oh Boy. This is really somthun. By the way, were any of you around when these tools were made by "Your ancestors" What was it 2.2 million years ago??? B. Howard
Some disagree about autenticity of this “stone artefact assemblage”... Domìnguez-Rodrigo and Alcalà for instance... does anyone know the state of debate?
Now i started to doubt these anthropologist. They are looking for money. They can say 1 billion years with a useless rock on their hand. Until it is accepted by everyone , i find this as a fraud.
@@segadreams8952 mentality of treating non European origin people lowly and thinking that they are incapable of doing real human stuffs. Racists are everywhere like you
I can assure you more thoughtful decisions went into their findings then this. These are just the cores of the stone used to make flake for the actual sharp stones used to hunt. They can determine this by other nearby stones and flakes found by carbon dating like you said and also the difference in the surface of the core compared to the flakes which inevitably have less of a weathering to them. Imagine the inside of a stone compared to the outside and then having a knowledge of what knapping is and what that means. Also they take into account the stratigraphic position and the undisturbed sediment of layers of volcanic ash and known pole reversal all play a part in their findings. If that isn't enough there are a plethora of anthropologists who all agree these stones were purposeful and not created by natural forces. It's healthy to always question everything but at the same time when the experts have a general consensus about those findings you are better off taking their word. You can question the doctor when he/she says you have cancer but let's be honest, you aren't going to figure it out yourself without their level of knowledge and understanding.
You do understand that hominid knapped stones are an extremely well studied subject? We have literally millions of examples of stone knapped tools that we can study to understand the difference between naturally occuring fractures in rocks and tools made by hominids. Not to mention these ancient tools have been found near hominid gravesites as well as in strata that they have no buisness being in the first place.
Of course they are 3.3 MILLION YEARS OLD.... BUT .. JUST A COUPLE OF DAYS ...in Africa...but now they ssy in Europe...they ssid they discover the worlds oldest tools .. at 400000 years old Huh... What
I think the rock needs a reference to what that rock helped to produce. If there is no find of a use-value that culture left behind that still would not cancel out the rock was the earliest tool if the researchers can find a remnant of a product of that time period that was proven to have been made with that kind of tool.
it would most likely of been modified to be used as scraper, chopper, and other various things. We know that capuchin monkeys, macaque monkeys, and chimps use rocks as a hammer to crack open nuts and other things. Gorillas can too, but its rare. Orangutans can modify sticks to use them as hammers, scrapers, and probes. Chimpanzees can modify rocks, sticks, and plants to use for multiple things. They can use rocks as a hammer, scraper, pick, shovel, and sometimes use it to lift and object. Its not too surprising that they discovered that our ancestors that lived after chimps had evolved could make tools. After all, Orangutans, gorillas, and chimps can modify natural materials to make tools themselves. I can only imagine what other types of tools these australopithicus could make and use since they would of been more intelligent than a chimpanzee.If chimps and gorillas can use branches and sticks as clubs to kill animals, then australopithicus must of discovered that sharp sticks and rocks could be used to kill animals and cut their meat.
@@shadowsinmymind9 Yes, ---that would be a logical deduction but it is best to concretize the find into its context of the time period and speculate from that basis rather than from our own context.
These people are crazy. Those look like any other rocks BUT they should go to a county named Yemen. Up on a mountain there is a WHOLE city that was dug up and rocks that are shaped like bathtubs and other AMAZING things. There's a big palace with chairs and everything. Unfortunately those artifacts aren't being properly taken care of because of the country's poor conditions but they are truest amazing.
its how the rosks were chip. an yes you can date sites many way, by what was growing there 3million yrs agoan the people from yemen still live in th 3 million BCMays Mama
Not hating on you, but are those bathtubs 3 million years old? Is that city that old? When was it discovered? After the start of their religious war with Saudi Arabia? Or, before? If before, why have there not been any studies conducted? If that city is important, there must be some organization, like National geographical society willing to send even a small study group. About the stones of this video- How do you prove rocks 3 million years old were intentionally fashioned by hominids? A chimpanzee might well pick up a convenient rock and bash it against another rock, cracking open one or the other rock causing a flake. So, this theory of 3 million year old stone tools might be an stretch.
3.3 million years ago our ancestors were not going to have highly sophisticated hand axes or choppers. You can obviously tell they are cultural based on the flake scars and micro wear. It's always good to be skeptical but these rocks have for sure been modified.
once they convinced themselves? LMAO yeah..right! what he meant to say is once they were convinced that they were going to be famous for believing this bullshit! thus and now all they have to do is convince everyone else to believe it too!
I am glad I seen this. I have dug up stone tools that look identical to these and some look older with Crustaceans on them How would I get ahold of you to get these looked at?
***** what 3 claims? I made one and to the rest of you I am a 56 year old archaeologist honestly I doubt they are natural causes can flake things , you guys didn't need to be rude it was my own opinion get a life I am a person on the internet everyone has their own ideals
Bojidar Martinov I said our species IE the earliest "human" or "mostly human" creature is yes about 200,000 or 1/4 of a million but I am talking about the line that lead to us has been around 1 million years IE the apes and things before our species showed up..But you're right I should have said it right the first time...
Mr.Nibbles What do they carbon date ?? the rocks or the DNA. Rocks have been , since the earth formed, So carbon dating them isn't anything new. I don't see them trying to preserve DNA that may be on the rocks which is plain stupid. That would be the jack pot DUHHH>
@@BikoWachira I appreciate the sentiment but you are not going to be able to pull DNA or fingerprints from the surface of a 2-3 million year old stone.
I wonder how many ancient stone tools I've chucked into rivers and lakes over the years.
You're not just going to find some ancient stone tools on a riverbank bro
@@Daniel-ox1sb The vast majority of ancient indian artifacts are found on river banks and plowed fields.
@@Daniel-ox1sb oh yes you will. I have the evidence.
@@FacesintheStone They're just sitting on a surface? I meant that you would have to dig.
Don't show this on social media, all the people in artifact hunting forums will be like 'it's natural, just a rock no sign of being worked"......lol!
Haha your correct. I have many that have been laughed at, and the ones that they can't laugh at - they accused me of making them. Idiots
I have a fuck ton of these in my back yard. Im going to be rich!!!!!!!
That looks super normal stone. I dont know which part they can tell that it's the stone tools.
Damn I would have thought they were ordinary rocks
Too bad nobody knows what is for real
They are smh
Jacob Bradenbaugh check the flake scars and matching flakes
@@nsdtgabe4082 You can also identify a tool depending on the type of rock and seeing if there was any more kinds of that same rock in the area. Only that one isolated rock and a bunch of the same rocks were two hundred miles in the other direction? Probably not carried by the wind or kicked by something.
Thank you for being smart unlike most idiots here.
DUH, just look for a MADE IN NELOLITHIC PERIOD mark on the bottom of the pieces...
i mean, they sort of do that, but they "read" the labels for "made in neolithic period" through looking at distributions of artefacts.
It’s extremely interesting that these tools and Kenyanthropus were found in almost the same place and are dated to approximately the same time.
Well yes… Interesting is one word for it. Coincidental there’s another one.
@@csluau5913 extremely coincidental
So many of y’all trying so hard to be edgy. Ik it doesn’t seem legit but I took her class and it really is an incredible discovery. She’s a wonderful archeologist & professor.
edgy, like those stone tools lol. you're right tho, this comment section is full of know-it-all
And how much is she charging for the class
I would challenge the assessment any day of the week.
@@maytagmark2171 You're an idiot then. We understand stone knapping. It's been practiced by basically every civilization to ever exist, we know what the microscopic features on the struck surfaces of these tools looks like and can definitively prove that these tools had to have been hominid made and simply COULD NOT occure naturally.
@@BlGGESTBROTHER they were made by humans.
those arent the artifacts just replica stuff
That music, is so, so irritating.
I was hoping to see more of what was found. It might be useful to point out details like pitting or how the stone is pecked and ground smooth at points that fit the hand securely and comfortably.
Would it fit the small hominoids palm..
On my property I discovered an area surrounded by large stones about a 20 foot oval in circumference. Found a large rock with assortment of tools and arrowheads piled on top of the rock. The stone looks extremely old and primitive even to the early woodland age. Wish I could reach out to National Geographic to have an archeological study done on this site. It’s absolutely amazing.
I live in South Texas near the Rio Grande. Also, my backyard used to be a pond in another era. So, I have found Paleo Native American artifacts here, there, and everywhere. They look like ordinary rocks or rock fragments because that's what they actually are, but they were modified, using knapping techniques, and turned either into tools, weapons, effigies, or jewelry, game pieces, and children's toys.
Yes sir🤝🤝🤝
You know it! The Gault site is just above Austin and Sergio will set up a time to take you on a tour. Did you know hominoids wore head dresses? So many people want to learn history, and it’s already written out for us. It just takes a few weeks of learning the art.
Right, and that was a few hundred years ago. Shows how primitive people groups can be at any time in history, but not sure if ancient is the appropriate term.
I think even in Attirampakkam, India they found tools of 3,85,000 years old.
Nope, not that old at least.
At this point its safe to assume that humans were only in Africa, and nowhere else
@@SmellyNutz Biased
@@dalitnahipehlehinduhu6569 How am I biased? There are no biases in facts lmao.
He has got a zero wrong, its 385,000 years not 3,85,000 years.
Dont try to over glorify our civilization
false claim without any solid proof@@SmellyNutz
@SmellyNutz He didn't get a zero wrong. That's how numbers are written in India.
Local archaeologists fiercely dispute claiming if its not knapped flint, its just a rock.
The thumbnail shows all the faces, it’s a multi faceted complicated style of art that has not just one image, but several on one stone. Before books, before paper, the first photo albums were made this way. ❤
Interesting topic but the music got on my nerves very quickly…
The discovery made by the fortuitously-named Stony Brook University.
I am an avid rock hound with Geology knowledge and I can assure you from thousands of stone tools in my collection, that those are definitely stone tools. Actually, the young researchers don’t even realize what they are holding. Yes, fracturing the rock to achieve a sharp edge for cutting or scraping is essential, but there is more. These hominids they speak of were much more intelligent than we give credit for. You see, not only are they fracturing for a sharp edge, they are making “effigies” or figurines as well to “personalize “ their tool as their own! What is more astonishing is, that practically 98% of the facial expressions of the effigies are always different, but the head is always the same, POINTED OR SLOPED!!! Why? I have been researching and reading until I literally fall asleep at my computer! I have no explanation yet. My personal opinion is, that perhaps the hominids had help. Yes, they could have learned from apes to use stones to break open nuts or fruit, but who taught them expression or the reasoning to shape a stone into a facial figure with a sloped or coned head? Hominids had either large heads with strong brows or very small round heads. So where did they get the idea to fabricate sloped and pointed heads, “unless they SAW someone with sloped and pointed heads!!” Why would they revere them so much as to completely dedicate all their tools in that manner? If you would like to comment or see pictures of my collection you may do so at mtserna777@live.com. And no, I’m not crazy! lol
Thomas Serna thank you so so much to come forward and add your professional view.
I'm with you. This sounds strange, but do you have any that are one half of an alien face, split right down the middle. I have quite a few from different areas, and have found pieces that exactly match right and left side, but are different materials or colors. The side where they are split is completely flat, so they fit together perfectly. The seem as if they are molded out of clay, but clink like glass when tapped together. They also appear as if when they are put together, they should go "into" something, as they have grooves on the outside that would seem to guide it in.
Hi Thomas.ive got a flint tool that I need someone to identify.i was wondering if you could perhaps help me?
I've been collecting surface finds at the base of eroded hills, newly excavated areas, and even gopher mounds, around the the Bay Area for the past year. I find fossils, stone tools (they are smooth and fit comfortably and securely in your hand) with carvings and etchings and symbols. Agates retain their impressions better than the harder stones in general. Many are visible with side light rather than directly.
There in plain sight but no one is looking.
How did they estimated the age ?
I found the same tools in a creek this week
I’m interested to why they believe it to be a tool. From my eyes it’s just a rock, but I’m interested to why they think it’s a tool.
Small scratches and fracture patterns can dhow the difference between tools deliberately broken vs. weathered and broken by nature, matching flakes to stone cores aswell as one of them appears to have been rotated and then struck which isnt natural
nsdtgabe //// thanks mate
Well… You would really have to ask down that question. Since they didn’t give away why they thought it was a tool other than to just say that there had been stone removal‘s that were purposely done. I have studied stone tools and I have made them. There are certain features that you notice that can only be made by a human being. It’s easy to find broken rocks that look like a person might’ve made them and a lot of people make that mistake. It’s not so easy when you remove multiple pieces of stone or flakes from a larger rock especially when they are overlapping or parallel. That shows design and purpose. Nature cannot do that. There are special things and features that you can see that shows the fracturing was either bipolar fracturing or unidirectional. It’s not really something you could explain, you would have to be shown. Trust me there’s ways to tell if a rock is a rock or if it was turned into a tool. It’s a good question though.
This arid land ????
There have been humans for millions of years, and only been electricity for 150 years. Think about it.
wow i have left trainloads of tools while looking for stone tools lol
Thems is just rocks
if you look closely you will see a rock
If you read OP's comment well enough you'll realize he's an uninformed moron.
Are you sure you not mistakenly wrote stool
So pleased with the labor of your toil & tenacitY !!
Omg I can't believe it what did I just watch oh rocks
couldn't I just get some really old stone and carve it into a tool and then claim its the oldest tool made? how do we know when that stone was carved?
***** I'm no archaeologist, but my guess is that there would be some kind of preservation signs in where the tools made contact with other things. Where as if you were to carve into a really old stone now, the edges would look fresh and a lot cleaner.
💤
Strata dating
@@nsdtgabe4082 couldn't you say you just dug it up in a super old layer?
rtswift no, people can tell when something was tampered with when dirt from different layers dating up to thousands of years apart somehow ends up in mixed holes with debris and pollen from different periods of plant life and weather/drought periods, somehow mix in a spot where a tool was found they were obviously dug up, but this one was securely dated
attirampakkam in tamilnadu 400000 years old civilizations. When u all going to open ur eyes. There was continent submerged in Indian ocean. Where Tamil people lived. We all lived. Open ur eyes world. How long we should be shouting? Do anyone know?
Just rocks....not tools...
How do the date stone tools? Aren't they the same age as the original rocks?
i guess they date a fragment from the original surface and analyze the material, and then they do the same where the cracked part is. the non cracked part has reacted with the environment (oxidation for example) for longer and in different time periods. in those periods the composition f the atmosphere was different. more or less oxygen/CO2 ratio for example. they make a confrontation with the other rocks nearby
No to your question, most tools would be moved fron their original location and thus would not be deposited amonst the parent strata. Meaning they can date the tools based on the strata they are found in (typically).
if this is a tool then it should show signs of wear and tear from use. just sharing my opinion. i love this discipline that tries to show our past.
I have a bunch of these stone tools.
What makes these so old? Primitive, yes! Millions of years? How do we know?
Radiocarbon dating is your answer.
So they chipped the bigger rock to create a tool but then left the tool conveniently right next to it. Right.
Well, you do leave your hammer near your anvil, or the smaller rock near the bigger rock.
I don't doubt they were used as tools, I'm just skeptical that it was used by hominids. How do they know another animal used these rocks as tools. Plenty of animals today use rocks as tools also.
***** Other primates have been observed using stones as tools and sea otters lie on their back on the surface of the water and use stones to crack abalone shells.
bluex610 While some animals use stones as tool, early humans would alter the rocks, by breaking or chipping, to suit their needs.
***** I would think that anytime an animal uses an object to serve a desired purpose, that object would be considered a tool and thus a form of technology.
Associated finds such as hominid bones in the same strata nearby, along with flakes chipped off from the core tool and presence of diiferent type of rock brought from somewhere else which is not usually found in the same environment.
It is hard to understand if you don’t know anything about early humans, how we used to not be the only hominoids - our history goes back not just a few thousand but millions of years. According to the Peabody museum, we know less than 10%.
I gave a stone that shines with a diamond shine black spots 🤔 can someone help me knowing what does this type of stone is it
They're just rocks. They're just rocks
Yes and some animal changed how the rocks looked.
Keep rocking ..
How they can tell if does rock's aren't just a regular ones? And also - they age of them. how?
Carbon dating.
Holy Gwakamoley volcanic ash dating and there are scars on the sides of the rocks from being hit and releasing flakes
Looks like some ordinary rocks in my backyard. I think this “discovery” might be a scam.
Oh Boy. This is really somthun. By the way, were any of you around when these tools were made by "Your ancestors" What was it 2.2 million years ago??? B. Howard
No doubt to be disputed.
Still waiting on that refutation lol
Some disagree about autenticity of this “stone artefact assemblage”... Domìnguez-Rodrigo and Alcalà for instance... does anyone know the state of debate?
Now i started to doubt these anthropologist. They are looking for money. They can say 1 billion years with a useless rock on their hand. Until it is accepted by everyone , i find this as a fraud.
stop
They should also tell as to how they know these are tools and not anything else.
Want to contact with you i have very interested things to send it to you
Hello super video
Its quite possible that the collection ive found in the last week may be the new oldest stone tools in the world.
Those just look like rocks ...
Rocks are not naturally chipped or worn in that manner. I would had thought the same thing in the past.
I found a broken rock today must be an ancient tool too
Racist thinking of Europeans just like u frame our mathematician Ramanujan as alien in History TV18
@@segadreams8952 mentality of treating non European origin people lowly and thinking that they are incapable of doing real human stuffs.
Racists are everywhere like you
@@sriranjit3684 dude saying a rock isn’t a tool is not racist at all
@@segadreams8952 kid 🤦🏻♂️
Educate yourself pls
@@sriranjit3684 ok but stop liking your comments 💀
London Hammer?
I want also real stone tools
Feel like they just picked up some rocks, cabondated them, and said we got a seemingly tool like rock.
I can assure you more thoughtful decisions went into their findings then this. These are just the cores of the stone used to make flake for the actual sharp stones used to hunt. They can determine this by other nearby stones and flakes found by carbon dating like you said and also the difference in the surface of the core compared to the flakes which inevitably have less of a weathering to them. Imagine the inside of a stone compared to the outside and then having a knowledge of what knapping is and what that means.
Also they take into account the stratigraphic position and the undisturbed sediment of layers of volcanic ash and known pole reversal all play a part in their findings. If that isn't enough there are a plethora of anthropologists who all agree these stones were purposeful and not created by natural forces. It's healthy to always question everything but at the same time when the experts have a general consensus about those findings you are better off taking their word.
You can question the doctor when he/she says you have cancer but let's be honest, you aren't going to figure it out yourself without their level of knowledge and understanding.
You do understand that hominid knapped stones are an extremely well studied subject? We have literally millions of examples of stone knapped tools that we can study to understand the difference between naturally occuring fractures in rocks and tools made by hominids. Not to mention these ancient tools have been found near hominid gravesites as well as in strata that they have no buisness being in the first place.
I have found these tools in Maine
I mean there are lithics in Maine from Native Americans
Of course they are 3.3 MILLION YEARS OLD.... BUT .. JUST A COUPLE OF DAYS ...in Africa...but now they ssy in Europe...they ssid they discover the worlds oldest tools
.. at 400000 years old
Huh... What
But there finding of fossalize shoe mark.. Dated 200- million years... What
I think the rock needs a reference to what that rock helped to produce. If there is no find of a use-value that culture left behind that still would not cancel out the rock was the earliest tool if the researchers can find a remnant of a product of that time period that was proven to have been made with that kind of tool.
it would most likely of been modified to be used as scraper, chopper, and other various things. We know that capuchin monkeys, macaque monkeys, and chimps use rocks as a hammer to crack open nuts and other things. Gorillas can too, but its rare. Orangutans can modify sticks to use them as hammers, scrapers, and probes. Chimpanzees can modify rocks, sticks, and plants to use for multiple things. They can use rocks as a hammer, scraper, pick, shovel, and sometimes use it to lift and object.
Its not too surprising that they discovered that our ancestors that lived after chimps had evolved could make tools. After all, Orangutans, gorillas, and chimps can modify natural materials to make tools themselves. I can only imagine what other types of tools these australopithicus could make and use since they would of been more intelligent than a chimpanzee.If chimps and gorillas can use branches and sticks as clubs to kill animals, then australopithicus must of discovered that sharp sticks and rocks could be used to kill animals and cut their meat.
@@shadowsinmymind9 Yes, ---that would be a logical deduction but it is best to concretize the find into its context of the time period and speculate from that basis rather than from our own context.
Atirambakkam (india) tools 3.8 million
I need to get some stone axe tested
These people are crazy. Those look like any other rocks BUT they should go to a county named Yemen. Up on a mountain there is a WHOLE city that was dug up and rocks that are shaped like bathtubs and other AMAZING things. There's a big palace with chairs and everything. Unfortunately those artifacts aren't being properly taken care of because of the country's poor conditions but they are truest amazing.
They will Die if they go to Yemen.
Well They don't have to go now lol when things settle down I mean.
its how the rosks were chip. an yes you can date sites many way, by what was growing there 3million yrs agoan the people from yemen still live in th 3 million BCMays Mama
Hater
Not hating on you, but are those bathtubs 3 million years old? Is that city that old? When was it discovered? After the start of their religious war with Saudi Arabia? Or, before? If before, why have there not been any studies conducted? If that city is important, there must be some organization, like National geographical society willing to send even a small study group.
About the stones of this video- How do you prove rocks 3 million years old were intentionally fashioned by hominids? A chimpanzee might well pick up a convenient rock and bash it against another rock, cracking open one or the other rock causing a flake. So, this theory of 3 million year old stone tools might be an stretch.
It looks just a rock to me
And ther when are !??
How are these tools, they look like a bunch of rocks
3.3 million years ago our ancestors were not going to have highly sophisticated hand axes or choppers. You can obviously tell they are cultural based on the flake scars and micro wear. It's always good to be skeptical but these rocks have for sure been modified.
I like your channel, but it's better to add CC for ENGLISH to all videos to be good for who learning ENGLISH LANGUAGE. I'm waiting.
Can you help me
Her name is stonia ...
I wanted to see the tools, for this is a waste of time.
None of those rocks resemble stone tools that I have ever seen. Sorry, smoke less, dig more.
You need to look at the flakes not the cores.
I recently found 255 stone tools of many prehistoric races.It's not difficult for me to find them.
"tool"
sadly they don't say which hominids made those tools. i suppose one of the Australopithecus family? that's major news!!!
3.3 million years ago, it was probably Kenyanthropus platyops.
it was dinosores
hi yall
Hey look I found some rocks
Non sense
Kiron Grg wheres your archaeology degree
once they convinced themselves? LMAO yeah..right!
what he meant to say is once they were convinced that they were going to be famous for believing this bullshit!
thus and now all they have to do is convince everyone else to believe it too!
At least one of these 'tools' was a sex toy, if not all of them..
Some imes a rock is JUST a rock
Nah theres flake scars from striking if examined close enough
They are definitely cultural, rocks don't normally have flake scars like those do
Just ordinary rocks, and i do have a lot of them in my backyard.
Why does you say that?
you are just stupid
Roxks
I'm not convinced.
I HAVE A BETTER COLLECTION THAN THAT
a rock is a rock brock
There is a history book that will tell you exactly how old the Earth is, call the Bible
О, уже неверующие набежали ) Сейчас вам расскажут, что вы ничего не понимаете )
no no madam these are just rocks, there were ancient civilisations before
Why does you say that?
Great argument!
Taz-on-the-loose Yusef check flake scars on the rocks and microwear
Haha, I dare you , I hide / have the oldest ones onder my soil
Haha
fake
Your age shouldn’t matter when it comes to a discovery like this…a 5yo child can find a fossil and it better be seen as a real artifact
I am glad I seen this. I have dug up stone tools that look identical to these and some look older with Crustaceans on them
How would I get ahold of you to get these looked at?
LOL IT IS JUST ROCKS They are not stone tools what an embarrassment they are just young people trying to make history
tree They were flaked to make edges and are older than all known flaked rocks you idiot.
tree lol did you think they would find a hammer or something smh
Fallzvidz "3.3 Million year old tape measure found buried in desert"
tree What an embarrassment to assume that short visual access to that artefacts discredits a whole study made by certified archaeologists.
***** what 3 claims? I made one and to the rest of you I am a 56 year old archaeologist honestly I doubt they are natural causes can flake things , you guys didn't need to be rude it was my own opinion get a life I am a person on the internet everyone has their own ideals
sure tools who made them? No humans around right? I meant humans have been around maybe 1 million years right?
People said around 200 thousands years ago. But I'm sure we are not. Probably Alliances...
Bojidar Martinov I said our species IE the earliest "human" or "mostly human" creature is yes about 200,000 or 1/4 of a million but I am talking about the line that lead to us has been around 1 million years IE the apes and things before our species showed up..But you're right I should have said it right the first time...
GrindingGearsTV yeah, true. But WE only guess. We don't know what happened before such long time. What if Alliances are our Creators?
Bojidar Martinov Alliances? Sigh argument from ignorance also we know because...WE FOLLOWED THE FUCKING EVIDENCE!
GrindingGearsTV Evidence? Please....
DNA evidence or finger prints in the rocks. May be they shouldn't touch them before testing...duuuhh.
They carbon date them DDDUUUUUUUHHHHHHHH
Mr.Nibbles What do they carbon date ?? the rocks or the DNA. Rocks have been , since the earth formed, So carbon dating them isn't anything new. I don't see them trying to preserve DNA that may be on the rocks which is plain stupid. That would be the jack pot DUHHH>
@@BikoWachira I appreciate the sentiment but you are not going to be able to pull DNA or fingerprints from the surface of a 2-3 million year old stone.
Biko Wachira they didnt carbon date it they dated the volcanic ashes
DNA and fingerprints don't last 3.3 million years
comeplete BS.
I'm sure there's more to it but it looks to me like they found a broken rock.
Some of those rocks look like broken rocks but many of them have flake scars
Look like sex stones to me
LOOL
Totally misleading and ill informed
how so?
Yeah how so???
@@oyster_ditch you tell him!