3 ms·

The picture in the article is of an alleged limestone tool; it looks like the tool was shaped like a scraper or cutter of some sort, and is fairly small. But a

The picture in the article is of an alleged limestone tool; it looks like the tool was shaped like a scraper or cutter of some sort, and is fairly small. But afaik, no one ever made scrapers or cutters out of limestone; that rock is far too soft. They were preferentially made of flint, but in regions where there wasn't flint, obsidian or quartz could substitute for smaller tools, and hard metamorphic or igneous rocks for larger tools (axes). But surely an archeologist would not make such a mistake. So is my assumption about the uselessness of limestone for cutting tools wrong?

simonh 6y ago
Googling for limestone stone tools came up with plenty of hits, like this one. https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/science/mysterious-stone-tools-discovered-in-the-uk-4882247/ https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/science/mysteri... This article shows a much more comprehensive collection of tools from Chiquihuite. http://www.sci-news.com/archaeology/stone-tools-chiquihuite-cave-mexico-08667.html http://www.sci-news.com/archaeology/stone-tools-chiquihuite-...
- mcswell 6y ago
  Thanks, but I'm still skeptical. The first article, in an Indian news site (and reproduced in several similar sites) is about some stones that a group of amateur archeologists found. It doesn't appear to have been published in any professional journal, and the comments make it clear that these are unlike anything seen elsewhere, and their purpose is unknown. My guess: they're not tools, they're random rocks. The other article, as you point out, shows a greater variety of the alleged tools from Chiquihuite. I'm no archaeologist, but to me they look like rocks that were carefully chosen out of a bunch of randomly shaped rocks. The picture of the cave entrance show that it is full of breakdown (caver for "rocks that fell off the ceiling of the cave"), and I wouldn't be surprised to discover things that look sort of like blades or points in such a pile of rocks. So I'm afraid I'm still skeptical.

simonh 6y ago

Googling for limestone stone tools came up with plenty of hits, like this one. https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/science/mysterious-stone-tools-discovered-in-the-uk-4882247/ https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/science/mysteri... This article shows a much more comprehensive collection of tools from Chiquihuite. http://www.sci-news.com/archaeology/stone-tools-chiquihuite-cave-mexico-08667.html http://www.sci-news.com/archaeology/stone-tools-chiquihuite-...

mcswell 6y ago
Thanks, but I'm still skeptical. The first article, in an Indian news site (and reproduced in several similar sites) is about some stones that a group of amateur archeologists found. It doesn't appear to have been published in any professional journal, and the comments make it clear that these are unlike anything seen elsewhere, and their purpose is unknown. My guess: they're not tools, they're random rocks. The other article, as you point out, shows a greater variety of the alleged tools from Chiquihuite. I'm no archaeologist, but to me they look like rocks that were carefully chosen out of a bunch of randomly shaped rocks. The picture of the cave entrance show that it is full of breakdown (caver for "rocks that fell off the ceiling of the cave"), and I wouldn't be surprised to discover things that look sort of like blades or points in such a pile of rocks. So I'm afraid I'm still skeptical.